Dopamine and serotonin antagonists fail to alter the discriminative stimulus properties of ±methylenedioxymethamphetamine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies on discriminative stimulus effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) have been conducted using a relatively low dose (1.5 mg/kg), and those studies have invariably implicated serotonergic mechanisms. In contrast, dopaminergic mechanisms mediate the discriminative stimulus effects of amphetamine (AMPH). Some studies have suggested that the discriminative stimulus effects of a higher (3.0 mg/kg) dose of MDMA might rely on both serotonergic and dopaminergic mechanisms. This study aimed to determine effects of selective dopamine (DA) and serotonin (5HT) antagonists on the discriminative stimulus properties of AMPH (0.5 mg/kg) and MDMA (3.0 mg/kg). Separate groups of rats were trained to discriminate AMPH (0.5 mg/kg) or MDMA (3.0 mg/kg) from saline using a food-reinforced drug-discrimination procedure. Effects of DA (SCH 23390: 0.003-0.03 mg/kg and eticlopride: 0.03-0.3 mg/kg) or 5HT (ritanserin: 1.0-10.0 mg/kg, WAY-100635: 0.3-1.0 mg/kg and GR129375: 1.0-3.0 mg/kg) antagonists on the discriminative stimulus effects of both drugs were determined. Both DA antagonists dose-dependently decreased the AMPH but not the MDMA discrimination. None of the 5HT antagonists altered the discriminative stimulus effects of either drug. The MDMA (3.0 mg/kg) stimulus comprises both a DAergic and 5HTergic response, and the results suggest that either one is sufficient, but not required, to maintain the stimulus effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".