concepts to review
description
Transcript of concepts to review
concepts to review
mesolimbic Dopamine system
microdialysis
SRTM (ref reg models)
BP images
PET BP images
SPM (voxel-wise t-tests)
meoslimbic dopamine system
3 lines to sample collector
intracranial -dialysis probe
infusate of aCSF and drug
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
n = 6 males
no trick
subjects apprised of drink type just before scan
is this different from Urban?
Is it different from Yoder?
how consistent is the “typical alcohol curve?”
what can be done to control it?
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)
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).
compare to Urban who got 12% change in BP in VS in 11 males.
n = 11 males; 10 females, analyzed separately
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?
DA release related to frequency of max-drinking day? what does this mean?
do men differ from women because they are demographically different?
blinded?
expectations?
order effects?
(need sham scan)
cue (visual and OLFACTORY)
n = 8 males
Experimental Setup
IV EtOH Clamp
visual cues (EtOH/neutral)
olfactometer
MirrorGoggles
olfactory cues
PET Gantry
Olfactometer (aka. the “smell-a-tron”)
Delivery of odors to subject is computer controlled and synchronized with presentation of visual cues.
Mirror goggle
PET scanner
Odors
Computer-controlled EtOH infusion
IV Alcohol Infusion
Arterial Cannula
Arterial Sampling (sometimes)
bolus study
order effects? why? can it be avoided?
not self admin
is iv alcohol like drinking? look at behavioral self reports
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
.
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.”
Yoder: SHAS and AUDIT scores NOT correlated with BP
Boileau: SHAS scores did not correlate with BP
impulsiveness predicted BP change in VS