research on drug addiction pdf

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Neuropsychopharmacology
• v.46(10); 2021 Sep

Addiction as a brain disease revised: why it still matters, and the need for consilience

Markus heilig.

1 Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

James MacKillop

2 Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research, McMaster University and St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON Canada

3 Homewood Research Institute, Guelph, ON Canada

Diana Martinez

4 New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY USA

Jürgen Rehm

5 Institute for Mental Health Policy Research & Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Toronto, ON Canada

6 Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto (UofT), Toronto, ON Canada

7 Klinische Psychologie & Psychotherapie, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

8 Department of International Health Projects, Institute for Leadership and Health Management, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia

Lorenzo Leggio

9 Clinical Psychoneuroendocrinology and Neuropsychopharmacology Section, Translational Addiction Medicine Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore and Bethesda, MD USA

Louk J. M. J. Vanderschuren

10 Department of Population Health Sciences, Unit Animals in Science and Society, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

The view that substance addiction is a brain disease, although widely accepted in the neuroscience community, has become subject to acerbic criticism in recent years. These criticisms state that the brain disease view is deterministic, fails to account for heterogeneity in remission and recovery, places too much emphasis on a compulsive dimension of addiction, and that a specific neural signature of addiction has not been identified. We acknowledge that some of these criticisms have merit, but assert that the foundational premise that addiction has a neurobiological basis is fundamentally sound. We also emphasize that denying that addiction is a brain disease is a harmful standpoint since it contributes to reducing access to healthcare and treatment, the consequences of which are catastrophic. Here, we therefore address these criticisms, and in doing so provide a contemporary update of the brain disease view of addiction. We provide arguments to support this view, discuss why apparently spontaneous remission does not negate it, and how seemingly compulsive behaviors can co-exist with the sensitivity to alternative reinforcement in addiction. Most importantly, we argue that the brain is the biological substrate from which both addiction and the capacity for behavior change arise, arguing for an intensified neuroscientific study of recovery. More broadly, we propose that these disagreements reveal the need for multidisciplinary research that integrates neuroscientific, behavioral, clinical, and sociocultural perspectives.

Introduction

Close to a quarter of a century ago, then director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse Alan Leshner famously asserted that “addiction is a brain disease”, articulated a set of implications of this position, and outlined an agenda for realizing its promise [ 1 ]. The paper, now cited almost 2000 times, put forward a position that has been highly influential in guiding the efforts of researchers, and resource allocation by funding agencies. A subsequent 2000 paper by McLellan et al. [ 2 ] examined whether data justify distinguishing addiction from other conditions for which a disease label is rarely questioned, such as diabetes, hypertension or asthma. It concluded that neither genetic risk, the role of personal choices, nor the influence of environmental factors differentiated addiction in a manner that would warrant viewing it differently; neither did relapse rates, nor compliance with treatment. The authors outlined an agenda closely related to that put forward by Leshner, but with a more clinical focus. Their conclusion was that addiction should be insured, treated, and evaluated like other diseases. This paper, too, has been exceptionally influential by academic standards, as witnessed by its ~3000 citations to date. What may be less appreciated among scientists is that its impact in the real world of addiction treatment has remained more limited, with large numbers of patients still not receiving evidence-based treatments.

In recent years, the conceptualization of addiction as a brain disease has come under increasing criticism. When first put forward, the brain disease view was mainly an attempt to articulate an effective response to prevailing nonscientific, moralizing, and stigmatizing attitudes to addiction. According to these attitudes, addiction was simply the result of a person’s moral failing or weakness of character, rather than a “real” disease [ 3 ]. These attitudes created barriers for people with substance use problems to access evidence-based treatments, both those available at the time, such as opioid agonist maintenance, cognitive behavioral therapy-based relapse prevention, community reinforcement or contingency management, and those that could result from research. To promote patient access to treatments, scientists needed to argue that there is a biological basis beneath the challenging behaviors of individuals suffering from addiction. This argument was particularly targeted to the public, policymakers and health care professionals, many of whom held that since addiction was a misery people brought upon themselves, it fell beyond the scope of medicine, and was neither amenable to treatment, nor warranted the use of taxpayer money.

Present-day criticism directed at the conceptualization of addiction as a brain disease is of a very different nature. It originates from within the scientific community itself, and asserts that this conceptualization is neither supported by data, nor helpful for people with substance use problems [ 4 – 8 ]. Addressing these critiques requires a very different perspective, and is the objective of our paper. We readily acknowledge that in some cases, recent critiques of the notion of addiction as a brain disease as postulated originally have merit, and that those critiques require the postulates to be re-assessed and refined. In other cases, we believe the arguments have less validity, but still provide an opportunity to update the position of addiction as a brain disease. Our overarching concern is that questionable arguments against the notion of addiction as a brain disease may harm patients, by impeding access to care, and slowing development of novel treatments.

A premise of our argument is that any useful conceptualization of addiction requires an understanding both of the brains involved, and of environmental factors that interact with those brains [ 9 ]. These environmental factors critically include availability of drugs, but also of healthy alternative rewards and opportunities. As we will show, stating that brain mechanisms are critical for understanding and treating addiction in no way negates the role of psychological, social and socioeconomic processes as both causes and consequences of substance use. To reflect this complex nature of addiction, we have assembled a team with expertise that spans from molecular neuroscience, through animal models of addiction, human brain imaging, clinical addiction medicine, to epidemiology. What brings us together is a passionate commitment to improving the lives of people with substance use problems through science and science-based treatments, with empirical evidence as the guiding principle.

To achieve this goal, we first discuss the nature of the disease concept itself, and why we believe it is important for the science and treatment of addiction. This is followed by a discussion of the main points raised when the notion of addiction as a brain disease has come under criticism. Key among those are claims that spontaneous remission rates are high; that a specific brain pathology is lacking; and that people suffering from addiction, rather than behaving “compulsively”, in fact show a preserved ability to make informed and advantageous choices. In the process of discussing these issues, we also address the common criticism that viewing addiction as a brain disease is a fully deterministic theory of addiction. For our argument, we use the term “addiction” as originally used by Leshner [ 1 ]; in Box  1 , we map out and discuss how this construct may relate to the current diagnostic categories, such as Substance Use Disorder (SUD) and its different levels of severity (Fig.  1) .

Risky (hazardous) substance use refers to quantity/frequency indicators of consumption; SUD refers to individuals who meet criteria for a DSM-5 diagnosis (mild, moderate, or severe); and addiction refers to individuals who exhibit persistent difficulties with self-regulation of drug consumption. Among high-risk individuals, a subgroup will meet criteria for SUD and, among those who have an SUD, a further subgroup would be considered to be addicted to the drug. However, the boundary for addiction is intentionally blurred to reflect that the dividing line for defining addiction within the category of SUD remains an open empirical question.

Box 1 What’s in a name? Differentiating hazardous use, substance use disorder, and addiction

Although our principal focus is on the brain disease model of addiction, the definition of addiction itself is a source of ambiguity. Here, we provide a perspective on the major forms of terminology in the field.

Hazardous Substance Use

Hazardous (risky) substance use refers to quantitative levels of consumption that increase an individual’s risk for adverse health consequences. In practice, this pertains to alcohol use [ 110 , 111 ]. Clinically, alcohol consumption that exceeds guidelines for moderate drinking has been used to prompt brief interventions or referral for specialist care [ 112 ]. More recently, a reduction in these quantitative levels has been validated as treatment endpoints [ 113 ].

Substance Use Disorder

SUD refers to the DSM-5 diagnosis category that encompasses significant impairment or distress resulting from specific categories of psychoactive drug use. The diagnosis of SUD is operationalized as 2 or more of 11 symptoms over the past year. As a result, the diagnosis is heterogenous, with more than 1100 symptom permutations possible. The diagnosis in DSM-5 is the result of combining two diagnoses from the DSM-IV, abuse and dependence, which proved to be less valid than a single dimensional approach [ 114 ]. Critically, SUD includes three levels of severity: mild (2–3 symptoms), moderate (4–5 symptoms), and severe (6+ symptoms). The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system retains two diagnoses, harmful use (lower severity) and substance dependence (higher severity).

Addiction is a natural language concept, etymologically meaning enslavement, with the contemporary meaning traceable to the Middle and Late Roman Republic periods [ 115 ]. As a scientific construct, drug addiction can be defined as a state in which an individual exhibits an inability to self-regulate consumption of a substance, although it does not have an operational definition. Regarding clinical diagnosis, as it is typically used in scientific and clinical parlance, addiction is not synonymous with the simple presence of SUD. Nowhere in DSM-5 is it articulated that the diagnostic threshold (or any specific number/type of symptoms) should be interpreted as reflecting addiction, which inherently connotes a high degree of severity. Indeed, concerns were raised about setting the diagnostic standard too low because of the issue of potentially conflating a low-severity SUD with addiction [ 116 ]. In scientific and clinical usage, addiction typically refers to individuals at a moderate or high severity of SUD. This is consistent with the fact that moderate-to-severe SUD has the closest correspondence with the more severe diagnosis in ICD [ 117 – 119 ]. Nonetheless, akin to the undefined overlap between hazardous use and SUD, the field has not identified the exact thresholds of SUD symptoms above which addiction would be definitively present.

Integration

The ambiguous relationships among these terms contribute to misunderstandings and disagreements. Figure 1 provides a simple working model of how these terms overlap. Fundamentally, we consider that these terms represent successive dimensions of severity, clinical “nesting dolls”. Not all individuals consuming substances at hazardous levels have an SUD, but a subgroup do. Not all individuals with a SUD are addicted to the drug in question, but a subgroup are. At the severe end of the spectrum, these domains converge (heavy consumption, numerous symptoms, the unambiguous presence of addiction), but at low severity, the overlap is more modest. The exact mapping of addiction onto SUD is an open empirical question, warranting systematic study among scientists, clinicians, and patients with lived experience. No less important will be future research situating our definition of SUD using more objective indicators (e.g., [ 55 , 120 ]), brain-based and otherwise, and more precisely in relation to clinical needs [ 121 ]. Finally, such work should ultimately be codified in both the DSM and ICD systems to demarcate clearly where the attribution of addiction belongs within the clinical nosology, and to foster greater clarity and specificity in scientific discourse.

What is a disease?

In his classic 1960 book “The Disease Concept of Alcoholism”, Jellinek noted that in the alcohol field, the debate over the disease concept was plagued by too many definitions of “alcoholism” and too few definitions of “disease” [ 10 ]. He suggested that the addiction field needed to follow the rest of medicine in moving away from viewing disease as an “entity”, i.e., something that has “its own independent existence, apart from other things” [ 11 ]. To modern medicine, he pointed out, a disease is simply a label that is agreed upon to describe a cluster of substantial, deteriorating changes in the structure or function of the human body, and the accompanying deterioration in biopsychosocial functioning. Thus, he concluded that alcoholism can simply be defined as changes in structure or function of the body due to drinking that cause disability or death. A disease label is useful to identify groups of people with commonly co-occurring constellations of problems—syndromes—that significantly impair function, and that lead to clinically significant distress, harm, or both. This convention allows a systematic study of the condition, and of whether group members benefit from a specific intervention.

It is not trivial to delineate the exact category of harmful substance use for which a label such as addiction is warranted (See Box  1 ). Challenges to diagnostic categorization are not unique to addiction, however. Throughout clinical medicine, diagnostic cut-offs are set by consensus, commonly based on an evolving understanding of thresholds above which people tend to benefit from available interventions. Because assessing benefits in large patient groups over time is difficult, diagnostic thresholds are always subject to debate and adjustments. It can be debated whether diagnostic thresholds “merely” capture the extreme of a single underlying population, or actually identify a subpopulation that is at some level distinct. Resolving this issue remains challenging in addiction, but once again, this is not different from other areas of medicine [see e.g., [ 12 ] for type 2 diabetes]. Longitudinal studies that track patient trajectories over time may have a better ability to identify subpopulations than cross-sectional assessments [ 13 ].

By this pragmatic, clinical understanding of the disease concept, it is difficult to argue that “addiction” is unjustified as a disease label. Among people who use drugs or alcohol, some progress to using with a quantity and frequency that results in impaired function and often death, making substance use a major cause of global disease burden [ 14 ]. In these people, use occurs with a pattern that in milder forms may be challenging to capture by current diagnostic criteria (See Box  1 ), but is readily recognized by patients, their families and treatment providers when it reaches a severity that is clinically significant [see [ 15 ] for a classical discussion]. In some cases, such as opioid addiction, those who receive the diagnosis stand to obtain some of the greatest benefits from medical treatments in all of clinical medicine [ 16 , 17 ]. Although effect sizes of available treatments are more modest in nicotine [ 18 ] and alcohol addiction [ 19 ], the evidence supporting their efficacy is also indisputable. A view of addiction as a disease is justified, because it is beneficial: a failure to diagnose addiction drastically increases the risk of a failure to treat it [ 20 ].

Of course, establishing a diagnosis is not a requirement for interventions to be meaningful. People with hazardous or harmful substance use who have not (yet) developed addiction should also be identified, and interventions should be initiated to address their substance-related risks. This is particularly relevant for alcohol, where even in the absence of addiction, use is frequently associated with risks or harm to self, e.g., through cardiovascular disease, liver disease or cancer, and to others, e.g., through accidents or violence [ 21 ]. Interventions to reduce hazardous or harmful substance use in people who have not developed addiction are in fact particularly appealing. In these individuals, limited interventions are able to achieve robust and meaningful benefits [ 22 ], presumably because patterns of misuse have not yet become entrenched.

Thus, as originally pointed out by McLellan and colleagues, most of the criticisms of addiction as a disease could equally be applied to other medical conditions [ 2 ]. This type of criticism could also be applied to other psychiatric disorders, and that has indeed been the case historically [ 23 , 24 ]. Today, there is broad consensus that those criticisms were misguided. Few, if any healthcare professionals continue to maintain that schizophrenia, rather than being a disease, is a normal response to societal conditions. Why, then, do people continue to question if addiction is a disease, but not whether schizophrenia, major depressive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder are diseases? This is particularly troubling given the decades of data showing high co-morbidity of addiction with these conditions [ 25 , 26 ]. We argue that it comes down to stigma. Dysregulated substance use continues to be perceived as a self-inflicted condition characterized by a lack of willpower, thus falling outside the scope of medicine and into that of morality [ 3 ].

Chronic and relapsing, developmentally-limited, or spontaneously remitting?

Much of the critique targeted at the conceptualization of addiction as a brain disease focuses on its original assertion that addiction is a chronic and relapsing condition. Epidemiological data are cited in support of the notion that large proportions of individuals achieve remission [ 27 ], frequently without any formal treatment [ 28 , 29 ] and in some cases resuming low risk substance use [ 30 ]. For instance, based on data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) study [ 27 ], it has been pointed out that a significant proportion of people with an addictive disorder quit each year, and that most afflicted individuals ultimately remit. These spontaneous remission rates are argued to invalidate the concept of a chronic, relapsing disease [ 4 ].

Interpreting these and similar data is complicated by several methodological and conceptual issues. First, people may appear to remit spontaneously because they actually do, but also because of limited test–retest reliability of the diagnosis [ 31 ]. For instance, using a validated diagnostic interview and trained interviewers, the Collaborative Studies on Genetics of Alcoholism examined the likelihood that an individual diagnosed with a lifetime history of substance dependence would retain this classification after 5 years. This is obviously a diagnosis that, once met, by definition cannot truly remit. Lifetime alcohol dependence was indeed stable in individuals recruited from addiction treatment units, ~90% for women, and 95% for men. In contrast, in a community-based sample similar to that used in the NESARC [ 27 ], stability was only ~30% and 65% for women and men, respectively. The most important characteristic that determined diagnostic stability was severity. Diagnosis was stable in severe, treatment-seeking cases, but not in general population cases of alcohol dependence.

These data suggest that commonly used diagnostic criteria alone are simply over-inclusive for a reliable, clinically meaningful diagnosis of addiction. They do identify a core group of treatment seeking individuals with a reliable diagnosis, but, if applied to nonclinical populations, also flag as “cases” a considerable halo of individuals for whom the diagnostic categorization is unreliable. Any meaningful discussion of remission rates needs to take this into account, and specify which of these two populations that is being discussed. Unfortunately, the DSM-5 has not made this task easier. With only 2 out of 11 symptoms being sufficient for a diagnosis of SUD, it captures under a single diagnostic label individuals in a “mild” category, whose diagnosis is likely to have very low test–retest reliability, and who are unlikely to exhibit a chronic relapsing course, together with people at the severe end of the spectrum, whose diagnosis is reliable, many of whom do show a chronic relapsing course.

The NESARC data nevertheless show that close to 10% of people in the general population who are diagnosed with alcohol addiction (here equated with DSM-IV “dependence” used in the NESARC study) never remitted throughout their participation in the survey. The base life-time prevalence of alcohol dependence in NESARC was 12.5% [ 32 ]. Thus, the data cited against the concept of addiction as a chronic relapsing disease in fact indicate that over 1% of the US population develops an alcohol-related condition that is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and whose chronic and/or relapsing nature cannot be disputed, since it does not remit.

Secondly, the analysis of NESARC data [ 4 , 27 ] omits opioid addiction, which, together with alcohol and tobacco, is the largest addiction-related public health problem in the US [ 33 ]. This is probably the addictive condition where an analysis of cumulative evidence most strikingly supports the notion of a chronic disorder with frequent relapses in a large proportion of people affected [ 34 ]. Of course, a large number of people with opioid addiction are unable to express the chronic, relapsing course of their disease, because over the long term, their mortality rate is about 15 times greater than that of the general population [ 35 ]. However, even among those who remain alive, the prevalence of stable abstinence from opioid use after 10–30 years of observation is <30%. Remission may not always require abstinence, for instance in the case of alcohol addiction, but is a reasonable proxy for remission with opioids, where return to controlled use is rare. Embedded in these data is a message of literally vital importance: when opioid addiction is diagnosed and treated as a chronic relapsing disease, outcomes are markedly improved, and retention in treatment is associated with a greater likelihood of abstinence.

The fact that significant numbers of individuals exhibit a chronic relapsing course does not negate that even larger numbers of individuals with SUD according to current diagnostic criteria do not. For instance, in many countries, the highest prevalence of substance use problems is found among young adults, aged 18–25 [ 36 ], and a majority of these ‘age out’ of excessive substance use [ 37 ]. It is also well documented that many individuals with SUD achieve longstanding remission, in many cases without any formal treatment (see e.g., [ 27 , 30 , 38 ]).

Collectively, the data show that the course of SUD, as defined by current diagnostic criteria, is highly heterogeneous. Accordingly, we do not maintain that a chronic relapsing course is a defining feature of SUD. When present in a patient, however, such as course is of clinical significance, because it identifies a need for long-term disease management [ 2 ], rather than expectations of a recovery that may not be within the individual’s reach [ 39 ]. From a conceptual standpoint, however, a chronic relapsing course is neither necessary nor implied in a view that addiction is a brain disease. This view also does not mean that it is irreversible and hopeless. Human neuroscience documents restoration of functioning after abstinence [ 40 , 41 ] and reveals predictors of clinical success [ 42 ]. If anything, this evidence suggests a need to increase efforts devoted to neuroscientific research on addiction recovery [ 40 , 43 ].

Lessons from genetics

For alcohol addiction, meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies has estimated heritability at ~50%, while estimates for opioid addiction are even higher [ 44 , 45 ]. Genetic risk factors are to a large extent shared across substances [ 46 ]. It has been argued that a genetic contribution cannot support a disease view of a behavior, because most behavioral traits, including religious and political inclinations, have a genetic contribution [ 4 ]. This statement, while correct in pointing out broad heritability of behavioral traits, misses a fundamental point. Genetic architecture is much like organ structure. The fact that normal anatomy shapes healthy organ function does not negate that an altered structure can contribute to pathophysiology of disease. The structure of the genetic landscape is no different. Critics further state that a “genetic predisposition is not a recipe for compulsion”, but no neuroscientist or geneticist would claim that genetic risk is “a recipe for compulsion”. Genetic risk is probabilistic, not deterministic. However, as we will see below, in the case of addiction, it contributes to large, consistent probability shifts towards maladaptive behavior.

In dismissing the relevance of genetic risk for addiction, Hall writes that “a large number of alleles are involved in the genetic susceptibility to addiction and individually these alleles might very weakly predict a risk of addiction”. He goes on to conclude that “generally, genetic prediction of the risk of disease (even with whole-genome sequencing data) is unlikely to be informative for most people who have a so-called average risk of developing an addiction disorder” [ 7 ]. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of polygenic risk. It is true that a large number of risk alleles are involved, and that the explanatory power of currently available polygenic risk scores for addictive disorders lags behind those for e.g., schizophrenia or major depression [ 47 , 48 ]. The only implication of this, however, is that low average effect sizes of risk alleles in addiction necessitate larger study samples to construct polygenic scores that account for a large proportion of the known heritability.

However, a heritability of addiction of ~50% indicates that DNA sequence variation accounts for 50% of the risk for this condition. Once whole genome sequencing is readily available, it is likely that it will be possible to identify most of that DNA variation. For clinical purposes, those polygenic scores will of course not replace an understanding of the intricate web of biological and social factors that promote or prevent expression of addiction in an individual case; rather, they will add to it [ 49 ]. Meanwhile, however, genome-wide association studies in addiction have already provided important information. For instance, they have established that the genetic underpinnings of alcohol addiction only partially overlap with those for alcohol consumption, underscoring the genetic distinction between pathological and nonpathological drinking behaviors [ 50 ].

It thus seems that, rather than negating a rationale for a disease view of addiction, the important implication of the polygenic nature of addiction risk is a very different one. Genome-wide association studies of complex traits have largely confirmed the century old “infinitisemal model” in which Fisher reconciled Mendelian and polygenic traits [ 51 ]. A key implication of this model is that genetic susceptibility for a complex, polygenic trait is continuously distributed in the population. This may seem antithetical to a view of addiction as a distinct disease category, but the contradiction is only apparent, and one that has long been familiar to quantitative genetics. Viewing addiction susceptibility as a polygenic quantitative trait, and addiction as a disease category is entirely in line with Falconer’s theorem, according to which, in a given set of environmental conditions, a certain level of genetic susceptibility will determine a threshold above which disease will arise.

A brain disease? Then show me the brain lesion!

The notion of addiction as a brain disease is commonly criticized with the argument that a specific pathognomonic brain lesion has not been identified. Indeed, brain imaging findings in addiction (perhaps with the exception of extensive neurotoxic gray matter loss in advanced alcohol addiction) are nowhere near the level of specificity and sensitivity required of clinical diagnostic tests. However, this criticism neglects the fact that neuroimaging is not used to diagnose many neurologic and psychiatric disorders, including epilepsy, ALS, migraine, Huntington’s disease, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia. Even among conditions where signs of disease can be detected using brain imaging, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, a scan is best used in conjunction with clinical acumen when making the diagnosis. Thus, the requirement that addiction be detectable with a brain scan in order to be classified as a disease does not recognize the role of neuroimaging in the clinic.

For the foreseeable future, the main objective of imaging in addiction research is not to diagnose addiction, but rather to improve our understanding of mechanisms that underlie it. The hope is that mechanistic insights will help bring forward new treatments, by identifying candidate targets for them, by pointing to treatment-responsive biomarkers, or both [ 52 ]. Developing innovative treatments is essential to address unmet treatment needs, in particular in stimulant and cannabis addiction, where no approved medications are currently available. Although the task to develop novel treatments is challenging, promising candidates await evaluation [ 53 ]. A particular opportunity for imaging-based research is related to the complex and heterogeneous nature of addictive disorders. Imaging-based biomarkers hold the promise of allowing this complexity to be deconstructed into specific functional domains, as proposed by the RDoC initiative [ 54 ] and its application to addiction [ 55 , 56 ]. This can ultimately guide the development of personalized medicine strategies to addiction treatment.

Countless imaging studies have reported differences in brain structure and function between people with addictive disorders and those without them. Meta-analyses of structural data show that alcohol addiction is associated with gray matter losses in the prefrontal cortex, dorsal striatum, insula, and posterior cingulate cortex [ 57 ], and similar results have been obtained in stimulant-addicted individuals [ 58 ]. Meta-analysis of functional imaging studies has demonstrated common alterations in dorsal striatal, and frontal circuits engaged in reward and salience processing, habit formation, and executive control, across different substances and task-paradigms [ 59 ]. Molecular imaging studies have shown that large and fast increases in dopamine are associated with the reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse, but that after chronic drug use and during withdrawal, brain dopamine function is markedly decreased and that these decreases are associated with dysfunction of prefrontal regions [ 60 ]. Collectively, these findings have given rise to a widely held view of addiction as a disorder of fronto-striatal circuitry that mediates top-down regulation of behavior [ 61 ].

Critics reply that none of the brain imaging findings are sufficiently specific to distinguish between addiction and its absence, and that they are typically obtained in cross-sectional studies that can at best establish correlative rather than causal links. In this, they are largely right, and an updated version of a conceptualization of addiction as a brain disease needs to acknowledge this. Many of the structural brain findings reported are not specific for addiction, but rather shared across psychiatric disorders [ 62 ]. Also, for now, the most sophisticated tools of human brain imaging remain crude in face of complex neural circuit function. Importantly however, a vast literature from animal studies also documents functional changes in fronto-striatal circuits, as well their limbic and midbrain inputs, associated with addictive behaviors [ 63 – 68 ]. These are circuits akin to those identified by neuroimaging studies in humans, implicated in positive and negative emotions, learning processes and executive functions, altered function of which is thought to underlie addiction. These animal studies, by virtue of their cellular and molecular level resolution, and their ability to establish causality under experimental control, are therefore an important complement to human neuroimaging work.

Nevertheless, factors that seem remote from the activity of brain circuits, such as policies, substance availability and cost, as well as socioeconomic factors, also are critically important determinants of substance use. In this complex landscape, is the brain really a defensible focal point for research and treatment? The answer is “yes”. As powerfully articulated by Francis Crick [ 69 ], “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules”. Social and interpersonal factors are critically important in addiction, but they can only exert their influences by impacting neural processes. They must be encoded as sensory data, represented together with memories of the past and predictions about the future, and combined with representations of interoceptive and other influences to provide inputs to the valuation machinery of the brain. Collectively, these inputs drive action selection and execution of behavior—say, to drink or not to drink, and then, within an episode, to stop drinking or keep drinking. Stating that the pathophysiology of addiction is largely about the brain does not ignore the role of other influences. It is just the opposite: it is attempting to understand how those important influences contribute to drug seeking and taking in the context of the brain, and vice versa.

But if the criticism is one of emphasis rather than of principle—i.e., too much brain, too little social and environmental factors – then neuroscientists need to acknowledge that they are in part guilty as charged. Brain-centric accounts of addiction have for a long time failed to pay enough attention to the inputs that social factors provide to neural processing behind drug seeking and taking [ 9 ]. This landscape is, however, rapidly changing. For instance, using animal models, scientists are finding that lack of social play early in life increases the motivation to take addictive substances in adulthood [ 70 ]. Others find that the opportunity to interact with a fellow rat is protective against addiction-like behaviors [ 71 ]. In humans, a relationship has been found between perceived social support, socioeconomic status, and the availability of dopamine D2 receptors [ 72 , 73 ], a biological marker of addiction vulnerability. Those findings in turn provided translation of data from nonhuman primates, which showed that D2 receptor availability can be altered by changes in social hierarchy, and that these changes are associated with the motivation to obtain cocaine [ 74 ].

Epidemiologically, it is well established that social determinants of health, including major racial and ethnic disparities, play a significant role in the risk for addiction [ 75 , 76 ]. Contemporary neuroscience is illuminating how those factors penetrate the brain [ 77 ] and, in some cases, reveals pathways of resilience [ 78 ] and how evidence-based prevention can interrupt those adverse consequences [ 79 , 80 ]. In other words, from our perspective, viewing addiction as a brain disease in no way negates the importance of social determinants of health or societal inequalities as critical influences. In fact, as shown by the studies correlating dopamine receptors with social experience, imaging is capable of capturing the impact of the social environment on brain function. This provides a platform for understanding how those influences become embedded in the biology of the brain, which provides a biological roadmap for prevention and intervention.

We therefore argue that a contemporary view of addiction as a brain disease does not deny the influence of social, environmental, developmental, or socioeconomic processes, but rather proposes that the brain is the underlying material substrate upon which those factors impinge and from which the responses originate. Because of this, neurobiology is a critical level of analysis for understanding addiction, although certainly not the only one. It is recognized throughout modern medicine that a host of biological and non-biological factors give rise to disease; understanding the biological pathophysiology is critical for understanding etiology and informing treatment.

Is a view of addiction as a brain disease deterministic?

A common criticism of the notion that addiction is a brain disease is that it is reductionist and in the end therefore deterministic [ 81 , 82 ]. This is a fundamental misrepresentation. As indicated above, viewing addiction as a brain disease simply states that neurobiology is an undeniable component of addiction. A reason for deterministic interpretations may be that modern neuroscience emphasizes an understanding of proximal causality within research designs (e.g., whether an observed link between biological processes is mediated by a specific mechanism). That does not in any way reflect a superordinate assumption that neuroscience will achieve global causality. On the contrary, since we realize that addiction involves interactions between biology, environment and society, ultimate (complete) prediction of behavior based on an understanding of neural processes alone is neither expected, nor a goal.

A fairer representation of a contemporary neuroscience view is that it believes insights from neurobiology allow useful probabilistic models to be developed of the inherently stochastic processes involved in behavior [see [ 83 ] for an elegant recent example]. Changes in brain function and structure in addiction exert a powerful probabilistic influence over a person’s behavior, but one that is highly multifactorial, variable, and thus stochastic. Philosophically, this is best understood as being aligned with indeterminism, a perspective that has a deep history in philosophy and psychology [ 84 ]. In modern neuroscience, it refers to the position that the dynamic complexity of the brain, given the probabilistic threshold-gated nature of its biology (e.g., action potential depolarization, ion channel gating), means that behavior cannot be definitively predicted in any individual instance [ 85 , 86 ].

Driven by compulsion, or free to choose?

A major criticism of the brain disease view of addiction, and one that is related to the issue of determinism vs indeterminism, centers around the term “compulsivity” [ 6 , 87 – 90 ] and the different meanings it is given. Prominent addiction theories state that addiction is characterized by a transition from controlled to “compulsive” drug seeking and taking [ 91 – 95 ], but allocate somewhat different meanings to “compulsivity”. By some accounts, compulsive substance use is habitual and insensitive to its outcomes [ 92 , 94 , 96 ]. Others refer to compulsive use as a result of increasing incentive value of drug associated cues [ 97 ], while others view it as driven by a recruitment of systems that encode negative affective states [ 95 , 98 ].

The prototype for compulsive behavior is provided by obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), where compulsion refers to repeatedly and stereotypically carrying out actions that in themselves may be meaningful, but lose their purpose and become harmful when performed in excess, such as persistent handwashing until skin injuries result. Crucially, this happens despite a conscious desire to do otherwise. Attempts to resist these compulsions result in increasing and ultimately intractable anxiety [ 99 ]. This is in important ways different from the meaning of compulsivity as commonly used in addiction theories. In the addiction field, compulsive drug use typically refers to inflexible, drug-centered behavior in which substance use is insensitive to adverse consequences [ 100 ]. Although this phenomenon is not necessarily present in every patient, it reflects important symptoms of clinical addiction, and is captured by several DSM-5 criteria for SUD [ 101 ]. Examples are needle-sharing despite knowledge of a risk to contract HIV or Hepatitis C, drinking despite a knowledge of having liver cirrhosis, but also the neglect of social and professional activities that previously were more important than substance use. While these behaviors do show similarities with the compulsions of OCD, there are also important differences. For example, “compulsive” substance use is not necessarily accompanied by a conscious desire to withhold the behavior, nor is addictive behavior consistently impervious to change.

Critics question the existence of compulsivity in addiction altogether [ 5 – 7 , 89 ], typically using a literal interpretation, i.e., that a person who uses alcohol or drugs simply can not do otherwise. Were that the intended meaning in theories of addiction—which it is not—it would clearly be invalidated by observations of preserved sensitivity of behavior to contingencies in addiction. Indeed, substance use is influenced both by the availability of alternative reinforcers, and the state of the organism. The roots of this insight date back to 1940, when Spragg found that chimpanzees would normally choose a banana over morphine. However, when physically dependent and in a state of withdrawal, their choice preference would reverse [ 102 ]. The critical role of alternative reinforcers was elegantly brought into modern neuroscience by Ahmed et al., who showed that rats extensively trained to self-administer cocaine would readily forego the drug if offered a sweet solution as an alternative [ 103 ]. This was later also found to be the case for heroin [ 103 ], methamphetamine [ 104 ] and alcohol [ 105 ]. Early residential laboratory studies on alcohol use disorder indeed revealed orderly operant control over alcohol consumption [ 106 ]. Furthermore, efficacy of treatment approaches such as contingency management, which provides systematic incentives for abstinence [ 107 ], supports the notion that behavioral choices in patients with addictions remain sensitive to reward contingencies.

Evidence that a capacity for choosing advantageously is preserved in addiction provides a valid argument against a narrow concept of “compulsivity” as rigid, immutable behavior that applies to all patients. It does not, however, provide an argument against addiction as a brain disease. If not from the brain, from where do the healthy and unhealthy choices people make originate? The critical question is whether addictive behaviors—for the most part—result from healthy brains responding normally to externally determined contingencies; or rather from a pathology of brain circuits that, through probabilistic shifts, promotes the likelihood of maladaptive choices even when reward contingencies are within a normal range. To resolve this question, it is critical to understand that the ability to choose advantageously is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but rather is about probabilities and their shifts, multiple faculties within human cognition, and their interaction. Yes, it is clear that most people whom we would consider to suffer from addiction remain able to choose advantageously much, if not most, of the time. However, it is also clear that the probability of them choosing to their own disadvantage, even when more salutary options are available and sometimes at the expense of losing their life, is systematically and quantifiably increased. There is a freedom of choice, yet there is a shift of prevailing choices that nevertheless can kill.

Synthesized, the notion of addiction as a disease of choice and addiction as a brain disease can be understood as two sides of the same coin. Both of these perspectives are informative, and they are complementary. Viewed this way, addiction is a brain disease in which a person’s choice faculties become profoundly compromised. To articulate it more specifically, embedded in and principally executed by the central nervous system, addiction can be understood as a disorder of choice preferences, preferences that overvalue immediate reinforcement (both positive and negative), preferences for drug-reinforcement in spite of costs, and preferences that are unstable ( “I’ll never drink like that again;” “this will be my last cigarette” ), prone to reversals in the form of lapses and relapse. From a contemporary neuroscience perspective, pre-existing vulnerabilities and persistent drug use lead to a vicious circle of substantive disruptions in the brain that impair and undermine choice capacities for adaptive behavior, but do not annihilate them. Evidence of generally intact decision making does not fundamentally contradict addiction as a brain disease.

Conclusions

The present paper is a response to the increasing number of criticisms of the view that addiction is a chronic relapsing brain disease. In many cases, we show that those criticisms target tenets that are neither needed nor held by a contemporary version of this view. Common themes are that viewing addiction as a brain disease is criticized for being both too narrow (addiction is only a brain disease; no other perspectives or factors are important) or too far reaching (it purports to discover the final causes of addiction). With regard to disease course, we propose that viewing addiction as a chronic relapsing disease is appropriate for some populations, and much less so for others, simply necessitating better ways of delineating the populations being discussed. We argue that when considering addiction as a disease, the lens of neurobiology is valuable to use. It is not the only lens, and it does not have supremacy over other scientific approaches. We agree that critiques of neuroscience are warranted [ 108 ] and that critical thinking is essential to avoid deterministic language and scientific overreach.

Beyond making the case for a view of addiction as a brain disease, perhaps the more important question is when a specific level of analysis is most useful. For understanding the biology of addiction and designing biological interventions, a neurobiological view is almost certainly the most appropriate level of analysis, in particular when informed by an understanding of the behavioral manifestations. In contrast, for understanding the psychology of addiction and designing psychological interventions, behavioral science is the natural realm, but one that can often benefit from an understanding of the underlying neurobiology. For designing policies, such as taxation and regulation of access, economics and public administration provide the most pertinent perspectives, but these also benefit from biological and behavioral science insights.

Finally, we argue that progress would come from integration of these scientific perspectives and traditions. E.O. Wilson has argued more broadly for greater consilience [ 109 ], unity of knowledge, in science. We believe that addiction is among the areas where consilience is most needed. A plurality of disciplines brings important and trenchant insights to bear on this condition; it is the exclusive remit of no single perspective or field. Addiction inherently and necessarily requires multidisciplinary examination. Moreover, those who suffer from addiction will benefit most from the application of the full armamentarium of scientific perspectives.

Funding and disclosures

Supported by the Swedish Research Council grants 2013-07434, 2019-01138 (MH); Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) under project number 912.14.093 (LJMJV); NIDA and NIAAA intramural research programs (LL; the content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health); the Peter Boris Chair in Addictions Research, Homewood Research Institute, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grants AA025911, AA024930, AA025849, AA027679 (JM; the content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health).

MH has received consulting fees, research support or other compensation from Indivior, Camurus, BrainsWay, Aelis Farma, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. JM is a Principal and Senior Scientist at BEAM Diagnostics, Inc. DM, JR, LL, and LJMJV declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors want to acknowledge comments by Drs. David Epstein, Kenneth Kendler and Naomi Wray.

Author contributions

All authors jointly drafted the paper.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

We’re fighting to restore access to 500,000+ books in court this week. Join us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Principles Of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Third Edition 2018 Update)

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

Download options, in collections.

Uploaded by barbara weiner on February 3, 2022

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 August 2021

Drug addiction: from bench to bedside

• Julian Cheron 1 &
• Alban de Kerchove d’Exaerde   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0682-5877 1  

Translational Psychiatry volume  11 , Article number:  424 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

28 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Molecular neuroscience

Drug addiction is responsible for millions of deaths per year around the world. Still, its management as a chronic disease is shadowed by misconceptions from the general public. Indeed, drug consumers are often labelled as “weak”, “immoral” or “depraved”. Consequently, drug addiction is often perceived as an individual problem and not societal. In technical terms, drug addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing disease resulting from sustained effects of drugs on the brain. Through a better characterisation of the cerebral circuits involved, and the long-term modifications of the brain induced by addictive drugs administrations, first, we might be able to change the way the general public see the patient who is suffering from drug addiction, and second, we might be able to find new treatments to normalise the altered brain homeostasis. In this review, we synthetise the contribution of fundamental research to the understanding drug addiction and its contribution to potential novel therapeutics. Mostly based on drug-induced modifications of synaptic plasticity and epigenetic mechanisms (and their behavioural correlates) and after demonstration of their reversibility, we tried to highlight promising therapeutics. We also underline the specific temporal dynamics and psychosocial aspects of this complex psychiatric disease adding parameters to be considered in clinical trials and paving the way to test new therapeutic venues.

Similar content being viewed by others

Addiction as a brain disease revised: why it still matters, and the need for consilience

The neurobiology of drug addiction: cross-species insights into the dysfunction and recovery of the prefrontal cortex

Mechanisms and molecular targets surrounding the potential therapeutic effects of psychedelics

Introduction.

Drug addiction including smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use is indirectly or directly responsible for 11.8 million deaths each year in the world [ 1 ]. According to the Global Burden of Disease study, this number is higher than deaths from cancer and accounts for a fifth of all deaths around the world [ 1 ].

Drug addiction is defined as a chronic, relapsing disease that results from the prolonged effects of drugs on the brain. Similarly to other neuropsychiatric diseases, drug addiction is intermingled with behavioural and social aspects that are equally important parts of the disease, complicating the overall therapeutic approach. Actually, it is only recently, in the beginning of the 21st century, that we started to see “the drug-addict” as someone suffering from a disease and whose brain has been altered fundamentally by drugs [ 2 ]. Therefore, the most effective treatment approaches include biological, behavioural and social-context components. Based on the latest scientific advances, treatment and management of drug addiction patients point towards a personalised strategy [ 3 ]. However, there are very few objective and effective strategies for treating drug addiction. Without the mandatory mechanistic basic knowledge on drug addiction, the development of new therapeutic strategies is postponed.

The neurobiological circuits and mechanisms that support compulsive seeking and consumption of drugs with addictive potential are partially known. They comprise a progressive shift in the involvement of ventral to dorsal and medial to lateral striatal circuitry [ 4 , 5 ], along with molecular and cellular adaptations to drugs of abuse exposure. They include neuronal and synaptic plasticity and modifications in gene expression, in part through epigenetic mechanisms [ 6 ]. Notably, drug-induced neuronal modifications can also occur in non-pathological processes, underlying the fact that drugs of abuse hijack normal adaptive changes in the brain [ 7 ]. Indeed, laboratory and clinical observations suggest that addiction is driven by the usurpation of neuronal processes that normally serve reward-related learning and memory. Most of the modifications that have been shown to be involved in a state of addiction (modified gene transcription, epigenetics, neuronal plasticity and neurotrophic mechanisms) are also associated with physiological forms of behavioural memory in murine model such as spatial memory, fear conditioning and operant conditioning [ 7 , 8 ].

We know that only a proportion of individuals (depending of the drug type) will develop drug addiction after several exposures [ 9 ]. This individual vulnerability is probably linked to both genetic and environmental factors [ 10 ]. Drug addiction is highly polygenic, as hundreds of genetic variations combined result in variable vulnerability [ 11 , 12 ]. Several types of environmental factors have been characterised and interact with an individual genetic background [ 12 , 13 ]. Psychosocial stress is one of the factors, but the most important one, is by far, the exposure to drugs of abuse. Usually, drug abuse starts with a ‘gateway’ drug (mostly socially driven) catapulting the individual vulnerability to other drugs of abuse [ 14 ].

During the last three decades, combine effort has been dedicated to identify brain regions and molecular pathways involved in the development of addiction to drugs of abuse. Here, we will focus on experimental approaches that helped to provide a clearer picture on the physiopathology of drug addiction guiding therapeutic opportunities.

Converging actions on brain reward pathway elicit its remodelling

The circuit at the centre of the disease is the mesolimbic pathway, also referred as the reward pathway (Fig. 1 ). The mesolimbic pathway includes dopaminergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) of the midbrain and their targets in the limbic forebrain, especially the nucleus accumbens (NAc), a major component of the ventral striatum. The GABA medium-sized spiny neurons (MSNs, ~95% of striatal neurons), which are targets of glutamatergic and dopaminergic inputs, form two pathways [ 15 ]. The dopamine D1 receptor–positive (D1R) striatonigral MSNs project to the medial globus pallidus and substantia nigra pars reticulata (direct pathway) and coexpress dopamine D1 receptors and substance P, whereas D2R striatopallidal MSNs project to the lateral globus pallidus (indirect pathway) and coexpress dopamine D2 receptor, adenosine A2A receptor and enkephalin [ 16 , 17 ]. Through different initial mechanisms, drugs of abuse increase the release of dopamine in the NAc from the VTA [ 18 , 19 , 20 ]. This VTA-NAc pathway could be seen as primum movens for the acute rewarding effects of all drugs of abuse. Regardless that drugs of abuse have distinct protein targets and mechanisms of action, in the end, the main addiction-related modifications are common to nearly all drugs of abuse and converge on the VTA and NAc with common acute functional effects [ 21 ]. It is schematically conjectured, that when stimulated by dopamine, cells in the NAc produce feelings of reward and satisfaction [ 22 ]. The physiological function of this response is to facilitate the motivation for basic biological goal-directed behaviours as survival, social interaction and reproduction. By artificially causing a build-up of dopamine in the NAc, drugs of abuse generate an artificial reward effect [ 22 ]. As all drugs of abuse increase dopaminergic transmission to the NAc after acute administration, they also produce shared modifications in the mesolimbic system after chronic exposure. They include (i) hypofunction of the dopamine pathway that is seen as a major contributor to the negative emotional symptoms associated to drug withdrawal, leading to drug craving and relapse, and (ii) drug-induced adaptations in glutamatergic afferents to the NAc [ 23 , 24 ]. Clearly, these modifications in the mesolimbic system after the exposure to drugs of abuse is oversimplified. The hypofunction of dopaminergic system hypothesis is self-fulfilling in that research work has principally focused on dopamine to the exclusion of other neurotransmitters. Actually, some drug of abuse reinforcement appears to be independent of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system (e.g. opioids [ 25 ], nicotine [ 26 ]), but support self-administration by imitating the effect of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens [ 21 , 27 , 28 ].

Addictive drugs of different types have a common effect of increasing levels of dopamine released by neurons projecting from the ventral tegmental area (VTA). This effect is central for initial drug reinforcement. Notably, drug taking with initial reinforcement involves a potentiation of the projection from prefrontal cortex (PFC) to nucleus accumbens (NAc), while other glutamatergic projections are mostly involved in craving, like basolateral amygdala (BLA)-NAc projection, or in withdrawal/negative symptoms, like paraventricular thalamus (PVT)-NAc projection. With increasing administration of drugs of abuse and progressive shift toward compulsive abuse, the dorsal (dorso-lateral) striatum seems more and more implicated, with dopaminergic cells involved shifting progressively from the VTA to the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) [ 4 ]. Recently, data acquired through optogenetic dopamine neuron self-stimulation suggested prominent synaptic strengthening of the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) to dorsal (dorso-medial) striatum projection in compulsive mice [ 31 ].

Drug addiction is conceptually defined as a three-stages cycle: (1) consumption/binge/intoxication, (2) withdrawal with its negative affect and (3) craving stage (Fig. 2 ) [ 27 ]. Animal models and human imaging studies have exposed the different brain areas involved in each of these stages. Briefly, the VTA-NAc (for reinforcement) and dorsal striatum (for stimulus-response habits) are important for the consumption/binge/intoxication stage, the extended amygdala with the hypothalamus and the brainstem in the withdrawal stage and cortical areas, the dorsal striatum, the hippocampus and the basolateral amygdala in the craving stage (Fig. 2 ).

Progression to addiction is defined as a transition between three consecutive phases [ 252 ]: (1) Recreational, sporadic drug taking, in which drug of abuse administration is occasional and one activity among many other distractions of the individual. (2) Intensified and sustained drug use, in which drug administration strengthens and becomes the principal recreational activity of the individual; at this phase drug taking becomes a habit. (3) Loss of control of drug use and addiction, in which drug seeking and taking are now the principal activity of the patient. The first phase can occur to every person as drugs of abuse hijack the same brain circuit as natural rewards. The second phase occurs only in vulnerable users. The phase of addiction seems to be due to a second vulnerable trait with loss of control and compulsivity. Three stages of addiction are described [ 27 ]: (1) Binge/intoxication stage: reinforcing effects of drugs may initially use mainly dopamine and opioid peptides in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and involves the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Subsequently, cue–response habits develop and includes the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) and the dorsal striatum. (2) Withdrawal/negative affect stage: the negative emotional state of withdrawal may involve the extended amygdala with corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF), norepinephrine and dynorphin as key neurotransmitters. Main projections of the extended amygdala consist of the hypothalamus and brainstem. (3) Craving stage: this stage includes conditioned reinforcement in the basolateral amygdala (BLA) and contextual processes in the hippocampus. This is controlled by cortical areas (prefrontal cortex (PFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)). A key neurotransmitter involved in the craving stage is glutamate.

The progression of drug addiction begins with the first exposure, mostly when the drug is taken voluntarily for its recreational and hedonic effect, and progressively consolidates during repeated but still controlled drug use. While administration intensifies along with loss of control over drug intake, drug use becomes habitual and compulsive in vulnerable individuals [ 4 , 29 , 30 ] (Fig. 2 ). This progression from voluntary drug intake to habitual and compulsive use represents a progression from ventromedial to more dorsolateral regions of the striatum and from prefrontal cortex (PFC) to orbitofrontal (OFC) and more global cortical region [ 4 , 31 ] (Fig. 1 ).

Synaptic plasticity

Brain plasticity is a fascinating capacity allowing appropriate modification of the neural activity in response to new experiences and environmental stimuli [ 32 ]. Modifying the synaptic strength between neurons is widely assumed to be the mechanism by which memory is encoded and stored in the brain [ 7 ]. Hence, it is appealing to hypothesise that drugs of abuse cause long-term alterations on behaviour by changing synaptic plasticity in key brain circuits [ 4 , 7 , 32 ].

Drugs of abuse such as cocaine induce specific synaptic plasticity in the mesolimbic circuitry. One single injection of an addictive drug can already modify the excitatory synaptic strengths in the VTA. Indeed, it has been extensively shown that the AMPA/NMDA ratio is increased in VTA dopamine neurons after one dose of cocaine and that some glutamate AMPA receptor 2 (GluA2)-containing AMPA receptors (AMPARs) are exchanged for GluA2-lacking ones [ 33 , 34 ]. At the same time, NMDA receptor (NMDAR) function decreases. All these elements cause an impairment in eliciting long-term potentiation (LTP). Different types of synaptic plasticity in VTA dopamine neurons induced by rewarding and aversive experiences are comprehensively reviewed by Pignatelli and Bonci [ 35 ]. Midbrain dopamine neurons are central in the mesolimbic circuitry for both natural rewards and drugs of abuse [ 18 , 36 ]. The VTA is known to be a central hub integrating numerous inhibitory inputs as GABAergic synapses represents 50–80% of all synapses onto VTA dopamine neurons [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. GABAergic inhibition of dopamine neurons is mediated by both fast ionotropic GABA A receptors and slow metabotropic GABA B receptors [ 40 ].

In 2017, Edwards et al. [ 41 ] showed that the principal monosynaptic projection to VTA dopamine neurons arising from the NAc [ 42 ] inhibits the firing of dopamine neurons via activation of GABA B receptors, whereas local VTA inhibitory interneurons inhibits dopamine neurons through GABA A receptors. Today, it is well established that pharmacological activation of GABA B receptors (e.g. by baclofen) reduces cue-associated cocaine craving as well as reduce cocaine use in humans [ 43 , 44 , 45 ] and it reduces rewarding and reinforcing effects of cocaine on animal models [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. Edwards et al. report [ 41 ] indicates that the therapeutic effects of baclofen might pass through VTA dopamine neurons’ GABA B receptors. Intrathecal Baclofen is an effective and safe long-term treatment used worldwide to treat severe spasticity [ 50 , 51 ]. Oral baclofen is less effective and has significant rates of side effects, like sedation, somnolence, vertigo and headache especially when prescribed off-label for drug addiction (because higher doses are commonly used) [ 51 , 52 ] . . Indeed, contrasting results on the effect of baclofen in reducing alcohol craving [ 53 , 54 , 55 ] and cocaine dependence [ 43 , 56 ] were probably due to different severity of alcohol dependence of the enroled patients. This is way higher dose are tested and often prescribed off-label for drug addiction [ 55 ]. Thus, self-poisoning that could lead to severe toxicity and death represents one the major concern of baclofen use in drug addiction. Therefore, baclofen should be prescribed with caution and close monitoring [ 52 , 57 ].

Together with drug of abuse-induced LTP at excitatory synapses, plasticity of GABAergic inhibitory synapse in the VTA also have an impact on the firing rate of VTA neurons, at least following opioid [ 58 ] and cocaine administration [ 59 ]. Normally, NMDA activation, during excitatory LTP (induced by high-frequency stimulation), leads to the release of NO that will activate guanylate cyclase in adjacent GABAergic terminals, which in turn, leads to increase in GABA release. This presynaptic NMDA receptor-dependent GABAergic LTP heterosynaptic plasticity, is named LTP GABA . Nugent el al. [ 58 ] showed that opioids blocks LTP GABA through a disruption of the coupling between nitric oxide (NO) and guanylate cyclase. The incapability of GABAergic synapses to potentiate after morphine or cocaine administration may promote LTP of glutamatergic synapses [ 58 , 59 ]. The early loss of inhibitory control combined with potentiation of glutamatergic synapses on dopaminergic neurons might represent adaptations that increase vulnerability to addiction [ 58 , 59 ]. Furthermore, GABA A receptor modulators modify the addictive drugs effects [ 60 , 61 ], and targeting these receptors might be seen as an effective therapeutic strategy but precluded by many side effects among which dependence itself [ 62 , 63 , 64 ].

In addition to the discovery of LTP GABA , Nugent’s group showed that morphine is also able to modulate a form of postsynaptic LTD (LTD GABA ) at GABAergic synapses onto VTA dopamine neurons. Remarkably, after a single administration of morphine, LTD GABA was absent in slices from morphine-treated rats while unaffected in slices from saline-treated rats, indicating a bidirectional control of morphine on GABAergic synaptic plasticity in the VTA [ 65 ]. This absence of LTD GABA is suggested to result from an occlusion effect due to prior morphine-induced decrease in GABAergic synaptic strength through potentiation of glutamatergic transmission and mediated by endocannabinoid signalling [ 66 ]. It is also possible that morphine alters the ability of synapses to exhibit evoked LTP or LTD in the VTA. Previous experiences such as exposure to drugs of abuse, stress, visual or sensory deprivation can change the ability of synapses to undergo subsequent plasticity in response to LTP and LTD induction protocols. This concept of modification of plasticity capability is referred as metaplasticity [ 67 ].

In the NAc, chronic exposure to addictive drugs induces specific synaptic changes that are different from those of the VTA, including a decrease of the AMPA/NMDA ratio as some AMPARs are endocytosed. This leads to a depressed synapse (sometimes referred as long-term depression (LTD) like state), where NMDAR-dependent LTD is reduced or, in some experiments, abolished [ 68 , 69 ]. Highlighting the importance of temporal aspects, studies of withdrawal period after chronic administration of cocaine, showed that synaptic AMPAR levels increase during the first week of withdrawal and persist elevated for weeks [ 70 , 71 , 72 ]. It is established that cocaine challenge transiently decreases AMPAR surface expression, while AMPARs recover back to upregulated levels within a week, with a continuous increase during what is known to be the incubation of craving stage [ 73 ].

The abstinence period after withdrawal is of particular interest considering the classical progression of the disease, the chance of relapse and the opportunity for new therapeutic targets. A seemingly counterintuitive concept named ‘incubation of cocaine craving’ was introduced by Grimm et al. [ 74 ] who modelled cocaine-craving behaviour by using rats trained to press a lever to receive an injection of cocaine and were then forced in a withdrawal period where cocaine reward was no longer given. This concept of ‘incubation’ did not originate in drug addiction research but came from a four-stage model of the creative process proposed by Graham Wallas in 1926 [ 75 ]. Consistent with clinical observations in humans [ 76 , 77 , 78 ], they showed that relapse was progressively stronger over 2 months of cocaine withdrawal and suggest that a craving syndrome progresses or ‘incubates’ during the first 2 months of cocaine abstinence, and probably lasts for longer [ 74 ]. Subsequently, it was shown that this increase was due to the addition of new AMPARs lacking GluA2 and that these new receptors mediate the ‘incubation of cocaine craving’ [ 72 ]. Conrad et al. [ 72 ] showed that after extended withdrawal from cocaine, addition of synaptic AMPARs together with the increased conductance of GluA2-lacking AMPARs triggers higher sensitivity of NAc neurons to cocaine-related cues, leading to a strengthening of drug craving syndrome and relapse. In line with these results, it was suggested that as soon as abstinence is reached, the risk of relapse might be reduced if GluA2-lacking AMPARs were inactivated or removed from NAc synapses. It was thus proposed that GluA2-lacking AMPARs could be a new target for drug development for the treatment of cocaine addiction. While these calcium permeable AMPARs are also critical for the pathogenesis of numerous other neurological disorders (including epilepsy [ 79 ], fragile X syndrome [ 80 ], amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ 81 ], Parkinson’s [ 82 ] and Alzheimer’s [ 83 ] diseases), developing drugs that specifically target them and not calcium-impermeable AMPARs, which are critical for normal CNS function, is challenging [ 84 ] (Fig. 3 ).

DNA is packaged inside nuclei with the help of histones. These are positively charged proteins that strongly adhere to negatively charged DNA and form complexes called nucleosomes. Each nucleosome is composed of DNA wound around histone octomers (H2A, H2B, H3 and H4). Nucleosomes fold up to form chromatin fibre, which forms loops compressed and folded to produce fibres, which are coiled into the chromatid of a chromosome. Only by loosening compacted chromatin, the DNA of a specific gene can be made accessible to transcription. Some of these drug-induced modifications at the chromatin level are extremely stable and sustain the drug of abuse-induced long-term behaviours. Among them, histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) are known to be causally involved in drug-induced behaviours [ 194 ]. PTMs include acetylation (Ac), methylation (Me), phosphorylation (P), ADP ribosylation (PolyADP-R) and dopaminylation (DA), among a growing list of newly discovered modifications [ 162 , 172 ]. For example, while ubiquitylation (Ub) of H2A is known to be a key interactor of H3 methylation [ 253 ], its supposed role in drug addiction is still unknown. At this epigenetic level, some drugs were demonstrated to have an influence on drug-induces behaviours such as histone deacetylase (HDAC), bromodomain and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors. Locus-specific epigenome editing is now encouraging as a new field of investigation as it might help to the discovery of new specific and causal drug of abuse targets. Overview of the tetrapartite glutamatergic synapse composed of a medium spiny neuron (MSN), a glutamatergic projection, a glial cell and the extracellular matrix (ECM). Here, we focused on synaptic potentiation after drug of abuse administration with the addition at the post-synaptic membrane of glutamate AMPA receptor 2 (GluA2) lacking AMPA receptors (AMPARs). This mechanism might be reduced by metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 (mGluR1) positive allosteric modulator or more directly by GluA2-lacking AMPARs antagonists. In the same way, it was also shown that presynaptic mGluR2 agonists can potentially abolish drug seeking and impair craving incubation. Optogenetically-inspired 12 Hz deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the nucleus accumbens can also be a promising novel therapeutic for addiction. Finally, ceftriaxone, N-acetylcysteine, and inhibitor of matrix metalloproteases 9 (MMP-9), mainly through their action on glial cell and the ECM, are very interesting molecules that may be added in the addiction therapeutic arsenal.

Inspired by previous work performed in the VTA showing that metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 (mGluR1) LTD induces removal of GluA2-lacking AMPARs from synapses [ 33 , 34 ], Loweth et al. [ 85 ] demonstrated that synaptic GluA2-lacking AMPAR decrease could be accomplished by in vivo evoked mGluR1 LTD in the NAc. More importantly, their group showed that after prolonged cocaine or methamphetamine withdrawal, systemic injection of a mGluR1 positive allosteric modulator attenuated the expression of incubated craving by reducing GluA2-lacking AMPARs in the NAc [ 85 , 86 ]. These results suggest a strategy in which abstinent methamphetamine or cocaine users could use a systemically active compound to protect themselves against cue-induced relapse.

These latter studies were conducted without differentiating between D1 receptor D1R MSNs and D2R MSNs. In 2014, Pascoli et al. [ 87 ] demonstrated that this increase in the strength of excitatory afferents was exclusively related to D1R MSNs. Interestingly, the type of drug-evoked plasticity involved is also dependent on the input. It has been shown that even in the same D1R MSN a synapse connecting the PFC to the NAc increases its strength by inserting GluA2-lacking AMPARs whereas a synapse connecting the ventral hippocampus to the NAc increases the AMPA/NMDA ratio by inserting GluA2-containing AMPARs [ 87 ].

Besides operant self-administration, all these long-term synaptic modifications also underlie behavioural changes associated with drugs of abuse, such as locomotor sensitisation [ 88 , 89 ]. Locomotor sensitisation is a behavioural protocol used to model drug-induced behaviour [ 90 , 91 ]. In rodents, repeated cocaine injection induces gradually increased locomotor activity; after 5 days of consecutive injections, the locomotor response reaches a ceiling level. This state lasts for months after cocaine withdrawal [ 91 ]. As an experimental model, locomotor sensitisation is linked with increased tendency to self-administer psychostimulants [ 92 , 93 ] and with reinstatement of previously extinguished self-administration [ 94 , 95 ]. Whereas the existence of psychomotor sensitisation in humans is discussed [ 96 , 97 ], it is a key aspect of vulnerability to drug addiction and relapse, specifically drug craving or compulsive drug-seeking behaviour [ 91 , 98 , 99 ]. Still, locomotor sensitisation can be dissociated from the rewarding effect of a drug of abuse and conditioned place preference or self-administration are more appropriate experimental paradigms to test this aspect [ 100 , 101 , 102 ]. Even if drug-induced locomotor sensitisation is unclearly present in humans, as an animal model it offers a clear readout to understand the mechanisms by which drugs of abuse induce long-term brain modifications [ 91 ].

Furthermore, it has been elegantly demonstrated that optogenetic stimulation of the excitatory projections to the NAc is able to reverse cocaine and alcohol-evoked plasticity [ 87 , 88 , 89 ]. Briefly, applying a NMDAR or mGluR1-dependent LTD on cortico-accumbal glutamatergic synapses, before a drug of abuse administration, diminishes its effect. In another study, Luscher’s team took advantage of the knowledge, obtained from optogenetic in vivo experiment in rodents, to implement a novel deep brain stimulation (DBS) protocol that abolishes behavioural sensitization to cocaine (and thus that would be efficient during the relapse phase) [ 103 ]. Basically, the idea is to manipulate synaptic plasticity in the NAc to reverse pathological synaptic transmission and its associated behaviours following exposure to drugs of abuse. In this study, as a therapeutic use of optogenetic tools in humans is for now inapplicable [ 104 ], the authors reversed cocaine-evoked plasticity and thus drug-induced behaviours by using DBS instead of optogenetic. Indeed, DBS is routinely used in clinic and a new DBS protocol can easily be translationally implemented to the human therapeutics [ 105 , 106 ]. They refined the classical high-frequency DBS protocol (that has no sustained effect on cocaine sensitization, probably because it does not affect synaptic plasticity) by applying a low frequency stimulation (12 Hz to equal the one used in the optogenetic endocannabinoid- dependent LTD protocol) in the NAc together with the administration of a D1R antagonist necessary to unmask the mGluR-dependent LTD in D1R MSNs as demonstrated previously [ 107 ] (Fig. 3 , see section on clinical treatment for broader discussion on DBS).

Kalivas’ group showed in 2009 [ 108 ] that after extended withdrawal from chronic cocaine self-administration, cocaine-induced metaplasticity at the excitatory synapses in the NAc that impairs the ability of PFC stimulation to produce LTP or LTD in NAc MSNs. They also showed that N-acetylcysteine reverses cocaine-induced metaplasticity, allowing the induction of both LTP and LTD and that N-acetylcysteine decreases cocaine-relapse in a rodent model. We are currently awaiting the results of a randomised and control study that is testing newly detoxified (and therefore abstinent) hospitalised patients who received a 3–4 week course of treatment, in order determine if N-acetylcysteine can be a useful medication candidate to avoid relapse in patients with cocaine dependence (NCT03423667).

GABAergic D1R and D2R MSNs, equally compose and are mosaically intermingled throughout the striatum [ 109 ]. As explained above, D1R and D2R MSNs send axonal projections outside the striatum, forming the two main output pathways, respectively the direct and indirect pathways [ 16 , 17 ]. In a certainly oversimplified model, the activation of the D1R MSNs result in facilitation of locomotion, reward, and reinforcement while the activation of D2R MSNs result in opposing effects [ 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 ]. In addition to the long-range projections, these neurons form short-range synaptic connections with one another within the striatum, and because they consist of inhibitory collaterals, a mechanism known as lateral inhibition [ 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 ]. Interestingly, these connections are not symmetrical, with D2R MSNs forming more synaptic connections on D1R MSNs [ 115 , 117 ]. Through this previously understudied collateral transmission, Dobbs et al. [ 115 ] presented a novel mechanism by which cocaine exerts its stimulant effect: cocaine, by blocking DAT receptors enhance levels of dopamine and subsequently activating D2Rs, causes a suppression of lateral inhibition and thus disinhibition of D1R MSNs in the NAc which in turn promotes locomotion [ 115 ]. Furthermore, Alvarez’ group suggested that constitutive low D2R levels, through imbalanced lateral inhibition, might pre-sensitised D1R MSNs, facilitate behavioural plasticity to repeated cocaine and promotes an addiction vulnerable phenotype [ 116 ].

The characterisation of the role of glia and the extracellular matrix (ECM) in drug-induced synaptic plasticity is an exciting emerging field of drug addiction research as it comes with promising new therapeutic possibilitiess [ 118 , 119 , 120 ]. Mulholland et al. [ 118 ] summarised and emphasised the role of the ECM and of astroglial cells in the regulation of synaptic plasticity. Of great interest, restoring downregulated glutamate transporter 1 (EAAT2) with ceftriaxone reduces drug seeking in animal models [ 121 , 122 ]. Matrix metalloproteases (MMP) are important regulators of the ECM and contribute to synaptic plasticity [ 123 ]. Inhibiting their activity result in suppression of the reinstatement of cocaine conditioned place preference [ 124 ] and selectively inhibiting MMP-9 prevents cue- and cocaine-induced reinstatement of cocaine self-administration [ 119 ]; these results open additional therapeutic possibilities with the use of inhibitors of MMP-9 as an innovative targeted approach [ 119 , 124 , 125 ] (Fig. 3 ). Still, at our knowledge, there are no randomised controlled study currently investigating these ECM-related drugs.

Drugs of abuse-induced modifications in glutamatergic nuclei targeting the NAc, or the VTA and essential part of the reward circuit, are less studied than cortico-striatal synapses despite the fact that they play a crucial role in the development of drug addiction. Indeed, in the OFC and PFC, chronic alcohol exposure significantly increases LTP in pyramidal neurons [ 126 , 127 ]. Kazanetz et al. [ 128 ] showed that repeated cocaine injections impair endocannabinoid-LTD and mGluR2/3-LTD in the PFC. They postulated that this might mechanistically participate in the induction of a postsynaptic, observed LTP-like phenomenon with an enhanced AMPA/NMDA ratio. It was also demonstrated that neurons of the infralimbic cortex present a decrease in mGluR2 [ 129 ]. In addition, alcohol-dependent rats exhibit an escalation of ethanol seeking, which was abolished by restoring mGluR2 expression in the infralimbic cortex via viral-mediated gene transfer [ 129 ]. Notably, mGluR2 agonist was shown to impair the incubation of cocaine craving [ 130 ] and to attenuate reinstatement of cocaine-seeking [ 131 , 132 ](Fig. 3 ). Recently, Caprioli et al. [ 133 ] extensively reviewed preclinical studies on allosteric modulators of mGluRs on animal models of drug addiction and their potential translational implications. The results reviewed [ 133 ] indicate an remarkable effect of allosteric modulators of presynaptic mGluR2 and possibly mGluR7, supporting the idea that these compounds should be tested as potential medications for addiction treatments.

Besides the PFC, other brain regions appear to be key areas in drug addiction as the paraventricular thalamus (PVT) - a central hub for cortical, sensory and limbic information [ 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 ]. In 2016, Zhu et al. [ 141 ] showed that chronic morphine administration potentiates excitatory synapses between the PVT and D2R MSNs via insertion of GluA2-lacking AMPARs. Remarkably, in vivo optogenetic depotentiation at these synapses abolishes morphine withdrawal symptoms. In a recent paper, projections from the PVT to the NAc were shown to be critical for augmentation of heroin seeking in food-restricted rats [ 142 ] (Fig. 1 ). Actually, Otis et al. [ 143 ] demonstrated that the PVT is an integrative hub for reward seeking behaviour and that PVT-NAc neurons integrate different inputs from the PFC and the lateral hypothalamus to precisely guide reward seeking behaviour. In a recent review, De Groote et al. [ 140 ] focused on the new advances in the understanding of the roles of the PVT-NAc connections in motivated behaviours, highlighting their implications in drug addiction.

Drug addiction-related genes and transcriptomic regulation

Modifications in gene expression contribute to the long-lasting effect sustaining drug addiction; thanks to gene-expression arrays, RNA-sequencing and candidate gene approaches, the specific genes and their regulatory transcriptomic mechanisms involved in drug addiction development and maintenance are now better understood.

Drug addiction-related genes

For example, the use of conditional gene knockout in mice emphasises the importance of monoamine membrane transporters (dopamine transporter, and serotonin transporter) [ 144 , 145 ] and of mGluRs [ 146 , 147 ]. As new animal models of drug addiction, these approaches are also useful to better characterise fine-tuning of important pathways involved in addiction. For example, a scaffold protein known as Maged1 has been shown to be involved in cocaine reward and reinforcement [ 148 ]. We demonstrated that Maged1 inactivation impairs drug-evoked dopamine release and glutamatergic synaptic plasticity in the NAc. Inactivation of Maged1 in mice was able to abolish behavioural sensitization to cocaine as well as cocaine conditioned place preference and operant self-administration behaviours [ 148 ]. This sole genetic alteration, causally linked to a strong alteration of drug-induced behaviours, impairs (at least) two core neuronal mechanisms leading to addictive behaviours: (1) cocaine-evoked release of dopamine in the NAc and (2) NAc plasticity, with a reduced AMPA/NMDA ratio and a resistance to LTD. Actually, it seems that, after Maged1 inactivation, the excitatory synapses in the NAc shift to a depressed state. Our hypothesis is that, in line with the previously discussed in vivo optogenetic induced LTD, this impairment could be a key factor for the significant decrease in sensitization to psychostimulants [ 87 , 103 , 148 ]. Actually, it seems that placing neurons in a state of ‘presensitization’ is able to prevent drug-induced sensitization itself [ 148 , 149 ]. Our group is now trying to understand what are the cellular and molecular pathways directly altered by Maged1 inactivation and responsible for this strong anti-addictive drug phenotype. Remarkably, the promoter of Maged1 was found in a list of 213 promoters that co-precipitate with acetylated histones and with the activated form of cAMP response element binding protein (CREB) after chronic drug taking [ 150 ]. In line with this result, preliminary and unpublished results from our laboratory point out a specific epigenetic mechanism, in parallel with an alteration of synaptic plasticity in excitatory projection to the NAc, that would link Maged1 to its major effect on drug-induced behaviours. This selected gene approach is of great interest in refining our knowledge of pathways hijacked by addictive drugs. Using cell sorting of D1R MSNs and D2R MSNs as described previously [ 151 ], our group also identified the G-protein-regulated inducer of neurite outgrowth 3 (GPRIN3) in both MSN populations but strikingly more expressed in D2R MSNs [ 149 ]. The GPRIN family (GPRIN1, GPRIN2 and GPRIN3) are Gαi/o-regulated proteins suggested to intermediate the communication between GPCRs and the sequential intracellular target [ 152 ]. Indeed, GPRIN1 and GPRIN2 have been described as alternative (to adenylyl cyclase) mediators of GPCRs signalling but GPRIN3 had a much less defined role [ 152 , 153 ]. To understand the role of GPRIN3 in the pathophysiology of the D2R-indirect pathway, we induced a D2R-MSNs-specific knockdown (KD) of GPRIN3 using small hairpin RNA and lentiviruses [ 151 , 154 ]. We first observed a significant increase in distal branching, the points of convergence between glutamate and dopamine synapses in MSNs [ 155 ] and also key targets of cocaine, which itself promotes increase in distal branching in the NAc of mice [ 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ]. Thus, we tested the cocaine acute effect and locomotor sensitization and observed a decrease in cocaine-induced hyperlocomotion after inactivation of GPRIN3 using a CRISP/Cas9 approach. The significant increase in distal branching in GPRIN3 D2R-MSNs KD corroborates our hypothesis that the lack of GPRIN3 induces a ‘presensitization process’, able to change the targets of cocaine and therefore altering its effects [ 149 ]. Finally, we provide the first evidence that GPRIN3 partners with D2R in the striatum and modulates cocaine-induced behaviours [ 149 ].

Transcriptomic and epigenetic regulations

Epigenetics is a broad field and has multiple definitions that comprise several biochemical mechanisms (including DNA methylation and histone modifications) sustaining modifications in gene expression throughout the lifecycle of an organism without mutations of the DNA itself [ 160 , 161 , 162 ]. Epigenetics can be considered as the process through which environment (and normal development) interacts with an individual’s genome to determine all phenotypic traits, in health and disease. Stable modifications in gene expression are also said to be ‘epigenetic’, because they are heritable in the short term (through mitosis) [ 160 ] and in some cases trans-generationally, thus, providing a potential mechanism for environmental influences to be passed from parents to offspring [ 163 , 164 , 165 ]. Handel and Romagopalan [ 163 ] mentioned that “epigenetics allows the peaceful co-existence of Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution”. Such trans-generational epigenetic inheritance of drug addiction vulnerability remains debatable [ 161 ], but has been increasingly studied for the last 20 years [ 166 , 167 ]. Some epigenetic changes are very stable, an thus mediate both drug addiction susceptibility and drug-induced brain alterations that underlie the development of drug addiction [ 161 ].

As the NAc is seen as the central hub of drug addiction, with the notion that chronic drug use induces long-lasting structural, electrophysiological and transcriptional changes in the NAc, researchers are mostly targeting epigenetic modifications in NAc cells. Still, considering initial reports of cocaine-induced epigenetic modifications [ 168 , 169 ], it might be relevant to study further epigenetic changes in other regions such as glutamatergic inputs to the NAc, and further in the VTA, as they are implicated in the physiopathology of drug addiction [ 170 , 171 ] as mentioned above.

To date, the three main epigenetic mechanisms consist of (1) DNA methylation, (2) action of the non-coding RNAs and (3) histone post-translational modifications (PTMs). As an illustrative example, we will focus here only on histone PTMs. PTMs of histone residues on their N-terminal tails, that protrude from the nucleosome core, control chromatin condensation and the switch between euchromatin and heterochromatin and thus DNA-accessibility and gene expressions. PTMs include acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, ADP ribosylation, ubiquitylation and sumoylation, among a growing list of newly discovered modifications [ 162 , 172 ].

Among these PTMs, the most studied is the acetylation of H3 and H4, that is increased in the NAc after chronic exposure to drugs of abuse [ 150 , 173 , 174 ]. This increase in global acetylation levels is the result of drug-induced alterations in the balance of histone acetyltransferase and histone deacetylase (HDAC) function and is associated with gene activation. CREB-binding protein, a histone acetyltransferase critical to memory processes [ 175 ], is required for cocaine-induced increases in histone acetylation in the NAc [ 176 ].

Fifteen years ago, Tsankova et al. [ 177 ] showed that imipramine, a monoamine reuptake inhibitor used for decades to treat depression, was effective through histone remodelling in depression and highlight the therapeutic potential for chromatin regulation with histone methylation and deacetylation inhibitors in depression. Nevertheless, like with synaptic plasticity (see above), discovering a drug that would interfere with epigenetic mechanisms and thus decrease drugs of abuse effect faces temporal aspects issues [ 173 , 176 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 ]. Indeed, timing has a strong impact considering conflicting results obtained after experimental manipulations of histone acetylation. An acute administration of HDAC inhibitors systemically or directly into the NAc, promotes behavioural responses to the drugs. However, prolonged administration decreases cocaine behavioural effects. In 2013, adding a new layer of complexity, Kennedy et al. provided comprehension to this time-dependent regulation [ 183 ]. Remarkably, they showed that prolonged intraNAc administration (but not acute administration) of a HDAC inhibitor attenuated cocaine behavioural effects by inducing a form of repressive histone methylation. This study showed, for the first time, cross-talk among different types of histone modifications [ 183 ]. Besides cross-talk between different epigenetic modifications, multiple modifications work in parallel and there is often a decoupling between an observed modification at a specific locus and its final transcription [ 161 ]. Decoding these chromatin marks will be a future challenging field. Like with HDAC inhibitors, there are promising findings based on the use of DNA methyltransferases inhibitor [ 184 , 185 ] (Fig. 3 ). Though, the main issue with these new potential treatments for drug addiction is their lack of specificity. One of the key challenge for the pharmaceutical industry will be to generate small molecules with more specific targets [ 6 ].

While histone acetylation and methylation are increasingly studied, an important field of future investigation will be to understand the other drug-induced histone PTMs. It already seems that chronic cocaine alters levels of histone phosphorylation [ 174 , 186 , 187 ], and poly-ADP ribosylation [ 188 ]. Recently, an unexpected role for the intracellular dopamine in VTA has been revealed, showing that DA interacts with chromatin to initiate a new form of epigenetic regulation called dopaminylation [ 189 ] (see Table 1 for a summary of cocaine-related epigenetic modifications).

Further studies showed that histone PTMs that occur in the NAc after chronic drug administration are locus specific [ 150 , 190 , 191 ]. Even though, drugs of abuse alter global levels of multiple histone PTMs, such as increased histone acetylation or decreased methylation in the NAc, genome-wide studies have confirmed that a greater number of genomic sites show increased acetylation [ 150 ] or decreased methylation [ 190 , 191 ]. Conversely, hundreds of genes show opposite or no changes in these same PTMs after drug exposure. What defines whether, and in which direction, a specific gene is modified in the context of a global histone PTM is an intriguing and unsolved question [ 161 ]. These genome-wide studies (ChIp on chip or ChIpSeq) are nowadays fundamental to understand where PTMs and other epigenetic modifications are deposited. This will be fundamental to guide new therapeutics.

Actually, with new tools such as zinc finger proteins (ZFPs) DNA-binding domains and, more recently, RNA-guided CRISPR/dCas9 (drastically easier to design) [ 192 , 193 ], it is now possible to control epigenetic modifications at a single gene in a specific type of cell in a specific brain region [ 162 ]. Heller et al. demonstrated that gene-targeted epigenetic editing (targeted to the Fosb [ 194 ] and Cdk5 [ 195 ] locus with ZFP technology) can alter drug-related behaviours [ 194 , 195 ]. This represents crucial evidence that gene-specific changes to the epigenome are not simply correlated, but rather causal, in regulating transcriptional responses to drugs of abuse administrations. These new results of “causal epigenomics” are very encouraging as they open the way to precise translational therapeutic approaches for drug addiction and other CNS diseases.

Linking epigenetics and synaptic plasticity

Today, most studies investigate synaptic plasticity and epigenetic as two distinct fields and it is not clear how these research topics are connected to each other. Understanding how epigenetics is connected to synaptic plasticity is an emerging research issue [ 6 ].

Of course, bridging epigenetic mechanisms with synaptic plasticity is not limited to drug addiction field. For example, in 2011, Monsey et al. [ 196 ] elegantly demonstrated that DNA methylation and histone H3 acetylation regulate auditory fear conditioning and its related synaptic plasticity in the amygdala. In 2014, Massart et al. [ 197 ] suggested that sleep deprivation induces epigenetic modification (alteration in DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation) that triggers synaptic plasticity modifications by changing expression of plasticity related genes.

Regarding drug addiction, some epigenetic marks seem fundamental and upstream as illustrated by HDAC inhibitors effect on drug-induced synaptic and behavioural modifications [ 178 , 198 , 199 , 200 ]. Additionally, Maze et al. [ 201 ] demonstrated morphological plasticity induced by cocaine through the histone methyltransferase G9a. Again advocating for causal epigenetic, Authement et al. [ 66 ] demonstrated that HDAC inhibition locally in the VTA is sufficient to reverse epigenetic modifications and synaptic plasticity changes after morphine administration.

Two transcription factors implicated in addiction exemplify this bridging attempt: CREB and ∆FosB (a truncated form of the FosB gene) are both activated by several drugs of abuse [ 202 ]. CREB activation occurs in both subtypes of NAc MSNs (D1R and D2R), while ∆FosB activation is limited to D1R MSNs in response to all drugs of abuse except for opioids, which remarkably induce the protein in both MSNs [ 203 ]. Expression of active CREB in NAc MSNs increases their excitability [ 204 ] and underlies drug-induced long-term synaptic plasticity and associated changes in dendritic spine plasticity [ 205 ]. ∆FosB is also linked to synaptic plasticity but evokes contrasting effects on the two MSN subtypes, with increased AMPA receptor function induced in D1R MSNs and decreased AMPA receptor function induced in D2R MSNs [ 206 ]. Renthal et al. [ 150 ] unravelled CREB and ∆FosB target genes and observed that these genes are mainly involved in neuronal excitability and synaptic function. Moreover, as already briefly discussed above, CREB and ∆FosB action have also been related to multiple epigenetic regulations, including histone acetylation and methylation [ 150 ]. Besides, a novel mechanism for bridging the gap between epigenetic control of transcription and synapse plasticity might be seen in microRNAs [ 207 ]. The most studied miRNA in the context of synaptic plasticity is miR-132 and is known to be CREB-dependent [ 208 ]. In the striatum, miR-212 targets the epigenetic regulator methyl CpG binding protein 2 (MeCP2). MeCP2 acts as a transcriptional repressor through recruitment of histone deacetylases to methylated DNA segments [ 209 , 210 ].

Clinical treatments for drug addiction

Besides psychosocial interventions [ 211 ] such as cognitive behavioural therapy, the most widely used treatment for drug addiction involves agonist-like medication, a solution inadequately called replacement or substitution therapy [ 212 ]. This type of treatment has been successfully implemented in the daily practice for opioid use disorder (e.g.: methadone, buprenorphine) [ 213 ] and tobacco use disorder (e.g.: nicotine patch or gum, varenicline) [ 214 ]. Currently, this agonist-like treatment is also promising for psychostimulant use disorder [ 215 ]. Still, considering the addictive drug-like effect, the risk of abuse, misuse and diversion, replacement therapy should be prescribed with caution [ 215 , 216 ].

Recently, a randomised and control study on a cocaine vaccine failed to show an effectiveness but instead raised an important issue: immunised subjects may have increased their cocaine use to overcome the competitive anti-cocaine antibody inhibition [ 217 ]. Even though significant improvements have been developed for immunopharmacotherapies for psychostimulant addiction over the last decade, very few candidates have been evaluated so far in clinical trials [ 218 ]. These considerations are some of the reasons why other treatments for drug addiction should emerge with the help of neurobiological research [ 219 ].

Following successful subthalamic nucleus DBS for Parkinson’s disease [ 220 , 221 , 222 ], DBS was investigated for diverse psychiatric diseases including depression [ 223 ], obsessive-compulsive disorder [ 224 ] and Tourette syndrome [ 225 ]. Today, indications for DBS are enlarging, with several positive case reports and small cases series that studied NAc DBS for drug addiction. The first studies showing potential positive effects on drug addiction were reports on application of NAc DBS primarily intended for other medication-refractory neuropsychiatric disorder where a comorbid drug addiction was unexpectedly resolved [ 226 , 227 ]. For DBS treatment in drug addiction, it seems that clinical empirical results led to further bench investigations and refinement [ 88 , 103 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 ], or at least, clinical and animal studies evolved in parallel with poor connectivity between the two.

Afterwards, many case reports and small cases series studied NAc DBS being used primarily for drug addiction, all showing encouraging decreases in drug use [ 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 ]. However, these studies are limited by their descriptive nature, inconstant follow-up, multiple publication bias, small patient numbers and lack of blinded stimulation and standardised outcome measures. At this stage, additional preclinical and clinical research are needed to clarify the role of DBS in the treatment of drug addiction [ 237 ]. Currently, randomised and control clinical studies are conducted (NCT01245075).

In a recent review, Sanna et al. [ 238 ] highlighted how repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) confirms the hypodopaminergic hypothesis of drug addiction. While enhancing dopaminergic function through direct or indirect pharmacological approaches does not significantly alleviate symptoms, in numerous studies, and has not yielded a single FDA-approved medication [ 239 ], rTMS might indirectly modulate the dopaminergic system. Many rTMS studies stimulate the dorsolateral PFC [ 240 , 241 ] that projects to the VTA and thus induces an increase in dopamine release in the synaptic cleft in the NAc [ 55 , 242 , 243 ]. Nevertheless, considering the heterogeneity of methods used in rTMS studies during the last 10 years [ 238 ], protocols and guidelines, were recently suggested by an international network of experts in neuromodulation and addiction to improve homogeneity of studies [ 244 ]. From this report, it is clear that multiple technical details for optimal stimulation need further investigations that might be achieved through preclinical studies. For example, low frequency (but not high-frequency) rTMS before methamphetamine exposure in rats blocked drug-induced conditioned place preference [ 245 ]. Being non-invasive, with insignificant side effects, rTMS could be seen as a great opportunity for drug addiction treatment. We are currently waiting for the results of a randomised and control study that aims at determine if, in heavy alcohol users, a single session of TMS can lower a patient’s craving and brain response to alcohol cues (NCT02939313).

Interesting views of clinical treatments for drug addiction are discussed in some other reviews [ 212 , 215 , 216 , 219 ]. The clinical impact of new treatments also depends on their translation into clinical practice which is mainly promoted by the pharmaceutical industry [ 219 ]. Indeed, even when an effective treatment is identified through basic research, it is commonly challenging to translate it to clinical practice, as illustrated by naltrexone as a treatment of alcoholism [ 219 ]. Another example of problematic translation to clinic is illustrated by modafinil, a treatment that has been reported to attenuate cocaine euphoria but for which larger clinical randomised and controlled studies showed controversial results [ 246 , 247 ].

Future directions

Drug addiction is a brain disease strongly influenced by environment and psychosocial aspects. The psychosocial conditions in which it has developed are extremely important. Exposure to conditioned cues can be a central issue in causing drug cravings and relapses, even after successful treatment, and thus they have to be minimised [ 2 , 74 , 77 ]. The pathophysiological aspects are particularly unsteady. For instance, as discussed in this review and in other ones [ 73 , 248 ], synaptic plasticity is dynamically altered after psychostimulant administration, so that a treatment could have opposite effects depending on timing aspects of the administration protocol. In addition, a prolonged treatment may involve compensatory mechanisms, giving unexpected results (e.g.: when HDAC inhibitors and psychostimulants are both administered acutely, they have synergistic effects through hyperacetylation and thus transcriptional activation of psychostimulant-regulated target genes. Conversely, when a drug of abuse is given in the context of chronic HDAC inhibitor, compensatory mechanisms may promote acetylated histone to the promoters of genes responsible for inducing histone methylation and thus chromatin condensation and gene repression, all of which, in turn, gave opposite effect [ 183 ]). Thus, the evolution through the different stages of the disease has to be taken into account [ 249 ] and treatment must follow them. These two aspects have to be incorporated in a holistic treatment strategy. Besides, studying combination of different cutting-edge approaches, with animal models of addiction, such as targeted rTMS or DBS with more systemic epigenetic modulation might show a better restoration of altered synaptic transmission and decrease the probability of relapse in drug addiction. Basically, drug addiction is a disease that seems to be difficult to treat preventively but it is more conceivable to help patients that would be in an abstinence stage not to experience relapse of their disease. As addiction is chronic and relapsing, a good treatment outcome is a significant reduction of drug administration and long periods of withdrawal, with only sporadic relapses [ 2 ].

It is clear that the main issues for optimal therapeutic management of this specific psychiatric disease belong to its dynamic complexity, diverse temporal evolution and undeniably psychosocial aspects. In this review, we focused mostly on the effects of drugs of abuse on synaptic plasticity and epigenetic modifications. Nowadays, these two subfields are mostly studied separately and the understanding of how these two main addictive drug-induced brain modifications interact might be fundamental for addiction research [ 6 ]. Indeed, argument for clinical trials for new treatments emerge from fundamental behavioural studies that should be implemented in a global approach to the addicted patient.

Conclusions

Here, we highlight, from a vast fundamental literature (mainly based on rodent models), promising therapeutics that would potentially treat drug addiction. Based on effect, on synaptic plasticity and epigenetic mechanisms, treatments such as GluA2-lacking AMPAR antagonists [ 72 , 84 ], mGluR1 positive allosteric modulator [ 85 ], NAc 12Hz-DBS [ 103 ] (in line with other promising neuromodulation therapeutics such as rTMS or transcranial direct current stimulation [ 250 ]), N-acetylcysteine [ 108 ], HDAC inhibitors [ 183 ] or even (in very early stages of investigation) CRISPR/dCas9 epigenetic editing [ 194 , 195 ] could be potential candidates for human randomised clinical trials (Fig. 3 ).

Finally, it is fundamental to consider the specific clinical aspects of the disease that would help to develop a personalised-treatment strategy. Indeed, after going from the bench to the bedside it will also be essential to assess the reversed route.

Roth GA, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abbasi N, et al. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392:1736–88.

Article   Google Scholar  

Leshner AI. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science. 1997;278:45–47.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Nielsen DA, Nielsen EM, Dasari T, Spellicy CJ. Pharmacogenetics of addiction therapy. Methods Mol Biol. 2014;1175:589–624.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Everitt BJ & Robbins TW. Drug addiction: updating actions to habits to compulsions ten years on. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;67:23–50.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Belin D, Everitt BJ. Cocaine seeking habits depend upon dopamine-dependent serial connectivity linking the ventral with the dorsal striatum. Neuron. 2008;57:432–41.

Nestler EJ, Lüscher C. The molecular basis of drug addiction: linking epigenetic to synaptic and circuit mechanisms. Neuron. 2019;102:48–59.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nestler EJ. Cellular basis of memory for addiction. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2013;15:431–43.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nestler EJ. Molecular basis of long-term plasticity underlying addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:119–28.

Anthony JC, Warner LA, Kessler RC. Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994;2:244–68.

Egervari G, Ciccocioppo R, Jentsch JD, Hurd YL. Shaping vulnerability to addiction – the contribution of behavior, neural circuits and molecular mechanisms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;85:117–25.

Li MD, Burmeister M. New insights into the genetics of addiction. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009;10:225–31.

Kreek MJ, Nielsen DA, Butelman ER, LaForge KS. Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1450–7.

Shohat S, Amelan A, Shifman S. Convergence and divergence in the genetics of psychiatric disorders from pathways to developmental stages. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;89:32–40.

Kandel, DB. Stages and Pathways of Drug Involvement: Examining the Gateway Hypothesis (Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Gerfen CR, Engber TM, Mahan LC, Susel Z, Chase TN, Monsma FJ Jr, et al. D1 and D2 dopamine receptor-regulated gene expression of striatonigral and striatopallidal neurons. Science. 1990;250:1429–32.

Schiffmann SN, Fisone G, Moresco R, Cunha RA, Ferré S. Adenosine A2A receptors and basal ganglia physiology. Prog. Neurobiol. 2007;83:277–92.

Gerfen CR, Surmeier DJ. Modulation of striatal projection systems by dopamine. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2011;34:441–66.

Di Chiara G, Imperato A. Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1988;85:5274–8.

Tanda G, Pontieri FE, Chiara GD. Cannabinoid and heroin activation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission by a common µ1 opioid receptor mechanism. Science. 1997;276:2048–50.

Pontieri FE, Tanda G, Orzi F, Chiara GD. Effects of nicotine on the nucleus accumbens and similarity to those of addictive drugs. Nature. 1996;382:255–7.

Nestler EJ. Is there a common molecular pathway for addiction? Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1445–9.

Nestler EJ. The neurobiology of cocaine addiction. Sci Pract Perspect. 2005;3:4–10.

Kalivas PW, Volkow N, Seamans J. Unmanageable motivation in addiction: a pathology in prefrontal-accumbens glutamate transmission. Neuron. 2005;45:647–50.

Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang G-J, Swanson JM. Dopamine in drug abuse and addiction: results from imaging studies and treatment implications. Mol Psychiatry. 2004;9:557–69.

Chen SA, O'Dell LE, Hoefer ME, Greenwell TN, Zorrilla EP, Koob GF. Unlimited access to heroin self-administration: independent motivational markers of opiate dependence. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:2692–707.

Laviolette SR, Alexson TO, van der Kooy D. Lesions of the tegmental pedunculopontine nucleus block the rewarding effects and reveal the aversive effects of nicotine in the ventral tegmental area. J. Neurosci. 2002;22:8653–60.

Koob GF, Volkow ND. Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:217–38.

Pierce RC, Kumaresan V. The mesolimbic dopamine system: The final common pathway for the reinforcing effect of drugs of abuse? Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30:215–38.

Belin-Rauscent A, Fouyssac M, Bonci A, Belin D. How preclinical models evolved to resemble the diagnostic criteria of drug addiction. Biol. Psychiatry. 2016;79:39–46.

Piazza PV, Deroche-Gamonet V. A multistep general theory of transition to addiction. Psychopharmacology. 2013;229:387–413.

Pascoli V, Hiver A, Van Zessen R, Loureiro M, Achargui R, Harada M, et al. Stochastic synaptic plasticity underlying compulsion in a model of addiction. Nature. 2018;564:366–71.

Kauer JA, Malenka RC. Synaptic plasticity and addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8:844–58.

Mameli M, Balland B, Luján R, Lüscher C. Rapid synthesis and synaptic insertion of GluR2 for mGluR-LTD in the ventral tegmental area. Science. 2007;317:530–3.

Bellone C, Lüscher C. Cocaine triggered AMPA receptor redistribution is reversed in vivo by mGluR-dependent long-term depression. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9:636–41.

Pignatelli M, Bonci A. Role of dopamine neurons in reward and aversion: a synaptic plasticity perspective. Neuron. 2015;86:1145–57.

Stuber GD, Klanker M, de Ridder B, Bowers MS, Joosten RN, Feenstra MG, et al. Reward-predictive cues enhance excitatory synaptic strength onto midbrain dopamine neurons. Science. 2008;321:1690–2.

Bolam JP, Smith Y. The GABA and substance P input to dopaminergic neurones in the substantia nigra of the rat. Brain Res. 1990;529:57–78.

Henny P, Brown MT, Northrop A, Faunes M, Ungless MA, Magill PJ, et al. Structural correlates of heterogeneous in vivo activity of midbrain dopaminergic neurons. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15:613–9.

Bayer VE, Pickel VM. GABA-labeled terminals form proportionally more synapses with dopaminergic neurons containing low densities of tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactivity in rat ventral tegmental area. Brain Res. 1991;559:44–55.

Johnson SW, North RA. Two types of neurone in the rat ventral tegmental area and their synaptic inputs. J Physiol. 1992;450:455–68.

Edwards NJ, Tejeda HA, Pignatelli M, Zhang S, McDevitt RA, Wu J, et al. Circuit specificity in the inhibitory architecture of the VTA regulates cocaine-induced behavior. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20:438–48.

Menegas W, Bergan JF, Ogawa SK, Isogai Y, Umadevi Venkataraju K, Osten P, et al. Dopamine neurons projecting to the posterior striatum form an anatomically distinct subclass. eLife. 2015;4:e10032.

Ling W, Shoptaw S, Majewska D. Baclofen as a cocaine anti-craving medication: a preliminary clinical study. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1998;18:403–4.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Young KA, Franklin TR, Roberts DC, Jagannathan K, Suh JJ, Wetherill RR, et al. Nipping cue reactivity in the bud: baclofen prevents limbic activation elicited by subliminal drug cues. J Neurosci. 2014;34:5038–43.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Vocci FJ, Elkashef A. Pharmacotherapy and other treatments for cocaine abuse and dependence. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2005;18:265–70.

Roberts DC, Andrews MM, Vickers GJ. Baclofen attenuates the reinforcing effects of cocaine in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1996;15:417–23.

Slattery DA, Markou A, Froestl W, Cryan JF. The GABA B receptor-positive modulator GS39783 and the GABA B receptor agonist baclofen attenuate the reward-facilitating effects of cocaine: intracranial self-stimulation studies in the rat. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:2065–72.

Hotsenpiller G, Wolf ME. Baclofen attenuates conditioned locomotion to cues associated with cocaine administration and stabilizes extracellular glutamate levels in rat nucleus accumbens. Neuroscience. 2003;118:123–34.

Brebner K, Phelan R, Roberts DCS. Intra-VTA baclofen attenuates cocaine self-administration on a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2000;66:857–62.

Penn RD, Savoy SM, Corcos D, Latash M, Gottlieb G, Parke B, et al. Intrathecal baclofen for severe spinal spasticity. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:1517–21.

Sammaraiee Y, Yardley M, Keenan L, Buchanan K, Stevenson V, Farrell R. Intrathecal baclofen for multiple sclerosis related spasticity: a twenty year experience. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;27:95–100.

Reynoard J, Schmitt C, Torrents R, Simon N. Toxicological considerations in the prescription of baclofen for the treatment of substance use disorders. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2020;16:309–17.

Garbutt JC, Kampov-Polevoy AB, Gallop R, Kalka-Juhl L, Flannery BA. Efficacy and safety of baclofen for alcohol dependence: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010;34:1849–57.

Yamini D, Lee SH, Avanesyan A, Walter M, Runyon B. Utilization of baclofen in maintenance of alcohol abstinence in patients with alcohol dependence and alcoholic hepatitis with or without cirrhosis. Alcohol Alcohol. 2014;49:453–6.

Addolorato G, Leggio L, Hopf FW, Diana M, Bonci A. Novel therapeutic strategies for alcohol and drug addiction: focus on GABA, ion channels and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37:163–77.

Kahn R, Biswas K, Childress AR, Shoptaw S, Fudala PJ, Gorgon L, et al. Multi-center trial of baclofen for abstinence initiation in severe cocaine-dependent individuals. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;103:59–64.

Dore GM, Lo K, Juckes L, Bezyan S, Latt N. Clinical experience with baclofen in the management of alcohol-dependent patients with psychiatric comorbidity: a selected case series. Alcohol Alcohol. 2011;46:714–20.

Nugent FS, Penick EC, Kauer JA. Opioids block long-term potentiation of inhibitory synapses. Nature. 2007;446:1086–90.

Liu Q, Pu L, Poo M. Repeated cocaine exposure in vivo facilitates LTP induction in midbrain dopamine neurons. Nature. 2005;437:1027–31.

Barrett AC, Negus SS, Mello NK, Caine SB. Effect of GABA agonists and GABA-A receptor modulators on cocaine- and food-maintained responding and cocaine discrimination in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005;315:858–71.

Brodie JD, Figueroa E, Dewey SL. Treating cocaine addiction: from preclinical to clinical trial experience with γ-vinyl GABA. Synapse. 2003;50:261–5.

Barker JS, Hines RM. Regulation of GABAA receptor subunit expression in substance use disorders. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:4445.

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tan KR, Rudolph U, Lüscher C. Hooked on benzodiazepines: GABAA receptor subtypes and addiction. Trends Neurosci. 2011;34:188–97.

Brands B, Blake J, Marsh DC, Sproule B, Jeyapalan R, Li S. The impact of benzodiazepine use on methadone maintenance treatment outcomes. J Addict Dis. 2008;27:37–48.

Dacher M, Nugent FS. Morphine-induced modulation of LTD at GABAergic synapses in the ventral tegmental area. Neuropharmacology. 2011;61:1166–71.

Authement ME, Langlois LD, Kassis H, Gouty S, Dacher M, Shepard RD, et al. Morphine-induced synaptic plasticity in the VTA is reversed by HDAC inhibition. J Neurophysiol. 2016;116:1093–103.

Abraham WC, Bear MF. Metaplasticity: the plasticity of synaptic plasticity. Trends Neurosci. 1996;19:126–30.

Martin M, Chen BT, Hopf FW, Bowers MS, Bonci A. Cocaine self-administration selectively abolishes LTD in the core of the nucleus accumbens. Nat. Neurosci. 2006;9:868–9.

Thomas MJ, Beurrier C, Bonci A, Malenka RC. Long-term depression in the nucleus accumbens: a neural correlate of behavioral sensitization to cocaine. Nat. Neurosci. 2001;4:1217–23.

Boudreau AC, Wolf ME. Behavioral sensitization to cocaine is associated with increased AMPA receptor surface expression in the nucleus accumbens. J. Neurosci. 2005;25:9144–51.

Ferrario CR, Li X, Wang X, Reimers JM, Uejima JL, Wolf ME. The role of glutamate receptor redistribution in locomotor sensitization to cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:818–33.

Conrad KL, Tseng KY, Uejima JL, Reimers JM, Heng LJ, Shaham Y, et al. Formation of accumbens GluR2-lacking AMPA receptors mediates incubation of cocaine craving. Nature. 2008;454:118–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06995 .

Wolf ME, Tseng KY. Calcium-permeable AMPA receptors in the VTA and nucleus accumbens after cocaine exposure:when, how, and why? Front Mol Neurosci. 2012;5:72.

Grimm JW, Hope BT, Wise RA, Shaham Y. Neuroadaptation. Incubation of cocaine craving after withdrawal. Nature. 2001;412:141–2.

Sadler-Smith E. Wallas’ four-stage model of the creative process: more than meets the eye? Creat Res J. 2015;27:342–52.

Gawin FH, Kleber HD. Abstinence symptomatology and psychiatric diagnosis in cocaine abusers. Clinical observations. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986;43:107–13.

Childress AR, Mozley PD, McElgin W, Fitzgerald J, Reivich M, O'Brien CP. Limbic activation during cue-induced cocaine craving. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:11–18.

Parvaz MA, Moeller SJ, Goldstein RZ. Incubation of cue-induced craving in adults addicted to cocaine measured by electroencephalography. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73:1127–34.

Lippman-Bell JJ, Zhou C, Sun H, Feske JS, Jensen FE. Early-life seizures alter synaptic calcium-permeable AMPA receptor function and plasticity. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2016;76:11–20.

Achuta VS, Möykkynen T, Peteri UK, Turconi G, Rivera C, Keinänen K, et al. Functional changes of AMPA responses in human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neural progenitors in fragile X syndrome. Sci Sÿignal. 2018;11:eaan8784.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Selvaraj BT, Livesey MR, Zhao C, Gregory JM, James OT, Cleary EM, et al. C9ORF72 repeat expansion causes vulnerability of motor neurons to Ca 2+ -permeable AMPA receptor-mediated excitotoxicity. Nat Commun. 2018;9:347.

Kobylecki C, Cenci MA, Crossman AR, Ravenscroft P. Calcium-permeable AMPA receptors are involved in the induction and expression of l-DOPA-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurochem. 2010;114:499–511.

Whitehead G, Regan P, Whitcomb DJ, Cho K. Ca2+-permeable AMPA receptor: a new perspective on amyloid-beta mediated pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropharmacology. 2017;112:221–7.

Twomey EC, Yelshanskaya MV, Vassilevski AA, Sobolevsky AI. Mechanisms of channel block in calcium-permeable AMPA receptors. Neuron. 2018;99:956–.e4.

Loweth JA, Scheyer AF, Milovanovic M, LaCrosse AL, Flores-Barrera E, Werner CT, et al. Synaptic depression via mGluR1 positive allosteric modulation suppresses cue-induced cocaine craving. Nat. Neurosci. 2014;17:73–80.

Scheyer AF, Loweth JA, Christian DT, Uejima J, Rabei R, Le T, et al. AMPA receptor plasticity in accumbens core contributes to incubation of methamphetamine craving. Biol. Psychiatry. 2016;80:661–70.

Pascoli V, Terrier J, Espallergues J, Valjent E, O'Connor EC, Lüscher C. Contrasting forms of cocaine-evoked plasticity control components of relapse. Nature. 2014;509:459–64.

Ma T, Cheng Y, Roltsch Hellard E, Wang X, Lu J, Gao X, et al. Bidirectional and long-lasting control of alcohol-seeking behavior by corticostriatal LTP and LTD. Nat. Neurosci. 2018;21:373–83.

Pascoli V, Turiault M, Lüscher C. Reversal of cocaine-evoked synaptic potentiation resets drug-induced adaptive behaviour. Nature. 2012;481:71–75.

Valjent E, Bertran-Gonzalez J, Aubier B, Greengard P, Hervé D, Girault JA. Mechanisms of locomotor sensitization to drugs of abuse in a two-injection protocol. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35:401–15.

Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1993;18:247–91.

Schenk S, Partridge B. Sensitization and tolerance in psychostimulant self-administration. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1997;57:543–50.

Vezina P, Lorrain DS, Arnold GM, Austin JD, Suto N. Sensitization of midbrain dopamine neuron reactivity promotes the pursuit of amphetamine. J Neurosci. 2002;22:4654–62.

De Vries TJ, Schoffelmeer AN, Binnekade R, Mulder AH, Vanderschuren LJ. Drug-induced reinstatement of heroin- and cocaine-seeking behaviour following long-term extinction is associated with expression of behavioural sensitization. Eur J Neurosci. 1998;10:3565–71.

Suto N, Tanabe LM, Austin JD, Creekmore E, Pham CT, Vezina P. Previous exposure to psychostimulants enhances the reinstatement of cocaine seeking by nucleus accumbens AMPA. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29:2149–59.

Vorspan F, de Witt P, Zerdazi EH, Karsinti E, Ksouda K, Icick R, et al. Chronic exposure to cocaine is associated with persistent behavioral disturbances. A cross-sectional dimensional study in outpatients with multiple substance use disorders. Psychopharmacology. 2020;237:3399–407.

Vorspan F, Icick R, Mekdad N, Courtin C, Bloch V, Bellivier F, et al. Translational study of the whole transcriptome in rats and genetic polymorphisms in humans identifies LRP1B and VPS13A as key genes involved in tolerance to cocaine-induced motor disturbances. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10:381.

Vanderschuren LJ, Kalivas PW. Alterations in dopaminergic and glutamatergic transmission in the induction and expression of behavioral sensitization: a critical review of preclinical studies. Psychopharmacology. 2000;151:99–120.

Vezina P, Leyton M. Conditioned cues and the expression of stimulant sensitization in animals and humans. Neuropharmacology. 2009;56:160–8.

Tzschentke TM. REVIEW ON CPP: measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addict Biol. 2007;12:227–462.

Bardo MT, Bevins RA. Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? Psychopharmacology. 2000;153:31–43.

Itzhak Y, Martin JL. Cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in mice: induction, extinction and reinstatement by related psychostimulants. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2002;26:130–4.

Creed M, Pascoli VJ, Lüscher C. Refining deep brain stimulation to emulate optogenetic treatment of synaptic pathology. Science. 2015;347:659–64.

Shen Y, Campbell RE, Côté DC, Paquet M-E. Challenges for therapeutic applications of opsin-based optogenetic tools in humans. Front Neural Circuits. 2020;14:41.

Vorspan F, Mallet L, Corvol J-C, Pelissolo A, Lépine J-P. Treating addictions with deep brain stimulation is premature but well-controlled clinical trials should be performed. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2011;106:1535–6.

Mahoney JJ, Hanlon CA, Marshalek PJ, Rezai AR, Krinke L. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and other forms of neuromodulation for substance use disorders: review of modalities and implications for treatment. J Neurol Sci. 2020;418:117149.

Shen W, Flajolet M, Greengard P, Surmeier DJ. Dichotomous dopaminergic control of striatal synaptic plasticity. Science. 2008;321:848–51.

Moussawi K, Pacchioni A, Moran M, Olive MF, Gass JT, Lavin A, et al. N -Acetylcysteine reverses cocaine-induced metaplasticity. Nat Neurosci. 2009;12:182–9.

Gerfen CR. The neostriatal mosaic: multiple levels of compartmental organization. Trends Neurosci. 1992;15:133–9.

Vicente AM, Galvão-Ferreira P, Tecuapetla F, Costa RM. Direct and indirect dorsolateral striatum pathways reinforce different action strategies. Curr Biol. 2016;26:R267–269.

Freeze BS, Kravitz AV, Hammack N, Berke JD, Kreitzer AC. Control of basal ganglia output by direct and indirect pathway projection neurons. J Neurosci. 2013;33:18531–9.

Durieux PF, Schiffmann SN, de Kerchove d’Exaerde A. Differential regulation of motor control and response to dopaminergic drugs by D1R and D2R neurons in distinct dorsal striatum subregions. EMBO J. 2012;31:640–53.

Cox J, Witten IB. Striatal circuits for reward learning and decision-making. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2019;20:482–94.

Lalchandani RR, van der Goes M-S, Partridge JG, Vicini S. Dopamine D2 receptors regulate collateral inhibition between striatal medium spiny neurons. J Neurosci. 2013;33:14075–86.

Dobbs LK, Kaplan AR, Lemos JC, Matsui A, Rubinstein M, Alvarez VA. Dopamine regulation of lateral inhibition between striatal neurons gates the stimulant actions of cocaine. Neuron. 2016;90:1100–13.

Dobbs LK, Kaplan AR, Bock R, Phamluong K, Shin JH, Bocarsly ME, et al. D1 receptor hypersensitivity in mice with low striatal D2 receptors facilitates select cocaine behaviors. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44:805–16.

Tecuapetla F, Koós T, Tepper JM, Kabbani N, Yeckel MF. Differential dopaminergic modulation of neostriatal synaptic connections of striatopallidal axon collaterals. J Neurosci. 2009;29:8977–90.

Mulholland PJ, Chandler LJ, Kalivas PW. Signals from the fourth dimension regulate drug relapse. Trends Neurosci. 2016;39:472–85.

Smith AC, Kupchik YM, Scofield MD, Gipson CD, Wiggins A, Thomas CA, et al. Synaptic plasticity mediating cocaine relapse requires matrix metalloproteinases. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17:1655–7.

Moussawi K, Zhou W, Shen H, Reichel CM, See RE, Carr DB, et al. Reversing cocaine-induced synaptic potentiation provides enduring protection from relapse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:385–90.

Abulseoud OA, Camsari UM, Ruby CL, Kasasbeh A, Choi S, Choi DS. Attenuation of ethanol withdrawal by ceftriaxone-induced upregulation of glutamate transporter EAAT2. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014;39:1674–84.

Knackstedt LA, Melendez RI, Kalivas PW. Ceftriaxone restores glutamate homeostasis and prevents relapse to cocaine seeking. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67:81–84.

Huntley GW. Synaptic circuit remodelling by matrix metalloproteinases in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012;13:743–57.

Brown TE, Forquer MR, Harding JW, Wright JW, Sorg BA. Increase in matrix metalloproteinase-9 levels in the rat medial prefrontal cortex after cocaine reinstatement of conditioned place preference. Synapse. 2008;62:886–9.

Mizoguchi H, Yamada K, Mouri A, Niwa M, Mizuno T, Noda Y, et al. Role of matrix metalloproteinase and tissue inhibitor of MMP in methamphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization and reward: implications for dopamine receptor down-regulation and dopamine release. J Neurochem. 2007;102:1548–60.

Kroener S, Mulholland PJ, New NN, Gass JT, Becker HC, Chandler LJ. Chronic alcohol exposure alters behavioral and synaptic plasticity of the rodent prefrontal cortex. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e37541.

Nimitvilai S, Lopez MF, Mulholland PJ, Woodward JJ. Chronic intermittent ethanol exposure enhances the excitability and synaptic plasticity of lateral orbitofrontal cortex neurons and induces a tolerance to the acute inhibitory actions of ethanol. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41:1112–27.

Kasanetz F, Lafourcade M, Deroche-Gamonet V, Revest JM, Berson N, Balado E, et al. Prefrontal synaptic markers of cocaine addiction-like behavior in rats. Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18:729–37.

Meinhardt MW, Hansson AC, Perreau-Lenz S, Bauder-Wenz C, Stählin O, Heilig M, et al. Rescue of infralimbic mGluR2 deficit restores control over drug-seeking behavior in alcohol dependence. J Neurosci. 2013;33:2794–806.

Lu L, Uejima JL, Gray SM, Bossert JM, Shaham Y. Systemic and central amygdala injections of the mGluR2/3 agonist LY379268 attenuate the expression of incubation of cocaine craving. Biol Psychiatry. 2007;61:591–8.

Baptista MAS, Martin-Fardon R, Weiss F. Preferential effects of the metabotropic glutamate 2/3 receptor agonist LY379268 on conditioned reinstatement versus primary reinforcement: comparison between cocaine and a potent conventional reinforcer. J Neurosci. 2004;24:4723–7.

Peters J, Kalivas PW. The group II metabotropic glutamate receptor agonist, LY379268, inhibits both cocaine- and food-seeking behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology. 2006;186:143–9.

Caprioli D, Justinova Z, Venniro M, Shaham Y. Effect of novel allosteric modulators of metabotropic glutamate receptors on drug self-administration and relapse: a review of preclinical studies and their clinical implications. Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84:180–92.

Clark AM et al. Dopamine D2 receptors in the paraventricular thalamus attenuate cocaine locomotor sensitization. eNeuro. 2017;4:ENEURO.0227-17.2017.

Dong X, Li S, Kirouac GJ. Collateralization of projections from the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus to the nucleus accumbens, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and central nucleus of the amygdala. Brain Struct. Funct. 2017;222:3927–43.

Huang AS, Mitchell JA, Haber SN, Alia-Klein N & Goldstein RZ. The thalamus in drug addiction: from rodents to humans. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018;373:20170028.

Perez SM, Lodge DJ. Convergent inputs from the hippocampus and thalamus to the nucleus accumbens regulate dopamine neuron activity. J Neurosci. 2018;38:10607–18.

Kelley AE, Baldo BA, Pratt WE. A proposed hypothalamic–thalamic–striatal axis for the integration of energy balance, arousal, and food reward. J Comp Neurol. 2005;493:72–85.

Penzo MA & Gao C. The paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus: an integrative node underlying homeostatic behavior. Trends Neurosci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2021.03.001 .

De Groote A & de Kerchove d'Exaerde A. Thalamo-Nucleus Accumbens projections in motivated behaviors and addiction. Front Syst Neurosci. 2021;15:711350.

Zhu Y, Wienecke CFR, Nachtrab G, Chen X. A thalamic input to the nucleus accumbens mediates opiate dependence. Nature. 2016;530:219–22.

Chisholm A, Rizzo D, Fortin É, Moman V, Quteishat N, Romano A, et al. Assessing the role of corticothalamic and thalamo-accumbens projections in the augmentation of heroin seeking in chronically food-restricted rats. J Neurosci. 2021;41:354–65.

Otis JM, Zhu M, Namboodiri V, Cook CA, Kosyk O, Matan AM, et al. Paraventricular thalamus projection neurons integrate cortical and hypothalamic signals for cue-reward processing. Neuron. 2019;103:423–.e4.

Giros B, Jaber M, Jones SR, Wightman RM, Caron MG. Hyperlocomotion and indifference to cocaine and amphetamine in mice lacking the dopamine transporter. Nature. 1996;379:606–12.

Sora I, Hall FS, Andrews AM, Itokawa M, Li XF, Wei HB, et al. Molecular mechanisms of cocaine reward: combined dopamine and serotonin transporter knockouts eliminate cocaine place preference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:5300–5.

Yang H-J, Zhang HY, Bi GH, He Y, Gao JT, Xi ZX. Deletion of type 2 metabotropic glutamate receptor decreases sensitivity to cocaine reward in rats. Cell Rep. 2017;20:319–32.

Chiamulera C, Epping-Jordan MP, Zocchi A, Marcon C, Cottiny C, Tacconi S, et al. Reinforcing and locomotor stimulant effects of cocaine are absent in mGluR5 null mutant mice. Nat Neurosci. 2001;4:873–4.

De Backer J-F, et al. Deletion of Maged1 in mice abolishes locomotor and reinforcing effects of cocaine. EMBO Rep. 2018;19:e45089.

Karadurmus D, Rial D, De Backer JF, Communi D, de Kerchove d'Exaerde A, Schiffmann SN. GPRIN3 controls neuronal excitability, morphology, and striatal-dependent behaviors in the indirect pathway of the striatum. J. Neurosci. 2019;39:7513–28.

Renthal W, Kumar A, Xiao G, Wilkinson M, Covington HE, Maze I, et al. Genome-wide analysis of chromatin regulation by cocaine reveals a role for sirtuins. Neuron. 2009;62:335–48.

Ena SL, De Backer J-F, Schiffmann SN, de Kerchove d’Exaerde A. FACS array profiling identifies Ecto-5’ nucleotidase as a striatopallidal neuron-specific gene involved in striatal-dependent learning. J Neurosci. 2013;33:8794–809.

Iida, N & Kozasa, T. 29 - Identification and biochemical analysis of GRIN1 and GRIN2. In: Siderovski DP, editor. Methods in Enzymology. Academic Press; 2004;390:475–83.

Mototani Y, Okamura T, Goto M, Shimizu Y, Yanobu-Takanashi R, Ito A, et al. Role of G protein-regulated inducer of neurite outgrowth 3 (GRIN3) in β-arrestin 2-Akt signaling and dopaminergic behaviors. Pflügers Arch. 2018;470:937–47.

Ventura A, Meissner A, Dillon CP, McManus M, Sharp PA, Van Parijs L, et al. Cre-lox-regulated conditional RNA interference from transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:10380–5.

David Smith A, Paul Bolam J. The neural network of the basal ganglia as revealed by the study of synaptic connections of identified neurones. Trends Neurosci. 1990;13:259–65.

Robinson TE, Kolb B. Alterations in the morphology of dendrites and dendritic spines in the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex following repeated treatment with amphetamine or cocaine. Eur J Neurosci. 1999;11:1598–604.

Spencer S, Garcia-Keller C, Roberts-Wolfe D, Heinsbroek JA, Mulvaney M, Sorrell A, et al. Cocaine use reverses striatal plasticity produced during cocaine seeking. Biol Psychiatry. 2017;81:616–24.

MacAskill AF, Cassel JM, Carter AG. Cocaine exposure reorganizes cell type– and input-specific connectivity in the nucleus accumbens. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17:1198–207.

Dos Santos M, Cahill EN, Bo GD, Vanhoutte P, Caboche J, Giros B, et al. Cocaine increases dopaminergic connectivity in the nucleus accumbens. Brain Struct Funct. 2018;223:913–23.

Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat Genet. 2003;33:245–54.

Nestler EJ. Epigenetic mechanisms of drug addiction. Neuropharmacology. 2014;76:259–68.

Hamilton PJ, Nestler EJ. Epigenetics and addiction. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2019;59:128–36.

Handel AE, Ramagopalan SV. Is Lamarckian evolution relevant to medicine? BMC Med Genet. 2010;11:73.

Jablonka E & Lamb MJ. Epigenetic Inheritance And Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension. Oxford University Press; 1999.

Springer JT & Holley D. An Introduction To Zoology: Investigating The Animal World. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2013.

Vassoler FM, White SL, Schmidt HD, Sadri-Vakili G, Pierce RC. Epigenetic inheritance of a cocaine-resistance phenotype. Nat. Neurosci. 2013;16:42–47.

Goldberg LR, Gould TJ. Multigenerational and transgenerational effects of paternal exposure to drugs of abuse on behavioral and neural function. Eur J Neurosci. 2019;50:2453–66.

Sadri-Vakili G, Kumaresan V, Schmidt HD, Famous KR, Chawla P, Vassoler FM, et al. Cocaine-induced chromatin remodeling increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor transcription in the rat medial prefrontal cortex, which alters the reinforcing efficacy of cocaine. J Neurosci. 2010;30:11735–44.

Schmidt HD, Sangrey GR, Darnell SB, Schassburger RL, Cha JH, Pierce RC, et al. Increased brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) expression in the ventral tegmental area during cocaine abstinence is associated with increased histone acetylation at BDNF exon I-containing promoters. J Neurochem. 2012;120:202–9.

Gavin DP, et al. Stable histone methylation changes at proteoglycan network genes following ethanol exposure. Front Genet. 2018;9:346.

Sadakierska-Chudy A, Frankowska M, Jastrzębska J, Wydra K, Miszkiel J, Sanak M, et al. Cocaine administration and its withdrawal enhance the expression of genes encoding histone-modifying enzymes and histone acetylation in the rat prefrontal cortex. Neurotox Res. 2017;32:1–10.

Allis CD, Jenuwein T. The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17:487–500.

Wang L, Lv Z, Hu Z, Sheng J, Hui B, Sun J, et al. Chronic cocaine-induced H3 acetylation and transcriptional activation of CaMKIIα in the nucleus accumbens is critical for motivation for drug reinforcement. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:913–28.

Brami-Cherrier K. Parsing molecular and behavioral effects of cocaine in mitogen- and stress-activated protein kinase-1-deficient mice. J Neurosci. 2005;25:11444–54.

Barrett RM, Wood MA. Beyond transcription factors: the role of chromatin modifying enzymes in regulating transcription required for memory. Learn Mem. 2008;15:460–7.

Malvaez M, Mhillaj E, Matheos DP, Palmery M, Wood MA. CBP in the nucleus accumbens regulates cocaine-induced histone acetylation and is critical for cocaine-associated behaviors. J Neurosci. 2011;31:16941–8.

Tsankova NM, Berton O, Renthal W, Kumar A, Neve RL, Nestler EJ. Sustained hippocampal chromatin regulation in a mouse model of depression and antidepressant action. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9:519–25.

Kumar A, Choi KH, Renthal W, Tsankova NM, Theobald DE, Truong HT, et al. Chromatin remodeling is a key mechanism underlying cocaine-induced plasticity in striatum. Neuron. 2005;48:303–14.

Sun J, Wang L, Jiang B, Hui B, Lv Z, Ma L. The effects of sodium butyrate, an inhibitor of histone deacetylase, on the cocaine- and sucrose-maintained self-administration in rats. Neurosci Lett. 2008;441:72–76.

Romieu P, Host L, Gobaille S, Sandner G, Aunis D, Zwiller J. Histone deacetylase inhibitors decrease cocaine but not sucrose self-administration in rats. J. Neurosci. 2008;28:9342–8.

Levine AA, Guan Z, Barco A, Xu S, Kandel ER, Schwartz JH. CREB-binding protein controls response to cocaine by acetylating histones at the fosB promoter in the mouse striatum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:19186–91.

Kalda A, Heidmets L-T, Shen H-Y, Zharkovsky A, Chen J-F. Histone deacetylase inhibitors modulates the induction and expression of amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitization partially through an associated learning of the environment in mice. Behav. Brain Res. 2007;181:76–84.

Kennedy PJ, Feng J, Robison AJ, Maze I, Badimon A, Mouzon E, et al. Class I HDAC inhibition blocks cocaine-induced plasticity by targeted changes in histone methylation. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16:434–40.

LaPlant Q, Vialou V, Covington HE, Dumitriu D, Feng J, Warren BL, et al. Dnmt3a regulates emotional behavior and spine plasticity in the nucleus accumbens. Nat Neurosci. 2010;13:1137–43.

Massart R, Barnea R, Dikshtein Y, Suderman M, Meir O, Hallett M, et al. Role of DNA methylation in the nucleus accumbens in incubation of cocaine craving. J Neurosci. 2015;35:8042–58.

Bertran-Gonzalez J, Bosch C, Maroteaux M, Matamales M, Hervé D, Valjent E, et al. Opposing patterns of signaling activation in dopamine D1 and D2 receptor-expressing striatal neurons in response to cocaine and haloperidol. J Neurosci. 2008;28:5671–85.

Brami‐Cherrier K, Roze E, Girault J-A, Betuing S, Caboche J. Role of the ERK/MSK1 signalling pathway in chromatin remodelling and brain responses to drugs of abuse. J Neurochem. 2009;108:1323–35.

Scobie KN, Damez-Werno D, Sun H, Shao N, Gancarz A, Panganiban CH, et al. Essential role of poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation in cocaine action. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:2005–10.

Lepack AE, Werner CT, Stewart AF, Fulton SL, Zhong P, Farrelly LA, et al. Dopaminylation of histone H3 in ventral tegmental area regulates cocaine seeking. Science. 2020;368:197–201.

Sun H, Maze I, Dietz DM, Scobie KN, Kennedy PJ, Damez-Werno D, et al. Morphine epigenomically regulates behavior through alterations in histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylation in the nucleus accumbens. J Neurosci. 2012;32:17454–64.

Maze I, Feng J, Wilkinson MB, Sun H, Shen L, Nestler EJ. Cocaine dynamically regulates heterochromatin and repetitive element unsilencing in nucleus accumbens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:3035–40.

Liu XS, Wu H, Ji X, Stelzer Y, Wu X, Czauderna S, et al. Editing DNA methylation in the mammalian genome. Cell. 2016;167:233–247.e17.

Liao H-K, Hatanaka F, Araoka T, Reddy P, Wu MZ, Sui Y, et al. In vivo target gene activation via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated trans-epigenetic modulation. Cell. 2017;171:1495–1507.e15.

Heller EA, Cates HM, Peña CJ, Sun H, Shao N, Feng J, et al. Locus-specific epigenetic remodeling controls addiction- and depression-related behaviors. Nat. Neurosci. 2014;17:1720–7.

Heller EA, Hamilton PJ, Burek DD, Lombroso SI, Peña CJ, Neve RL, et al. Targeted epigenetic remodeling of the Cdk5 gene in nucleus accumbens regulates cocaine- and stress-evoked behavior. J Neurosci. 2016;36:4690–7.

Monsey MS, Ota KT, Akingbade IF, Hong ES, Schafe GE. Epigenetic alterations are critical for fear memory consolidation and synaptic plasticity in the lateral amygdala. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e19958.

Massart R, Freyburger M, Suderman M, Paquet J, El Helou J, Belanger-Nelson E, et al. The genome-wide landscape of DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation in response to sleep deprivation impacts on synaptic plasticity genes. Transl Psychiatry. 2014;4:e347–e347.

Kyzar EJ, Pandey SC. Molecular mechanisms of synaptic remodeling in alcoholism. Neurosci Lett. 2015;601:11–19.

Rogge GA, Wood MA. The role of histone acetylation in cocaine-induced neural plasticity and behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2013;38:94–110.

Kyzar EJ, Floreani C, Teppen TL & Pandey SC. Adolescent alcohol exposure: burden of epigenetic reprogramming, synaptic remodeling, and adult psychopathology. Front. Neurosci. 2016;10:222.

Maze I, Covington HE, Dietz DM, LaPlant Q, Renthal W, Russo SJ, et al. Essential role of the histone methyltransferase G9a in cocaine-induced plasticity. Science. 2010;327:213–6.

Robison AJ, Nestler EJ. Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:623–37.

Lobo MK, Zaman S, Damez-Werno DM, Koo JW, Bagot RC, DiNieri JA, et al. ΔFosB induction in striatal medium spiny neuron subtypes in response to chronic pharmacological, emotional, and optogenetic stimuli. J Neurosci. 2013;33:18381–95.

Huang YH, Lin Y, Brown TE, Han MH, Saal DB, Neve RL, et al. CREB modulates excitability of nucleus accumbens neurons. Nat Neurosci. 2006;9:475–7.

Murphy DD, Segal M. Morphological plasticity of dendritic spines in central neurons is mediated by activation of cAMP response element binding protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:1482–7.

Grueter BA, Robison AJ, Neve RL, Nestler EJ, Malenka RC. ∆FosB differentially modulates nucleus accumbens direct and indirect pathway function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:1923–8.

Smith ACW, Kenny PJ. MicroRNAs regulate synaptic plasticity underlying drug addiction. Genes Brain Behav. 2018;17:e12424.

Nudelman AS, DiRocco DP, Lambert TJ, Garelick MG, Le J, Nathanson NM, et al. Neuronal activity rapidly induces transcription of the CREB-regulated microRNA-132, in vivo. Hippocampus. 2010;20:492–8.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yasui DH, Peddada S, Bieda MC, Vallero RO, Hogart A, Nagarajan RP, et al. Integrated epigenomic analyses of neuronal MeCP2 reveal a role for long-range interaction with active genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:19416–21.

Chahrour M, Jung SY, Shaw C, Zhou X, Wong ST, Qin J, et al. MeCP2, a key contributor to neurological disease, activates and represses transcription. Science. 2008;320:1224–9.

De Crescenzo F, Ciabattini M, D'Alò GL, De Giorgi R, Del Giovane C, Cassar C, et al. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychosocial interventions for individuals with cocaine and amphetamine addiction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLOS Med. 2018;15:e1002715.

Phillips KA, Epstein DH, Preston KL. Psychostimulant addiction treatment. Neuropharmacology. 2014;87:150–60.

Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J & Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009;CD002209. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002209.pub2 .

Hartmann‐Boyce J, Chepkin SC, Ye W, Bullen C & Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy versus control for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub5 .

Tardelli VS, Bisaga A, Arcadepani FB, Gerra G, Levin FR, Fidalgo TM. Prescription psychostimulants for the treatment of stimulant use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology. 2020;237:2233–55.

Darke S & Farrell M. Which medications are suitable for agonist drug maintenance? Addiction. 2016;111:767–74.

Kosten TR, Domingo CB, Shorter D, Orson F, Green C, Somoza E, et al. Vaccine for cocaine dependence: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled efficacy trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;140:42–47.

Hossain MK, Hassanzadeganroudsari M, Nurgali K, Apostolopoulos V. Vaccine development against methamphetamine drug addiction. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2020;19:1105–14.

Dackis C, O’Brien C. Neurobiology of addiction: treatment and public policy ramifications. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1431–6.

Benabid AL, Pollak P, Gervason C, Hoffmann D, Gao DM, Hommel M, et al. Long-term suppression of tremor by chronic stimulation of the ventral intermediate thalamic nucleus. Lancet. 1991;337:403–6.

Bergman H, Wichmann T, DeLong MR. Reversal of experimental parkinsonism by lesions of the subthalamic nucleus. Science. 1990;249:1436–8.

Limousin P, Pollak P, Benazzouz A, Hoffmann D, Le Bas JF, Broussolle E, et al. Effect on parkinsonian signs and symptoms of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation. Lancet. 1995;345:91–95.

Johansen-Berg H, Gutman DA, Behrens TE, Matthews PM, Rushworth MF, Katz E, et al. Anatomical connectivity of the subgenual cingulate region targeted with deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Cereb Cortex. 2008;1991:1374–83.

Greenberg BD, Malone DA, Friehs GM, Rezai AR, Kubu CS, Malloy PF, et al. Three-year outcomes in deep brain stimulation for highly resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:2384–93.

Porta M, Brambilla A, Cavanna AE, Servello D, Sassi M, Rickards H, et al. Thalamic deep brain stimulation for treatment-refractory Tourette syndrome: two-year outcome. Neurology. 2009;73:1375–80.

Kuhn J, Lenartz D, Huff W, Lee S, Koulousakis A, Klosterkoetter J, et al. Remission of alcohol dependency following deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens: valuable therapeutic implications? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:1152–3.

Mantione M, van de Brink W, Schuurman PR, Denys D. Smoking cessation and weight loss after chronic deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens: therapeutic and research implications: case report. Neurosurgery. 2010;66:E218.

Levy D, Shabat-Simon M, Shalev U, Barnea-Ygael N, Cooper A, Zangen A. Repeated electrical stimulation of reward-related brain regions affects cocaine but not “natural” reinforcement. J Neurosci. 2007;27:14179–89.

Liu H-Y, Jin J, Tang JS, Sun WX, Jia H, Yang XP, et al. Chronic deep brain stimulation in the rat nucleus accumbens and its effect on morphine reinforcement. Addict Biol. 2008;13:40–46.

Vassoler FM, Schmidt HD, Gerard ME, Famous KR, Ciraulo DA, Kornetsky C, et al. Deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens shell attenuates cocaine priming-induced reinstatement of drug seeking in rats. J Neurosci. 2008;28:8735–9.

Batra V, Tran TL, Caputo J, Guerin GF, Goeders NE, Wilden J. Intermittent bilateral deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens shell reduces intravenous methamphetamine intake and seeking in Wistar rats. J Neurosurg. 2017;126:1339–50.

Heinze H-J, et al. Counteracting incentive sensitization in severe alcohol dependence using deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens: clinical and basic science aspects. Front Hum Neurosci. 2009;3:22.

Kuhn J, Gründler TO, Bauer R, Huff W, Fischer AG, Lenartz D, et al. Successful deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens in severe alcohol dependence is associated with changed performance monitoring. Addict Biol. 2011;16:620–3.

Kuhn J, Möller M, Treppmann JF, Bartsch C, Lenartz D, Gruendler TO, et al. Deep brain stimulation of the nucleus accumbens and its usefulness in severe opioid addiction. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19:145–6.

Valencia-Alfonso C-E, Luigjes J, Smolders R, Cohen MX, Levar N, Mazaheri A, et al. Effective deep brain stimulation in heroin addiction: a case report with complementary intracranial electroencephalogram. Biol Psychiatry. 2012;71:e35–37.

Voges J, Müller U, Bogerts B, Münte T, Heinze H-J. Deep brain stimulation surgery for alcohol addiction. World Neurosurg. 2013;80:S28.e21–31.

Wang TR, Moosa S, Dallapiazza RF, Elias WJ, Lynch WJ. Deep brain stimulation for the treatment of drug addiction. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;45:E11.

Sanna A, Fattore L, Badas P, Corona G, Diana M. The hypodopaminergic state ten years after: transcranial magnetic stimulation as a tool to test the dopamine hypothesis of drug addiction. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2021;56:61–67.

Verrico CD, Haile CN, Newton TF, Kosten TR, Garza RDL. Pharmacotherapeutics for substance-use disorders: a focus on dopaminergic medications. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2013;22:1549–68.

Amiaz R, Levy D, Vainiger D, Grunhaus L, Zangen A. Repeated high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces cigarette craving and consumption. Addiction. 2009;104:653–60.

Pettorruso M, Di Giuda D, Martinotti G, Cocciolillo F, De Risio L, Montemitro C, et al. Dopaminergic and clinical correlates of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in gambling addiction: a SPECT case study. Addict Behav. 2019;93:246–9.

Cho SS, Strafella AP. rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates dopamine release in the ipsilateral anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal cortex. PLoS ONE. 2009;4:e6725.

Strafella AP, Paus T, Fraraccio M, Dagher A. Striatal dopamine release induced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex. Brain. 2003;126:2609–15.

Ekhtiari H, Tavakoli H, Addolorato G, Baeken C, Bonci A, Campanella S, et al. Transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation (tES and TMS) for addiction medicine: a consensus paper on the present state of the science and the road ahead. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019;104:118–40.

Wu X-Q, Zan GY, Ju YY, Chen TZ, Guo LB, Jiao DL, et al. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation inhibits the development of methamphetamine-induced conditioned place preference. Behav Brain Res. 2018;353:129–36.

Dackis CA, Kampman KM, Lynch KG, Plebani JG, Pettinati HM, Sparkman T, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil for cocaine dependence. J Subst Abus Treat. 2012;43:303–12.

Shearer J, Darke S, Rodgers C, Slade T, van Beek I, Lewis J, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of modafinil (200 mg/day) for methamphetamine dependence. Addiction. 2009;104:224–33.

Chiamulera C, Piva A, Abraham WC. Glutamate receptors and metaplasticity in addiction. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2021;56:39–45.

Le Moal M, Koob GF. Drug addiction: pathways to the disease and pathophysiological perspectives. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2007;17:377–93.

Luigjes J, Segrave R, de Joode N, Figee M, Denys D. Efficacy of invasive and non-invasive brain modulation interventions for addiction. Neuropsychol Rev. 2019;29:116–38.

Jordi E, Heiman M, Marion-Poll L, Guermonprez P, Cheng SK, Nairn AC, Greengard P, Girault J-A. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . 2013;110:9511-16. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307116110 .

Wang H, Wang L, Erdjument-Bromage H, Vidal M, Tempst P, Jones RS, et al. Role of histone H2A ubiquitination in Polycomb silencing. Nature. 2004;431:873–8.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Michele Zoli, Romain Icick and Daniel Rial for helpful comments and corrections on the manuscript. Julian Cheron is supported by a fellowship of the FRS-FNRS (Belgium). Alban de Kerchove d´Exaerde is a Research Director of the FRS-FNRS. FRS-FNRS (Belgium). Fondation Simone et Pierre Clerdent, Fondation ULB, supported this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laboratory of Neurophysiology, ULB Neuroscience Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, B-1070, Belgium

Julian Cheron & Alban de Kerchove d’Exaerde

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JC and AKE wrote the paper and AKE supervised all the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alban de Kerchove d’Exaerde .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Cheron, J., Kerchove d’Exaerde, A.d. Drug addiction: from bench to bedside. Transl Psychiatry 11 , 424 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01542-0

Download citation

Received : 05 April 2021

Revised : 14 July 2021

Accepted : 23 July 2021

Published : 12 August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01542-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Snp-based and haplotype-based genome-wide association on drug dependence in han chinese.

• Yangyang Liu

BMC Genomics (2024)

Unraveling Relapse in Male Forensic Psychiatric Patients with Substance Use Disorders—The Impact of Social, Psychiatric, and Personality Factors Post Long-Term Remission

• Michael Fritz
• Felipe Montiel
• Judith Streb

International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2024)

USP7/Maged1-mediated H2A monoubiquitination in the paraventricular thalamus: an epigenetic mechanism involved in cocaine use disorder

• Julian Cheron
• Leonardo Beccari
• Alban de Kerchove d’Exaerde

Nature Communications (2023)

Methylation and expression quantitative trait locus rs6296 in the HTR1B gene is associated with susceptibility to opioid use disorder

• Jianbo Zhang

Psychopharmacology (2022)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Substance Use Disorders and Addiction: Mechanisms, Trends, and Treatment Implications

Information & authors, metrics & citations, view options, insights into mechanisms related to cocaine addiction using a novel imaging method for dopamine neurons, treatment implications of understanding brain function during early abstinence in patients with alcohol use disorder, relatively low amounts of alcohol intake during pregnancy are associated with subtle neurodevelopmental effects in preadolescent offspring, increased comorbidity between substance use and psychiatric disorders in sexual identity minorities, trends in nicotine use and dependence from 2001–2002 to 2012–2013, conclusions, information, published in.

• Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders
• Addiction Psychiatry
• Transgender (LGBT) Issues

Competing Interests

Export citations.

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu .

To download the citation to this article, select your reference manager software.

There are no citations for this item

View options

Login options.

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR ® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Share article link

Copying failed.

NEXT ARTICLE

Request username.

Can't sign in? Forgot your username? Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Create a new account

Change password, password changed successfully.

Your password has been changed

Reset password

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password.

Your Phone has been verified

As described within the American Psychiatric Association (APA)'s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use , this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences. Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.