Relationship of the behavioral effects of aprophen, atropine and scopolamine to antagonism of the behavioral effects of physostigmine

https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(90)90051-IGet rights and content

Abstract

Behavioral effects of aprophen, atropine and scopolamine, in rats, were examined under a multiple schedule of food presentation and at different injection-test times. The effects of the varied treatments were compared to the ability of the drugs, under identical conditions, to prevent the behavioral effects of the anticholineserase, physostigmine. Potencies of the antagonists to decrease response rates varied across three log units. All three antagonists produced dose-related attenuation of the response suppressant effects of physostigmine. In general, aprophen was a better antagonist than scopolamine or atropine. It blocked behavioral effects of physostigmine across a wider range of doses than the other compounds, and did so with less behavioral disruption. Although substantial differences between the three antagonists were observed, the behavioral effects of all three antagonists (when administered alone) were positively correlated with their efficacy as antagonists of the response suppressant effects of physostigmine.

References (18)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (16)

  • Assessment of low level whole-body soman vapor exposure in rats

    2009, Neurotoxicology and Teratology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Performance under the control of operant schedules has been shown to be sensitive to disruption by a variety of pharmacological agents, including cholinergic compounds e.g., [15] and [16]. We have shown previously that, in rats, physostigmine, a reversible cholinesterase inhibitor, decreases responding maintained by fixed-ratio schedules [17] and variable-interval schedules [19]. Furthermore, with repeated administration, tolerance develops to the response deficit produced by physostigmine [18].

View all citing articles on Scopus

In conducting the research described in this report, the investigators adhere to the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,” as promulgated by the Committee on Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Research Council. The views of the authors do not purport to reflect the position of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense (para 4-3, AR 360-5).

3

Present address: Psychobiology Laboratory, NIDA Addiction Research Center, Baltimore, MD 21224.

View full text