Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 169–173 | Cite as

Behavioral comparisons of R-2-amino-1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl) butane (BL-3912A) with R-DOM and S-Amphetamine

  • H. A. Tilson
  • J. H. Chamberlain
  • J. A. Gylys
Animal Studies

Abstract

The behavioral effects of R-2-amino-1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl) butane or BL-3912A were compared with those of S-Amphetamine and R-DOM. BL-3912A facilitated acquisition of shuttle box responding by rats without increasing noncontingent intertrial (ITI) activity, while S-Amphetamine increased both avoidance and ITI responding. R-DOM had a biphasic effect on avoidance responding, increasing it at low doses and disrupting at higher doses. At doses that facilitated shuttle box responding, BL-3912A had no effect on unacclimated motor activity of rats nor on the rate of continuous avoidance responding by rats. S-Amphetamine increased the frequency of both motor activity and operant avoidance responding, while R-DOM decreased motor activity and increased operant avoidance responding. By facilitating avoidance behavior without increasing other measures of psychomotor activity, BL-3912A represents a unique psychopharmacological agent clearly different from R-DOM and S-Amphetamine.

Key words

BL-3912A S-Amphetamine R-DOM Facilitation of behavior Locomotor activity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beaton, J. M., Smythies, J., Benington, F., Morin, R.: The behavioral effects of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl amphetamine (DOM) in rats. Res. Comm. Behav. Biol. 3, 81–84 (1969)Google Scholar
  2. Buyniski, J. P., Smith, M. L., Bierwagen, M. E.: Cardiovascular and gross behavioral effects of amphetamine, 2-amino-1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl) propane (DOM) and 2-amino-1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)butane (BL-3912A) in the conscious dog. Res. Comm. Chem. Path. Pharmacol. 8, 213–221 (1974)Google Scholar
  3. Hayes, W.: Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1965Google Scholar
  4. Honecker, H., Coper, H.: Kinetics and metabolism of amphetamine in the brain of rats of different ages. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch. Pharmacol. 291, 111–121 (1975)Google Scholar
  5. Marquis, W. J., Tilson, H. A., Rech, R. H.: Effects of amphetamine, LSD, psilocybin and DOM on schedule-controlled behavior in the rat. Fed. Proc. 32, 818 (1973)Google Scholar
  6. Snyder, S., Faillace, L., Weingartner, H.: DOM (STP), a new hallucinogenic drug and DOET: effects in normal subjects. Amer. J. Psychiat. 125, 357–364 (1968)Google Scholar
  7. Snyder, S., Weingartner, H., Faillace, L.: DOET (2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine) and DOM (STP) (2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine), new psychotropic agents: their effects in man. In: Psychotomimetic drugs, D. Efron, ed., pp. 247–263. New York: Raven Press 1970Google Scholar
  8. Standridge, R., Howell, H., Gylys, J. A., Partyka, R. A., Shulgin, A.: Phenylalkylamines with potential psychotherapeutic utility. I. 2-amino-1-(2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)butane. J. med. Chem. (in press, 1976)Google Scholar
  9. Tilson, H. A., Baker, T. G., Chamberlain, J. H., Marquis, W. J., Rech, R. H.: Behavioral and neuropharmacological analysis of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl-amphetamine (DOM) and amphetamine in rats. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 44, 229–239 (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. Tilson
    • 1
  • J. H. Chamberlain
    • 1
  • J. A. Gylys
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmacology DepartmentBristol LaboratoriesSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations