Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/110837| 題名: | 探討N-甲基-D-天門冬胺酸受體在時距相關的操作式制約行為與空間工作記憶的角色：memantine的神經心理藥理學機制 Investigation of the role of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors on temporal operant behavior and spatial working memory: the underlying neuropsychopharmacological mechanisms of memantine |
作者: | 陳碩甫 | 貢獻者: | 廖瑞銘<br>趙知章 陳碩甫 |
關鍵詞: | 非競爭型N-甲基-D-天門冬胺酸受體拮抗劑memantine 連續性與間歇性行為訓練模式 時間屬性的操作式制約行為 FI 30秒作業 DRL 10秒作業 空間式工作記憶 配對性延遲T迷津 Non-competitive NMDA receptor antagonist memantine Continuous and intermittent training regimens Temporal operant behaviors DRL 10 sec task FI 30 sec task Spatial working memory Paired-trial delay T-maze task |
日期: | 2017 | 上傳時間: | 11-Jul-2017 | 摘要: | 認知功能的提升是當今神經科學領域中的研究重點之一，但其神經機制尚有待釐清。本研究利用一種用於改善阿茲海默症臨床的非競爭型N-甲基-D-天門冬胺酸受體拮抗劑memantine，檢測其對於大白鼠在不同時距相關操作式制約行為及空間工作記憶行為之影響效果。實驗一為針對時間屬性的操作式制約行為實驗，運用大白鼠的區辯性增強低頻反應作業（DRL 10秒行為）與固定時距作業（FI 30秒行為）之行為作業，並操弄連續訓練與間歇訓練的兩種不同模式，測試memantine對前述四組受試的操作式制約行為在表現、消除與自發恢復等三階段之劑量反應。實驗二利用配對性延遲T迷津作業區分出不等基準線(表現好與表現差)之受試，再加以藥理實驗，測試memantine對於前述兩組受試之劑量反應。實驗一結果顯示，受試在兩種不同訓練模式下經十五次習得訓練後，在兩種操作式壓桿行為的壓桿反應相關指標中都有明顯的差異，這證實不同的行為訓練模式會導致學習後的表現有差異之別。memantine藥理實驗結果顯示，此藥對於上述四組受試的操作式行為之三階段的影響效果，會因為不同訓練模式與不同作業而異。實驗二結果顯示，memantine提高空間工作記憶的正確率在表現不好的組別有很顯著的藥效，這證實memantine對於空間式工作記憶行為的影響，也會因學習基準線的不同水平而異。在行為實驗後所進行的蛋白質表現量檢測中，memantine（5 mg/kg）只對五個測試腦區中的背側紋狀體中ERK1磷酸化程度有明顯上升的影響，而其對ERK2及CREB的磷酸化在所有腦組織中皆沒有顯著的影響。綜合以上結果，memantine影響時間與空間屬性的相關行為之藥理效果，會依行為的不同習得歷程(或行為背景經驗)及基準線表現程度而異，而此項行為藥理效果，可能與紋狀體中ERK1的磷酸化有關。 The neural basis of cognitive enhancement is one of the intriguing topics in neuroscience research; however, the underlying neural mechanisms remain to be elucidated. This study examined the effects of memantine, a non-competitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist which is used to treat Alzheimer’s disease in clinic, on operant behaviors and spatial working memory. In Experiment 1, using the differential reinforcement for low-rate-response 10 sec (DRL 10s) and the fixed-interval 30 sec (FI 30s) operant tasks, and with the manipulation of two different training regimens (continuous vs. intermittent) in the acquisition phase, the effects of memantine were evaluated in three stages of behavioral tests including the performance (right after the end of 15-day acquisition), the extinction, and the spontaneous recovery (after the extinction). In Experiment 2, memantine were tested in the subjects with different level of baseline performance (good vs. bad) on the distinctive patterns of operant responding in four different groups which received DRL 10s and FI 30s with different training regimens; indicating that behavioral task and training background are critical to the operant performance of temporal operant behaviors. Such behavioral outcomes led the dissociable effects of memantine appeared in between the four groups as tested in all three different stages. The results of Experiment 2 showed a profound improvement of the correct responses rate on spatial working memory in the low-baseline group as compared to the higher-baseline group. With a pretreatment of memantine (5 mg/kg), brain tissues in five selected areas were collected for western blot assays of ERK 1, ERK 2, and CREB. The results only revealed a significant increase of ERK 1 phosphorylation in the dorsal striatum. Together, the effects of memantine to improve cognition-associated processes in the temporal operant behaviors and the baseline of performance, and the present observation of cognition-enhancing effects of memantine may be resulted by the ERK 1 phosphorylation in the dorsal striatum. |
參考文獻: | Armstrong RA (2011) The Pathogenesis of Alzheimer`s Disease: A Reevaluation of the “Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis”. International Journal of Alzheimer`s Disease 2011:1-6.\nAranda-Abreu GE, Hernández-Aguilar ME, Herrera-Rivero M, García-Hernández LI (2012) Drugs for Alzheimer`s. J Addict Res Ther s5-003.\nAlmeida RC, Souza DG, Soletti RC, Lopez MG, Rodrigues AL, Gabilan NH (2006) Involvement of PKA, MAPK/ERK and CaMKII, but not PKC in the acute antidepressant-like effect of memantine in mice. Neurosci Lett 395:93-97.\nAultman JM, Moghaddam B (2001) Distinct contributions of glutamate and dopamine receptors to temporal aspects of rodent working memory using a clinically relevant task. Psychopharmacology 153:353-364.\nBaudry M, Bi X, Gall C, Lynch G (2011) The biochemistry of memory: The 26year journey of a `new and specific hypothesis`. Neurobiol Learn Mem 95:125-133.\nBayley PJ, Bentley GD, Dawson GR (1998) The effects of selective antidepressant drugs on timing behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology 136:114-22.\nBello-Medina PC, Sánchez-Carrasco L, González-Ornelas NR, Jeffery KJ, Ramírez-Amaya V (2013) Differential effects of spaced vs. massed training in long-term object-identity and object-location recognition memory. Behav Brain Res 250:102-113.\nCarlezon WA Jr, Duman RS, Nestler EJ (2005) The many faces of CREB. Trends Neurosci 28:436-445.\nChang YH, Liao RM, Lan CH, Shen YL (2000) Tail-Pinch alters operant behavior in the rat: Effects of d-amphetamine. Chin J Physiol 43:105-111.\nCheng RK, Liao RM (2007) Dopamine receptor antagonists reverse amphetamine-induced behavioral alteration on a differential reinforcement for low-rate (DRL) operant task in the rat. Chin J Physiol 50:77-88.\nCheng RK, Liao RM (2017) Regional differences in dopamine receptor blockade affect timing impulsivity that is altered by d-amphetamine on differential reinforcement of low-rate responding (DRL) behavior in rats. Behav Brain Res 331:177-187.\nCheng RK, MacDonald CJ, Meck WH (2006) Differential effects of cocaine and ketamine on time estimation: Implications for neurobiological models of interval timing. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 85:114–22.\nCheng RK, MacDonald CJ, Williams CL, Meck WH (2008) Prenatal choline supplementation alters the timing, emotion, and memory performance (TEMP) of adult male and female rats as indexed by differential reinforcement of low-rate schedule behavior. Learn Mem 15:153-162.\nCheung ZH, Ip NY (2011) From understanding synaptic plasticity to the development of cognitive enhancers. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 14:1247-1256.\nChiang FK, Cheng RK, Liao RM (2015) Differential effects of dopamine receptor subtype-specific agonists with respect to operant behavior maintained on a differential reinforcement of low-rate responding (DRL) schedule. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 130:67-76.\nCollingridge GL, Volianskis A, Bannister N, France G, Hanna L, Mercier M et al. (2013) The NMDA receptor as a target for cognitive enhancement. Neuropharmacology 64:13-26.\nConstantinidis C, Klingberg T (2016) The neuroscience of working memory capacity and training. Nat Rev Neurosci 17:438-449.\nCoull JT, Cheng RK, Meck WH (2011) Neuroanatomical and neurochemical substrates of timing. Neuropsychopharmacology 36:3-25.\nDanysz W, Essmann U, Bresink I, Wilke R (1994) Glutamate antagonists have different effects on spontaneous locomotor activity in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 48:111-118.\nDanysz W, Parsons CG (2003) The NMDA receptor antagonist memantine as a symptomatological and neuroprotective treatment for Alzheimer`s disease: preclinical evidence. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 18:S23-32.\nDally JW, Robbins TW (2017) Fractionating impulsivity: neuropsychiatric implications. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:158-171.\nDuda W, Wesierska M, Ostaszewski P, Vales K, Nekovarova T, Stuchlik A (2016) MK-801 and memantine act differently on short-term memory tested with different time-intervals in the Morris water maze test. Behav Brain Res 311:15-23.\nEveritt BJ, Robbin TW (2000) Second-order schedules of drug reinforcement in rats and monkeys: measurement of reinforcing efficacy and drug-seeking behaviour. Psyhcopharmacology 153:17-30.\nFloresco SB, Jentsch JD (2011) Pharmacological enhancement of memory and executive functioning in laboratory animals. Neuropsychopharmacol Rev 36:227-250.\nHerblin WF (1968) Extinction reversal by Scopolamine. Psychon Sci 13:43-44.\nHughes RN (2004) The value of spontaneous alternation behavior (SAB) as a test of retention in pharmacological investigations of memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 28:497-505.\nHusain M, Mehta MA (2011) Cognitive enhancement by drugs in health and disease. Trends Cogn Neurosci 15:28-36.\nHiggins GA, Ballard TM, Huwyler J, Kemp JA, Gill KR (2003) Evaluation of the NR2B-selective NMDA receptor antagonist Ro 63-1908 on rodent behavior: evidence for an involvement of NR2B NMDA receptor in response inhibition. Neuropharmacology 44:324-341.\nHillhouse TM, Porter JH, Negus SS (2014) Comparison of antidepressant-like and abuse-related effects of phencyclidine in rats. Drug Dev Res 75:479-488.\nHyman SE (2011) Cognitive enhancement: Promises and Perils. Neuron 69:595-598. \nImre G, Fokkema DS, Den Boer JA, Ter Horst GJ (2006) Dose-response characteristics of ketamine effect on locomotion, cognitive function and central neuronal activity. Brain Res Bull 69:338-345.\nIshikawa R, Kim R, Namba T, Kohsaka S, Uchino S, Kida S (2014) Time-dependent enhancement of hippocampus-dependent memory after treatment with memantine: Implications for enhanced hippocampal adult neurogenesis. Hippocampus 24:784-793.\nJohnson JW, Glasgow NG, Povysheva NV (2015) Recent insights into the model of action of memantine and ketamine. Curr Opin Pharmacol 20:54-63.\nJohnson JW, Kotermanski SE (2006) Mechanism of action of memantine. Curr Opin Pharmacol 6:61-67.\nKemp JA, McKernan RM (2002) NMDA receptor pathways as drug targets. Nat Neurosci 5 Suppl:1039-1042.\nKotermanski SE, Johnson JW, Thiels E (2013) Comparison of behavioral effects of the NMDA receptor channel blockers memantine and ketamine in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 109:67-76.\nKramer TJ, Rilling M. (1970) Differential reinforcement of low rates: a selective critique. Psychol Bull 74:225-54.\nLiao RM, Cheng RK (2005) Acute effects of d-amphetamine on the differential reinforcement of low-rate (DRL) schedule behavior in the rat comparison with selective dopamine receptor antagonists. Chin J Physiol 48:41-50.\nLocchi F, Dall’Olio R, Gandolfi O, Rimondini R (2007) water T-maze, an improved method to assess spatial working memory in rats: Pharmacological validation. Neurosci Lett 422:213-216.\nLynch G, Palmer LC, Gall CM (2011) The likelihood of cognitive enhancement. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 99:116-129.\nMenard C, Quirion R (2012) Group 1 metabotropic glutamate receptor function and its regulation of learning and memory in the aging brain. Front Pharmacol 3:182.\nMisztal M, Frankiewicz T, Parsons CG, Danysz W (1996) Learning deficits induced by chronic intraventricular infusion of quinolinic acid protection by MK-801 and memantine. European J Pharmacol 296:1-8.\nMorris RGA (2013) NMDA receptors and memory encoding. Neuropharmacology 64:32-40.\nNeill JC, Barnes S, Cook S, Grayson B, Idris NF, McLean SL, et L.(2010) Animal models of cognitive dysfunction and negative symptoms of schizophrenia: Focus on NMDA receptor antagonism. Pharmacol Thera 128:419-432.\nParsons CG, Stoffler A, Danysz W (2007) Memantine: a NMDA receptor antagonist that improves memory by restoration of homeostasis in the glutamatergic system--too little activation is bad, too much is even worse. Neuropharmacology 53:699-723.\nPeterson JD, Wolf ME, White FJ (2003) Impaired DRL 30 performance during amphetamine withdrawal. Behav Brain Res 143:101-8.\nPrado-Alcala RA. Haiek M, Rivas S, Roldan-Roldan G, Quirarte GL (1994) Reversal of extinction by scopolamine. Physiol Behav 56:27-30.\nRammes G, Danysz W, Parsons CG (2008) Pharmacodynamics of Memantine: An Update. Current Neuropharmacology:55-78.\nRiedel G, Platt B, Micheau J. (2003) Glutamate receptor function in learning and memory. Behav Brain Res 140:1-47.\nSahakian BJ, Bruhlet AB, Cook J, Killikelly C, Savulich G, Piercy T et al., (2015) The impact of neuroscience on society: cognitive enhancement in neuropsychiatric disorders and in healthy people. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:20140214. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0214)\nSanger (1992) NMDA antagonists disrupt timing behavior in rats. Behavioural Pharmacology 3:593-600.\nSanger DJ, Blackman DE (1989) Operant behavior and the effects of centrally acting drugs. In: Neuromethods (vol. 13): Psychopharmacology, edited by Boulton AA, Baker GB, & Greenshaw AJ. Humana Press: Clifton, New Jersey. pp. 299-348.\nSchmidt WJ, Kretschmer BD (1997) Behavioural pharmacology of glutamate receptors in the basal ganglia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 21:381-392.\nShearman E, Rossi S, Szasz B, Juranyi Z, Fallon S, Pomara N, Sershen H, Lajtha A (2006) Changes in cerebral neurotransmitters and metabolites induced by acute donepezil and memantine administrations: a microdialysis study. Brain Res Bull 69:204-213.\nShiflett MW, Balleine BW (2011) Molecular substrates of action control in cortico-striatal circuits. Prog Neurobiol 95:1-13.\nSkinner BF (1938) The behavior of organisms. New York, New York: Appletion-Century.\nSpanagel R, Eilbacher B, Wilke R (1994) Memantine-induced dopamine release in the prefrontal cortex and striatum of the rat — a pharmacokinetic microdialysis study. Eur J Neuroscie 262:21-26.\nStoffel EC, Cunningham KA (2008) The relationship between the locomotor response to a novel environment and behavioral disinhibition in rats. Drug Alcohol Depend 92:69-78.\nStephens DN, Cole BJ (1996) AMPA antagonists differ from NMDA antagonists in their effects on operant DRL and delayed matching to position tasks. Psychopharmacology 126:249-259.\nTomas GM, Huganir RL (2004) MAPK cascade signalling and synaptic plasticity. Nat Rev Neurosci 5:173-183.\nUrban KR, Gao WJ (2014) Performance enhancement at the cost of potential brain plasticity: neural ramifications of nootropic drugs in the healthy developing brain. Front Syst Neurosci 8:1-10.\nvan Haaren F (1993) Schedule-controlled behavior: Positive reinforcement. In: Techniques in the behavioral and neural sciences (vol. 10): Methods in behavioral pharmacology, edited by van Haaren F. Elsevier: Amsterdam. pp. 81-99.\nWang J, Ming H, Chen R, Ju JM, Peng WD, Zhang GX, Liu CF (2015) CIH-induced neurocognitive impairments are associated with hippocampal Ca(2+) overload, apoptosis, and dephosphorylation of ERK1/2 and CREB that are mediated by overactivation of NMDARs. Brain Res 1625:64-72.\nWelzl H, Berz S, Battig K (1991) The effects of the noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist MK 801 on DRL performance in rats. Psychobiology 19:211-216.\nWenk GL, Danysz W, Mobley SL (1994) Investigations of neurotoxicity and neuroprotection within the nucleus basalis of the rat. Brain Res 655:7-11.\nWingard JC, Goodman J, Leong K-C, Packard MG (2015) Differential effects of massed and spaced training on place and response learning: A memory systems perspective. Behav Process 118:85-89.\nWirt RA, Hyman JM (2017) Integrating spatial working memory and remote memory: Interactions between the medial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Brain Sci 7.\nWitt A, Macdonald N, Kirkpatrick P (2004) Memantine hydrochloride. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:109-110.\nZoladz PR, Campbell AM, Park CR, Schaefer D, Danysz W, Diamond DM (2006) Enhancement of long-term spatial memory in adult rats by the noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists, memantine and neramexane. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 85:298-306. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 神經科學研究所 103754007 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1037540071 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Show full item record
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.