Involvement of serine/threonine protein phosphatases sensitive to okadaic acid in restraint stress‐induced hyperlocomotion in cocaine‐sensitized mice

1 We used okadaic acid (OA), a potent preferential inhibitor of PP2A and PP5 but not PP1 (PP subfamilies), to examine the involvement of serine/threonine protein phosphatase (PP) in behavioral sensitization stimulated by treatment with cocaine in mice. 2 Repeated administration of cocaine (10 mg kg−1) once a day for five consecutive days produced a progressive increase in locomotor activity that was maintained after the cessation of cocaine treatment, as revealed by the fact that a challenge dose of cocaine given on day 7 of withdrawal reproduced an enhanced stimulant effect. 3 On the seventh day of withdrawal, OA‐sensitive PP activity and expression of PP2A and PP5, but not PP1γ, were increased in whole‐cell extract of the nucleus accumbens and the ventral tegmental area in cocaine‐sensitized mice, compared to saline‐treated mice. 4 Restraint stress increased locomotor activity in cocaine‐sensitized mice on day 7 after drug administration was ceased. The locomotor activity was more susceptible to restraint‐elicited enhancement in cocaine‐sensitized mice than in saline‐treated mice. The restraint‐induced hyperlocomotion was suppressed by a single intracerebroventricular injection of OA immediately before restraint in cocaine‐sensitized mice, but this suppression did not occur in saline‐treated mice. 5 The membrane fraction of the whole brain in cocaine‐sensitized mice showed that OA‐sensitive activity levels rise after mice are subjected to restraint, and this is concomitant with an increase in expression levels of PP2A and PP5, but not PP1γ. 6 These results suggest that the upregulated OA‐sensitive PPs are involved in stress‐induced hyperlocomotion in cocaine‐sensitized mice. There may be intracellular mechanisms mediating psychostimulant cross‐sensitization to stress underlying the spontaneous recurrence of its psychosis. British Journal of Pharmacology (2006) 148, 405–412. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0706769