RATIONALE: 5-Hydroxytryptamine2C (5-HT2C) receptor agonists reduce the breakpoint in progressive ratio schedules of reinforcement, an effect that has been attributed to a decrease of the efficacy of positive reinforcers. However, a reduction of the breakpoint may also reflect motor impairment. Mathematical models can help to differentiate between these processes. OBJECTIVE: The effects of the 5-HT2C receptor agonist Ro-600175 ((αS)-6-chloro-5-fluoro-α-methyl-1H-indole-1-ethanamine) and the non-selective 5-HT receptor agonist 1-(m-chlorophenyl)piperazine (mCPP) on rats' performance on a progressive ratio schedule maintained by food pellet reinforcers were assessed using a model derived from Killeen's Behav Brain Sci 17:105-172, 1994 general theory of schedule-controlled behaviour, 'mathematical principles of reinforcement'. METHOD: Rats were trained under the progressive ratio schedule, and running and overall response rates in successive ratios were analysed using the model. The effects of the agonists on estimates of the model's parameters, and the sensitivity of these effects to selective antagonists, were examined. RESULTS: Ro-600175 and mCPP reduced the breakpoint. Neither agonist significantly affected a (the parameter expressing incentive value), but both agonists increased δ (the parameter expressing minimum response time). The effects of both agonists could be attenuated by the selective 5-HT2C receptor antagonist SB-242084 (6-chloro-5-methyl-N-{6-[(2-methylpyridin-3-yl)oxy]pyridin-3-yl}indoline-1-carboxamide). The effect of mCPP was not altered by isamoltane, a selective 5-HT1B receptor antagonist, or MDL-100907 ((±)2,3-dimethoxyphenyl-1-(2-(4-piperidine)methanol)), a selective 5-HT2A receptor antagonist. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the effect of the 5-HT2C receptor agonists on progressive ratio schedule performance is mediated by an impairment of motor capacity rather than by a reduction of the incentive value of the food reinforcer.
RATIONALE: 5-Hydroxytryptamine2C (5-HT2C) receptor agonists reduce the breakpoint in progressive ratio schedules of reinforcement, an effect that has been attributed to a decrease of the efficacy of positive reinforcers. However, a reduction of the breakpoint may also reflect motor impairment. Mathematical models can help to differentiate between these processes. OBJECTIVE: The effects of the 5-HT2C receptor agonist Ro-600175 ((αS)-6-chloro-5-fluoro-α-methyl-1H-indole-1-ethanamine) and the non-selective 5-HT receptor agonist 1-(m-chlorophenyl)piperazine (mCPP) on rats' performance on a progressive ratio schedule maintained by food pellet reinforcers were assessed using a model derived from Killeen's Behav Brain Sci 17:105-172, 1994 general theory of schedule-controlled behaviour, 'mathematical principles of reinforcement'. METHOD:Rats were trained under the progressive ratio schedule, and running and overall response rates in successive ratios were analysed using the model. The effects of the agonists on estimates of the model's parameters, and the sensitivity of these effects to selective antagonists, were examined. RESULTS:Ro-600175 and mCPP reduced the breakpoint. Neither agonist significantly affected a (the parameter expressing incentive value), but both agonists increased δ (the parameter expressing minimum response time). The effects of both agonists could be attenuated by the selective 5-HT2C receptor antagonist SB-242084 (6-chloro-5-methyl-N-{6-[(2-methylpyridin-3-yl)oxy]pyridin-3-yl}indoline-1-carboxamide). The effect of mCPP was not altered by isamoltane, a selective 5-HT1B receptor antagonist, or MDL-100907 ((±)2,3-dimethoxyphenyl-1-(2-(4-piperidine)methanol)), a selective 5-HT2A receptor antagonist. CONCLUSIONS: The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the effect of the 5-HT2C receptor agonists on progressive ratio schedule performance is mediated by an impairment of motor capacity rather than by a reduction of the incentive value of the food reinforcer.
Authors: Oliver Stiedl; Ilga Misane; Melanie Koch; Tommy Pattij; Michael Meyer; Sven Ove Ogren Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Sara Jane Ward; Timothy W Lefever; Cavario Jackson; Ronald J Tallarida; Ellen A Walker Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2008-02-06 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: J R Martin; M Bös; F Jenck; J Moreau; V Mutel; A J Sleight; J Wichmann; J S Andrews; H H Berendsen; C L Broekkamp; G S Ruigt; C Köhler; A M Delft Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: C M Olarte-Sánchez; L Valencia Torres; S Body; H J Cassaday; C M Bradshaw; E Szabadi; A J Goudie Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: G Bezzina; S Body; T H C Cheung; C L Hampson; J F W Deakin; I M Anderson; E Szabadi; C M Bradshaw Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Matthew R Bailey; Olivia Goldman; Estefanía P Bello; Muhammad O Chohan; Nuri Jeong; Vanessa Winiger; Eileen Chun; Elke Schipani; Abigail Kalmbach; Joseph F Cheer; Peter D Balsam; Eleanor H Simpson Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Matthew R Bailey; Cait Williamson; Chris Mezias; Vanessa Winiger; Rae Silver; Peter D Balsam; Eleanor H Simpson Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Lourdes Valencia-Torres; Cristian M Olarte-Sánchez; David J Lyons; Teodora Georgescu; Megan Greenwald-Yarnell; Martin G Myers; Christopher M Bradshaw; Lora K Heisler Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Jonathan M Hailwood; Christopher J Heath; Trevor W Robbins; Lisa M Saksida; Timothy J Bussey Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2018-07-14 Impact factor: 4.530