pp 1-24 | Cite as

Drug Discrimination: Historical Origins, Important Concepts, and Principles

  • Joseph H. Porter
  • Adam J. Prus
  • Donald A. Overton
Chapter
Part of the Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences book series

Abstract

Research on the stimulus properties of drugs began with studies on state dependent learning during the first half of the twentieth century. From that research, an entirely new approach evolved called drug discrimination. Animals (including humans) could discriminate the presence or absence of a drug; once learned, the drug could serve as a discriminative stimulus, signaling the availability or nonavailability of reinforcement. Early drug discrimination research involved the use of a T-maze task, which evolved in the 1970s into a two-lever operant drug discrimination task that is still used today. A number of important concepts and principles of drug discrimination are discussed. (1) The discriminative stimulus properties of drugs are believed in large part to reflect the subjective effects of drugs. While it has been impossible to directly measure subjective effects in nonhuman animals, drug discrimination studies in human subjects have generally supported the belief that discriminative stimulus properties of drugs in nonhuman animals correlate highly with subjective effects of drugs in humans. In addition to the ability of the drug discrimination procedure to measure the subjective effects of drugs, it has a number of other strengths that help make it a valuable preclinical assay. (2) Drug discrimination can be used for classification of drugs based on shared discriminative stimulus properties. (3) The phenomena of tolerance and cross-tolerance can be studied with drug discrimination. (4) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs typically have been found to be stereospecific, if a drug is comprised of enantiomers. (5) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs reflect specific CNS activity at neurotransmitter receptors. (6) Both human and nonhuman subjects display individual differences in their sensitivity to discriminative stimuli and drugs. (7) The drug discrimination procedure has been used extensively as a preclinical assay in drug development. This chapter is the first in the volume The Behavioural Neuroscience of Drug Discrimination, which includes chapters concerning the discriminative stimulus properties of various classes of psychoactive drugs as well as sections on the applications and approaches for using this procedure.

Keywords

Cross-tolerance Discriminative stimulus Drug development Drug discrimination Individual differences State dependent learning Stereospecific Stimulus properties Subjective effects Tolerance 

References

  1. Ator NA, Griffiths RR (2003) Principles of drug abuse liability assessment in laboratory animals. Drug Alcohol Depend 70:S55–S72Google Scholar
  2. Balster RL (1988) Drugs as chemical stimuli. In: Colpaert FA, Balster RL (eds) Transduction mechanisms of drug stimuli, Psychopharmacology series, vol 4. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–11Google Scholar
  3. Balster RL, Bigelow GE (2003) Guidelines and methodological reviews concerning drug abuse liability assessment. Drug Alcohol Depend 70:S13–S40Google Scholar
  4. Barry H III (1974) Classification of drugs according to their discriminable effects in rats. Fed Proc 33(7):1814–1824Google Scholar
  5. Bevins RA, Klebaur JE, Bardo MT (1997) Individual differences in response to novelty, amphetamine-induced activity and drug discrimination in rats. Behav Pharmacol 8(2–3):113–123Google Scholar
  6. Bolin BL, Alcorn JL III, Reynolds AR, Lile JA, Rush CR (2016a) (Chapter 12, this volume) human drug discrimination: elucidating the neuropharmacology of commonly abused illicit drugs. In: Porter JH, Prus AJ (eds) The behavioural neuroscience of drug discrimination. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolin BL, Alcorn JL III, Reynolds AR, Lile JA, Rush CR (2016b) Human drug discrimination: a primer and methodological review. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 24(4):214–228Google Scholar
  8. Burgdorf J, Zhang XL, Nicholson KL, Balster RL, Leander JD, Stanton PK, Gross AL, Kroes RA, Moskal JR (2013) GLYX-13, a NMDA receptor glycine-site functional partial agonist, induces antidepressant-like effects without ketamine-like side effects. Neuropsychopharmacology 38(5):729–742Google Scholar
  9. Castelli MP, Mocci I, Sanna AM, Gessa GL, Pani L (2001) (S)-amisulpride binds with high affinity to cloned dopamine D3 and D2 receptors. Eur J Pharmacol 432:143–147Google Scholar
  10. Catania AC (1971) Discriminative stimulus functions of drugs: interpretations. I. In: Thompson T, Pickens R (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY, pp 87–110Google Scholar
  11. Chait LD, Uhlenhuth EH, Johanson CE (1985) The discriminative stimulus and subjective effects of d-amphetamine in humans. Psychopharmacology 86:301–312Google Scholar
  12. Chait LD, Uhlenhuth EH, Johanson CE (1986) The discriminative stimulus and subjective effects of phenylpropanolamine, mazindol and d-amphetamine in humans. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 24:1665–1672Google Scholar
  13. Collins W (1868) The moonstone. Tinsley Brothers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Colpaert FC (1995) Drug discrimination: no evidence for tolerance to opiates. Pharmacol Rev 47(4):605–629Google Scholar
  15. Colpaert FC (2003) Discovering risperidone: the LSD model of psychopathology. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2(4):315–320Google Scholar
  16. Colpaert FC, Balster RL (eds) (1988) Transduction mechanisms of drug stimuli, Psychopharmacology series, vol 4. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Colpaert FC, Niemegeers CJ (1975) On the narcotic cuing action of fentanyl and other narcotic analgesic drugs. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther 217(1):170–172Google Scholar
  18. Colpaert FC, Niemegeers CJ, Janssen PA (1975) The narcotic cue: evidence for the specificity of the stimulus properties of narcotic drugs. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther 218(2):268–276Google Scholar
  19. Colpaert FC, Kuyps JJ, Niemegeers CJ, Janssen PA (1976) Discriminative stimulus properties of fentanyl and morphine: tolerance and dependence. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 5(4):401–408Google Scholar
  20. Combe G (1835) A system of phrenology, 3rd edn. Marsh, Capen and Lyon, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Conger JJ (1951) The effects of alcohol on conflict behavior in the albino rat. Q J Stud Alcohol 12:1–29Google Scholar
  22. Donahue TJ, Hillhouse TM, Webster KA, Young R, De Oliveira EO, Porter JH (2014) (S)-amisulpride as a discriminative stimulus in C57BL/6 mice and its comparison to the stimulus effects of typical and atypical antipsychotics. Eur J Pharmacol 734:15–22Google Scholar
  23. Donahue TJ, Hillhouse TM, Webster KA, Young R, De Oliveira EO, Porter JH (2017) Discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic amisulpride: comparison to its isomers and to other benzamide derivatives, antipsychotic, antidepressant, and antianxiety drugs in C57BL/6 mice. Psychopharmacology 234(23–24):3507–3520Google Scholar
  24. Gardner LA, McCullough C (1962) A reinvestigation of the dissociative effect of curareform drugs. (abstract). Am Psychol 17:398Google Scholar
  25. Girden E, Culler EA (1937) Conditioned responses in curarized striate muscle in dogs. J Comp Psychol 23:261–274Google Scholar
  26. Glennon RA, Young R (2011a) Chapter 2. Methodological considerations. In: Glennon RA, Young R (eds) Drug discrimination: applications to medicinal chemistry and drug studies. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 19–40Google Scholar
  27. Glennon RA, Young R (2011b) Chapter 4. Role of stereochemistry in drug discrimination studies. In: Glennon RA, Young R (eds) Drug discrimination: applications to medicinal chemistry and drug studies. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 129–161Google Scholar
  28. Goudie AJ, Cole JC, Sumnall HR (2007a) Olanzapine and JL13 induce cross-tolerance to the clozapine discriminative stimulus in rats. Behav Pharmacol 18:9–17Google Scholar
  29. Goudie AJ, Cooper GD, Cole JC, Sumnall HR (2007b) Cyproheptadine resembles clozapine in vivo following both acute and chronic administration in rats. J Psychopharmacol 21:179–190Google Scholar
  30. Grant KA (1999) Strategies for understanding the pharmacological effects of ethanol with discrimination procedures. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 64(2):261–267Google Scholar
  31. Grossman SP, Miller NE (1961) Control for stimulus-change in the evaluation of alcohol and chlorpromazine as fear-reducing drugs. Psychopharmacology 2:342–351Google Scholar
  32. Harris RT, Balster BL (1968) Discriminative control by d1-amphetamine and saline of lever choice and response patterning. Psychon Sci 10(3):105–106Google Scholar
  33. Harris RT, Balster BL (1971) An analysis of the function of drugs in the stimulus control of operant behavior. In: Thompson T, Pickens R (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs. Appleton Century Crofts, New York, NY, pp 111–132Google Scholar
  34. Hippius H (1991) A historical perspective of clozapine. J Clin Psychiatry 60(suppl 12):22–23Google Scholar
  35. Hirschhorn ID, Rosecrans JA (1976) Generalization of morphine and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) stimulus properties to narcotic analgesics. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 47(1):65–69Google Scholar
  36. In Vivo Pharmacology Training Group (2002) The fall and rise of in vivo pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 23(1):13–18Google Scholar
  37. Kelley BM, Porter JH (1997) The role of muscarinic cholinergic receptors in the discriminative stimulus properties of clozapine in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 57(4):707–719Google Scholar
  38. Kubena RK, Barry H III (1969a) Two procedures for training differential responses in alcohol and nondrug conditions. J Pharm Sci 58(1):99–101Google Scholar
  39. Kubena RK, Barry H III (1969b) Generalization by rats of alcohol and atropine stimulus characteristics to other drugs. Psychopharmacologia (Berl) 15:196–206Google Scholar
  40. Marchese G, Bartholini F, Ruiu S, Casti P, Saba P, Gessa G, Pan L (2002a) Effect of the amisulpride isomers on rat catalepsy. Eur J Pharmacol 444:69–74Google Scholar
  41. Marchese G, Ruiu S, Casti P, Saba P, Gessa GL, Pani L (2002b) Effect of the amisulpride isomers on rat prolactinemia. Eur J Pharmacol 448:263–266Google Scholar
  42. McMahon LR (2015) The rise (and fall?) of drug discrimination research. Drug Alcohol Depend 151:284–288Google Scholar
  43. Millan MJ, Schreiber R, Monneyron S, Denorme B, Melon C, Queriaux S, Dekeyne A (1999) S-16924, a novel, potential antipsychotic with marked serotonin1A agonist properties. IV. A drug discrimination comparison with clozapine. Journal of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics 289(1):427–436Google Scholar
  44. Miller NE (1957) Objective techniques for studying motivational effects on animals. In: Garattini S, Ghetti V (eds) Psychotropic drugs, proceedings of the international symposium on psychotropic drugs. Elsevier, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 83–103Google Scholar
  45. Miller NE, Barry H III (1960) Motivational effects of drugs: methods which illustrate some general problems in psychopharmacology. Psychopharmacologia 1:169–199Google Scholar
  46. Moore NA, Tye NC, Axton MS, Risius FC (1992) The behavioral pharmacology of olanzapine, a novel “atypical” antipsychotic agent. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 262:545–551Google Scholar
  47. Morgan D, Picker MJ (1996) Contribution of individual differences to discriminative stimulus, antinociceptive and rate-decreasing effects of opioids: importance of the drug’s relative intrinsic efficacy at the mu receptor. Behav Pharmacol 7(3):261–284Google Scholar
  48. Morgan CT, Stellar E (1950) Physiological psychology, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  49. Nadal R (2001) Pharmacology of the atypical antipsychotic remoxipride, a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist. CNS Drug Rev 7(3):26–282Google Scholar
  50. O’Neal MF, Means LW, Porter JH, Rosecrans JA, Mokler DJ (1988) Rats that acquire a THC discrimination more rapidly are more sensitive to THC and faster in reaching operant criteria. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 29:67–71Google Scholar
  51. Overton DA (1961) Discriminative behavior based on the presence or absence of drug effects (abstract). Am Psychol 16:453–454Google Scholar
  52. Overton DA (1964) State-dependent or “dissociated” learning produced with pentobarbital. J Comp Physiol Psychol 57:3–12Google Scholar
  53. Overton DA (1966) State-dependent learning produced by depressant and atropine-like drugs. Psychopharmacologia 10:6–31Google Scholar
  54. Overton DA (1968) Dissociated learning in drug states (state-dependent learning). In: Efron DH, Colle JO, Levine J, Wittenborn R (eds) Psychopharmacology, a review of progress, 1957–1967. PHS Pub No 1836. Sept. of Docs., US Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC, pp 918–930Google Scholar
  55. Overton DA (1971) Discriminative control of behavior by drug states. In: Thompson T, Pickens R (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, NY, pp 87–110Google Scholar
  56. Overton DA (1982) Comparison of the degree of discriminability of various drugs using the T-maze drug discrimination paradigm. Psychopharmacology 76:385–395Google Scholar
  57. Overton DA (1991) Historical context of state dependent learning and discriminative drug effects. Behav Pharmacol 2:253–264Google Scholar
  58. Overton DA, Rosecrans JA, Barry H III (1999) Creation and first 20 years of the society for the stimulus properties of drugs (SSPD). Pharmacol Biochem Behav 64(2):347–352Google Scholar
  59. Perkins KA (2011) Nicotine discrimination in humans. In: Glennon RA, Young R (eds) Drug discrimination: applications to medicinal chemistry and drug studies. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 129–161Google Scholar
  60. Philibin SD, Prus AJ, Pehrson AL, Porter JH (2005) Serotonin receptor mechanisms mediate the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in C57BL/6 mice. Psychopharmacology 180:49–56Google Scholar
  61. Philibin SD, Walentiny DM, Vunck SA, Prus AJ, Meltzer HY, Porter JH (2009) Further characterization of the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine in C57BL/6 mice and a comparison to clozapine’s major metabolite N-desmethylclozapine. Psychopharmacology 203:303–315Google Scholar
  62. Porter JH, Prus AJ (2009) Discriminative stimulus properties of atypical and typical antipsychotic drugs: a review of preclinical studies. Psychopharmacology 203:279–294Google Scholar
  63. Porter JH, Varvel SA, Vann RE, Philibin SD, Wise LE (2000) Clozapine discrimination with a low training dose distinguishes atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs in rats. Psychopharmacology 149:189–193Google Scholar
  64. Preston KL, Bigelow GE (1991) Subjective and discriminative effects of drugs. Behav Pharmacol 2:293–313Google Scholar
  65. Quarta D, Naylor CG, Barik J, Fernandes C, Wonnacott S, Stolerman IP (2009) Drug discrimination and neurochemical studies in alpha7 null mutant mice: tests for the role of nicotinic alpha7 receptors in dopamine release. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 203(2):399–410Google Scholar
  66. Ribot T (1882) Diseases of memory. Kegan, Paul Trench and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. Ribot T (1891) The diseases of personality, 4th edn. Open Court, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  68. Riley AL, Clasen MM, Friar MA (2016) (Chapter 13, this volume) conditioned taste avoidance drug discrimination procedure: assessments and applications. In: Porter JH, Prus AJ (eds) The behavioural neuroscience of drug discrimination. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosecrans JA, Glennon RA (1979) Drug-induced cues in studying mechanisms of drug action. Neuropsychopharmacology 18:981–989Google Scholar
  70. Schechter MD (1983) Drug sensitivity of individual rats determines degree of drug discrimination. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 19:1–4Google Scholar
  71. Schuster CR, Balster RL (1977) The discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. In: Thompson T, Dews PB (eds) Advances in behavioral pharmacology, vol 1. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp 86–138Google Scholar
  72. Schuster CR, Johanson CE (1988) Relationship between the discriminative stimulus properties and subjective effects of drugs. Psychopharmacol Ser 4:161–175Google Scholar
  73. Shannon HE, Holtzman SG (1976) Evaluation of the discriminative effects of morphine in the rats. Evaluation of the discriminative effects of morphine in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 198:54–65Google Scholar
  74. Solinas M, Panlilio LV, Justinova Z, Yasar S, Goldberg SR (2006) Using drug-discrimination techniques to study the abuse-related effects of psychoactive drugs in rats. Nat Protoc 1(3):1194–1206Google Scholar
  75. Stewart J (1962) Differential responses based on the physiological consequences of pharmacological agents. Psychopharmacologia 3:132–138Google Scholar
  76. Stolerman IP, Rasul F, Shine PJ (1989) Trends in drug discrimination research analysed with a cross-indexed bibliography, 1984–1987. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 98(1):1–19Google Scholar
  77. Stolerman IP, Mariathasan EA, White J-AW, Olufsen KS (1999) Drug mixtures and ethanol as compound internal stimuli. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 64(2):221–228Google Scholar
  78. Stolerman IP, Childs E, Matthew M, Ford MM, Grant KA (2011) Role of training dose in drug discrimination: a review. Behav Pharmacol 22:415–429Google Scholar
  79. Wiebelhaus JM, Webster KA, Meltzer HY, Porter JH (2011) The metabolites N-desmethylclozapine and N-desmethylolanzapine produce cross-tolerance to the discriminative stimulus of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in C57BL/6 mice. Behav Pharmacol 22:458–467Google Scholar
  80. Young A (1991) Tolerance to drugs acting as discriminative stimuli. In: Glennon R, Jarbe T, Frankenheim J (eds) Drug discrimination: applications to drug abuse research, NIDA research monograph, vol 116. National Institute of Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, pp 197–212Google Scholar
  81. Young R (2009) Chapter 3. Drug discrimination. In: Buccafusco JL (ed) Methods of behavioral analysis in neuroscience, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 39–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph H. Porter
    • 1
  • Adam J. Prus
    • 2
  • Donald A. Overton
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Northern Michigan UniversityMarquetteUSA
  3. 3.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations