RATIONALE: Different stimuli, including pharmacological stimuli, induce different neuroanatomical profiles of c-fos expression. Can these profiles be used in classifying psychoactive drugs and predicting therapeutic utility? OBJECTIVE: To test the validity of c-fos expression profiling to aid therapeutic classification. METHODS: Anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics and psychostimulants were compared. (i) A meta-analysis was performed and profiles compiled from literature reports of changes in c-fos expression in rat brain regions, measured by in situ hybridisation histochemistry or immunohistochemistry, after acute injection of psychoactive drugs. (ii) Male rat brains were profiled for changes in c-fos mRNA expression induced by acute injection of psychoactive drugs. RESULTS: (i) The meta-analysis showed that anxiolytics activate few (mostly stress-related) brain regions; antidepressants activate more regions, including the central amygdaloid nucleus; antipsychotics activate more regions still, including the nucleus accumbens and striatal areas; and psychostimulants activate the greatest number of all, including the most cortical regions (especially the piriform cortex). Profiles also varied within drug classes. (ii) Our experimental profiles confirmed and extended meta-analysis profiles, showing more downregulation. (iii) Sites activated by mirtazapine (an antidepressant not previously profiled) matched those of the antidepressant imipramine. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Differences between drug classes support their classification by means of c-fos profiling. Differences within classes may reflect mechanistic variations. (ii) Greater downregulation in our experiments might be because of inclusion of low, clinically relevant, drug doses and fuller coverage of brain regions. (iii) The agreement between mirtazapine and imipramine increases our confidence in the validity of c-fos expression profiling to aid drug classification and predict therapeutic utility.
RATIONALE: Different stimuli, including pharmacological stimuli, induce different neuroanatomical profiles of c-fos expression. Can these profiles be used in classifying psychoactive drugs and predicting therapeutic utility? OBJECTIVE: To test the validity of c-fos expression profiling to aid therapeutic classification. METHODS: Anxiolytics, antidepressants, antipsychotics and psychostimulants were compared. (i) A meta-analysis was performed and profiles compiled from literature reports of changes in c-fos expression in rat brain regions, measured by in situ hybridisation histochemistry or immunohistochemistry, after acute injection of psychoactive drugs. (ii) Male rat brains were profiled for changes in c-fos mRNA expression induced by acute injection of psychoactive drugs. RESULTS: (i) The meta-analysis showed that anxiolytics activate few (mostly stress-related) brain regions; antidepressants activate more regions, including the central amygdaloid nucleus; antipsychotics activate more regions still, including the nucleus accumbens and striatal areas; and psychostimulants activate the greatest number of all, including the most cortical regions (especially the piriform cortex). Profiles also varied within drug classes. (ii) Our experimental profiles confirmed and extended meta-analysis profiles, showing more downregulation. (iii) Sites activated by mirtazapine (an antidepressant not previously profiled) matched those of the antidepressant imipramine. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Differences between drug classes support their classification by means of c-fos profiling. Differences within classes may reflect mechanistic variations. (ii) Greater downregulation in our experiments might be because of inclusion of low, clinically relevant, drug doses and fuller coverage of brain regions. (iii) The agreement between mirtazapine and imipramine increases our confidence in the validity of c-fos expression profiling to aid drug classification and predict therapeutic utility.
Authors: G L Lyford; K Yamagata; W E Kaufmann; C A Barnes; L K Sanders; N G Copeland; D J Gilbert; N A Jenkins; A A Lanahan; P F Worley Journal: Neuron Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Greg J Siegle; Stuart R Steinhauer; Michael E Thase; V Andrew Stenger; Cameron S Carter Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: N D Volkow; G J Wang; J S Fowler; S J Gatley; Y S Ding; J Logan; S L Dewey; R Hitzemann; J Lieberman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1996-09-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: C A Jennings; J E Cluderay; J Gartlon; J Cilia; A Lloyd; D N C Jones; E Southam Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-12-03 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Natalia I Brzozowska; Erik J de Tonnerre; Kong M Li; Xiao Suo Wang; Aurelie A Boucher; Paul D Callaghan; Michael Kuligowski; Alex Wong; Jonathon C Arnold Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Nicolas Renier; Eliza L Adams; Christoph Kirst; Zhuhao Wu; Ricardo Azevedo; Johannes Kohl; Anita E Autry; Lolahon Kadiri; Kannan Umadevi Venkataraju; Yu Zhou; Victoria X Wang; Cheuk Y Tang; Olav Olsen; Catherine Dulac; Pavel Osten; Marc Tessier-Lavigne Journal: Cell Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Janitza L Montalvo-Ortiz; Jack Keegan; Christopher Gallardo; Nicolas Gerst; Kazuhiro Tetsuka; Chris Tucker; Mitsuyuki Matsumoto; Deyu Fang; John G Csernansky; Hongxin Dong Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Eric Southam; Jackie Cilia; Jane E Gartlon; Marie L Woolley; Laurent P Lacroix; Carol A Jennings; Jane E Cluderay; Charlie Reavill; Claire Rourke; David M Wilson; Lee A Dawson; Andrew D Medhurst; Declan N C Jones Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2008-09-03 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Anita C Hansson; Roberto Rimondini; Olga Neznanova; Wolfgang H Sommer; Markus Heilig Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.386