Different oxidative profile and nicotinic receptor interaction of amphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine

Abstract

d-Amphetamine (AMPH) and MDMA increased intracellular production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in isolated mouse striatal synaptosomes. MDMA showed a maximal oxidative effect at 50-100 microM. However, for AMPH a double maximum was obtained, the first between 0.1 and 1 microM and the second at 1mM. No oxidative effect was present in synaptosomes from reserpinized mice. Cocaine and l-deprenyl inhibited MDMA and AMPH (0.1 microM) ROS production but not that of AMPH at a higher concentration (1mM). When this high concentration was used, its oxidative effect was abolished by a phospholipase A(2) inhibitor. Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol fully prevented the oxidative effect of AMPH and MDMA, by a CB(1) receptor-independent mechanism, as did it NPC 15437 and genistein. The pro-oxidative effect induced by AMPH and MDMA showed a strong dependence on calcium (extracellular and from internal stores) and also was inhibited by nicotinic receptor (nAChR) antagonists dihydro-beta-erythroidine, methyllycaconitine (MLA) and alpha-bungarotoxin. MDMA displaced [(3)H]epibatidine and [(3)H]MLA binding with higher affinity than AMPH. Both amphetamines competitively displaced [(3)H]epibatidine from heteromeric receptors but results obtained from [(3)H]MLA binding demonstrated a non-competitive profile. Preincubation of PC12 cells with AMPH or MDMA reduced [(3)H]dopamine uptake. For MDMA, this effect was prevented by MLA. To summarize, comparing AMPH and MDMA we have demonstrated that these drugs induce an oxidative effect dependent on drug concentration and also reduce dopamine uptake. Processes that are known to affect dopamine transporter functionality also seem to modulate amphetamine derivatives-induced ROS production. For MDMA, acute effects tested are blocked by nAChR antagonists, which points to the possibility that these antagonists could be used to treat some of the adverse effects described in MDMA abusers. Conversely, no implication of nicotinic receptors has been proved for AMPH-induced effects at concentrations achievable in CNS after its administration.