SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Opioid dependence found to permanently change brains of rats:
Approximately one-quarter of patients who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain misuse them, with five to 10 percent developing an opioid use disorder or addiction. In a new study, published Jan. 14, 2020 in PNAS, researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine found that opioid dependence produced permanent changes in the brains of rats.
More specifically, researchers reported that dependence on oxycodone, a potent opioid painkiller, led to permanent neuro-adaptations of the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) at the level of the nociceptin system, a brainwide network that modulates transmission of pain. Downregulation or suppression of the nociceptin system in the CeA led to an increase in activation of GABA receptors in rats highly addicted to opioids. The discovery is consistent with previous findings reporting CeA neuroa-daptations after cocaine and alcohol dependence.
When researchers restored nociceptin levels in the CeA, it resulted in normalization of GABAergic transmission and a reduction of the rats' opioid consumption.
"This suggests the nociceptin system may be a promising target for the treatment of opioid use disorder," said senior author Giordano de Guglielmo, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at UC San Diego School of Medicine.
"To reveal the role of nociceptin in the central nucleus of the amygdala, we used a multidisciplinary approach with behavioral models, molecular biology and electrophysiology," said first author Marsida Kallupi, PharmD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry. "That allowed us to conclude that downregulation of this peptide may be partially responsible for excessive opioid addiction-like behaviors."
Marsida Kallupi, Lieselot L. G. Carrette, Jenni Kononoff, Leah C. Solberg Woods, Abraham A. Palmer, Paul Schweitzer, Olivier George, Giordano de Guglielmo. Nociceptin attenuates the escalation of oxycodone self-administration by normalizing CeA–GABA transmission in highly addicted rats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2020; 201915143 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1915143117
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @08:21AM (1 child)
And if I don't look at the paper, I will find the same standard BS.
Amazing. Almost like the logic of the Malleus Maleficarum [wikipedia.org], the Hammer of the Witches, of the witch-hunting craze of the Fifteenth Century. Much like now, if Trump denies he is a impeachable president, well that just is more evidence that he is! On the contrary, should he confess to High Crimes and Misdemeaors, and consorting with demons and Rudi Guliani, well, the gig is up.
So I am going to look in your paper, and your review of the said paper, and if I do not find any, at all, of the standard Bullshit, I am coming for you, AC. Defamation of scientist like this is not without consequences. We will find out where you live, what you do, and why you are such a douche. After that, we may take action, like, stealing all your underwear, or worse, only your left socks! We may sleep with your girlfriend, so you are never sure whether the child is yours. We may fake author scientific papers in your name, papers that will be candidates for the Ignobel Prize. You have no idea who you are messing with, so be more careful with your "BS" accusations. We may accidentally perform a rectal lobotomy on you, and blame Obamacare. You would buy that, wouldn't you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31 2020, @08:44AM
Ok, show me where they were blinded to the treatment. Also what made them decide to split the analysis into low addiction vs high addiction subsets, was this decided before or after starting the study? Also figure out what the sample sizes were for each result, I see it for some but not others. Where is the scatter plot of the relationship between addictivity vs gabaergic transmission they claim exists (vs just arbitrarily comparing groups)?
Then it's typical BS of misinterpreting statistical significance. Let's come up with alternate explanations for a significant difference. The "highly addicted" animals were in more pain after the catheter installation surgery and was maybe even hypersensitive to noise like the tone they played. Ie, the primary outcome measure had nothing to do with addiction at all, or was measuring some combinations of these things.
Took 5 min to see this stuff. How is it so easy? It is the typical waste of time and money animal torture that is 100% standard and institutionalized these days.