Monday, October 15, 2018

Academic Doping (and it’s effects on LTP)


Amphetamine is a common therapy in patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with decades of research proving benefit to the hyperactive individual under hyperdopaminergic conditions. However, increasing use of psychostimulants in “academic doping” on college campuses has revealed the need to study the effects of amphetamine use on cognition under normal conditions.

So, do psychostimulants facilitate or impair long term potentiation (LTP)? Xu et al. set out to answer this question by injecting both wild-type and hyperdopaminergic mice with varying doses of amphetamine then examining LTP induction in pre-frontal cortex slices. Amphetamine treatment in the wild-type mice induced a dose-dependent biphasic modulation of LTP, where low doses facilitated LTP and high doses did the contrary, impairing it. In contrast to the inhibitory effect on LTP in wild-type mice, the same high dose of amphetamine enhanced LTP in the hyperdopaminergic (hyperactive) mice. Researchers found that amphetamine modulates LTP through the cAMP-PKA pathway and that effectiveness of amphetamine modulation is dose-dependent. So, whether under normal or hyperactive conditions --- dosage is key.

Since amphetamine-induced LTP enhancement at low-doses has been observed in normal conditions (absence of hyperactive disorder) should these drugs be considered as cognitive enhancers not just for those with hyperactive diagnoses but for the general public? This question has raised ethical concerns surrounding neuropharmaceutical use for cognitive enhancement in healthy people. Much of the discussion has focused on whether cognitive enhancement is a form of cheating. It is plausible that improved cognitive performance may give an unfair advantage to users. One may argue that it would violate beneficience to withhold cognitive enhancing drugs from the general public, while on the contrary it may violate non-malfeasance to make these drugs widely available to the public since side effects are known and studies involving healthy individuals are underrepresented. 

While, psychostimulants that treat hyperactive disorder may not be indicated for the general public, research to develop preventative therapies for cognitive impairment disorders like Alzheimer’s may lead to neuroenhancing pharmaceuticals for people without cognitive impairment to use in the future. Do you think neuroenhancing drug use is ethical in the general population? Would you use neuroenhancing drugs if available? Why or why not?

Lucke, J. C., Bell, S. K., Partridge, B. J., & Hall, W. D. (2011). Academic doping or Viagra for the brain? EMBO Reports, 12(3), 197-201. doi:10.1038/embor.2011.15

Xu, T., Ma, Q., Spealman, R. D., & Yao, W. (2010). Amphetamine modulation of long-term potentiation in the prefrontal cortex: Dose dependency, monoaminergic contributions, and paradoxical rescue in hyperdopaminergic mutant. Journal of Neurochemistry, 115(6), 1643-1654. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07073.x
Xu, T., Ma, Q., Spealman, R. D., & Yao, W. (2010). Amphetamine modulation of long-term potentiation in the prefrontal cortex: Dose dependency, monoaminergic contributions, and paradoxical rescue in hyperdopaminergic mutant. Journal of Neurochemistry, 115(6), 1643-1654. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07073.xke, J. C., Bell, S. K., Partridge, B. J., & Hall, W. D. (2011). Academic doping or Viagra for the brain? EMBO Reports,12(3), 197-201. doi:10.1038/embor.2011.15
Xu, T., Ma, Q., Spealman, R. D., & Yao, W. (2010). Amphetamine modulation of long-term potentiation in the prefrontal cortex: Dose dependency, monoaminergic contributions, and paradoxical rescue in hyperdopaminergic mutant. Journal of Neurochemistry,115(6), 1643-1654. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07073.x

2 comments:

  1. Erica! This is crazy interesting. I found an article that outlined some negative associations with stimulant missuse in a study looking at 448 college-aged women. Gibbs et al. reported that me of the negative "side-effects" from college aged students who took ADHD-specific stimulant drugs when not specifically prescribed them (misuse) - included developing eating-disorders, depressive symptoms, and increased anxiety. However, the study's bias was significant when observing self-reported data from women who admit to misusing stimulants as a weight-control measure.

    Before the ethical argument can be made for promoting neuroenhancing drugs, we should look into any negative side effects that could occur. For me personally, I think the use of these drugs are about access. Who can afford these drugs and what students are in position to exercise the privilege of taking them, possibly illegally, without consequence?

    Gibbs, E. L., Kass, A. E., Eichen, D. M., Fitzsimmons-Craft, E. E., Trockel, M., Wilfley, D. E., & Taylor, C. B. (2016). ADHD-specific stimulant misuse, mood, anxiety, and stress in college-age women at high risk for or with eating disorders. Journal of American college health: J of ACH, 64(4), 300.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete