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

Drug Discrimination: Historical Origins, Important Concepts, and Principles

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.

Translational Value of Drug Discrimination with Typical and Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs

This chapter focuses on the translational value of drug discrimination as a preclinical assay for drug development. In particular, the importance of two factors, i.e., training dose and species, for drug discrimination studies with the atypical antipsychotic clozapine is examined. Serotonin receptors appear to be an important pharmacological mechanism mediating clozapine's discriminative cue in both rats and mice, although differences are clearly evident as antagonism of cholinergic muscarinic receptors is important in rats at a higher training dose (5.0 mg/kg) of clozapine, but not at a lower training dose (1.25 mg/kg). Antagonism of α1 adrenoceptors is a sufficient mechanism in C57BL/6 and 129S2 mice to mimic clozapine's cue, but not in DBA/2 and B6129S mice, and only produces partial substitution in low-dose clozapine discrimination in rats. Dopamine antagonism produces partial substitution for clozapine in DBA/2, 129S2, and B6129S mice, but not in C57BL/6 mice, and partial substitution is seen with D4 antagonism in low-dose clozapine drug discrimination in rats. Thus, it is evident that clozapine has a complex mixture of receptor contributions towards its discriminative cue based on the data from the four mouse strains that have been tested that is similar to the results from rat studies. A further examination of antipsychotic stimulus properties in humans, particularly in patients with schizophrenia, would go far in evaluating the translational value of the drug discrimination paradigm for antipsychotic drugs.

The DREADD agonist clozapine N-oxide (CNO) is reverse-metabolized to clozapine and produces clozapine-like interoceptive stimulus effects in rats and mice

Clozapine-N-oxide (CNO) has long been the ligand of choice for selectively activating Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADDs). However, recent studies have challenged the long-held assertion that CNO is otherwise pharmacologically inert. The present study aimed to 1) determine whether CNO is reverse-metabolized to its parent compound clozapine in mice (as has recently been reported in rats), and 2) determine whether CNO exerts clozapine-like interoceptive stimulus effects in rats and/or mice. Following administration of 10.0 mg/kg CNO, pharmacokinetic analyses replicated recent reports of back-conversion to clozapine in rats and revealed that this phenomenon also occurs in mice. In rats and mice trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg clozapine from vehicle, CNO (1.0–20.0 mg/kg) produced partial substitution for the clozapine stimulus on average, with full substitution being detected in some individual animals of both species at doses frequently used to activate DREADDs. The present demonstration that CNO is converted to clozapine and exerts clozapine-like behavioral effects in both mice and rats further emphasizes the need for appropriate control groups in studies employing DREADDs, and highlights the utility of the drug discrimination procedure as a tool with which to screen the off-target effects of novel DREADD agonists.

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

RATIONALE

Racemic (RS)-amisulpride (Solian^®) is an atypical antipsychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia and dysthymia. Blockade of dopamine D₂/D₃ and/or serotonin 5-HT₇ receptors is implicated in its pharmacological effects. While the (S)-amisulpride isomer possesses a robust discriminative cue, discriminative stimulus properties of (RS)-amisulpride have not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

The present study established (RS)-amisulpride as a discriminative stimulus and assessed amisulpride-like effects of amisulpride stereoisomers, other benzamide derivatives, and antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anxiolytic drugs.

METHODS

Adult, male C57BL/6 mice were trained to discriminate 10 mg/kg (RS)-amisulpride from vehicle in a two-lever food-reinforced operant conditioning task.

RESULTS

(RS)-Amisulpride's discriminative stimulus was dose-related, time-dependent, and stereoselective. (S)-Amisulpride (an effective dose of 50% (ED₅₀) = 0.21 mg/kg) was three times more potent than (RS)-amisulpride (ED₅₀ = 0.60 mg/kg) or (R)-amisulpride (ED₅₀ = 0.68 mg/kg). (RS)-Amisulpride generalized fully to the structurally related atypical antipsychotic/antidysthymia drug sulpiride (Sulpor^®; ED₅₀ = 7.29 mg/kg) and its (S)-enantiomer (ED₅₀ = 9.12 mg/kg); moderate to high partial generalization [60-75% drug lever responding (%DLR)] occurred to the benzamide analogs tiapride (Tiapridal^®) and raclopride, but less than 60% DLR to metoclopramide (Reglan^®), nemonapride (Emilace^®), and zacopride. Antipsychotic, antidepressant, and antianxiety drugs from other chemical classes (chlorpromazine, quetiapine, risperidone, and mianserin) produced 35-55% amisulpride lever responding. Lastly, less than 35% DLR occurred for clozapine, olanzapine, aripiprazole imipramine, chlordiazepoxide, and bupropion.

CONCLUSIONS

(RS)-Amisulpride generalized to some, but not all benzamide derivatives, and it failed to generalize to any other antipsychotic, antidepressant, or antianxiety drugs tested. Interestingly, the (R)-isomer shared very strong stimulus properties with (RS)-amisulpride. This finding was in contrast to findings from Donahue et al. (Eur J Pharmacol 734:15-22, 2014), which found that the (R)-isomer did not share very strong stimulus properties when the (S)-isomer was the training drug.

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.

Avoidance-suppressing effect of antipsychotic drugs is progressively potentiated after repeated administration: an interoceptive drug state mechanism

Antipsychotic drugs selectively suppress conditioned avoidance response. Using a two-way active avoidance response paradigm, we examined the role of drug-induced interoceptive state in the mediation of avoidance-suppressive effect. In Experiment 1, we found that rats intermittently treated with olanzapine (OLZ) (1.0 mg/kg, s.c.) or haloperidol (0.03 mg/kg, s.c.) on the 1st day of a 3-day cycle for seven cycles exhibited a progressive across-session decline in avoidance responding, despite the fact that they exhibited a comparable high level of avoidance responding on the 3rd day of each cycle during the drug-free retraining session. In Experiments 2 and 3, rats that were previously treated with OLZ (0.5-2.0 mg/kg, s.c.) or risperidone (0.2-1.0 mg/kg) during the acquisition phase of avoidance conditioning exhibited significantly fewer avoidance responses when they were retested 3 weeks later to the same drug in comparison to rats that were previously treated with nonantipsychotic drugs (chlordiazepoxide, 10 mg/kg, citalopram 10 mg/kg, or sterile water). Overall, these findings indicate a 'drug memory'-like mechanism that maintains the avoidance-suppressing effect of antipsychotics over time. This mechanism is likely driven by the interoceptive state caused by the antipsychotics, which may also be an important behavioral mechanism mediating the clinical effects of antipsychotic treatments.

Route of administration influences substitution patterns in rats trained to discriminate methadone vs. vehicle

Replacement therapy with the synthetic mu-opioid agonist methadone is an efficacious treatment for opioid abuse. While much is known about methadone's pharmacology, its discriminative stimulus properties remain largely unexplored. The present study sought to establish methadone discrimination in rats. Moreover, some research suggests that route of administration alters the discriminative stimulus of methadone. Thus, the present study also compared intraperitoneal (i.p.) and subcutaneous (s.c.) routes of administration. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate 3.0mg/kg methadone (i.p.) from vehicle in a two-lever discrimination procedure. Generalization tests were conducted with a variety of compounds administered i.p. and s.c. Methadone fully substituted for itself, yielding ED(50)s of 1.5mg/kg (i.p.) and 0.2mg/kg (s.c.). Naltrexone (i.p.), an opioid antagonist produced a dose-dependent reduction in methadone-appropriate responding. The methadone stereoisomers fully substituted for methadone when given s.c.; however, when administered i.p., (+) and (-) methadone produced partial and no substitution, respectively. Heroin fully generalized to methadone regardless of administration route, while morphine fully substituted when given s.c., but not i.p. The kappa-agonist U50-488 failed to generalize to methadone with either route of administration. These results demonstrated that methadone's discriminative stimulus is mediated through mu-opioid receptor activity and is similar to that of commonly abused opioids (heroin, morphine). Additionally, route of administration produced differential results for many of the drugs tested, suggesting decreased drug bioavailability following i.p. administration due to hepatic first pass metabolism. Taken together, these results suggest that methadone's shared subjective effects with abused opioids, as well as its unique metabolic properties contribute to its efficacy in opioid maintenance therapy.

An investigation of the behavioral mechanisms of antipsychotic action using a drug-drug conditioning paradigm

Antipsychotic drugs at noncataleptic doses selectively suppress conditioned avoidance response in rats. In our previous study, we had used a two-way active avoidance response paradigm to show that the antipsychotic-induced interoceptive state is one of the mechanisms underlying the avoidance-disruptive effect of antipsychotics. In this study, we sought to further examine this mechanism using a novel drug-drug conditioning procedure. We made use of the fact that both the typical neuroleptic haloperidol and the atypical neuroleptic olanzapine disrupt conditioned avoidance responding, whereas chlordiazepoxide (an anxiolytic) does not. We reasoned that if the antipsychotic interoceptive state is important in causing a disruption on avoidance responding (an index of antipsychotic efficacy), pairing chlordiazepoxide (a cueing drug conditional stimulus) with haloperidol or olanzapine (a cued drug unconditional stimulus) should engender chlordiazepoxide to exhibit this property and behave like an antipsychotic drug. Chlordiazepoxide exhibited an acquired antipsychotic-like property in disrupting avoidance responding after being repeatedly paired with haloperidol, but not with olanzapine. In contrast, it significantly attenuated the antiavoidance efficacy of olanzapine but not haloperidol after being repeatedly paired with these drugs. This study suggests that the haloperidol-induced interoceptive drug state is directly involved in its antiavoidance action, and chlordiazepoxide may attenuate the antiavoidance efficacy of antipsychotics (especially olanzapine). To the extent that the antiavoidance effect predicts clinical effects of antipsychotic treatment, this study suggests that the antipsychotic-induced interoceptive drug state may be an important behavioral mechanism mediating the clinical effects of antipsychotic treatments.

Further characterization of the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine in C57BL/6 mice: role of 5-HT(2A) serotonergic and alpha (1) adrenergic antagonism

RATIONALE

The discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic drug (APD) clozapine (CLZ) have recently been studied in C57BL/6 mice, a common background strain for genetic alterations. However, further evaluation is needed to fully characterize CLZ's discriminative cue in this strain of mice.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to confirm the previous findings using a shorter pretreatment time and to further characterize the receptor mechanisms mediating the discriminative stimulus properties of CLZ by testing APDs, selective ligands, and N-desmethylclozapine (CLZ's major metabolite) in C57BL/6 mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

C57BL/6 male mice were trained to discriminate 2.5 mg/kg CLZ (s.c.) from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination task.

RESULTS

Generalization testing with CLZ yielded an ED(50) = 1.19 mg/kg. Substitution testing with APDs showed that the atypical APDs quetiapine, sertindole, zotepine, iloperidone, and melperone fully substituted for CLZ (> or =80% CLZ-appropriate responding), but aripiprazole did not. The typical APDs chlorpromazine and thioridazine substituted for CLZ (fluphenazine and perphenazine did not). The serotonin (5-HT) (2A) antagonist M100907 and the alpha(1)-adrenoceptor antagonist prazosin fully substituted for CLZ. The H(1) histaminergic antagonist pyrilamine, dopamine agonist amphetamine, and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine did not substitute for CLZ. While N-desmethylclozapine did not substitute for CLZ when tested alone, N-desmethylclozapine plus a low dose of CLZ combined in an additive manner produced full substitution.

CONCLUSIONS

CLZ's discriminative cue in C57BL/6 mice is a "compound" cue mediated in part by antagonism of 5-HT(2A) and alpha(1) receptors.

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.

The role of M1 muscarinic cholinergic receptors in the discriminative stimulus properties of N-desmethylclozapine and the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine in rats

RATIONALE

The discriminative stimulus properties of clozapine (CLZ) have been studied for decades because it remains the prototype for atypical antipsychotic drug effects and yet is unique in many ways, including increased efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia and in reducing suicidality. Recent studies have indicated that the active CLZ metabolite N-desmethylclozapine (NDMC) may play a role in mediating the cognitive efficacy of CLZ and may also have atypical antipsychotic properties.

OBJECTIVES

The present study sought to determine if NDMC has discriminative stimulus properties similar to that of its parent drug CLZ.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rats were trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg CLZ from vehicle in a two-choice drug discrimination task.

RESULTS

Although NDMC (2.5-20.0 mg/kg) failed to substitute for CLZ, the combination of NDMC (5.0 and 10.0 mg/kg) with a low dose (0.3125 mg/kg) of CLZ produced full substitution (>80% CLZ-appropriate responding) for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Co-administration of the M1-preferring receptor antagonist trihexyphenidyl (6.0 mg/kg) with a 5.0 mg/kg dose of NDMC produced partial substitution (>60% to <80% CLZ-appropriate responding) for CLZ, while administration of trihexyphenidyl alone (0.3-12.0 mg/kg) failed to substitute for CLZ.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that NDMC produces discriminative stimulus effects that are different from those elicited by its parent drug CLZ. This difference may be due to the agonist properties of NDMC at M(1) muscarinic cholinergic receptors.

Antipsychotic drugs: comparison in animal models of efficacy, neurotransmitter regulation, and neuroprotection

Various lines of evidence indicate the presence of progressive pathophysiological processes occurring within the brains of patients with schizophrenia. By modulating chemical neurotransmission, antipsychotic drugs may influence a variety of functions regulating neuronal resilience and viability and have the potential for neuroprotection. This article reviews the current literature describing preclinical and clinical studies that evaluate the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs, their mechanism of action and the potential of first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs to exert effects on cellular processes that may be neuroprotective in schizophrenia. The evidence to date suggests that although all antipsychotic drugs have the ability to reduce psychotic symptoms via D(2) receptor antagonism, some antipsychotics may differ in other pharmacological properties and their capacities to mitigate and possibly reverse cellular processes that may underlie the pathophysiology of schizophrenia.

A comparison of the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine in DBA/2 and C57BL/6 inbred mice

Inbred mouse strain comparisons are an important aspect of pharmacogenetic research, especially in strains known to differ in regard to specific neurotransmitter systems. DBA/2 mice differ from C57BL/6 mice in terms of both functional and anatomical characteristics of dopamine systems. Given the importance of D2 antagonism in the action of antipsychotic drugs and in theories regarding schizophrenia (i.e. the dopamine hypothesis), this study compared the discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine (CLZ) in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 inbred mice. DBA/2 and C57BL/6 mice were trained to discriminate 2.5 mg/kg of CLZ from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination procedure and tested with a variety of antipsychotic drugs and selective ligands. Both strains of mice readily acquired the CLZ discrimination. The atypical antipsychotic drugs olanzapine and risperidone fully substituted for CLZ in both DBA/2 and C57BL/6 mice, but ziprasidone fully substituted only in the C57BL/6 mice. The typical antipsychotic drug haloperidol produced partial substitution for CLZ in the DBA/2 mice, and the dopamine agonist amphetamine required a higher dose to reduce response rates significantly in DBA/2 mice as compared with C57BL/6 mice. Antagonism of serotonergic (5-HT2A/2B/2C) receptors with ritanserin and alpha1-adrenergic receptors with prazosin engendered CLZ-appropriate responding only in the C57BL/6 mice. Thus, while serotonergic and alpha-adrenergic antagonism were shown to be important for CLZ's discriminative cue in C57BL/6 mice, none of the selective ligands produced CLZ-appropriate responding in DBA/2 mice. Differences in dopamine-mediated functions between the two strains of mice may explain some of the findings in this study.

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.

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 <or=80% condition-appropriate responding) for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose, and failed to substitute for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose. The atypical APD ziprasidone and the typical APDs haloperidol and chlorpromazine failed to substitute for either CLZ training dose. These results demonstrated that the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose provides partial or full stimulus generalization to more atypical APDs than does the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Full substitution by olanzapine for only the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose suggests that this higher training dose is also important for screening atypical APDs.

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 CLZ's 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 CLZ's 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.

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 alpha1 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.

Discriminative stimulus properties of 1.25 and 5.0 mg/kg doses of clozapine in rats: examination of the role of dopamine, serotonin, and muscarinic receptor mechanisms

Clozapine (CLZ), an atypical antipsychotic drug (APD), produces minimal extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) and has significant advantages for treating both positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenic patients. CLZ has been established as a discriminative cue in the drug discrimination paradigm and in generalization tests the CLZ cue is more selective for atypical, rather than typical, APDs. However, greater selectivity for atypical antipsychotics has been demonstrated with a lower (1.25 mg/kg) CLZ training dose in rats [Psychopharmacology, 149 (2000) 189], rather than the traditional, higher training dose (5.0 mg/kg). It is therefore of interest to evaluate the properties mediating the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ discriminative cue. In the present study, rats were trained to discriminate either 1.25 mg/kg (N=7) or 5.0 mg/kg (N=7) CLZ from vehicle in a two-lever drug discrimination task. The typical antipsychotic haloperidol (0.1-0.4 mg/kg) did not substitute for either CLZ cue, whereas the atypical antipsychotic melperone (0.37-3.0 mg/kg) provided full substitution in both groups (>80% CLZ-appropriate responding). The 5-HT(1A) receptor agonist (+)-8-OH-DPAT (0.04-0.16 mg/kg), and the selective 5-HT(2A) receptor antagonist M100907 (0.03-1.0 mg/kg) did not produce substitution in either group. (+)-8-OH-DPAT combined with haloperidol (0.05 mg/kg) engendered only partial substitution (>60% CLZ-appropriate responding) for both CLZ cues, and M100907 combined with haloperidol (0.05 and 0.1 mg/kg doses) failed to provide substitution in either group. Trihexyphenidyl (0.18-6.0 mg/kg), a muscarinic M(1)-preferring receptor antagonist, engendered full substitution for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ cue, but only partial substitution for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ cue. These results provide evidence that antagonism at the muscarinic M(1) receptor is sufficient to provide 1.25 mg/kg CLZ-like discriminative stimulus effects.

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.

Generalization of clozapine as compared to other antipsychotic agents to a discriminative stimulus elicited by the serotonin (5-HT)2A antagonist, MDL100,907

Employing a two-lever, food-reinforced FR10 procedure, rats were trained to recognize a discriminative stimulus (DS) elicited by the 5-HT(2A) receptor antagonist and potential antipsychotic agent, MDL100,907 (0.16 mg/kg, i.p.). In generalization tests, by analogy to MDL100,907 itself (Effective Dose(50) (ED(50)), 0.002 mg/kg, s.c.), the 'atypical' antipsychotic, clozapine, which displays high affinity for 5-HT(2A) as compared to D(2) receptors, dose-dependently and fully generalized to MDL100,907 (ED(50), 0.2 mg/kg, s.c.). S16924 (0.05 mg/kg, s.c.), S18327 (0.09 mg/kg, s.c.), quetiapine (1.8 mg/kg, s.c.), risperidone (0.02 mg/kg, s.c.) and ziprasidone (0.01 mg/kg, s.c.), antipsychotics which possess-like clozapine-marked affinity for 5-HT(2A) versus D(2) receptors, also generalized to MDL100,907. In distinction, raclopride, an antipsychotic which selectively interacts with D(2) versus 5-HT(2A) receptors, did not display significant generalization. Interestingly, haloperidol, which shows only modest affinity for 5-HT(2A) versus D(2) sites, generalized to MDL100,907 (ED(50), 0.02 mg/kg, s.c.). In light of the antagonist properties of haloperidol, clozapine and all other antipsychotics tested (except raclopride) at alpha(1)-adrenoceptors (ARs), the selective alpha(1)-AR antagonists, prazosin and WB4101, were examined. Both dose-dependently and fully generalized to MDL100,907 (ED(50)s, 0.07 and 0.11 mg/kg, s.c., respectively). At doses showing pronounced generalization to MDL100,907, the only drugs which significantly suppressed response rates were haloperidol and, weakly, quetiapine. Raclopride also markedly decreased response rates. In conclusion, the antipsychotic agents, clozapine, ziprasidone, risperidone, S16924, S18327, quetiapine and haloperidol, all generalized to a DS elicited by MDL100,907. While D(2) receptors are not implicated in their actions, in addition to antagonist properties at 5-HT(2A) receptors, blockade of alpha(1)-ARs and other, as yet unidentified, mechanisms may be involved. These data underpin interest in MDL100,907 as a potential antipsychotic agent.

Common discriminative stimulus properties in rats of muscarinic antagonists, clozapine and the D3 preferring antagonist PNU-99194a: an analysis of possible mechanisms

Dopamine D3 receptors have been implicated in the aetiology of schizophrenia and the actions of antipsychotic drugs. The initial studies reported here assessed the involvement of such receptors in the in vivo actions of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine and the putative D3-preferring antagonist PNU-99194A in drug discrimination assays. Rats trained to discriminate clozapine consistently generalized to PNU-99194A in two separate studies. However, four other putative D3-preferring antagonists (PD 152255, (+)-S14297, nafadotride and (+)-AJ 76) did not induce generalization to clozapine. In rats trained to discriminate PNU-99194A, which has been suggested to induce a stimulus mediated specifically by D3 antagonism, the D3-preferring antagonist (+)-UH 232 and clozapine both induced full generalization. However, the PNU-99194A-trained animals also generalized fully to the muscarinic antagonists scopolamine and trihexyphenidyl. A possible explanation for the symmetrical generalization observed between clozapine and PNU-99194A is that these drugs have common muscarinic antagonist actions, since muscarinic antagonists have been reported to substitute for clozapine in numerous prior studies. However, in vitro receptor binding studies with M1-M5 receptors indicated that (with the possible exception of the M4 receptor), no muscarinic receptor subtype had high affinity for both clozapine, PNU-99194A and scopolamine. In addition, other binding studies indicated that whereas clozapine and PNU-99194A had high affinity for the D3 receptor, scopolamine did not. It is therefore concluded that: (1) The generalization seen between clozapine, PNU-99194A and muscarinic antagonists may be mediated by common effects 'downstream' from either muscarinic or D3 receptors; (2) D3 antagonism does not play a critical role in the clozapine stimulus (since D3-preferring antagonists did not consistently induce generalization to clozapine); (3) although D3 antagonism plays a role in the PNU-91994A stimulus (since the D3-preferring antagonist (+)-UH 232 induced full generalization, in accord with results from prior studies with other D3-preferring antagonists, the PNU-99194A stimulus also has commonalities with that induced by muscarinic antagonists and clozapine. The in vivo differences observed between PNU-99194A and other D3-preferring antagonists should be borne in mind when this agent is used as a tool to study D3 receptor functioning in vivo. The similarities between the PNU-99194A and clozapine stimuli suggest tentatively that compounds with a profile like PNU-99194A may have antipsychotic actions similar to clozapine. Some preclinical data are suggestive of such effects of PNU-99194A.

Pharmacology of the atypical antipsychotic remoxipride, a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist

Remoxipride is a substituted benzamide that acts as a weak but very selective antagonist of dopamine D2 receptors. It was introduced by Astra (Roxiam) at the end of the eighties and was prescribed as an atypical antipsychotic. This article reviews its putative selective effects on mesolimbic versus nigrostriatal dopaminergic systems. In animals, remoxipride has minimal cataleptic effects at doses that block dopamine agonist-induced hyperactivity. These findings are predictive of antipsychotic activity with a low likelihood of extrapyramidal symptoms. Remoxipride also appears to be effective in more recent animal models of schizophrenia, such as latent inhibition or prepulse inhibition. In clinical studies, remoxipride shows a relatively low incidence of extrapyramidal side effects and its effects on prolactin release are short-lasting and generally mild. The clinical efficacy of remoxipride is similar to that of haloperidol or chlorpromazine. Although its clinical use was severely restricted in 1993, due to reports of aplastic anemia in some patients receiving remoxipride, this drug has been found to exhibit relatively high selectivity for dopamine D2 receptors making remoxipride an interesting tool for neurochemical and behavioral studies.