(S)-amisulpride as a discriminative stimulus in C57BL/6 mice and its comparison to the stimulus effects of typical and atypical antipsychotics

Retinal Dopamine D2 Receptors Participate in the Development of Myopia in Mice

Purpose

To learn more about the locations of dopamine D2 receptors (D2Rs) that regulate form-deprivation myopia (FDM), using different transgenic mouse models.

Methods

One eye of D2R-knockout (KO) mice and wild-type littermates was subjected to four weeks of monocular FDM, whereas the fellow eye served as control. Mice in both groups received daily intraperitoneal injections of either the D2R antagonist sulpiride (8 µg/g) or vehicle alone. FDM was also induced in retina- (Six3^creD2R^fl/fl) or fibroblast-specific (S100a4^creD2R^fl/fl) D2R-KO mice. A subset of retina-specific D2R-KO mice and D2R^fl/fl littermates were also given sulpiride or vehicle injections. Refraction was measured with an eccentric infrared photorefractor, and other biometric parameters were measured by optical coherence tomography (n ≈ 20 for each group).

Results

FDM development was attenuated in wild-type littermates treated with sulpiride. However, this inhibitory effect disappeared in the D2R-KO mice, suggesting that antagonizing D2Rs suppressed myopia development. Similarly, the development of myopia was partially inhibited by retina-specific (deletion efficiency: 94.7%) but not fibroblast-specific (66.9%) D2R-KO. The sulpiride-mediated inhibitory effects on FDM also disappeared with retinal D2R-KO, suggesting that antagonizing D2Rs outside the retina may not attenuate myopia. Changes in axial length were less marked than changes in refraction, but in general the two were correlated.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that D2Rs located in the retina participate in dopaminergic regulation of FDM in mice. These findings provide an important and fundamental basis for further exploring the retinal mechanism(s) involved in dopamine signaling and myopia development.

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.

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.

Discriminative stimulus effects of the imidazoline I2 receptor ligands BU224 and phenyzoline in rats

Although imidazoline I2 receptor ligands have been used as discriminative stimuli, the role of efficacy of I2 receptor ligands as a critical determinant in drug discrimination has not been explored. This study characterized the discriminative stimulus effects of selective imidazoline I2 receptor ligands BU224 (a low-efficacy I2 receptor ligand) and phenyzoline (a higher efficacy I2 receptor ligand) in rats. Two groups of male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate 5.6mg/kg BU224 or 32mg/kg phenyzoline (i.p.) from their vehicle in a two-lever food-reinforced drug discrimination procedure, respectively. All rats acquired the discriminations after an average of 18 (BU224) and 56 (phenyzoline) training sessions, respectively. BU224 and phenyzoline completely substituted for one another symmetrically. Several I2 receptor ligands (tracizoline, CR4056, RS45041, and idazoxan) all occasioned>80% drug-associated lever responding in both discriminations. The I2 receptor ligand 2-BFI and a monoamine oxidase inhibitor harmane occasioned>80% drug-associated lever responding in rats discriminating BU224. Other drugs that occasioned partial or less substitution to BU224 cue included clonidine, methamphetamine, ketamine, morphine, methadone and agmatine. Clonidine, methamphetamine and morphine also only produced partial substitution to phenyzoline cue. Naltrexone, dopamine D2 receptor antagonist haloperidol and serotonin (5-HT)2A receptor antagonist MDL100907 failed to alter the discriminative stimulus effects of BU224 or phenyzoline. Combined, these results are the first to demonstrate that BU224 and phenyzoline can serve as discriminative stimuli and that the low-efficacy I2 receptor ligand BU224 shares similar discriminative stimulus effects with higher-efficacy I2 receptor ligands such as phenyzoline and 2-BFI.