Chlorpromazine as a discriminative stimulus in rats: Generalization to typical and atypical antipsychotics

The discriminative stimulus properties of the typical antipsychotic chlorpromazine were examined in a two‐lever drug discrimination procedure for food reward. Six of nine rats readily acquired the discrimination between 1.0 mg/kg chlorpromazine (i.p.) and vehicle in a mean of 29.7 training sessions. The chlorpromazine generalization curve was dose‐dependent and yielded an ED₅₀ of 0.305 mg/kg (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.201–0.463 mg/kg). The chlorpromazine cue generalized to the atypical antipsychotics clozapine (ED₅₀ for the clozapine curve was 0.258 mg/kg [95% CI = 0.047–1.420 mg/kg]) and olanzapine (ED₅₀ for the olanzapine curve was 0.199 mg/kg [95% CI = 0.076–0.522 mg/kg]) and to the typical antipsychotic thioridazine (ED₅₀ for the thioridazine curve was 3.103 mg/kg [95% CI = 1.993–4.832 mg/kg]). Haloperidol (a typical antipsychotic) and raclopride (an atypical antipsychotic) did not substitute for chlorpromazine. It is clear from the present results that the discriminative stimulus properties of chlorpromazine share similarities both with the atypical antipsychotics clozapine and olanzapine and with the typical antipsychotic thioridazine. The extent to which the discriminative stimulus properties of antipsychotic drugs reflect or are predictive of their therapeutic effects in schizophrenic patients remains unclear. Drug Dev. Res. 48:38–44, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Discriminative-stimulus effects of clozapine in squirrel monkeys: comparison with conventional and novel antipsychotic drugs

 The effects of conventional and novel atypical antipsychotic drugs were compared to clozapine in squirrel monkeys that discriminated IM injections of clozapine (1.0 mg/kg) from saline in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure. Clozapine (0.03–3.0 mg/kg) produced dose-related increases in responding on the clozapine-associated lever with full substitution at the training dose in all monkeys. Dose-related increases in responding on the clozapine-associated lever and full substitution also were observed with structural analogues of clozapine including perlapine and fluperlapine (0.1–3.0 mg/kg), seroquel (0.1–5.6 mg/kg), and JL 5, JL 8 and JL 18 (0.1–3.0 mg/kg). Other clozapine analogues, including olanzapine, amoxapine, loxapine and clothiapine, and conventional antipsychotic drugs, including phenothiazines such as chlorpromazine and thioridazine, produced some clozapine-associated responding up to the highest doses that could be studied, but did not substitute for clozapine. Olanzapine did produce full clozapine-lever responding following pretreatment with the dopamine D₂-receptor agonist (+)-PHNO (0.003–0.01 mg/kg). Putatively atypical antipsychotics that are structurally unrelated to clozapine including risperidone (0.003–0.1 mg/kg), sertindole (0.03–1.0 mg/kg) and remoxipride (0.1–5.6 mg/kg) similarly failed to substitute for clozapine up to the highest doses. The present results indicate that some, but not all, structural analogs of clozapine have clozapine-like discriminative-stimulus effects and that novel antipsychotic drugs which purportedly have clozapine-like clinical efficacy may not produce its interoceptive stimulus effects. Received: 2 November 1996 / Final version: 13 January 1997     

Serotonin receptor mechanisms mediate the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in C57BL/6 mice

Rationale The atypical antipsychotic drug (APD) clozapine (CLZ) has been shown to have a robust discriminative cue in rats, pigeons, and monkeys in two-choice drug discrimination procedures.Objectives The present study determined whether a two-choice drug discrimination procedure with CLZ could be established in C57BL/6 mice and whether this procedure could distinguish between atypical and typical APDs.Methods C57BL/6 male mice were trained to discriminate 2.5 mg/kg CLZ from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure.Results Generalization testing with CLZ produced full substitution at the 2.5- and 5.0-mg/kg doses with an ED₅₀ of 1.14 mg/kg. The atypical APDs olanzapine (ED₅₀=0.24 mg/kg), risperidone (ED₅₀=0.072 mg/kg), and ziprasidone (ED₅₀=0.33 mg/kg) fully substituted for CLZs discriminative cue, while the typical APD haloperidol failed to substitute for CLZ. Generalization testing with selective ligands showed that the serotonin (5-HT)_2A/2B/2C antagonist ritanserin fully substituted for CLZ (ED₅₀=2.08 mg/kg) and that the 5-HT receptor agonist quipazine significantly attenuated CLZs discriminative cue without disrupting response rates. The muscarinic receptor antagonist scopolamine, the dopamine agonist amphetamine, and the 5-HT agonist quipazine failed to substitute for CLZ.Conclusions These results demonstrated that antagonism of 5-HT receptors plays an important role in mediating the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical APD CLZ in C57BL/6 mice. The atypical APDs olanzapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone fully substituted for CLZ, while the typical APD haloperidol did not. These results suggest that CLZ drug discrimination in C57BL/6 mice may be an effective preclinical behavioral assay for screening atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs.     

Role of D1 and D2 dopamine receptors in the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in rats

The purpose of the present study was to assess the role of dopamine D₁ and D₂ receptors in the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine (CLZ). Two groups of rats were trained to discriminate either a moderate dose of clozapine (5.0 mg/kg) from vehicle or a high dose of clozapine (10.0 mg/kg) from vehicle in a two‐lever drug discrimination paradigm. Generalization testing with clozapine yielded an ED₅₀ of 0.9 mg/kg (95% confidence limits = 0.5–2.0 mg/kg) for the 5.0 CLZ group and 2.0 mg/kg (95% confidence limits = 1.4–2.8 mg/kg) for the 10.0 CLZ group. Substitution testing with the D₁ antagonist SCH 23390 and the D₂ dopamine antagonist haloperidol failed to produce clozapine‐appropriate responding for either of the clozapine training doses. The antipsychotic drug thioridazine (which binds to a number of neurotransmitters in addition to dopamine) produced partial substitution (64.5% drug lever responding) in the 5.0 CLZ group at the 5.0 mg/kg dose. These results suggest that antagonism of D₁ and D₂ dopamine receptors alone is not sufficient to produce clozapine‐appropriate responding, even with the higher training dose of 10.0 mg/kg. Drug Dev. Res. 46:139–147, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine and the typical antipsychotic chlorpromazine in a three-choice drug discrimination procedure in rats

Rationale The atypical antipsychotic drug (APD) clozapine elicits a robust discriminative cue that is generally selective for other atypical APDS in two-choice drug discrimination (DD) procedures.Objectives The present study determined whether a three-choice DD procedure with the atypical APD clozapine (CLZ) versus the typical APD chlorpromazine (CPZ) versus vehicle (VEH) could provide greater selectivity between atypical and typical APDs.Methods Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate 5.0 mg/kg CLZ from 1.0 mg/kg CPZ from VEH in a three-lever DD task with an FR30 food reinforcement schedule.Results Generalization testing with CLZ produced CPZ-appropriate responding at lower doses (ED₅₀=0.103 mg/kg) and CLZ-appropriate responding at higher doses (ED₅₀=1.69 mg/kg). Generalization testing with the atypical APD olanzapine produced similar results. In contrast, the atypical APD risperidone and the typical APDs CPZ and haloperidol produced only CPZ-appropriate responding. The muscarinic antagonist scopolamine produced CPZ-appropriate responding at lower doses and CLZ-appropriate responding at higher doses in a manner similar to CLZ and olanzapine. The co-administration of haloperidol (0.00625 mg/kg) with scopolamine shifted the dose–response curve for CLZ-appropriate responding to the left. The 5-HT_2A/2C antagonist ritanserin and the H₁ histamine antagonist pyrilamine did not substitute for either CLZ or CPZ. The ₁ adrenergic antagonist prazosin did not substitute for CLZ, but produced full substitution for CPZ.Conclusions The three-choice DD procedure clearly distinguished the atypical APDs CLZ and olanzapine from the typical APDs CPZ and haloperidol; however, the stimulus properties of the atypical APD risperidone were similar to CPZ, but not to CLZ. These findings further suggest that CLZ, as well as CPZ, elicits a compound cue.     

Clozapine discrimination with a low training dose distinguishes atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs in rats

Rationale: Previous drug discrimination studies with clozapine have not reliably distinguished between atypical and typical antipsychotics. Objectives: The present study was conducted to determine whether low-dose clozapine drug discrimination could distinguish atypical from typical antipsychotics. Methods: Rats were trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg clozapine from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure. Results: Generalization testing revealed full substitution with the atypical antipsychotics olanzapine (90.3% maximum generalization), sertindole (99.8%), and risperidone (87.1%) and partial substitution for quetiapine (seroquel, 66.4%) and the typical antipsychotics haloperidol (56.8%) and thioridazine (74.3%). Remoxipride (23.1%) and the typical antipsychotics chlorpromazine (27.9%) and fluphenazine (29.5%) did not reliably substitute for clozapine. Conclusions: In contrast to previous clozapine drug discrimination studies with higher training doses, the atypical antipsychotics olanzapine, sertindole, and risperidone reliably substituted for clozapine while typical antipsychotics did not. These results suggest that low-dose clozapine drug discrimination may be a more sensitive assay for distinguishing atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs. Received: 3 August 1999 / Final version: 9 December 1999     

The discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine in rats

Rationale: Analysis of the preclinical behavioral effects of atypical antipsychotic agents will provide a better understanding of how they differ from typical antipsychotics and aid in the development of future atypical antipsychotic drugs. Objectives: The present study was designed to provide information about the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. Methods: Rats were trained to discriminate the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine (either 0.5 mg/kg OLZ or 0.25 mg/kg OLZ, i.p.) from vehicle in a two- lever drug discrimination procedure. The atypical antipsychotic clozapine fully substituted for olanzapine in both the 0.5-mg/kg OLZ group (99.3% drug lever responding [DLR]) and the 0.25-mg/kg OLZ group (99.9% DLR). The typical antipsychotic chlorpromazine also substituted for olanzapine in both the 0.5-mg/kg OLZ group (87.5% DLR) and in the 0.25-mg/kg OLZ group (98.9% DLR); whereas, haloperidol displayed partial substitution for olanzapine in the 0.5-mg/kg OLZ group (56.1% DLR) and in the 0.25-mg/kg OLZ group (76.4% DLR). The 5.0-mg/kg dose of thioridazine produced olanzapine-appropriate responding in the 0.5-mg/kg OLZ group (99.6% DLR), but only partial substitution was seen with the 0.25-mg/kg OLZ training dose (64.0% DLR). The atypical antipsychotics raclopride (53.9% DLR) and risperidone (60.1% DLR) displayed only partial substitution in the 0.5-mg/kg OLZ group. Both the muscarinic cholinergic antagonist scopolamine (90.0% DLR) and the 5-HT_2A/2C serotonergic antagonist ritanserin (86.0% DLR) fully substituted for olanzapine in the 0.5-mg/kg OLZ group. Conclusions: In contrast to previous discrimination studies with clozapine-trained rats, the typical antipsychotic agents chlorpromazine and thioridazine and the serotonin antagonist ritanserin substituted for olanzapine. These results demonstrate that there are differences in the mechanisms underlying the discriminative stimulus properties of clozapine and olanzapine. Specifically, olanzapine’s discriminative stimulus properties appear to be meditated in part by both cholinergic and serotonergic mechanisms. Received: 1 March 1999 / Final version: 6 September 1999     

Generalization testing with atypical and typical antipsychotic drugs in rats trained to discriminate 5.0 mg/kg clozapine from vehicle in a two‐choice drug discrimination task

Clozapine (CLZ) drug discrimination is used as a preclinical model to evaluate compounds for putative atypical antipsychotic properties. In rats, a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose appears to have greater pharmacological specificity for atypical antipsychotic drugs than the traditional 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose; however, methodological differences among studies have precluded a direct comparison between these training doses. In the present study, rats were trained to discriminate a 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose from vehicle in a two‐choice drug discrimination task using methods similar to those in a previous study from our laboratory that used a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Clozapine produced full substitution (≥80% CLZ‐lever responding) for itself at the training dose (5.0 mg/kg). The atypical antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone also produced full substitution for 5.0 mg/kg CLZ, whereas the atypical antipsychotics risperidone and sertindole produced partial substitution (≥60% CLZ‐lever responding). The typical antipsychotic, thioridazine, produced full substitution for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose, but the typical antipsychotics chlorpromazine, fluphenazine, and haloperidol failed to substitute for clozapine. In a subgroup of 1.25 mg/kg CLZ‐trained rats, ziprasidone produced strong partial substitution (73.0 % CLZ‐lever responding) for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Based on these findings, some atypical antipsychotic drugs (i.e., quetiapine and ziprasidone) produce full substitution only for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose, whereas other atypical antipsychotic drugs (i.e., sertindole and risperidone) produce full substitution only for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Thus, both of these training doses are important for the screening of putative atypical antipsychotic drugs with the clozapine drug discrimination assay. Drug Dev. Res. 64:55–65, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Olanzapine,a novel atypical antipsychotic,reversesd-amphetamine-induced inhibition of midbrain dopamine cells

This study compared the ability of the novel atypical antipsychotic olanzapine with that of clozapine to reverse thed-amphetamine-induced inhibition of substantia nigra (A9) and ventral tegmental area (A10) dopamine (DA) cells. Extracellular single-unit recordings were made from A9 and A10 DA cells in anesthetized rats. When administered alone, neither olanzapine nor clozapine altered the firing rate of A9 or A10 DA cells. Administration ofd-amphetamine (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 mg/kg, IV, decreased the firing rate of A9 and A10 DA cells. Olanzapine completely reversed the inhibitory effects ofd-amphetamine on A10 DA cells (ED₁₀₀=0.18 mg/kg, IV) and on A9 DA cells (ED₁₀₀=1.0 mg/mg, IV). Clozapine completely reversed the inhibitory effects ofd-amphetamine on A10 DA cells (ED₁₀₀=3.8 mg/kg, IV), but only partially reversed the effects ofd-amphetamine on A9 DA cells at the highest dose tested (8.0 mg/kg, IV). Thus, olanzapine, like clozapine, was more potent in reversing the effects ofd-amphetamine on A10 than A9 DA cells. In addition, olanzapine was more potent than clozapine in the reversal ofd-amphetamine effects on A9 and A10 DA cells. These results indicate that olanzapine and clozapine have similar effects on DA unit activity and predict that olanzapine should have an atypical antipsychotic profile in man.     

N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4- isoxazoleproprionate (AMPA) glutamate-receptor antagonists have different interactions with the discriminative stimuli of abused drugs

The effects of the AMPA-receptor antagonists NBQX and GYKI 52466 were compared with those of the NMDA-receptor channel blocker dizocilpine in two drug discrimination tests. In the first, rats were trained to discriminate morphine (2 mg/kg) from saline and in the second, to discriminate ketamine (7 mg/kg) from saline, using a two-lever food reinforced method. NBQX (1–6 mg/kg) did not substitute for either morphine or ketamine, even at a dose which reduced response rates (6 mg/kg). Likewise, the non-competitive antagonist GYKI 52466 (5 and 10 mg/kg) produced only saline lever responding in the ketamine trained rats. When tested in combination with the training drug, NBQX (4.5 mg/kg) did not alter the morphine generalisation gradient, and similarly, neither NBQX (3 mg/kg) nor GYKI 52466 (5 and 10 mg/kg) interacted with the ketamine cue. In contrast, dizocilpine (0.05 mg/kg) significantly disrupted discrimination of morphine and produced clear drug lever responding (0.0125–0.1 mg/kg) in ketamine trained rats. These results suggest that AMPA-receptor antagonists and non-competitive NMDA-antagonists have different stimulus properties. Received: 24 May 1996/Final version: 28 July 1996     

Mianserin as a discriminative stimulus in rats: asymmetrical cross-generalization with scopolamine

The present study was conducted to determine if the tetracyclic antidepressant mianserin could be established as a discrminative stimulus in rats. One group of rats was trained to discriminate mianserin (4.0 mg/kg, IP) from saline in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure, and a second group of rats was trained to discriminate the muscarinic cholinergic antagonist scopolamine (0.25 mg/kg, IP) from saline. Generalization testing with the training drugs yielded an ED₅₀ of 0.502 mg/kg for the mianserin-trained rats and an ED₅₀ of 0.048 mg/kg for the scopolamine-trained rats. Asymmetrical cross-generalization between mianserin and scopolamine was observed, because scopolamine produced mianserin-appropriate responding, but mianserin did not produce scopolamine-appropriate responding. This study is the first demonstration that rats can be trained to discriminate mianserin from saline and that antagonism of muscarinic cholinergic receptors is sufficient to produce mianserin-appropriate responding.     

Discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine in rats trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg clozapine vs. 5.0 mg/kg clozapine vs. vehicle

Clozapine, the prototype for atypical antipsychotic drugs, is used in the drug discrimination paradigm as a model for screening atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs. Previous drug discrimination studies in rats have shown that a 1.25 mg/kg clozapine training dose provides full stimulus generalization (i.e.) >or=80% condition-appropriate responding) to most atypical antipsychotic drugs, although a 5.0 mg/kg clozapine training dose appears necessary to provide stimulus generalization to other atypical antipsychotic drugs. The present study sought to characterize the pharmacological mechanisms that mediate these clozapine training doses. In rats trained to discriminate 1.25 vs. 5.0 mg/kg clozapine vs. vehicle in a three-choice drug discrimination task, various receptor-selective compounds were tested for stimulus generalization. The antidepressant mianserin was also tested. Full stimulus generalization from the 1.25 mg/kg clozapine training dose occurred only to mianserin (98.8%). Partial substitution (i.e. >or=60% and <80% condition-appropriate responding) to the 5.0 mg/kg clozapine training dose occurred for the muscarinic receptor antagonist scopolamine. The combined total percentage of responding on the 1.25 and 5.0 mg/kg clozapine levers, however, was well above the full substitution criteria at the 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/kg scopolamine doses. The M1 agonist N-desmethylclozapine, the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine, the D1 antagonist SCH 23390, the D4 antagonist LU 38-012, the 5-HT1A agonist (+)-8-OH-DPAT, the 5-HT1A antagonist WAY 100 635, the 5-HT2A/2B/2C antagonist ritanserin, the 5-HT6 antagonist RO4368554, the alpha1 antagonist prazosin, the alpha2 antagonist yohimbine, and the histamine H1 antagonist pyrilamine all failed to substitute for either the 1.25 or the 5.0 mg/kg clozapine training doses. These results are consistent with previous evidence that antidepressant drugs have a tendency to substitute for clozapine and that muscarinic receptor antagonism may mediate the discriminative stimulus properties of 5.0 mg/kg clozapine. The lack of stimulus generalization from either clozapine training dose to other receptor-selective compounds, however, fails to explain how this model screens atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs and suggests that the discriminative stimulus properties of clozapine consist of a compound cue.     

Effects of acute and chronic administration of olanzapine in comparison to clozapine and haloperidol on extracellular recordings of substantia nigra reticulata neurons in the rat brain

Rationale: Previously, we have shown that the atypical antipsychotics clozapine and risperidone, unlike haloperidol, decreased the firing rate of substantia nigra reticulata (SNR) neurons. As the SNR receives substantial input from the striatum, an area where motoric side-effects of antipsychotics are thought to be mediated, the SNR might be an interesting brain structure with regard to motor side-effects. Objective: The newly developed atypical antipsychotic olanzapine was studied for its effects on the firing rate of SNR cells. In addition, to gain insight in the implications of our experimental setup for clinical use, responses upon clozapine, olanzapine and haloperidol were studied after chronic treatment. Methods: In chloralhydrate-anaesthetized male Wistar rats, extracellular recordings were made from SNR neurons upon intravenously (IV) administered cumulative doses of the antipsychotics. Naive rats and rats that were subcutaneously (SC) injected for 21 days with an antipsychotic were used. Results: Olanzapine (50–1600 mg/kg; IV), significantly inhibited the firing rate of the SNR neurons. Upon 21 days of treatment with a daily SC injection of 20 mg/kg clozapine, the challenge on day 22 with cumulative injections of clozapine (200–6400 mg/kg; IV) significantly inhibited the firing rate of the SNR neurons. Olanzapine (50–1600 mg/kg; IV) also significantly inhibited the SNR activity when pretreated with olanzapine in an SC administered dose of 1 mg/kg, but not 5 mg/kg. Haloperidol (12.5–800 μg/kg; IV) did not significantly affect the SNR activity in rats pretreated with SC administered 0.5 mg/kg haloperidol. Conclusions: Upon acute and chronic administration of clozapine and olanzapine versus haloperidol, differential effects on SNR neuronal firing could be obtained. The experimental setup seem to be valid for further studies into the mechanism of action of typical versus (relatively low doses of) atypical antipsychotics. The implications of the inhibitory effect of atypical antipsychotics on the SNR firing rate are presently unknown, but could be associated with the lower propensity to induced motoric side-effects. On the other hand, the SNR activity might also reflect non-motoric activity possibly related to negative symptoms. Received: 11 December 1998/Final version: 20 January 1999     

Discriminative stimulus properties in rats of the novel antipsychotic quetiapine

Rats discriminated the novel antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel). Full generalization was seen with the novel ("atypical") antipsychotics, clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone. Generalization was not seen with the older "typical" antipsychotics, haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and loxapine, or with the novel atypical antipsychotic, amisulpride. The pattern of generalization resembled that seen in rats trained to discriminate a low dose (1.25 mg/kg) of clozapine, which dissociates most novel antipsychotics from typical antipsychotics. However, the failure of the novel antipsychotic amisulpride to generalize demonstrates that this bioassay does not detect all novel antipsychotics. These data suggest that the discrimination of antipsychotics such as quetiapine may be of value in the development of novel antipsychotics, although the relationship between the discriminative properties of such drugs and their clinical actions is unclear.     

Discriminative stimulus properties of N-desmethylclozapine, the major active metabolite of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine, in C57BL/6 mice

N-desmethylclozapine (NDMC) is the major active metabolite of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine and may contribute to the therapeutic efficacy of clozapine. Although they share many pharmacological features, it is noteworthy that NDMC is a partial dopamine D2 and cholinergic muscarinic M1/M4 agonist, whereas clozapine is a weak dopamine D2 receptor inverse agonist/antagonist and a nonselective muscarinic antagonist. To better understand the in-vivo pharmacological mechanisms of these drugs, male C57BL/6NHsd-wild-type mice were trained to discriminate 10.0 mg/kg NDMC from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure for food reward. It was found that the parent drug clozapine fully substituted for NDMC, whereas the typical antipsychotic drug haloperidol (dopamine D2 antagonist) and the atypical antipsychotic drug aripiprazole (D2 partial agonist) did not substitute for NDMC. These results demonstrated that clozapine and its major metabolite NDMC share in-vivo behavioral properties (i.e. discriminative stimulus properties) that are likely due to shared pharmacological mechanisms that differ from other antipsychotic drugs. The discriminative stimulus properties of NDMC probably reflect a compound cue similar to that of its parent drug clozapine due to its diverse binding profile.     

The metabolites N-desmethylclozapine and N-desmethylolanzapine produce cross-tolerance to the discriminative stimulus of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in C57BL/6 mice

It has been previously shown that cross-tolerance to the discriminative stimulus properties of clozapine can be demonstrated with the drug discrimination paradigm. This study examined the ability of N-desmethylclozapine and N-desmethylolanzapine (metabolites of the atypical antipsychotic drugs clozapine and olanzapine, respectively) to induce cross-tolerance to the discriminative stimulus effects of clozapine. After C57BL/6 mice were trained to reliably discriminate 2.5 mg/kg clozapine from vehicle, a clozapine generalization curve was generated. Next, training was suspended and the mice received a maintenance dosing regimen in which they were injected twice daily with 10 mg/kg N-desmethylclozapine for 10 days. Then a second clozapine generalization curve was generated. This was followed by a 10-day washout period during which the mice did not receive drug injections or discrimination training. Finally, a third clozapine generalization curve was generated. These same procedures were followed for N-desmethylolanzapine (10 mg/kg twice daily during maintenance dosing). Both N-desmethylclozapine and N-desmethylolanzapine produced significant rightward shifts in the clozapine generalization curve indicating cross-tolerance between N-desmethylclozapine and clozapine and between N-desmethylolanzapine and clozapine. After a washout period with no training or drug administration this cross-tolerance effect was lost for both metabolites. This cross-tolerance drug discrimination procedure demonstrated in-vivo similarities between these two metabolites and clozapine and suggests that common underlying pharmacological mechanisms were responsible for the cross-tolerance that was observed. These findings also demonstrated that this procedure may be useful for identifying drugs with therapeutic efficacy similar to the atypical antipsychotic clozapine under repeated dosing conditions.     

Behavioral assessment of atypical antipsychotics in rats: studies of the effects of olanzapine (Zyprexa)

Rationale: Previous work has shown that clozapine suppressed tacrine-induced jaw movements at lower doses than those required for suppression of lever pressing. Objective: The novel atypical antipsychotic olanzapine was assessed in these behavioral tests. Methods: The effect of acute olanzapine on the suppression of tacrine-induced tremulous jaw movements was examined. In order to determine the relative potency of this effect compared with other behavioral effects of olanzapine, suppression of lever pressing also was studied. In a second series of experiments, rats received olanzapine for 14 consecutive days to study the effects of repeated injections of this drug on jaw movements and lever pressing. Results: Acute olanzapine administration decreased tacrine-induced jaw movements (ED₅₀: 0.4 mg/kg), and also reduced lever pressing (ED₅₀: 1.12 mg/kg). The ratio of the ED₅₀ for suppression of jaw movements to that for suppression of lever pressing was used as an index of liability to produce extrapyramidal side effects, and the present results demonstrate that olanzapine has a ratio similar to that previously shown for clozapine. In the repeated administration studies, rats were observed on day 13 of drug treatment for the ability of olanzapine to induce jaw movements, and olanzapine failed to induce jaw movements. On day 14, olanzapine reduced tacrine-induced tremulous jaw movements (ED₅₀: 1.12 mg/kg). In a separate experiment, olanzapine significantly suppressed lever pressing, and this effect showed sensitization with repeated administration (day 14, ED₅₀: 0.76 mg/kg). Thus, repeated injections of olanzapine reduced tacrine-induced jaw movements in a dose range similar to or slightly higher than that which suppressed lever pressing. Conclusions: On tests of jaw-movement activity and lever pressing after both acute and repeated drug administration, olanzapine demonstrated a profile somewhat similar to clozapine, and both of these drugs differ substantially from the typical antipsychotic haloperidol. Received: 14 October 1998 / Final version: 15 March 1999     

Similarities and differences between the subchronic and withdrawal effects of clozapine and olanzapine on forelimb force steadiness

 The purpose of this study was to compare the subchronic, low-dose effects of clozapine with those of olanzapine in a learned behavioral task previously shown to distinguish between clozapine and haloperidol with acute and subchronic treatment regimes. Rats were trained to use a single forelimb to press a force-recording operandum and simultaneously to lick water from a dipper that remained available while forelimb force exceeded a modest lower limit. Analysis of the resulting force-time recordings provided measures of task engagement (time on task – analogous to response rate), lick rhythm, tremor, ballistic (maximum force) and tonic (hold force) forelimb force measures, as well as the durations of the individual responses. In a between-groups dosing design, five separate groups of rats received vehicle, clozapine 1.0 or 5.0 mg/kg, olanzapine 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg daily for 27 days. A 7-day withdrawal period followed. On days 22 and 26 of antipsychotic drug treatment, all rats additionally received 0.3 mg/kg trihexyphenidyl or 1.0 mg/kg quipazine, respectively. The effects of olanzapine and clozapine were similar in that both drugs reduced time on task, increased response duration, and slowed lick rhythm. The two drugs differed in that clozapine reduced the force and tremor measures but olanzapine did not. Both tolerance and withdrawal effects, as reflected by the tremor measure, were observed for clozapine but not for olanzapine. Trihexyphenidyl further increased the duration of responses already lengthened by clozapine; in contrast, trihexyphenidyl decreased the duration lengthening effect of olanzapine. Taken together, the results indicated that olanzapine did not have the antitremor and hypotonic effects displayed by clozapine, and olanzapine did not induce tolerance and withdrawal phenomena as clozapine did. Received: 28 January 1997 / Final version: 14 March 1997     

Clozapine and N-methyl-D-aspartate have positive modulatory actions on their respective discriminative stimulus properties in C57BL/6 mice

The impairment of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptors is thought to contribute to negative symptoms and cognitive deficits. In vitro studies suggest that atypical antipsychotic drugs like clozapine may help to alleviate these deficits by enhancing glutamatergic function. The present study examined the in vivo interaction of clozapine with N-Methyl D-aspartate by training one group of C57BL/6 mice to discrimination 2.5 mg/kg clozapine from vehicle and another group to discriminate 30 mg/kg N-Methyl D-aspartate from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination task. Cross-generalization testing revealed that N-Methyl D-aspartate (3-56 mg/kg) failed to substitute for clozapine in the clozapine-trained mice, while clozapine (0.625 mg/kg) produced partial substitution in the N-Methyl D-aspartate-trained mice. Interestingly, administration of a low, non-generalizing dose of each training drug in combination with the full range of doses of the alternate training drug produced full and dose-dependent substitution in both clozapine- and N-Methyl D-aspartate-trained mice. The α(1) antagonist prazosin fully and dose-dependently substituted for both clozapine and N-Methyl D-aspartate. These results suggest that the shared discriminative stimulus properties between clozapine and N-Methyl D-aspartate may be mediated through indirect mechanisms, possibly in part through α(1) adrenergic antagonism.     

Generalization to atypical antipsychotic drugs depends on training dose in rats trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg clozapine versus 5.0 mg/kg clozapine versus vehicle in a three-choice drug discrimination task

The prototypical atypical antipsychotic drug (APD) clozapine (CLZ) elicits a discriminative cue that appears to be similar to the stimulus properties elicited by atypical, but not typical, antipsychotic drugs in two-choice drug discrimination procedures. However, the ability of CLZ to generalize to atypical APDs depends on the training dose, since several atypical APDs (e.g. sertindole, risperidone) do not substitute for a 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose in rats, but do so for a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Yet, a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ discriminative stimulus has not generalized to all atypical APDs either (e.g. quetiapine); thus, both 1.25 mg/kg and 5.0 mg/kg CLZ discriminative stimuli may be necessary to provide a better screen for atypical APDs. The present study sought to determine whether a three-choice 1.25 mg/kg CLZ versus 5.0 mg/kg CLZ versus vehicle drug discrimination task in rats might better distinguish atypical from typical APDs. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained in this three-choice drug discrimination task with a fixed ratio 30 reinforcement schedule for food. Clozapine produced full substitution (>or=80% condition-appropriate responding) for both the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.09 mg/kg) and the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=2.71 mg/kg). The atypical APD olanzapine produced full substitution for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose, but not for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=1.55 mg/kg). In contrast, the atypical APD quetiapine produced full substitution for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.13 mg/kg), but not for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose. Similarly, the atypical APD sertindole produced full substitution for only the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.94 mg/kg). Risperidone, another atypical APD, produced partial substitution (>or=60% and 相似文献