Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20730798›Full record

ArticleSynapse (New York, N.Y.)2011

Comparison of (+)-methamphetamine, ±-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, (+)-amphetamine and ±-fenfluramine in rats on egocentric learning in the Cincinnati water maze.

Charles V Vorhees, Elizabeth He, Matthew R Skelton, Devon L Graham, Tori L Schaefer, Curtis E Grace, Amanda A Braun, Robyn Amos-Kroohs, Michael T Williams

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Synapse (New York, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Developmental Manipulation-Induced Changes in Cognitive Functioning.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Charles V VorheesDivision of Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation and University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229, USA. charles.vorhees@cchmc.org
Elizabeth He
Matthew R Skelton
Devon L Graham
Tori L Schaefer
Curtis E Grace
Amanda A Braun
Robyn Amos-Kroohs
Michael T Williams
University of Cincinnati Medical Center · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USHospital Research Foundation · AU

Funding

Short Term Medical Student Training GrantT35DK060444 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI JASON T BLACKARD · 2002 to 2026
$2.3M
DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS OF METHAMPHETAMINE-LIKE STIMULANTSR01DA006733 · NIDA · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI VORHEES, CHARLES V · 1991 to 2009
$2.3M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA006733NIDDK NIH HHS T35 DK060444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(+)-Methamphetamine (MA), (±)-3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), (+)-amphetamine (AMPH), and (±)-fenfluramine (FEN) are phenylethylamines with CNS effects. At higher doses, each induces protracted reductions in brain dopamine (DA) and/or serotonin. Chronic MA and MDMA users show persistent monoamine reductions and cognitive impairments. In rats, similar neurochemical effects can be induced, yet cognitive impairments have been difficult to demonstrate. We recently showed that rats treated on a single day with MA (10 mg/kg x 4 at 2 h intervals) exhibit impaired egocentric learning (Cincinnati water maze [CWM]) without affecting spatial learning (Morris water maze [MWM]) (Herring et al., [2008] Psychopharmacology (Berl) 199:637–650). Whether this effect is unique to MA or is a general characteristic of these drugs is unknown. Accordingly, this experiment compared these drugs on CWM performance. Drugs were given s.c. in four doses at 2 h intervals. MA doses were 10 or 12.5 mg/kg/dose, AMPH 25 mg/kg/dose (to match MA12.5-induced hyperthermia), MDMA 15 mg/kg/dose (previously established hyperthermia-inducing dose), and FEN 16.5 mg/kg/dose (equimolar to MA12.5). Two weeks later, rats were tested in the CWM (2 trials/day, 21 days). AMPH and MA (both doses) induced significant increases in CWM errors and latency to reach the goal with no differences in swim speed. MDMA and FEN did not significantly alter learning. Given that FEN selectively and MDMA preferentially affect serotonin whereas AMPH selectively and MA preferentially affect DA, the data suggest that egocentric learning may be predominantly dopaminergically mediated.

Indexed as

AmphetamineAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBody TemperatureBody WeightCentral Nervous System StimulantsCold TemperatureFenfluramineMaleMaze LearningMethamphetamineN-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamineRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySerotonin AgentsAmphetamineCentral Nervous System StimulantsFenfluramineMethamphetamineN-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamineSerotonin Agents

Identifiers

PMID20730798
PMCPMC2994999
OpenAlexW2000422403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.