The Discriminative Stimulus Effects of γ-Hydroxybutyrate and Related Compounds in Rats Discriminating Baclofen or Diazepam: The Role of GABAB and GABAA Receptors

A translational pharmacology approach to understanding the predictive value of abuse potential assessments

Within the drug development industry the assessment of abuse potential for novel molecules involves the generation and review of data from multiple sources, ranging from in-vitro binding and functional assays through to in-vivo nonclinical models in mammals, as well as collection of information from studies in humans. This breadth of data aligns with current expectations from regulatory agencies in both the USA and Europe. To date, there have been a limited number of reviews on the predictive value of individual models within this sequence, but there has been no systematic review on how each of these models contributes to our overall understanding of abuse potential risk. To address this, we analyzed data from 100 small molecules to compare the predictive validity for drug scheduling status of a number of models that typically contribute to the abuse potential assessment package. These models range from the assessment of in-vitro binding and functional profiles at receptors or transporters typically associated with abuse through in-vivo models including locomotor activity, drug discrimination, and self-administration in rodents. Data from subjective report assessments in humans following acute dosing of compounds were also included. The predictive value of each model was then evaluated relative to the scheduling status of each drug in the USA. In recognition of the fact that drug scheduling can be influenced by factors other than the pharmacology of the drug, we also evaluated the predictive value of each assay for the outcome of the human subjective effects assessment. This approach provides an objective and statistical assessment of the predictive value of many of the models typically applied within the pharmaceutical industry to evaluate abuse potential risk. In addition, the impact of combining information from multiple models was examined. This analysis adds to our understanding of the predictive value of each model, allows us to critically evaluate the benefits and limitations of each model, and provides a method for identifying opportunities for improving our assessment and prediction of abuse liability risk in the future.

Effects of the GABAB receptor-positive modulators CGP7930 and rac-BHFF in baclofen- and γ-hydroxybutyrate-discriminating pigeons

In vivo effects of GABA(B) receptor-positive modulators suggest them to have therapeutic potential to treat central nervous system disorders such as anxiety and drug abuse. Although these effects are thought to be mediated by positive modulation of GABA(B) receptors, such modulation has been examined primarily in vitro. This study further examined the in vivo properties of the GABA(B) receptor-positive modulators 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-(3-hydroxy-2,2-dimethylpropyl) phenol (CGP7930) and (R,S)-5,7-di-tert-butyl-3-hydroxy-3-trifluoromethyl-3H-benzofuran-2-one (rac-BHFF). In pigeons discriminating baclofen from saline, γ-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) produced 100% baclofen-appropriate responding, and the GABA(B) antagonist 3-aminopropyl(dimethoxymethyl) phosphinic acid (CGP35348) blocked the effects of both drugs. CGP7930 and rac-BHFF produced at most 41 and 74% baclofen-appropriate responding, respectively, and enhanced the discriminative stimulus effects of baclofen, but not of GHB. In pigeons discriminating GHB from saline, CGP7930 and rac-BHFF produced at most 1 and 49% GHB-appropriate responding, respectively, and enhanced the effects of baclofen, but not of GHB. Enhancement of the discriminative stimulus effects of baclofen by rac-BHFF and CGP7930 is further evidence of their effectiveness as GABA(B) receptor-positive modulators in vivo. Furthermore, lack of complete substitution of the positive modulators rac-BHFF and CGP7930 for baclofen and GHB suggests that their discriminative stimulus effects differ from those of GABA(B) receptor agonists. Finally, together with converging evidence that the GABA(B) receptor populations mediating the effects of baclofen and GHB are not identical, the present findings suggest that these populations differ in their susceptibility to positive modulatory effects. Such differences could allow for more selective therapeutic targeting of the GABA(B) system.

γ-Hydroxybutyrate and the GABAergic footprint: a metabolomic approach to unpicking the actions of GHB

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate is found both naturally in the brain and self-administered as a drug of abuse. It has been reported to act at endogenous γ-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) receptors and GABA(B) receptors [GABA(B)R], and may also be metabolized to GABA. Here, the metabolic fingerprints of a range of concentrations of GHB were measured in brain cortical tissue slices and compared with those of ligands active at GHB and GABA-R using principal components analysis (PCA) to identify sites of GHB activity. Low concentrations of GHB (1.0 μM) produced fingerprints similar to those of ligands active at GHB receptors and α4-containing GABA(A)R. A total of 10 μM GHB clustered proximate to mainstream GABAergic synapse ligands, such as 1.0 μM baclofen, a GABA(B)R agonist. Higher concentrations of GHB (30 μM) clustered with GABA(C)R agonists and the metabolic responses induced by blockade of the GABA transporter-1 (GAT1). The metabolic responses induced by 60 and 100 μM GHB were mimicked by simultaneous blockade of GAT1 and GAT3, addition of low concentrations of GABA(C)R antagonists, or increasing cytoplasmic GABA concentrations by incubation with the GABA transaminase inhibitor vigabatrin. These data suggest that at concentrations > 30 μM, GHB may be active via metabolism to GABA, which is then acting upon an unidentified GABAergic master switch receptor (possibly a high-affinity extrasynaptic receptor), or GHB may itself be acting directly on an extrasynaptic GABA-R, capable of turning off large numbers of cells. These results offer an explanation for the steep dose-response curve of GHB seen in vivo, and suggest potential target receptors for further investigation.

Principles of laboratory assessment of drug abuse liability and implications for clinical development

Abuse liability testing plays an important role in informing drug development, regulatory processes, and clinical practice. This paper describes the current "gold standard" methodologies that are used for laboratory assessments of abuse liability in non-human and human subjects. Particular emphasis is given to procedures such as non-human drug discrimination, self-administration, and physical dependence testing, and human dose-effect abuse liability studies that are commonly used in regulatory submissions to governmental agencies. The potential benefits and risks associated with the inclusion of measures of abuse liability in industry-sponsored clinical trials is discussed. Lastly, it is noted that many factors contribute to patterns of drug abuse and dependence outside of the laboratory setting and positive or negative signals in abuse liability studies do not always translate to high or low levels of actual abuse or dependence. Well-designed patient and physician education, pharmacovigilance, and postmarketing surveillance can reduce the diversion and misuse of drugs with abuse liability and can effectively foster the protection and promotion of public health.

Behavioral analyses of GHB: receptor mechanisms

GHB is used therapeutically and recreationally, although the precise mechanism of action responsible for its different behavioral effects is not entirely clear. The purpose of this review is to summarize how behavioral procedures, especially drug discrimination procedures, have been used to study the mechanism of action of GHB. More specifically, we will review several different drug discrimination procedures and discuss how they have been used to qualitatively and quantitatively study different components of the complex mechanism of action of GHB. A growing number of studies have provided evidence that the behavioral effects of GHB are mediated predominantly by GABAB receptors. However, there is also evidence that the mechanisms mediating the effects of GHB and the prototypical GABAB receptor agonist baclofen are not identical, and that other mechanisms such as GHB receptors and subtypes of GABAA and GABAB receptors might contribute to the effects of GHB. These findings are consistent with the different behavioral profile, abuse liability, and therapeutic indications of GHB and baclofen. A better understanding of the similarities and differences between GHB and baclofen, as well as the pharmacological mechanisms of action underlying the recreational and therapeutic effects of GHB, could lead to more effective medications with fewer adverse effects.

The distribution of gamma-hydroxybutyrate-induced Fos expression in rat brain: comparison with baclofen

gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a euphoric, prosocial and sleep inducing drug that binds with high affinity to its own GHB receptor site and also more weakly to GABA(B) receptors. GHB is efficacious in the treatment of narcolepsy and alcoholism, but heavy use can lead to dependence and withdrawal. Many effects of GHB (sedation, hypothermia, catalepsy) are mimicked by GABA(B) receptor agonists (e.g. baclofen). However other effects (euphoric and prosocial effects and a therapeutic effect in narcolepsy) are not. The present study used Fos immunohistochemistry to assess the neural activation produced in rat brain by medium to high doses of GHB (250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg) and a high dose of baclofen (10 mg/kg) that produced similar sedation to 500 mg/kg GHB. Results showed many common regions of activation with these two drugs including the supraoptic, paraventricular, median preoptic and ventral premammillary nuclei of the hypothalamus, the central nucleus of the amygdala, Edinger-Westphal nucleus, lateral parabrachial nucleus, locus coeruleus, and nucleus of the solitary tract. GHB (500 mg/kg), but not baclofen (10 mg/kg), induced significant Fos expression in the median raphe nucleus and lateral habenula, while a higher dose of GHB (1000 mg/kg) induced additional Fos expression in the islands of Calleja, dentate gyrus (polymorphic layer) and arcuate nucleus, and in various regions implicated in rapid and non-rapid eye movement sleep (laterodorsal tegmental nucleus, tuberomammillary nucleus and the ventrolateral and anterodorsal preoptic nuclei). Surprisingly, Fos immunoreactivity was not observed with either GHB or baclofen in reward-relevant regions such as the nucleus accumbens, striatum and ventral tegmental area. Overall these results indicate a distinctive signature of brain activation with GHB that may be only partly due to GABA(B) receptor effects. This confirms a unique neuropharmacological profile for GHB and indicates key neural substrates that may underlie its characteristic influence on sleep, body temperature, sociability and endocrine function.

Discriminative stimulus effects of tiagabine and related GABAergic drugs in rats

RATIONALE

Tiagabine is an anticonvulsant drug which may also have sleep-enhancing properties. It acts by inhibiting reuptake at the gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transporter (GAT-1).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to determine whether tiagabine acted as a discriminative stimulus and, if so, whether other GABAergic compounds would generalise to it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rats were trained to discriminate tiagabine (30 mg/kg p.o.) from vehicle, and generalisation to drugs that modulate GABA was assessed.

RESULTS

Gaboxadol (5-20 mg/kg p.o.), a selective extrasynaptic GABA A agonist, generalised to tiagabine, although the extent of the generalisation was inconclusive. Indiplon (1 mg/kg p.o.), a benzodiazepine-like hypnotic, also partially generalised to tiagabine, although zolpidem and S-zopiclone did not. Baclofen, a GABA B receptor agonist, and gabapentin, which increases synaptic GABA, did not generalise to tiagabine. (+)-Bicuculline (3 mg/kg i.p.), a GABA A receptor antagonist, blocked the tiagabine cue, but the less brain-penetrant salt form, bicuculline methochloride, had no effect.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that tiagabine generates a discriminative stimulus in rats, and provides a central GABA-mediated cue, but is distinct from the other GABAergic compounds tested.

Differentiating the discriminative stimulus effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate and ethanol in a three-choice drug discrimination procedure in rats

Anecdotal reports indicate that GHB produces subjective effects similar to those of ethanol. However, recent investigations comparing the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB to those of ethanol suggest that the subjective effects of these substances may differ considerably. To explore further potential differences between GHB and ethanol, 16 male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained in a three-lever drug discrimination procedure to discriminate ethanol (1.0 g/kg, experiment 1; 1.5 g/kg, experiment 2) and GHB (300 mg/kg) from vehicle. Dose-response functions determined with both training compounds revealed a clear dissociation between the discriminative stimulus effects of these drugs. As expected, the GHB precursors gamma-butyrolactone and 1,4-butanediol produced full substitution for GHB. In addition, the GABA(B) receptor agonist baclofen substituted for GHB, whereas the benzodiazepine flunitrazepam and the NMDA receptor antagonist ketamine engendered greater responding on the ethanol-lever. GHB's discriminative stimulus effects were blocked by the GABA(B) receptor antagonist CGP-35348 but only partially blocked by the putative GHB receptor antagonist NCS 382. These findings are consistent with previous reports of GHB's discriminative stimulus effects in two-choice drug discrimination procedures and provide additional evidence that these effects are distinct from those of ethanol.

Synergistic interactions between 'club drugs': gamma-hydroxybutyrate and phencyclidine enhance each other's discriminative stimulus effects

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is often abused together with other 'club drugs', such as the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists ketamine and phencyclidine (PCP). We recently found that the NMDA antagonist dizocilpine markedly enhanced GHB-induced catalepsy in rats. The present studies explored the generality of this interaction. Different groups of rats were trained to discriminate 2 mg/kg PCP or 3.2 mg/kg of the gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor agonist baclofen from saline. In the PCP-trained rats, the dose-response (DR) curve for the discriminative stimulus (DS) effects of PCP was shifted 2.5-fold to the left by 178 mg/kg GHB, but not by baclofen. In the baclofen-trained rats, 2 mg/kg PCP shifted the DR curve for the baclofen-like DS effects of GHB 2.2-fold to the left, but did not shift the DR curve for baclofen. These results suggest that (i) NMDA antagonists potentiate not only the cataleptic effects of high doses of GHB, but also the DS effects of low doses, (ii) PCP and GHB enhance one another's DS effects, and (iii) this enhancement might be specific for GHB, because it did not occur with PCP and baclofen. These findings suggest that NMDA antagonists might potentiate the subjective effects of GHB in humans, and are further evidence that glutamatergic systems modulate effects of drugs of abuse.

Antagonism of phencyclidine-induced stimulus control in the rat by other psychoactive drugs

It has been observed that agents with agonist activity at 5-HT2A receptors prevent neurotoxicity induced by the non-competitive NMDA antagonist, dizocilpine (MK-801). Subsequent behavioral studies reported complete antagonism by LSD and DOM of the stimulus effects of the related NMDA antagonist, phencyclidine [PCP]. The present study sought to extend those observations to include other psychoactive drugs. Male F-344 rats were trained in a 2-lever, fixed-ratio 10, food-reinforced task with PCP (3.0 mg/kg; IP; 30 min pretreatment) as a discriminative stimulus. Tests of generalization were then conducted using the training dose of PCP in combination with a range of doses of DOM, LSD, d-amphetamine, MDMA, psilocybin, buspirone, and GHB. All of the drugs tested in combination with PCP produced a statistically significant diminution of PCP-appropriate responding but for none was antagonism complete. These data, obtained using a stimulus control model of the hallucinogenic effects of PCP, fail to support the hypothesis that LSD and DOM completely antagonize stimulus control by PCP. Instead, the data suggest complex interactions between PCP-induced stimulus control and a variety of psychoactive drugs including GHB, an agent with no known affinity for serotonergic receptors.

Discriminative stimulus effects of flumazenil: perceptual masking by baclofen, and lack of substitution with gamma-hydroxybutyrate and its precursors 1,4-butanediol and gamma-butyrolactone

Pigeons trained to discriminate 0.1 mg/kg flumazenil, proposed as an in-vivo model to study interactions with diazepam-insensitive gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)A receptors, were tested with various GABAergic and non-GABAergic compounds. As a result of its pharmacological selectivity, the model was suitable for further examining previously reported flumazenil-like effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB). Flumazenil and the GABAA negative modulator Ro 15-4513 produced 82-100% flumazenil-appropriate responding. Diazepam and the direct-acting GABAA agonists muscimol and 4,5,6,7-tetrahydroisoxazolo[5,4-c]pyridine-3-ol (THIP) produced 38-64% flumazenil-appropriate responding. GHB, its precursors 1,4-butanediol (1,4-BD) and gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), and the GABAB agonists baclofen and SKF97541 produced 0-24% flumazenil-appropriate responding. Baclofen shifted the flumazenil dose-response curve to the right and down, possibly involving perceptual masking of the discriminative stimulus effects of flumazenil by agonist activity at GABAB receptors. These masking effects of baclofen were blocked by the GABAB antagonist CGP35348. When CGP35348 was given together with GHB to block its GABAB agonist effects, GHB did not produce flumazenil-appropriate responding. Conceivably, effects of GHB at non-GABAB receptors (e.g. diazepam-sensitive GABAA receptors and GHB receptors) may interfere with the expression of its flumazenil-like discriminative stimulus effects. The asymmetric substitution between GHB and flumazenil is consistent with the hypothesis that the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB consist of several components, not all of which are mimicked by flumazenil.

The motor-impairing effects of GABA(A) and GABA(B) agonists in gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)-treated rats: cross-tolerance to baclofen but not flunitrazepam

gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is believed to function as a neurotransmitter in the mammalian brain by binding to a GHB-specific binding site. In addition, GHB may also indirectly enhance the neuroinhibitory actions of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) by converting to GABA at neuronal synapses. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of representative GABA(A) and GABA(B) receptor agonists in rats treated chronically with GHB. Using a rotorod apparatus, the motor-impairing effects of GHB, the indirect GABA(A) receptor agonist, flunitrazepam, and the direct GABA(B) receptor agonist, baclofen, were examined before, during and after chronic treatment with 1000 mg/kg GHB, b.i.d. Prior to chronic treatment, all three drugs produced dose-dependent decreases in motor performance at low (8 rpm) and high (32 rpm) rotational speeds. Chronic treatment with GHB significantly decreased the potency of baclofen at both speeds, but did not alter the potency of either GHB or flunitrazepam. Following termination of chronic treatment, the potency of baclofen increased significantly at both speeds and returned to that observed prior to chronic treatment. These data indicate that chronic treatment with GHB confers tolerance to a GABA(B) receptor agonist under conditions in which tolerance is not conferred to a GABA(A) receptor agonist. These findings are consistent with the in vivo behavioral profile of GHB, which reveals a greater role for GABA(B) receptors than for GABA(A) receptors in its behavioral effects.

Discriminative stimulus effects of GHB and GABAB agonists are differentially attenuated by CGP35348

The aim of this study was to examine the possible heterogeneity of mechanisms that contribute to the discriminative stimulus and rate-decreasing effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB). Dose effect curves were determined for GHB and two GABA(B) receptor agonists (baclofen and SKF97541) alone and together with the selective GABA(B) receptor antagonist CGP35348 in rats discriminating GHB. In a second study, GHB and SKF97541 dose effect curves were determined alone and together with baclofen. CGP35348 attenuated the discriminative stimulus and rate-decreasing effects of SKF97541 and baclofen to a greater extent than those of GHB. In the second study, baclofen enhanced the discriminative stimulus and rate-decreasing effects of GHB and SKF97541; however, the GHB dose effect curve was not shifted in a parallel manner. Taken together, these data suggest that multiple mechanisms, possibly including GHB receptors and GABA(B) receptor subtypes, are involved in the discriminative stimulus and rate-decreasing effects of GHB.

Unravelling the brain targets of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid

Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) is a naturally occurring gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) metabolite that has been proposed as a neurotransmitter/neuromodulator that acts via its own receptor (GHBR). Its exogenous administration, however, elicits central nervous system-dependent effects (e.g. memory impairment, increase in sleep stages 3 and 4, dependence, seizures and coma) that are mostly mediated by GABAB receptors. The past few years have seen important developments in our understanding of GHB neurobiology: a putative GHBR has been cloned; a transgenic model of GHB aciduria has been developed; GABAB receptor knockout mice and novel GHB analogs have helped to characterize the vast majority of exogenous GHB actions mediated by GABAB receptors; and some of the cellular mechanisms underlying the dependence/abuse properties of GHB, and its ability to elicit absence seizures and an increase in sleep stages 3 and 4, have been clarified. Nevertheless, the physiological significance of a brain GHB signaling pathway is still unknown, and there is an urgent need for a well-validated functional assay for GHBRs. Moreover, as GHB can also be metabolized to GABA, it remains to be seen whether the many GABAB receptor-mediated actions of GHB are caused by GHB itself acting directly on GABAB receptors or by a GHB-derived GABA pool (or both).

Drosophila GABA(B) receptors are involved in behavioral effects of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB)

Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) can be synthesized in the brain but is also a known drug of abuse. Although putative GHB receptors have been cloned, it has been proposed that, similar to the behavior-impairing effects of ethanol, the in vivo effects of pharmacological GHB may involve metabotropic gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) GABA(B) receptors. We developed a fruitfly (Drosophila melanogater) model to investigate the role of these receptors in the behavioral effects of exogenous GHB. Injecting GHB into male flies produced a dose-dependent motor impairment (measured with a computer-assisted automated system), which was greater in ethanol-sensitive cheapdate mutants than in wild-type flies. These effects of pharmacological concentrations of GHB require the presence and activation of GABA(B) receptors. The evidence for this was obtained by pharmacological antagonism of GABA(B) receptors with CGP54626 and by RNA interference (RNAi)-induced knockdown of the GABA(B(1)) receptor subtype. Both procedures inhibited the behavioral effects of GHB. GHB pretreatment diminished the behavioral response to subsequent GHB injections; i.e., it triggered GHB tolerance, but did not produce ethanol tolerance. On the other hand, ethanol pretreatment produced both ethanol and GHB tolerance. It appears that in spite of many similarities between ethanol and GHB, the primary sites of their action may differ and that recently cloned putative GHB receptors may participate in actions of GHB that are not mediated by GABA(B) receptors. These receptors do not have a Drosophila orthologue. Whether Drosophila express a different GHB receptor should be explored.

Discriminative stimulus effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and its metabolic precursor, gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) in rats

RATIONALE

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is becoming an increasingly popular drug of abuse. Metabolic precursors of GHB, gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) and 1,4-butanediol (BDL), are commercially available industrial solvents that may also present potential health risks. Relatively little is known about the neurobehavioral effects of GHB and its precursors.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present investigation was to characterize the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB and its precursor, GBL.

METHODS

Male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to discriminate GHB [300 mg/kg, i.g.; n=16] or GBL (150 mg/kg, i.p.; n=8) from vehicle under a fixed ratio 20 (FR 20) schedule of food reinforcement. Stimulus generalization tests were then conducted with several compounds.

RESULTS

GHB and GBL produced cross-generalization and BDL was fully substituted for both GHB and GBL. Two benzodiazepines, alprazolam and diazepam, and the 5-HT1A agonist, buspirone, did not substitute for either training drug nor did ethanol or the NMDA antagonists, PCP and ketamine. The GHB antagonist, NCS-382, and the GABA(B) antagonist, CGP-35348, blocked the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB but not those of GBL.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that GHB and its metabolic precursors produce similar subjective effects that differ from those of other sedative-hypnotic drugs. Further investigations into the neurochemical actions underlying the subjective effects of these drugs are warranted.

Comparison of the behavioral effects of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) and its 4-methyl-substituted analog, gamma-hydroxyvaleric acid (GHV)

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), a metabolite of GABA, is a drug of abuse and a therapeutic. The illicit use of GHB precursors and analogs reportedly has increased worldwide. Gamma-hydroxyvaleric (GHV) is a 4-methyl-substituted analog of GHB that reportedly is abused and is marketed as a dietary supplement and replacement for GHB. The purpose of these studies was to compare the pharmacological and behavioral profiles of GHV and GHB. In radioligand binding studies, GHV completely displaced [(3)H]NCS-382 with approximately 2-fold lower affinity than GHB and did not markedly displace [(3)H]GABA from GABA(B) receptors at a 20-fold larger concentration. In drug discrimination procedures, GHV did not share discriminative stimulus effects with GHB or baclofen. GHV shared other behavioral effects with GHB, such as sedation, catalepsy, and ataxia, although larger doses of GHV were required to produce these effects. Lethality (50%) was observed after the largest dose of GHV (5600mg/kg), a dose that produced less-than-maximal catalepsy and ataxia. To the extent that large doses of GHV might be taken to in an attempt to produce GHB-like effects (e.g., hypnosis) GHV toxicity may pose a greater public health concern than GHB.

Discriminative stimulus effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) in rats discriminating GHB from baclofen and diazepam

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a drug of abuse with actions at GHB and GABA receptors. This study tried to increase the selectivity of the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB by training animals to discriminate GHB from compounds that share pharmacological mechanisms with GHB. In comparison with a previous GHB versus saline discrimination (group 1), rats were trained to discriminate GHB (200 mg/kg) either from saline and the GABA(B) agonist baclofen (3.2 mg/kg) (group 2) or from saline, baclofen, and the positive GABA(A) modulator diazepam (1 mg/kg) (group 3). In all groups, GHB produced more than 80% GHB-appropriate responding. Baclofen produced 84% GHB-appropriate responding in group 1 but less than 30% in groups 2 and 3. Diazepam produced 68% GHB-appropriate responding in group 1, 30% in group 2, and only 5% in group 3. The GABA(B) receptor antagonists CGP35348 [3-[aminopropyl(diethoxymethyl)phosphinic acid] and CGP52432 [3-[[[((3,4-dichlorophenyl)methyl]amino]propyl]diethoxymethyl)phosphinic acid] attenuated the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB; CGP35348 did so with similar potency in all groups, but CGP52432 was significantly less potent in groups 2 and 3 than in group 1. In all groups, the GHB antagonist NCS-382 [(2E)-(5-hydroxy-5,7,8,9-tetrahydro-6H-benzo[a][7]annulen-6-ylidene ethanoic acid] partially attenuated the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB. The selective GHB receptor ligand UMB86 (4-hydroxy-4-napthylbutanoic acid sodium) tended to attenuate the discriminative stimulus effects of GHB more in group 3 than in the other groups. The finding that animals can discriminate GHB from baclofen is further evidence that the effects of GHB and baclofen are not identical. Effects that GHB does not share with baclofen may involve GHB receptors or differential interactions with GABA(B) receptors.

Novel gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) analogs share some, but not all, of the behavioral effects of GHB and GABAB receptor agonists

gamma-Hydroxybutyrate (GHB), a therapeutic for narcolepsy and a drug of abuse, has several mechanisms of action that involve GHB and GABA(B) receptors, metabolism to GABA, and modulation of dopaminergic signaling. The aim of these studies was to examine the role of GHB and GABA(B) receptors in the behavioral effects of GHB. Three approaches were used to synthesize GHB analogs that bind selectively to GHB receptors and are not metabolized to GABA-active compounds. Radioligand binding assays identified UMB86 (4-hydroxy-4-napthylbutanoic acid, sodium salt), UMB72 [4-(3-phenylpropyloxy)butyric acid, sodium salt], UMB73 (4-benzyloxybutyric acid, sodium salt), 2-hydroxyphenylacetic acid, 3-hydroxyphenylacetic acid (3-HPA), and 4-hydroxy-4-phenylbutyric acid as compounds that displace [(3)H]NCS-382 [5-[(3)H]-(2E)-(5-hydroxy-5,7,8,9-tetrahydro-6H-benzo[a][7] annulen-6-ylidene) ethanoic acid] from GHB receptors at concentrations that do not markedly affect [(3)H]GABA binding to GABA(B) receptors. In rats and pigeons, GHB discriminative stimulus effects were not mimicked or attenuated by UMB86, UMB72, or 3-HPA up to doses that decreased responding. In mice, GHB, GHB precursors (gamma-butyrolactone and 1,4-butanediol) and GABA(B) receptor agonists [SKF97541 [3-aminopropyl(methyl)phosphinic acid hydrochloride] and baclofen] dose-dependently produced hypolocomotion, catalepsy, ataxia, and loss of righting. The GABA(B) receptor antagonist CGP35348 (3-aminopropyl(diethoxymethyl)phosphinic acid) attenuated catalepsy and ataxia that was observed after GHB and GABA(B) receptor agonists SKF97541 and baclofen. UMB86, UMB72, UMB73, and 3-HPA, like GHB, produced hypolocomotion, ataxia, and loss of righting; however, catalepsy was never observed with these compounds, which is consistent with the cataleptic effects of GHB being mediated by GABA(B) receptors. Ataxia that was observed with UMB86, UMB72, UMB73, and 3-HPA was not antagonized by CGP35348, suggesting that ataxia induced by these analogs is not mediated by GABA(B) receptors and might involve GHB receptors.

Interaction between 1,4-butanediol and ethanol on operant responding and the cardiovascular system

The current studies characterized the rate-decreasing and cardiovascular responses produced by 1,4-butanediol administered alone and in combination with ethanol to test the hypothesis that these effects resulted from the degradation of 1,4-butanediol to gamma-hydroxybutyrate. One group of rats responded under a fixed-ratio 20 schedule of food presentation; ethanol and 1,4-butanediol dose-dependently decreased response rates. Ethanol administered in combination with 1,4-butanediol attenuated the rate-decreasing effects of 1,4-butanediol without altering the potency of ethanol. In separate groups of conscious rats, radio telemetry was used to record mean arterial pressure and heart rate. In contrast to its depressant effects on schedule-controlled responding, 1,4-butanediol increased mean arterial pressure and heart rate; these increases were attenuated by ethanol. Thus, the behavioral and cardiovascular actions of 1,4-butanediol are similar to those elicited by gamma-hydroxybutyrate. The ability of ethanol to attenuate the behavioral and cardiovascular effects of 1,4-butanediol indicates that these effects require the conversion of 1,4-butanediol to gamma-hydroxybutyrate.