↓ Skip to main content

Psychostimulant Abuse and Neuroinflammation: Emerging Evidence of Their Interconnection

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotoxicity Research, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
156 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Psychostimulant Abuse and Neuroinflammation: Emerging Evidence of Their Interconnection
Published in
Neurotoxicity Research, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12640-012-9334-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth H. Clark, Clayton A. Wiley, Charles W. Bradberry

Abstract

During the past two decades, there has been a tremendous expansion of knowledge regarding the neurobiological effects of substance abuse and how these effects impact behavior. At the same time, there has been a profound change in our understanding of the way in which the central nervous system responds to noxious stimuli. Most often referred to as the innate immune response (IIR), this defense mechanism is activated by a number of agents (toxic, microbial, ischemic) and has been implicated in the progression of a number of neurodegenerative diseases. We review evidence that psychostimulants of abuse (cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy) are associated with activation of the IIR. We first present background on what is currently known about the IIR including some of the cellular elements involved (microglia, astrocytes, vascular endothelial cells), key receptor pathways, and primary inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α). We then present a variety of protein and gene expression data taken from animal studies that show increased expression of various components of the IIR following acute or repeated psychostimulant administration. Collectively the data indicate an association of psychostimulant use with IIR activation in the brain even at exposures not traditionally associated with neurotoxicity. Thus, the gradually escalating deleterious effects of psychostimulant use could in part involve neuroinflammatory mechanisms. Finally, we offer one hypothesis of a possible mechanism by which psychostimulants result in IIR activation and discuss the potential therapeutic implications of these findings for treatment of the recovering addict.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 131 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 21%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Other 30 22%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 29 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 4%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 30 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2013.
All research outputs
#20,195,877
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Neurotoxicity Research
#716
of 873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,770
of 163,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotoxicity Research
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 873 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 163,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.