concepts to review

25
concepts to review mesolimbic Dopamine system microdialysis SRTM (ref reg models) BP images PET BP images SPM (voxel-wise t-tests)

description

concepts to review. mesolimbic Dopamine system microdialysis SRTM (ref reg models) BP images PET  BP images SPM (voxel-wise t-tests). meoslimbic dopamine system. infusate of aCSF and drug. intracranial m -dialysis probe. lines to sample collector. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of concepts to review

Page 1: concepts to review

concepts to review

mesolimbic Dopamine system

microdialysis

SRTM (ref reg models)

BP images

PET BP images

SPM (voxel-wise t-tests)

Page 2: concepts to review

meoslimbic dopamine system

Page 3: concepts to review

3 lines to sample collector

intracranial -dialysis probe

infusate of aCSF and drug

Page 4: concepts to review

Consider the effect of nicotine on dopamine

DA responses in nucleus accumbens of SD rats measured by microdialysis. Time course for effects of 0.32 mg/kg SC nicotine (open circles);

Figure is from Coe et al., J Med Chem. May 19 2005;48(10):3474-3477

SD rats

Dop

amin

e C

once

ntra

tion

Page 5: concepts to review

n = 6 males

Page 6: concepts to review

no trick

subjects apprised of drink type just before scan

is this different from Urban?

Is it different from Yoder?

Page 7: concepts to review

how consistent is the “typical alcohol curve?”

what can be done to control it?

Page 8: concepts to review

0

d0

dt

K

)t(DA1

k

'Bk

dt)t(F

)t(F

BP

11

BP1

BPV

DA

off

maxon

RAC

RAC

11

1

The free tracer is the “shutter”of the “dopamine-camera”

Free

11C-raclopride

FRAC(t)

The picture (BP) is “weighted” by the scenes when the shutter is open widest.

DA

time

Free

dopamine

DA(t)

Page 9: concepts to review

But – what does that mean for detecting DA release with PET?

Free

tracer

FRAC(t)

DA

time

Free

dopamine

DA(t)

The pattern of shutter “opening” and “closing” is a function of the tracer parameters (K1, k2, kon, koff, etc)

This has consequences for experimental design (including choice of tracer).

Page 10: concepts to review

compare to Urban who got 12% change in BP in VS in 11 males.

Page 11: concepts to review

n = 11 males; 10 females, analyzed separately

Page 12: concepts to review

design issues:

no baseline – what happens if DA goes DOWN with placebo – is this still a valid comparison? a valid interpretation?

how do we know they got to steady state? is that necessary for their analysis?

why might DA go down with ‘placebo’

drink is 3 drinks-worth; forced drinking in 5-10 minutes? aversive?

differences are masked by vodka smell – will this induce negative reward-prediction error?

Page 13: concepts to review

DA release related to frequency of max-drinking day? what does this mean?

do men differ from women because they are demographically different?

Page 14: concepts to review
Page 15: concepts to review

blinded?

expectations?

order effects?

(need sham scan)

Page 16: concepts to review

cue (visual and OLFACTORY)

n = 8 males

Page 17: concepts to review

Experimental Setup

IV EtOH Clamp

visual cues (EtOH/neutral)

olfactometer

MirrorGoggles

olfactory cues

PET Gantry

Page 18: concepts to review

Olfactometer (aka. the “smell-a-tron”)

Delivery of odors to subject is computer controlled and synchronized with presentation of visual cues.

Page 19: concepts to review

Mirror goggle

PET scanner

Odors

Computer-controlled EtOH infusion

IV Alcohol Infusion

Page 20: concepts to review

Arterial Cannula

Arterial Sampling (sometimes)

Page 21: concepts to review

bolus study

order effects? why? can it be avoided?

not self admin

is iv alcohol like drinking? look at behavioral self reports

Page 22: concepts to review
Page 23: concepts to review

Conclusions- I• Data conform to

observations of dopaminergic function in reward prediction.

• Dopamine’s coding of expectation may be relevant to alcoholism (see Lapish, Seaman, & Chandler, 2006. ACER).

No CS

CS

CS

unexpectedreward

predictedreward

absence of predicted reward

from

: S

chul

tz,

Day

an,

& M

onta

gue,

199

7,

Sci

ence

.

Page 24: concepts to review

is the Yoder design really analogous to the Schulz experiment in monkeys? Don’t we need prior conditioning? What is the author’s answer to this?**

would like to know if anyone’s BP went wrong way (DA down) in Urban study – if so, it would agree with Yoder.

BAC in Boileau study did not correlate with BP

(agrees with Urban -- claimed it didn’t correlate with)

**Yoder et al: probably claim that prioir drinking exposure IS conditioning. So when they see and hear alcohol cues – they expect to get reward.

Consider figure 3. Subjects said: “It was clear I was about to get drunk.”

Page 25: concepts to review

Yoder: SHAS and AUDIT scores NOT correlated with BP

Boileau: SHAS scores did not correlate with BP

impulsiveness predicted BP change in VS