JPET Celsis microsomes equal better data

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Winter, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Flataker, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Winter, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Flataker, L.
Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics, Vol. 101, Issue 2, 156-162, 1951
Copyright © 1951 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

THE EFFECT OF ANTIHISTAMINIC DRUGS UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF TRAINED RATS

Charles A. Winter 1 and Lars Flataker 1

1 Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research, Rahway, N. J.

Rats were trained to climb a vertical rope. The time required for climbing was noted, as well as the behavior of the animals. In general, antihistaminic drugs produced muscular incoordination and evidences of cerebral depression in the trained animals, resulting in prolongation of the climbing time, or even complete failure. Curare also prolonged the climbing time, but the effect appeared to be due to muscular weakness and fatigue, in contrast to the confusion and incoordination observed in the animals treated with antihistaminic drugs.

The various antihistaminic drugs differed widely in their tendency to produce the effect described, but the order of relative effectiveness was different from that previously found in the potentiation of the hypnotic action of barbiturates in mice. It is therefore suggested that the two types of experiments demonstrate actions upon different areas of the higher centers.

Amphetamine and caffeine counteract the depressant effect of the antihistaminic drugs as evidenced in the climbing test, while cocaine and Picrotoxin add to the confusion of the animals and to the delay in climbing. Alcohol neither increased nor decreased the effect.

Phenindamine (Thephorin) differed from the other antihistaminic drugs studied in that it produced evidence of central excitation rather than depression. Amphetamine and caffeine increased this effect of phenindamine. On the other hand, phenindamine potentiated the effect of a depressant drug (Phenergan) on the performance of the animals.

Submitted on October 4, 1950




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
E. F. Domino
History of Modern Psychopharmacology: A Personal View With an Emphasis on Antidepressants
Psychosom Med, September 1, 1999; 61(5): 591 - 598.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Gen PsychiatryHome page
J. R. BERGEN, F. W. GRAY, R. B. PENNELL, H. FREEMAN, and H. HOAGLAND
Taraxein-like Extracts: Effects on Rat Behavior
Arch Gen Psychiatry, January 1, 1965; 12(1): 80 - 82.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch NeurolHome page
J. R. BERGEN, R. B. PENNELL, H. FREEMAN, and H. HOAGLAND
Rat Behavior Changes in Response to a Blood Factor from Normal and Psychotic Persons
Arch Neurol, February 1, 1960; 2(2): 146 - 150.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Gen PsychiatryHome page
E. KOPMANN and F. W. HUGHES
Potentiating Effect of Alcohol on Tranquilizers and Other Central Depressants
Arch Gen Psychiatry, July 1, 1959; 1(1): 7 - 11.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1951 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.