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.     

Increased drug sensitivity in the drug discrimination procedure afforded by drug versus drug training

Rats were trained to discriminate norfenfluramine (NF) 1.4 mg/kg from its vehicle or amphetamine (AMPH) 0.8 mg/kg or pentobarbital (PB) 6.0 mg/kg in order to determine the role that drug combination training plays in the rate of learning and sensitivity to lower drug doses. The results suggest that drug versus drug training can increase the rate of drug discrimination learning for some drugs that are learned slowly when trained in a drug versus vehicle training procedure, whereas drug versus drug training does not increase the rate of learning for other drugs that are learned rapidly. Drug versus drug training does, however, appear to increase the level of stimulus control of the training drug for all drugs examined in this study.     

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 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     

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.     

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 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.     

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     

Stimulus properties of the "atypical" antipsychotic zotepine in rats: comparisons with clozapine and quetiapine

The stimulus properties of the "atypical" antipsychotic zotepine were assessed in three studies in rats. In Study 1, the ability of zotepine to generalise to clozapine was studied. Two groups of rats were trained to discriminate clozapine at 2 and 5 mg/kg. Clozapine induced full generalisation in both groups, with the generalisation curves shifted significantly to the left in the low dose group. In generalisation tests clozapine did not suppress responding. Zotepine induced dose-related generalisation in both groups, with full generalisation in the low dose group and 50% maximal generalisation in the high dose group at the highest dose that could be tested. In contrast to clozapine, zotepine induced substantial (50% or more) substitution for clozapine only at doses which suppressed responding. In Study 2 zotepine was investigated in rats trained to discriminate quetiapine (10 mg/kg). Quetiapine induced full generalisation and zotepine only induced 54% generalisation at the highest dose that could be tested. Generalisation was accompanied by response suppression induced by both quetiapine and zotepine. In Study 3 an attempt was made to train a zotepine discrimination (1 mg/kg increased to 2 mg/kg). Even after 150 training sessions it proved impossible to obtain reliable discriminative responding with zotepine. These data suggest that: (i) The actions of zotepine in discrimination assays are similar to, but not identical with, those of clozapine and quetiapine; (ii) The differences among the actions of clozapine, quetiapine and zotepine may be related to either the unique ability of zotepine to block noradrenaline (NA) uptake, or to its more marked affinity for D(2) receptors; (iii) The finding that zotepine only mimicked quetiapine up to a level of 54% was unexpected, since quetiapine and clozapine generalise reciprocally and zotepine generalised fully to (low dose) clozapine. This finding may also be related either to zotepine's ability to inhibit NA uptake or its relatively high D(2) affinity; (iv) Although zotepine clearly possesses discriminative properties, it is not possible to train it as a reliable stimulus, in contrast to clozapine and quetiapine. This may be due to its more marked D(2) receptor affinity. Collectively, these data demonstrate both similarities and differences between zotepine and other novel atypical antipsychotics in drug discrimination assays.     

Serotonergic drugs do not substitute for clozapine in clozapine-trained rats in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure.

The atypical neuroleptic clozapine has been shown to have cue properties in two-lever drug discrimination procedures. Although it has been demonstrated that clozapine acts at several types of receptors in vitro and in vivo, including dopamine, serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)], and acetylcholine receptors, the mechanism of action for its discriminative stimulus properties has not yet been determined. The present study examined the effects of haloperidol (D2 dopamine antagonist), ritanserin (5-HT2 antagonist), 1-alpha H,3-alpha,5-alpha H-tropan-3yl-3,5-dichlorobenzoate (MDL 72222) (5-HT3 antagonist), and buspirone (5-HT1A agonist) in stimulus substitution tests with rats trained to discriminate clozapine (5.0 mg/kg, IP) from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure under a fixed ratio 30 schedule of food reinforcement. Analysis of the results revealed that, while clozapine produced dose-dependent responding on the clozapine lever, haloperidol and the three serotonin drugs failed to produce full substitution for clozapine at any of the doses tested. These results suggest that the discriminative stimulus properties are not mediated by D2 dopamine receptor blockade, antagonism at 5-HT2 or 5-HT3 receptors, or agonistic activity at 5-HT1A receptors. The neural basis of clozapine's discriminative stimulus properties has not yet been determined.     

Potentiation of olanzapine substitution in rats discriminating clozapine by the D2/3 agonist quinpirole

The D2/3 agonist (+)-4-propyl-9-hydroxynaphthoxazine (PHNO) has been reported to enhance the ability of olanzapine to substitute for clozapine and attenuate olanzapine-induced response suppression in monkeys. These data suggest that the relatively marked D2/3 antagonist actions of olanzapine limit its substitution for clozapine. The work reported here replicated and extended these findings. Twelve rats were trained to discriminate clozapine (5 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) from vehicle in an FR30 quantal food rewarded assay. The substitution curve for olanzapine (0-2.5 mg/kg) was then computed after treatment with either vehicle or a high dose (0.1 mg/kg) of the D2/3 agonist quinpirole. The olanzapine substitution curve was shifted significantly 5.2-fold in parallel to the left by quinpirole. Olanzapine suppressed responding significantly, but this effect was not attenuated or enhanced by quinpirole, which suppressed responding itself. Thus antagonist actions at D2/3 receptors clearly limit the ability of olanzapine to substitute for clozapine. These findings suggest that the clozapine versus vehicle discrimination is probably a bioassay for agents that resemble clozapine but which do not necessarily induce D2/3 antagonism. This discrimination may therefore not specifically detect clozapine-like antipsychotics, although it may be of value in developing such antipsychotics. The low discriminability of antipsychotics in general may be because antagonist actions at D2/3 receptors limit incentive salience in discrimination assays. These data are compatible with recent theorizing that therapeutic actions of antipsychotics in schizophrenia involve D2/3 receptor-mediated attenuation of stimulus salience.     

Discriminative stimulus properties of toluene in the rat

Rats were trained to discriminate toluene (100 mg/kg, IP) from vehicle in a two-lever operant task. Acquisition of the discrimination required a range of 85-219 training days. Injections of either methohexital (0.5-10 mg/kg) or oxazepam (0.5-20 mg/kg) produced toluene-lever responding in a dose-dependent fashion in most animals. The discriminative stimulus properties of toluene were not found to generalize to chlorpromazine (0.3-10 mg/kg). These results are consistent with those obtained in the mouse and provide further evidence that toluene has stimulus properties similar to those of CNS depressant drugs. These results further suggest that toluene may have drug abuse potential of the CNS depressant type.     

Discriminative stimulus properties of buspirone compared to central nervous system depressants in rats

Two groups of rats were trained to discriminate either IP buspirone from vehicle or IP oxazepam from vehicle using a two-lever FR-10 schedule of sweetened milk presentation. The discrimination in the buspirone group was difficult to establish due to potent response rate decreasing effects. Oxazepam was a very effective stimulus and the discrimination in the oxazepam group was readily established. Tests with oxazepam and pentobarbital in the buspirone group provided no evidence for generalization of the stimulus properties of buspirone to either drug. Tests with buspirone in the oxazepam group also provided no evidence of generalization to buspirone, although tests with pentobarbital indicated almost complete generalization. Finally buspirone and oxazepam were tested in a group of rats previously trained to discriminate pentobarbital from vehicle. The findings supported the data obtained in the buspirone and oxazepam groups, with no indication of generalization from pentobarbital to buspirone, but with complete generalization to oxazepam. These data suggest that buspirone does not share discriminative stimulus properties which are common to other CNS depressants.     

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.     

Effects of drug discrimination history on anti-punishment properties of chlordiazepoxide in rats

Several studies have indicated that acquiring discriminative stimulus control for a certain anxiolytic drug influences its subsequent anti-conflict properties. To further elaborate on the question whether drug discrimination procedures affect behaviour in a conflict paradigm, a classical two-lever drug discrimination procedure was combined with an operant conflict procedure within the same animals. To this extent, rats were trained to discriminate the anxiolytic chlordiazepoxide (CDP, 30 mg/kg, po) from saline (SAL), and subsequently punished responding periods were introduced within the same session. In addition to the rats that were trained to discriminate CDP from vehicle, a group of rats was trained on a random relationship between CDP and the rewarded lever. CDP and alprazolam completely substituted for CDP, whereas mianserin did not. Responding during punished components in a session was increased by CDP and alprazolam, but not by mianserin in rats that were trained to discriminate CDP from vehicle and in randomly trained rats. The data indicate that rats can be reliably trained and tested in drug discrimination and conflict procedures within a single session and that CDP's discriminative stimulus does not alter its anti-conflict effects.     

Discriminative stimulus control with olanzapine: generalization to the atypical antipsychotic clozapine

 The present study was conducted to determine if the putative atypical antipsychotic olanzapine could be established as a discriminative stimulus in rats. Seven rats were successfully trained to discriminate olanzapine (0.5 mg/kg, IP) from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure (mean number of acquisition sessions=39.3). Generalization testing with olanzapine (0.0625–2.0 mg/kg) yielded an ED₅₀ of 0.170 mg/kg (95% confidence interval=0.118–0.246 mg/kg). The atypical antipsychotic clozapine (0.156–10.0 mg/kg) fully substituted for olanzapine in all rats at the 2.5 mg/kg dose with 99.0% drug-lever responding, in six rats at the 0.625 mg/kg dose, and in five rats at the 1.25 and 5.0 mg/kg doses (ED₅₀=0.259 mg/kg, 95% confidence interval=0.089–0.755 mg/kg). This study is the first demonstration that rats can be trained to discriminate olanzapine from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure and that the olanzapine discrimination cue generalizes to clozapine. Received: 11 June 1996 / Final version: 19 July 1996     

Discriminative stimulus properties of atypical and typical antipsychotic drugs: a review of preclinical studies

Background  Drug discrimination is an increasingly valuable behavioral assay for the preclinical development of antipsychotic drugs. The majority of studies have used the atypical antipsychotic clozapine because it displays robust discriminative stimulus properties and is the “prototypical” or “gold standard” atypical antipsychotic against which other antipsychotics will undoubtedly be compared for many years. Objectives  Pharmacological mechanisms mediating the discriminative stimulus properties of antipsychotics used as training drugs and the usefulness of drug discrimination for distinguishing typical and atypical antipsychotics were reviewed. Results  Clozapine appears to have a compound cue involving antagonism of two or more receptors. While muscarinic receptor antagonism is a prominent factor for mediation of clozapine’s cue in rats with a 5.0-mg/kg training dose, there are differences in clozapine’s cue with a low training dose and in pigeons and mice. With a low training dose, clozapine has consistently produced full or partial generalization to atypical but not to typical antipsychotics. Although not evaluated as extensively, the atypical antipsychotics quetiapine and ziprasidone also appear to generalize to atypical but not typical antipsychotics. This has not been the case for other antipsychotic drugs (olanzapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol) used as training drugs. Conclusions  There are important differences in discriminative stimulus properties both between and within atypical and typical antipsychotics and across species. While low-dose clozapine discrimination in rats appears to provide a more sensitive behavioral assay for distinguishing atypical from typical antipsychotics, the extent to which clozapine’s discriminative stimulus properties are predictive of its antipsychotic effects remains to be determined.     

Serotonergic-dopaminergic mediation of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, "ecstasy")

A series of three experiments were conducted to investigate the possible serotonergic and dopaminergic mediation of the discriminative stimulus properties of the "designer" drug MDMA. In Experiment 1, rats trained to discriminate 1.5 mg/kg (+/-)-MDMA from its vehicle at 20 min postadministration were shown to generalize to another drug of abuse, N-ethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDE) and to the serotonergically-active agents norfenfluramine and TFMPP. In contrast, testing of various dopaminergically-active agonists did not result in MDMA-like responding. In Experiment 2, dopaminergic and serotonergic antagonist were employed to observe their effect upon MDMA discrimination at 20 min postinjection. The serotonin antagonist pirenperone significantly decreased MDMA discrimination, whereas the dopamine decreasing drugs CGS 10746B and haloperidol had no effect. In Experiment 3, another group of rats were trained to discriminate MDMA at 105 min postadministration to investigate if, at this (later) time, the dopaminergic properties of MDMA may be more salient. Indeed, the dopaminergically-active drugs had a heightened effect upon MDMA at this later time, although the serotonergic component of the MDMA discriminative stimulus was predominant. The results suggest that the effects of MDMA at 20 min postadministration are solely serotonergic in nature. At 105 min postinjection there appears to be the presence of a weak dopaminergic component. This biphasic serotonergic-then-dopaminergic action of MDMA may explain the reported human experience with the drug, as well as the often controversial results in the literature.     

Fenfluramine discrimination in obese and lean Zucker rats: serotonergic mediation of effect

Genetically obese Zucker rats and their lean littermates were trained to discriminate between the stimulus properties of 2.0 mg/kg fenfluramine and its vehicle in a two-lever, food-motivated operant task. Both groups learned the discrimination at the same rate and all rats showed a dose-related decrease in discriminative performance with lower fenfluramine doses. Analysis of the dose-response curves indicated an ED50 for the obese rats of 0.56 mg/kg and for the lean group of 0.42 mg/kg. Time-course experiments indicted that the obese rats maintain errorless discrimination through 90 min post-injection but discriminate significantly less than the lean rats at 960 min post-administration. These results suggest a similar sensitivity to fenfluramine in obese and lean rats with a difference in the time-course of drug action. Pre-treatment with the specific serotonin receptor antagonist pirenperone significantly attenuated fenfluramine discrimination in lean rats without a similar effect in the obese rats. Possible reasons for this observation are offered.     

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.