The role of serotonin in panic: evidence from tryptophan depletion studies

5-HT depletion, but not 5-HT1A antagonist, prevents the anxiolytic-like effect of citalopram in rat contextual conditioned fear stress model

OBJECTIVE

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been widely used in the treatment of most anxiety disorders. In this study, to clarify the mechanism of the anxiolytic effect, we investigated the mechanism underlying the effect of the SSRI citalopram on rat contextual conditioned fear stress (CFS), an animal model of anxiety.

METHODS

Rats individually received footshocks in a shock chamber. More than 1 day later, they were given citalopram and/or dl-p-chlorophenylalanine (PCPA), various subtype-selective serotonin (5-HT) receptor antagonists: the 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY 100635, the 5-HT2A receptor antagonist MDL 100907, the 5-HT2C receptor antagonist SB 242084, the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist tropisetron, the 5-HT4 receptor antagonist GR 125487, the 5-HT6 receptor antagonist SB 258585 or the 5-HT7 receptor antagonist SB 269970. After drug administration, freezing behaviour, which was used as an index of anxiety, was analysed in the same shock chamber without shocks.

RESULTS

Citalopram dose dependently reduced conditioned freezing behaviour. The anxiolytic-like effect of citalopram was prevented completely by pretreatment with the 5-HT-depleting agent PCPA, but not by the 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY 100635. Furthermore, none of the subtype-selective 5-HT receptor antagonists significantly affected conditioned freezing or affected the anxiolytic-like effect of citalopram.

CONCLUSION

The anxiolytic-like effect of citalopram in contextual CFS model depends on 5-HT availability. In addition, contextual CFS model is suggested to be completely different from conventional anxiety models in neural mechanism or manners of serotonergic involvement. However, further studies are needed to identify the pharmacological mechanisms responsible for the anxiolytic-like effect of citalopram.

Validity of urinary monoamine assay sales under the "spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model"

Spot baseline urinary monoamine assays have been used in medicine for over 50 years as a screening test for monoamine-secreting tumors, such as pheochromocytoma and carcinoid syndrome. In these disease states, when the result of a spot baseline monoamine assay is above the specific value set by the laboratory, it is an indication to obtain a 24-hour urine sample to make a definitive diagnosis. There are no defined applications where spot baseline urinary monoamine assays can be used to diagnose disease or other states directly. No peer-reviewed published original research exists which demonstrates that these assays are valid in the treatment of individual patients in the clinical setting. Since 2001, urinary monoamine assay sales have been promoted for numerous applications under the "spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model". There is no published peer-reviewed original research that defines the scientific foundation upon which the claims for these assays are made. On the contrary, several articles have been published that discredit various aspects of the model. To fill the void, this manuscript is a comprehensive review of the scientific foundation and claims put forth by laboratories selling urinary monoamine assays under the spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model.

Neurotransmitter testing of the urine: a comprehensive analysis

This paper analyzes the statistical correlation of urinary serotonin and dopamine data in subjects not suffering from monoamine-secreting tumors such as pheochromocytoma or carcinoid syndrome. Peer-reviewed literature and statistical analyses were searched and monoamine (serotonin and dopamine) assays defined in order to facilitate their proper interpretation. Many research findings in the literature are novel. Baseline assays completed with no monoamine precursors differ from baseline assays performed on a different day in the same subject. There is currently no scientific basis, value, or predictability in obtaining baseline monoamine assays. Urinary assays performed while taking precursors can demonstrate a lack of correlation or unexpected correlations such as inverse relationships. The only valid model for interpretation of urinary monoamine assays is the “three-phase model” which leads to predictability between monoamine assays and precursor administration in varied amounts.