Page 208 - Pagetit
P. 208

6. CONCURRENT DISORDERS




                     (Richter & Weiss, 1999; Koob & Le Moal, 2001). Further, there is evidence
                     indicating blunted neurotransmission of neuropeptide Y (NPY) and
                     somatostatin in depression (Heilig & Widerlov, 1990; Rubinow, 1986), and
                     blunted neurotransmission of NPY in psychostimulant withdrawal
                     (Wahlestedt et al., 1991). Based on the hypothesis that NPY and somatostatin
                     systems act in opposition to the CRF system (Heilig et al., 1994), there is heuristic
                     value in further investigating the role of NPY and somatostatin in substance
                     dependence. One hypothesis is that NPY and somatostatin may be endogenous
                     “buffers” against the stressor-induced release of CRF. Given the role of CRF
                     and NPY in behavioural responses to stress (Heilig et al., 1994), it is conceivable
                     that neurotransmission of CRF, NPY and somatostatin is mostly related to the
                     anxiety or stress-like symptomatology seen in both a subgroup of people with
                     depression and in those in substance withdrawal. The same argument can also
                     be made about the GABA system that has also been implicated in depression
                     (Lloyd et al., 1989; Petty, 1995), and alcohol and benzodiazepine dependence
                     (Andrews & File, 1993; Roberts, Cole & Koob, 1996), considering that
                     benzodiazepines that enhance GABAergic neurotransmission are anxiolytics.
                     Administration of psychoactive substances, such as cocaine and alcohol,
                     modulate neurotransmission of CRF (Goeders, Bienvenu & de Souza, 1990;
                     Merlo Pich et al., 1995; Richter et al., 1995; Richter & Weiss, 1999) and NPY
                     (Wahlestedt et al., 1991), and thus could potentially restore temporarily the
                     hypothesized imbalance between the two systems.


                     Role of limbic structures in depression and substance dependence
                     Another common element between depression and substance dependence
                     is that most changes observed following antidepressant treatment or
                     administration of psychoactive substances are seen in limbic-related
                     structures, such as the frontal cortex, nucleus accumbens, olfactory
                     tubercle, hippocampus, amygdala, and the hypothalamus. For instance, in
                     the frontal cortex antidepressants alter the numbers of serotonin  receptors
                                                                             1A
                     (Peroutka & Snyder, 1980), and increase serotonin levels (Bel & Artigas,
                     1993). Antidepressants also produce supersensitive serotonin  receptors
                                                                            1A
                     in the amygdala (Wang & Aghajanian, 1980) and the hippocampus (de
                     Montigny & Aghajanian, 1978; Chaput, de Montigny & Blier, 1991). Chronic
                     antidepressant treatments also enhance dopaminergic activity in the
                     nucleus accumbens (Nomikos et al., 1991) and upregulate GABA  receptors
                                                                             A
                     in the frontal cortex (Lloyd, Thuret & Pilc, 1985). In addition, CRF receptors
                     are decreased in the frontal cortex of individuals with depression (Nemeroff
                     et al., 1988); electroconvulsive shock increases NPY brain levels in the frontal
                     cortex, the hypothalamus and the hippocampus (Wahlestedt et al., 1990);
                     and desmethylimipramine increases the numbers of somatostatin receptors
                     in the nucleus accumbens (Gheorvassaki et al., 1992).
                        Similarly, considerable evidence suggests an important role for limbic-
                     related structures in substance dependence and withdrawal. For example,


                                                     187




          Chapter_6                187                             19.1.2004, 11:48
   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213