ArticlePsychopharmacology2022
Reinforcing effects of phenethylamine analogs found in dietary supplements.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of β-Methylphenethylamine (BMPEA) and Its Novel Metabolites in Rat Blood Using MMSPE and UPLC-qTOF-MS.Toxics · 2025Article
- α-Ethyltryptamine: A Ratiocinatory Review of a Forgotten Antidepressant.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleSynthetic phenethylamine (PEA) analogs, such as β-methylphenethylamine (BMPEA) and N,α-diethylphenethylamine (DEPEA), are often found in dietary supplements, despite regulations prohibiting their sale. PEA analogs are structurally related to amphetamine, and we have shown that BMPEA and DEPEA produce cardiovascular stimulation mimicking the effects of amphetamine. However, few studies have examined behavioral effects of BMPEA, DEPEA, and other PEA analogs.
objectivesHere, we examined the reinforcing effects of α-ethylphenethylamine (AEPEA, 1 mg/kg/injection), DEPEA (1 mg/kg/injection), and BMPEA (3 mg/kg/injection) as compared to amphetamine (0.1 mg/kg/injection) using a fixed-ratio 1 self-administration paradigm in male rats.
methodsMale rats were trained in self-administration chambers containing 2 nose-poke holes. A nose-poke response in the active hole delivered drug or saline, whereas a nose-poke response in the inactive hole had no programmed consequence. Four groups of rats were initially trained for 10 days with the doses noted above. Upon acquisition of drug self-administration, a dose-effect function was determined by training rats on 3 additional doses for 3 days each. A separate group of rats was trained with saline.
resultsMale rats self-administered each PEA analog and amphetamine, as shown by significant increases in active responses versus inactive responses. Subsequent dose-response testing showed clear differences in potency of the compounds. Amphetamine showed a typical inverted U-shaped dose-effect function, peaking at 0.1 mg/kg/injection. AEPEA and DEPEA also showed inverted dose-effect functions, with each peaking at 0.3 mg/kg/injection. BMPEA did not show an inverted U-shaped dose-effect function, but active responding slowly increased up to a dose of 6 mg/kg/injection.
conclusionsTaken together, our findings indicate that dietary supplements containing PEA analogs may have significant abuse liability when used recreationally.
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.