ArticleThe Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics2011
The affinity of D2-like dopamine receptor antagonists determines the time to maximal effect on cocaine self-administration.
Article in The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using cocaine and apomorphine self-administration in rats to measure the pharmacokinetics of competitive dopamine receptor antagonists administered by different routes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Differential effects of acute and chronic antagonist and an irreversible antagonist treatment on cocaine self-administration behavior in rats.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The role of serotoninergic system in psychostimulant effects.Postepy psychiatrii neurologii · 2021Review
- Molecular Imaging of Opioid and Dopamine Systems: Insights Into the Pharmacogenetics of Opioid Use Disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
- Neurobiology of addiction: a neurocircuitry analysis.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2016Review
- Stimulant-induced dopamine increases are markedly blunted in active cocaine abusers.Molecular psychiatry · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Differences in the time to maximal effect (T(max)) of a series of dopamine receptor antagonists on the self-administration of cocaine are not consistent with their lipophilicity (octanol-water partition coefficients at pH 7.4) and expected rapid entry into the brain after intravenous injection. It was hypothesized that the T(max) reflects the time required for maximal occupancy of receptors, which would occur as equilibrium was approached. If so, the T(max) should be related to the affinity for the relevant receptor population. This hypothesis was tested using a series of nine antagonists having a 2500-fold range of K(i) or K(d) values for D(2)-like dopamine receptors. Rats self-administered cocaine at regular intervals and then were injected intravenously with a dose of antagonist, and the self-administration of cocaine was continued for 6 to 10 h. The level of cocaine at the time of every self-administration (satiety threshold) was calculated throughout the session. The satiety threshold was stable before the injection of antagonist and then increased approximately 3-fold over the baseline value at doses of antagonists selected to produce this approximately equivalent maximal magnitude of effect (maximum increase in the equiactive cocaine concentration, satiety threshold; C(max)). Despite the similar C(max), the mean T(max) varied between 5 and 157 min across this series of antagonists. Furthermore, there was a strong and significant correlation between the in vivo T(max) values for each antagonist and the affinity for D(2)-like dopamine receptors measured in vitro. It is concluded that the cocaine self-administration paradigm offers a reliable and predictive bioassay for measuring the affinity of a competitive antagonist for D(2)-like dopamine receptors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.