Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25522379›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of neuropsychopharmacology2014

Effects of α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone and 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone, two synthetic cathinones commonly found in second-generation "bath salts," on intracranial self-stimulation thresholds in rats.

Lucas R Watterson, Brian T Burrows, Raymundo D Hernandez, Katherine N Moore, Megan Grabenauer, Julie A Marusich, M Foster Olive

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology, 2014. 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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Designer Drugs: A Synthetic Catastrophe.Journal of reward deficiency syndrome
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lucas R WattersonArizona State University, Department of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience Area, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Watterson, Mr Burrows, Mr Hernandez, and Dr Olive); Arizona State University Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Olive); Discovery and Analytical Science, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Moore, Grabenauer, and Marusich). lrwatter@asu.edu.
Brian T BurrowsArizona State University, Department of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience Area, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Watterson, Mr Burrows, Mr Hernandez, and Dr Olive); Arizona State University Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Olive); Discovery and Analytical Science, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Moore, Grabenauer, and Marusich).
Raymundo D HernandezArizona State University, Department of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience Area, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Watterson, Mr Burrows, Mr Hernandez, and Dr Olive); Arizona State University Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Olive); Discovery and Analytical Science, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Moore, Grabenauer, and Marusich).
Katherine N MooreArizona State University, Department of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience Area, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Watterson, Mr Burrows, Mr Hernandez, and Dr Olive); Arizona State University Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Olive); Discovery and Analytical Science, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Moore, Grabenauer, and Marusich).
Megan GrabenauerArizona State University, Department of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience Area, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Watterson, Mr Burrows, Mr Hernandez, and Dr Olive); Arizona State University Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Olive); Discovery and Analytical Science, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Moore, Grabenauer, and Marusich).
Julie A MarusichArizona State University, Department of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience Area, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Watterson, Mr Burrows, Mr Hernandez, and Dr Olive); Arizona State University Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Olive); Discovery and Analytical Science, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Moore, Grabenauer, and Marusich).
M Foster OliveArizona State University, Department of Psychology, Behavioral Neuroscience Area, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Watterson, Mr Burrows, Mr Hernandez, and Dr Olive); Arizona State University Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Tempe, Arizona (Dr Olive); Discovery and Analytical Science, Research Triangle Institute International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Moore, Grabenauer, and Marusich).

Funding

mGluR5 antagonists for methamphetamine addictionR01DA025606 · NIDA · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI OLIVE, M. FOSTER · 2009 to 2012
$1.2M
NIDA NIH HHS DA025606NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA025606
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of synthetic cathinones, which are designer stimulants found in "bath salts," has increased dramatically in recent years. Following governmental bans of methylenedioxypyrovalerone, mephedrone, and methylone, a second generation of synthetic cathinones with unknown abuse liability has emerged as replacements.

methodsUsing a discrete trials current intensity threshold intracranial self-stimulation procedure, the present study assessed the effects of 2 common second-generation synthetic cathinones, α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (0.1-5 mg/kg) and 4-methyl-N-ethcathinone (1-100 mg/kg) on brain reward function. Methamphetamine (0.1-3 mg/kg) was also tested for comparison purposes.

resultsResults revealed both α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone and 4-methyl-N-ethcathinone produced significant intracranial self-stimulation threshold reductions similar to that of methamphetamine. α-Pyrrolidinopentiophenone (1 mg/kg) produced a significant maximal reduction in intracranial self-stimulation thresholds (~19%) most similar to maximal reductions produced by methamphetamine (1 mg/kg, ~20%). Maximal reductions in intracranial self-stimulation thresholds produced by 4-methyl-N-ethcathinone were observed at 30 mg/kg (~15%) and were comparable with those observed with methamphetamine and α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone tested at the 0.3-mg/kg dose (~14%). Additional analysis of the ED50 values from log-transformed data revealed the rank order potency of these drugs as methamphetamine ≈ α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone>4-methyl-N-ethcathinone.

conclusionsThese data suggest that the newer second-generation synthetic cathinones activate the brain reward circuitry and thus may possess a similar degree of abuse potential as prototypical illicit psychostimulants such as methamphetamine as well as the first generation synthetic cathinone methylenedioxypyrovalerone, as previously reported.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainCentral Nervous System StimulantsDose-Response Relationship, DrugIllicit DrugsLinear ModelsMaleMethamphetamineMolecular StructurePentanonesPyrrolidinesRats, Sprague-DawleySelf Stimulation1-phenyl-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-1-pentanoneCentral Nervous System StimulantsIllicit DrugsMethamphetaminePentanonesPyrrolidinesabuse liabilitybath saltsICSSpsychostimulantssynthetic cathinones

Identifiers

PMID25522379
PMCPMC4368864

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.