, Volume 122, Issue 3, pp 230–236 | Cite as

Effects of several benzodiazepines, alone and in combination with flumazenil, in rhesus monkeys trained to discriminate pentobarbital from saline

  • W. L. Woolverton
  • M. A. Nader
Original Investigation


The purpose of the present study was to further investigate the relationship between the DS effects of PB and those of benzodiazepines (BZs) and to begin to collect pharmacological information concerning receptor mechanisms involved in this behavioral effect of BZs. Rhesus monkeys (n=3), trained to discriminate pentobarbital (PB; 10 mg/kg, IG) from saline under a discrete-trials shock avoidance procedure, were given IG diazepam (0.3–10 mg/kg), chlordiazepoxide (1.0–30 mg/kg), or etizolam (0.3–10 mg/kg) alone and in combination with flumazenil (0.01–1.7 mg/kg, IM). Flumazenil was administered 10 min prior to the administration of saline, PB or the BZs. All three BZs fully substituted for PB in all monkeys. Diazepam was the most potent with a mean ED50 of 0.81 mg/kg (SEM=0.04) while chlordiazepoxide was the least potent (mean ED50=5.78 mg/kg, SEM=1.22 mg/kg). The ED50 for etizolam was 1.22 mg/kg (SEM=0.37 mg/kg). Pretreatment with flumazenil (0.01–1.0 mg/kg) resulted in a dose-related parallel shift to the right in the dose-response function for PB-appropriate responding in all monkeys for all three BZs. The mean (n=3) pKB value with 0.1 mg/kg flumazenil was 6.51 (SEM=0.42) for diazepam and 6.57 (SEM=0.17) for chlordiazepoxide. This value could not be calculated for etizolam because only one monkey was tested with 0.1 mg/kg flumazenil. However, the mean pKB for etizolam considering all monkeys and all doses of flumazenil was 6.58 (SEM=0.47). Apparent pA2 values for flumazenil with diazepam were 6.02 for one monkey and 7.11 for another. All three BZs tended to increase average latency to respond. Apparent pKB and pA2 analysis may prove useful for elucidating receptor mechanisms involved in the behavioral effects of BZs.

Key words

Benzodiazepines Flumazenil Rhesus monkeys Pentobarbital 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ator NA, Griffiths RR (1983) Lorazepam and pentobarbital drug discrimination in baboons: cross-drug generalization and interaction with Ro 15-1788. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 226:776–782Google Scholar
  2. Ator NA, Griffiths RR (1986) Discriminative stimulus effects of atypical anxiolytics in baboons and rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 237:393–403Google Scholar
  3. Barry H III, Krimmer EC (1989) Differential stimulus attributes of chlordiazepoxide and pentobarbital. Neuropharmacology 18:991–998Google Scholar
  4. Bennett DA (1985) The non-sedating anxiolytic CGS 9896 produces discriminative stimuli that may be related to an anxioselective effect. Life Sci 37:703–709Google Scholar
  5. Casacchia M, Bolino F, Ecari, U (1990) Etizolam in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a double blind study versus placebo. Curr Med Res Opin 12:215–223Google Scholar
  6. Davies MF, Onaivi ES, Chen SW, Maguire PA, Tsai NF, Loew GH (1994) Evidence for central benzodiazepine receptor heterogeneity from behavior tests. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 49:47–56Google Scholar
  7. De Vry J, Slangen JL (1986) Effects of chlordiazepoxid training dose on the mixed agonist-antagonist properties of benzodiazepine receptor antagonist Ro 15-1788, in a drug discrimination procedure. Psychopharmacology 88:177–183Google Scholar
  8. de Wit H, Griffiths RR (1991) Testing the abuse liability of anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend 28:83–111Google Scholar
  9. de Wit H, Pieri J, Johanson CE (1989) Reinforcing and subjective effects of diazepam in non drug-abusing volunteers. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 33:205–213Google Scholar
  10. Dietrich RA, Dunwiddie TV, Harris RA, Erwin VG (1989) Mechanism of action of ethanol: initial central nervous system actions. Pharmacol Rev 41:489–537Google Scholar
  11. Doble A, Martin IL (1992) Multiple benzodiazepine receptors: no reason for anxiety. Trends Pharmacol Sci 13:76–81Google Scholar
  12. Dykstra LA, Bertalmio AJ, Woods JH (1988) Discriminative and analgesic effects of mu and kappa opioids: in vivo pA2 analysis. In: Colpaert FC, Balster RL (eds) Transduction mechanisms of drug stimuli. Springer, Berlin, pp 107–121Google Scholar
  13. Evans SM, Johanson CE (1989) Discriminative stimulus properties of midazolam in the pigeon. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 248:29–38Google Scholar
  14. Fracasso C, Confalonieri S, Garratini S, Caccia S (1991) Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics of etizolam in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 40:181–185Google Scholar
  15. Gardner CR (1988) Pharmacological profiles in vivo of benzodiazepine receptor ligands. Drug Dev Res 12:1–28Google Scholar
  16. Garza, R de la, Evans SM, Johanson CE (1987) Discriminative stimulus properties of oxazepam in the pigeon. Life Sci 40:71–79Google Scholar
  17. Griffiths RR (1995) Benzodiazepines: long-term use among patients is a concern and abuse among polydrug abusers is not trivial. Psychopharmacology 118:116–117Google Scholar
  18. Griffiths RR, Evans SM, Guarino JJ, Roache JD, Furman WR, Liebson I, Schwam EM (1993) Intravenous flumazenil following acute and repeated exposure to lorazepam in healthy volunteers: antagonism and precipitated withdrawal. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 265:1163–1174Google Scholar
  19. Herling S, Shannon HE (1982) Ro 15-1788 antagonizes th discriminative stimulus effects of diazepam in rats but not similar effects of pentobarbital. Life Sci 31:2105–2112Google Scholar
  20. Herling S, Valentino RJ, Winger GD (1980) Discriminative stimulus effects of pentobarbital in pigeons. Psychopharmacology 71:21–28Google Scholar
  21. Holtzman, SG (1982) Phencyclidine-like discriminative stimulus properties of opioids in the squirrel monkey. Psychopharmacology 77:295–300Google Scholar
  22. Holtzman, SG (1990) Discriminative stimulus effects of drugs: relationship to potential for abuse. In: Adler MW, Cowan A (eds) Testing and evaluation of drugs of abuse. Modern Methods in Pharmacology, vol. 6. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp 193–210Google Scholar
  23. Holtzman SG, Steinfels GF (1994) Antagonism of the discriminative stimulus effects of the kappa-opioid agonist spiradoline. Psychopharmacology 116:243–248Google Scholar
  24. Jarbe TUC (1976) Characteristics of pentobarbital discrimination in the gerbil: ransfer and antagonism. Psychopharmacology 49:33–40Google Scholar
  25. Kunchandy J, Kulkarni SK (1986) Apparent pA2 estimation of benzodiazepine receptor antagonists. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 8:553–555Google Scholar
  26. Mohler H (1992) GABAergic synaptic transmission. Arzneimittel-forschung 42:211–214Google Scholar
  27. Nader MA, Winger G, Woods JH, Woolverton WL (1991) Discriminative and reinforcing effects of brotizolam in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 103:166–171Google Scholar
  28. Negus SS, Burke TF, Medzihradsky F, Woods JH (1993) Effects of opioid agonists selective for mu, kappa, and delta opioid receptors on schedule-controlled responding in rhesus monkeys: antagonism by quadazocine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 267:896–903Google Scholar
  29. Overton DA (1976) Discriminable effects of benzodiazepines. Psychopharmacol Commun 2:339–343Google Scholar
  30. Patat A, Marcus MN, Gessel, EV, Forster A, Dubroc C, Rosenzweig P (1994) Flumazenil antagonizes the central effects of zolpidem, an imidazopyridine hypnotic. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56:430–436Google Scholar
  31. Sanger DJ, Benavides J, Perrault G, Morel E, Cohen C, Joly D, Zivkovic B (1994) Recent developments in the behavioral pharmacology of benzodiazepine (omega) receptors: evidence for the functional significance of receptor subtypes. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 18:355–372Google Scholar
  32. Shannon HE, Herling S (1983) Discriminative stimulus effects of diazepam in rats; evidence for a maximal effect. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 227:160–166Google Scholar
  33. Spealman RD (1985) Discriminative-stimulus effects of midazolam in squirrel monkeys: comparison with other drugs and antagonism by RO 15-1788. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 235:456–462Google Scholar
  34. Takada K, Winger G, Cook J, Larscheid P, Woods JH (1986) Discriminative and aversive properties of ß-carboline-3-carboxylic acid ethyl ester, a benzodiazepine receptor inverse agonist, in rhesus monkeys. Life Sci 38:1049–1056Google Scholar
  35. Tallarida RJ, Murray RB (1981) Manual of pharmacological calculations with computer programs, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Tallarida RJ, Cowan A, Adler MW (1979) pA2 and receptor differentiation: a statistical analysis of competitive antagonists. Life Sci 25:637–654Google Scholar
  37. Tsumagari T, Nakajima A, Fukuda T, Shuto S, Kenjo T, Morimoto Y, Takigawa Y (1978) Pharmacological properties of Y-7131: a new anti-anxiety drug. Arzneimittelforschung 28:1158–1165Google Scholar
  38. Willetts J, Balster RL (1989) Pentobarbital-like discriminative stimulus effects ofN-methyl-d-aspartate antagonists. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 249:438–443Google Scholar
  39. Winger G, Herling S (1982) Discriminative stimulus effects of pentobarbital in rhesus monkeys: tests of generalization and duration of action. Psychopharmacology 76:172–176Google Scholar
  40. Woods JH, Katz JL, Winger G (1987) Abuse liability of benzodiazepines. Pharmacol Rev 39:251–491Google Scholar
  41. Woods JH, Winger G, France CP (1992) Use of in vivo apparent pA2 analysis in assessment of opioid abuse liability. Trends Pharmacol Sci 13:282–286Google Scholar
  42. Woolverton WL, Schuster CR (1983) Behavioral and pharmacological aspects of opioid dependence: mixed agonist-antagonists. Pharmacol Rev 35:33–52Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. L. Woolverton
    • 1
  • M. A. Nader
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations