The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction

The secretion of glucocorticoids (GCs) is a classic endocrine response to stress. Despite that, it remains controversial as to what purpose GCs serve at such times. One view, stretching back to the time of Hans Selye, posits that GCs help mediate the ongoing or pending stress response, either via basal levels of GCs permitting other facets of the stress response to emerge efficaciously, and/or by stress levels of GCs actively stimulating the stress response. In contrast, a revisionist viewpoint posits that GCs suppress the stress response, preventing it from being pathologically overactivated. In this review, we consider recent findings regarding GC action and, based on them, generate criteria for determining whether a particular GC action permits, stimulates, or suppresses an ongoing stressresponse or, as an additional category, is preparative for a subsequent stressor. We apply these GC actions to the realms of cardiovascular function, fluid volume and hemorrhage, immunity and inflammation, metabolism, neurobiology, and reproductive physiology. We find that GC actions fall into markedly different categories, depending on the physiological endpoint in question, with evidence for mediating effects in some cases, and suppressive or preparative in others. We then attempt to assimilate these heterogeneous GC actions into a physiological whole. (Endocrine Reviews 21: 55‐ 89, 2000)

/pdf/how-do-glucocorticoids-influence-stress-responses-4egr3fa2k0.pdf

How do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions.

https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/research&labs/berridge/publications/Berridge&RobinsonBrResRev1998.pdf

What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?

The theory is advanced that the common denominator of a wide range of addictive substances is their ability to cause psychomotor activation. This view is related to the theory that all positive reinforcers activate a common biological mechanism associated with approach behaviors and that this mechanism has as one of its components dopaminergic fibers that project up the medial forebrain bundle from the midbrain to limbic and cortical regions. Evidence is reviewed that links both the reinforcing and locomotor-stimulating effects of both the psychomotor stimulants and the opiates to this brain mechanism. It is suggested that nicotine, caffeine, barbiturates, alcohol, benzodiazepines, cannabis, and phencyclidine----each ofwhich also has psychomotor stimulant actions--may activate the docaminergic fibers or their output circuitry. The role of physical dependence in addiction is suggested to vary from drug to drug and to be of secondary importance in the understanding of compulsive drug self-administration. Attempts at a general theory of addiction are attempts to isr late--from a variety of irrelevant actionsmthose drug actions that are responsible for habitual, compulsive, nonmedical drug self-administration. The common assumption of addiction theorists is that general principles of addiction can be learned from the study of one drug and that these principles will have heuristic value for the study of other drugs. Thus far, attempts at a general theory of addiction have failed to isolate common actions that can account for addiction across the range of major drug classes. A major stumbling block has been the psychomotor stimulants--amph etamine and cocainemwhich do not readily fit models traditionally based on depressant drug classes. The present article offers a new attempt at a general theory of addiction. It differs from earlier theories (e.g., Collier, 1968; Himmelsbach, 1943; Jaffe & Sharpless, 1968; Jellinek, 1960; Kalant, 1977; Lindsmith, 1947; Solomon & Corbit, 1974) in that it is based on the common denominator of the psychomotor stimulants---amphetamine, cocaine, and related drugs---rather than on the common denominator of the socalled depressant drugs~opiates, barbiturates, alcohol, and others. We take up two topics before presenting the new theory. First, we briefly discuss the heuristic value of a biological approach and suggest that the biologist's distinction between homology and analogy offers a useful insight. Next we discuss the shortcomings of earlier theories--variants of dependence theory. Then we outline the new theory and review the relevant evidence for its three major assertions: (a) that all addictive drugs have psychomotor stimulant actions, (b) that the stimulant actions of these different drugs have a shared biological mechanism, and (c) that the biological mechanism of these stimulant

A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction

Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs

CRF antagonist partially reverses CRF- and stress-induced effects on feeding

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) is a potent stimulator of food and water intake in rats. NPY still increases food intake even after a 2-h delay in access to food after central injection. When two injections of NPY are given 2 h apart, the second injection produced a substantial increase in food intake. This suggests that tolerance to the NPY effect does not develop after a single injection of NPY. NPY increases moving and exploration in the absence of food when rats are in their home environment but not when tested in a novel environment. Following administration of NPY, rats preferred a high-carbohydrate diet over a high-fat or high-protein diet. Microinjections of NPY showed that active sites included the anterior ventromedial nucleus, paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus, and the posterior lateral hypothalamus. NPY was neither additive nor synergistic when coadministered with norepinephrine. Whereas norepinephrine-induced feeding was inhibited by adrenalectomy and vagotomy, these maneuvers had no effect on NPY-induced food intake. This provides further evidence that NPY does not exert its effects on food intake through an alpha-adrenergic mechanism. The effects of NPY on food intake were attenuated by peripherally administered bombesin and centrally administered corticotropin-releasing factor and calcitonin. Cholecystokinin failed to inhibit NPY-induced feeding. NPY did not alter circulating glucose levels. These studies provide further insights into the role of NPY as a stimulator of ingestive behaviors.

Effect of neuropeptide Y on ingestive behaviors in the rat

Cardiovascular regulatory actions of the hypocretins in brain

Taste responses and preferences for sweet high-fat foods: evidence for opioid involvement.

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/27370/0000396.pdf;sequence=1

Blake A. Gosnell

Papers

CRF antagonist partially reverses CRF- and stress-induced effects on feeding

Effect of neuropeptide Y on ingestive behaviors in the rat

Cardiovascular regulatory actions of the hypocretins in brain

Taste responses and preferences for sweet high-fat foods: evidence for opioid involvement.

Behavioral effects of corticotropin-releasing factor: localization and characterization of central effects