Discriminative Stimulus Effects of Cholinergic Agonists and the Actions of Their Antagonists

  • I. P. Stolerman
  • R. Kumar
  • C. Reavill
Part of the Psychopharmacology Series book series (PSYCHOPHARM, volume 4)

Abstract

Both muscarinic- and nicotinic-cholinergic agonists have been used for discrimination training, but only nicotine has been studied extensively. The limited information available suggests that the discriminative stimulus effects of drugs classified as muscarinic-cholinergic agonists are blocked competitively by atropine but not by ganglion-bloekers. The discriminative effects of nicotine are blocked non-competitively by ganglion-blocking drugs that penetrate into the CNS (e.g. mecamylamine), but they are not blocked by atropine. The specificity of the block is shown by the failure of mecamylamine to block several non-nicotinic drugs. The ganglion-blocking drug chlorisondamine penetrates poorly into the CNS when injected systemically; when injected in- traventricularly, it is a potent and specific nicotine antagonist with a 4-week duration of effect. Haloperidol attenuates discriminative effects of nicotine but this is not a specific block; there are marked reductions in response rate, the morphine stimulus is also attenuated, and other neuroleptics have much weaker effects. The results support the view that the discriminative effect of nicotine involves predominantly cholinoceptive sites, and they suggest that it is not mediated primarily by the dopamine system. The transduction mechanisms for the nicotine stimulus may include the receptor sites that mediate many of its other CNS effects, but more information is needed about possible subtypes of nicotinic receptors before definitive conclusions are possible.

Keywords

Dopamine Midazolam Amphetamine Atropine Clonidine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ascher P, Large WA, Rang HP (1979) Studies on the mechanism of action of acetylcholine antagonists on rat parasympathetic ganglion cells. J Physiol 295:139–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett DA, Lal H (1982) Discriminative stimuli produced by clonidine: an investigation of the possible relationship to adrenoceptor stimulation and hypotension. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 223:642–648PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Browne RG (1982) Discriminative stimulus properties of phencyclidine. In: Colpaert FC, Slangen JL (eds) Drug discrimination: applications in CNS pharmacology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 109–122Google Scholar
  4. Chance WT, Kallman MD, Rosecrans J A, Spencer RM (1978) A comparison of nicotine and structurally related compounds as discriminative stimuli. Br J Pharmacol 63:609–616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke PBS, Kumar R (1983) Characterization of the locomotor stimulant action of nicotine in tolerant rats. Br J Pharmacol 80:587–594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke PBS, Pert A (1985) Autoradiographic evidence for nicotine receptors on nigrostriatal and mesolimbic dopaminergic neurons. Brain Res 348:355–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins AC, Evans CB, Miner LL, Marks MJ (1986) Mecamylamine blockade of nicotine responses: evidence for two brain nicotinic receptors. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 24:1767–1773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colpaert FC, Kuyps JJMD, Niemegeers CJE, Janssen PAJ (1976) Discriminative stimulus properties of a low dl-amphetamine dose. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 223:34–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Colpaert FC, Niemegeers CJE, Janssen PAJ (1977) Differential haloperidol effect on two indices of fentanyl-saline discrimination. Psychopharmacology 53:169–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcha HS, Kumar R, Norris EA, Reavill C, Stolerman IP (1985) Long-term blockade of nicotine cue by chlorisondamine in rats. Br J Pharmacol 85:245PGoogle Scholar
  11. Giorguieff-Chesselet MF, Chéramy A, Glowinski J (1980) In vivo and in vitro studies on the presynaptic control of dopamine release from nerve terminals of the nigrostriatal dopaminergic neuron. In: Littauer UZ, Dudai Y, Silman I, Teichberg VI, Vogel Z (eds) Neurotransmitters and their receptors. Wiley, New York, pp 33–47Google Scholar
  12. Goudie AJ, Atkinson J, West CR (1986) Discriminative properties of the psychostimulant dl- cathinone in a two-lever operant task. Lack of evidence for dopaminergic mediation. Neuropharmacology 25:85–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hazell P, Peterson DW, Laverty R (1978) Inability of hexamethonium to block the discriminative stimulus (SD) property of nicotine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 9:137–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirschhorn ID, Rosecrans J A (1974) Studies on the time course and the effect of cholinergic and adrenergic receptor blockers on the stimulus effect of nicotine. Psychopharmacologia 40:109–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johansson JO, Jarbe TUC (1976) Physostigmine as a discriminative cue in rats. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 219:97–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jung M, Costa L, Shearman GT, Kelly PH (1986) Discriminative properties of muscarinic agonists. Psychopharmacology 89:S46Google Scholar
  17. Kumar R, Reavill C, Stolerman IP (1987) Nicotine cue in rats: effects of central administration of ganglion-blocking drugs. Br J Pharmacol 90:239–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lichtensteiger W, Hefti F, Felix D, Huwyler T, Melamed E, Schlumpf M (1982) Stimulation of nigrostriatal dopamine neurones by nicotine. Neuropharmacology 21:963–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lingle C (1983) Blockade of cholinergic channels by chlorisondamine on a crustacean muscle. J Physiol 339:395–417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Locke KW, Holtzman SG (1985) Characterization of the discriminative stimulus effects of centrally administered morphine in the rat. Psychopharmacology 87:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marks MJ, Collins AC (1982) Characterization of nicotine binding in mouse brain and comparison with the binding of a-bungarotoxin and quinuclidinyl benzilate. Mol Pharmacol 22:554- 564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Meltzer LT, Rosecrans J A (1981) Discriminative stimulus properties of arecoline: a new approach for studying central muscarinic receptors. Psychopharmacology 75:383–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morrison CF, Stephenson JA (1969) Nicotine injections as the conditioned stimulus in discrimination learning. Psychopharmacologia 15:351–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Overton DA (1969) Control of T-maze choice by nicotinic, antinicotinic, and antimuscarinic drugs. Proceeding of the 77th annual convention of American Psychological Association, p 869Google Scholar
  25. Overton DA (1982) Comparison of the degree of discriminability of various drugs using the T-maze drug discrimination paradigm. Psychopharmacology 76:385–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Overton DA (1983) Test for a neurochemically specific mechanism mediating drug discriminations and for stimulus masking. Psychopharmacology 81:340–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poling AD, White FJ, Appel JB (1979) Discriminative stimulus properties of phencyclidine. Neuropharmacology 18:459–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reavill C, Stolerman IP, Kumar R, Garcha HS (1986) Chlorisondamine blocks acquisition of the conditioned taste aversion produced by (—)-nicotine. Neuropharmacology 25:1067- 1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Romano C, Goldstein A (1980) Stereospecific nicotine receptors on rat brain membranes. Science 210:647–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Romano C, Goldstein A, Jewell NP (1981) Characterization of the receptor mediating the nicotine discriminative stimulus. Psychopharmacology 74:310–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosecrans JA, Chance WT (1977) Cholinergic and non-cholinergic aspects of the discriminative stimulus properties of nicotine. In: Lal H (ed) Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. Plenum, New York, pp 155–185Google Scholar
  32. Rosecrans J A, Kallman MJ, Glennon R (1978) The nicotine cue: an overview: In: Colpaert FC, Rosecrans JA (eds) Stimulus properties of drugs: ten years of progress. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 69–81Google Scholar
  33. Schechter MD, Rosecrans JA (1971) Behavioral evidence for two types of cholinergic receptors in the C.N.S. Eur J Pharmacol 15:375–378PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schechter MD, Rosecrans J A (1972 a) Effect of mecamylamine on discrimination between nicotine- and arecoline-produced cues. Eur J Pharmacol 17:179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schechter MD, Rosecrans J A (1972 b) Atropine antagonism of arecoline-cued behavior in the rat. Life Sci 11:517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sloan JW, Todd GD, Martin WR (1984) Nature of nicotine binding to rat brain P2 fraction. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 20:899–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stolerman IP (1987) Psychopharmacology of nicotine: stimulus effects and receptor mechanisms. In: Iversen LL, Iversen SD, Snyder SH (eds) Handbook of psychopharmacology, vol 19. Plenum, New York, pp 421–465Google Scholar
  38. Stolerman IP, D’Mello GD (1981) Role of training conditions in discrimination of central nervous system stimulants by rats. Psychopharmacology 73:295–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stolerman IP, Pratt JA, Garcha HS, Giardini V, Kumar R (1983) Nicotine cue in rats analysed with drugs acting on cholinergic and 5-hydroxytryptamine mechanisms. Neuropharmacology 22:1029–1037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stolerman IP, Garcha HS, Pratt JA, Kumar R (1984) Role of training dose in discrimination of nicotine and related compounds by rats. Psychopharmacology 84:413–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. P. Stolerman
    • 1
  • R. Kumar
    • 1
  • C. Reavill
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Pharmacology and PsychiatryInstitute of PsychiatryLondonUK

Personalised recommendations