4.5 Article

The effects of a selective dopamine D2 receptor agonist on behavioral and pathological outcome in 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine-treated squirrel monkeys

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.105.087379

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P51RR000167] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01-NS40578] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we investigated antiparkinsonian activity of the novel, highly selective dopamine D 2 receptor agonist sumanirole compared with two clinically effective dopaminergic therapies in the 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) primate model of Parkinson's disease. Squirrel monkeys were rendered parkinsonian by chronic administration of MPTP and subsequently dosed with vehicle, L-DOPA plus carbidopa (L-DOPA), ropinirole, or sumanirole over a duration of 8 weeks. Antiparkinsonian effects measured with a parkinsonian primate rating scale (PPRS) showed that sumanirole elicited improved functional outcome compared with vehicle. The dopamine D2/D3 agonist ropinirole improved behavioral outcome similar to sumanirole, whereas L-DOPA treatment yielded the most significant symptomatic improvement. The relative rank of therapies that elicited normalization of PPRS was L-DOPA > sumanirole; ropinirole did not normalize PPRS in any of the treated monkeys. Dyskinesias were present with L-DOPA treatment but were not observed in sumanirole-, ropinirole-, or placebo-treated primates. Pathologically, all MPTP-treated animals displayed neurodegeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta and reactive astrocytosis. Neurons immunoreactive with antibodies to the nuclear transcription factor Delta FosB were most significantly increased in the striatum of L-DOPA-treated monkeys. These results suggest that sumanirole can exert antiparkinsonian effects similar to L-DOPA without the behavioral and morphological consequences of the latter.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据