47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Activation instead of blocking mesolimbic dopaminergic reward circuitry is a preferred modality in the long term treatment of reward deficiency syndrome (RDS): a commentary

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and hypothesis

          Based on neurochemical and genetic evidence, we suggest that both prevention and treatment of multiple addictions, such as dependence to alcohol, nicotine and glucose, should involve a biphasic approach. Thus, acute treatment should consist of preferential blocking of postsynaptic Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) dopamine receptors (D1-D5), whereas long term activation of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system should involve activation and/or release of Dopamine (DA) at the NAc site. Failure to do so will result in abnormal mood, behavior and potential suicide ideation. Individuals possessing a paucity of serotonergic and/or dopaminergic receptors, and an increased rate of synaptic DA catabolism due to high catabolic genotype of the COMT gene, are predisposed to self-medicating any substance or behavior that will activate DA release, including alcohol, opiates, psychostimulants, nicotine, gambling, sex, and even excessive internet gaming. Acute utilization of these substances and/or stimulatory behaviors induces a feeling of well being. Unfortunately, sustained and prolonged abuse leads to a toxic" pseudo feeling" of well being resulting in tolerance and disease or discomfort. Thus, a reduced number of DA receptors, due to carrying the DRD2 A1 allelic genotype, results in excessive craving behavior; whereas a normal or sufficient amount of DA receptors results in low craving behavior. In terms of preventing substance abuse, one goal would be to induce a proliferation of DA D2 receptors in genetically prone individuals. While in vivo experiments using a typical D2 receptor agonist induce down regulation, experiments in vitro have shown that constant stimulation of the DA receptor system via a known D2 agonist results in significant proliferation of D2 receptors in spite of genetic antecedents. In essence, D2 receptor stimulation signals negative feedback mechanisms in the mesolimbic system to induce mRNA expression causing proliferation of D2 receptors.

          Proposal and conclusion

          The authors propose that D2 receptor stimulation can be accomplished via the use of Synapatmine™, a natural but therapeutic nutraceutical formulation that potentially induces DA release, causing the same induction of D2-directed mRNA and thus proliferation of D2 receptors in the human. This proliferation of D2 receptors in turn will induce the attenuation of craving behavior. In fact as mentioned earlier, this model has been proven in research showing DNA-directed compensatory overexpression (a form of gene therapy) of the DRD2 receptors, resulting in a significant reduction in alcohol craving behavior in alcohol preferring rodents. Utilizing natural dopaminergic repletion therapy to promote long term dopaminergic activation will ultimately lead to a common, safe and effective modality to treat Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) behaviors including Substance Use Disorders (SUD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Obesity and other reward deficient aberrant behaviors. This concept is further supported by the more comprehensive understanding of the role of dopamine in the NAc as a "wanting" messenger in the meso-limbic DA system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The debate over dopamine's role in reward: the case for incentive salience.

          Debate continues over the precise causal contribution made by mesolimbic dopamine systems to reward. There are three competing explanatory categories: 'liking', learning, and 'wanting'. Does dopamine mostly mediate the hedonic impact of reward ('liking')? Does it instead mediate learned predictions of future reward, prediction error teaching signals and stamp in associative links (learning)? Or does dopamine motivate the pursuit of rewards by attributing incentive salience to reward-related stimuli ('wanting')? Each hypothesis is evaluated here, and it is suggested that the incentive salience or 'wanting' hypothesis of dopamine function may be consistent with more evidence than either learning or 'liking'. In brief, recent evidence indicates that dopamine is neither necessary nor sufficient to mediate changes in hedonic 'liking' for sensory pleasures. Other recent evidence indicates that dopamine is not needed for new learning, and not sufficient to directly mediate learning by causing teaching or prediction signals. By contrast, growing evidence indicates that dopamine does contribute causally to incentive salience. Dopamine appears necessary for normal 'wanting', and dopamine activation can be sufficient to enhance cue-triggered incentive salience. Drugs of abuse that promote dopamine signals short circuit and sensitize dynamic mesolimbic mechanisms that evolved to attribute incentive salience to rewards. Such drugs interact with incentive salience integrations of Pavlovian associative information with physiological state signals. That interaction sets the stage to cause compulsive 'wanting' in addiction, but also provides opportunities for experiments to disentangle 'wanting', 'liking', and learning hypotheses. Results from studies that exploited those opportunities are described here. In short, dopamine's contribution appears to be chiefly to cause 'wanting' for hedonic rewards, more than 'liking' or learning for those rewards.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Addiction and the brain antireward system.

            A neurobiological model of the brain emotional systems has been proposed to explain the persistent changes in motivation that are associated with vulnerability to relapse in addiction, and this model may generalize to other psychopathology associated with dysregulated motivational systems. In this framework, addiction is conceptualized as a cycle of decreased function of brain reward systems and recruitment of antireward systems that progressively worsen, resulting in the compulsive use of drugs. Counteradaptive processes, such as opponent process, that are part of the normal homeostatic limitation of reward function fail to return within the normal homeostatic range and are hypothesized to repeatedly drive the allostatic state. Excessive drug taking thus results in not only the short-term amelioration of the reward deficit but also suppression of the antireward system. However, in the long term, there is worsening of the underlying neurochemical dysregulations that ultimately form an allostatic state (decreased dopamine and opioid peptide function, increased corticotropin-releasing factor activity). This allostatic state is hypothesized to be reflected in a chronic deviation of reward set point that is fueled not only by dysregulation of reward circuits per se but also by recruitment of brain and hormonal stress responses. Vulnerability to addiction may involve genetic comorbidity and developmental factors at the molecular, cellular, or neurocircuitry levels that sensitize the brain antireward systems.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Profound decreases in dopamine release in striatum in detoxified alcoholics: possible orbitofrontal involvement.

              The value of rewards (natural rewards and drugs) is associated with dopamine increases in the nucleus accumbens and varies as a function of context. The prefrontal cortex has been implicated in the context dependency of rewards and in the fixated high value that drugs have in addiction, although the mechanisms are not properly understood. Here we test the hypothesis that the prefrontal cortex regulates the value of rewards by modulating dopamine increases in nucleus accumbens and that this regulation is disrupted in addicted subjects. We used positron emission tomography to evaluate the activity of the prefrontal cortex (measuring brain glucose metabolism with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose) and dopamine increases (measured with [11C]raclopride, a D2/D3 receptor ligand with binding that is sensitive to endogenous dopamine) induced by the stimulant drug methylphenidate in 20 controls and 20 detoxified alcoholics, most of whom smoked. In all subjects, methylphenidate significantly increased dopamine in striatum. In ventral striatum (where the nucleus accumbens is located) and in putamen, dopamine increases were associated with the rewarding effects of methylphenidate (drug liking and high) and were profoundly attenuated in alcoholics (70 and 50% lower than controls, respectively). In controls, but not in alcoholics, metabolism in orbitofrontal cortex (region involved with salience attribution) was negatively associated with methylphenidate-induced dopamine increases in ventral striatum. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the orbitofrontal cortex modulates the value of rewards by regulating the magnitude of dopamine increases in the ventral striatum and that disruption of this regulation may underlie the decreased sensitivity to rewards in addicted subjects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Theor Biol Med Model
                Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling
                BioMed Central
                1742-4682
                2008
                12 November 2008
                : 5
                : 24
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physiology & Pharmacology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
                [2 ]Engineering & Management of Advanced Technology, Chang Jung University, Taiwan, PR China
                [3 ]Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Chang Jung University, Taiwan, PR China
                [4 ]Department of Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
                [5 ]Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Chang Jung University, Taiwan, PR China
                [6 ]Department of Psychoneurogenetics, Synaptamine™, Inc., San Antonio, TX, USA
                [7 ]Deparment of Nutrigenomics, LifeGen, Inc, La Jolla, CA, USA
                [8 ]Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA
                [9 ]Department of Neurological Research, Path Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA
                [10 ]Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
                [11 ]Carlsbad Science Foundation, Emeritus, City Of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
                [12 ]University of California, San Diego Medical Center, Neurological Surgery (Brain and spinal disorders), San Diego, CA, USA
                [13 ]Central Valley Pain Management & Wellness Modesto, CA, USA
                [14 ]Boston University School of Medicine and Boston VAMC, Boston, MA, USA
                Article
                1742-4682-5-24
                10.1186/1742-4682-5-24
                2615745
                19014506
                bc13a60f-fba3-4a7c-b738-713e96050899
                Copyright © 2008 Blum et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 19 April 2008
                : 12 November 2008
                Categories
                Review

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                Quantitative & Systems biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article