4.7 Article

Differential effects of acute and repeat dosing with the H-3 antagonist GSK189254 on the sleep-wake cycle and narcoleptic episodes in Ox-/- mice

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 157, 期 1, 页码 104-117

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00205.x

关键词

Orexin knockout mice; GSK189254; H-3 receptor antagonist; narcolepsy; modafinil; sleep-wake cycle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Histamine H-3 receptor antagonists are currently being evaluated in clinical trials for a number of central nervous system disorders including narcolepsy. These agents can increase wakefulness (W) in cats and rodents following acute administration, but their effects after repeat dosing have not been reported previously. EEG and EMG recordings were used to investigate the effects of acute and repeat administration of the novel H-3 antagonist GSK189254 on the sleep-wake cycle in wild-type (Ox+/+) and orexin knockout (Ox-/-) mice, the latter being genetically susceptible to narcoleptic episodes. In addition, we investigated H-3 and H-1 receptor expression in this model using radioligand binding and autoradiography. In Ox+/+ and Ox-/- mice, acute administration of GSK189254 (3 and 10 mg.kg(-1) p.o.) increased W and decreased slow wave and paradoxical sleep to a similar degree to modafinil (64 mg.kg(-1)), while it reduced narcoleptic episodes in Ox-/- mice. After twice daily dosing for 8 days, the effect of GSK189254 (10 mg.kg(-1)) on W in both Ox+/+ and Ox-/- mice was significantly reduced, while the effect on narcoleptic episodes in Ox-/- mice was significantly increased. Binding studies revealed no significant differences in H-3 or H-1 receptor expression between Ox+/+ and Ox-/- mice. These studies provide further evidence to support the potential use of H-3 antagonists in the treatment of narcolepsy and excessive daytime sleepiness. Moreover, the differential effects observed on W and narcoleptic episodes following repeat dosing could have important implications in clinical studies.

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