Interactions between scopolamine and muscarinic cholinergic agonists or cholinesterase inhibitors on spatial alternation performance in rats

HE Shannon, KG Bemis, JC Hendrix and JS Ward

Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana.

The effects on working memory of the muscarinic cholinergic agonists oxotremorine, arecoline, RS86 and pilocarpine, and the cholinesterase inhibitors physostigmine and tetrahydroaminoacadine were investigated in male F344 rats. Working memory was assessed by behavior maintained under a spatial alternation schedule of food presentation in which the interval between trials was varied from 2 to 32 sec. Under control conditions the percentage of correct responses decreased as the retention interval was varied from 2 to 32 sec. Administered alone the cholinergic agonists oxotremorine (0.01-0.1 mg/kg), arecoline (3-30 mg/kg), RS86 (0.3-3 mg/kg) and pilocarpine (0.3-3.0 mg/kg), and the cholinesterase inhibitors physostigmine (0.01-0.1 mg/kg) and tetrahydroaminoacridine (0.3-3.0 mg/kg) either had no effect on or produced dose-related deficits in working memory and decreases in response rates. The muscarinic antagonist scopolamine (0.1 mg/kg) produced retention interval-dependent decreases in the percentage of correct responding and rates of responding. The cholinergic agonists and tetrahydroaminoacridine failed to reverse the effects of scopolamine. However, physostigmine produced a dose-dependent reversal of the working-memory deficits and response-rate decreasing effects of scopolamine. The present results are consistent with the interpretation that drugs which primarily enhance M2 muscarinic cholinergic transmission are ineffective in enhancing working memory or in reversing scopolamine-induced deficits in working memory.

Volume 255, Issue 3, pp. 1071-1077, 12/01/1990
Copyright © 1990 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. K. Jones and H. E. Shannon Muscarinic Cholinergic Modulation of Prepulse Inhibition of the Acoustic Startle Reflex J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., September 1, 2000; 294(3): 1017 - 1023. [Abstract] [Full Text]