4.7 Article

Effects of typical and atypical antipsychotics and receptor selective compounds on acetylcholine efflux in the hippocampus of the rat

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 583-594

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00400-6

关键词

antipsychotic; schizophrenia; olanzapine; clozapine; microdialysis; acetylcholine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some atypical antipsychotic drugs appear to improve cognitive function in schizophrenia and since acetylcholine (ACh) is of importance in cognition, we used in vivo microdialysis to examine the effects of antipsychotics administered acutely (SC or IP) of pharmacologically comparable doses on ACh outflow in the hippocampus of the rat. The atypical antipsychotics olanzapine and doznpirre produced robust increases in ACh up to 1500% and 500%, respectively. The neuroleptics haloperidol, thioridazine, and chlorpromazine, as well as the atypical antipsychotics risperidone and ziprasidone produced modest increases in ACh by about 50-100%. Since most atypical antipsychotics affect a variety of monoaminergic receptors, we examined whether selective ligands for some of these receptors effect hippocampal ACh. Antagonists for the 5-HT2A (MDL 100,907), the 5-HT2C (SB 242,084), the 5-HT6 (Ro 04-6790), the D-2 (raclopride) receptors, and the alpha(1)-adrenoceptors (prazosin) modestly increased ACh by about 50%. The 5-HT1A agonist R-(+)-8-OH-DPAT and the alpha(2)-adrenoceptor antagonist yohimbine significantly increased ACh by about 100% and 50%, respectively. Thus, olanzapine and clozapine increased ACh to a greater extent than other tested antipsychotics, explaining perhaps their purported beneficial effect in cognitive function in schizophrenia. It appears that selective activity at each of the monoaminergic receptors studied is not the sole mechanism underlying the olanzapine and clozapine induced increases in hippocampal ACh. (C) 2002 American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. Published by Elsevier Science Inc.

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

4.7
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