• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Is MDMA neurotoxic? Our survey says..

rickolasnice

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
6,807
So, hopefully this will be the ever growing thread which posts both sides of the argument, with evidence to back up each one, with some wise words from the professionals (you guys)..

Is it neurotoxic? Is it permanent? Etc.. etc..

Relevant threads:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=440010

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=448805

I had more just now.. can't find em :/

Researchers aren't absolutely sure what these results mean. Some people think this 'recovery' could be the result of surviving axons growing or changing (producing more SERTs) to compensate for destroyed axons. Others argue that the short-term reduction in SERT density might not have been due to lost axons, but could be the result of the neurons simply changing the number of SERTs in response to drug exposure.
 
Last edited:
Interesting attempt this thread.
I'll definitely try to make a contribution when I have the time for it. :)

Too bad it's only centered on neurotoxicity though, it'd be interesting to also share information on hepatotoxicity and cardiotoxicity.
 
Interesting attempt this thread.
I'll definitely try to make a contribution when I have the time for it. :)

Too bad it's only centered on neurotoxicity though, it'd be interesting to also share information on hepatotoxicity and cardiotoxicity.

I agree, Im better off long term with a rotting brain than a failing heart 8o
 
It seems to me that most (if not all) papers that show MDMA to be neurotoxic rely on measuring 5-HT and 5-HIAA concentration as well as SERT binding to determine if the neurons have been destroyed. 5-HT and 5-HIAA concentrations can be lowered without neuronal death by reduced 5-HT synthesis by inhibiting trytophan hydroxylase activity so that method is unreliable at best.

As for SERT binging with radio label SERT binding ligands these are limited to cell surface localised SERT not total SERT. Kivell et al (2010) used fluorescently labeled SERT, that it a direct GFP-SERT fusion protein, to show that not only are the neurons intact but the SERT is still there but is internalised into vesicles inside the cells making them not show up in a SERT ligand binding assay. This means that any past paper using SERT binding to show neurotoxicity doesn't actual show neurotoxicity but rather internalisation (neuroadaptation)

Kivell, B., D. Day, et al. (2010). "MDMA causes a redistribution of serotonin transporter from the cell surface to the intracellular compartment by a mechanism independent of phospho-p38-mitogen activated protein kinase activation." Neuroscience 168 (1): 82-95.
 
It seems to me that most (if not all) papers that show MDMA to be neurotoxic rely on measuring 5-HT and 5-HIAA concentration as well as SERT binding to determine if the neurons have been destroyed. 5-HT and 5-HIAA concentrations can be lowered without neuronal death by reduced 5-HT synthesis by inhibiting trytophan hydroxylase activity so that method is unreliable at best.
A lot of studies actually acknowledge this fact (about the hydroxylase activity), but after a week hydroxylase levels should generally be back to baseline. So any 5-HT deficits after 1 or 2 weeks can't really be contributed to inhibition of tryptophan hydroxylase.
NSFW:
MDMA administration also induces significant long-term loss of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in most regions of the forebrain (see Green et al., 2003), and this loss is often used as a simple index of neurotoxicity. However, a problem in interpreting this long-term loss of cerebral tissue 5-HT concentration as an index of neurodegeneration is that MDMA also inhibits tryptophan hydroxylase activity (Stone et al., 1986; 1987; 1989; Schmidt & Taylor, 1987), the rate-limiting enzyme of 5-HT synthesis (Green & Sawyer, 1966; Moir & Eccleston, 1968). Inhibition of this enzyme would, therefore, be expected to decrease the tissue concentration of 5-HT. As the half-life of this enzyme is around 2–3 days (Meek & Neff, 1972), it could be argued that any effect on 5-HT synthesis and tissue concentration would only be apparent for the first few days after administration. This view is supported by the observation that a non-neurotoxic dose of MDMA resulted in a major loss of hydroxylase activity for up to 2 weeks in several brain regions (Stone et al., 1987), whereas a neurotoxic dose decreased tryptophan hydroxylase activity for 110 days following MDMA administration, which was interpreted as a reflection of 5-HT terminal loss (Stone et al., 1987). However, the problem with all the long-term studies on tryptophan hydroxylase activity is that measurement of the activity of the enzyme was made ex vivo following removal of the tissue from MDMA-treated rats. Optimal conditions (with addition of cofactors and substrate) were therefore being employed. No long-term study has examined the ability of the enzyme to synthesize 5-HT in the brain in vivo following earlier administration of a neurotoxic dose of MDMA. From: ARTICLE; it's a PubMed Central so should be freely available.


As for SERT binging with radio label SERT binding ligands these are limited to cell surface localised SERT not total SERT. Kivell et al (2010) used fluorescently labeled SERT, that it a direct GFP-SERT fusion protein, to show that not only are the neurons intact but the SERT is still there but is internalised into vesicles inside the cells making them not show up in a SERT ligand binding assay. This means that any past paper using SERT binding to show neurotoxicity doesn't actual show neurotoxicity but rather internalisation (neuroadaptation).
This is not true in all cases. Some studies use a tissue homogenate to assess radioligand binding, meaning internalized proteins will be available for binding. So your conclusion that any paper using SERT binding is only showing internalization is a bit blunt. Besides that, your study only proves internalization is a possibility; it is still more than possible neurotoxic mechanisms contribute to a lower SERT density too. Finding another mechanism that leads to the same result does not necessarily cancel out all other mechanisms, you should know that.
 
i think that another topic that those studies on mdma neurotoxicity should research, is the effect on neurogenesis and neuronal stem cells differentiation.
At this time there are only researches on rats, and embryonic cells(murine)

Effects of MDMA (“ecstasy”) during adolescence on place conditioning and hippocampal neurogenesis:(in adolescent rats)

"Repeated exposure to 5.0 mg/kg MDMA during adolescence increased cell proliferation, yet diminished neurogenesis, an effect that was replicated using flow cytometry"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...78f91bc1207997ebb67a06fa51740cc1&searchtype=a


MDMA (Ecstasy) Decreases the Number of Neurons and Stem Cells in Embryonic Cortical Cultures: (rat's embryonic cells in vitro)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t63r1u26153151g0/

"....General studies concerning cell death induced by
MDMA have been performed previously and the susceptibility
varies between the brain regions. In one study,
binge administration of MDMA impairs the short-term
survival rate of neural precursors, but not the proliferation
rate of progenitor cells, in adult hippocampal dentate gyrus
cells (Hernandez-Rabaza et al. 2006). In another study,
chronic MDMA administration to mice suppresses cell
proliferation in the dentate gyrus (Cho et al. 2007). In
contrast, MDMA does not cause cell death in organotypic
hippocampal cultures (Sveen et al. 2004)....."


all those researches were made with rat's embryonic stem cells, which are consistently different from human's adult stem cells
 
A lot of studies actually acknowledge this fact (about the hydroxylase activity), but after a week hydroxylase levels should generally be back to baseline. So any 5-HT deficits after 1 or 2 weeks can't really be contributed to inhibition of tryptophan hydroxylase.
NSFW:
MDMA administration also induces significant long-term loss of 5-HT and its metabolite 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) in most regions of the forebrain (see Green et al., 2003), and this loss is often used as a simple index of neurotoxicity. However, a problem in interpreting this long-term loss of cerebral tissue 5-HT concentration as an index of neurodegeneration is that MDMA also inhibits tryptophan hydroxylase activity (Stone et al., 1986; 1987; 1989; Schmidt & Taylor, 1987), the rate-limiting enzyme of 5-HT synthesis (Green & Sawyer, 1966; Moir & Eccleston, 1968). Inhibition of this enzyme would, therefore, be expected to decrease the tissue concentration of 5-HT. As the half-life of this enzyme is around 2–3 days (Meek & Neff, 1972), it could be argued that any effect on 5-HT synthesis and tissue concentration would only be apparent for the first few days after administration. This view is supported by the observation that a non-neurotoxic dose of MDMA resulted in a major loss of hydroxylase activity for up to 2 weeks in several brain regions (Stone et al., 1987), whereas a neurotoxic dose decreased tryptophan hydroxylase activity for 110 days following MDMA administration, which was interpreted as a reflection of 5-HT terminal loss (Stone et al., 1987). However, the problem with all the long-term studies on tryptophan hydroxylase activity is that measurement of the activity of the enzyme was made ex vivo following removal of the tissue from MDMA-treated rats. Optimal conditions (with addition of cofactors and substrate) were therefore being employed. No long-term study has examined the ability of the enzyme to synthesize 5-HT in the brain in vivo following earlier administration of a neurotoxic dose of MDMA. From: ARTICLE; it's a PubMed Central so should be freely available.

That is assuming that the inhibition only lasts for the time the MDMA is active which may not be the case. The MDMA may upregulate an inhibitor of the enzyme which may remain elevated for several days/weeks which would inhibit any newly produced enzyme. The mRNA levels of tryptophan decarboxylase have been shown to be reduced in some regions of the brain for several weeks also. Duration of reduced activity of the enzyme has been shown to match duration of reduced serotonin levels.

Do we know if tryptophan levels are normal post MDMA treatment? If SERT is being internalised then their could very well be regulatory mechanisms going on reducing tryptophan levels in the cell hence slowing 5-HTP and 5-HT production. Bypassing tryptophan and tryptophan decarboxylase by adding 5-htp has been shown to replenish serotonin levels to control levels which suggests that the neurons are still intact they just can't produce 5-htp (Wang et al. 2007).

Wang, X., M. H. Baumann, et al. (2007). "Restoration of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-induced 5-HT depletion by the administration of L-5-hydroxytryptophan." Neuroscience 148 (1): 212-220.


This is not true in all cases. Some studies use a tissue homogenate to assess radioligand binding, meaning internalized proteins will be available for binding. So your conclusion that any paper using SERT binding is only showing internalization is a bit blunt. Besides that, your study only proves internalization is a possibility; it is still more than possible neurotoxic mechanisms contribute to a lower SERT density too. Finding another mechanism that leads to the same result does not necessarily cancel out all other mechanisms, you should know that.

Well let me extent that to they only show reduced surface SERT or in the tissue homogenate example reduced SERT protein levels not reduce cell number. When things like receptors and transporters are internalised a certain percentage of it is degraded particularly if the signal to internalise is strong as is the case with MDMA and the massive flooding of serotoin. What they should do is use a serotonin neuron enhancer trap line expressing a GFP protein with a cell surface localisation tag on it and do the experiments with that. The promoter would have to be something that would not be down regulated by mass flooding of neurotransmitters though, which may be hard to find one that is serotonin neuron specific but un-regulated by serotonin levels.


I'm not ruling neurotoxicity out completely I'm just saying I thinking a lot of the data may be being misinterpreted quite possibly due to that fact that if you publish papers saying "drugs are bad" you'll get more future funding than if you publish papers say that their not so bad unfortunately. Although in reality the phenotype of neurotoxicity vs neuroadaption may very well be the same because either way the cells are not functioning how they should and even some neurotoxicity papers say it does repair anyway.
 
Last edited:
That is assuming that the inhibition only lasts for the time the MDMA is active which may not be the case. The MDMA may upregulate an inhibitor of the enzyme which may remain elevated for several days/weeks which would inhibit any newly produced enzyme. The mRNA levels of tryptophan decarboxylase have been shown to be reduced in some regions of the brain for several weeks also.
This is not true, at least not when looking at the article I quoted. Did you read the snippet I copy-pasted? Here is the part I am referring to when calling your statement not true: (Please disregard the use of 'neurotoxic' and 'non-neurotoxic', it is about the difference in concentration; neurotoxic dose obviously higher than non-neurotoxic)
This view is supported by the observation that a non-neurotoxic dose of MDMA resulted in a major loss of hydroxylase activity for up to 2 weeks in several brain regions (Stone et al., 1987), whereas a neurotoxic dose decreased tryptophan hydroxylase activity for 110 days following MDMA administration
As you can see, different doses of MDMA are compared with eachother. So your theory does not hold for this experiment; the 'inhibitor' would be upregulated in both cases. Especially when considering tryptophan hydroxylase activity is usually measured ex-vivo, where the inhibitor you talk about would not be present, or - at the best - in a diminished concentration. mRNA levels would also be lower in case of neurotoxic effects (less neurons = less mRNA), so that isn't really saying anything (by itself, I mean).

Bypassing tryptophan and tryptophan decarboxylase by adding 5-htp has been shown to replenish serotonin levels to control levels which suggests that the neurons are still intact they just can't produce 5-htp (Wang et al. 2007).
True, but it gives no real information about the density of neurons. It could well be that the remaining neurons just produce more 5-HT than normal, since the usual rate-limiting enzyme is eliminated from the cascade. Furthermore, there is some evidence of 5-HT production and storage in non-serotonergic neurons (although this REVIEW is not focused on MDMA in particular).

Well let me extent that to they only show reduced surface SERT or in the tissue homogenate example reduced SERT protein levels not reduce cell number. When things like receptors and transporters are internalised a certain percentage of it is degraded particularly if the signal to internalise is strong as is the case with MDMA and the massive flooding of serotoin. What they should do is use a serotonin neuron enhancer trap line expressing a GFP protein with a cell surface localisation tag on it and do the experiments with that. The promoter would have to be something that would not be down regulated by mass flooding of neurotransmitters though, which may be hard to find one that is serotonin neuron specific but un-regulated by serotonin levels.
Could be a nice experiment indeed. Unfortunately it would be practically impossible to eliminate all possible confounders. There's not only flooding with serotonin, also oxidative stress (which will have a large impact on DNA expression too). Excessive excitation of neurons will cause Ca2+ flooding, which will also have a major influence on general DNA expression.
 
Not to steer this too un-advanced, but I think the main question we need to ask ourselves when discussing MDMA neurotoxicity is thus: if damage does occur, is the damage even cognitively noticeable for the user in question?

In other words, if the average person takes MDMA with a reasonable amount of restraint and frequency and claims to have no cognitive damage, memory deficits and the like, does it matter if there's any damage?
 
In other words, if the average person takes MDMA with a reasonable amount of restraint and frequency and claims to have no cognitive damage, memory deficits and the like, does it matter if there's any damage?
Since neurons in the majority of brain areas are not capable of regeneration, damage does always matter. First of all, if you have the 'average person' there is always the absolute retard, the misinformed user, the guy with misinformed friends...you catch my drift? There will always be people that take more than average, be it by their own choice or because someone else fucks it up.

Secondly, if the average person will, on average, don't have enough damage to cause problems, there will also be people with a higher susceptibility to develop problems. Just like there are people with a certain polymorphism that break down alcohol relatively slow or people with a CYP2D6 mutation that have a much stronger reaction on MDMA, there will also be people that are more likely to experience neurotoxic effect or the deficits caused by these effects (or both, of course).

Thirdly, the presence/experience of cognitive dysfunction, memory deficits etc. is subjective rather than objective, at least in the self-reported manner you describe above. People tend to reason like 'I'm still getting straight A's in school, how can my brain be affected by my MDMA use!?', but that's in the same league as a smoker claiming he can still run the NYC marathon in 4 hrs. Beside that, most people start taking MDMA at an age where the brain is still developing, so it's not necessarily a memory deficit but also the destroying of potential or the rerouting of brain circuits which can lead to another personality type (more prone to OCD, depression or addictive behavior, for instance - not necessarily linked to MDMA, just as an example).

Lastly (and this one is leaning on the very limited possibility of regeneration): Small damage in your younger years might lead to bigger problems once the brain is matured. Take the dying off of dopaminergic neurons, for example. You have a lot of them, you can easily miss at least 50 per cent without noticing real problems. But once you reach a certain threshold, you've got Parkinson's disease. Now, the link between MDMA use and Parkinson's disease has not received that much study and is debatable, but just as an example: You have billions of neurons, but it's a limited amount nonetheless. So every significant number you lose when you're young, might have implications once you reach a certain age or develop certain diseases (Alzheimer's comes to mind, regarding - possible - hippocampal neurotoxicity of MDMA).
 
This is not true, at least not when looking at the article I quoted. Did you read the snippet I copy-pasted? Here is the part I am referring to when calling your statement not true: (Please disregard the use of 'neurotoxic' and 'non-neurotoxic', it is about the difference in concentration; neurotoxic dose obviously higher than non-neurotoxic)

As you can see, different doses of MDMA are compared with eachother. So your theory does not hold for this experiment; the 'inhibitor' would be upregulated in both cases. Especially when considering tryptophan hydroxylase activity is usually measured ex-vivo, where the inhibitor you talk about would not be present, or - at the best - in a diminished concentration. mRNA levels would also be lower in case of neurotoxic effects (less neurons = less mRNA), so that isn't really saying anything (by itself, I mean).

But the inhibitor may just not be upregulated until the 'neurotoxic' dose so the 'non-neurotoxic' dose maybe be inactivated only by oxidative stress. And that paper you quoted uses in vivo not ex vivo assays to measure tryptophan hydroxyase activity. When measuring mRNA levels either by Q-PCR or RT-PCR you use a reference gene like ubiquitin so they get a level of mRNA per cell not total. Variation in individual reactions would make it meaningless if they did not.

Heres another quote that paper
Paper said:
MDMA administration resulted in a substantial decrease in accumulation (synthesis) of 5-HTP up to 8 weeks later in the cortex and hippocampus but only at week 1 in the striatum (Table 1). This decrease mirrored the decrease in tissue 5-HT concentration and [3H]-paroxetine binding.

If 5-HT depletion is caused by reduced tryptophan hydroxylase activity then you would expect it to match as it does.

True, but it gives no real information about the density of neurons. It could well be that the remaining neurons just produce more 5-HT than normal, since the usual rate-limiting enzyme is eliminated from the cascade. Furthermore, there is some evidence of 5-HT production and storage in non-serotonergic neurons (although this REVIEW is not focused on MDMA in particular).

But if that was the case surely the control group would still have higher levels than the MDMA treated group which they did not. Following administration of 5-htp the 5-HT levels were the same for the control and MDMA pretreated group. Which suggests that the reason for reduced 5-HT is due to reduced synthesis not reduced cells.

Could be a nice experiment indeed. Unfortunately it would be practically impossible to eliminate all possible confounders. There's not only flooding with serotonin, also oxidative stress (which will have a large impact on DNA expression too). Excessive excitation of neurons will cause Ca2+ flooding, which will also have a major influence on general DNA expression.

Not really. I'm sure there would be several potential serotonin neuron specific promotors that could be used. All you would have to do is compare the mRNA of your construct between MDMA treated and control groups using Q-PCR with a ubiquitin reference control. That would show if the transgenes expression is altered by the MDMA treatment on a per cell bases. I'm sure you would be able to find one that is not affected that could be used.
 
But the inhibitor may just not be upregulated until the 'neurotoxic' dose so the 'non-neurotoxic' dose maybe be inactivated only by oxidative stress.
Plausible, but perhaps a bit far-fetched. MDMA is not really a substance known for its subtle effects, so - to me - it does not seem very likely that a certain hydroxylase inhibitor is only upregulated starting at a relatively high dose. Furthermore, a quick search does not come up with any endogenous, irreversible tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitors. Only one I can think of is 7-HTP but that is not really a substance that is present endogenous nor can it be 'upregulated'.

When measuring mRNA levels either by Q-PCR or RT-PCR you use a reference gene like ubiquitin so they get a level of mRNA per cell not total. Variation in individual reactions would make it meaningless if they did not.
You are absolutely right on this one, I also thought of this myself a few hours after my response. However, I still wonder what the effect might be if you present a sample containing mRNA from both serotonergic neurons and surrounding glial and other cells. Since I don't have much experience with Q-PCR I don't know how you would correct for this, perhaps you can fill me in on this? (genuine question)

All you would have to do is compare the mRNA of your construct between MDMA treated and control groups using Q-PCR with a ubiquitin reference control. That would show if the transgenes expression is altered by the MDMA treatment on a per cell bases. I'm sure you would be able to find one that is not affected that could be used.
Interestingly, I happened to stumble upon a review containing a few references to studies finding evidence the ubiquitin system is dysregulated as part - or consequence - of the toxicity of different (substituted) amphetamines. They make no mention of serotonergic neurons, but I believe this discussion should not be limited to serotonergic neurotoxicity; dopaminergic neurons in the striatum and substantia nigra are mentioned, as are GABAergic neurons. Be warned, long read ahead!
NSFW:
Recent studies have shown that the substituted amphetamines promote the dysregulation of the UPS, which may further contribute to neurotoxic and apoptotic events. A decrease in the activity of the UPS can lead to the accumulation of unwanted proteins and has been implicated in the etiology of various neurodegenerative disorders.165 Furthermore, identified mediators of amphetamine neurotoxicity described in the foregoing, such as GLU-induced NOS activity, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress, are known to affect or be affected by the UPS. Inhibition of the proteasome can block inducible NOS degradation166 and potentially increase NO production, NO-mediated nitrosative stress, damage to the ubiquitin ligase, parkin,167 and protein misfolding,168 all of which can potentiate the inhibition of the proteasome.60,169,170 Conversely, proteasomal inhibition can produce an impairment of the mitochondria and a release of proapoptotic proteins.171 Therefore, on the basis of the overlap between mediators of amphetamine toxicity and events associated with the UPS, these studies suggest the view that amphetamines can lead to unwanted accumulation of protein through a dysregulation of the UPS.

Administration of high METH or MDMA doses causes formation of intracellular inclusions in the nucleus of medium-sized GABA neurons and cytoplasm of neurons of the substantia nigra pars compacta of mice.117,172–176 The inclusions in GABA neurons stain for ubiquitin and enzymatic components of the UPS (including E3 ligase parkin) but usually not for α-synuclein, whereas inclusions found in substantia nigra neurons stain for α-synuclein, a hallmark of Lewy bodies frequently observed in Parkinson's disease and other degenerative disorders. Occurrence of ubiquitinated inclusions was also reported in the substantia nigra of 37 subjects who abused METH.177 The specific cause of the inclusions is unknown, but neuronal inclusions can occur when the UPS is inhibited pharmacologically.178,179 Moreover, oxidative stress commonly leads to inclusion formation, and the inclusions produced by METH, MDMA, and MPTP180 are ultrastructurally similar to those produced by DA-mediated oxidative stress.117,172,173 In addition, inclusion formation is decreased upon administration of antioxidant/iron-chelating agent, S-apomorphine.175

It is hypothesized that striatal neuronal inclusions are a consequence of amphetamine-mediated increases in DA release followed by overstimulation of DA D1 receptors.117,181 The underlying mechanism is thought to involve β-arrestin that is present together with ubiquitin in inclusions after exposure of PC12 cells to METH.182 Because β-arrestin is involved in the internalization of DA and mGlu5 receptors,183–185 it suggests the possibility that activation of these receptors contributes to the formation of inclusions in striatal GABA neurons. In addition, DA and non–DA-derived ROS might diffuse to GABA neurons and inhibit the function of proteasome.117

α-Synuclein, a presynaptic protein involved in various degenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease, might also contribute to DA-dependent inclusion formation in nigral cells after toxic amphetamine administration. Increases in α-synuclein levels are known to be toxic to DA neurons in vitro186 and in vivo.187 Administration of METH and MDMA increases expression of α-synuclein in DA neurons in the substantia nigra of mice.176 It is possible that covalent modification of α-synuclein by DA-derived quinone188,189 after amphetamine administration promotes the formation of toxic α-synuclein aggregates.190

Misfolded protein aggregates or damaged organelles that accumulate cannot be degraded by the UPS. This function is reserved for the lysosomal system and the process of microautophagy. Autophagic vacuole formation by the lysosomal system will remove oxidized and damaged organelles (such as mitochondria) and misfolded protein aggregates produced by METH. Conversely, inhibition of autophagy is deleterious to cells because of a diminished ability to clear α-synuclein aggregates after METH exposure, eventually resulting in caspase-dependent cell death.191

Now it is unclear whether a dysfunction of the UPS system is a consequence or a cause of the toxicity to the amphetamines. It remains to be determined if the excitotoxic, oxidative, and inflammatory mediators discussed earlier directly target the UPS and thus disrupt the normal, ongoing removal of unwanted proteins to ultimately produce the demise of cell bodies and terminals. A likely scenario, however, is that the damage produced by the amphetamines is ultimately dependent upon the balance of factors that promote toxicity (e.g., excitotoxic glutamatergic events, prooxidant processes, inflammation) and endogenous protective systems (such as the UPS), antioxidants, and growth-promoting molecules (such as neurotrophic factors) that can be targeted by toxic insults. SOURCE
 
Plausible, but perhaps a bit far-fetched. MDMA is not really a substance known for its subtle effects, so - to me - it does not seem very likely that a certain hydroxylase inhibitor is only upregulated starting at a relatively high dose. Furthermore, a quick search does not come up with any endogenous, irreversible tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitors. Only one I can think of is 7-HTP but that is not really a substance that is present endogenous nor can it be 'upregulated'.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be something like 7-htp. It could be a phosphatase removing a phosphate inactivating it. Typtophan hydroxylase has been shown to be post translational modified by kinases and phosphatases so its definitely possible (Murphy et al. 2008, Huang et al. 2008 ).

Also have a look as the this paper (its old but relevant). It discusses the role of tryptophan levels and tryptophan hydroxyalse activity in controlling serotonin levels.

Hamon, M., S. Bourgoin, et al. (1981). "The respective roles of tryptophan uptake and tryptophan hydroxylase in the regulation of serotonin synthesis in the central nervous system." J Physiol (Paris) 77(2-3): 269-279.
NSFW:
Abstract
1. The rate limiting enzyme for the synthesis of serotonin (5-HT) in brain, tryptophan hydroxylase, is not saturated under normal physiological conditions. 2. Therefore, any decrease or increase in brain tryptophan levels results in a reduction or a stimulation of 5-HT synthesis respectively. Thus, mechanisms controlling brain tryptophan levels, i.e. the concentration of free tryptophan in serum and the intrinsic activity of the tryptophan carrier in neuronal membranes, exert in fact a tonic regulation of 5-HT synthesis in central serotoninergic neurons. 3. Changes in the rate of 5-HT synthesis can also involve modifications in the intrinsic activity of tryptophan hydroxylase. This occurs in vivo following the intrastriatal injection of kainic acid and in vitro during the depolarization of brain slices. In both cases, an activation of tryptophan hydroxylase due to an increase in its apparent Vmax is detected in soluble extracts. 4. The depolarization-induced activation of tryptophan hydroxylase in brain slices very likely involves a Ca2+-dependent phosphorylation process. 5. Rapid changes in tryptophan hydroxylase activity produced by a phosphorylation-dephosphorylation process may be involved in the phasic regulation of 5-HT synthesis in serotoninergic neurons.


Huang, Z., T. Liu, et al. (2008 ). "Posttranslational regulation of TPH1 is responsible for the nightly surge of 5-HT output in the rat pineal gland." J Pineal Res 45(4): 506-514.

Murphy, K. L., X. Zhang, et al. (2008 ). "A regulatory domain in the N terminus of tryptophan hydroxylase 2 controls enzyme expression." J Biol Chem 283(19): 13216-13224.


You are absolutely right on this one, I also thought of this myself a few hours after my response. However, I still wonder what the effect might be if you present a sample containing mRNA from both serotonergic neurons and surrounding glial and other cells. Since I don't have much experience with Q-PCR I don't know how you would correct for this, perhaps you can fill me in on this? (genuine question)

Well it should be canceled out by the fact that the controls would also have non serotonin cells present. It is possible to just pull out the mRNA from specific cells by driving a his or myc tagged ribosomal protein under your promoter of interest and the crosslink the the mRNA and protein using formaldehyde and then use a his/myc antibodies to just pull down the mRNA from those cells.

Interestingly, I happened to stumble upon a review containing a few references to studies finding evidence the ubiquitin system is dysregulated as part - or consequence - of the toxicity of different (substituted) amphetamines. They make no mention of serotonergic neurons, but I believe this discussion should not be limited to serotonergic neurotoxicity; dopaminergic neurons in the striatum and substantia nigra are mentioned, as are GABAergic neurons. Be warned, long read ahead!
NSFW:
Recent studies have shown that the substituted amphetamines promote the dysregulation of the UPS, which may further contribute to neurotoxic and apoptotic events. A decrease in the activity of the UPS can lead to the accumulation of unwanted proteins and has been implicated in the etiology of various neurodegenerative disorders.165 Furthermore, identified mediators of amphetamine neurotoxicity described in the foregoing, such as GLU-induced NOS activity, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress, are known to affect or be affected by the UPS. Inhibition of the proteasome can block inducible NOS degradation166 and potentially increase NO production, NO-mediated nitrosative stress, damage to the ubiquitin ligase, parkin,167 and protein misfolding,168 all of which can potentiate the inhibition of the proteasome.60,169,170 Conversely, proteasomal inhibition can produce an impairment of the mitochondria and a release of proapoptotic proteins.171 Therefore, on the basis of the overlap between mediators of amphetamine toxicity and events associated with the UPS, these studies suggest the view that amphetamines can lead to unwanted accumulation of protein through a dysregulation of the UPS.

Administration of high METH or MDMA doses causes formation of intracellular inclusions in the nucleus of medium-sized GABA neurons and cytoplasm of neurons of the substantia nigra pars compacta of mice.117,172–176 The inclusions in GABA neurons stain for ubiquitin and enzymatic components of the UPS (including E3 ligase parkin) but usually not for α-synuclein, whereas inclusions found in substantia nigra neurons stain for α-synuclein, a hallmark of Lewy bodies frequently observed in Parkinson's disease and other degenerative disorders. Occurrence of ubiquitinated inclusions was also reported in the substantia nigra of 37 subjects who abused METH.177 The specific cause of the inclusions is unknown, but neuronal inclusions can occur when the UPS is inhibited pharmacologically.178,179 Moreover, oxidative stress commonly leads to inclusion formation, and the inclusions produced by METH, MDMA, and MPTP180 are ultrastructurally similar to those produced by DA-mediated oxidative stress.117,172,173 In addition, inclusion formation is decreased upon administration of antioxidant/iron-chelating agent, S-apomorphine.175

It is hypothesized that striatal neuronal inclusions are a consequence of amphetamine-mediated increases in DA release followed by overstimulation of DA D1 receptors.117,181 The underlying mechanism is thought to involve β-arrestin that is present together with ubiquitin in inclusions after exposure of PC12 cells to METH.182 Because β-arrestin is involved in the internalization of DA and mGlu5 receptors,183–185 it suggests the possibility that activation of these receptors contributes to the formation of inclusions in striatal GABA neurons. In addition, DA and non–DA-derived ROS might diffuse to GABA neurons and inhibit the function of proteasome.117

α-Synuclein, a presynaptic protein involved in various degenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease, might also contribute to DA-dependent inclusion formation in nigral cells after toxic amphetamine administration. Increases in α-synuclein levels are known to be toxic to DA neurons in vitro186 and in vivo.187 Administration of METH and MDMA increases expression of α-synuclein in DA neurons in the substantia nigra of mice.176 It is possible that covalent modification of α-synuclein by DA-derived quinone188,189 after amphetamine administration promotes the formation of toxic α-synuclein aggregates.190

Misfolded protein aggregates or damaged organelles that accumulate cannot be degraded by the UPS. This function is reserved for the lysosomal system and the process of microautophagy. Autophagic vacuole formation by the lysosomal system will remove oxidized and damaged organelles (such as mitochondria) and misfolded protein aggregates produced by METH. Conversely, inhibition of autophagy is deleterious to cells because of a diminished ability to clear α-synuclein aggregates after METH exposure, eventually resulting in caspase-dependent cell death.191

Now it is unclear whether a dysfunction of the UPS system is a consequence or a cause of the toxicity to the amphetamines. It remains to be determined if the excitotoxic, oxidative, and inflammatory mediators discussed earlier directly target the UPS and thus disrupt the normal, ongoing removal of unwanted proteins to ultimately produce the demise of cell bodies and terminals. A likely scenario, however, is that the damage produced by the amphetamines is ultimately dependent upon the balance of factors that promote toxicity (e.g., excitotoxic glutamatergic events, prooxidant processes, inflammation) and endogenous protective systems (such as the UPS), antioxidants, and growth-promoting molecules (such as neurotrophic factors) that can be targeted by toxic insults. SOURCE


There are other reference genes you can use such as actin or tubulin. You just need a gene that is expressed constitutively.
 
Well it should be canceled out by the fact that the controls would also have non serotonin cells present. It is possible to just pull out the mRNA from specific cells by driving a his or myc tagged ribosomal protein under your promoter of interest and the crosslink the the mRNA and protein using formaldehyde and then use a his/myc antibodies to just pull down the mRNA from those cells.
But wouldn't the ratio between serotonergic and other neurons/glial cells be different in case of selective serotonergic neurotoxicity? Thereby giving the appearance of lower mRNA levels per unit mass of tissue, but in fact similar levels of mRNA per serotonergic neuron? Please don't get me wrong, it is not my intention to make this an endless discussion. I am just not very familiar with Q-PCR so I would like to understand how one should correct for this kind of physiological variations. The approach with antibodies is a good option, although I am of the opinion that any method with antibodies can only be semi-quantitative at best (but good enough for the current issue).

There are other reference genes you can use such as actin or tubulin. You just need a gene that is expressed constitutively.
You are right there must be a gene available whose expression is conserved during and after exposure to MDMA. But the problem is mainly that 'normal' housekeeping genes all seem to be unsuitable for this purpose. Microtubules are used for axonal transport, so it is expected tubulin expression will be altered during excessive synaptic remodeling i.e. axonal transport of receptor and other proteins.
As for actin, certain serotonin metabolites can bind to actin; a process that has even been considered as an in vitro measure for neurotoxicity. This must have consequences for actin gene expression, so again actin does not seem like a suitable housekeeping gene in case of MDMA exposure. SOURCE Again, you are right that there eventually must be a gene that is suitable, so if you would like to drop this discussion I understand. As for myself, I just like to explore the different possibilities and find out why other possibilities are not suitable.

Too bad I don't have the time to read the articles you provided (for now), I'll try to do so later on and give some comment if appropriate.
 
But wouldn't the ratio between serotonergic and other neurons/glial cells be different in case of selective serotonergic neurotoxicity? Thereby giving the appearance of lower mRNA levels per unit mass of tissue, but in fact similar levels of mRNA per serotonergic neuron? Please don't get me wrong, it is not my intention to make this an endless discussion. I am just not very familiar with Q-PCR so I would like to understand how one should correct for this kind of physiological variations. The approach with antibodies is a good option, although I am of the opinion that any method with antibodies can only be semi-quantitative at best (but good enough for
the current issue).

Yeah your right. I guess it would depend on how strongly it is expressed in the other cells. So I guess the best way would be with the tagged ribosomal protein which I doubt many, if any, papers testing mRNA of tryptophan hydroxylase in MDMA treated rats use. Otherwise you couldn't tell the difference between down regulation and neuronal death.

That method is good for doing microarray comparing mutants of genes expressed in a small area. It would be interesting to see a microarray done comparing MDMA treated rats vs controls. Anyone know of one?



You are right there must be a gene available whose expression is conserved during and after exposure to MDMA. But the problem is mainly that 'normal' housekeeping genes all seem to be unsuitable for this purpose. Microtubules are used for axonal transport, so it is expected tubulin expression will be altered during excessive synaptic remodeling i.e. axonal transport of receptor and other proteins.
As for actin, certain serotonin metabolites can bind to actin; a process that has even been considered as an in vitro measure for neurotoxicity. This must have consequences for actin gene expression, so again actin does not seem like a suitable housekeeping gene in case of MDMA exposure. SOURCE Again, you are right that there eventually must be a gene that is suitable, so if you would like to drop this discussion I understand. As for myself, I just like to explore the different possibilities and find out why other possibilities are not suitable.

Too bad I don't have the time to read the articles you provided (for now), I'll try to do so later on and give some comment if appropriate.


Apparently cyclophilin A has been used as a reference gene for Q-PCR and RT-PCR with success in MDMA experiments.
 
Top