Colin S Cunningham1, Lance R McMahon. 1. Department of Pharmacology, The University of Texas Health Science Center, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Receptor mechanisms underlying the behavioral effects of clinically used nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists have not been fully established. OBJECTIVE: Drug discrimination was used to compare receptor mechanisms underlying the effects of smoking cessation aids. METHODS: Separate groups of male C57BL/6J mice discriminated 0.56, 1, or 1.78 mg/kg of nicotine base. Nicotine, varenicline, and cytisine were administered alone, in combination with each other, and in combination with mecamylamine and dihydro-β-erythroidine (DHβE). Midazolam and morphine were tested to examine sensitivity to non-nicotinics. RESULTS: The ED50 value of nicotine to produce discriminative stimulus effects systematically increased as training dose increased. Varenicline and cytisine did not fully substitute for nicotine and, as compared with nicotine, their ED50 values varied less systematically as a function of nicotine training dose. Morphine did not substitute for nicotine, whereas midazolam substituted for the low and not the higher training doses of nicotine. As training dose increased, the dose of mecamylamine needed to produce a significant rightward shift in the nicotine dose-effect function also increased. DHβE antagonized nicotine in animals discriminating the smallest dose of nicotine. Varenicline did not antagonize the effects of nicotine, whereas cytisine produced a modest though significant antagonism of nicotine. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that differences in pharmacologic mechanism between nicotine, varenicline, and cytisine include not only differences in efficacy at a common subtype of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, but also differential affinity and/or efficacy at multiple receptor subtypes.
RATIONALE: Receptor mechanisms underlying the behavioral effects of clinically used nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists have not been fully established. OBJECTIVE: Drug discrimination was used to compare receptor mechanisms underlying the effects of smoking cessation aids. METHODS: Separate groups of male C57BL/6J mice discriminated 0.56, 1, or 1.78 mg/kg of nicotine base. Nicotine, varenicline, and cytisine were administered alone, in combination with each other, and in combination with mecamylamine and dihydro-β-erythroidine (DHβE). Midazolam and morphine were tested to examine sensitivity to non-nicotinics. RESULTS: The ED50 value of nicotine to produce discriminative stimulus effects systematically increased as training dose increased. Varenicline and cytisine did not fully substitute for nicotine and, as compared with nicotine, their ED50 values varied less systematically as a function of nicotine training dose. Morphine did not substitute for nicotine, whereas midazolam substituted for the low and not the higher training doses of nicotine. As training dose increased, the dose of mecamylamine needed to produce a significant rightward shift in the nicotine dose-effect function also increased. DHβE antagonized nicotine in animals discriminating the smallest dose of nicotine. Varenicline did not antagonize the effects of nicotine, whereas cytisine produced a modest though significant antagonism of nicotine. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that differences in pharmacologic mechanism between nicotine, varenicline, and cytisine include not only differences in efficacy at a common subtype of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, but also differential affinity and/or efficacy at multiple receptor subtypes.
Authors: Sharon R Grady; Ryan M Drenan; Scott R Breining; Daniel Yohannes; Charles R Wageman; Nikolai B Fedorov; Sheri McKinney; Paul Whiteaker; Merouane Bencherif; Henry A Lester; Michael J Marks Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Janice W Smith; Adrian Mogg; Elisiana Tafi; Eleanor Peacey; Ian A Pullar; Philip Szekeres; Mark Tricklebank Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2006-11-18 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jotham W Coe; Paige R Brooks; Michael G Vetelino; Michael C Wirtz; Eric P Arnold; Jianhua Huang; Steven B Sands; Thomas I Davis; Lorraine A Lebel; Carol B Fox; Alka Shrikhande; James H Heym; Eric Schaeffer; Hans Rollema; Yi Lu; Robert S Mansbach; Leslie K Chambers; Charles C Rovetti; David W Schulz; F David Tingley; Brian T O'Neill Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2005-05-19 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: H Rollema; L K Chambers; J W Coe; J Glowa; R S Hurst; L A Lebel; Y Lu; R S Mansbach; R J Mather; C C Rovetti; S B Sands; E Schaeffer; D W Schulz; F D Tingley; K E Williams Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2006-12-08 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Timothy W Lefever; Youn O K Lee; Alexander L Kovach; Melanie A R Silinski; Julie A Marusich; Brian F Thomas; Jenny L Wiley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Timothy W Lefever; Brian F Thomas; Alexander L Kovach; Rodney W Snyder; Jenny L Wiley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-24 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Christopher J Magnus; Peter H Lee; Jordi Bonaventura; Roland Zemla; Juan L Gomez; Melissa H Ramirez; Xing Hu; Adriana Galvan; Jayeeta Basu; Michael Michaelides; Scott M Sternson Journal: Science Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Colin S Cunningham; Megan J Moerke; Martin A Javors; F Ivy Carroll; Lance R McMahon Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2016-11-06 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Jesse S Rodriguez; Colin S Cunningham; Fernando B Moura; Pauline Ondachi; F Ivy Carroll; Lance R McMahon Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 4.530