Stimulated dopamine overflow has been measured with in vivo voltammetry in the caudate-putamen and nucleus accumbens. Overflow was induced by electrical stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle with 120 1-ms, 300-microA, biphasic pulses at frequencies between 10 and 60 Hz. Overflow was measured with a Nafion-coated, carbon-fiber electrode used with fast-scan voltammetry (300 V s-1). Quantification and identification of dopamine concentrations down to 100 nM in vivo is possible with this technique. The overflow curves were fit to a kinetic model that describes the measured response as a function of uptake (characterized by a Vmax and Km) and release (characterized by the concentration of dopamine released per stimulus pulse). Overflow curves in both regions could be described with similar kinetic parameters except for the Vmax, which in the nucleus accumbens was only 60% of that measured in the caudate-putamen. Uptake inhibition by nomifensine (20 mg kg-1) caused an apparent 15-fold change in the value of Km in the nucleus accumbens, similar to results previously reported in the caudate-putamen. In contrast, metoclopramide (10 mg kg-1) and sulpiride (100 mg kg-1) altered the apparent amount of dopamine released per stimulus pulse without a change in the uptake kinetics.

The pharmacological regulation of evoked extracellular dopamine was compared in the basolateral amygdaloid nucleus (BAN) and caudate-putamen (CP) of the urethane-anesthetized rat. The effects of drugs, which alter dopamine uptake, release or degradation, were examined. Dopamine efflux was elicited by electrical stimulation of ascending dopamine fibers and was monitored by fast-scan cyclic voltammetry at Nafion-coated, carbon-fiber microelectrodes. Dopamine uptake inhibitors, nomifensine (25 mg/kg) and cocaine (20 mg/kg), and the dopamine receptor antagonist, haloperidol (0.5 mg/kg), robustly increased evoked extracellular dopamine in the CP. In sharp contrast, these drugs were much less effective in the BAN. The relative potencies of the uptake inhibitors varied between the two regions. Nomifensine was more potent than cocaine in the CP, whereas cocaine was more potent that nomifensine in the BAN. The monoamine oxidase inhibitor, pargyline (75 mg/kg), and the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor, Ro 40-7592 (40 mg/kg), had small or negligible effects in either region. No electrochemical evidence was found for the formation of 3-methoxytyramine, the dopamine metabolite formed by the action of COMT on released dopamine, on the time scale of the measurements in control or after pharmacological manipulation of the degradative enzymes for dopamine. The conclusions reached are: (1) potent mechanisms for uptake and autoreceptor inhibition of release, which exist in the CP to tightly control the concentration of extracellular dopamine, are considerably weaker in the BAN; (2) the extracellular clearance of evoked dopamine in the BAN and CP is the result of cellular uptake and not degradation; and (3) these results support the view that the pharmacological regulation of extracellular dopamine is regionally distinct in the brain.

In viva voltammetry has been used to measure the release of dopamine evoked by electrical stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle (MFB). Simultaneous measurements have been made with voltammetric-sensing electrodes ipsilateral to the stimulating electrode in the nucelus accumbens and the caudate nucleus of the anesthetized rat. During the stimulation, the species observed in both regions is voltammetrically identical to dopamine. Further evidence for the identity of dopamine is provided by anatomical, physiological, pharmacological, and postmortem data. Postmortem analysis of these brain regions after a single stimulation demonstrates that dopamine levels are unchanged, while dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC) levels are increased in both regions. Systemic application of synthesis inhibitors results in a decrease in evoked release for each brain region. Amfonelic acid results in a restoration of stimulated release after synthesis inhibition. Evoked release is affected differently by pargyline in the two brain regions. The evoked release of dopamine is significantly elevated in the nucleus accumbens as a result of pargyline administration, but similar effects are not seen in the caudate nucleus. Tissue levels of dopamine are increased in both brain regions by pargyline, but the increase is significantly greater in the accumbens. Electrolytic lesions of the striatonigral pathway or systemic administration of picrotoxin eliminates the pargyline-induced difference in evoked release of dopamine. Amphetamine causes a reduction in stimulated release in the caudate nucleus with little effect on that observed in the nucleus accumbens. Administration of pargyline prior to amphetamine results in a diminution of release in both brain regions. Taken together, these data indicate that different factors affect regulation of the releasable pool of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens and caudate nucleus.Several major dopaminergic systems exist in the mammalian brain, including the nigrostriatal and mesolimbic systems. It is known that the mesolimbic system plays an important role in the regulation of normal brain function, and this role is distinct from that played by the nigrostriatal dopamine pathway (Mogenson and Yin, 1981;White and Wang, 1982). It has been shown by unit-recording techniques that these two regions respond in different manners to pharmacological stimuli thought to affect dopaminergic neurons (Rebec and Zimmerman, 1980; Reynolds et al., 1981). The behavioral responses elicited by electrical stimulation of these two pathways differ (van der Heyden, 1984). Lesions of the two regions also produce different behavioral responses (Kelly and Moore, 1976; Pycock and Marsden, 1978). Furthermore, anatomical differences have been shown at an ultrastructural level (Bouyer et al., 1984). A rec- Received June 10, 1985; revised Oct. 7, 1985; accepted Oct. 10, 1985. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, Neurobiology Section.Correspondence should be addressed to R. M. Wigbtman, Department...

No abstract

No abstract