The discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine in rats

The use of the reinstatement model to study relapse to palatable food seeking during dieting

Excessive consumption of unhealthy foods is a major public health problem. While many people attempt to control their food intake through dieting, many relapse to unhealthy eating habits within a few months. We have begun to study this clinical condition in rats by adapting the reinstatement model, which has been used extensively to study relapse to drug seeking. In our adaptation of the relapse model, reinstatement of palatable food seeking by exposure to food-pellet priming, food-associated cues, or stress is assessed in food-restricted (to mimic dieting) rats after operant food-pellet self-administration training and subsequent extinction of the food-reinforced responding. In this review, we first outline the clinical problem and discuss a recent study in which we assessed the predictive validity of the reinstatement model for studying relapse to food seeking during dieting by using the anorexigenic drug fenfluramine. Next, we summarize results from our initial studies on the role of several stress- and feeding-related peptides (corticotropin-releasing factor, hypocretin, melanin-concentrating hormone, peptide YY3-36) in reinstatement of palatable food seeking. We then present results from our studies on the role of dopamine and medial prefrontal cortex in stress-induced reinstatement of food seeking. We conclude by discussing potential clinical implications. We offer two main conclusions: (1) the food reinstatement model is a simple, reliable, and valid model to study mechanisms of relapse to palatable food seeking during dieting, and to identify medications to prevent this relapse; (2) mechanisms of relapse to food seeking are often dissociable from mechanisms of ongoing food intake. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'NIDA 40th Anniversary Issue'.

Role of training dose in drug discrimination: a review

Drug discrimination has been an important technique in behavioural pharmacology for at least 40 years. The characteristics of drug-produced discriminative stimuli are influenced by behavioural and pharmacological variables, including the doses used to establish discriminations. This review covers studies on the effects of varying the training dose of a drug in a search for general principles that are applicable across different drug classes and methodological approaches. With respect to quantitative changes, relationships between training dose and the rate of acquisition or magnitude of stimulus control were found for most drug classes. Acquisition accelerated with dose up to a point beyond which drug-induced impairments of performance had a deleterious impact. Sensitivity to the training drug as measured by ED(50) values typically increased when the training dose was reduced. Qualitative changes were more complex and appeared to fall into three categories: (a) changes in profiles of generalization between partial and full agonists; (b) reduced specificity of some discriminations at small training doses; and (c) changes in the relative salience of actions mediated through different neurotransmitter systems or from central and peripheral sites. Three-lever discrimination procedures incorporating 'drug versus drug' or 'dose versus dose' contingencies enabled detection of more subtle differences than the simple 'drug versus no drug' approach when applied to the opioid, hallucinogen and barbiturate classes of drugs. These conclusions have implications for the interpretation of data from studies that use either within-subject or between-subject designs for studying the discriminative stimulus effects of drugs.

Prefrontal cortex and reversion of atropine-induced disruption of the degraded contingency effect by antipsychotic agents and N-desmethylclozapine in rats

Interactive context processing is a cognitive ability that is altered in psychotic states, including schizophrenia. This deficit has been linked to prefrontal cortical dysfunction in humans. The degraded contingency effect (DCE) is a simple form of interactive context processing by which contextual information interferes with a target conditioned stimulus for control over conditioned responding. We have previously shown that the DCE was disrupted by the muscarinic receptor antagonist atropine and that this disruption was specifically restored by cholinergic drugs displaying an antipsychotic-like profile, such as physostigmine or xanomeline. The DCE was selectively associated with an increase in Fos immunoreactivity in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), an increase that was not observed in the presence of atropine. Here, we set out to test the actions of typical, atypical and potential antipsychotics on atropine-induced disruption of the DCE and the related mPFC Fos-immunoreactivity profile. Low doses of haloperidol, olanzapine, clozapine and N-desmethylclozapine reversed atropine-induced disruption of the DCE, but with different dose-dependent curves (linear shapes for haloperidol and N-desmethylclozapine, inverted U shapes for olanzapine and clozapine). The level of Fos within the mPFC paralleled the pharmacological profile of the different drugs. Compared to contingent control groups, an increased level of Fos immunoreactivity within the mPFC was observed only with doses that reversed atropine-induced disruption of the DCE. These results suggest that the deficit of interactive context processing, which is a hallmark of psychotic states, might originate from a mere deficit of fundamental associative processes. This deficit might result from a cholinergic blockade of the PFC.

An investigation of the behavioral mechanisms of antipsychotic action using a drug-drug conditioning paradigm

Antipsychotic drugs at noncataleptic doses selectively suppress conditioned avoidance response in rats. In our previous study, we had used a two-way active avoidance response paradigm to show that the antipsychotic-induced interoceptive state is one of the mechanisms underlying the avoidance-disruptive effect of antipsychotics. In this study, we sought to further examine this mechanism using a novel drug-drug conditioning procedure. We made use of the fact that both the typical neuroleptic haloperidol and the atypical neuroleptic olanzapine disrupt conditioned avoidance responding, whereas chlordiazepoxide (an anxiolytic) does not. We reasoned that if the antipsychotic interoceptive state is important in causing a disruption on avoidance responding (an index of antipsychotic efficacy), pairing chlordiazepoxide (a cueing drug conditional stimulus) with haloperidol or olanzapine (a cued drug unconditional stimulus) should engender chlordiazepoxide to exhibit this property and behave like an antipsychotic drug. Chlordiazepoxide exhibited an acquired antipsychotic-like property in disrupting avoidance responding after being repeatedly paired with haloperidol, but not with olanzapine. In contrast, it significantly attenuated the antiavoidance efficacy of olanzapine but not haloperidol after being repeatedly paired with these drugs. This study suggests that the haloperidol-induced interoceptive drug state is directly involved in its antiavoidance action, and chlordiazepoxide may attenuate the antiavoidance efficacy of antipsychotics (especially olanzapine). To the extent that the antiavoidance effect predicts clinical effects of antipsychotic treatment, this study suggests that the antipsychotic-induced interoceptive drug state may be an important behavioral mechanism mediating the clinical effects of antipsychotic treatments.

Discriminative stimulus properties of atypical and typical antipsychotic drugs: a review of preclinical studies

BACKGROUND

Drug discrimination is an increasingly valuable behavioral assay for the preclinical development of antipsychotic drugs. The majority of studies have used the atypical antipsychotic clozapine because it displays robust discriminative stimulus properties and is the "prototypical" or "gold standard" atypical antipsychotic against which other antipsychotics will undoubtedly be compared for many years.

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacological mechanisms mediating the discriminative stimulus properties of antipsychotics used as training drugs and the usefulness of drug discrimination for distinguishing typical and atypical antipsychotics were reviewed.

RESULTS

Clozapine appears to have a compound cue involving antagonism of two or more receptors. While muscarinic receptor antagonism is a prominent factor for mediation of clozapine's cue in rats with a 5.0-mg/kg training dose, there are differences in clozapine's cue with a low training dose and in pigeons and mice. With a low training dose, clozapine has consistently produced full or partial generalization to atypical but not to typical antipsychotics. Although not evaluated as extensively, the atypical antipsychotics quetiapine and ziprasidone also appear to generalize to atypical but not typical antipsychotics. This has not been the case for other antipsychotic drugs (olanzapine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol) used as training drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important differences in discriminative stimulus properties both between and within atypical and typical antipsychotics and across species. While low-dose clozapine discrimination in rats appears to provide a more sensitive behavioral assay for distinguishing atypical from typical antipsychotics, the extent to which clozapine's discriminative stimulus properties are predictive of its antipsychotic effects remains to be determined.

Potentiation of olanzapine substitution in rats discriminating clozapine by the D2/3 agonist quinpirole

The D2/3 agonist (+)-4-propyl-9-hydroxynaphthoxazine (PHNO) has been reported to enhance the ability of olanzapine to substitute for clozapine and attenuate olanzapine-induced response suppression in monkeys. These data suggest that the relatively marked D2/3 antagonist actions of olanzapine limit its substitution for clozapine. The work reported here replicated and extended these findings. Twelve rats were trained to discriminate clozapine (5 mg/kg, intraperitoneal) from vehicle in an FR30 quantal food rewarded assay. The substitution curve for olanzapine (0-2.5 mg/kg) was then computed after treatment with either vehicle or a high dose (0.1 mg/kg) of the D2/3 agonist quinpirole. The olanzapine substitution curve was shifted significantly 5.2-fold in parallel to the left by quinpirole. Olanzapine suppressed responding significantly, but this effect was not attenuated or enhanced by quinpirole, which suppressed responding itself. Thus antagonist actions at D2/3 receptors clearly limit the ability of olanzapine to substitute for clozapine. These findings suggest that the clozapine versus vehicle discrimination is probably a bioassay for agents that resemble clozapine but which do not necessarily induce D2/3 antagonism. This discrimination may therefore not specifically detect clozapine-like antipsychotics, although it may be of value in developing such antipsychotics. The low discriminability of antipsychotics in general may be because antagonist actions at D2/3 receptors limit incentive salience in discrimination assays. These data are compatible with recent theorizing that therapeutic actions of antipsychotics in schizophrenia involve D2/3 receptor-mediated attenuation of stimulus salience.

Olanzapine and JL13 induce cross-tolerance to the clozapine discriminative stimulus in rats

We have previously shown that chronic treatment with clozapine induces tolerance to the clozapine discriminative stimulus in rats. The studies reported here extended this work to assess whether chronic treatment with the clozapine-like antipsychotics olanzapine and 5-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)-8-chloro-pyrido[2,3-b][1,5] benzoxazepine fumarate (JL13) induced cross-tolerance to clozapine. Two groups of rats were trained to discriminate clozapine (5 mg/kg, intraperitoneal). Training was suspended and the rats were treated with either olanzapine or JL13 at high doses (5 and 20 mg/kg, respectively). These doses were administered twice daily. The clozapine generalization curve was computed three times - before chronic drug treatment, after 10 days of chronic treatment, and after 16 drug-free days. Both olanzapine and JL13 induced cross-tolerance to the clozapine stimulus, shown by significant 3.4 and 3.9 fold parallel shifts to the right in the clozapine generalization curves. Cross-tolerance was lost spontaneously during the drug-free days after treatment as clozapine sensitivity returned to baseline. We interpret these findings as indicative of the development of pharmacodynamic cross-tolerance to clozapine. Possible neuroadaptive mechanisms involved in such cross-tolerance are discussed. The paradigm outlined here allows refinement of antipsychotic drug discrimination assays to identify common chronic effects of such drugs.

Discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine in rats trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg clozapine vs. 5.0 mg/kg clozapine vs. vehicle

Clozapine, the prototype for atypical antipsychotic drugs, is used in the drug discrimination paradigm as a model for screening atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs. Previous drug discrimination studies in rats have shown that a 1.25 mg/kg clozapine training dose provides full stimulus generalization (i.e.) >or=80% condition-appropriate responding) to most atypical antipsychotic drugs, although a 5.0 mg/kg clozapine training dose appears necessary to provide stimulus generalization to other atypical antipsychotic drugs. The present study sought to characterize the pharmacological mechanisms that mediate these clozapine training doses. In rats trained to discriminate 1.25 vs. 5.0 mg/kg clozapine vs. vehicle in a three-choice drug discrimination task, various receptor-selective compounds were tested for stimulus generalization. The antidepressant mianserin was also tested. Full stimulus generalization from the 1.25 mg/kg clozapine training dose occurred only to mianserin (98.8%). Partial substitution (i.e. >or=60% and <80% condition-appropriate responding) to the 5.0 mg/kg clozapine training dose occurred for the muscarinic receptor antagonist scopolamine. The combined total percentage of responding on the 1.25 and 5.0 mg/kg clozapine levers, however, was well above the full substitution criteria at the 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/kg scopolamine doses. The M1 agonist N-desmethylclozapine, the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine, the D1 antagonist SCH 23390, the D4 antagonist LU 38-012, the 5-HT1A agonist (+)-8-OH-DPAT, the 5-HT1A antagonist WAY 100 635, the 5-HT2A/2B/2C antagonist ritanserin, the 5-HT6 antagonist RO4368554, the alpha1 antagonist prazosin, the alpha2 antagonist yohimbine, and the histamine H1 antagonist pyrilamine all failed to substitute for either the 1.25 or the 5.0 mg/kg clozapine training doses. These results are consistent with previous evidence that antidepressant drugs have a tendency to substitute for clozapine and that muscarinic receptor antagonism may mediate the discriminative stimulus properties of 5.0 mg/kg clozapine. The lack of stimulus generalization from either clozapine training dose to other receptor-selective compounds, however, fails to explain how this model screens atypical from typical antipsychotic drugs and suggests that the discriminative stimulus properties of clozapine consist of a compound cue.

Generalization to atypical antipsychotic drugs depends on training dose in rats trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg clozapine versus 5.0 mg/kg clozapine versus vehicle in a three-choice drug discrimination task

The prototypical atypical antipsychotic drug (APD) clozapine (CLZ) elicits a discriminative cue that appears to be similar to the stimulus properties elicited by atypical, but not typical, antipsychotic drugs in two-choice drug discrimination procedures. However, the ability of CLZ to generalize to atypical APDs depends on the training dose, since several atypical APDs (e.g. sertindole, risperidone) do not substitute for a 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose in rats, but do so for a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Yet, a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ discriminative stimulus has not generalized to all atypical APDs either (e.g. quetiapine); thus, both 1.25 mg/kg and 5.0 mg/kg CLZ discriminative stimuli may be necessary to provide a better screen for atypical APDs. The present study sought to determine whether a three-choice 1.25 mg/kg CLZ versus 5.0 mg/kg CLZ versus vehicle drug discrimination task in rats might better distinguish atypical from typical APDs. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained in this three-choice drug discrimination task with a fixed ratio 30 reinforcement schedule for food. Clozapine produced full substitution (>or=80% condition-appropriate responding) for both the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.09 mg/kg) and the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=2.71 mg/kg). The atypical APD olanzapine produced full substitution for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose, but not for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=1.55 mg/kg). In contrast, the atypical APD quetiapine produced full substitution for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.13 mg/kg), but not for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose. Similarly, the atypical APD sertindole produced full substitution for only the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.94 mg/kg). Risperidone, another atypical APD, produced partial substitution (>or=60% and <or=80% condition-appropriate responding) for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose, and failed to substitute for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose. The atypical APD ziprasidone and the typical APDs haloperidol and chlorpromazine failed to substitute for either CLZ training dose. These results demonstrated that the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose provides partial or full stimulus generalization to more atypical APDs than does the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Full substitution by olanzapine for only the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose suggests that this higher training dose is also important for screening atypical APDs.

Discriminative stimulus properties of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine and the typical antipsychotic chlorpromazine in a three-choice drug discrimination procedure in rats

RATIONALE

The atypical antipsychotic drug (APD) clozapine elicits a robust discriminative cue that is generally selective for other atypical APDS in two-choice drug discrimination (DD) procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The present study determined whether a three-choice DD procedure with the atypical APD clozapine (CLZ) versus the typical APD chlorpromazine (CPZ) versus vehicle (VEH) could provide greater selectivity between atypical and typical APDs.

METHODS

Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate 5.0 mg/kg CLZ from 1.0 mg/kg CPZ from VEH in a three-lever DD task with an FR30 food reinforcement schedule.

RESULTS

Generalization testing with CLZ produced CPZ-appropriate responding at lower doses (ED50=0.103 mg/kg) and CLZ-appropriate responding at higher doses (ED50=1.69 mg/kg). Generalization testing with the atypical APD olanzapine produced similar results. In contrast, the atypical APD risperidone and the typical APDs CPZ and haloperidol produced only CPZ-appropriate responding. The muscarinic antagonist scopolamine produced CPZ-appropriate responding at lower doses and CLZ-appropriate responding at higher doses in a manner similar to CLZ and olanzapine. The co-administration of haloperidol (0.00625 mg/kg) with scopolamine shifted the dose-response curve for CLZ-appropriate responding to the left. The 5-HT(2A/2C) antagonist ritanserin and the H1 histamine antagonist pyrilamine did not substitute for either CLZ or CPZ. The alpha1 adrenergic antagonist prazosin did not substitute for CLZ, but produced full substitution for CPZ.

CONCLUSIONS

The three-choice DD procedure clearly distinguished the atypical APDs CLZ and olanzapine from the typical APDs CPZ and haloperidol; however, the stimulus properties of the atypical APD risperidone were similar to CPZ, but not to CLZ. These findings further suggest that CLZ, as well as CPZ, elicits a compound cue.

Stimulus properties of the “atypical” antipsychotic zotepine in rats: comparisons with clozapine and quetiapine

The stimulus properties of the "atypical" antipsychotic zotepine were assessed in three studies in rats. In Study 1, the ability of zotepine to generalise to clozapine was studied. Two groups of rats were trained to discriminate clozapine at 2 and 5 mg/kg. Clozapine induced full generalisation in both groups, with the generalisation curves shifted significantly to the left in the low dose group. In generalisation tests clozapine did not suppress responding. Zotepine induced dose-related generalisation in both groups, with full generalisation in the low dose group and 50% maximal generalisation in the high dose group at the highest dose that could be tested. In contrast to clozapine, zotepine induced substantial (50% or more) substitution for clozapine only at doses which suppressed responding. In Study 2 zotepine was investigated in rats trained to discriminate quetiapine (10 mg/kg). Quetiapine induced full generalisation and zotepine only induced 54% generalisation at the highest dose that could be tested. Generalisation was accompanied by response suppression induced by both quetiapine and zotepine. In Study 3 an attempt was made to train a zotepine discrimination (1 mg/kg increased to 2 mg/kg). Even after 150 training sessions it proved impossible to obtain reliable discriminative responding with zotepine. These data suggest that: (i) The actions of zotepine in discrimination assays are similar to, but not identical with, those of clozapine and quetiapine; (ii) The differences among the actions of clozapine, quetiapine and zotepine may be related to either the unique ability of zotepine to block noradrenaline (NA) uptake, or to its more marked affinity for D(2) receptors; (iii) The finding that zotepine only mimicked quetiapine up to a level of 54% was unexpected, since quetiapine and clozapine generalise reciprocally and zotepine generalised fully to (low dose) clozapine. This finding may also be related either to zotepine's ability to inhibit NA uptake or its relatively high D(2) affinity; (iv) Although zotepine clearly possesses discriminative properties, it is not possible to train it as a reliable stimulus, in contrast to clozapine and quetiapine. This may be due to its more marked D(2) receptor affinity. Collectively, these data demonstrate both similarities and differences between zotepine and other novel atypical antipsychotics in drug discrimination assays.

Muscarinic mechanisms of antipsychotic atypicality

The interactions of the atypical antipsychotic drugs (APD) clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine and ziprasidone with muscarinic receptors were reviewed. Only clozapine and olanzapine have marked affinity for muscarinic receptors in radioligand binding studies; however, the affinity of these compounds is considerably lower than classical muscarinic antagonists. Although functional assays in cell lines transfected with muscarinic receptors suggest that olanzapine and clozapine have weak partial agonist activity at muscarinic receptors, particularly M4 receptors, studies in vitro and in vivo indicate that the compounds function as antagonists. In animal studies and in humans, clozapine has pronounced antimuscarinic effects whereas olanzapine has weak antimuscarinic effects. However, olanzapine significantly occupies central muscarinic receptors in humans. Overall, the role of muscarinic receptors in the antipsychotic effects of clozapine and olanzapine is controversial and complex.