Its metabolic conversion to yield D-amfetamine by rate-limited, enzymatic hydrolysis is unusual because it is GSK2118436 price performed by peptidases associated with red blood cells. Other stimulants shown to be effective in managing ADHD include D-amfetamine, methylphenidate and modafinil. All have the potential for misuse or recreational abuse. The discriminative and reinforcing effects of these compounds were determined in rats using a 2-choice, D-amfetamine (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.)-cued drug-discrimination test, and

by substitution for intravenous cocaine in self-administration. Lisdexamfetamine (0.5-1.5 mg/kg [D-amfetamine base], p.o.) generalised to saline when tested 15 min post-dosing, but dose-dependently generalised to D-amfetamine at 60 min. At 120 min, its D-amfet-amine-like effects were substantially diminished. At 15 min, methylphenidate (3.0-10 mg/kg, p.o.) and D-amfetamine (0.1-1.5 mg/kg, p.o.) dose-dependently generalised to the intraperitoneal D-amfetamine cue. Switching to the intraperitoneal route reduced the interval required for lisdexamfetamine to be recognised as D-amfetamine-like, but

did not alter its potency. Switching to intraperitoneal injection increased the potency of methylphenidate and D-amfetamine by 3.4x and 2.2x, respectively. Modafinil (50-200 mg/kg, i.p.) generalised partially, but not fully, to D-amfetamine. Methylphenidate (0.1, www.selleckchem.com/products/az628.html 0.3, 1.0 mg/kg/injection, i.v.) maintained robust self-administration at the 2 highest doses. Dolichyl-phosphate-mannose-protein mannosyltransferase Neither lisdexamfetamine (0.05, 0.15 or 0.5 mg/kg/injection [D-amfetamine base], i.v.) nor modafinil (0.166, 0.498 or 1.66 mg/kg/injection,

i.v.) served as reinforcers. The results reveal important differences between the profiles of these stimulants. Lisdexamfetamine did not serve as a positive reinforcer in cocaine-trained rats, and although it generalised fully to D-amfetamine, its discriminative effects were markedly influenced by its unusual pharmacokinetics. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“Consistent with human gambling behavior but contrary to optimal foraging theory, pigeons show a strong preference for an alternative with low probability and high payoff (a gambling-like alternative) over an alternative with a greater net payoff (Zentall & Stagner, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 1203-1208, 2011). In the present research, we asked whether humans would show suboptimal choice on a task involving choices with probabilities similar to those for pigeons. In Experiment 1, when we selected participants on the basis of their self-reported gambling activities, we found a significantly greater choice of the alternative involving low probability and high payoff (gambling-like alternative) than for a group that reported an absence of gambling activity. In Experiment 2, we found that when the inhibiting abilities of typical humans were impaired by a self-regulatory depletion manipulation, they were more likely to choose the gambling-like alternative.