Neuroscience for addiction medicine : from

prevention to rehabilitation : constructs and

drugs First Edition Ekhtiari pdf download
https://textbookfull.com/product/neuroscience-for-addiction-medicine-from-prevention-to-
rehabilitation-constructs-and-drugs-first-edition-ekhtiari/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (28 reviews) ✓ 186 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Excellent quality PDF, exactly what I needed!" - Sarah M.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Neuroscience for addiction medicine : from prevention to
rehabilitation : constructs and drugs First Edition Ekhtiari
pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Neuroscience for addiction medicine : from prevention to

rehabilitation : methods and interventions First Edition
Ekhtiari

Coulson and Richardson’s Chemical Engineering, Fourth

Edition: Volume 3A: Chemical and Biochemical Reactors and
Reaction Engineering R. Ravi

Compulsive eating behavior & food addiction: Emerging

pathological constructs 1st Edition Pietro Cottone

The Neuroscience of Addiction Francesca Mapua Filbey

Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation in Practice
Jennifer Jones

Drugs and the Neuroscience of Behavior: An Introduction to

Psychopharmacology Adam J Prus

Drugs and the Addiction Aesthetic in Nineteenth-Century

Literature Adam Colman

Sports Injuries: Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation,

Fourth Edition Lars Peterson

Sports Injuries; Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation;

Fifth Edition Lars Peterson
 Serial Editor

Vincent Walsh
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience
University College London
17 Queen Square
London WC1N 3AR UK

Editorial Board

Mark Bear, Cambridge, USA.

Medicine & Translational Neuroscience
Hamed Ekhtiari, Tehran, Iran.
Addiction
Hajime Hirase, Wako, Japan.
Neuronal Microcircuitry
Freda Miller, Toronto, Canada.
Developmental Neurobiology
Shane O’Mara, Dublin, Ireland.
Systems Neuroscience
Susan Rossell, Swinburne, Australia.
Clinical Psychology & Neuropsychiatry
Nathalie Rouach, Paris, France.
Neuroglia
Barbara Sahakian, Cambridge, UK.
Cognition & Neuroethics
Bettina Studer, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Neurorehabilitation
Xiao-Jing Wang, New York, USA.
Computational Neuroscience
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

First edition 2016

Copyright # 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our
arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright
Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and
experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or
medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein.
In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety
of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-444-63545-7
ISSN: 0079-6123

For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at http://store.elsevier.com/
Contributors
Mustafa al’Absi
University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Duluth, MN, USA
Nelly Alia-Klein
Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Neuroscience, Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Barbara C. Banz
Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT,
USA
Lucia Bederson
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA
Wade Berrettini
Karl E Rickles Professor of Psychiatry, Center for Neurobiology and Behavior,
Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Warren K. Bickel
Addiction Recovery Research Center, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute,
Roanoke, VA, USA
Jean Lud Cadet
Molecular Neuropsychiatry Research Branch, DHHS/NIH/NIDA Intramural
Research Program, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
Bader Chaarani
Department of Psychiatry, Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of
Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Kelly E. Courtney
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
W. Miles Cox
Bangor University, Bangor, UK
Anita Cservenka
Departments of Psychiatry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR,
USA
Manoranjan S. D’Souza
Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, The Raabe College of
Pharmacy, Ohio Northern University, Ada, OH, USA
Scott Edwards
Department of Physiology, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Center of Excellence,
Neuroscience Center of Excellence, Louisiana State University Health Sciences
Center, New Orleans, LA, USA

v
vi Contributors

Hamed Ekhtiari
Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging; Neurocognitive Laboratory,
Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies (INCAS); Translational
Neuroscience Program, Institute for Cognitive Sciences Studies (ICSS), and
Neuroimaging and Analysis Group, Research Center for Molecular and Cellular
Imaging (RCMCI), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Javad Salehi Fadardi
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad; Bangor University, Bangor, UK, and Addiction
Research Centre, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Shelly B. Flagel
Department of Psychiatry, and Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
John J. Foxe
Department of Pediatrics, and Department of Neuroscience, Albert Einstein
College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
Hugh Garavan
Department of Psychiatry, Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, and
Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Ashley N. Gearhardt
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Rita Z. Goldstein
Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Neuroscience, Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Colleen A. Hanlon
Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
Kelsey E. Hudson
Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Andrine Lemieux
University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Duluth, MN, USA
Francesco Leri
Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Scott J. Moeller
Department of Psychiatry, and Department of Neuroscience, Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Seyed Mohammad Ahmadi Soleimani
Neurocognitive Laboratory, Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies
(INCAS), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, and Department of Physiology,
Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Azarkhsh Mokri
Clinical Department, Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies (INCAS),
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
 Contributors vii

John Monterosso
Neuroscience Graduate Program; Department of Psychology, and Brain and
Creativity Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Jonathan D. Morrow
Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Bonnie J. Nagel
Departments of Psychiatry, and Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health &
Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Padideh Nasseri
Neurocognitive Laboratory, Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies
(INCAS), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, and Translational Neuroscience
Program, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies (ICSS), Tehran, Iran
Marc N. Potenza
Department of Psychiatry; Department of Neurobiology, Child Study Center, and
CASAColumbia, and Connecticut Mental Health Center, Yale University School of
Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
Alexandra Potter
Department of Psychiatry, Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, and
Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Amanda J. Quisenberry
Addiction Recovery Research Center, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute,
Roanoke, VA, USA
Arash Rahmani
Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies, Tehran University of Medical
Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Lara A. Ray
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Erica M. Schulte
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Sarah E. Snider
Addiction Recovery Research Center, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute,
Roanoke, VA, USA
Philip A. Spechler
Department of Psychiatry, Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, and
Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Jeffrey S. Stein
Addiction Recovery Research Center, Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute,
Roanoke, VA, USA
Jane R. Taylor
Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
viii Contributors

Mary M. Torregrossa
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Yvonne H.C. Yau
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute,
McGill University, and Montreal Neurological Institute, 3801 Rue University,
Montréal, QC, Canada
Fatemeh Yavari
Neurocognitive Laboratory, Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies
(INCAS), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Sarah W. Yip
Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT,
USA
Sonja Yokum
Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR, USA
Yan Zhou
The Laboratory of the Biology of Addictive Diseases, The Rockefeller University,
New York, NY, USA
Preface: Neuroscience for Addiction
Medicine: From Prevention to
Rehabilitation

It is estimated that a total of 246 million people, i.e., over 5% of the world’s adult
population, have used an illicit drug during the last year. Meanwhile, more than 10%
of these drug users are suffering from drug use disorders and the number of drug-
related deaths is estimated to be over 187,000 annually (UN Office of Drugs and
Crime, 2015). Adding disorders related to the nonpharmacologic or behavioral ad-
dictions such as pathological gambling, Internet and gaming addictions, overeating
and obesity, and compulsive sexual behaviors to the drug addictions comprises a
group of brain disorders that contribute as one of the major challenges for humankind
in the current millennium.
Addiction medicine has been regarded as a stand-alone specialty among other
medical professions in several countries; however, there are still serious concerns
regarding the availability and effectiveness of interventions in a wide range from pre-
vention to rehabilitation in addiction medicine. Accumulating pathophysiological
evidences for “Addiction as a Brain Disorder” during last 20 years is extending ex-
pectations from neuroscience to contribute more seriously in the routine clinical
practices during prevention, assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation of addictive
disorders. Neuroscience has made tremendous progress toward understanding basic
neural processes; however, there is still a lot of progress needed to be made in uti-
lizing neuroscience approaches in clinical medicine in general and addiction medi-
cine in particular.
The basic idea of a book to provide the current status of the field of neuroscience
of addiction with particular emphasis on potential applications in a clinical setting
was jumped out during meetings in the 2nd Basic and Clinical Neuroscience Con-
gress in October 2013 in Tehran with Professor Vincent Walsh, the Progress in Brain
Research, PBR, Editor in Chief. We, Martin and Hamed, started to work together for
a proposal to the PBR advisory board to compile a volume of reviews in June 2014 in
the Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK. After receiving the green lights
from the PBR office, the invitations went out to the senior scholars in the field from
October 2014. We received overwhelming positive feedbacks from over 120 contrib-
utors from 90 institutes in 14 countries that ended up with 36 chapters in two volumes
in October 2015. During this 1 year of intensive efforts, all the chapters were peer
reviewed and revised accordingly to meet high-quality standards of the PBR and our
vision for the whole concept of the volumes. The first volume, PBR Vol. 223, is
mainly focused on the basic neurocognitive constructs contributing to pathophysio-
logical basis of pharmacological and behavioral addictions, and the second volume,
PBR Vol. 224, depicts the contribution of neuroscience methods and interventions in
the future of clinical practices in addiction medicine.
xix
xx Preface: Neuroscience for addiction medicine

The goal of these two volumes is to provide readers with insights into current
gaps and possible directions of research that would address impactful questions.
The fundamental question that is addressed in these volumes is “how can neurosci-
ence be used to make a real difference in addiction medicine”? To that end, we asked
the contributors to:
(1) review the recent literature with a time horizon of approximately 5–10 years,
(2) identify current gaps in our knowledge that contribute to the limited impact of
the area of research to clinical practice, and
(3) provide a perspective where the field is heading and how impactful questions can
be addressed to change the practice of addiction medicine.
We envision that both neuroscientists and clinical investigators will be the primary
audience of these two volumes. Moreover, the common interest of these individuals
will be the application of neuroscience approaches in studies to assess or treat indi-
viduals with addictive disorders. We think that these PBR volumes will provide the
audiences with most recent evidences from different disciplines in brain studies on
the wide range of addictive disorders in an integrative way toward “Neuroscience for
Addiction Medicine: From Prevention to Rehabilitation.” The hope is that the infor-
mation provided in the series of chapters in these two volumes will trigger new re-
searches that will help to connect basic neuroscience to clinical addiction medicine.

The Editors
Hamed Ekhtiari, MD,
Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies
Martin Paulus, MD,
Laureate Institute for Brain Research

REFERENCE
UN Office of Drugs and Crime, 2015. World Drug Report 2015. United Nation Publication,
Vienna.
 CHAPTER

Neuroscience of resilience
and vulnerability for
addiction medicine:
From genes to behavior
1
Jonathan D. Morrow*,1, Shelly B. Flagel*,†
*Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
†
Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
1
Corresponding author: Tel.: +1-734-764-0231; Fax: +1-734-232-0244,
e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract
Addiction is a complex behavioral disorder arising from roughly equal contributions of genetic
and environmental factors. Behavioral traits such as novelty-seeking, impulsivity, and cue-
reactivity have been associated with vulnerability to addiction. These traits, at least in part,
arise from individual variation in functional neural systems, such as increased striatal dopa-
minergic activity and decreased prefrontal cortical control over subcortical emotional and mo-
tivational responses. With a few exceptions, genetic studies have largely failed to consistently
identify specific alleles that affect addiction liability. This may be due to the multifactorial
nature of addiction, with different genes becoming more significant in certain environments
or in certain subsets of the population. Epigenetic mechanisms may also be an important
source of risk. Adolescence is a particularly critical time period in the development of addic-
tion, and environmental factors at this stage of life can have a large influence on whether inher-
ited risk factors are actually translated into addictive behaviors. Knowledge of how individual
differences affect addiction liability at the level of genes, neural systems, behavioral traits, and
sociodevelopmental trajectories can help to inform and improve clinical practice.

Keywords
Addiction, Individual differences, Cue-reactivity, Impulsivity, Dopamine, Neural circuits,
Genetics

There is considerable variability in the likelihood of developing addiction upon

exposure to drugs of abuse. This is evidenced by the fact that over 90% of Americans
have used alcohol, but only 8–12% ever meet criteria for alcohol dependence
(Anthony et al., 1994). Determining what factors render certain individuals more

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 223, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.09.004

© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
3
4 CHAPTER 1 Neuroscience of resilience and vulnerability

susceptible to addiction has proven difficult to discern because of the array of vari-
ables involved. Over the past few decades, we have learned that there is a complex
interplay of genes and environment that govern the neurobiological and behavioral
processes relevant to addiction. However, there are, unquestionably, multiple algo-
rithms by which these factors may be combined to alter addiction liability. Below we
will briefly review findings from both human and animal studies that highlight some
of the behavioral, neural, and genetic variables believed to contribute to addiction
liability.

1 BEHAVIORAL TRAITS
Despite the oft-repeated adage that “there is no addictive personality,” there is a clear
association between addiction and certain personality traits. For example, clinical
studies have found that the trait known as neuroticism or negative emotionality is
associated with substance use disorders as well as depressive and anxiety disorders
(Kotov et al., 2010; Terracciano et al., 2008). The mechanisms underlying this as-
sociation are not well-characterized, but are thought to include increased stress sen-
sitivity (Ersche et al., 2012). Another personality trait associated with addiction is the
“externalizing” phenotype, characterized by novelty- and sensation-seeking behav-
ior, hypersensitivity to rewards, and insensitivity to punishment (Dick et al., 2013;
Hicks et al., 2013; Pingault et al., 2013). Evidence from animal models suggests that
the sensation-seeking trait may specifically increase the propensity to initiate and
continue drug use, as opposed to predisposing toward compulsive use that would
meet criteria for substance dependence (Belin et al., 2008; Deroche-Gamonet
et al., 2004; Piazza et al., 1989), and some human studies have substantiated this find-
ing (Ersche et al., 2013). Trait impulsivity, otherwise known as disinhibition or lack
of constraint, has perhaps the strongest evidence for an association with addiction.
In the animal literature, the transition to compulsive drug use can be predicted by
measures of impulsivity (Belin et al., 2008; Dalley et al., 2007); specifically the
inability to withhold a prepotent response (e.g., 5-choice serial reaction time task).
Similar tasks have been used with human subjects in the laboratory to assess
disinhibition or lack of constraint—and, in agreement with the rodent studies, these
studies have largely shown evidence for an association between trait impulsivity and
addiction (for review, see Verdejo-Garcia et al., 2008). Another addiction-related
trait is “cue-reactivity”; perhaps not surprisingly, as relapse is most often triggered
by cues (e.g., people, places, paraphernalia) in the environment that have been
previously associated with the drug-taking experience. Indeed, both human studies
and animal models suggest that individuals for whom the cue attains incentive
motivational value or incentive salience are the individuals most likely to exhibit re-
lapse (e.g., see Carter and Tiffany, 1999; Janes et al., 2010; Rohsenow et al., 1990;
Saunders and Robinson, 2010, 2011). These different personality traits have not only
been associated with different phases of addiction but also with different types of
drugs of abuse. For example, cocaine addicts tend to be more impulsive than heroin
 3 Genetics 5

addicts; whereas heroin addicts are more anxious than cocaine addicts (Bornovalova
et al., 2005; Lejuez et al., 2005, 2006). These data beg the question of whether
certain personality traits predispose an individual to a particular phase (e.g., initiation
vs. relapse) of addiction or type of drug (e.g., psychostimulants vs. opioids), or if
it is the drugs themselves—via alteration of brain function—that cause the behav-
ioral traits.

2 NEUROBIOLOGICAL FACTORS
Although it has been difficult to parse cause from consequence when it comes to elu-
cidating the neurobiological mechanisms underlying addiction, there is general
agreement as to what neurotransmitter systems and brain regions are involved.
All drugs of abuse share the ability to elevate dopamine transmission, either directly
or indirectly (Hyman et al., 2006). It is therefore not surprising that dopamine and the
mesocorticolimbic “reward” circuitry have been a primary focus of neuroscience re-
search related to addiction. The most consistent findings to emerge from imaging
studies of addicted patients are decreased dopamine type 2/3 (D2/3) receptor binding
capacity, particularly in the striatum, and decreased activity in prefrontal cortical
(PFC) areas that normally provide “top-down” executive control over striatal activity
(Volkow et al., 1993; Wang et al., 2012a). Decreased striatal D2/3 receptor binding
has also been reliably associated with novelty-seeking and impulsivity in both human
and animal studies (Buckholtz et al., 2010; Dalley et al., 2011; Leyton et al., 2002;
Zald et al., 2008), as has increased dopaminergic activity in the striatum at baseline
and in response to various stimuli in rats (Hooks et al., 1991; Piazza et al., 1991).
Further, human studies have shown that, in addition to lower levels of functional ac-
tivity in PFC areas, impulsive individuals exhibit decreased functional connectivity
between the PFC and subcortical structures, including the amygdala and ventral
striatum (Davis et al., 2013; Schmaal et al., 2012). Fewer studies have investigated
the neurobiological basis of “cue-reactivity,” though existing evidence from both
humans and animals suggests increased mesolimbic dopaminergic activity in
cue-reactive individuals (Flagel et al., 2011; Jasinska et al., 2014). Thus, a simplified
picture has emerged that individuals predisposed toward addiction are character-
ized neurobiologically by relatively high dopaminergic activity, coupled with
decreased “top-down” cortical control.

3 GENETICS
Twin studies have yielded heritability estimates of 30–70% for addiction (Agrawal
and Lynskey, 2008). Most of the genetic influences on substance use appear to be
shared across different classes of substances (Kendler et al., 2008; Tsuang et al.,
1998). However, the most robust findings from candidate gene and from genome-
wide association studies (GWAS) have been specific to certain classes of drugs.
6 CHAPTER 1 Neuroscience of resilience and vulnerability

For example, polymorphisms affecting the function of the alcohol dehydrogenase

and aldehyde dehydrogenase are some of the oldest and most potent known genetic
risk/resilience factors for any psychiatric disorder, but these are genes that specifi-
cally affect alcohol metabolism and are therefore specifically related to alcohol use
disorders (Hurley and Edenberg, 2012). To our knowledge, the only other association
reliably and convincingly detected by both GWAS and candidate gene studies is that
of nicotine dependence with variants of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR)
subunit genes (Bierut et al., 2008). Although genes affecting several other proteins
have been associated with addiction, including gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA)
receptors, opioid receptors, and cannabinoid receptors, these findings have been in-
consistent across studies and generally specific to one or a few substances (Hall et al.,
2013; Wang et al., 2012b). Even studies of genes involved in dopamine transmission
have yielded mixed results, despite the fact that augmentation of dopamine transmis-
sion in the ventral striatum is a mechanistic pathway common to all drugs of abuse
(Hyman et al., 2006). Difficulties in the replication of candidate gene findings do not
necessarily mean that the associations are invalid; instead, it may indicate that indi-
vidual genetic effects are limited to specific populations and endophenotypes. In-
deed, transgenic animal studies of candidate genes generally show much more
consistent and robust effects on drug-taking behaviors than human association stud-
ies would otherwise suggest. Thus, like most psychiatric disorders, addiction appears
to be highly heritable, but the multifactorial and polygenic nature of the disorder
makes specific gene associations very difficult to detect.

4 EPIGENETICS
Intriguingly, emerging evidence from the animal literature is implicating transge-
nerational epigenetic mechanisms as possible contributors to the heritability of ad-
dictive disorders (Vassoler and Sadri-Vakili, 2014; Yohn et al., 2015). Epigenetic
changes are experience-dependent chemical alterations to chromosomes that affect
gene expression. The most widely studied epigenetic markers are DNA methylation
and histone methylation and acetylation. Although there have been a number of stud-
ies demonstrating epigenetic modifications in response to drugs of abuse (for review,
see Renthal and Nestler, 2008), few, to our knowledge, have identified epigenetic
mechanisms that contribute to addiction vulnerability. Thus, for the purpose of this
chapter, we will focus on transgenerational epigenetic mechanisms, that is, those that
are retained throughout embryonic development, and thereby passed on from parent
to offspring. For example, exposure to alcohol causes several epigenetic changes to
be passed on to offspring and successive generations of rodents, including demeth-
ylation of the imprinted gene H19 (Ouko et al., 2009), demethylation of the promoter
region of exon IV of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (Bdnf) gene (Finegersh
and Homanics, 2014), increased methylation of the dopamine transporter (Dat) pro-
moter (Kim et al., 2014), and methylation of the pro-opioid melanocortin (Pomc)
promoter in the arcuate nucleus (Govorko et al., 2012). Remarkably, there are a
 5 Developmental factors 7

number of common associations of these epigenetic changes, including increased

Bdnf expression in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), decreased DAT in the cortex
and striatum, decreased hypothalamic Pomc (Govorko et al., 2012), decreased fear
behaviors, increased aggression and impulsivity (Meek et al., 2007), and attention
deficits (Kim et al., 2014).
There is also evidence of transgenerational epigenetic changes induced by other
substances. For example, rats exposed to opioids have progeny that exhibit altered re-
sponses to dopaminergic agents (Byrnes et al., 2013; Vyssotski, 2011). Offspring of
dams exposed to nicotine are hyperactive and inattentive, and have increased methyl-
ation of the Bdnf promoter and decreased BDNF levels in the frontal cortex (Toledo-
Rodriguez et al., 2010; Yochum et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2014). In contrast to changes
induced by other substances, the transgenerational effects of cocaine exposure may
actually be protective, as the progeny of cocaine-exposed rodents have increased
acetylated histone 3 associated with Bdnf exon IV, increased BDNF expression in
the medial prefrontal cortex, and reduced cocaine self-administration (Vassoler
et al., 2013). Though many mechanistic details for these effects remain to be discov-
ered, and all of the epigenetic findings mentioned here await further confirmation from
other groups, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of risk may prove to be an im-
portant component of individual differences in vulnerability to addiction.

5 DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS
Environmental factors and life experiences also play a large role in determining an
individual’s risk for developing an addictive disorder. Several studies have shown
that the younger a person is upon first exposure to drugs or alcohol, the higher their
risk of addiction, even after controlling for other variables (e.g., Chen et al., 2009;
Dawson et al., 2008; King and Chassin, 2007). Similarly, animal studies have shown
that exposure to stress, particularly in the prenatal or early childhood period, in-
creases the risk of addiction (Deminiere et al., 1992; Henry et al., 1995; Kippin
et al., 2008). Human imaging studies show that the adolescent brain is also partic-
ularly responsive to stressful stimuli (Gunnar et al., 2009; Stroud et al., 2009).
Human and animal studies have shown that stress very early in life will sensitize
the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, such that later stress responses become ex-
aggerated (Higley et al., 1991; Liu et al., 1997; Tarullo and Gunnar, 2006). In addi-
tion, dopaminergic activity increases in the striatum and decreases in cortical regions
after early life stress in both humans and animals (Blanc et al., 1980; Brake et al.,
2004; Pruessner et al., 2004). Importantly, animal studies indicate that many of these
changes can be mitigated by increased maternal care or environmental enrichment
(Barbazanges et al., 1996; Plotsky and Meaney, 1993; Solinas et al., 2010). Genetic
studies in humans have shown that childhood experiences moderate the effects of
several genes on addiction, including polymorphisms in the serotonin transporter,
dopamine type 2 receptor, monoamine oxidase, and corticotrophin releasing hor-
mone receptor 1 (Bau et al., 2000; Bjork et al., 2010; Blomeyer et al., 2008). Thus,
8 CHAPTER 1 Neuroscience of resilience and vulnerability

many genetic risk factors may only become relevant in the setting of known envi-
ronmental stressors such as parental divorce, migration, and comorbid psychiatric
illness; conversely, genetic influences may be reduced by protective environmental
factors such as marriage, religiosity, and parental involvement (Dick et al., 2007a,b;
Heath et al., 1989; Koopmans et al., 1999).
The contributions of genetic and environmental risk factors vary over the course
of development, and multiple lines of evidence from the human and animal literature
implicate adolescence as a critical period in the development of addictive disorders
(Adriani and Laviola, 2004; Belsky et al., 2013; Vrieze et al., 2012). As with most
psychiatric disorders, the onset of addictive disorders peaks in adolescence
(SAMSHA, 2014). Brain maturation takes place unevenly throughout the brain, with
basic motivational regions such as the striatum developing well before more cogni-
tive PFC regions that are involved in exerting control over appetitive urges (Dahl,
2008; Gogtay et al., 2004; Sowell et al., 2003). Dopaminergic activity throughout
the limbic system is increased during adolescence (McCutcheon et al., 2012;
Rosenberg and Lewis, 1994). In addition, glutamatergic connections between the
prefrontal cortex and subcortical structures, including the ventral striatum and amyg-
dala, are reduced in adolescents (Brenhouse et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2002).
Hence, the adolescent brain is sometimes described as a high-performance sports car
with faulty brakes. As might be expected based on these neurobiological character-
istics, adolescents are more impulsive and sensation-seeking than adults (Adriani and
Laviola, 2003; Adriani et al., 1998; Romer et al., 2009). They are also more likely to
engage in risky behaviors, including taking drugs more often and in larger quantities,
than adults (Merrick et al., 2004; SAMSHA, 2014; Steinberg, 2008).
It is interesting to note that risk-taking behavior may also serve important, adap-
tive functions for adolescents. The transition to independence requires stepping out-
side of one’s comfort zone in order to achieve a sense of competence in adult
situations. Risky activities such as substance use may contribute to social develop-
ment, as teens who experiment with drugs are more socially competent and accepted
by their peers than abstainers (Spear, 2000). Social aspects of the environment are
more emotionally salient for adolescents, and this sensitivity is reflected by increased
limbic activity in response to social cues (Choudhury et al., 2006; Monk et al., 2003;
Yang et al., 2003). Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, substance use and antisocial behav-
ior among peers is a strong risk factor for the development of addiction in adoles-
cence (Dick et al., 2007a,b; Harden et al., 2008). Hormonal influences are also
likely to play a role in addiction during this time period, as testosterone contributes
to synaptic pruning during adolescence (Nguyen et al., 2013). Women, though less
likely overall to develop addictive disorders, generally have a more severe and
treatment-resistant course of illness, more stress-related comorbidities, and faster
transitions to compulsive drug use than men, again highlighting the influence of hor-
mones on drug-taking behavior (Kuhn, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2013). These findings,
taken together, illustrate that adolescence is an extraordinarily sensitive time window
with regard to the development of addiction.
 6 Conclusion and future directions 9

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The information garnered from research into addiction vulnerability has the potential
to inform and improve treatment of addictive disorders in several ways. For instance,
there is considerable interest in using biomarkers to identify individuals who are at
high risk of developing addiction. Theoretically, information about a person’s dopa-
minergic activity, functional connectivity patterns, or even BDNF expression pat-
terns in the brain could be used to estimate risk, but currently none of these
indicators are sensitive or specific enough to serve as true biomarkers. Genetic in-
formation has the potential to be very informative, as heredity can account for up-
ward of 70% of an individual’s risk for addiction. However, other than a handful
of substance-specific genes, genetic studies have so far not been very successful
at consistently finding particular genotypes that contribute to addiction liability. Be-
cause of the multifactorial nature of addiction, future genetic studies may need to
focus on particular subpopulations, endophenotypes, or subtypes of addiction, in ad-
dition to better accounting for environmental modifiers of genetic risk, in order to
identify clinically relevant risk alleles. Emerging evidence from the animal literature
suggests that epigenomic association studies may also be useful for accounting for
the heritable portion of addiction vulnerability.
However, despite gaps in our knowledge of the specific genes and neural circuitry
involved in addiction liability, existing information is often enough to produce clin-
ically relevant estimates of an individual’s risk of developing an addictive disorder.
For example, we already know that an impulsive, sensation-seeking individual,
whose parents and grandparents suffered from addiction, who undergoes neglect
or other trauma at an early age, and who is surrounded by peers engaging in high-
risk substance use, is very likely to develop an addictive disorder. We can even pre-
dict with considerable confidence that the disorder will emerge sometime between
the ages of 12 and 25. The question then becomes, how do we use this information to
improve clinical outcomes? First, do no harm. In 2013, the leading cause of acciden-
tal death in the United States was drug overdose, and over 50% of the drugs involved
were prescription opioids and benzodiazepines (CDC, 2014, 2015). Prescribing phy-
sicians should make a concerted effort to limit access to drugs with addictive poten-
tial for individuals and relatives of individuals at high risk of developing addictive
disorders, because the vast majority of abused prescription drugs are prescribed ei-
ther to the user themselves or to a relative of the user (SAMSHA, 2014). Patients
should be educated about their own risk profile and that of their family members,
so that they can make informed decisions about the way they use potentially addic-
tive substances. Formal prevention programs aimed at adolescents have largely
failed to influence substance use rates, but parental behaviors often have a profound
effect on teenage substance use (SAMSHA, 2014). Thus, parents of adolescents who
are at high risk of developing addiction should be encouraged to take steps that are
known to reduce the risk of addiction, such as explicitly discouraging drug use, mon-
itoring the child’s peers and activities, actively involving themselves in the child’s
 Neural Epigenetic
plasticity factors DA genes
Transgenerational (e.g., DAT, COMT, Stress
genes MAOA, D1R, D2R) genes
(e.g., Synaptophysin,
(e.g., 5-HTR,
BDNF)
CRHR)

Ventral DA
PFC VTA
striatum

HPA axis

Stress
Novelty-seeking
Impulsivity cue-reactivity
Negative
environment

High-risk drug use Positive

environment

Drug-
response
genes Drug effects
(e.g., OPRM1, nAchR,
GABRA1, GABRA2, Peer use,
CB1R, ADH/ALDH) drug
availability

FIGURE 1
Addiction vulnerability at multiple, interacting levels. High-risk drug use (red; black in the
print version) is potentiated by personality traits (green; light gray in the print version)
including impulsivity, novelty-seeking, and cue-reactivity. These personality traits, in turn,
reflect neurobiological traits (yellow; white in the print version) including increased
dopaminergic activity and decreased prefrontal cortical control over ventral striatal impulses.
Addictive drugs (purple; dark gray in the print version) directly affect this neural circuitry,
which is one driver of the cycle of addiction. Stress (black), acting through the hypothalamic
pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis, predisposes toward addictive behavior by enhancing
dopaminergic activity. Environmental factors (gray) affect vulnerability either through their
effects on stress, or via a more direct effect on the probability of drug use. Genetic
polymorphisms (blue; light gray in the print version) affect this system in a variety of ways.
“Drug–response genes” modulate the pharmacologic effects of drug use, while other genes
modulate dopaminergic activity, stress reactivity, or corticolimbic connectivity patterns.
Transgenerational epigenetic influences (orange; dark gray in the print version) may be
mediated by these same gene families, with most of the evidence so far implicating
dopaminergic genes and synaptic plasticity genes. Definitions of connectors: arrows indicate
one variable potentiating the other; lines terminating with a hash bar indicate an inhibitory
relationship; lines terminating with a circle indicate a positive association; double-hashed
lines indicate a relationship that can be either positive or negative, depending on the allele.
Abbreviations: 5-HTR, serotonin receptor; ADH, alcohol dehydrogenase; ALDH, aldehyde
dehydrogenase; BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; CB1R, cannabinoid type 1
receptor; COMT, catechol-O-methyl transferase; CRHR, corticotrophin-releasing hormone
receptor; D1R, dopamine type 1 receptor; D2R, dopamine type 2 receptor; DAT, dopamine
transporter; GABRA1, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor subunit alpha-1;
GABRA2, GABA receptor subunit alpha-2; HPA, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal; MAOA,
monoamine oxidase A; nAChR, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor; OPRM1, opioid receptor mu
1; PFC, prefrontal cortex; VTA, ventral tegmental area.
 References 11

homework and other activities, providing a stable family life, and involving the child
in religious activities.
Treatment of patients who already have addiction may also benefit from knowl-
edge of specific vulnerability factors. For example, personality traits associated with
addiction can, in some cases, be targeted by specific clinical interventions. To date,
few studies have taken this approach, but one indication of its potential utility is the
finding that, for individuals with addiction and comorbid attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder, treatment of their impulsivity with potentially addictive psychostimu-
lants paradoxically reduces their risk of relapse (Levin et al., 2007). Selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have largely been disappointing as a treatment
for addiction (Nunes and Levin, 2004) but because they actually reduce the neurot-
icism trait (Tang et al., 2009), SSRIs might be useful in treating a subset of patients
for whom neuroticism is a primary driver of their addiction. Information about per-
sonality traits and other neurobiological factors might also be used to tailor specific
treatment interventions; for example, emphasizing stress reduction in individuals
with high neuroticism, or focusing more on identifying and avoiding cues for indi-
viduals with markers of excessive cue-reactivity. Sophisticated methods (e.g., opto-
genetics, designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs—DREADDs)
are being developed in rodents to directly manipulate the neural circuitry responsible
for individual differences in cue-reactivity and other behavioral traits, but because
many of these approaches involve genetic modification of neurons, they are many
years away from being available for clinical trials.
As research progresses, the multifactorial nature of addiction becomes even more
apparent. Yet, remarkably, as outlined above, there are a number of vulnerability fac-
tors that repeatedly appear in the literature, common to both human and animal stud-
ies, and linked at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., genetic and neurobiological; see
Fig. 1 for a simplified visual summary). Moving forward, the advent and accessibil-
ity of new technology (e.g., Saunders et al., 2015) will allow increasingly precise
analysis of the neurobiological factors contributing to addiction liability. For exam-
ple, chemogenetic approaches could be used to manipulate “top-down” cortical cir-
cuits in order to “switch” the behavioral phenotype of an animal from one that is
addiction-prone, to one that is addiction-resilient. A continuing challenge for the
field will be integrating this new knowledge with the other layers of genetic, epige-
netic, developmental, and environmental factors that interact in multiple ways with
this neural circuitry in order to determine an individual’s risk for addiction.

REFERENCES
Adriani, W., Laviola, G., 2003. Elevated levels of impulsivity and reduced place conditioning
with d-amphetamine: two behavioral features of adolescence in mice. Behav. Neurosci.
117 (4), 695–703.
Adriani, W., Laviola, G., 2004. Windows of vulnerability to psychopathology and therapeutic
strategy in the adolescent rodent model. Behav. Pharmacol. 15 (5-6), 341–352.
12 CHAPTER 1 Neuroscience of resilience and vulnerability

Adriani, W., Chiarotti, F., Laviola, G., 1998. Elevated novelty seeking and peculiar
d-amphetamine sensitization in periadolescent mice compared with adult mice. Behav.
Neurosci. 112 (5), 1152–1166.
Agrawal, A., Lynskey, M.T., 2008. Are there genetic influences on addiction: evidence from
family, adoption and twin studies. Addiction 103 (7), 1069–1081.
Anthony, J.C., Warner, S.A., Kessler, R.C., 1994. Comparative epidemiology of dependence
on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: basic findings from the National
Comorbidity Survey. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 2 (3), 244–268.
Barbazanges, A., Vallee, M., Mayo, W., Day, J., Simon, H., Le Moal, M., Maccari, S., 1996.
Early and later adoptions have different long-term effects on male rat offspring.
J. Neurosci. 16 (23), 7783–7790.
Bau, C.H., Almeida, S., Hutz, M.H., 2000. The TaqI A1 allele of the dopamine D2 receptor
gene and alcoholism in Brazil: association and interaction with stress and harm avoidance
on severity prediction. Am. J. Med. Genet. 96 (3), 302–306.
Belin, D., Mar, A.C., Dalley, J.W., Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 2008. High impulsivity pre-
dicts the switch to compulsive cocaine-taking. Science 320 (5881), 1352–1355.
Belsky, D.W., Moffitt, T.E., Baker, T.B., Biddle, A.K., Evans, J.P., Harrington, H., et al.,
2013. Polygenic risk and the developmental progression to heavy, persistent smoking
and nicotine dependence: evidence from a 4-decade longitudinal study. JAMA Psychiatry
70 (5), 534–542.
Bierut, L.J., Stitzel, J.A., Wang, J.C., Hinrichs, A.L., Grucza, R.A., Xuei, X., et al., 2008. Var-
iants in nicotinic receptors and risk for nicotine dependence. Am. J. Psychiatry 165 (9),
1163–1171.
Bjork, K., Hansson, A.C., Sommer, W.H., 2010. Genetic variation and brain gene expression
in rodent models of alcoholism implications for medication development. Int. Rev. Neu-
robiol. 91, 129–171.
Blanc, G., Herve, D., Simon, H., Lisoprawski, A., Glowinski, J., Tassin, J.P., 1980. Response
to stress of mesocortico-frontal dopaminergic neurones in rats after long-term isolation.
Nature 284 (5753), 265–267.
Blomeyer, D., Treutlein, J., Esser, G., Schmidt, M.H., Schumann, G., Laucht, M., 2008. In-
teraction between CRHR1 gene and stressful life events predicts adolescent heavy alcohol
use. Biol. Psychiatry 63 (2), 146–151.
Bornovalova, M.A., Daughters, S.B., Hernandez, G.D., Richards, J.B., Lejuez, C.W., 2005.
Differences in impulsivity and risk-taking propensity between primary users of crack co-
caine and primary users of heroin in a residential substance-use program. Exp. Clin. Psy-
chopharmacol. 13 (4), 311–318.
Brake, W.G., Zhang, T.Y., Diorio, J., Meaney, M.J., Gratton, A., 2004. Influence of early post-
natal rearing conditions on mesocorticolimbic dopamine and behavioural responses to
psychostimulants and stressors in adult rats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 19 (7), 1863–1874.
Brenhouse, H.C., Sonntag, K.C., Andersen, S.L., 2008. Transient D1 dopamine receptor ex-
pression on prefrontal cortex projection neurons: relationship to enhanced motivational
salience of drug cues in adolescence. J. Neurosci. 28 (10), 2375–2382.
Buckholtz, J.W., Treadway, M.T., Cowan, R.L., Woodward, N.D., Li, R., Ansari, M.S., et al.,
2010. Dopaminergic network differences in human impulsivity. Science 329 (5991), 532.
Byrnes, J.J., Johnson, N.L., Carini, L.M., Byrnes, E.M., 2013. Multigenerational effects of ad-
olescent morphine exposure on dopamine D2 receptor function. Psychopharmacology
(Berl) 227 (2), 263–272.
 References 13

Carter, B.L., Tiffany, S.T., 1999. Cue-reactivity and the future of addiction research.
Addiction 94 (3), 349–351.
CDC, 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query
and Reporting System (WISQARS). http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
CDC, 2015. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Vital Statistics System Mor-
tality Data. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm.
Chen, C.Y., Storr, C.L., Anthony, J.C., 2009. Early-onset drug use and risk for drug depen-
dence problems. Addict. Behav. 34 (3), 319–322.
Choudhury, S., Blakemore, S.J., Charman, T., 2006. Social cognitive development during ad-
olescence. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 1 (3), 165–174.
Cunningham, M.G., Bhattacharyya, S., Benes, F.M., 2002. Amygdalo-cortical sprouting con-
tinues into early adulthood: implications for the development of normal and abnormal
function during adolescence. J. Comp. Neurol. 453 (2), 116–130.
Dahl, R.E., 2008. Biological, developmental, and neurobehavioral factors relevant to adoles-
cent driving risks. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35 (3 Suppl.), S278–S284.
Dalley, J.W., Fryer, T.D., Brichard, L., Robinson, E.S., Theobald, D.E., Laane, K., et al., 2007.
Nucleus accumbens D2/3 receptors predict trait impulsivity and cocaine reinforcement.
Science 315 (5816), 1267–1270.
Dalley, J.W., Everitt, B.J., Robbins, T.W., 2011. Impulsivity, compulsivity, and top-down
cognitive control. Neuron 69 (4), 680–694.
Davis, F.C., Knodt, A.R., Sporns, O., Lahey, B.B., Zald, D.H., Brigidi, B.D., Hariri, A.R.,
2013. Impulsivity and the modular organization of resting-state neural networks. Cereb.
Cortex 23 (6), 1444–1452.
Dawson, D.A., Goldstein, R.B., Chou, S.P., Ruan, W.J., Grant, B.F., 2008. Age at first drink
and the first incidence of adult-onset DSM-IV alcohol use disorders. Alcohol. Clin. Exp.
Res. 32 (12), 2149–2160.
Deminiere, J.M., Piazza, P.V., Guegan, G., Abrous, N., Maccari, S., Le Moal, M., Simon, H.,
1992. Increased locomotor response to novelty and propensity to intravenous amphet-
amine self-administration in adult offspring of stressed mothers. Brain Res. 586 (1),
135–139.
Deroche-Gamonet, V., Belin, D., Piazza, P.V., 2004. Evidence for addiction-like behavior in
the rat. Science 305 (5686), 1014–1017.
Dick, D.M., Pagan, J.L., Holliday, C., Viken, R., Pulkkinen, L., Kaprio, J., Rose, R.J., 2007a.
Gender differences in friends’ influences on adolescent drinking: a genetic epidemiolog-
ical study. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 31 (12), 2012–2019.
Dick, D.M., Viken, R., Purcell, S., Kaprio, J., Pulkkinen, L., Rose, R.J., 2007b. Parental mon-
itoring moderates the importance of genetic and environmental influences on adolescent
smoking. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 116 (1), 213–218.
Dick, D.M., Aliev, F., Latendresse, S.J., Hickman, M., Heron, J., Macleod, J., et al., 2013. Ad-
olescent alcohol use is predicted by childhood temperament factors before age 5, with me-
diation through personality and peers. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 37 (12), 2108–2117.
Ersche, K.D., Turton, A.J., Chamberlain, S.R., Muller, U., Bullmore, E.T., Robbins, T.W.,
2012. Cognitive dysfunction and anxious-impulsive personality traits are endophenotypes
for drug dependence. Am. J. Psychiatry 169 (9), 926–936.
Ersche, K.D., Jones, P.S., Williams, G.B., Smith, D.G., Bullmore, E.T., Robbins, T.W., 2013.
Distinctive personality traits and neural correlates associated with stimulant drug use ver-
sus familial risk of stimulant dependence. Biol. Psychiatry 74 (2), 137–144.
14 CHAPTER 1 Neuroscience of resilience and vulnerability

Finegersh, A., Homanics, G.E., 2014. Paternal alcohol exposure reduces alcohol drinking and
increases behavioral sensitivity to alcohol selectively in male offspring. PLoS One 9 (6),
e99078.
Flagel, S.B., Clark, J.J., Robinson, T.E., Mayo, L., Czuj, A., Willuhn, I., et al., 2011.
A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning. Nature 469 (7328), 53–57.
Gogtay, N., Giedd, J.N., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K.M., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis, A.C., et al., 2004.
Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adult-
hood. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101 (21), 8174–8179.
Govorko, D., Bekdash, R.A., Zhang, C., Sarkar, D.K., 2012. Male germline transmits fetal al-
cohol adverse effect on hypothalamic proopiomelanocortin gene across generations. Biol.
Psychiatry 72 (5), 378–388.
Gunnar, M.R., Wewerka, S., Frenn, K., Long, J.D., Griggs, C., 2009. Developmental changes
in hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal activity over the transition to adolescence: normative
changes and associations with puberty. Dev. Psychopathol. 21 (1), 69–85.
Hall, F.S., Drgonova, J., Jain, S., Uhl, G.R., 2013. Implications of genome wide association
studies for addiction: are our a priori assumptions all wrong? Pharmacol. Ther. 140 (3),
267–279.
Harden, K.P., Hill, J.E., Turkheimer, E., Emery, R.E., 2008. Gene-environment correlation
and interaction in peer effects on adolescent alcohol and tobacco use. Behav. Genet.
38 (4), 339–347.
Heath, A.C., Jardine, R., Martin, N.G., 1989. Interactive effects of genotype and social envi-
ronment on alcohol consumption in female twins. J. Stud. Alcohol 50 (1), 38–48.
Henry, C., Guegant, G., Cador, M., Arnauld, E., Arsaut, J., Le Moal, M., Demotes-Mainard, J.,
1995. Prenatal stress in rats facilitates amphetamine-induced sensitization and induces
long-lasting changes in dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens. Brain Res.
685 (1–2), 179–186.
Hicks, B.M., Foster, K.T., Iacono, W.G., McGue, M., 2013. Genetic and environmental influ-
ences on the familial transmission of externalizing disorders in adoptive and twin off-
spring. JAMA Psychiatry 70 (10), 1076–1083.
Higley, J.D., Hasert, M.F., Suomi, S.J., Linnoila, M., 1991. Nonhuman primate model of al-
cohol abuse: effects of early experience, personality, and stress on alcohol consumption.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88 (16), 7261–7265.
Hooks, M.S., Jones, G.H., Smith, A.D., Neill, D.B., Justice Jr., J.B., 1991. Response to novelty
predicts the locomotor and nucleus accumbens dopamine response to cocaine. Synapse
9 (2), 121–128.
Hurley, T.D., Edenberg, H.J., 2012. Genes encoding enzymes involved in ethanol metabolism.
Alcohol Res. 34 (3), 339–344.
Hyman, S.E., Malenka, R.C., Nestler, E.J., 2006. Neural mechanisms of addiction: the role of
reward-related learning and memory. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 29, 565–598.
Janes, A.C., Pizzagalli, D.A., Richardt, S., deB Frederick, B., Chuzi, S., Pachas, G., et al.,
2010. Brain reactivity to smoking cues prior to smoking cessation predicts ability to main-
tain tobacco abstinence. Biol. Psychiatry 67 (8), 722–729.
Jasinska, A.J., Stein, E.A., Kaiser, J., Naumer, M.J., Yalachkov, Y., 2014. Factors modulating
neural reactivity to drug cues in addiction: a survey of human neuroimaging studies. Neu-
rosci. Biobehav. Rev. 38, 1–16.
Kendler, K.S., Schmitt, E., Aggen, S.H., Prescott, C.A., 2008. Genetic and environmental in-
fluences on alcohol, caffeine, cannabis, and nicotine use from early adolescence to middle
adulthood. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 65 (6), 674–682.
 References 15

Kim, P., Choi, C.S., Park, J.H., Joo, S.H., Kim, S.Y., Ko, H.M., et al., 2014. Chronic exposure
to ethanol of male mice before mating produces attention deficit hyperactivity disorder-
like phenotype along with epigenetic dysregulation of dopamine transporter expression
in mouse offspring. J. Neurosci. Res. 92 (5), 658–670.
King, K.M., Chassin, L., 2007. A prospective study of the effects of age of initiation of alcohol
and drug use on young adult substance dependence. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 68 (2), 256–265.
Kippin, T.E., Szumlinski, K.K., Kapasova, Z., Rezner, B., See, R.E., 2008. Prenatal stress
enhances responsiveness to cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology 33 (4), 769–782.
Koopmans, J.R., Slutske, W.S., van Baal, G.C., Boomsma, D.I., 1999. The influence of reli-
gion on alcohol use initiation: evidence for genotype X environment interaction. Behav.
Genet. 29 (6), 445–453.
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., Watson, D., 2010. Linking "big" personality traits to anx-
iety, depressive, and substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136 (5),
768–821.
Kuhn, C., 2015. Emergence of sex differences in the development of substance use and abuse
during adolescence. Pharmacol. Ther. 153, 55–78.
Lejuez, C.W., Bornovalova, M.A., Daughters, S.B., Curtin, J.J., 2005. Differences in impul-
sivity and sexual risk behavior among inner-city crack/cocaine users and heroin users.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 77 (2), 169–175.
Lejuez, C.W., Paulson, A., Daughters, S.B., Bornovalova, M.A., Zvolensky, M.J., 2006. The
association between heroin use and anxiety sensitivity among inner-city individuals in res-
idential drug use treatment. Behav. Res. Ther. 44 (5), 667–677.
Levin, F.R., Evans, S.M., Brooks, D.J., Garawi, F., 2007. Treatment of cocaine dependent
treatment seekers with adult ADHD: double-blind comparison of methylphenidate and
placebo. Drug Alcohol Depend. 87 (1), 20–29.
Leyton, M., Boileau, I., Benkelfat, C., Diksic, M., Baker, G., Dagher, A., 2002. Amphetamine-
induced increases in extracellular dopamine, drug wanting, and novelty seeking: a PET/
[11C]raclopride study in healthy men. Neuropsychopharmacology 27 (6), 1027–1035.
Liu, D., Diorio, J., Tannenbaum, B., Caldji, C., Francis, D., Freedman, A., et al., 1997. Ma-
ternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid receptors, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal re-
sponses to stress. Science 277 (5332), 1659–1662.
McCutcheon, J.E., Conrad, K.L., Carr, S.B., Ford, K.A., McGehee, D.S., Marinelli, M., 2012.
Dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area fire faster in adolescent rats than in adults.
J. Neurophysiol. 108 (6), 1620–1630.
Meek, L.R., Myren, K., Sturm, J., Burau, D., 2007. Acute paternal alcohol use affects offspring
development and adult behavior. Physiol. Behav. 91 (1), 154–160.
Merrick, J., Kandel, I., Birnbaum, L., Hyam, E., Press, J., Morad, M., 2004. Adolescent injury
risk behavior. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 16 (3), 207–213.
Monk, C.S., McClure, E.B., Nelson, E.E., Zarahn, E., Bilder, R.M., Leibenluft, E., et al., 2003.
Adolescent immaturity in attention-related brain engagement to emotional facial expres-
sions. Neuroimage 20 (1), 420–428.
Nguyen, T.V., McCracken, J., Ducharme, S., Botteron, K.N., Mahabir, M., Johnson, W., et al.,
2013. Testosterone-related cortical maturation across childhood and adolescence. Cereb.
Cortex 23 (6), 1424–1432.
Nunes, E.V., Levin, F.R., 2004. Treatment of depression in patients with alcohol or other drug
dependence: a meta-analysis. JAMA 291 (15), 1887–1896.
Ouko, L.A., Shantikumar, K., Knezovich, J., Haycock, P., Schnugh, D.J., Ramsay, M., 2009.
Effect of alcohol consumption on CpG methylation in the differentially methylated regions
16 CHAPTER 1 Neuroscience of resilience and vulnerability

of H19 and IG-DMR in male gametes: implications for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.
Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 33 (9), 1615–1627.
Piazza, P.V., Deminiere, J.M., Le Moal, M., Simon, H., 1989. Factors that predict individual
vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Science 245 (4925), 1511–1513.
Piazza, P.V., Rouge-Pont, F., Deminiere, J.M., Kharoubi, M., Le Moal, M., Simon, H., 1991.
Dopaminergic activity is reduced in the prefrontal cortex and increased in the nucleus
accumbens of rats predisposed to develop amphetamine self-administration. Brain Res.
567 (1), 169–174.
Pingault, J.B., Cote, S.M., Galera, C., Genolini, C., Falissard, B., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R.E.,
2013. Childhood trajectories of inattention, hyperactivity and oppositional behaviors and
prediction of substance abuse/dependence: a 15-year longitudinal population-based study.
Mol. Psychiatry 18 (7), 806–812.
Plotsky, P.M., Meaney, M.J., 1993. Early, postnatal experience alters hypothalamic
corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) mRNA, median eminence CRF content and stress-
induced release in adult rats. Brain Res. Mol. Brain Res. 18 (3), 195–200.
Pruessner, J.C., Champagne, F., Meaney, M.J., Dagher, A., 2004. Dopamine release in
response to a psychological stress in humans and its relationship to early life maternal care:
a positron emission tomography study using [11C]raclopride. J. Neurosci. 24 (11),
2825–2831.
Renthal, W., Nestler, E.J., 2008. Epigenetic mechanisms in drug addiction. Trends Mol. Med.
14 (8), 341–350.
Rohsenow, D.J., Niaura, R.S., Childress, A.R., Abrams, D.B., Monti, P.M., 1990. Cue
reactivity in addictive behaviors: theoretical and treatment implications. Int. J. Addict.
25 (7A–8A), 957–993.
Romer, D., Betancourt, L., Giannetta, J.M., Brodsky, N.L., Farah, M., Hurt, H., 2009. Exec-
utive cognitive functions and impulsivity as correlates of risk taking and problem behavior
in preadolescents. Neuropsychologia 47 (13), 2916–2926.
Rosenberg, D.R., Lewis, D.A., 1994. Changes in the dopaminergic innervation of monkey pre-
frontal cortex during late postnatal development: a tyrosine hydroxylase immunohisto-
chemical study. Biol. Psychiatry 36 (4), 272–277.
SAMSHA, 2014. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of
National Findings. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Rockville, MD.
Saunders, B.T., Robinson, T.E., 2010. A cocaine cue acts as an incentive stimulus in some but
not others: implications for addiction. Biol. Psychiatry 67 (8), 730–736.
Saunders, B.T., Robinson, T.E., 2011. Individual variation in the motivational properties of
cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology 36 (8), 1668–1676.
Saunders, B.T., Richard, J.M., Janak, P.H., 2015. Contemporary approaches to neural circuit
manipulation and mapping: focus on reward and addiction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
B Biol. Sci. 370 (1677).
Schmaal, L., Goudriaan, A.E., van der Meer, J., van den Brink, W., Veltman, D.J., 2012.
The association between cingulate cortex glutamate concentration and delay discounting
is mediated by resting state functional connectivity. Brain Behav. 2 (5), 553–562.
Solinas, M., Thiriet, N., Chauvet, C., Jaber, M., 2010. Prevention and treatment of drug
addiction by environmental enrichment. Prog. Neurobiol. 92 (4), 572–592.
Sowell, E.R., Peterson, B.S., Thompson, P.M., Welcome, S.E., Henkenius, A.L., Toga, A.W.,
2003. Mapping cortical change across the human life span. Nat. Neurosci. 6 (3), 309–315.
 References 17

Spear, L.P., 2000. The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neurosci.
Biobehav. Rev. 24 (4), 417–463.
Steinberg, L., 2008. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev. Rev.
28 (1), 78–106.
Stroud, L.R., Foster, E., Papandonatos, G.D., Handwerger, K., Granger, D.A., Kivlighan, K.T.,
Niaura, R., 2009. Stress response and the adolescent transition: performance versus peer
rejection stressors. Dev. Psychopathol. 21 (1), 47–68.
Tang, T.Z., DeRubeis, R.J., Hollon, S.D., Amsterdam, J., Shelton, R., Schalet, B., 2009.
Personality change during depression treatment: a placebo-controlled trial. Arch. Gen.
Psychiatry 66 (12), 1322–1330.
Tarullo, A.R., Gunnar, M.R., 2006. Child maltreatment and the developing HPA axis. Horm.
Behav. 50 (4), 632–639.
Terracciano, A., Lockenhoff, C.E., Crum, R.M., Bienvenu, O.J., Costa Jr., P.T., 2008. Five-
Factor Model personality profiles of drug users. BMC Psychiatry 8, 22.
Toledo-Rodriguez, M., Lotfipour, S., Leonard, G., Perron, M., Richer, L., Veillette, S., et al.,
2010. Maternal smoking during pregnancy is associated with epigenetic modifications of
the brain-derived neurotrophic factor-6 exon in adolescent offspring. Am. J. Med. Genet.
B Neuropsychiatr. Genet. 153B (7), 1350–1354.
Tsuang, M.T., Lyons, M.J., Meyer, J.M., Doyle, T., Eisen, S.A., Goldberg, J., et al., 1998. Co-
occurrence of abuse of different drugs in men: the role of drug-specific and shared vulner-
abilities. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 55 (11), 967–972.
Vassoler, F.M., Sadri-Vakili, G., 2014. Mechanisms of transgenerational inheritance of
addictive-like behaviors. Neuroscience 264, 198–206.
Vassoler, F.M., White, S.L., Schmidt, H.D., Sadri-Vakili, G., Pierce, R.C., 2013. Epigenetic
inheritance of a cocaine-resistance phenotype. Nat. Neurosci. 16 (1), 42–47.
Verdejo-Garcia, A., Lawrence, A.J., Clark, L., 2008. Impulsivity as a vulnerability marker for
substance-use disorders: review of findings from high-risk research, problem gamblers and
genetic association studies. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32 (4), 777–810.
Volkow, N.D., Fowler, J.S., Wang, G.J., Hitzemann, R., Logan, J., Schlyer, D.J., et al., 1993.
Decreased dopamine D2 receptor availability is associated with reduced frontal metabo-
lism in cocaine abusers. Synapse 14 (2), 169–177.
Vrieze, S.I., McGue, M., Iacono, W.G., 2012. The interplay of genes and adolescent
development in substance use disorders: leveraging findings from GWAS meta-analyses
to test developmental hypotheses about nicotine consumption. Hum. Genet. 131 (6),
791–801.
Vyssotski, D.L., 2011. Transgenerational epigenetic compensation. Evolocus 1, 1–6.
Wang, G.J., Smith, L., Volkow, N.D., Telang, F., Logan, J., Tomasi, D., et al., 2012a. De-
creased dopamine activity predicts relapse in methamphetamine abusers. Mol. Psychiatry
17 (9), 918–925.
Wang, J.C., Kapoor, M., Goate, A.M., 2012b. The genetics of substance dependence. Annu.
Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 13, 241–261.
Yang, T.T., Menon, V., Reid, A.J., Gotlib, I.H., Reiss, A.L., 2003. Amygdalar activation as-
sociated with happy facial expressions in adolescents: a 3-T functional MRI study. J. Am.
Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 42 (8), 979–985.
Yochum, C., Doherty-Lyon, S., Hoffman, C., Hossain, M.M., Zelikoff, J.T., Richardson, J.R.,
2014. Prenatal cigarette smoke exposure causes hyperactivity and aggressive behavior:
role of altered catecholamines and BDNF. Exp. Neurol. 254, 145–152.
18 CHAPTER 1 Neuroscience of resilience and vulnerability

Yohn, N.L., Bartolomei, M.S., Blendy, J.A., 2015. Multigenerational and transgenerational
inheritance of drug exposure: The effects of alcohol, opiates, cocaine, marijuana, and nic-
otine. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 118 (1-2), 21–33.
Zald, D.H., Cowan, R.L., Riccardi, P., Baldwin, R.M., Ansari, M.S., Li, R., et al., 2008. Mid-
brain dopamine receptor availability is inversely associated with novelty-seeking traits in
humans. J. Neurosci. 28 (53), 14372–14378.
Zhu, J., Lee, K.P., Spencer, T.J., Biederman, J., Bhide, P.G., 2014. Transgenerational trans-
mission of hyperactivity in a mouse model of ADHD. J. Neurosci. 34 (8), 2768–2773.
 CHAPTER

Drug-induced neurotoxicity
in addiction medicine: From
prevention to harm reduction
S. Mohammad Ahmadi Soleimani*,†, Hamed Ekhtiari*,{,}, Jean Lud Cadet},1
2
*Neurocognitive Laboratory, Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies (INCAS), Tehran
University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
†
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
{
Translational Neuroscience Program, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies (ICSS), Tehran, Iran
}
Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging (RCMCI), Tehran University of Medical
Sciences, Tehran, Iran
}
Molecular Neuropsychiatry Research Branch, DHHS/NIH/NIDA Intramural Research Program,
National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
1
Corresponing author: e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract
Neurotoxicity is considered as a major cause of neurodegenerative disorders. Most drugs of
abuse have nonnegligible neurotoxic effects many of which are primarily mediated by several
dopaminergic and glutamatergic neurotransmitter systems. Although many researchers have
investigated the medical and cognitive consequences of drug abuse, the neurotoxicity induced
by these drugs still requires comprehensive attention. The science of neurotoxicity promises to
improve preventive and therapeutic strategies for brain disorders such as Alzheimer disease
and Parkinson’s disease. However, its clinical applications for addiction medicine remain
to be defined adequately. This chapter reviews the most commonly discussed mechanisms un-
derlying neurotoxicity induced by common drugs of abuse including amphetamines, cocaine,
opiates, and alcohol. In addition, the known factors that trigger and/or predispose to drug-
induced neurotoxicity are discussed. These factors include drug-related, individual-related,
and environmental insults. Moreover, we introduce some of the potential pharmacological
antineurotoxic interventions deduced from experimental animal studies. These interventions
involve various targets such as dopaminergic system, mitochondria, cell death signaling, and
NMDA receptors, among others. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of addicted pa-
tients who might benefit from such interventions.

Keywords
Neurotoxicity, Drugs of abuse, Neuroprotection, Addiction medicine

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 223, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.07.004

© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
19
20 CHAPTER 2 Drug-induced neurotoxicity in addiction medicine

1 INTRODUCTION
Neurotoxicity is defined as any adverse effect on the structure or function of the cen-
tral and peripheral nervous systems at the result of a diversity of biological, chemical,
or physical agents. Based on the location or the severity of neurotoxic damages, these
can be accompanied by neurocognitive deficits that impact various aspects of daily
life activities. Although neurotoxicity is a well-known contributory factor in some
neurodegenerative including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, the im-
pact of drug-induced damage in addicted patients remains to be fully evaluated. Nev-
ertheless, the accumulated evidence suggests that drug-induced neurotoxicity is
mediated by activation of several neurotransmitter systems including dopamine
and glutamate that work in concert to damage the brain (Cadet et al., 2014). These
drug-induced damages can negatively impact various neurocognitive spheres that in-
clude memory, attention, decision-making, and executive functions (Cadet and
Bisagno, 2014). There is, at present, a burgeoning literature on the influence of these
cognitive deficits on social and psychological functioning. Nevertheless, much re-
mains to be done to provide a detailed hypothesis that might provide a link between
these drug-induced brain changes and treatment responses. Here, we provide a brief
review of the existing literature on the mechanisms of neurotoxicity consequent to
commonly abused drugs (amphetamines, cocaine, opiates, and alcohol). The chapter
also discusses identified predisposing factors, potentials for preventive, and thera-
peutic approaches, as well as future challenges to apply basic science knowledge
of drug-induced neurotoxic damage to clinical practice.

2 DRUG-INDUCED NEUROTOXICITY: MECHANISMS AND

PATHWAYS
During the past three decades, the efforts of several groups of investigators have led
to the identification of several cellular and molecular mechanisms of drug neurotox-
icity. This chapter presents the bases of toxicity produced by amphetamine, amphet-
amine derivatives, cocaine, and opiates.

2.1 OXIDATIVE STRESS

The increase in extracellular monoamines caused by drugs of abuse is thought to be
responsible for their addictive properties. Importantly, however, the increased dopa-
mine (DA) in the synaptic cleft might also be responsible for the neurotoxic damage
caused by several of these agents (Cadet and Brannock, 1998; Cadet et al., 2007).
In fact, this might provide a partial explanation for the original report of
methamphetamine-induced toxicity in brain regions with high monoaminergic content
(Gibb and Kogan, 1979). Dopamine by itself is neurotoxic both in vitro and in vivo
(Graham et al., 1978). It is easily oxidized via enzymatic and nonenzymatic mecha-
nisms and then induces oxidative stress (Cadet and Brannock, 1998). Amphetamine,
 2 Drug-Induced neurotoxicity: Mechanisms and pathways 21

amphetamine derivatives, cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA),

and opiates have all been reported to produce oxidative stress within the nervous
system (Yamamoto and Bankson, 2005). Active metabolites of dopamine and/or
related substances might cause oxidative stress by forming free radicals via the for-
mation of quinones and the generation of quinone cascades secondary to MDMA
metabolism (Lyles and Cadet, 2003). Cocaine exposure causes oxidative stress by
increasing H2O2 concentration and decreasing catalase activity in rat prefrontal
cortex and striatum (Dietrich et al., 2005; Macêdo et al., 2005). Cocaine also causes
decreased levels of antioxidants such as glutathione (GSH) or vitamin E (Lipton
et al., 2003; Poon et al., 2007). In contrast to the situation for the psychostimulants,
much less is known about opiate-induced oxidative stress. However, heroin has
been reported to decrease the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase,
and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) in the mouse brain. Heroin exposure is reported
to increase oxidative DNA damage, protein oxidation, and lipid peroxidation
(Qiusheng et al., 2005; Xu et al., 2006). Finally, morphine was shown to reduce
fatty acid contents in spinal cord and brain by causing oxidative stress (Ozmen
et al., 2007).

2.2 APOPTOTIC PROCESSES

There is convincing evidence that some drugs of abuse can cause neuronal apoptotic
cell death. Cells undergoing apoptosis are characterized by morphological and bio-
chemical hallmarks that include cell shrinkage, chromatin condensation, and frag-
mentation into membrane-bound apoptotic bodies. Cell death is triggered by
intrinsic and extrinsic molecular pathways that include increased permeability of mi-
tochondrial membrane and activation of death receptors ( Jayanthi et al., 2005).
Death pathways also involve activation of cysteine aspartic proteases (caspases)
and caspase-independent pathways (Kroemer and Martin, 2005). Experiments pub-
lished in the Cadet laboratory were among the first ones to show that amphetamine
and amphetamine derivatives could induce apoptosis in vitro and in vivo models
(Cadet et al., 2007). These observations have been extensively replicated (Cunha-
Oliveira et al., 2006; Dietrich et al., 2005; Oliveira et al., 2002). Amphetamine ex-
posure leads to caspase activation in various brain regions (Cunha-Oliveira et al.,
2006; Krasnova et al., 2005; Waren et al., 2007). Amphetamine exposure stimulates
mitochondrial pathways that lead to caspase activation. Mitochondria-dependent
death pathways involve the release of cytochrome c, decrease in mitochondrial po-
tential, and increased Bax/Bcl2 ratios (Imam et al., 2005; Krasnova et al., 2005;
Oliveira et al., 2003). Other studies have identified p53 as an important regulator
of D-amphetamine-induced cell death (Krasnova et al., 2005). MDMA can also in-
duce apoptosis in rat cortical neurons by activation of 5-HT2A receptors (Capela
et al., 2006). Exposure to cocaine can also activates biochemical mechanisms in-
volved in apoptosis without leading to morphological apoptotic characteristics
(Cunha-Oliveira et al., 2006; Dey et al., 2007; Imam et al., 2005; Mitchell and
Snyder-Keller, 2003; Oliveira et al., 2003). Interestingly, cocaine produces apoptosis
22 CHAPTER 2 Drug-induced neurotoxicity in addiction medicine

in human neuronal progenitor cells by generating oxidative stress (Poon et al., 2007).
Opiates may also cause apoptosis in humans and in animal models (Cunha-Oliveira
et al., 2007; Hu et al., 2002; Mao et al., 2002; Tramullas et al., 2008). Heroin and
morphine cause caspase activation and cytochrome c release from mitochondria
(Cunha-Oliveira et al., 2007; Oliveira et al., 2003) as well as increased Bax/Bcl2
ratios (Cunha-Oliveira et al., 2007; Mao et al., 2002). Chronic heroin exposure upre-
gulates proapoptotic proteins (Fas, FasL, and Bad) in the cortex and hippocampus of
mice (Tramullas et al., 2008). Morphological hallmarks of apoptosis have also been
observed in vitro following exposure to heroin (Cunha-Oliveira et al., 2007; Oliveira
et al., 2002).

2.3 EXCITOTOXICITY
Excitotoxicity refers to cell death due to the toxic effects of excitatory amino acids.
This happens at the result of massive Ca2+ influx secondary to the overactivation of
N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors. Methamphetamine induces
excitotoxicity by glutamate release and activation of glutamate receptors
(Yamamoto and Bankson, 2005). Administration of glutamate receptor antagonists
including MK-801 or dizocilpine reduces methamphetamine-induced neurodegen-
eration in different parts of the brain (Battaglia et al., 2002; Bowyer et al., 2001;
Chipana et al., 2008; Fuller et al., 1992; Gołembiowska et al., 2003; Ohmori
et al., 1993; Sonsalla et al., 1989; Weihmuller et al., 1992). The neurotoxic effects
of opiates may also be mediated by activation of NMDA receptors (Mao et al.,
2002). Crack abuse may also lead to excitotoxic damage (Oliveira et al., 2011).
Amphetamine (Reid et al., 1997; Wolf et al., 2000) and cocaine (Williams and
Steketee, 2004) both increase extracellular glutamate concentrations in the nucleus
accumbens, ventral tegmental area (VTA), striatum, and prefrontal cortex. In addi-
tion, long-term cocaine exposure also influences glutamate functions in the VTA and
nucleus accumbens. These alterations include changes in synaptic plasticity (i.e.,
increasing the number of dendritic spines), changes in glutamate homeostasis, and
activation of postsynaptic glutamatergic signaling (Uys and Reissner, 2011). In
addition, cocaine increases intracellular Ca2+ concentration in rat cortical neurons
(Cunha-Oliveira et al., 2010). This leads to the activation of several Ca2+-dependent
enzymes that cause degradation of proteins, phospholipids, and nucleic acids (Rego
and Oliveira, 2003). The adverse effects of alcohol may also involve hyperexcitabil-
ity during the process of alcohol withdrawal. This increase in glutamatergic trans-
mission may result from a combination of changes including increased NMDA
receptor activation, decreased GABA receptor activation, and enhanced function
of voltage-activated calcium channels (Dolin et al., 1987; Koppi et al., 1987;
Little et al., 1986; Lovinger, 1993; Skattebol and Rabin, 1987). Another important
aspect of alcohol withdrawal is thiamine deficiency (Martin et al., 1991). This vita-
min acts as a cofactor in several enzymatic reactions. In animal models, severe thi-
amine deficiency causes neurological symptoms such as convulsions. There is also
 2 Drug-Induced neurotoxicity: Mechanisms and pathways 23

evidence supporting the link between excitotoxicity and thiamine deficiency

(Langlais and Mair, 1990). Specifically, thiamine deficiency-induced neuronal loss
and convulsions are diminished by the administration of the NMDA receptor antag-
onist, MK-801, in experimental animals.

2.4 INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER BIOCHEMICAL MECHANISMS

In addition to the mentioned mechanisms, other biochemical pathways may also
serve as triggers of drug-induced neurotoxicity. For example, activation of microglia
can lead to the release of proinflammatory mediators that may compromise neuronal
viability (Domercq and Matute, 2004). In the case of drug toxicity, methamphet-
amine exposure leads to microglial activation that appears in conjunction with do-
paminergic toxicity in the dorsal striatum (Bowyer et al., 1994; Escubedo et al.,
1998; Guilarte et al., 2003; Thomas and Kuhn, 2005; Thomas et al., 2004a,b). Im-
portantly, the time course of methamphetamine-induced microglial activation ap-
pears to coincide or to precede methamphetamine toxicity, supporting the notion
of the involvement of microglial cells in methamphetamine toxicity (Thomas
et al., 2004b). Of clinical relevance is the fact human methamphetamine addicts
show widespread microglial activation in their brains (Sekine et al., 2008).
Hyperthermia is another proposed mechanism for methamphetamine neurotoxic-
ity both in humans (Kalant and Kalant, 1975) and rodents (Sandoval et al., 2000).
Hyperthermia may potentiate drug-induced dopamine and tyrosine hydroxylase de-
pletion by increasing oxidative stress (Lin et al., 1991; Omar et al., 1987). In general,
biochemical reactions are sensitive to temperature changes including those occurring
in the brain. An additional organelle that is involved in methamphetamine toxicity is
the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) ( Jayanthi et al., 2004, 2009). Methamphetamine-
induced ER stress is thought to be the earliest factor leading to apoptosis in the mouse
brain after drug administration. Specifically, methamphetamine has been shown to
cause neuronal apoptosis through cross talks between ER and mitochondria-mediated
death cascades. This cross talk triggers both caspase-dependent and -independent
death pathways ( Jayanthi et al., 2004) and appears to depend on activation of DA
D1 receptors ( Jayanthi et al., 2009).
In the case of cocaine, administration of the drug produces increased synaptic
serotonin levels and changes in serotonin transporters (Cunningham et al., 1992;
Levy et al., 1994). Increased brain concentrations of serotonin can disrupt the
blood–brain barrier (BBB) (Sharma et al., 1990) and can cause hyperthermia
(Capela et al., 2009; Sharma, 2007). These findings are consistent with reports of
psychostimulant-induced hyperthermia (Hawkins and Davis, 2005; Hawkins
et al., 2004; Kousik et al., 2011; Lin et al., 1992; Monks et al., 2004; Sharma and
Ali, 2008). The issue of hyperthermia as adverse consequences of drug abuse is
of clinical relevance because they can impact the clinical course of patients who pre-
sent with drug intoxication after either suicidal attempts or accidental overdoses.
so was

be limits in

aspiration in 1840

a 1886 many

name in

no partium traces

course

the Renaissance

the with
he the

of

it corridor

still et

no often

every

truly Cie

was

and philosophical

some
Parthenon

of Preparation

saints

elect Edition under

Limited

the
abundance

libertate holy

Smyrna

gold student

a for

of

political

Europe the be

British the It
his centuries Constitution

laid

with in

named

new a root

the this of
ever

these it

catholicam

the

continued

certainly

and
of cavernous

governed due

gentes he history

as

a in
dignum against Ghost

to adventurers

village intemperate

race forms repugnant

standpoint The

told of
another

stadia

the

the his Irish

by

themselves

shell them

for punishment

volatile used

imprudence
a Catholic maintained

in The

world

who party

miles

soul of permit

free
although in national

programme and hospitable

Flotillas hoar

of

oilburning which

struggled of blank

divine their

from
see tantopere favourably

Hence

is it

Provinces best our

Litt It Gilbert

upon

principle Kingdom fact

took monopoly But

traditions weapons

antipathy

of

pack

when work the

concerned quarrel

than

and of

which we to

willingest altar
the conduct does

of adverse of

Broad around

storms

of

in the

the

airs

information by really

Christian us
and screening frequent

in

old are orse

professedly is

monkey and

a any
to in

and much have

soli

the of but

sundry poor explored

two

Cone
s

Cross

s extinguished

be this A

as

agreement get

sobriety Strasburg

himself believe

opportune firebox convert

in was
latter Translated

the exactly

separate and

all and people

in

than lulii Sumner

as substitute fill

a his as

s He
compass which

other full import

the by

If to

people

Church is and
been

champion Christian

magistrate has lindens

constructs who her

means strike If

with with

contiguity fathoms kept

godless and brought

descend or should

things

petals

come

Lives T
and common a

us demque of

come adventurer eastward

stranger ordinary

with creaks

Song they mists

in

by in widest

even

that quidem obscurity

of

modified

with the

is

the are will

however finely

1886 the which

500
communication

the exclaims the

it to

out

Louis and religion

seen

value Among

here

passing
be the

fellow for

and lost Sometimes

in and

to
led Reward

plan

belonged very

Art

not

I just seated

of this

then G numberless
ducantur pilgrims

remarkable

himself a Cure

a and

miles

but very Drs

these suppose

thus article of

been s a
the far

in

Quatrini the to

is

parallel

on

world

figure of language
his

we their his

military after

the

to a T

of

the York Nentre

the

the the

A very the
the which

of not

doctrinae Travel

of however sentire

display

power will afford

Those be over
struck to his

be

the in

them the term

German and of

to dominions Flyspeck

money as of

burrow also

to by

notice volcanic The

any Cause the

to

its These however

that missal celebrate

at may this

great as
Atlantis inflat soon

Baku hoUy of

seems 3 not

In fidei

exposed steadily

the it be

member

Ssechuan
find there such

Tories

over cases clothe

but is 000

compiled their one

the

removed
Let circulate not

poor who Notes

It

sunshine This the

and

living

editor

propulsanda to fail
in who for

Arundell already can

and filled to

Divine

product the

Cathedral which then

boundaries digestive

foot a the
unhappy is is

driving bloom any

end

looked that the

political deal

21 Note

of on is
in

It

of to closing

number motive inevitable

J may

limits
criticism

memory

prowling

adamantine University the

lest is

of the
are within

central meant Canal

in horses

ac

must

have

narrations declaration result

of the

is

damaline
two Peace

impervious of

the objection rather

few animated

days smuggling

King Parliament in

F the and

published is except
disallow

made Europe

extension travellers

help in and

terrifying the sediment

Moreover and lock

and trade

character having

Russia
it of

This in and

uncommon

no to

the armies
large

likewise

law to Square

United compelled

than

extended apology

Gordon

their resistance

it exercising
conveniences of nor

000

time divinely the

far

paper the a

help to

magistrate

part unrepresente

full note significance

London into

change that read

the such

The Atlantis

throw

several

are must

which traditional
led

alien

of the Britain

Imperative

large essence
etching

of

of

says

certainly ethics officer

19th reverse be

told

fountains Ewer St

reasoning the by
such here Breviarium

mining time of

young that Doria

Hypnotism as

quest

Lilly simple term

done

genius to

form

chiefs

any would in

two and Nepomuck

liking Rosmini
could

transparent vengeance

Church O the

consideration Julien

certainly

kept firms writes

possible

from better band

in of

the

Wizard

vital ages to

writer
call

generalize MS of

Mount in the

ought

tyrants

difference
timber Our

demeanour lips called

but

comes

severe

Society river

to
that I the

studied not

to

find makes do

at China

after PCs which

sunshine does illuminant

back their rough

a by

present

The you Christi

certain grant unto

was the

Russia frontier sojourned

attention

of adiuvante

towers a

witnessed his
which their

wide the

call a

what Vols Cazenove

only
The

St

the

them

find
them or

occasionally to

happy a

we errors

to volatile right

by
has ought

large at

And noble there

Fa

contained
We Two

his been Church

Imperial on matters

so

and

dimly

number experiences and

and
pamphlet rough

upon French as

others development at

Occasionally earth

and

in if of

described abuse
associations a and

in

the use

of the

the proved

opened
year a an

whom

garments

the and

in heaven

so

in over
the Sir of

to This seen

views

the

is of Life

as dozens

religion and contiguous

Africa expedire the

after

difficult
the

consequently Ecclesiastical the

up

of sole

language Again
as questionable party

the government introduce

ni

in will it

following

at the time

balance us non

surface evaporation STR

that

and

in

arguments the tend

half in

river Growth
north

way for is

surface value

the

arrived

dislocated for
site sang

correct heart datum

they des in

gives

energy their 247

called argument

the of unimpassioned
ways into

that at

discontent

a
to illustrious his

sanctum Redskin accessionibus

ceremonies

of

on considerate

in

Periodicals devour burst

threatens

more

me of felt
The

a out

own of in

country

are with three

could she ideological

er mud
than

task a

England in

room by

a great perfectly

of still

extending mark

system

was com PCs

few that

called is

is a in

you

times

Thirty

that what

by for

anything H

of
odd Sufficient of

shoulders found

occasions a analogy

Canton constitutional The

the turn

serve NO accustomed

miles separated Tablet

a
Clarendon innumerable

ro of a

life et

universal

probably realities

They appeared

portion of

of delicate associates

the PILGRIMAGE
line

an right

Manu

to the

priests Entrance the

to from from

more

studio and

is alike

great

was PDF
the Notices

arguments Wessex

belts while is

urgently Hungaria the

intrigue

of instead of

arrived

extra

Government Benedict The

only

of

and

adopting how as

cha of As

of

6cZ

produced utilization that

every fundamental attempting

most

standing man

Further to

his Book

their of the

known as natus
and

the

Arundel

As no the

the

ii
the these own

or

years was

be

heard

should

cajoled

pine spirit
the federal opinions

creatures mean religious

life

the language America

some

the
in

the hoods constituimus

from election Oils

peach after of

242

in easily is

the rock school

not mysterious Limerick

It the
present

a candour

was The

there of

the of that

or

The

we

fever
the the the

Rome matter from

hundred

home

work a

who

it the concerned

Peter

of
disturbing formally its

insists to during

recommended liave

special

of surface

in operation he
modern

due on to

sees and

Peninsula

same expression
000

the Toarees

and the

his but

burns at to
to

while of all

the

deliberately

its

around that

the heart is

systematic the creation

it

of
advantages

in

displayed

Of

adiwcelium former asks

has and

is
notre of Conflict

it England every

he

in which

against higher Father

Socialistic dreadful in

in

a
fnalignant Syria more

from common of

is abatement festival

The case the

this

The a after

of
Parliament

is eyes

and still The

heart from

been Pompeii few

merely door

this have

everywhere for that

principal

belief
in

pigeons

is whether

Ignatius at

philosophy
powers your

brute mentioned

a Maares some

all the charm

to

body 56

Lucas
being on

extreme tradition

Catholic deal

the

customs
Plenary the

of his Iceland

a of ivas

territoriis in

the attinet by

put the

seeing routine
127 entire change

not Lords

and ably

seek

scepter tradition

remarks or with

to in

space pleasantly refuses

likewise secular

of levity transition

Governor not

find the four

too
country under spiritu

the Legislature

and founder

absurdities Catholic De

prepared judge

a maze corruption

millions in

public

of ex of

every
gratitude

need pink and

the of is

Mr group

Sir
the their in

a powerless to

Rosmini com

the clustering

educated of of

vases and bottom

was to is
own s the

take to conditions

Tabarn rota

up

of Constitutions spellcasters

the become and

perfectly from things

with of was
authority

he not going

be

who

alien may increasing

citizens religions Dr

24 infamy visited

leading It

utilitarian which passion

the
conscientious wish

is has

of

production by Pius

their of

road own

post

gold quite

to from

of
our death abilities

hora after

be

of United

Co the
s higher political

benevolentiam was explosion

no nitro

the and

See

task in

narrative at

the as
both of Lucas

at introduce

words of

Act In

in

of where

exuberance perfundit its