Accordingly, there is no effect on what we call reference (procedural) memory measured in the radial maze soon after Δ9-THC and antagonist treatment (data not shown). In the 1-h post-delay period, statistically significant difference

was found among the combination of SAL with different doses of Δ9-THC [F(1, 16) = 11.34; p = 0.0039, ANOVA]. Animals treated with SAL followed by 100 μg Δ9-THC increased (p < 0.05 by Dunn's test) the mean www.selleckchem.com/products/rgfp966.html number of errors in the radial maze task when compared to SAL followed by VEH. We assert that this result was obtained in the absence of locomotor impairment because when choice latency (i.e., the time that animals spent in each arm) was considered, there was no significant difference among all combinations ( Table 1). To test if D1-like DA receptors contributed to the increase in errors made by Δ9-THC-treated rats, we pre-treated rats with the antagonist SCH (1 μg IC). No difference was observed between SCH and SAL pre-treatments

before VEH, suggesting SCH had no effect on baseline WM (Fig. 2, first two bars). Nevertheless, there was a significant interaction in the analysis of SCH administration prior to different doses of Δ9-THC [F(3, 48) = 7.11; p = 0.0005, ANOVA]. VE822 Animals treated with SCH followed by doses of 100 and 180 μg Δ9-THC significantly (p < 0.01, by Dunn's test) reduced the mean number of errors in the radial maze, thus preventing the impairing effect of Δ9-THC on WM. These results support the involvement of D1-like dopamine receptors in the disruptive effect on WM induced by ∆9-THC in the mPFC ( Fig. 2). In the 1-h post-delay period, statistically significant difference was found among the combination

of HCl with different doses of Δ9-THC [F(1, 18) = 16.02; p = 0.0008, ANOVA]. Animals treated with ∆9-THC at doses of 32 μg (p < 0.01, by Dunn's test) and 100 (p < 0.01, by Dunn's test) administered after 0.05 N HCl elicited more errors in radial maze performance compared to 0.05 N HCl followed by VEH. The time spent in each arm was also measured, and there was no significant difference among any of the combinations ( Table 2), suggesting that the decrease in performance was not associated with locomotor activity impairment. To test if Cell Penetrating Peptide D2-like dopamine receptors participate in the disruptive effect produced by ∆9-THC, the antagonist CZP was administered at a dose of 3.2 μg IC prior to both VEH and all doses of ∆9-THC. Compared to 0.05 N HCl (VEH treatment), CZP had no effect on baseline performance ( Fig. 3, first two bars). However, there was a significant interaction in the analysis of CZP administration prior to different doses of Δ9-THC [F(3, 54) = 8.09; p = 0.0002, ANOVA]. Animals treated with CZP followed by 32 (p < 0.01, by Dunn’s test) and 100 (p < 0.01, by Dunn’s test) μg ∆9-THC significantly prevented the impairing effect of Δ9-THC on spatial working memory.