The more I learn about neurotransmitters, the more I'm amazed.

[novapsyche]

Gene blocker turns monkeys into workaholics

Procrastinating monkeys were turned into workaholics using a gene treatment to block a key brain compound, U.S. researchers reported on Wednesday.

Blocking cells from receiving dopamine made the monkeys work harder at a task — and they were better at it, too, the U.S. government researchers found.

Comments

[aroundthemx.livejournal.com]

yikes!

[droid-1.livejournal.com]

Eureka! They've discovered the difference between monkeys and men!
Monkeys are more laid-back.

[kali-ma.livejournal.com]

I don't like where this seems to be going... (paranoia)

what's next? a gene that makes macaques vote Republican?

[hyparxis.livejournal.com]

a Calvinist GENE,,, lovely.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

You mean thoughts of combining research like this with Bush's proposed plan to give every American the freedom to have psych meds forcibally shoved down their throats makes you afraid? Understandable. Completely.

I fail to see how this research (other than the fact that it is being carried out on a genetic level) is so new or surprising. Use of methamphetamine creates a "work-a-holic" type attidude. Meth is a very strong dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

But don't reuptake inhibitors increase the amount of the neurotransmitter in the synaptic gap?

I misread the article. But it is still scary.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Yes. Technically the synaptic gap is the space between two nuerons, not part of the nerve cell itself.. Re-uptake is the reabsorbtion of a nuerotransmitter. So something that inhibits re-uptake would cause extra amounts of dopamine to be be floating around.

On the other hand I had just skimmed the article and mistook the article's use of "blocking from recieving dopamine" for re-uptake. Rereading the article, I see that they are talking about blocking the post-synaptic receptor (which reacts rather than absorbs)rather than the mechanism for reuptake. In some ways this seems much scarier. The monkeys may have been more efficient but it was at the expense of the pleasure/reward system.

Just did some refresher reading.
One of the dangers of meth or cocaine is that the bombardment of dopamine (both stimulate production as well as inhibits reuptake) depletes the D2 receptors to the point that any other stimulus no longer satisfies.

Low levels of functioning D2 receptors (what they have completely blocked in the monkeys) have also been linked to other addiction type behaviors such as overeating - attempts to secure pleasure because the normal pleasure system isn't working. It is also linked to OCD.

So basically it seems what the researchers did genetically create a major case of OCD in these monkeys.

Two articles both dated 2001 that I dug up:

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/bnlpr120101a.htm (http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/bnlpr120101a.htm)
and

http://www.drugabuse.gov/MedAdv/01/NR2-1.html (http://www.drugabuse.gov/MedAdv/01/NR2-1.html)

I find it disturbing how the monkey article presents this breakthrough as "positve" as when linked with older research which the monkey study backs up, finds the condition of lack of D2 receptors to have negative effects.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Also, based purely on observational basis, people spun out on meth (especially frequent users) exhibit very obsessive behavior. When they start something - usually cleaning is popular, but I have also seen playing video games - practically NOTHING can distract them from their self-assigned task. This sets in a bit after the initial rush wears off. I wonder if this is due to the depletion of the receptors abiltity to work.

Re: I misread the article. But it is still scary.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that first article. I didn't quite know that a disruption in the orbitofrontal cortex was associated with OCD. (I did know that that cortex was implicated in drug abuse.)