Histamine h3 receptor antagonists potentiate methamphetamine self-administration and methamphetamine-induced accumbal dopamine release

ABSTRACT Methamphetamine administration increases brain levels of histamine and neuronal histamine attenuates several of methamphetamine's behavioral effects. The role of different

subtypes of histamine receptors in this negative feedback, however, remains unclear. There is some evidence on possible involvement of histamine H3 receptors in these actions of

methamphetamine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of two histamine H3 receptor antagonists, clobenpropit and thioperamide, on rewarding and neurochemical effects of

methamphetamine utilizing three _in vivo_ methodologies, drug self-administration, drug discrimination, and microdialysis in Sprague–Dawley rats. In rats self-administering methamphetamine

intravenously under a fixed-ratio schedule, presession treatment with thioperamide (1.0–3.0 mg/kg, subcutaneous, s.c.) or clobenpropit (1.0–3.0 mg/kg, s.c.) potentiated the reinforcing

effects of methamphetamine, as indicated by a dose-dependent increase in responding for a low 0.03 mg/kg dose of methamphetamine, that by itself failed to maintain responding above saline

substitution levels, and a decrease in responding for a higher 0.06 mg/kg training dose of methamphetamine. In contrast, neither thioperamide nor clobenpropit treatment increased responding

during saline substitution. In other rats trained to discriminate intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of 1.0 mg/kg methamphetamine from i.p. injection of saline, both thioperamide and

clobenpropit (0.3–3.0 mg/kg, s.c.) dose dependently increased methamphetamine-appropriate responding when administered with a low 0.3 mg/kg i.p. dose of methamphetamine, which by itself

produced predominantly saline-appropriate responding. However, thioperamide and clobenpropit produced only saline-appropriate responding when administered with saline vehicle. Finally,

thioperamide and clobenpropit potentiated methamphetamine-induced elevations in extracellular dopamine levels in the shell of the nucleus accumbens, but did not increase brain dopamine

levels when given alone. These findings point to histamine H3 receptors as a new and important receptor system modulating the reinforcing, subjective, and neurochemical actions of

methamphetamine. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS ROLE OF DOPAMINE D1 RECEPTOR IN THE MODULATION OF MEMORY CONSOLIDATION BY PASSIVE AND SELF-ADMINISTERED HEROIN AND ASSOCIATED

CONDITIONED STIMULI Article Open access 03 August 2023 DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ACUTE AND CHRONIC ANTAGONIST AND AN IRREVERSIBLE ANTAGONIST TREATMENT ON COCAINE SELF-ADMINISTRATION BEHAVIOR

IN RATS Article Open access 24 May 2022 ROBUST AVERSIVE EFFECTS OF TRACE AMINE-ASSOCIATED RECEPTOR 1 ACTIVATION IN MICE Article 13 April 2023 INTRODUCTION Methamphetamine is a highly

abusable psychomotor stimulant with a wide range of behavioral actions that appear to be mediated primarily by stimulation of the dopamine neurotransmitter system (Kuczenski et al, 1995;

Tidey and Bergman, 1998; Munzar and Goldberg, 2000). The behavioral actions of methamphetamine are, however, under the modulatory control of several nondopaminergic neurotransmitter systems,

including serotonergic (Munzar et al, 1999a, 1999b), noradrenergic (Munzar and Goldberg, 1999), adenosinergic (Munzar et al, 2002; Justinova et al, 2003), and histaminergic (Ito et al,

1996; Munzar et al, 1998) systems. The role of histaminergic receptors in the modulation of methamphetamine's behavioral and neurochemical effects is of particular interest, since

methamphetamine releases histamine, as well as dopamine, and brain levels of histamine are markedly increased after methamphetamine administration (Ito et al, 1996). It has been shown that

methamphetamine-induced stereotyped behavior is attenuated under conditions of increased histamine levels (Ito et al, 1997) and recent findings in histamine H3-deficient mice (Toyota et al,

2002) suggest a possible modulatory role of H3 receptors in these effects. Histamine H3 receptors are expressed as autoreceptors on histaminergic neurons, with a negative feedback role on

histamine synthesis and release (Arrang et al, 1983). Recently, however, it has been shown that these receptors are widely distributed on nonhistaminergic neurons and their activation can

inhibit synthesis and release of other neurotransmitters, including dopamine, norepinephrine, GABA, and acetylcholine (Leurs et al, 1998). Histamine H3 receptors are particularly abundant in

dopaminergic areas of the brain such as the nucleus accumbens in animals (Lovenberg et al, 1999; Pollard et al, 1993) and humans (Goodchild et al, 1999), the main terminal area of the

mesolimbic dopamine system which plays a prominent role in the reinforcing/rewarding effects of methamphetamine and other psychomotor stimulant drugs abused by humans (Wise, 1987; Koob,

1992; Pontieri et al, 1995). In a previous study, we reported that the selective histamine H3 antagonist thioperamide (Arrang et al, 1987) can potentiate the subjective effects of

methamphetamine in rats trained to discriminate a 1.0 mg/kg intraperitoneal (i.p.) dose of methamphetamine from an i.p. injection of saline using a two-lever choice, drug-discrimination

procedure, as demonstrated by a leftward shift in the methamphetamine dose–response curve when different doses of methamphetamine were coadministered with one dose of thioperamide (Munzar et

al, 1998). This potentiation of methamphetamine's subjective effects by thioperamide was reversed by coadministering the histamine H3 agonist _R_-_α_-methylhistamine, demonstrating

that the effects were mediated by histamine H3 receptors. In _in vitro_ studies selective histamine H3 receptor antagonists can potentiate dopamine efflux in mouse striatum (Schlicker et al,

1993) and dopamine D1 receptor-dependent release of GABA in rat substantia nigra (Garcia et al, 1997) and striatum (Arias-Montano et al, 2001). Moreover, histamine H3 agonists inhibit the

synthesis of dopamine in striatal areas and this is blocked by selective H3 antagonists, suggesting that endogenous histamine levels modulate dopamine synthesis (Schlicker et al, 1993;

Molina-Hernandez et al, 2000). There is also a recent report that ciproxifan, another histamine H3 antagonist, can potentiate the effects of methamphetamine on neuropeptide mRNA expression

in rat striatum (Pillot et al, 2003). Taken together, all these findings suggest H3 receptors exert a strong inhibitory modulation of dopamine-mediated behavioral and neurochemical effects

of methamphetamine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of histamine H3 antagonists on the reinforcing effects of methamphetamine, as measured by intravenous (i.v.) drug

self-administration by rats, and on methamphetamine-induced dopamine release in the shell of the nucleus accumbens, as measured by _in vivo_ microdialysis. Although thioperamide is the most

commonly utilized histamine H3 antagonist, with high affinity at rat histamine H3 receptors, it has only modest affinity at human H3 receptors (Esbenshade et al, 2003). For this reason, in

the present study, we tested effects not only of thioperamide, but also of clobenpropit, a potent histamine H3 antagonist, which shows approximately equal affinity for human and rat H3

receptors (eg Lovenberg et al, 2000; Esbenshade et al, 2003). MATERIALS AND METHODS SUBJECTS Male Sprague–Dawley rats (Taconic, Germantown, NY), experimentally naive at the start of the

study and initially weighing 280–350 g, were housed either individually (for drug self-administration and drug-discrimination studies) or double-housed (for _in vivo_ microdialysis studies).

Rats used in drug-discrimination studies had their body weights gradually reduced to approximately 80% of free feeding by limiting daily access to food. Rats used in the self-administration

and microdialysis studies had free access to food. Water for all rats was available _ad libitum_. All rats were housed in a temperature- and humidity-controlled room and were maintained on

a 12-h light/dark cycle (lights were on from 0700 to 1900). Experiments were conducted during the light phase. Rats in the self-administration study were implanted with i.v. catheters, as

described previously (Munzar et al, 1999a). Under Equithesin anesthesia, rats were prepared with a silastic catheter implanted into the external jugular vein, with the catheter exiting the

skin at the back between the shoulders. A nylon bolt (screw thread # 4–32) was embedded at the same time on the skull surface, fixed in place with dental acrylic to stainless-steel screws

embedded in the skull. The nylon bolt served as a tether to prevent the catheter from being pulled out while the rat was in the self-administration chamber. Following surgery, the i.v.

catheter was flushed daily during the first week with 0.9% sterile saline containing heparin (1.25 U/ml) and gentamicin (0.16 mg/kg) and then flushed after each daily session with heparin

solution to maintain its patency. Rats in the microdialysis study were implanted during the same surgery with i.v. catheters and dialysis probes in the shell of the nucleus accumbens, as

described previously (Pontieri et al, 1995; Tanda et al, 1997). Under Equithesin anesthesia, rats were first implanted with i.v. catheters, as described above, and then were placed in a

stereotaxic apparatus where the skull was exposed and a small hole drilled to expose the dura. They were then implanted with a concentric dialysis probe aimed at the shell of the nucleus

accumbens (Figure 1), according to the rat brain atlas by Paxinos and Watson (1986) (uncorrected coordinates: A=+2.0, L=1.1, V=8.0; Anterior, A, from bregma; Lateral, L, from bregma;

Vertical, V, from dura). Animals used in this study were maintained in facilities fully accredited by the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) and

all experimentation was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Care and Use Committee of the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, and

the Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Research Council, 1996). APPARATUS A total of 22 standard experimental chambers (Coulbourn Instruments, Lehigh Valley, PA, USA),

12 for the drug-discrimination study, and 10 for the drug self-administration study, were used. Each chamber in the discrimination study contained a white house light and two levers,

separated by a recessed tray into which a pellet dispenser could deliver 45-mg food pellets (F0021; Bioserv, Frenchtown, NJ). Each press of a lever with a force of 0.4 N through 1 mm was

recorded as a response and was accompanied by an audible click. Each chamber in the self-administration study contained a white house light and two holes containing nose-poke operanda. Each

nose poke produced a brief feedback tone. One hole was defined as active (left in five chambers, right in remaining five) and pokes in the other hole were recorded but had no programmed

consequences. Catheters were connected to an infusion pump (Harvard Apparatus, South Natick, MA, USA) through a tether and fluid swivel. All the operant chambers were controlled by

microcomputers using the MED Associates MED-PC software package (Med Associates Inc., East Fairfield, VT). For the _in vivo_ microdialysis study, concentric dialysis probes were prepared

with AN69 fibers (Hospal Dasco, Bologna, Italy) by a modification of the method described by Di Chiara et al (1993). Briefly, the components of the probe (the dialysing fiber and the two

silica-fused capillary tubes) were inserted into a 22-G stainless-steel needle (2.4 mm length) and mounted in a stereotaxic holder. The resulting probe was of sufficient rigidity to make

unnecessary the use of a tungsten mandrel to lower it into the brain (Tanda et al, 1997). The exposed dialysing surface of the fibers was limited to the lowest 2.0 mm of the probes. After

implanting the microdialysis probes, rats were placed in hemispherical CMA-120 cages (CMA/Microdialysis AB, Solna, Sweden) equipped with overhead fluid swivels (Instech Laboratories Inc.,

Plymouth Meeting, PA) for connections to the dialysis probes and allowed to recover overnight. SELF-ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURE After 7–10 days for complete recovery from surgery, daily

(Monday–Friday) self-administration sessions started. During the 2-h sessions, rats had an opportunity to self-administer 0.06 mg/kg i.v. injections of methamphetamine, as described

previously (Munzar et al, 1999a; Stefanski et al, 1999). At the start of each session, one priming injection was delivered automatically, which was calculated to fill the ‘dead volume’ of

the catheter. At the same time, the white house light was turned on. Rats initially learned to respond under a fixed-ratio 1 (FR1) schedule where each active nose poke produced a 2-s

injection of the training dose of methamphetamine. The injection was followed by a 30-s time-out, during which the chamber was dark and responding was recorded but had no programmed

consequences. Once rats showed accuracy with at least 80% of the nose pokes in the active hole, and intake of methamphetamine was stable for 2 days, the number of responses required to

produce an injection was increased progressively to two, three, and finally five (FR5). Once number of injections per session was stable for at least five consecutive daily sessions under

the FR5 schedule (less than 20% variability), testing of different doses of thioperamide, clobenpropit, or vehicle, given as subcutaneous (s.c.) injections 30 min before the start of a

session, began. Test sessions were always conducted after at least two methamphetamine baseline sessions. Thioperamide and clobenpropit were tested in separate groups of rats. Subsequently,

effects of two doses of thioperamide or clobenpropit and of their vehicle on the methamphetamine dose–response curve were evaluated. Finally, methamphetamine self-administration was

reestablished at the 0.06 mg/kg/injection training dose and thioperamide and clobenpropit were then tested by substitution for five consecutive sessions. The ratio of 1 : 3 between injection

dose of methamphetamine and thioperamide and clobenpropit (0.06 _vs_ 0.18 mg/kg/injection) was based on a previous finding that pretreatment with an i.p. dose of 1.0 mg/kg methamphetamine

produced significant decreases in methamphetamine self-administration behavior (Munzar et al, 1999a) that were comparable to the decreases seen after s.c. pretreatment with 3.0 mg/kg

thioperamide and clobenpropit in the present study. DRUG-DISCRIMINATION PROCEDURE Under a discrete-trial schedule of food-pellet delivery, rats learned to respond on one lever after an

injection of a training dose of 1.0 mg/kg of methamphetamine and on the other lever after an injection of 1.0 ml/kg of saline vehicle, as described previously (Munzar et al, 1998, 1999a,

1999b; Justinova et al, 2003). Injections of methamphetamine or saline were given i.p. 15 min before the start of the session. At the start of the session, a white house light was turned on

and in its presence the rats were required to make 10 consecutive responses (FR10 schedule of food delivery; FR10) on the lever appropriate to the presession treatment. The completion of 10

consecutive responses on the correct lever produced delivery of a 45 mg food pellet and initiated a 45-s time-out during which lever-press responses had no programmed consequences and the

chamber was dark. Responses on the incorrect lever had no programmed consequences other than to reset the FR requirement on the correct lever. After each time-out, the white house light was

again turned on and the next trial began. Each session ended after completion of 20 FR trials or after 30 min elapsed, whichever occurred first. Once rats learned to respond under the FR10

schedule of food delivery, discrimination training was started. Discrimination-training sessions were conducted 5 days per week under a double alternation schedule (ie DDSSDDSS etc, D=drug,

1.0 mg/kg methamphetamine; S=saline). Training continued until there were eight consecutive sessions during which rats completed at least 90% of their responses during the session on the

correct lever and no more than four responses occurred on the incorrect lever during the first trial. Test sessions during which 10 consecutive responses on either one of the two levers

ended the trial were then conducted about twice a week when different doses of thioperamide or clobenpropit were administered before the i.p. injection of either saline or a 0.3 mg/kg dose

of methamphetamine and the percentage of methamphetamine-appropriate lever selections and rates of lever-press responding were measured. This experimental design differed from our previous

study in which we tested effects of one thioperamide dose administered with different doses of methamphetamine (Munzar et al, 1998). We selected this dosing regimen in order to mimic the

dosing regimen in self-administration studies, so that effects of the same doses of both histamine H3 antagonists on rates of responding for food and for self-administered methamphetamine

could be compared. In a test phase, a single alternation schedule was introduced and test sessions were usually conducted on Tuesdays and Fridays. Thus, a 2-week sequence starting on Monday

was: DTSDTSTDST (T=test). In this way, test sessions occurred with equal probability after saline and drug sessions. Test sessions were conducted only if the criterion of 90% accuracy and

not more than four incorrect responses during the first trial was maintained in the two preceding training sessions. Thioperamide and clobenpropit were tested in separate groups of rats.

Injections of thioperamide, clobenpropit, or their vehicle (saline) were given s.c. 30 min before the session. _IN VIVO_ MICRODIALYSIS About 24 h after probe implant, experiments were

performed on freely moving rats in the same hemispherical home cages in which they recovered overnight from surgery. Ringer's solution (147.0 mM NaCl, 2.2 mM CaCl2, and 4.0 mM KCl) was

delivered by a CMA 100 microdialysis pump (CMA/Microdialysis AB, Solna, Sweden) through the dialysis probes at a constant flow rate of 1 μl/min. Collection of dialysate samples (10 μl)

started after 30 min and samples were taken every 10 min and immediately analyzed, as detailed below. After stable dopamine values (less than 10% variability) were obtained for at least

three consecutive samples (typically after about 1–2 h), rats were treated with drug or saline. Injections of 1.0 or 3.0 mg/kg thioperamide, 3.0 mg/kg clobenpropit, or saline were given s.c.

30 min before the i.v. injection of 0.03, 0.06, or 0.12 mg/kg methamphetamine. In a separate group of rats, thioperamide was applied locally in the shell of the accumbens through the

microdialysis probe (reverse dialysis). In this experiment, thioperamide perfusion in the Ringer solution at two concentrations (1.0 and 10.0 μM) started 1 h before methamphetamine injection

and continued until the end of the experiment. Dialysate samples (10 μl) were injected without purification into a high-performance liquid chromatography apparatus equipped with a MD 150 mm

× 3.2 mm column, particle size 3.0 μm (ESA, Chelmsford, MA) and a Coulometric detector (5200a Coulochem II, ESA, Chelmsford, MA) to quantify dopamine. The oxidation and reduction electrodes

of the analytical cell (5014B, ESA, Chelmsford, MA) were set at +125 and −125 mV, respectively. The mobile phase, containing 100 mM NaH2PO4, 0.1 mM Na2 EDTA, 0.5 mM _n_-octyl sodium

sulfate, and 18% (v/v) methanol (pH adjusted to 5.5 with Na2HPO4), was pumped with an ESA 582 (ESA, Chelmsford, MA) solvent delivery module at 0.60 ml/min. Assay sensitivity for dopamine was

2 fmol per sample. At the end of the experiment, rats were euthanized by pentobarbital overdose, brains were removed and left to fix in 4% formaldehyde in saline solution. Brains were then

cut on a vibratome in serial coronal slices oriented according to the atlas by Paxinos and Watson (1986) in order to identify the location of the probes in relation to the shell of the

nucleus accumbens (Figure 1). DRUGS _S_-(+)-methamphetamine hydrochloride was obtained from NIDA (Rockville, MD, USA), thioperamide maleate was purchased from Sigma (St Louis, MO, USA) and

clobenpropit dihydrobromide was purchased from Tocris (Tocris Cookson, Ellisville, MO, USA). Doses of all drugs refer to the salt. Drugs were dissolved in 0.9% NaCl and were injected in a

volume of 1.0 ml/kg as described above. DATA ANALYSIS In the self-administration study, results were expressed as a percentage of baseline responding or as total number of injections

self-administered per session. Baseline responding was calculated as the average number of responses in the active hole within the three most recent methamphetamine baseline sessions. In the

drug-discrimination study, results were expressed as the percentage of the total responses emitted on the methamphetamine-appropriate lever. Response-rate data were expressed as responses

per second averaged over the session, with responding during time-out periods not included in calculations. In the microdialysis study, results were expressed as a percentage of basal

dopamine values. Basal dopamine values were calculated as the mean of three consecutive samples (differing by no more than 10%) immediately preceding the first drug or vehicle injection,

with the exception of the reverse dialysis study where basal dopamine values were calculated as the mean of nine samples (three samples before the start of the infusion and six samples after

the infusion of thioperamide) collected prior to injection of methamphetamine or its vehicle. All results are presented as group means (±SEM). Statistical analysis was carried out using

one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures followed by _post hoc_ Dunnett's test for self-administration and drug-discrimination studies. In microdialysis studies one-

or two-way ANOVA for repeated measures over time was applied to the data obtained from serial assays of dialysate dopamine normalized as percentage of basal dopamine values of each group

with results from treatments showing overall changes subjected to _post hoc_ Tukey's test. Changes were considered to be significant when _p_<0.05 SigmaStat (Jandel Scientific, San

Raphael, CA, USA) software was used. RESULTS SELF-ADMINISTRATION The effects of four doses of thioperamide or clobenpropit (0.1, 0.3, 1, 3 mg/kg) and saline vehicle were first tested in rats

trained to self-administer i.v. injections of 0.06 mg/kg methamphetamine. Thioperamide (F4,39=16.40, _p_<0.001, Figure 2, upper panel) and clobenpropit (F4,16=33.08, _p_<0.001, Figure

2, lower panel) produced similar dose-dependent decreases in self-administration responding for the training dose of methamphetamine that were most pronounced at the higher 1 and 3 mg/kg

doses. Doses of 1 and 3 mg/kg thioperamide significantly decreased numbers of self-administered 0.06 mg/kg methamphetamine injections (F2,12=14.52, _p_<0.001, Figure 3c). Doses of 1 and 3

mg/kg thioperamide also significantly decreased self-administration responding for a higher 0.12 mg/kg/injection dose of methamphetamine (F2,10=13.42, _p_=0.001, Figure 3d). When the

injection dose of self-administered methamphetamine was reduced from 0.06 to 0.03 mg/kg and self-administration responding was almost completely eliminated, however, pretreatment with 1 and

3 mg/kg thioperamide (F2,9=8.09, _p_=0.01) produced marked, dose-dependent increases in self-administration of methamphetamine (Figure 3b). In contrast, when self-administration responding

was almost completely eliminated by substitution of saline for methamphetamine, presession treatment with thioperamide did not increase (reinstate) responding (Figure 3a). Doses of 1 and 3

mg/kg clobenpropit also significantly decreased numbers of self-administered 0.06 mg/kg methamphetamine injections (F2,8=27.62, _p_<0.001, Figure 4c). When the injection dose of

self-administered methamphetamine was reduced from 0.06 to 0.03 mg/kg and self-administration responding was almost completely eliminated, however, pretreatment with 1 and 3 mg/kg

clobenpropit (F2,7=14.27, _p_=0.003) produced marked, dose-dependent increases in self-administration of methamphetamine (Figure 4b). In contrast, when self-administration responding was

almost completely eliminated by substitution of saline for methamphetamine, presession treatment with clobenpropit did not increase (reinstate) responding (Figure 4a). Representative

cumulative-response records of a rat under the FR schedule at different injection doses of methamphetamine or saline vehicle under baseline conditions and on days when the rat was treated

with 3 mg/kg i.p. of clobenpropit 30 min before the session are shown in Figure 5. When self-administration responding was reduced to three injections and 18 responses per session by

substitution of saline for methamphetamine, clobenpropit pretreatment did not increase the number of injections or responses in the session. Self-administration responding was also reduced

under baseline conditions at the low 0.03 mg/kg/injection dose of methamphetamine, with only four injections of methamphetamine self-administered and 22 responses in the session. When

clobenpropit was given before the session, however, the number of 0.03 mg/kg methamphetamine injections in the session increased to 32 and the number of responses in the session increased to

160. In contrast, under baseline conditions at the higher 0.06 mg/kg/injection training dose of methamphetamine, 27 injections of methamphetamine were self-administered and the number of

responses in the session was 135. When clobenpropit was given before the session, the number of methamphetamine injections in the session decreased to 15 and the number of responses

decreased to 75. When i.v. injections of 0.18 mg/kg thioperamide or clobenpropit were substituted for injections of 0.06 mg/kg methamphetamine for 5 days, neither thioperamide (F5,20=13.082,

_p_<0.001) nor clobenpropit (F5,15=10.604, _p_<0.001) were self-administered above saline-substitution levels (Figure 6). On the first day of substitution, rats self-administered on

average 1.98±0.45 mg/kg of thioperamide or 1.31±0.56 mg/kg of clobenpropit i.v., which is in the range of doses which potentiated the reinforcing effects of methamphetamine when given s.c.,

but during subsequent sessions self-administration responding almost completely ceased. Self-administration responding immediately recovered when thioperamide or clobenpropit were replaced

with methamphetamine. DRUG DISCRIMINATION When the range of doses of thioperamide and clobenpropit tested in rats self-administering methamphetamine was tested in parallel groups of rats

responding for food and trained to discriminate i.p. injections of 1.0 mg/kg methamphetamine from i.p. injections of saline, neither thioperamide nor clobenpropit produced any change in

rates of food-maintained responding (Figure 7b, filled symbols). Thioperamide and clobenpropit also did not produce any methamphetamine-appropriate responding with the drug-discrimination

procedure (Figure 7a, filled symbols). In contrast, when either thioperamide or clobenpropit were coadministered with a subthreshold i.p. dose of methamphetamine (0.3 mg/kg), which by itself

produced only saline-appropriate responding with the drug-discrimination procedure and no change in rates of responding, there were dose-dependent increases in methamphetamine-appropriate

responding (thioperamide: F4,44=16.319, _p_<0.001; clobenpropit: F4,36=13.123, _p_<0.001; Figure 7a, open symbols). In addition, thioperamide slightly, but significantly (F4,44=4.535,

_p_=0.004), enhanced rates of operant responding for food when coadministered with the lowest methamphetamine dose (Figure 7b, open circles). _IN VIVO_ MICRODIALYSIS In order to determine

whether changes in the extracellular levels of dopamine correlate with the changes in the rewarding and subjective effects of methamphetamine produced by blockade of histamine H3 receptors,

extracellular dopamine levels in the shell of the nucleus accumbens were measured in a parallel group of rats. Basal levels of dopamine in 10 μl/dialysate samples were 48.86±7.6 (fmol±SEM,

_n_=71). Basal values did not differ between treatment groups (one-way ANOVA F15,55=0.216, _p_=0.99). Administration of either 1.0 or 3.0 mg/kg s.c. doses of thioperamide did not

significantly modify extracellular dopamine levels, that is, dopamine levels did not differ ±10% from basal values during the first 30 min after injection (Figure 8). A subsequent saline

injection did not significantly modify dopamine levels up to 2 h after its administration (data not shown). However, when 1.0 or 3.0 mg/kg s.c. doses of thioperamide (Figure 8) were

administered 30 min before methamphetamine (0.03, 0.06, or 0.12 mg/kg i.v.), there was a marked and significant potentiation of methamphetamine-induced elevations of dopamine levels in the

shell of the accumbens (two-way ANOVA for repeated measures, time × thioperamide interaction: 0.03 mg/kg group—F6,56=14.6605, _p_<0.01; 0.06 mg/kg group—F18,120=3.545, _p_<0.02; and in

0.12 mg/kg group—F24,195=2.128, _p_<0.01). Administration of a 3.0 mg/kg s.c. dose of clobenpropit did not significantly modify basal extracellular dopamine levels during the first 30

min after injection (Figure 9), and a subsequent saline injection did not significantly modify dopamine levels up to 2 h after its administration (data not shown). Clobenpropit (3.0 mg/kg

s.c.) (Figure 9) administered 30 min before methamphetamine (0.03 or 0.06 mg/kg i.v.) markedly and significantly potentiated methamphetamine-induced elevations of dopamine levels in the

shell of the accumbens (two-way ANOVA for repeated measures, time × clobenpropit interaction: 0.03 mg/kg group—F6,56=6.068, _p_<0.01; 0.06 mg/kg group—F9,80=9.546, _p_<0.01).

Thioperamide was subsequently directly infused into the shell of the nucleus accumbens by reverse dialysis through the microdialysis probe (Figure 10). Local infusion with thioperamide (1.0

and 10.0 μM in Ringer solution) did not significantly modify extracellular dopamine levels (changes were <±10% of baseline levels) in the nucleus accumbens shell up to 180 min after the

infusion (data not shown). However, as after systemic administration, local infusion with thioperamide (10 μM in the Ringer solution) significantly potentiated dopamine release induced by

methamphetamine, 0.06 mg/kg i.v. (two-way ANOVA for repeated measures: F9,72=2.060, _p_<0.05), in the nucleus accumbens shell. DISCUSSION The main finding of the present study is that

histamine H3 receptor antagonists can potentiate the reinforcing and discriminative actions of methamphetamine and that this is associated with a potentiation by the histamine H3 antagonists

of methamphetamine–induced dopamine release in the shell of the nucleus accumbens. The selective histamine H3 receptor antagonists thioperamide and clobenpropit both dose dependently

increased self-administration of a low 0.03 mg/kg injection dose of methamphetamine and reduced self-administration of a higher dose of 0.06 mg/kg/injection of methamphetamine. The

reductions in self-administration of the higher training dose of 0.06 mg/kg/injection methamphetamine produced by the histamine H3 antagonists were similar to the reduction in

self-administration seen when the injection dose of methamphetamine was simply increased from 0.06 to 0.12 mg/kg. Also, increases in self-administration of the low dose of methamphetamine

produced by the histamine H3 antagonists were similar to the increase in self-administration seen when the injection dose of methamphetamine was raised from 0.03 to 0.06 mg/kg. Thus, the

changes in methamphetamine self-administration produced by histamine H3 antagonist treatment were consistent with a classical shift to the left of the ‘inverted U-shaped’ methamphetamine

dose–response curve and were likely due to a potentiation of methamphetamine's efficacy as a reinforcer across the different doses studied. Also, the potentiation of the reinforcing

effects of a low dose of methamphetamine that maintained little behavior on its own was not due to a reinstatement by histamine H3 antagonists of drug-seeking behavior that had been

extinguished, since neither thioperamide nor clobenpropit reinstated drug-seeking behavior when given during saline extinction. The same doses of the histamine H3 antagonists that increased

self-administration of a low dose of methamphetamine also dose dependently potentiated both the discriminative effects of a low dose of methamphetamine and the elevations in dopamine levels

in the shell of the nucleus accumbens produced by low doses of methamphetamine. However, when these doses of thioperamide and clobenpropit were given alone, they had no effect on

food-maintained responding, which is consistent with both our previous drug-discrimination study (Munzar et al, 1998) and previous studies showing that thioperamide does not decrease

locomotor activity (Clapham and Kilpatrick, 1994; Komater et al, 2003). Thus, the effects of the histamine H3 antagonists on methamphetamine self-administration were not due to nonspecific

effects on appetitive responding nor to direct effects on locomotor activity. Also, when these doses of thioperamide and clobenpropit were given alone, they did not produce

methamphetamine-like discriminative effects, did not alter dopamine levels in the shell of the nucleus accumbens and, as noted above, did not reinstate drug-seeking behavior when given

during saline extinction. This makes it unlikely that the histamine H3 antagonists had any effects that were discriminated as methamphetamine-like, which could have enhanced the actions of

low doses of methamphetamine in an additive manner. Although thioperamide and clobenpropit showed equal potency in potentiating the reinforcing and discriminative-stimulus effects of

methamphetamine, clobenpropit is about 10-fold more potent than thioperamide as a histamine H3 antagonist when studied _in vitro_ (Lovenberg et al, 2000; Esbenshade et al, 2003). However,

clobenpropit has poor brain penetration which limits its bioavailability and markedly diminishes its _in vivo_ activity (eg Krause et al, 1998; Stark et al, 2001). This likely accounts for

the similarity in potency of clobenpropit and thioperamide in the present _in vivo_ study. The reinforcing and discriminative effects of methamphetamine in experimental animals are believed

to be mainly mediated by its ability to interact with the dopaminergic system (eg Tidey and Bergman, 1998; Munzar et al, 1999a; Munzar and Goldberg, 2000). Based on our findings that

histamine H3 receptor antagonists potentiate the discriminative and reinforcing effects of methamphetamine, we explored the possibility that H3 receptor antagonists could also alter its

related dopaminergic actions in areas of the brain mediating these behaviors. Although histamine H3 receptors are located in many brain areas, one area of the human brain with particularly

high densities of histamine H3 receptors is the nucleus accumbens (Goodchild et al, 1999). An increase in histamine levels in the nucleus accumbens after methamphetamine administration has

been demonstrated (Ito et al, 1996; Morisset et al, 2002), and it is likely the result of increased endogenous dopaminergic tone on dopaminergic nerve terminals of VTA and substantia nigra

dopamine neurons that project to the tuberomamillary nucleus (Ericson et al, 1989), activation of postsynaptic dopamine D2 receptors located on histaminergic neurons (Prast et al, 1993; Ito

et al, 1996), and facilitation of histamine release from histaminergic nerve terminals of the nucleus accumbens. The shell of the nucleus accumbens is also the main terminal area of the

mesolimbic dopaminergic brain reward system and has been implicated in motivational and reinforcing effects of drugs abused by humans (Alheid and Heimer, 1988; Heimer et al, 1991; Pontieri

et al, 1995). Many drugs abused by humans, including methamphetamine, share the common property of preferentially increasing dopamine release in the shell of the nucleus accumbens (Di Chiara

et al, 1999). When given alone neither thioperamide nor clobenpropit produced any change in extracellular levels of dopamine in the shell of the nucleus accumbens. This is consistent with

the present behavioral findings that thioperamide and clobenpropit did not increase drug self-administration responding during saline extinction and did not produce methamphetamine-like

discriminative-stimulus effects when given alone. Both thioperamide and clobenpropit, however, markedly enhanced methamphetamine-induced dopamine release. Qualitatively similar findings were

obtained when thioperamide was administered directly into the shell of the nucleus accumbens by reverse dialysis through the microdialysis probe, which indicates that the observed

potentiation was not due to peripheral or pharmacokinetic interactions between the histamine H3 antagonists and methamphetamine. However, effects of intra-accumbal injection of thioperamide

through the microdialysis probe were smaller than effects of systemic thioperamide, indicating that the observed potentiation was not exclusively mediated by histamine H3 receptors located

in the nucleus accumbens. Histamine H3 receptors on nondopaminergic neurons, located in striatal and nonstriatal areas of the brain might modulate dopamine neurotransmission and function and

contribute to the observed interactions between methamphetamine and histamine H3 antagonists. It has been demonstrated, for example, that increased activity of H3 receptors may result in

the inhibition of release of other neurotransmitters, like serotonin (Fink et al, 1990), norepinephrine (Di Carlo et al, 2000), glutamate (Doreulee et al, 2001), and GABA (Garcia et al,

1997). All of these systems are affected by methamphetamine administration, and they have extended connections with the dopaminergic system. Thus, it is likely that H3 receptor antagonists

acting at the level of another neurotransmitter system may indirectly modulate the effects of methamphetamine on dopamine transmission. For example, histamine H3 heteroreceptors are located

on serotonergic neurons (Leurs et al, 1998) and a role of the serotonergic neurotransmitter system in the modulation of the behavioral effects of methamphetamine is well established (eg

Munzar et al, 1999b; Kuczenski et al, 1995). However, the significant effects of locally administered thioperamide on methamphetamine-induced dopamine transmission in the nucleus accumbens

indicate a direct interaction of dopamine transmission with H3 receptors, likely located on dopaminergic nerve terminals (Schlicker et al, 1993; Molina-Hernandez et al, 2000). Histamine

acting at histamine H3 receptors presynaptically located on dopaminergic nerve terminals in the shell of the nucleus accumbens would, therefore, play an inhibitory role on dopaminergic

transmission. The cellular or molecular mechanism responsible for the potentiating effect of histamine H3 receptor antagonists on methamphetamine-induced dopamine release remains to be

determined. Methamphetamine's effects on dopamine neurotransmission are the result of its ability to interact with a number of neurobiochemical processes important in the regulation of

extracellular dopamine levels. Methamphetamine increases dopamine neurotransmission mainly by a nonexocytotic impulse-independent release of dopamine into the extracellular space, from an

extravesicular, newly synthesized dopamine pool, reversing the direction of the dopamine transporter (DAT) (Kuczenski and Segal, 1994; Nishijima et al, 1996). Thus, methamphetamine's

ability to increase extracellular dopamine levels depends on DAT functioning (Bennett et al, 1998; Metzger et al, 2000; Sandoval et al, 2001). Methamphetamine may also increase dopamine

synthesis (Nishijima et al, 1996; Larsen et al, 2002), and dopamine-containing vesicles in the cytoplasm of dopamine neurons are affected by methamphetamine administration (Brown et al,

2002; Ugarte et al, 2003). Further, methamphetamine may interact with dopamine metabolism as a monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor, reducing the ability of the MAO enzyme to metabolize

dopamine and leading to an increase in dopamine levels (Suzuki et al, 1980). Histamine H3 antagonists interacting with any of these specific neurobiochemical targets could modulate the

activity of methamphetamine on dopaminergic neurotransmission. It has been demonstrated that histamine H3 receptors are G protein receptors negatively coupled to adenylate cyclase and their

stimulation by histamine results in decreased intracellular levels of cAMP (eg Lovenberg et al, 1999). Thus, it is likely that administration of both histamine H3 antagonists results in

enhanced intracellular levels of cAMP, which could affect surface expression of the DAT or stimulate tyrosine hydroxylase activity. This explanation would be in line with reports that

increased histamine levels (Ito et al, 1996) can inhibit dopamine synthesis by acting on H3 heteroreceptors on dopaminergic nerve terminals (Schlicker et al, 1993; Molina-Hernandez et al,

2000). Histamine H3 receptor antagonists might relieve these effects of endogenous histamine on dopamine synthesis, thus potentiating the methamphetamine-induced elevations in extracellular

dopamine. This mechanism may explain the long lasting effects of methamphetamine after treatment with histamine H3 antagonists, but is unlikely to be responsible for immediate effects of

this drug combination. The immediate effects of histamine H3 antagonists on methamphetamine-induced dopamine release could be due in part to the increased intracellular availability of Ca2+

they produce, since activation of histamine H3 receptors has been suggested to inhibit the influx of Ca2+ (eg Endou et al, 1994; Leurs et al, 1995). Increased availability of Ca2+ may

directly facilitate the release of dopamine and/or other neuromodulators that may indirectly enhance dopamine transmission. Increased availability of calcium might also play a role in the

functioning and activity of DAT or tyrosine hydroxylase. Although the underlying neurochemical mechanisms for observed interactions of histamine H3 receptors with methamphetamine remain

speculative, the present findings point to histamine H3 receptors as a new and promising target for development of medications for the treatment of methamphetamine abuse, as well as other

types of psychostimulant abuse. Several questions remain for future studies, in order to elucidate more fully interactions of methamphetamine with histamine H3 receptors. First, the effects

of histamine H3 agonists on methamphetamine-induced behavioral and neurochemical effects remain to be studied. Second, it has to be determined whether the observed effects of histamine H3

antagonists are unique for methamphetamine or are more general for other drugs of abuse, especially cocaine, but also for drugs which do not directly interact with dopaminergic

neurotransmission. Answers to these questions will help elucidate underlying neurobiochemical mechanisms for the potentiation of the behavioral and neurochemical effects of methamphetamine

that were found in the present study. REFERENCES * Alheid GF, Heimer L (1988). New perspectives in basal forebrain organization of special relevance for neuropsychiatric disorders: the

striatopallidal, amygdaloid, and corticopetal components of substantia innominata. _Neuroscience_ 27: 1–39. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Arias-Montano JA, Floran B, Garcia M, Aceves J,

Young JM (2001). Histamine H(3) receptor-mediated inhibition of depolarization-induced, dopamine D(1) receptor-dependent release of [(3)H]-gamma-aminobutryic acid from rat striatal slices.

_Br J Pharmacol_ 133: 165–171. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Arrang JM, Garbarg M, Schwartz JC (1983). Autoinhibition of histamine release mediated by a novel class (H3) of histamine

receptor. _Nature_ 302: 832–837. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Arrang JM, Garbarg M, Schwartz JC (1987). Highly potent and selective ligands for histamine H3-receptors. _Nature_ 327:

117–123. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Bennett BA, Hollingsworth CK, Martin RS, Harp JJ (1998). Methamphetamine-induced alterations in dopamine transporter function. _Brain Res_ 782:

219–227. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Brown JM, Riddle EL, Sandoval V, Weston RK, Hanson JE, Crosby MJ _et al_ (2002). A single methamphetamine administration rapidly decreases vesicular

dopamine uptake. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 302: 497–501. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Clapham J, Kilpatrick GJ (1994). Thioperamide, the selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist,

attenuates stimulant-induced locomotor activity in the mouse. _Eur J Pharmacol_ 259: 107–114. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Di Carlo G, Ghi P, Orsetti M (2000). Effect of

R-(−)-alpha-methylhistamine and thioperamide on _in-vivo_ release of norepinephrine in the rat hippocampus. _Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry_ 24: 275–284. Article  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Di Chiara G, Tanda G, Bassareo V, Pontieri F, Acquas E, Fenu S _et al_ (1999). Drug addiction as a disorder of associative learning. Role of nucleus accumbens shell/extended

amygdala dopamine. _Ann NY Acad Sci_ 877: 461–485. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Di Chiara G, Tanda G, Frau R, Carboni E (1993). On the preferential release of dopamine in the nucleus

accumbens by amphetamine: further evidence obtained by vertically implanted concentric dialysis probes. _Psychopharmacology_ 112: 398–402. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Doreulee N,

Yanovsky Y, Flagmeyer I, Stevens DR, Haas HL, Brown RE (2001). Histamine H(3) receptors depress synaptic transmission in the corticostriatal pathway. _Neuropharmacology_ 40: 106–113. Article

  CAS  Google Scholar  * Endou M, Poli E, Levi R (1994). Histamine H3-receptor signaling in the heart: possible involvement of Gi/Go proteins and N-type Ca2+ channels. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_

269: 221–229. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ericson H, Blomqvist A, Kohler C (1989). Brainstem afferents to the tuberomammillary nucleus in the rat brain with special reference to

monoaminergic innervation. _J Comp Neurol_ 281: 169–192. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Esbenshade TA, Krueger KM, Miller TR, Kang CH, Denny LI, Witte DG _et al_ (2003). Two novel and

selective nonimidazole histamine h3 receptor antagonists a-304121 and a-317920: I. _In vitro_ pharmacological effects. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 305: 887–896. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Fink K, Schlicker E, Neise A, Gothert M (1990). Involvement of presynaptic H3 receptors in the inhibitory effect of histamine on serotonin release in the rat brain cortex. _Naunyn

Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol_ 342: 513–519. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Garcia M, Floran B, Arias-Montano JA, Young JM, Aceves J (1997). Histamine H3 receptor activation selectively

inhibits dopamine D1 receptor-dependent [3H]GABA release from depolarization-stimulated slices of rat substantia nigra pars reticulate. _Neuroscience_ 80: 241–249. Article  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Goodchild RE, Court JA, Hobson I, Piggott MA, Perry RH, Ince P _et al_ (1999). Distribution of histamine H3-receptor binding in the normal human basal ganglia: comparison with

Huntington's and Parkinson's disease cases. _Eur J Neurosci_ 11: 449–456. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Heimer L, Zahm DS, Churchill L, Kalivas PW, Wohltmann C (1991).

Specificity in the projection patterns of accumbal core and shell in the rat. _Neuroscience_ 41: 89–125. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Ito C, Onodera K, Sakurai E, Sato M, Watanabe T

(1996). Effects of dopamine antagonists on neuronal histamine release in the striatum of rats subjected to acute and chronic treatments with methamphetamine. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 279:

271–276. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ito C, Onodera K, Watanabe T, Sato M (1997). Effects of histamine agents on methamphetamine-induced locomotor hyperactivity and behavioral

sensitization in rats. _Psychopharmacology_ 130: 362–367. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Justinova Z, Ferre S, Segal PN, Antoniou K, Solinas M, Pappas LA _et al_ (2003). Involvement of

adenosine A1 and A2A receptors in the adenosinergic modulation of the discriminative-stimulus effects of cocaine and methamphetamine in rats. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 307: 977–986. Article 

CAS  Google Scholar  * Komater VA, Browman KE, Curzon P, Hancock AA, Decker MW, Fox GB (2003). H3 receptor blockade by thioperamide enhances cognition in rats without inducing locomotor

sensitization. _Psychopharmacology_ 167: 363–372. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Koob GF (1992). Drugs of abuse: anatomy, pharmacology and function of reward pathways. _Trends Pharmacol

Sci_ 13: 177–184. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Krause M, Ligneau X, Stark H, Garbarg M, Schwartz JC, Schunack W (1998). 4-Alkynylphenyl imidazolylpropyl ethers as selective histamine

H3-receptor antagonists with high oral central nervous system activity. _J Med Chem_ 41: 4171–4176. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Kuczenski R, Segal DS (1994). Neurochemistry of

amphetamine. In: Cho AK, Segal DS (eds). _Amphetamine and its Analogs: Psychopharmacology, Toxicology and Abuse_. Academic Press: San Diego. pp 81–113. Google Scholar  * Kuczenski R, Segal

DS, Cho AK, Melega W (1995). Hippocampus norepinephrine, caudate dopamine and serotonin, and behavioral responses to the stereoisomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine. _J Neurosci_ 15:

1308–1317. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Larsen KE, Fon EA, Hastings TG, Edwards RH, Sulzer D (2002). Methamphetamine-induced degeneration of dopaminergic neurons involves autophagy and

upregulation of dopamine synthesis. _J Neurosci_ 22: 8951–8960. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Leurs R, Blandina P, Tedford C, Timmerman H (1998). Therapeutic potential of histamine H3

receptor agonists and antagonists. _Trends Pharmacol Sci_ 19: 177–183. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Leurs R, Smit MJ, Timmerman H (1995). Molecular pharmacological aspects of histamine

receptors. _Pharmacol Ther_ 66: 413–463. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Lovenberg TW, Pyati J, Chang H, Wilson SJ, Erlander MG (2000). Cloning of rat histamine H(3) receptor reveals

distinct species pharmacological profiles. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 293: 771–778. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Lovenberg TW, Roland BL, Wilson SJ, Jiang X, Pyati J, Huvar A _et al_ (1999).

Cloning and functional expression of the human histamine H3 receptor. _Mol Pharmacol_ 55: 1101–1107. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Metzger RR, Haughey HM, Wilkins DG, Gibb JW, Hanson GR,

Fleckenstein AE (2000). Methamphetamine-induced rapid decrease in dopamine transporter function: role of dopamine and hyperthermia. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 295: 1077–1085. CAS  PubMed  Google

Scholar  * Molina-Hernandez A, Nunez A, Arias-Montano JA (2000). Histamine H3-receptor activation inhibits dopamine synthesis in rat striatum. _Neuroreport_ 11: 163–166. Article  CAS 

Google Scholar  * Morisset S, Pilon C, Tardivel-Lacombe J, Weinstein D, Rostene W, Betancur C _et al_ (2002). Acute and chronic effects of methamphetamine on tele-methylhistamine levels in

mouse brain: selective involvement of the D(2) and not D(3) receptor. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 300: 621–628. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Munzar P, Baumann MH, Shoaib M, Goldberg SR

(1999a). Effects of dopamine and serotonin-releasing agents on methamphetamine discrimination and self-administration in rats. _Psychopharmacology_ 141: 287–296. Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  * Munzar P, Goldberg SR (1999). Noradrenergic modulation of the discriminative-stimulus effects of methamphetamine in rats. _Psychopharmacology_ 143: 293–301. Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  * Munzar P, Goldberg SR (2000). Dopaminergic involvement in the discriminative-stimulus effects of methamphetamine in rats. _Psychopharmacology_ 148: 209–216. Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  * Munzar P, Justinova Z, Kutkat SW, Ferre S, Goldberg SR (2002). Adenosinergic modulation of the discriminative-stimulus effects of methamphetamine in rats. _Psychopharmacology (Berl)_

161: 348–355. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Munzar P, Laufert MD, Kutkat SW, Novakova J, Goldberg SR (1999b). Effects of various serotonin agonists, antagonists and uptake inhibitors on

the discriminative stimulus effects of methamphetamine in rats. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 291: 239–250. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Munzar P, Nosal R, Goldberg SR (1998). Potentiation of the

discriminative-stimulus effects of methamphetamine by the histamine H3 receptor antagonist thioperamide in rats. _Eur J Pharmacol_ 363: 93–101. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * National

Research Council (1996). _Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals_. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. * Nishijima K, Kashiwa A, Hashimoto A, Iwama H, Umino A, Nishikawa T

(1996). Differential effects of phencyclidine and methamphetamine on dopamine metabolism in rat frontal cortex and striatum as revealed by _in vivo_ dialysis. _Synapse_ 22: 304–312. Article

  CAS  Google Scholar  * Paxinos G, Watson C (1986). _The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates_. Academic Press: Sydney. 237pp. Google Scholar  * Pillot C, Heron A, Schwartz JC, Arrang JM

(2003). Ciproxifan, a histamine H3-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, modulates the effects of methamphetamine on neuropeptide mRNA expression in rat striatum. _Eur J Neurosci_ 17:

307–314. Article  Google Scholar  * Pollard H, Moreau J, Arrang JM, Schwartz JC (1993). A detailed autoradiographic mapping of histamine H3 receptors in rat brain areas. _Neuroscience_ 52:

169–189. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Pontieri FE, Tanda G, Di Chiara G (1995). Intravenous cocaine, morphine, and amphetamine preferentially increase extracellular dopamine in the

‘shell’ as compared with the ‘core’ of the rat nucleus accumbens. _Proc Natl Acad Sci USA_ 92: 12304–12308. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Prast H, Heistracher M, Philippu A (1993).

Modulation by dopamine receptors of the histamine release in the rat hypothalamus. _Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol_ 347: 301–305. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Sandoval V, Riddle EL,

Ugarte YV, Hanson GR, Fleckenstein AE (2001). Methamphetamine-induced rapid and reversible changes in dopamine transporter function: an _in vitro_ model. _J Neurosci_ 21: 1413–1419. Article

  CAS  Google Scholar  * Schlicker E, Fink K, Detzner M, Gothert M (1993). Histamine inhibits dopamine release in the mouse striatum via presynaptic H3 receptors. _J Neural Transm Gen Sect_

93: 1–10. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Stark H, Arrang JM, Ligneau X, Garbarg M, Ganellin CR, Schwartz JC _et al_ (2001). The histamine H3 receptor and its ligands. _Prog Med Chem_ 38:

279–308. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Stefanski R, Ladenheim B, Lee SH, Cadet JL, Goldberg SR (1999). Neuroadaptations in the dopaminergic system after active self-administration but not

after passive administration of methamphetamine. _Eur J Pharmacol_ 371: 123–135. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Suzuki O, Hattori H, Asano M, Oya M, Katsumata Y (1980). Inhibition of

monoamine oxidase by D-methamphetamine. _Biochem Pharmacol_ 29: 2071–2073. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Tanda G, Pontieri FE, Di Chiara G (1997). Cannabinoid and heroin activation of

mesolimbic dopamine transmission by a common mu1 opioid receptor mechanism. _Science_ 276: 2048–2050. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Tidey JW, Bergman J (1998). Drug discrimination in

methamphetamine-trained monkeys: agonist and antagonist effects of dopaminergic drugs. _J Pharmacol Exp Ther_ 285: 1163–1174. CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Toyota H, Dugovic C, Koehl M,

Laposky AD, Weber C, Ngo K _et al_ (2002). Behavioral characterization of mice lacking histamine H(3) receptors. _Mol Pharmacol_ 62: 389–397. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Ugarte YV, Rau

KS, Riddle EL, Hanson GR, Fleckenstein AE (2003). Methamphetamine rapidly decreases mouse vesicular dopamine uptake: role of hyperthermia and dopamine D2 receptors. _Eur J Pharmacol_ 472:

165–171. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wise RA (1987). The role of reward pathways in the development of drug dependence. _Pharmacol Ther_ 35: 227–263. Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Drs Roy Wise, Sergi Ferre, and Marcello Solinas for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and Eric Thorndike for programming

assistance. This study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS. AUTHOR INFORMATION Author notes * Patrik Munzar Present address:

ALEXZA Molecular Delivery Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, USA * Patrik Munzar, Gianluigi Tanda and Zuzana Justinova: These authors contributed equally to this work. AUTHORS AND

AFFILIATIONS * Department of Health and Human Services, Preclinical Pharmacology Section, Behavioral Neuroscience Research Branch, Intramural Research Program, NIDA, NIH, Baltimore, MD, USA

Patrik Munzar, Zuzana Justinova & Steven R Goldberg * Department of Health and Human Services, Psychobiology Section, Medications Discovery Research Branch, Intramural Research Program,

NIDA, NIH, Baltimore, MD, USA Gianluigi Tanda Authors * Patrik Munzar View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Gianluigi Tanda View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Zuzana Justinova View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Steven R

Goldberg View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Steven R Goldberg. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and

permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Munzar, P., Tanda, G., Justinova, Z. _et al._ Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists Potentiate Methamphetamine Self-Administration and

Methamphetamine-Induced Accumbal Dopamine Release. _Neuropsychopharmacol_ 29, 705–717 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300380 Download citation * Received: 23 July 2003 * Revised: 04

December 2003 * Accepted: 07 December 2003 * Published: 21 January 2004 * Issue Date: 01 April 2004 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300380 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the

following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer

Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative KEYWORDS * methamphetamine * histamine * clobenpropit * thioperamide * self-administration * dopamine-microdialysis