2006
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-006-0603-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The psychostimulant and rewarding effects of cocaine in histidine decarboxylase knockout mice do not support the hypothesis of an inhibitory function of histamine on reward

Abstract: Our data confirm previous results demonstrating that HDC KO mice show reduced exploratory behaviors. However, contrary to the hypothesis that histamine plays an inhibitory role in reward, histamine-deficient mice were not more responsive to the psychostimulant effects of cocaine.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
23
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(64 reference statements)
4
23
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The HDC KO mice were less activated by acute ethanol administration than the WT mice, in accordance with a previous study showing diminished response of HDC KO mice to cocaine (Brabant et al 2007). Data from the place conditioning trials also confirmed the lack of ethanol stimulation in HDC KO mice.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The HDC KO mice were less activated by acute ethanol administration than the WT mice, in accordance with a previous study showing diminished response of HDC KO mice to cocaine (Brabant et al 2007). Data from the place conditioning trials also confirmed the lack of ethanol stimulation in HDC KO mice.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Furthermore, H1 receptor antagonists potentiate morphine-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) in rats and mice (Suzuki et al 1995(Suzuki et al , 1996 and maintain selfadministration when substituted for cocaine in monkeys (Beardsley and Balster 1992). In contrast, histidine decarboxylase knockout (HDC KO) mice that lack the histamine synthesizing enzyme are less stimulated by cocaine than wild-type (WT) animals (Brabant et al 2007). Furthermore, H3 receptor antagonists that increase the release of histamine enhance self-administration of methamphetamine (Munzar et al 2004) and bring out cocaine-induced place preference with a dose of cocaine that does not induce reward by itself (Brabant et al 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…cocaine selfadministration (Rocha et al, 2002) and intracranial self-stimulation studies (Malanga et al, 2007). Meta-analysis of multiple studies showed that single housing does not affect the development of cocaine CPP in rats (Bardo et al, 1995), and cocaine CPP has been demonstrated in singly-housed C57Bl/6J (Szumlinski et al, 2002) and 129/Sv mice (Brabant et al, 2007). On days 2-4 each mouse was handled for 5 minutes daily, and on days 5-7 mice were handled for five minutes daily and injected with saline vehicle in their home cage.…”
Section: Conditioned Place Preference (Cpp)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2) and morphine (Gong et al, 2010) is stronger in HDC KO mice. However, no difference for cocaine reward was found in the CPP model between HDC KO and WT mice (Brabant et al, 2007). This discrepancy could be explained by the different CPP designs.…”
Section: Histamine In Mouse Models Of Addictionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Although the CPP responses differ for ethanol and cocaine, the HDC KO mice show decreased locomotor stimulation in response to ethanol (Nuutinen et al, 2010) and cocaine (Brabant et al, 2007). These findings suggest that histamine is needed for the acute stimulation by drugs of abuse, whereas the reward and reinforcement might be inhibited by neuronal histamine.…”
Section: Histamine In Mouse Models Of Addictionmentioning
confidence: 89%