JPET

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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niedzwiecki, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mailman, R. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niedzwiecki, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mailman, R. B.

Comparative antidopaminergic properties of thioridazine, mesoridazine and sulforidazine on the corpus striatum

DM Niedzwiecki, LX Cubeddu and RB Mailman

Department of Pharmacology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

The functional antidopaminergic potencies of the atypical antipsychotic drug thioridazine (THD), as well as its active metabolites mesoridazine (MES) and sulforidazine (SUL), were assessed by testing their blockade of the inhibitory effects of endogenous dopamine (DA) or apomorphine on the electrically evoked release of radiolabeled DA and acetylcholine (ACh) from perfused rabbit striatal slices. These functional comparisons (reflecting presynaptic and postsynaptic DA receptors, respectively) were correlated with potency estimations of these drugs in competing for D2 DA receptors (i.e., [3H]spiperone binding sites) in rabbit striatal homogenates. Similar orders of potency (SUL greater than MES much greater than THD) were found for blockade of pre- and postsynaptic DA receptors modulating DA and ACh release, respectively, as well as in competing for [3H]spiperone binding sites in the striatum. MES, SUL and haloperidol were 2 to 3 times more potent at DA release modulatory receptors than postsynaptic DA receptors. In contrast, THD was 8 times more potent at antagonizing the apomorphine- induced inhibition of DA release than against apomorphine's effect on ACh release. THD was virtually inactive in antagonizing the inhibition of ACh release induced when nomifensine was used to increase endogenous synaptic DA, despite significantly antagonizing these effects on DA release in the same slices. Together, these data indicate that: 1) MES and SUL are responsible for a significant part of the antidopaminergic effects attributed to THD; 2) THD should produce less cholinergic activation than other neuroleptics; and 3) that nonreceptor-mediated effects at high THD concentrations may mask effects due to receptor blockade.

Volume 250, Issue 1, pp. 117-125, 07/01/1989
Copyright © 1989 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics







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

Copyright © 1989 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.