Psychopharmacology

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 286–288 | Cite as

Systemic injection of pirenzepine induces a deficit in passive avoidance learning in rats

  • P. Worms
  • C. Gueudet
  • A. Pério
  • P. Soubrié
Rapid Communications

Abstract

When injected IP, the M1 muscarinic receptor antagonist pirenzepine dose-dependently induced a deficit in passive avoidance learning in rats. This activity was optimal at 75 mg/kg injected 1 h before the acquisition session. The deficit induced by pirenzepine was antagonized by oxotremorine (0.03–0.3 mg/kg SC) and physostigmine (0.1 mg/kg SC), but not neostigmine. By comparison, under the same experimental conditions, physostigmine and oxotremorine also antagonized the deficit induced by an equipotent dose of scopolamine (0.5 mg/kg IP), although the activity of physostigmine appeared stronger against scopolamine than against pirenzepine. These results suggest that pirenzepine could produce a centrally-mediated behavioural disruption when injected systemically.

Key words

IP pirenzepine Passive avoidance Brain penetration Rat 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Birdsall NJM, Hulme EC (1983) Muscarinic receptor subclasses. TIPS 4:459–463Google Scholar
  2. Carmine AA, Brogden RN (1985) Pirenzepine: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in peptic ulcer disease and other allied diseases. Drugs 30:85–126Google Scholar
  3. Caulfield MP, Higgins GA, Straughan DW (1983) Central administration of the muscarinic receptor subtype selective antagonist pirenzepine selectively impairs passive avoidance learning in the mouse. J Pharm Pharmacol 35:131–132Google Scholar
  4. Elrod K, Buccafusco JJ (1988) An evaluation of the mechanism of scopolamine-induced impairment in two passive avoidance protocols. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 29:15–21Google Scholar
  5. Hammer R, Koss FW (1979) The pharmacokinetic profile of pirenzepine. Scand J Gastroenterol 14 (57):1–6Google Scholar
  6. Hammer R, Berrie CP, Birdsall NJ, Burgen AS, Hulme EC (1980) Pirenzepine distinguishes between different subclasses of muscarinic receptors. Nature 293:90–92Google Scholar
  7. Hunter AJ, Roberts FF (1988) The effect of pirenzepine on spatial learning in the Morris water maze. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 30:519–523Google Scholar
  8. Jarvik ME, Kopp R (1967) An improved one-trial passive avoidance learning situation. Psychol Med 21:221–224Google Scholar
  9. Walters L, Bartel P, Sommers DK, Becker P (1988) The effects of anticholinergics on the photopalpebral reflex, memory and mood. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 10:419–425Google Scholar
  10. Witkin JM, Gordon RK, Chiang PK (1987) Comparison of in vitro actions with behavioral effects of antimuscarinic agents. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 242:796–803Google Scholar
  11. Witkin JM, Alvaro-Garcia R, Perez LA, Witkin KM (1988) Central oxotremorine antagonist properties of pirenzepine. Life Sci 42:2467–2473Google Scholar
  12. Worms P, Biziere K (1987) Antagonism by cholinomimetic drugs of the turning induced by intrastriatal pirenzepine in mice. Psychopharmacology 93:489–493Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Worms
    • 1
  • C. Gueudet
    • 1
  • A. Pério
    • 1
  • P. Soubrié
    • 1
  1. 1.Neurobiology DepartmentSanofi RechercheMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations