Kitanaka et al.indd Drug Target Insights 2006: 1 19–28 19 REVIEW Correspondence: Junichi Kitanaka, Department of Pharmacology, Hyogo College of Medicine, 1-1 Mukogawa-cho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 663-8501, Japan. Tel: +81 798 456333; Fax: +81 798 456332; Email: kitanaka-hyg@umin.net Please note that this article may not be used for commercial purposes. For further information please refer to the copyright statement at http://www.la-press.com/copyright.htm Modifi cation of Monoaminergic Activity by MAO Inhibitors Infl uences Methamphetamine Actions Junichi Kitanaka, Nobue Kitanaka and Motohiko Takemura Department of Pharmacology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 663-8501, Japan. Abstract: Methamphetamine (METH) abuse is a serious health and social problem worldwide. At present, however, there are no effective medications for the treatment of METH abuse. Of the intracellular METH target proteins, monoamine oxidase (MAO) is involved in the regulation of monoaminergic tone in the brain, resulting in the modulation of METH- induced behavioral abnormalities in mammals. The METH-induced expression of increased motor activity, stereotypy, and sensitization is closely associated with monoaminergic transmission in the brain. Modifi cation of MAO activity by MAO inhibitors can infl uence METH action. Of the MAO inhibitors, the propargylamine derivative clorgyline, an irreversible MAO-A inhibitor, effectively blocks METH-induced hyperlocomotion and behavioral sensitization in rodents. Analysis of the associated monoaminergic activity indicates an involvement of altered striatal serotonergic transmission as well as an increased dopaminergic tone. Some effects of MAO inhibitors on METH action appear to be independent of MAO, sug- gesting complex mechanisms of action of MAO inhibitors in METH abuse. This review describes current research to fi nd effective treatment for METH abuse, using MAO inhibitors. Keywords: methamphetamine, hyperlocomotion, stereotypy, behavioral sensitization, clorgyline, selegiline, monoamine turnover, monoamine oxidase, 5-HT, striatum. Introduction Of amphetamines and their related compounds, d-methamphetamine (METH) is one of the most powerful drugs of abuse recognized worldwide on the basis of an increasing number of health and social prob- lems, both acute and chronic (Murray, 1998). In Japan, the third epidemic of METH abuse among the population is in progress (Ujike and Sato, 2004), and about 18000 persons were arrested in 2004 for illegal drug abuse. The U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimated in 2004 that 1.4 million Americans aged 12 or older had used METH in the past year (NSDUH 2005). The direct CNS effects of METH include increased wakefulness, increased respiration, enhanced body movements, hyper- thermia, euphoria, and decreased appetite, as well as the following psychiatric sequelae: confusion, anxiety, paranoia, delirium, increased agitation, and aggressiveness (NIDA 2004). Recently, evidence has accumulated that METH can cause neurodegeneration in the brain (Davidson et al. 2001; Kita et al. 2003; Cadet et al. 2005). In addition, increased infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis B and C are likely to be consequences of increased METH abusers through sharing contaminated syringes (Poshyachinda, 1993). At present, however, there are no effective medications for the treatment of METH abuse (Kantak, 2003). The molecular basis of amphetamine action has been investigated. METH targets in subcellular components include the cocaine-sensitive dopamine transporter (DAT) located in presynaptic plasma membranes, the vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2) located in vesicular membranes, and the monoamine oxidase (MAO) enzyme located in mitochondrial outer membranes (Seiden et al. 1993). The direct action of METH on DAT reverses dopamine transport, resulting in enhanced release of dopamine from presynaptic terminals into extracellular space (Sulzer et al. 1995; Jones et al. 1998; Khoshbouei et al. 2003). METH also enters the presynaptic neurons via lipophilic diffusion and through DAT as a structural analogue of dopamine (Zaczek et al. 1991a, b), thereby allowing the drug to enter synaptic vesicles through VMAT-2 and/or by diffusion. The resulting METH-induced disruption of vesicular pH produces enhanced release of dopamine from the vesicles through VMAT-2 (Sulzer et al. 1995; Jones et al. 1998). Once inside the presynaptic terminals, METH inhibits (i) VMAT-2; resulting Drug Target Insights 2006: 120 Kitanaka et al in a decrease in vesicular dopamine uptake (Brown et al. 2002; Ugarte et al. 2003), and (ii) MAO, which catalyzes the oxidative deamination of monoamines, resulting in increased levels of monoamines such as dopamine and serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) and a decrease in their metabolites (Felner and Waldmeier, 1979; Egashira et al. 1987). Overall, the actions of METH on these three target proteins result in the massive outfl ow of dopamine from the presynaptic terminal into the synaptic cleft (Kuczenski et al. 1995). The activation of dopamine receptors by aberrant levels of released dopamine in mesolimbic and mesocor- tical areas is closely related to METH-induced abnormal behavior and the rewarding property of the drug in rodents and humans (Robinson and Becker, 1986; Seiden et al. 1993; Self and Nestler, 1995; Giros et al. 1996; Everitt and Robbins, 2005). Pre-clinical investigations suggest that DAT blockers such as vanoxerine (also known as GBR 12909) are effective for the prevention of cocaine effects such as cocaine-self administration and cocaine-induced increases in extracellular dopa- mine levels, because cocaine exerts its effects predominantly through an interaction with DAT (Gorelick et al. 2004). Pre-clinical evaluation of vanoxerine as a potential medication for METH addiction is also in progress (Baumann et al. 2002). Alternatively, mechanism(s) other than DAT have been proposed for METH action in transgenic studies (Scearce-Levie et al. 1999; Budygin et al. 2004), because METH targets are multiple (Seiden et al. 1993). In the recent literature, some attempts have been made to fi nd an effective treatment for METH abuse through one of the three targets listed above. This review describes current insights into the pharmacology of MAO inhibitors from the behavior of rodents administered with various doses of single and repeated METH, since rela- tively moderate and high doses of single and repeated METH administration in rodents serve as an animal model for METH abuse in humans (described below). Although amphetamines inhibit MAO reversibly, a role for MAO inhibition in amphetamine-induced behaviors has not brought much scientific interest since amphetamine- induced MAO inhibition is weak (Mantle et al. 1976; Miller et al. 1980). However, recent evidence that METH (or d-amphetamine) in combination with MAO inhibitors produces unique behavioral effects, and implicates a role for MAO inhibitors in the protection against and improvement of METH abuse, especially, through the actions on the striatal serotonin system. METH-Treated Rodents as Animal Models of METH Abuse The use of naïve rodents administered with single or repeated METH serves as an animal model for METH abuse in humans, since animal models show abnormal behavior such as increased motor activity (Abekawa et al. 1995; Kitanaka et al. 2003, 2005a), repetitive and compulsive behavior called stereotypy (Nishikawa et al. 1983; Kuczenski et al. 1995; Abekawa et al. 1995; Tatsuta et al. 2005, 2006), self-injurious behavior (Halladay et al. 2003; Mori et al. 2004), and rewarding prop- erties (Ranaldi and Poeggel, 2002; Justinova et al. 2003; Kitanaka et al. 2006), which resemble human symptoms of amphetamine psychosis (Randrup and Munkvad, 1967; Groves and Rebec, 1976; Winchel and Stanley, 1991). In addition to the effects of METH listed above, repeated administra- tion of METH also induces a progressive augmen- tation of locomotor activity in response to treat- ment, a phenomenon referred to as behavioral sensitization (Post, 1980; Shimosato and Saito, 1993; Ohno and Watanabe, 1995; Itzhak, 1997; Ito et al. 2000; Itzhak and Ali 2002; Kitanaka et al. 2003, 2005b; Okabe and Murphy, 2004). The progressive augmentation of locomotor activity in response to repeated METH in rodents resembles the METH-induced psychiatric symptoms which show progressive quantitative alteration in METH addicts (Ellinwood and Kilbey, 1977; Robinson and Becker, 1986; Itzhak and Ali, 2002; Ujike and Sato, 2004). MAO, MAO Inhibitors, and Amphetamines In mammals,the MAO enzyme exists in two isoforms, termed MAO-A and MAO-B, which differ in substrate specifi city (Johnston, 1968; Murphy, 1978) and have been identifi ed as separate gene products (Shih et al. 1999). Selective and non-selective MAO inhibitors have been devel- oped for pre-clinical and clinical purposes, espe- cially as treatments for major depression and Parkinson’s disease (Finberg and Youdim, 1983; Worms et al. 1987; Pletscher 1991; Aubin et al. 2004). The fi rst MAO inhibitor to be discovered Drug Target Insights 2006: 1 21 METH Action and Monoamine Turnover was the hydrazine derivative iproniazid, which was originally developed for the treatment of tubercu- losis. Iproniazid and the related compounds are highly toxic to the liver when taken excess (Sinha, 1987), resulting in the withdrawal of many hydra- zine derivatives from the clinic. Then, the propargyl compounds were developed as MAO inhibitors with less undesirable side-effects (Swett et al. 1963). Among them, pargyline (N-methyl-N-2- propynylbenzylamine) and clorgyline (N-methyl- N-propargyl-3-(2, 4-dichlorophenoxy) propylamine) were reported to be irreversible inhibitors of MAO- A/B (non-selective) and MAO-A, respectively. Selective irreversible MAO-B inhibitors were also developed (Knoll et al. 1965). One of them is selegiline (N, α-dimethyl-N-2-propynylphenethyl- amine; also know as l-deprenyl), which is a propargyl derivative of l-amphetamine. Besides being potent monoamine releasing agents, amphetamines are also relatively potent, non-selective MAO inhibitors (Seiden et al. 1993), while the inhibition is weak compared with the actions of synthetic MAO inhibitors (Mantle et al. 1976; Miller et al. 1980). While a valuable review highlights the advan- tages of MAO inhibitors (Youdim et al. 2006), these propargyl compounds have received little attention in the literature in recent years because of (1) the side effects associated with this drug class, including possible hypertensive crisis, (2) the development of new and more specifi c types of agents for the treatment of mental diseases and, (3) the complex mechanism of action of MAO inhibitors, that are at least partially unresolved. As for the clinical use of psychostimulant-MAO inhibitor combinations, amphetamine and MAO inhibitor combination therapy has been used to augment antidepressant treatment (Feinberg, 2004). Other clinical trials of amphetamine and MAO inhibitor combination appear to be highly restricted because of the lack of therapeutic bene- fi ts. In the animal experiments, however, the effects of clorgyline, selegiline, and pargyline on METH- induced behavior have been well documented. Modifi cation of METH Action by Clorgyline As shown in Table 1, clorgyline has no effect on spontaneous locomotor activity in naïve mice and rats (Table 1). However, when co-administered with METH, clorgyline exerts signifi cant inhibi- tory effects on METH (1 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced hyperlocomotion after single and repeated (5 days) clorgyline administration (Kitanaka et al. 2005a). The effect of clorgyline on METH-induced behav- iors lasts up to 40 min after METH challenge, suggesting that the development of METH-induced hyperlocomotion was effectively inhibited by clorgyline pretreatment (Kitanaka et al. 2005a). It should be noted that no enhanced stereotypic behavior including “mouthing” behavior in parallel with the decrease in hyperlocomotion after METH in mice pretreated with clorgyline was observed in terms of the rearing index (Kitanaka et al. 2005a). This effect was not observed with selegiline (Kita- naka et al. 2005a). In this study, the association between the inhibitory action of clorgyline and MAO-A activity in the brain was simultaneously investigated. For this purpose, the activity of monoaminergic trans- mission was evaluated in terms of apparent mono- amine turnover. With respect to 5-HT metabolism, the ratio of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), a metabolite of 5-HT, to 5-HT is a good index of apparent 5-HT turnover (De Vries and Odink, 1991; Torres et al. 2002). 5-HT turnover was signifi cantly increased in the regions of the striatum and nucleus accumbens after single METH admin- istration due to a signifi cant decrease in 5-HT levels (Kitanaka et al. 2003). Clorgyline pretreatment, in turn, signifi cantly increased and decreased 5-HT and 5-HIAA contents, respectively, by inhibiting MAO-A, resulting in a signifi cant decrease in the 5-HT turnover index in the striatum and nucleus accumbens (Kitanaka et al. 2005a). This effect of clorgyline on 5-HT turnover is closely correlated with the drug’s inhibitory action on METH-induced hyperlocomotion, evaluated by ANOVA analysis (Kitanaka et al. 2005a). This fi nding suggests that the improvement of METH-induced abnormal 5-HT turnover in the striatal region by clorgyline treatment may play a role in the suppression of METH-induced increase in motor activity. Since selegiline had no effect on 5-HT turnover in vivo, METH-induced hyperlocomotion and 5-HT turn- over were not affected by selegiline pretreatment (Kitanaka et al. 2005a; Table 1). Clorgyline action on METH-induced hyperlo- comotion in mice (Kitanaka et al. 2005a) appears paradoxical, because clorgyline and METH were assumed to inhibit MAO-A activity additively, presumably resulting in enhanced METH toxicity (i.e. hypermotility) with clorgyline pretreatment. Drug Target Insights 2006: 122 Kitanaka et al Ta bl e 1. E ffe ct s of M A O in hi bi to rs o n be ha vi or o f n aï ve a nd M E T H ( or d -a m ph et am in e) -c ha lle ng ed r od en ts . M ea su re m en t M A O I S pe ci es , D os e an d In je ct io n S ch ed ul e E ff ec ta R ef er en ce N aï ve Lo co m ot io n C lo rg yl in e R at , 4 m g/ kg , i p x 1 d N C S eg al e t a l. 19 92 C lo rg yl in e M ou se , 1 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d or 5 d N C K ita na ka e t a l. 20 05 a S el eg ili ne R at , 0 .2 5 m g/ kg , s c x 42 d N C Ti m ár e t a l. 19 86 S el eg ili ne R at , 1 –2 0 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d N C Ti m ár e t a l. 19 96 S el eg ili ne R at , 1 0 m g/ kg , i p x 1 d In cr ea se O ku da e t a l. 19 92 S el eg ili ne R at , 1 0 m g/ kg , i p x 1 d In cr ea se T he m an n et a l. 20 02 S el eg ili ne M ou se , 0 .3 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d or 5 d N C K ita na ka e t a l. 20 05 a P ar gy lin e R at , 1 0 m g/ kg , s c x 24 d In cr ea se B ar be liv ie n et a l. 20 01 S te re ot yp y S el eg ili ne R at , 1 –1 0 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d N D Ti m ár e t a l. 19 96 S el eg ili ne R at , 2 0 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d In cr ea se Ti m ár e t a l. 19 96 B eh av io ra l s en si tiz at io n C lo rg yl in e M ou se , 1 m g/ kg , s c x 5 d N D K ita na ka e t a l. 20 05 b S el eg ili ne R at , 1 0 m g/ kg , i p x 8 d In cr ea se T he m an n et a l. 20 02 C P P in de x C lo rg yl in e M ou se , 0 .1 –1 0 m g/ kg , s c x 6 d In cr ea se K ita na ka e t a l. 20 06 S el eg ili ne R at , 1 –2 0 m g/ kg , s c x 4 d N D Ti m ár e t a l. 19 96 S el eg ili ne M ou se , 1 0 an d 25 m g/ kg , i p x 5 d In cr ea se W u an d Z hu 1 99 9 # of C A R S el eg ili ne R at , 1 –2 0 m g/ kg , s c x 5 d N D Ti m ár e t a l. 19 96 D S E b S el eg ili ne R at , 1 0– 30 m g/ kg , i p x 1 In cr ea se Ya sa r et a l. 19 93 A fte r M E T H ( or d -A m ph et am in e) c ha lle ng e H yp er lo co m ot io n C lo rg yl in e R at , 4 m g/ kg , i p x 1 d D ec re as e S eg al e t a l. 19 92 C lo rg yl in e M ou se , 1 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d or 5 d D ec re as e K ita na ka e t a l. 20 05 a, b S el eg ili ne M ou se , 0 .3 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d or 5 d N C K ita na ka e t a l. 20 05 a P ar gy lin e M ou se , 5 0 m g/ kg , i p x 1 d N C Le w e t a l. 19 71 S te re ot yp y C lo rg yl in e R at , 4 m g/ kg , i p x 1 d In cr ea se S eg al e t a l. 19 92 C lo rg yl in e R at , 0 .1 –1 0 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d N C Ta ts ut a et a l. 20 05 C lo rg yl in e M ou se , 0 .1 n ot 1 –1 0 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d D ec re as e Ta ts ut a et a l. 20 05 S el eg ili ne R at , 0 .2 5– 5 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d D ec re as e Ti m ár e t a l. 19 93 S el eg ili ne M ou se , 0 .1 , 1 a nd 1 0 m g/ kg , s c x 1 d N C Ta ts ut a et a l. 20 05 B eh av io ra l s en si tiz at io n C lo rg yl in e M ou se , 1 m g/ kg , s c x 5 d D ec re as e K ita na ka e t a l. 20 05 b C P P in de x C lo rg yl in e M ou se , 0 .1 –1 0 m g/ kg , s c x 6 d N C K ita na ka e t a l. 20 06 D S E b S el eg ili ne R at , 3 a nd 5 .6 m g/ kg , i p x 1 In cr ea se Ya sa r et a l. 19 93 M or ta lit y S el eg ili ne M ou se , 2 m g/ kg , s c, x 1 3 d N C G ra si ng e t a l. 20 01 S el eg ili ne M ou se , 0 .0 2 an d 0. 2 m g/ kg , s c, x 1 3 d D ec re as e G ra si ng e t a l. 20 01 T hi s ta bl e co m pa re s th e pu bl is he d ef fe ct s of M A O in hi bi to rs ( M A O I) o n na ïv e an d M E T H -t re at ed m ic e. C A R : c on di tio ne d av oi da nc e re sp on se s; C P P : c on di tio ne d pl ac e pr ef er en ce ; D S E : d is cr im in at iv e st im ul us e ffe ct ; N C : n o ch an ge ; N D : n ot d et ec te d; ip : i nt ra pe rit on ea l i nj ec tio n; s c: s ub cu ta ne ou s in je ct io n. “ S el eg ili ne ” m ea ns “ l-i so m er o f s el eg ili ne ” in th is ta bl e. a C om pa ris on b et w ee n M A O I- a nd v eh ic le -p re tr ea te d su bj ec ts . b M ic e w er e us ed a fte r th ey w er e tr ai ne d un de r a 5- re sp on se , fi x ed r at io s ch ed ul e of s tim ul us -s ho ck te rm in at io n or a 1 0- re sp on se , fi x ed r at io s ch ed ul e of fo od p re se nt at io n to d is cr im in at e be tw ee n d- am ph et am in e (1 m g/ kg ) an d sa lin e in a tw o- le ve r, co nd iti on in g pr oc ed ur e. Drug Target Insights 2006: 1 23 METH Action and Monoamine Turnover Indeed, for apparent dopamine turnover, an addi- tive inhibition of the ratio of 3, 4-dihydroxyhen- ylacetic acid (DOPAC), a metabolite of dopamine, to dopamine by single METH administration after clorgyline pretreatment was observed in the regions of the striatum and nucleus accumbens in mice (Kitanaka et al. 2005a). In light of these fi ndings, why did the 5-HT content selectively decrease in the regions of the striatum and nucleus accumbens in mice after a relatively moderate dose of METH (1 mg/kg)? A depletion effect similar to this is often interpreted as evidence that the neurotoxic dosage of METH induces neurodegeneration in the terminals of monoaminergic neurons. In the rat brain striatum, neurotoxic METH destroys the terminal arbors of fi ne 5-HTergic axons that arise from the dorsal raphe nucleus, resulting in the acute depletion of 5-HT from the axons (Axt and Molliver, 1991; Brown and Molliver, 2000). Similar neurodegen- eration is observed in the dopaminergic axons of rats (Ricaurte et al. 1982, 1984; Xu et al. 2005), with a signifi cant decrease in the striatal dopamine content (Broening et al. 2005). Neurotoxic dosages of METH in mice (four injections of 15 mg/kg METH every 2 h or a single administration with 30 mg/kg) have been shown to produce a signifi - cant decrease in the striatal contents of dopamine and 5-HT (Fumagalli et al. 1998), similar to the observations in rats. Unfortunately, the possible neurodegenerative effects of METH at a moderate dose (1 mg/kg) on the striatal neuronal system in mice has not yet been studied. Provided that monoaminergic axons in the striatum express properties that determine which are relatively vulnerable to METH at even moderate doses, there exists an obvious difference between dopamine and 5-HT fi bers which result in the METH vulnerability. Since there is evidence of 10-30-fold higher content of dopamine than 5-HT in the mouse striatum (Kitanaka et al. 2003, 2005a, 2006), the density of dopamine-containing fi bers might be higher than that of 5-HT-containing fi bers, provided that the percentages of synapses occupied by dopamine and 5-HT present in the brain are identical (Krieger, 1983). It is possible that the low density of striatal 5-HT fi bers can be damaged more seriously than the dopamine fi bers by METH at moderate doses. Striatal 5-HT neurotransmission is suggested to play a crucial role in the regulation of METH-induced hyperlocomotion in mice (Kitanaka et al. 2005a). Therefore, it is possible that MAO-A inhibition increases the content of 5-HT, resulting in a signifi cant improvement in 5-HT neurotransmission which protects against METH-induced hyperlocomotion via the activation of 5-HT turnover. Several investigations have shown that the development of sensitization to the locomotor stimulating effect of METH in rodents can be blocked effectively by pharmacological agents such as a protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide, nitric oxide synthase inhibitors NG-nitro-L-arginine and 7-nitroindazole, and a benzodiazepine clonaz- epam administered prior to, or simultaneously with METH (1 mg/kg once per day for 5–10 consecutive days or 2 mg/kg once per day, 5 times at intervals of 3–4 days) (Shimosato and Saito, 1993; Ohno and Watanabe, 1995; Itzhak, 1997; Ito et al. 2000). Unfortunately, a protocol involving agent pretreat- ment or co-treatment is not easily applied to human METH addictions. To overcome this, we applied a modifi ed treatment protocol to mice which have already acquired behavioral sensitization to METH (1 mg/kg, i.p. once per day for 5 consecutive days). During the drug-free period (4 days) after the repeated METH administration, the mice were treated with 1 mg/kg of clorgyline once per day. This treatment successfully blocked the expression of behavioral sensitization to METH (Table 1; Kitanaka et al. 2005b). It is suggested that behavioral sensitization may have some common properties with learning and memory (Lidow et al. 1998); therefore, the cerebral cortex is one region of interest. After the METH challenge, signifi cantly enhanced dopa- mine metabolism (i.e. increased overall dopamine turnover, the ratio of homovanillic acid (HVA) to dopamine) was observed in the cerebral cortex of METH-sensitized mice compared with non-sensi- tized animals (Kitanaka et al. 2005b). In partic- ular, cerebral cortical dopamine metabolism increased approximately 3-fold in sensitized mice treated with repeated clorgyline compared with mice without clorgyline treatment. It is likely that brain dopamine in mice, which is not metabolized by MAO-A after repeated clorgyline treatment (Kitanaka et al. 2005a) was, in turn, exposed to catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), another dopamine metabolizing enzyme. In the cerebral cortex, dopamine metabolism is more sensitive to COMT than that in the striatum or hypothal- amus (Gogos et al. 1998), or cerebral cortical MAO activity is lower than in other regions. Drug Target Insights 2006: 124 Kitanaka et al Therefore, dopamine released in the cerebral cortex by a single METH challenge was metabo- lized largely by COMT after clorgyline treatment, resulting in inhibition of the expression of behav- ioral sensitization to METH. It is of interest to note the possible relationship between the activ- ities of MAO-A and COMT, infl uenced by each other, in the brain; however, to our knowledge, there is no direct evidence of molecular interac- tion between the two enzymes. Clorgyline exhibits no behavioral sensitization per se (Table 1). In rats, Segal et al. (1992) reported that clorgy- line (4 mg/kg) pretreatment signifi cantly reduced locomotion (increased crossover plus rearing) during the fi rst 1-h interval after the amphetamine challenge (0.25 and 2.5 mg/kg) in parallel with a significant increase in the total period of the observed stereotypy (Table 1). This effect is inter- preted by experimental evidence that MAO-A inhibition by clorgyline increases the extracellular dopamine concentration in the nucleus accumbens, assessed by in vivo microdialysis. In contrast, no change in the intensity of METH (10 mg/kg)- induced stereotypy was observed in rats pretreated with clorgyline (0.1–10 mg) (Table 1; Tatsuta et al. 2005). In mice, the lowest dose of clorgyline tested (0.1 mg/kg) signifi cantly increased and decreased hyperlocomotion and stereotypy, respec- tively, during the fi rst 20-min interval at which the mice showed a submaximal intensity of stereotypy (Tatsuta et al. 2005). However, clorgyline pretreat- ment (1 and 10 mg/kg) did not signifi cantly alter horizontal hyperlocomotion in mice during the fi rst 20-min interval after METH challenge (10 mg/kg) compared with the mice pretreated with vehicle (saline). The molecular action of the clorgyline is likely to be independent of MAO-A because (1) change in the intensity of METH-induced stereo- typy was not correlated with the change in the striatal monoamine turnover during the fi rst 20-min interval (Tatsuta et al. 2006) and, (2) the clorgyline (0.1 mg/kg)-induced shift in the METH response was not correlated with the degree of MAO-A inhibition estimated by apparent monoamine turn- over (Tatsuta et al. 2005). Possible interactions of clorgyline with sigma receptors (Itzhak and Kassim, 1990; Itzhak et al. 1991), imidazoline I2 receptors (Alemany et al. 1995; MacInnes and Duty, 2004), and/or MAO inhibitor-displaceable quinpirole binding sites (Culver and Szechtman, 2003) should not be neglected to understand the mode of action of clorgyline, since these binding sites are involved in psychiatric disorders (Eglen et al. 1998; Bermack and Debonnel, 2005). Clorgyline displays high affi nity for both MAO-A and sigma receptors with relatively identical affi nities (IC50 value of 10 nM and 3 nM, respectively) (Egashira et al. 1987; Itzhak et al. 1991), and clorgyline-sensitive sigma receptors are suggested to coexist with a subcel- lular fraction with MAO activity (Itzhak et al. 1991). Therefore, the doses of clorgyline used in the in vivo studies appear to fully activate the sigma receptors. For the METH-induced rewarding property, clorgyline pretreatment (0.1–10 mg/kg) failed to block the METH (0.5 mg/kg)-induced increase in the conditioned place preference (CPP) index in mice (Table 1; Kitanaka et al. 2006). The mono- amine turnover index (ratios of DOPAC to dopa- mine, HVA to dopamine, and 5-HIAA to 5-HT) in the striatum and nucleus accumbens was not different between mice conditioned with and without METH, indicating that the inhibitory effect of various doses of clorgyline on MAO activity was independent of METH (0.5 mg/kg) action. It should be noted that the saline/saline pairing groups pretreated with clorgyline at a dose of 1 mg/kg showed an increased CPP index, similar to the result from METH/saline pairing group (Kitanaka et al. 2006). This might mean that the mice in the saline/saline pairing group entered and stayed in each CPP compartment independent of the given visual and texture cues on the testing day after the pretreatment with 1 mg/kg clorgyline. Modifi cation of METH Action by Selegiline Selegiline in appropriate doses exhibits amphet- amine-like properties per se, such as increased motor activity, rewarding effect, and behavioral sensitization (Table 1), since selegiline is metabo- lized in part to l-METH and l-amphetamine (Reyn- olds et al. 1978; Elsworth et al. 1982; Lajtha et al. 1996; Gerlach et al. 1996; Baker et al. 1999). Because of the potential of the selegiline metabo- lites for abuse liability, it is likely that selegiline could enhance METH action when given in combi- nation. Indeed, selegiline (20 mg/kg) induced the stereotyped head movement in rats, while the stereotypy was not observed when the rats were administered with 1–10 mg/kg of selegiline (Table 1; Timár et al. 1996). Selegiline in doses of Drug Target Insights 2006: 1 25 METH Action and Monoamine Turnover 1–20 mg/kg had no effect on locomotion, CPP index, nor the number of conditioned avoidance responses (Timár et al. 1996). Increased discriminative stimulus effects were reported using 3 and 5.6 mg/kg of selegiline in combination with d-amphetamine (1 mg/kg) compared with d-amphetamine alone in mice which have been trained under a 5-response, fi xed ratio schedule of stimulus-shock termination or a 10-response, fi xed ratio schedule of food presenta- tion to discriminate between d-amphetamine (1 mg/kg) and saline in a two-lever, conditioning procedure (Table 1; Yasar et al. 1993). Also, high doses of selegiline (17–30 mg/kg) produced full generalization to d-amphetamine (Yasar et al. 1993). These observations as well as those of Timár et al. (1996) suggest that the amphetamine-like properties can be observed when selegiline l-isomer) in high doses is treated. Small doses of selegiline fail to induce any amphetamine-like hyperlocomotion (Timár et al. 1986). Timár et al. (1993) reported that selegiline at small doses can decrease amphetamine-induced stereotypy in rats, without change in the index of dopamine turnover in the olfactory tubercle, compared with saline-pretreated animals. They suggest that the uptake of amphetamine might be reduced by pretreatment with selegiline, resulting in the decrease of stereotyped behavior; however, the same selegiline treatment protocol as that reported by Timár et al. (1993) enhances striatal dopamine turnover (Zsilla et al. 1982). Therefore, the relationship between selegiline action on amphetamine-induced stereotypy and MAO-B activity needs to be clarifi ed by further studies. Only one report shows the effect of selegiline on the lethal action of METH. Repeated administra- tion with lower doses of selegiline (0.02 and 0.2 mg/kg) to mice treated with toxic METH dosage (10 mg/kg # 4 within one day, two-hour intervals) blocked the METH-induced increase in mortality (Table 1; Grasing et al. 2001). This selegiline effect was not detected at 2 mg/kg, suggesting that the mode of action is MAO-B independent. Regarding this point, Lamensdorf et al. (1999) reported that increased DAT expression was observed after chronic (21 days) treatment with selegiline (0.25 mg/kg). This might explain the results of Timár et al. (1993) and of Grasing et al. (2001), since the increased DAT expression induces increased extracellular dopamine clear- ance in the brain. Molecular mechanism(s) of the enhanced DAT expression by selegiline are unclear, although selegiline has been shown to alter the expression of mRNA for a variety of proteins including tyrosine hydroxylase and L- aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (Vrana et al. 1992; Li et al. 1992). In mice, stereotypy can be induced by METH at doses of 10 mg/kg by a single injection (Tatsuta et al. 2005). When administered of mice with 20 mg/kg METH, the mice show self-injurious behavior (Mori et al. 2004). Tatsuta et al. (2005) reported that a wide range of selegiline (0.1–10 mg/kg) showed no enhancement of METH-induced stereotyped behavior nor a shift of the abnormal behavior from stereotypy to self-injurious behavior in mice, suggesting that 10 mg/kg of selegiline could not have an amphetamine (10 mg/kg)-like property after the systemic injection and following metabolism. Modifi cation of METH Action by Non-selective MAO Inhibitors Lew et al. (1971) reported that pretreatment of mice with 50 mg/kg of pargyline, a non-selective MAO inhibitor, had no effect on d-amphetamine- induced hyperlocomotion in mice (Table 1). However, treatment of rats with 10 mg/kg of pargyline increases locomotor activity per se (Table 1; Barbelivien et al. 2001); this effect might be interpreted by evidence that MAO-A inhibition by clorgyline (and probably by pargyline at high doses) increases extracellular dopamine concen- tration in the nucleus accumbens (Segal et al. 1992). The possible effect of metabolites of pargy- line (benzylamine, N-methylbenzylamine, and N-propargylbenzylamine) on spontaneous loco- motion in rodents can not be ruled out, but no reports have not been published. Aubin et al. (2004) reported the behavioral profi le of a newly developed, mixed-reversible MAO-A/B inhibitor, SL25.1131, in mice. The agent can improve decreased dopaminergic tone in the striatum by inhibiting MAO-A and –B and locomotion disrupted by treatment with MPTP (1-methyl-4-pheny l–1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine). Mixed MAO inhibitors possess attractive potential properties for the treatment of METH abuse, since selective, irreversible MAO inhibitors can block METH (or d-amphetamine)-induced abnormal behavior in rodents (Table 1), although the mech- anisms of action are complex. Drug Target Insights 2006: 126 Kitanaka et al Conclusions METH-induced motor activity, stereotypy, and sensitization are closely associated with mono- aminergic transmission. Modifi cation of MAO activity by MAO inhibitors can infl uence METH action. Although some pre-clinical studies cited in this review suggest the feasibility of MAO inhibitors for the treatment of METH abuse, careful attention should be directed to the potential risk similar to that reported in the treatment of depres- sive disorder. Based on the current research on the mechanisms of MAO inhibitors, they exhibit a putative ‘novel’ mode of action which is indepen- dent of MAO and might infl uence monoaminergic- related behavior, as well as ‘classical’ MAO inhibition. For pre-clinical studies of the exact mode of action of MAO inhibitors and the effects of the MAO inhibitors on METH-induced abnormal behavior, METH-induced abnormal behavior in rodents may serve as an appropriate animal model for METH abuse in humans. Acknowledgments Research by one of the authors (NK) described herein was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Researchers, Hyogo College of Medicine. We thank anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on an earlier version of the manu- script. References Abekawa, T., Ohmori, T. and Koyama, T. 1995. Effects of nitric oxide (NO) synthesis inhibition on the development of supersensitivity to stereo- typy and locomotion stimulating effects of methamphetamine. Brain Res., 679:200–4. Alemany, R., Olemos, G. and García-Sevilla, J.A. 1995. The effects of phenelzine and other monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants on brain and liver I2 imidazoline-preferring receptors. Br. J. Phar- macol., 114:837–45. Aubin, N. et al. 2004. SL25.1131 [3(S), 3a(S)-3-Methoxymethyl-7-[4,4,4- t r i f l u o r o b u t o x y ] - 3 , 3 a , 4 , 5 - t e t r a h y d r o - 1 , 3 - o x a z o l o [ 3 , 4 - a ] quinolin-1-one], a new, reversible, and mixed inhibitor of monoamine oxidase-A and monoamine oxidase-B: biochemical and behavioral profi le. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 310:1171–82. Axt, K.J. and Molliver, M.E. 1991. Immunocytochemical evidence for methamphetamine-induced serotonergic axon loss in the rat brain. Synapse, 9:302–13. Baker, G.B. et al. 1999. Metabolism of monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Cell Mol. Neurobiol., 19:411–26. Barbelivien, A. et al. 2001. Inhibition of MAO-A activity enhances behav- ioural activity of rats assessed using water maze and open arena tasks. Pharmacol. Toxicol., 88:304–12. Baumann, M.H. et al. 2002. Preclinical evaluation of GBR 12909 decano- ate as a long-acting medication for methamphetamine dependence. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 965:92–18. Bermack, J.E. and Debonnel, G. 2005. The role of sigma receptors in de- pression. J. Pharmacol. Sci., 97:317–36. Broening, H.W., Morford, L.L. and Vorhees, C.V. 2005. Interactions of dopamine D1 and D2 receptor antagonists with D-methamphetamine- induced hyperthermia and striatal dopamine and serotonin reductions. Synapse, 56:84–93. Brown, P. and Molliver, M.E. 2002. Dual serotonin (5-HT) projections to the nucleus accumbens core and shell: relation of the 5-HT transporter to amphetamine-induced neurotoxicity. J. Neurosci., 20:1952–63. Brown, J.M. et al. 2002. A single methamphetamine administration rapidly decreases vesicular dopamine uptake. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 302:497–501. Budygin, E.A. et al. 2004. Dissociation of rewarding and dopamine trans- porter-mediated properties of amphetamine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 101:7781–6. Cadet, J.L., Jayanthi, S. and Deng, X. 2005. Methamphetamine-induced neuronal apoptosis involves the activation of multiple death pathways. review. Neurotoxicity Res., 8:199–206. Culver, K.E. and Szechtman, H. 2003. Clorgyline-induced switch from locomotion to mouthing in sensitization to the dopamine D2/D3 ago- nist quinpirole in rats: role of sigma and imidazoline I2 receptors. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 167:211–8. Davidson, C. et al. 2001. Methamphetamine neurotoxicity: necrotic and apoptotic mechanisms and relevance to human abuse and treatment. Brain Res. Rev., 36:1–22. De Vries, M. and Odink, J. 1991. Simultaneous measurement of serotonin and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid in rat brain using a liquid chromato- graphic method with electrochemical detection. J. Chromatogr, 564:250–7. Egashira, T., Yamamoto, T. and Yamanaka, Y. 1987. Effects of d-metham- phetamine on monkey brain monoamine oxidase, in vivo and in vitro. Jpn. J. Pharmacol., 45:79–88. Eglen, R.M. et al. 1998. ‘Seeing through a glass darkly’: casting light on imidazoline ‘I’ sites. Trends Pharmacol. Sci., 19:381–90. Ellinwood, E.H., Jr. and Kilbey, M.M. 1977. Chronic stimulant intoxication models of psychosis. In Hanin I and Usdin E, eds. Animal models in psychiatry and neurology. New York: Pergamon Press Ltd. p 61–74. Elsworth, J.D. et al. 1982. The contribution of amphetamine metabolites of (-)-deprenyl to its antiparkinsonian properties. J. Neural. Transm., 54:105–10. Everitt, B.J. and Robbins, T.W. 2005. Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nature Neuro- sci., 8:1481–9. Feinberg, S.S. 2004. Combining stimulants with monoamine oxidase in- hibitors: a review of use and one possible additional indication. J. Clin. Psychiatry, 65:1520–4. Felner, A.E. and Waldmeier, P.C. 1979. Cumulative effects of irreversible MAO inhibitors in vivo. Biochem. Pharmacol., 28:995–1002. Finberg, J.P. and Youdim, M.B. 1983. Selective MAO A and B inhibitors: their mechanism of action and pharmacology. Neuropharmacology, 22:441–6. Fumagalli, F. et al. 1998. Role of dopamine transporter in methamphetamine- induced neurotoxicity: evidence from mice lacking the transporter. J. Neurosci., 18:4861–9. Gerlach, M., Youdim, M.B.H. and Riederer, P. 1996. Pharmacology of selegiline. Neurology, 47:S137–S145. Giros, B. et al. 1996. Hyperlocomotion and indifference to cocaine and amphetamine in mice lacking the dopamine transporter. Nature, 379:606–12. Gogos, J.A. et al. 1998. Catechol-O-methyltransferase-defi cient mice ex- hibit sexually dimorphic changes in catecholamine levels and behav- ior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 95:9991–6. Gorelick, D.A., Gardner, E.L. and Xi, Z-X. 2004. Agents in development for the management of cocaine abuse. Drugs, 64:1547–73. Grasing, K, et al. 2001. Biphasic effects of selegiline on striatal dopamine: lack of effect on methamphetamine-induced dopamine depletion. Neurochem. Res., 26:65–74. Groves, P.M. and Rebec, G.V. 1976. Biochemistry and behavior: some central actions of amphetamine and antipsychotic drugs. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 27:91–127. Drug Target Insights 2006: 1 27 METH Action and Monoamine Turnover Halladay, A.K. et al. 2003. Relationship between methamphetamine-induced dopamine release, hyperthermia, self-injurious behaviour and long term dopamine depletion in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice. Pharmacol. Toxicol., 93:33–41. Ito, K. et al. 2000. The role of benzodiazepine receptors in the acquisition and expression of behavioral sensitization to methamphetamine. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 65:705–10. Itzhak, Y. 1997. Modulation of cocaine- and methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization by inhibition of brain nitric oxide synthase. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 282:521–7. Itzhak, Y. and Ali, S.F. 2002. Behavioral consequences of methamphetamine- induced neurotoxicity in mice: relevance to the psychopathology of methamphetamine addiction. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 965:127–35. Itzhak, Y. and Kassim, C.O. 1990. Clorgyline displays high affi nity for sigma binding sites in C57BL/6 mouse brain. Eur. J. Pharmacol., 176:107–8. Itzhak, Y. et al. 1991. Binding of sigma-ligands to C57BL/6 mouse brain membranes: effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors and subcellular distribution studies suggest the existence of sigma-receptor subtypes. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 257:141–8. Johnston, J.P. 1968. Some observations upon a new inhibitor of monoamine oxidase in brain tissue. Biochem. Pharmacol., 17:1285–97. Jones, S.R. et al. 1998. Mechanisms of amphetamine action revealed in mice lacking the dopamine transporter. J. Neurosci., 18:1979–86. Justinova, Z, et al. 2003. Involvement of adenosine A1 and A2 receptors in the adenosinergic modulation of the discriminative-stimulus effects of cocaine and methamphetamine in rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 307:977–86. Kantak, K.M. 2003. Vaccines against drugs of abuse: a viable treatment option? Drugs, 63:341–52. Khoshbouei, H. et al. 1993. Amphetamine-induced dopamine effl ux: a voltage-sensitive and intracellular Na+-dependent mechanism. J. Biol. Chem., 278:12070–7. Kita, T., Wagner, G.C. and Nakashima, T. 2003. Current research on meth- amphetamine-induced neurotoxicity: animal models of monoamine disruption. J. Pharmacol. Sci., 92:178–95. Kitanaka, N., Kitanaka, J. and Takemura, M. 2003. Behavioral sensitization and alteration in monoamine metabolism in mice after single versus repeated methamphetamine administration. Eur. J. Pharmacol., 474:63–70. Kitanaka, N., Kitanaka, J. and Takemura, M. 2005a. Inhibition of metham- phetamine-induced hyperlocomotion in mice by clorgyline, a mono- amine oxidase-A inhibitor, through alteration of the 5-hydroxytryp- tamine turnover. Neuroscience, 130:295–308. Kitanaka, N., Kitanaka, J. and Takemura, M. 2005b. Repeated clorgyline treatment inhibits methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization in mice. Neurochem. Res., 30:445–51. Kitanaka, N. et al. 2006. Methamphetamine reward in mice as assessed by conditioned place preference test with Supermex® sensors: effects of subchronic clorgyline pretreatment. Neurochem. Res., 31:805–813. Knoll, J. et al. 1965. Phenylisopropylmethylpropinylamine (E-250): a new spectrum psychic energizer. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn Ther., 155:154–64. Krieger, D.T. 1983. Brain peptides: what, where, and why? Science, 222:975–85. Kuczenski, R. et al. 1995. Hippocampus norepinephrine, caudate dopamine and serotonin, and behavioral responses to the stereoisomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine. J. Neurosci., 15:1308–17. Lajtha, A. et al. 1996. Metabolism of (-)-deprenyl and PF-(-)-deprenyl in brain after central and peripheral administration. Neurochem. Res., 21:1155–60. Lamensdorf, I. et al. 1999. Effect of low-dose treatment with selegiline on dopamine transporter (DAT) expression and amphetamine-induced dopamine release in vivo. Br. J. Pharmacol., 126:997–1002. Lew, C., Iversen, S.D. and Iversen, L.L. 1971. Effects of imipramine, de- sipramine and monoamine oxidase inhibitors on the metabolism and psychomotor stimulant actions of d-amphetamine in mice. Eur. J. Pharmacol., 14:351–9. Li, X-M. et al. 1992. Specifi c irreversible monoamine oxidase B inhibitors stimulate gene expression of aromatic amino acid decarboxylase in PC12 cells. J. Neurochem., 59:2324–7. Lidow, M.S., Williams, G.V. and Goldman-Rakic, P.S. 1998: The cerebral cortex: a case for common site of action of antipsychotics. Trends Pharmacol. Sci., 19:136–40. MacInnes, N. and Duty, S. 2004. Locomotor effects of imidazoline I2-site- specifi c ligands and monoamine oxidase inhibitors in rats with a unilateral 6-hydroxydopamine lesion of the nigrostriatal pathway. Br. J. Pharmacol., 143:952–9. Mantle, T.J. Tipton, K.F. and Garrett, N.J. 1976. Inhibition of monoamine oxidase by amphetamine and related compounds. Biochem. Pharmacol., 25:2073–7. Miller, H.H., Shore, P.A. and Clarke, D.E. 1980. In vivo monoamine oxidase inhibition by d-amphetamine. Biochem. Pharmacol., 29:1347–54. Mori, T. et al. 2004. Effects of dopamine- and serotonin-related compounds on methamphetamine-induced self-injurious behavior in mice. J. Pharmacol. Sci., 96:459–64. Murray, J.B. 1998. Psychophysiological aspects of amphetamine-metham- phetamine abuse. J. Physiol., 132:227–37. Murphy, D.L. 1978. Substrate-selective monoamine oxidases: inhibitor, tissue, species and functional differences. Biochem. Pharmacol., 27:1889–93. National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2004. NIDA InfoFacts: methamphetamine. Accessed 3 August 2006. URL: http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/ methamphetamine.html National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 2005. The NSDUH Report- Methamphetamine use, abuse, and dependence: 2002, 2003, and 2004. Accessed 14 July 2006. URL: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/meth/ meth.pdf Nishikawa, T. et al. 1983. Behavioral sensitization and relative hyperrespon- siveness of striatal and limbic dopaminergic neurons after repeated methamphetamine treatment. Eur. J. Pharmacol., 88:195–203. Ohno, M. and Watanabe, S. 1995. Nitric oxide synthase inhibitors block b e h a v i o r a l s e n s i t i z a t i o n t o m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e i n m i c e . Eur. J. Pharmacol., 275:39–44. Okabe, C. and Murphy, N.P. 2004. Short-term effects of the nociceptin receptor antagonist Compound B on the development of metham- phetamine sensitization in mice: a behavioral and c-fos expression mapping study. Brain Res., 1017:1–12. Okuda, C., Segal, D.S. and Kuczenski, R. 1992. Deprenyl alters behavior and caudate dopamine through an amphetamine-like action. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 43:1075–80. Pletscher, A. 1991. The discovery of antidepressants: a winding path. Ex- perientia, 47:4–8. Poshyachinda, V. 1993. Drug injecting and HIV infection among the popu- lation of drug abusers in Asia. Bull. Narc., 45:77–90. Post, R.M. 1980. Intermittent versus continuous stimulation: effect of time interval on the development of sensitization. Life Sci., 26:1275–82. Ranaldi, R. and Poeggel, K. 2002. Baclofen decreases methamphetamine self-administration in rats. Neuroreport, 13:1107–10. Randrup, A. and Munkvad, I. 1967. Stereotyped activities produced by amphetamine in several animal species and man. Psychopharmaco- logia (Berl.), 11:300–10. Reynolds, G.P. et al. 1978. Deprenyl is metabolized to methamphetamine and amphetamine in man. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 6:542–4. Ricaurte, G.A. et al. 1982. Dopamine nerve terminal degeneration produced high doses of methylamphetamine in the rat brain. Brain Res., 235:93–103. Ricaurte, G.A., Seiden, L.S. and Schuster, C.R. 1984. Further evidence that amphetamines produce long-lasting dopamine neurochemical defi cits by destroying dopamine nerve terminals. Brain Res., 303:359–364. Sinha, B.K. 1987. Activation of hydrazine derivatives to free radicals in the perfused rat liver: a spin-trapping study. Biochim. Biophys. Acta., 924:261–9. Robinson, T.E. and Becker, J.B. 1986. Enduring changes in brain and be- havior produced by chronic amphetamine administration: a review and evaluation of animal model of amphetamine psychosis. Brain Res. Rev., 11:157–98. Drug Target Insights 2006: 128 Kitanaka et al Scearce-Levie, K. et al. 1999. 5-HT receptor knockout mice: pharmacolo- gical tools or models of psychiatric disorders. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 868:701–15. Segal, D.S., Kuczenski, R. and Okuda, C. 1992. Clorgyline-induced increa- ses in presynaptic DA: changes in the behavioral and neurochemical effects of amphetamine using in vivo microdialysis. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 42:421–9. Seiden, L.S., Sabol, K.E. and Ricaurte, G.A. 1993. Amphetamine: effects on catecholamine systems and behavior. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol., 32:639–77. Self, D.W. and Nestler, E.J. 1995. Molecular mechanisms of drug reinfor- cement and addiction. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 18:463–95. Shih, J.C., Chen, K. and Ridd, M.J. 1999. Monoamine oxidase: from genes to behavior. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 22:197–217. Shimosato, K. and Saito, T. 1993. Suppressive effect of cycloheximide on behavioral sensitization to methamphetamine in mice. Eur. J. Phar- macol., 234:67–75. Sulzer, D. et al. 1995. Amphetamine redistributes dopamine from synaptic vesicles to the sytosol and promotes reverse transport. J. Neurosci., 15:4102–8. Swett, L.R. et al. 1963. Structure-activity relations in the pargyline series. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 107:891–8. Tatsuta, T. et al. 2005. Effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors on meth- amphetamine-induced stereotypy in mice and rats. Neurochem. Res., 30:1377–85. Tatsuta, T. et al. 2006. Lobeline attenuates methamphetamine-induced stereotypy in adolescent mice. Neurochem. Res., in press. Themann, C. et al. 2002. Effect of repeated treatment with high doses of selegiline on behaviour, striatal dopaminergic transmission and ty- rosine hydroxylase mRNA levels. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch. Pharmacol., 365:22–8. Timár, J. Knoll, B. and Knoll, J. 1986. Long-term administration of (-)de- prenyl (selegiline), a compound which facilitates dopaminergic tone in the brain, leaves the sensitivity of dopamine receptors to apomor- phine unchanged. Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn, 284:255–66. Timár, J. et al. 1993. Further proof that (-)deprenyl fails to facilitate mesolimbic dopaminergic activity. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 46:709–14. Timár, J. et al. 1996. Differences in some behavioural effects of deprenyl and amphetamine enantiomers in rats. Physiol. Behav., 60:581–7. Torres, I.L.S et al. 2002. Effects of chronic restraint stress on feeding be- havior and on monoamine levels in different brain structures in rats. Neurochem. Res., 27:519–25. Ugarte, Y.V. et al. 2003. Methamphetamine rapidly decreases mouse ve- sicular dopamine uptake: role of hyperthermia and dopamine D2 receptors. Eur. J. Pharmacol., 472:165-71. Ujike, H. and Sato, M. 2004. Clinical features of sensitization to metham- phetamine observed in patients with methamphetamine dependence and psychosis. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1025:279–87. Vrana, S.L., Azzaro, A.J. and Vrana, K.E. 1992. Chronic selegiline adminis- tration transiently decreases tyrosine hydroxylase activity and mRNA in the rat nigrostriatal pathway. Mol. Pharmacol., 41:839–44. Winchel, R.M. and Stanley, M. 1991. Self-injurious behavior: a review of the behavior and biology of self-mutilation. Am. J. Psychiatry., 148:306–17. Worms, P. et al. 1987. SR 95191, a selective inhibitor of type A monoamine oxidase with dopaminergic properties. I. Psychopharmacological profi le in rodents. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 240:241–50. Wu, W-R. and Zhu, X-Z. 1999. The amphetamine-like reinforcing effect and mechanism of L-deprenyl on conditioned place preference in mice. Eur. J. Pharmacol., 364:1–6. Xu, W., Zhu, J.P.Q. and Angulo, J.A. 2005. Induction of striatal pre- and postsynaptic damage by methamphetamine requires the dopamine receptors. Synapse, 58:110–21. Yasar, S. et al. 1993. Evaluation of the stereoisomers of deprenyl for am- phetamine-like discriminative stimulus effects in rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 265:1–6. Youdim, M.B.H., Edmondson, D. and Tipton, K.F. 2006. The therapeutic potential of monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Nature Rev. Neurosci., 7:295–309. Zaczek, R., Culp, S. and De Souza, E.B. 1991a. Interactions of [3H]amphetamine with rat brain synaptosomes. II. Active transport. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 257:830–5. Zaczek, R. et al. 1991b. Interactions of [3H]amphetamine with rat brain synaptosomes. I. Saturable sequestration. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 257:820–9. Zsilla, G. et al. 1982. The action of (-)deprenyl on monoamine turnover rate in rat brain. Adv. Biochem. Psychopharmacol., 31:211–7. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /JPN /FRA /DEU /PTB /DAN /NLD /ESP /SUO /ITA /NOR /SVE /ENU >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice