Can the chronic administration of the combination of buprenorphine and naloxone block dopaminergic activity causing anti-reward and relapse potential?

Summary Document Research on RDS Anti-addiction Modeling: Annotated Bibliography

Annotated bibliography of genetic addiction risk severity (GARS) publications, pro-dopamine regulation in nutraceuticals (KB220 nutraceutical variants), and policy documents. Further research is required to encourage the field to consider "Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) Anti-addiction Modeling" which involves early risk identification by means of genetic assessment similar to GARS, followed by induction of dopamine homeostasis by means of genetically guided pro-dopamine regulation similar to KB220. These results suggest that genetically based treatments may be a missing piece in the treatment of substance use disorder (SUD).

Invited Expert Opinion- Bioinformatic and Limitation Directives to Help Adopt Genetic Addiction Risk Screening and Identify Preaddictive Reward Dysregulation: Required Analytic Evidence to Induce Dopamine Homeostatsis

Addiction, albeit some disbelievers like Mark Lewis [1], is a chronic, relapsing brain disease, resulting in unwanted loss of control over both substance and non- substance behavioral addictions leading to serious adverse consequences [2]. Addiction scientists and clinicians face an incredible challenge in combatting the current opioid and alcohol use disorder (AUD) pandemic throughout the world. Provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that from July 2021-2022, over 100,000 individuals living in the United States (US) died from a drug overdose, and 77,237 of those deaths were related to opioid use [3]. This number is expected to rise, and according to the US Surgeon General it is highly conceivable that by 2025 approximately 165,000 Americans will die from an opioid overdose. Alcohol abuse, according to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), results in 3 million deaths worldwide every year, which represents 5.3% of all deaths globally [4].

Shared Mechanisms of GABAergic and Opioidergic Transmission Regulate Corticolimbic Reward Systems and Cognitive Aspects of Motivational Behaviors

The functional interplay between the corticolimbic GABAergic and opioidergic systems plays a crucial role in regulating the reward system and cognitive aspects of motivational behaviors leading to the development of addictive behaviors and disorders. This review provides a summary of the shared mechanisms of GABAergic and opioidergic transmission, which modulate the activity of dopaminergic neurons located in the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the central hub of the reward mechanisms. This review comprehensively covers the neuroanatomical and neurobiological aspects of corticolimbic inhibitory neurons that express opioid receptors, which act as modulators of corticolimbic GABAergic transmission. The presence of opioid and GABA receptors on the same neurons allows for the modulation of the activity of dopaminergic neurons in the ventral tegmental area, which plays a key role in the reward mechanisms of the brain. This colocalization of receptors and their immunochemical markers can provide a comprehensive understanding for clinicians and researchers, revealing the neuronal circuits that contribute to the reward system. Moreover, this review highlights the importance of GABAergic transmission-induced neuroplasticity under the modulation of opioid receptors. It discusses their interactive role in reinforcement learning, network oscillation, aversive behaviors, and local feedback or feedforward inhibitions in reward mechanisms. Understanding the shared mechanisms of these systems may lead to the development of new therapeutic approaches for addiction, reward-related disorders, and drug-induced cognitive impairment.

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Rural United States: A Critical Review of the Literature, 2004-2021

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic continues to be problematic in the United States (US). Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are a commonly used evidence-based approach to treating affected individuals, but little is known about its use in the rural US. We reviewed published literature and summarized access, barriers, and approaches to MOUD delivery in rural areas.

METHODS

We conducted a search using databases in EBSCOhost, such as Academic Search Complete, Medline, and APA PsycArticles, using a priori aims. Articles published after 2004 were included if they were cross-sectional, analyzed secondary data, collected quantitative or qualitative primary data, were longitudinal or reported intervention results. Studies were excluded if they were conducted outside the US or did not present data.

RESULTS

A total of 13 articles met all criteria. Themes from the articles included increase in rural areas with waivered physicians able to prescribe buprenorphine, barriers to physician prescribing, waivered physicians choosing not to prescribe, and inability to assess quality of MOUD practices in rural US settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional studies of MOUD delivery in rural areas are needed to help explicate themes found in this review. Having a stronger understanding of prescribers operating practices and program roll-out in rural areas may help address some identified barriers and deliver a stronger quality treatment practice for individuals with substance-use disorder.

DNA Directed Pro-Dopamine Regulation Coupling Subluxation Repair, H-Wave® and Other Neurobiologically Based Modalities to Address Complexities of Chronic Pain in a Female Diagnosed with Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS): Emergence of Induction of “Dopamine Homeostasis” in the Face of the Opioid Crisis

Addiction is a complex multifactorial condition. Established genetic factors can provide clear guidance in assessing the risk of addiction to substances and behaviors. Chronic stress can accumulate, forming difficult to recognize addiction patterns from both genetic and epigenetic (environmental) factors. Furthermore, psychological/physical/chemical stressors are typically categorized linearly, delaying identification and treatment. The patient in this case report is a Caucasian female, aged 36, who presented with chronic pain and partial disability following a surgically repaired trimalleolar fracture. The patient had a history of unresolved attention deficit disorder and an MRI scan of her brain revealed atrophy and functional asymmetry. In 2018, the patient entered the Bajaj Chiropractic Clinic, where initial treatment focused on re-establishing integrity of the spine and lower extremity biomechanics and graduated into cognitive behavior stabilization assisted by DNA pro-dopamine regulation guided by Genetic Addiction Risk Severity testing. During treatment (2018–2021), progress achieved included: improved cognitive clarity, focus, sleep, anxiety, and emotional stability in addition to pain reduction (75%); elimination of powerful analgesics; and reduced intake of previously unaddressed alcoholism. To help reduce hedonic addictive behaviors and pain, coupling of H-Wave with corrective chiropractic care seems prudent. We emphasize the importance of genetic assessment along with attempts at inducing required dopaminergic homeostasis via precision KB220PAM. It is hypothesized that from preventive care models, a new standard is emerging including self-awareness and accountability for reward deficiency as a function of hypodopaminergia. This case study documents the progression of a patient dealing with the complexities of an injury, pain management, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, and the application of universal health principles towards correction versus palliative care.

Low-dose polypharmacology targeting dopamine D1 and D3 receptors reduces cue-induced relapse to heroin seeking in rats

Chemical compounds that target dopamine (DA) D1 or D3 receptors have shown promise as potential interventions in animal models of cue-induced relapse. However, undesirable side effects or pharmacodynamic profiles have limited the advancement of new compounds in preclinical studies when administered as independent treatments. In this series of experiments, we explored the effects of coadministration of a D1-receptor partial agonist (SKF 77434) and a D3-receptor antagonist (NGB 2904) in heroin-seeking rats within a "conflict" model of abstinence and cue-induced relapse. Rats were first trained to press a lever to self-administer heroin, and drug delivery was paired contingently with cues (e.g., light and pump noise). Self-initiated abstinence was facilitated by applying electrical current to the flooring in front of the levers. Lastly, a relapse response was provoked by noncontingent presentation of conditioned cues. Prior to provocation, rats received a systemic injection of SKF 77434, NGB 2904, or a combination of both compounds to assess treatment effects on lever pressing. Results indicated that the coadministration of low (i.e., independently ineffective) doses of both compounds was more effective in reducing cue-induced relapse to heroin seeking than either compound alone, with some evidence of drug synergism. Follow-up studies indicated that this reduction was not due to motoric impairment nor enhanced sensitivity to the electrified flooring and that this treatment did not significantly affect motivation for food. Implications for the treatment of opiate use disorder and recommendations for further research are discussed.

A comparison of 2013 and 2017 baseline characteristics among treatment-seeking patients who used opioids with co-occurring disorders

The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis that has captured the attention of the media and political leaders, but how much do we know about its implications for substance use disorder treatment providers? This study is the first to investigate the differing baseline characteristics among patients with co-occurring disorders who used opioids and entered residential treatment in 2013 and 2017. Our sample consisted of 1413 unique adults who reported using opioids upon admission to integrated residential treatment for co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders during 2013 (n = 718) and 2017 (n = 695). Opioid use was defined as self-reported use of heroin or illicit use of prescription opioids, including methadone, during the month prior to admission into the treatment program. All study participants completed an admission interview that included the Addiction Severity Index (ASI). The 2017 cohort demonstrated higher severity than the 2013 cohort on the employment, psychiatric, and alcohol and drug ASI composite scores. A comparison of days per month that the cohorts used various substances also reveals this trend, with the following comparisons listing the 2017 cohort data first, and the 2013 cohort data second: (1) alcohol (8.6 days vs. 7.0 days); (2) cocaine (4.1 days vs. 2.2 days); (3) amphetamines (6.2 days vs. 3.6 days); and (4) polysubstance use in one day (16.6 days vs. 11.6 days). The 2017 cohort was also intoxicated from alcohol more days per month (7.2 days vs. 5.1 days). However, the 2017 cohort reported fewer days using prescription opioids (9.9 days vs. 12.4 days). A higher proportion of the 2017 cohort reported (1) depression (74% vs. 68%); (2) anxiety (88% vs. 84%); (3) hallucinations (14% vs 8%); and (4) and suicidal ideation (22% vs. 17%).

A Systematic, Intensive Statistical Investigation of Data from the Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Drugs (CARD) for Compliance and Illicit Opioid Abstinence in Substance Addiction Treatment with Buprenorphine/naloxone

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine and naloxone (bup/nal), a combination partial mu receptor agonist and low-dose delta mu antagonist, is presently recommended and used to treat opioid-use disorder. However, a literature review revealed a paucity of research involving data from urine drug tests that looked at compliance and abstinence in one sample.

METHOD

Statistical analysis of data from the Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Drugs (CARD) was used to assess compliance and abstinence during treatment in a large cohort of bup/nal patients attending chemical-dependency programs from eastern USA in 2010 and 2011.

RESULTS

Part 1: Bup/nal was present in 93.4% of first (n = 1,282; p <.0001) and 92.4% of last (n = 1,268; p <.0001) urine samples. Concomitantly, unreported illicit drugs were present in 47.7% (n = 655, p =.0261) of samples. Patients who were compliant to the bup/nal prescription were more likely than noncompliant patients to be abstinent during treatment (p =.0012; odds ratio = 1.69 with 95% confidence interval (1.210, 2.354). Part 2: An analysis of all samples collected in 2011 revealed a significant improvement in both compliance (p < 2.2 × 10^-16) and abstinence (p < 2.2 × 10^-16) during treatment. Conclusion/Importance: While significant use of illicit opioids during treatment with bup/nal is present, improvements in abstinence and high compliance during maintenance-assisted therapy programs may ameliorate fears of diversion in comprehensive programs. Expanded clinical datasets, the treatment modality, location, and year of sampling are important covariates, for further studies. The potential for long-term antireward effects from bup/nal use requires consideration in future investigations.

"Dopamine homeostasis" requires balanced polypharmacy: Issue with destructive, powerful dopamine agents to combat America's drug epidemic

The well-researched pro-dopamine regulator KB220 and variants result in increased functional connectivity in both animal and human brains, and prolonged neuroplasticity (brain cell repair) having been observed in rodents. Moreover, in addition to increased functional connectivity, recent studies show that KB220Z increases overall brain connectivity volume, enhances neuronal dopamine firing, and eliminates lucid dreams in humans over a prolonged period. An unprecedented number of clinical studies validating this patented nutrigenomic technology in re-balancing brain chemistry and optimizing dopamine sensitivity and function have been published. On another note, it is sad that unsuspecting consumers could be deceived and endangered by false promises of knock-off marketers with look- and- sound-alike products. Products containing ingredients having potential dangers (i.e., combinations of potent D2 agonists including L-Dopa and L-Theanine) threaten the credibility and reputation of validated, authentic, and ethical products. We encourage clinicians and neuroscientists to continue to embrace the concept of “dopamine homeostasis” and search for safe, effective, validated and authentic means to achieve a lifetime of recovery, instead of reverting to anti-dopaminergic agents doomed to fail in the war against the devastating drug epidemic, or promoting powerful D2 agonists that compromise needed balance.

Hypothesizing That Neuropharmacological and Neuroimaging Studies of Glutaminergic-Dopaminergic Optimization Complex (KB220Z) Are Associated With "Dopamine Homeostasis" in Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS)

BACKGROUND

There is need for better treatments of addictive behaviors, both substance and non-substance related, termed Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS). While the FDA has approved pharmaceuticals under the umbrella term Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT), these drugs are not optimal.

OBJECTIVES

It is our contention that these drugs work well in the short-term by blocking dopamine function leading to psychological extinction. However, use of buprenorphine/Naloxone over a long period of time results in unwanted addiction liability, reduced emotional affect, and mood changes including suicidal ideation.

METHODS

We are thus proposing a paradigm shift in addiction treatment, with the long-term goal of achieving "Dopamine Homeostasis." While this may be a laudable goal, it is very difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, this commentary briefly reviews past history of developing and subsequently, utilizing a glutaminergic-dopaminergic optimization complex [Kb220Z] shown to be beneficial in at least 20 human clinical trials and in a number of published and unpublished studies.

RESULTS

It is our opinion that, while additional required studies could confirm these findings to date, the cited studies are indicative of achieving enhanced resting state functional connectivity, connectivity volume, and possibly, neuroplasticity. Conclusions/Importance: We are proposing a Reward Deficiency Solution System (RDSS) that includes: Genetic Addiction Risk Score (GARS); Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Drugs (CARD); and a glutaminergic-dopaminergic optimization complex (Kb220Z). Continued investigation of this novel strategy may lead to a better-targeted approach in the long-term, causing dopamine regulation by balancing the glutaminergic-dopaminergic pathways. This may potentially change the landscape of treating all addictions leading us to the promised land.

Pro-Dopamine Regulator - (KB220) to Balance Brain Reward Circuitry in Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS)

We are faced with a worldwide opiate/opioid epidemic that is devastating. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at least 127 people, young and old, are dying every day in America due to narcotic overdose. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Medication-Assisted Treatments (MATs) for opiate/opioids as well as alcohol and nicotine. The mechanism of action of most MATS favors either blocking of dopaminergic function or a form of Opiate Substitution Therapy (OST). These treatment options are adequate for short-term treatment of the symptoms of addiction and harm reduction but fail long-term to deal with the cause or lead to recovery. There is a need to continue to seek better treatment options. This mini-review is the history of the development of one such treatment; a glutaminergic-dopaminergic optimization complex called KB220. Growing evidence indicates that brain reward circuitry controls drug addiction, in conjunction with "anti-reward systems" as the "anti-reward systems" can be affected by both glutaminergic and dopaminergic transmission. KB220 may likely alter the function of these regions and provide for the possible eventual balancing the brain reward system and the induction of "dopamine homeostasis." Many of these concepts have been reported elsewhere and have become an integral part of the addiction science literature. However, the concise review may encourage readership to reconsider these facts and stimulate further research focused on the impact that the induction of "dopamine homeostasis" may have on recovery and relapse prevention.

A Comparison of Opioid and Nonopioid Substance Users in Residential Treatment for Co-Occurring Substance Use and Mental Disorders

The past decade has seen a marked increase in the illicit use of opioids, as well as a doubling of the percentage of individuals seeking treatment for opioid use disorders. However, little is known about the differences between opioid users and nonopioid users in residential treatment. Further, no studies have been published that compare opioid users and nonopioid users in treatment for co-occurring substance use and mental disorders. To address this gap, this study examined differences between opioid and nonopioid substance users in residential treatment for co-occurring disorders. Data was drawn from 1,972 individuals treated between 2009 and 2011 at one of three private residential treatment centers that provide integrated treatment for co-occurring substance use and mental disorders. Data was collected at program intake, and 1- and 6-month postdischarge using the Addiction Severity Index and the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment. To examine within-group changes in substance use, addiction severity, and mental health across time, linear mixed-model analyses were conducted with facility, year, age, gender, and race included as covariates. The authors found more similarities than differences between the two groups on baseline characteristics, treatment motivation, length of stay, and outcomes on measures of substance use, addiction severity, and mental health. The results demonstrate that though opioid users entered treatment with higher levels of substance use-related impairment, they were just as successful in treatment outcomes as their non-opioid-using peers.

Should the United States Government Repeal Restrictions on Buprenorphine/Naloxone Treatment?

Attention must be focused on needed changes to the current United States law that restricts physicians who prescribe buprenorphine for the detoxification or treatment of Opioid Use Disorder, to accepting no more than 100 patients. The current system does not provide comprehensive treatment as defined by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria. In addition, it suffers from both fragmentation and stigma and will require a significant change to comply with ASAM's call for integrated delivery of comprehensive addiction treatment. This commentary calls for the development and implementation of "best practice," by recommending caution in lifting the 100 patient limit until substantial achievement of this goal occurs. The authors call for an increase to 200 in the patient limit to be restricted to those physicians who are Board Certified in Addiction Medicine by the American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM) or in Addiction Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN), or other responsible medical organizations. Any additional restriction lifting should follow a systemic evolution that rewards and documents competency. Such a system would involve the integration of treatment, treatment systems, and recovery with prescription medication. In addition, it should monitor emotional blunting, treatment progress and initiation of genetic addiction risk testing.

Hypothesizing that a Pro-Dopaminergic Regulator (KB220z™ Liquid Variant) can Induce "Dopamine Homeostasis" and Provide Adjunctive Detoxification Benefits in Opiate/Opioid Dependence

In order to explore the initiation of detoxification of addictive patients to opiates/opioids (along with some other anti-withdrawal agents), we developed a protocol to be utilized in treatment centers particularly with heavily dependent opiate/opioid subjects. Out of 17 subjects, only three received Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Bup/nx) along with KB220Z. In this pilot, we first used a dose of KB220Z of 2 oz twice daily before meals along with clonidine and benzodiazepines and other anti-nausea and sleep aids including Gabapentin. The dose of KB220Z was maintained for 6 days in five individuals. In a second scenario, we utilized a higher dose of 4 oz every 6 hours, over a 6-day period. The higher dose was employed in another 12 patients. It is noteworthy that only 3 people have relapsed utilizing these two protocols during the first two weeks of the study, allowing for the remaining 82% to be maintained on KB220Z. The patients have been maintained without any additional Bup/nx for a minimum of 120 days and in one subject, 214 days. We are in the process of testing this hypothesis in multiple treatment centers across the United Sates utilizing data from the Clinical opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) pre and post KB220Z. We are in the process of testing this hypothesis in multiple treatment centers across the United Sates. While this does not constitute an acceptable controlled experiment, it does provide some preliminary evidence that agrees with an earlier study. Moreover, because of the utilization of standard detoxifying agents in this detoxification protocol, we cannot make any inference to KB220Z's effects. However, out of 17 subjects, only three required Bup/nx suggesting an interesting finding. If further confirmed in larger studies, the utilization for opiate/opioid detoxification may provide a novel way to eliminate the need for addictive opioids during withdrawal and detoxification. This paradigm shift may translate to a reduction in utilizing powerful and addictive opioids like buprenorphine and methadone (especially in these patients at high genetic risk for addiction) as not only detoxifying agents, but also maintenance drugs. While extensive research is required, this pilot paves the way for future investigations that could assist in the reduction of addictive opiate/opioid use and mortalities amongst both the young and old in America.

Association between gene variants and response to buprenorphine maintenance treatment

A variety of studies were addressed to differentiate responders and non-responders to substitution treatment among heroin dependent patients, without conclusive findings. In particular, preliminary pharmacogenetic findings have been reported to predict treatment effectiveness in mental health and substance use disorders. Aim of the present study was to investigate the possible association of buprenorphine (BUP) treatment outcome with gene variants that may affect kappa-opioid receptors and dopamine system function. One hundred and seven heroin addicts (West European, Caucasians) who underwent buprenorphine maintenance treatment were genotyped and classified into two groups (A and B) on the basis of treatment outcome. Non-responders to buprenorphine (group B) have been identified taking into account early drop out, continuous use of heroin, severe behavioral or psychiatric problems, misbehavior and diversion during the 6 months treatment period. No difference was evidenced between responders and non-responders to BUP in the frequency of kappa opioid receptor (OPRK1) 36G>T SNP. The frequency of dopamine transporter (DAT) gene polymorphism (SLC6A3/DAT1), allele 10, was evidently much higher in "non-responder" than in "responder" individuals (64.9% vs. 55.93%) whereas the frequency of the category of other alleles (6, 7 and 11) was higher in responder than in non-responder individuals (11.02% vs. 2.13% respectively). On one hand, the hypothesis that possible gene-related changes in kappa-opioid receptor could consistently affect buprenorphine pharmacological action and clinical effectiveness was not confirmed in our study, at least in relation to the single nucleotide polymorphism 36G>T. On the other hand, the possibility that gene-related dopamine changes could have reduced BUP effectiveness and impaired maintenance treatment outcome was cautiously supported by our findings. DAT1 gene variants such as allele 10, previously reported in association with personality and behavioral problems, would have influenced the effects of BUP-induced dopamine release, modulated through mu and kappa opioid receptors, and probably the related reinforcing capacity of the drug.

Buprenorphine Response as a Function of Neurogenetic Polymorphic Antecedents: Can Dopamine Genes Affect Clinical Outcomes in Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS)?

There is a plethora of research indicating the successful treatment of opioid dependence with either buprenorphine alone or in combination with naloxone (Suboxone®). However, we encourage caution in long-term maintenance with these drugs, albeit, lack of any other FDA approved opioid maintenance compound to date. Our concern has been supported by severe withdrawal (even with tapering of the dosage of for example Suboxone® which is 40 times more potent than morphine) from low dose of buprenorphine (alone or with naloxone). In addition our findings of a long-term flat affect in chronic Suboxone® patients amongst other unwanted side effects including diversion and suicide attempts provides impetus to reconsider long-term utilization. However, it seems prudent to embrace genetic testing to reveal reward circuitry gene polymorphisms especially those related to dopaminergic pathways as well as opioid receptor(s) as a way of improving treatment outcomes. Understanding the interaction of reward circuitry involvement in buprenorphine effects and respective genotypes provide a novel framework to augment a patient's clinical experience and benefits during opioid replacement therapy.

Long term Suboxone™ emotional reactivity as measured by automatic detection in speech

Addictions to illicit drugs are among the nation's most critical public health and societal problems. The current opioid prescription epidemic and the need for buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone®; SUBX) as an opioid maintenance substance, and its growing street diversion provided impetus to determine affective states ("true ground emotionality") in long-term SUBX patients. Toward the goal of effective monitoring, we utilized emotion-detection in speech as a measure of "true" emotionality in 36 SUBX patients compared to 44 individuals from the general population (GP) and 33 members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Other less objective studies have investigated emotional reactivity of heroin, methadone and opioid abstinent patients. These studies indicate that current opioid users have abnormal emotional experience, characterized by heightened response to unpleasant stimuli and blunted response to pleasant stimuli. However, this is the first study to our knowledge to evaluate "true ground" emotionality in long-term buprenorphine/naloxone combination (Suboxone™). We found in long-term SUBX patients a significantly flat affect (p<0.01), and they had less self-awareness of being happy, sad, and anxious compared to both the GP and AA groups. We caution definitive interpretation of these seemingly important results until we compare the emotional reactivity of an opioid abstinent control using automatic detection in speech. These findings encourage continued research strategies in SUBX patients to target the specific brain regions responsible for relapse prevention of opioid addiction.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2011

This paper is the thirty-fourth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2011 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurologic disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).