2008
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-008-1148-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of acute systemic and intra-cerebral stimulation of cannabinoid receptors on sensorimotor gating, locomotion and spatial memory in rats

Abstract: Our data support the notion that CB(1) receptor stimulation impairs sensorimotor gating most likely by modulation of neurotransmitter release in mPFC and vHIP. The lack of effects of local WIN infusions in NAc and VTA might be due to low receptor abundance in these regions. Additionally, CB(1) receptor activation in dHIP impairs spatial memory retrieval. Taken together, cortico-hippocampal cannabinoid receptors play an essential role in the regulation of cognitive and behavioural processes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

6
35
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
6
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, comparable with the effect of systemic CORT administration, intrahippocampal infusions of the full CB agonist WIN55,212-2 impaired the retrieval of contextual but not auditory fear memory. This selective impairment of retrieval of contextual fear memory indicates that the WIN55,212-2 administration did not nonspecifically affect the expression of freezing behavior, a finding that is in accordance with other reported evidence that intrahippocampal administration of WIN55,212-2 or other cannabinoid agonists (δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or CP 55,940) impairs spatial memory without directly affecting the expression of behaviors that were assessed as an index of memory (43)(44)(45). Moreover, we found that CORT administration, in a dose that impairs memory retrieval, increased hippocampal levels of 2-AG but not AEA or other measured endocannabinoids in the same time course of the retention test.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Moreover, comparable with the effect of systemic CORT administration, intrahippocampal infusions of the full CB agonist WIN55,212-2 impaired the retrieval of contextual but not auditory fear memory. This selective impairment of retrieval of contextual fear memory indicates that the WIN55,212-2 administration did not nonspecifically affect the expression of freezing behavior, a finding that is in accordance with other reported evidence that intrahippocampal administration of WIN55,212-2 or other cannabinoid agonists (δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or CP 55,940) impairs spatial memory without directly affecting the expression of behaviors that were assessed as an index of memory (43)(44)(45). Moreover, we found that CORT administration, in a dose that impairs memory retrieval, increased hippocampal levels of 2-AG but not AEA or other measured endocannabinoids in the same time course of the retention test.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Albeit, it is not possible to define whether visual and acoustic alterations induced by JWH-018 and D 9 -THC in mice are an expression of hallucinatory states, our data support the hypothesis that JWH-018 by stimulating CB 1 receptors could impair the sensorimotor gating in mice similar to what was demonstrated for other cannabinoid agonists such as D 9 -THC (Malone and Taylor, 2006;Nagai et al, 2006), CP 55940 (Mansbach et al, 1996;Martin et al, 2003) and WIN 55,212-2 (Schneider and Koch, 2002;Wegener et al, 2008). Further studies will be conducted using the pre-pulse inhibition test, to investigate the potential psychogenic effect of JWH-018.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The reported effects of cannabinoid administration on PPI in animals are inconsistent (Bortolato et al 2005;Malone and Taylor 2006;Martin-Iverson and Cornelisse 2005;Martin et al 2003;Nagai et al 2006;Schneider et al 2005;Koch 2003, 2002;Stanley-Cary et al 2002;Wegener et al 2008). In humans, one study found no difference between cannabis users and non-users in an uninstructed PPI task (Quednow et al 2004), while another study by Kedzior and Martin-Iverson (2007) found that chronic cannabis users failed to show significant attentional modulation of PPI, and had reduced PPI relative to controls, but only when they were instructed to sustain attention to the auditory stimuli, not when they were instructed to ignore the stimuli and focus on a visual task.…”
mentioning
confidence: 94%