ArticleBehavioural pharmacology2019
Further pharmacological comparison of D-methamphetamine and L-methamphetamine in rats: abuse-related behavioral and physiological indices.
Article in Behavioural pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Melanin-concentrating hormone receptor antagonism differentially attenuates nicotine experience-dependent locomotor behavior in female and male rats.Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2023Article
- Non-coding RNA: insights into the mechanism of methamphetamine neurotoxicity.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2021Review
- Reinforcing and Stimulant-Like Effects of Methamphetamine Isomers in Rhesus Macaques.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Previous preclinical research suggests that L-methamphetamine (L -MA) has potential therapeutic utility to treat psychostimulant abuse. This study examined potential abuse-related and adverse physiological effects of D -MA and L -MA alone and in combination in rats, as these effects had not been previously characterized. Potential abuse-related effects were examined in locomotor sensitization and conditioned place preference paradigms. Body temperature was monitored to assess the physiological effects of these drugs or drug combinations. In the locomotor study, D-MA induced locomotor sensitization to both D-MA and L -MA. L -MA induced locomotor sensitization only to D-MA. Responses to a combination of L-MA and D -MA were not differentially affected by L-MA or D-MA conditioning. In the conditioned place preference study, D-MA and L -MA each induced significant place preference. L -MA did not attenuate D-MA-induced place preference. In the body temperature study, D-MA induced hyperthermia and L -MA induced hypothermia. In combination, L -MA did not affect D-MA-induced hyperthermia. These data suggest that L -MA alone produces less abuse-related and adverse physiological effects than D-MA, but modulates and is modulated by concurrent and subsequent D-MA exposure, which may enhance the abuse liability of both drugs. These findings should be considered when L -MA is proposed for replacement therapy.
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.