Psychopharmacology

, Volume 199, Issue 3, pp 331–388

Realistic expectations of prepulse inhibition in translational models for schizophrenia research

  • Neal R. Swerdlow
  • Martin Weber
  • Ying Qu
  • Gregory A. Light
  • David L. Braff
Review

Abstract

Introduction

Under specific conditions, a weak lead stimulus, or “prepulse”, can inhibit the startling effects of a subsequent intense abrupt stimulus. This startle-inhibiting effect of the prepulse, termed “prepulse inhibition” (PPI), is widely used in translational models to understand the biology of brain‑based inhibitory mechanisms and their deficiency in neuropsychiatric disorders. In 1981, four published reports with “prepulse inhibition” as an index term were listed on Medline; over the past 5 years, new published Medline reports with “prepulse inhibition” as an index term have appeared at a rate exceeding once every 2.7 days (n = 678). Most of these reports focus on the use of PPI in translational models of impaired sensorimotor gating in schizophrenia. This rapid expansion and broad application of PPI as a tool for understanding schizophrenia has, at times, outpaced critical thinking and falsifiable hypotheses about the relative strengths vs. limitations of this measure.

Objectives

This review enumerates the realistic expectations for PPI in translational models for schizophrenia research, and provides cautionary notes for the future applications of this important research tool.

Conclusion

In humans, PPI is not “diagnostic”; levels of PPI do not predict clinical course, specific symptoms, or individual medication responses. In preclinical studies, PPI is valuable for evaluating models or model organisms relevant to schizophrenia, “mapping” neural substrates of deficient PPI in schizophrenia, and advancing the discovery and development of novel therapeutics. Across species, PPI is a reliable, robust quantitative phenotype that is useful for probing the neurobiology and genetics of gating deficits in schizophrenia.

Keywords

Animal models Antipsychotic Dopamine Prepulse inhibition Schizophrenia Sensorimotor gating Startle 

Introduction

Among the paths to understanding the neurobiology of schizophrenia, one heavily traveled, has been the study through preclinical and clinical models of sensorimotor gating and its neural and genetic substrates. A laboratory paradigm frequently used to operationally measure sensorimotor gating is prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex (PPI). Medline lists over 1400 published reports utilizing the key word “prepulse inhibition” and over 580 that also include the key word “schizophrenia”. Research using PPI to probe the neural and genetic bases of schizophrenia has crossed every level of the “top‑down” and “bottom‑up” investigations of this disorder—from studies of the psychological implications of PPI to those assessing the control of PPI by signal transduction pathways and the genes that regulate them. Arising implicitly and explicitly from such a broad application of the PPI paradigm have been assumptions and expectations that we hope to examine critically in this review. In so doing, we hope to offer some perspectives on both potentially productive directions of this work, and the degree to which some assumptions and expectations may, or may not, be reasonable.

Historical overview

The popularity of PPI as an experimental paradigm for understanding schizophrenia comes from its conceptual linkage to clinical observations that schizophrenia patients are unable to optimally filter or “gate” irrelevant, intrusive sensory stimuli (Bleuler 1911; Kraepelin and Robertson 1919; McGhie and Chapman 1961; Venables 1964). These clinical observations led to the formulation of a construct—“gating deficits” in schizophrenia—that has been extended to refer to deficient inhibition of both sensory and cognitive information. The PPI paradigm was developed as a measure of automatic or preconscious inhibition in normal comparison subjects, as one variant of numerous paired-pulse paradigms in which the presentation of a lead stimulus led to the reduced perceptual or motor response to a second stimulus (Peak 1939; Graham 1975) (Fig. 1). Braff et al. (1978) first merged the construct and its operational measurement by identifying PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients, a finding that has since been replicated by many independent groups and [as reviewed previously (Braff et al. 2001b) and below], has become among the most influential paradigms in the field of schizophrenia psychophysiology. A comprehensive review through the year 2000 of all reports linking PPI deficits to schizophrenia in clinical populations is found in Braff et al. (2001b); reports subsequent to this date are listed in Table 1. Animal studies first linked this finding to a neurochemical (DA) and anatomical (ventral striatum) substrate (Sorenson and Swerdlow 1982; Swerdlow et al. 1986), and subsequent reports centered these substrates within an extended forebrain and pontine circuit that regulates PPI in rodents (Koch and Schnitzler 1997; Swerdlow et al. 1992, 2000a; see Table 4). Animal studies have identified developmental (Geyer et al. 1993; Lipska et al. 1995; see Table 3) and genetic (Carter et al. 1999; Ralph et al. 1999; Geyer et al. 2002; see Table 3) influences on PPI and have led to predictive models for antipsychotic development (Swerdlow et al. 1994) that have been modified and widely applied towards antipsychotic discovery. A comprehensive review through the year 2000 of all reports using PPI in models predicting antipsychotic properties is found in Geyer et al. (2001); reports subsequent to this date are listed in Table 2.
Fig. 1

Schematic representation, adapted from Swerdlow et al. (1994), of stimuli used to elicit PPI in laboratory measures (a). b shows superimposed tracings of electromyography of the right orbicularis oculi in an adult male subject, from sequential trials that included either a prepulse [20 ms noise burst 4 dB over a 70-dB(A) background] followed 100 ms later by a 118-dB(A) 40 ms startle noise pulse (solid black area), or the startle pulse alone (open area). Tracings in (b) begin at pulse onset. The amount of inhibition generated by the prepulse can be appreciated visually by subtracting the solid area from the open area

Table 1

Studies of PPI in schizophrenia patients and related groups, ca. 2001–2007a

I. Studies reporting PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients

II. Studies reporting PPI deficits in subgroups of schizophrenia patients

III. Studies reporting PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients under specific experimental conditions

IV. Studies reporting PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients

V. Studies reporting PPI deficits in populations conceptually linked to schizophrenia

Reference

Sex, medications, n, other characteristics

PPI deficits compared to normal comparison subjects (NCS)?

Other measures or factors examined in relation to PPIb

Eye side

Background DBc

Startle stimuli

Prepulse stimuli

Prepulse interval (ms)

I. Studies reporting PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients

Braff et al. 2005

F, MED (n = 25)

Yes

 

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 78 and 86 dB WN

30, 120

Cadenhead et al. 2002

M/F 10/11, MED (n = 4), UNMED (n = 17)

33% of PTS < 1 SD of PPI of NCS

Medication, clinical characteristics, P50, AS

R,L

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 86 dB WN

30, 120

Duncan et al. 2003a

M, MED (n = 27), UNMED (n = 14)

Yes

Medication

R

70

40 ms 116 dB 1 KHz

20 ms 85 dB 1 KHz

30–120

Duncan et al. 2003b

M, study 1: pre- and post-medication (n = 16); study 2: MED (n = 43), UNMED (n = 21)

Yes, independent of medication status

Medication

R

70

40 ms 116 dB 1 KHz

20 ms dB 1 KHz

30–120

Heresco-Levy et al. 2007

M/F 18/12, MED

Yes

Clinical characteristics, serum glycine and glutamate levels

R

70

40 ms 115 dB 1 KHz

20 ms 84 dB 1 KHz

30–120

Hong et al. 2007

M/F 46/13, MED

Yes

Medication, P50

R

70

40 ms 116 dB WN

20 ms 80 dB WN

30–500

Kumari et al. 2003a

M, MED (n = 7).

Trend towards lower PPI

fMRI

R

None

40 ms airpuff 30 psi

20 ms airpuff 10 psi

100

Kumari et al. 2005a

M, MED (n = 23)

Yes

Medication, violence ratings, clinical characteristics, illness duration

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–150

Kumari et al. 2005b

Study 1: M, MED (n = 35–39); study 2: M/F 23/12, MED

Yes

Medication, clinical characteristics, AS

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–120

Kumari et al. 2007B

M/F 17/3, UNMED

Yes

 

R,L

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–120

Ludewig and Vollenweider 2002

M/F 49/18, MED

Yes

Medication, clinical characteristics

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 86 dB WN

30–2000

Ludewig et al. 2002

M/F 15/4, MED

Yes

 

R

70

40 ms 115 dB

20 ms 86 dB

30–2000

Ludewig et al. 2003

M, UNMED (n = 24)

Yes

Clinical characteristics

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 86 dB WN

30–2000

Mackeprang et al. 2002

M/F 14/6, MED

Yes independent of medication status

Medication

R

70

40 ms 116 dB

85 dB

30–120

Perry et al. 2002

M and F (n = 41); M/F 25/16, MED (n = 20), UNMED (n = 21)

Yes

Medication

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 95 dB WN

30–120

Perry et al. 2004

M/F 8/6, MED

Yes

Sex

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–120

Swerdlow et al. 2006f

M/F 72/31, MED (n = 94), UNMED (n = 9)

Yes

Medication, sex, clinical characteristics, neurocognitive and functional measures, smoking

R,L

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

20–120

II. Studies reporting PPI deficits in subgroups of schizophrenia patients

Kumari et al. 2004

M/F 27/15, MED

Yes in men, but not in women

Medication, sex, clinical characteristics, PPF

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 78 or 85 dB WN

30–150

Leumann et al. 2002

M/F 25/8, MED

Yes with typical but not atypical APs

Medication, LI

R

70

40 ms 115 dB

20 ms 86 dB

30–2000

Meincke et al. 2004

M/F 22/14, MED

Yes during acute, but not remitted clinical state

Clinical characteristics, psychopathological symptoms

R

65

20 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 73 dB WN

30, 100

Minassian et al. 2007

M/F 16/7, admission: MED (n = 15), UNMED (n = 8), 2 weeks later: MED (n = 23), UNMED (n = 1)

Yes at hospital admission, but not 2 weeks later

Medication, clinical characteristics

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–120

Oranje et al. 2002

M/F 31/13, MED

Yes in PTS with typical but not with atypical APs

Medication

R

NS

30 ms 115 dB 1 KHz

30 ms 80 dB 1.5 KHz

120

Quednow et al. 2006

M/F 19/9, pre-study: MED (n = 9), UNMED (n = 16), post-randomization: typical APs (n = 12), atypical APs (n = 16)

Yes during baseline session in first week of treatment, but not after prolonged treatment

Number of previous episodes, clinical characteristics, therapeutic success

R

70

40 ms 116 dB

20 ms 86 dB

120

III. Studies reporting PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients under specific experimental conditions

George et al. 2006

M/F 9/6, smokers, MED

Smoking abstinence: ↓PPI; smoking reinstatement: ↑PPI

Smoking

NS

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–120

Hazlett et al. 2003

M/F 14/4, UNMED PTS with schizotypical personality disorder

Greater PPI during attended vs. ignored prepulses in NCS, but not in PTS

PPF

R

45

40 ms 104 dB WN

5 or 8 s 70 dB 0.8 or 1 KHz

120, 240

Kedzior and Martin-Iverson 2007

M/F 7/1, MED

deficits in “attend” condition only

Smoking

Ld

60

50 ms 100 dB WN

20 ms 70 dB 5 KHz

20–200

Kumari et al. 2002

M, MED (n = 30)

Yes in PTS treated with typical APs but not with RIS

Medication, clinical characteristics, duration of illness

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–120

Kumari et al. 2003b

M/F 7/4, MED (n = 11)

↓ PPI in response to procyclidine

 

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 78 or 85 dB WN

30–120

Wynn et al. 2004

PTS: M/F 74/2, MED (typical APs (n = 22), atypical APs (n = 43), mixed or unknown (n = 11), unaffected siblings: M/F 17/19

No PPI deficits in PTS or unaffected siblings

Medication, PPF, sex, clinical characteristics

L

None

50 ms 105 dB WN

20 ms 75 dB WN

120

IV. Studies reporting no PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients

Duncan et al. 2006a

M, MED (n = 52), UNMED (n = 21)

No

Medication, clinical characteristics

R

70

40 ms 116 dB 1 KHz

20 ms 85 dB 1 KHz

30–120

Postma et al. 2006

M, MED (n = 9)

No. Smoking enhanced PPI in PTS and NCS

fMRI

R

None

40 ms airpuff 30 psi

20 ms air airpuff 10 psi

30–120

Volz et al. 2003

M/F 23/26, MED (n = 42), UNMED (n = 7)

No

 

L

NS

50 ms 100 dB WN

Pictures presented for 6 s

150–3,800

V. Studies reporting PPI deficits in populations conceptually linked to schizophrenia

Kumari et al. 2005d

M/F 4/15, unaffected siblings of SZ PTS

Reduced PPI in siblings of SZ PTS with binaural stimulus presentation

Schizotypy ratings

R

70

40 ms 115 dB WN

20 ms 85 dB WN

30–120

Sobin et al. 2005a

M/F 11/14, children with 22q11 DS

Yes

Sex, age, clinical characteristics, latency reduction, attention network test, reaction time

R

50

50 ms 104 dB WN

40 ms 70 dB WN

100

Sobin et al. 2005b

M/F 13/12, children with 22q11 DS

Yes

Sex, age, clinical characteristics, symptom severity, subsyndromal symptoms of other disorders

R

56

50 ms 104 dB WN

30 ms 70 dB WN

100

Weike et al. 2001

Ss “believe in extraordinary phenomena” (n = 16, M/F = 5/11) or not (n = 16, M/F = 10/6)

PPI not different between believers and non-believers

Sex, age, schizotypal personality, magical ideation/perceptual aberration scales

L

NS

50 ms 105 dB WN

20 ms 1000 Hz

30–480

APs Antipsychotics, AS anti-saccade measures, F female, fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging, L left, LI latent inhibition, M male, MED medicated, NCS normal comparison subjects, NS not specified, P50 P50 event-related potential suppression, PPF prepulse facilitation, PPI prepulse inhibition, PTS patients, R right, RIS risperidone, Ss subjects, SZ schizophrenia, UNMED unmedicated, WN white noise, ↓ reduced, ↑ increased

aAll tables are preceded by outlines describing their organizational structure. In distilling this substantial literature into tabular form, a substantial amount of information is lost. The abbreviated descriptions herein cannot do justice to the wealth of data and interpretations found in the original reports. References are provided to guide readers to the source material.

bDemographics reported as independent measures in most studies

cAll dB A scale unless not specified in text; stimuli described in KHz are pure tones.

dRight eye, n = 1

Table 2

Examples of studies using PPI to assess or predict antipsychotic properties, ca. 2001–2007

I. Anti-dopaminergics

VII. Cannabinoid mechanism

           A. D2/mixed receptor antagonists

           A. CB1-antagonists

           B. D3-preferential antagonists

           B. Endocannabinoid transport inhibitor

           C. D4-preferential antagonists

           C. Cannabidiol

II. Glutamatergic mechanisms

VII. Neuropeptide mechanisms

           A. mGLUR

           A. Neurotensin agonists

           B. NMDA

           B. Opioids

           C. GLY

           C. CCK

III. Serotonergic mechanisms

IX. Adenosine mechanisms

IV. Noradrenergic mechanisms

X. GABA agonists

V. Cholinergic mechanisms

XI. GABA agonists

           A. Nicotinic agonists

XII. Hormones

           B. Muscarinic agonists

XIII. Second-messenger inhibitors

           C. AChE inhibitors

           A. Nitric oxide synthase inhibitors

VI. Histaminergic mechanisms

           B. Guanylate cyclase + NOS inhibitors

           C. PDE-inhibitors

XIV. Miscellaneous

References

Species, strain, sex

PPI deficit induced by

Primary drug/mechanism tested

Effects

Other drug types tested

I. Anti-dopaminergics

A. D2/mixed receptor antagonists

 

Rats

  

Bast et al. 2001

WI, M

Intra-VHPC NMDA infusion

HAL D2 family antagonist

∅NMDA

CLO (∅NMDA)

Cilia et al. 2007

SD, M

KET

HAL

∅KET, not potentiated by mGLUR5 antagonist MPEP

CLO, RIS, lamotrigine, SB-271046-A (all similar effects to HAL)

Conti et al. 2005

WKY, M; BN, M

ICV CRF infusion

HAL

↓CRF in WKY rats, ∅CRF in BN rats

CLO (↓CRF in WKY rats, overcompensation of PPI-deficit in BN rats)

van den Buuse and Gogos 2007

SD, M

8‑OHDPAT

HAL

↓8‑OHDPAT (at 100 ms PP interval)

RAC, ARI, BUS (all ↓8-OHDPAT), CLO, OLA, RIS, AMI, MDL73,005EF (partial 5-HT1A agonist) (all ∅8-OHDPAT) all at 100 ms PP interval

 

Rats + mice

 

Metzger et al. 2007

Mice, C57; Rats, SD, M

AMP or APO

HAL (implanted HAL polymer, or acute HAL)

HAL implants: ↓AMP in mice, ↓APO in rats Acute HAL: ↓APO in rats

 
 

Mice

Russig et al. 2004

C57, M

APO

HAL

↓APO

CLO (∅APO)

 

Human subgroups (+rats)

Vollenweider et al. 2006

Humans (“low vs. high gaters”)

Basal PPI, differences between subgroups

CLO D1‑4/5-HT21/muscarinic antagonist

↑PPI in “low gaters” (at short PP intervals), ∅PPI in “high gaters”

 

Swerdlow et al. 2006a

Humans (“low vs. high gaters”), M; rats, SD, M; rats, BN, M

Basal PPI, differences between human subgroups or rat strains

Quetiapine D1‑2/5-HT21/H1/muscarinic antagonist

↑PPI in human low gaters and SD rats (at short PP intervals), ↑PPI in BN rats

CLO (↑PPI at short PP intervals), HAL (∅PPI) in SD rats

 

Primates

Linn et al. 2003

Capuchin monkeys, F

PCP

CLO

↓PCP

HAL (∅PCP)

 

Rats

Erhardt et al. 2004

SD, M

↑Endogenous KYNA by kynurine or PNU 156561A

CLO

↓KYNA

HAL (↓KYNA)

Le Pen and Moreau 2002

SD, M

nHPC lesion

CLO

↑PPI

OLA (↑PPI), RIS (↑PPI), HAL (∅PPI)

Depoortere et al. 2007b

SD, M

APO

F15063 D2/D3-Antagonist, D4-partial agonist, 5-HT1A-agonist

↓APO

 

Depoortere et al. 2007a

SD, M

Basal PPI

F15063

∅PPI

 

Barr et al. 2006

SD, M

IR vs. induction of PPI deficits by APO, PCP, or CIR in SR rats

Iloperidone DA/5-HAT/NA antagonist

∅PPI in IR rats, but ↓APO, ↓PCP, ↓CIR in SR rats

 

Ellenbroek et al. 2001

WI, M

Basal PPI, APO, or AMP

JL13 Predominant D1/5-HT2 binding

↑PPI (basal), ↓APO, ↓AMP

HAL, CLO (both, ∅PPI (basal), ↓APO, ↓AMP)

Ojima et al. 2004

SD, M

Basal PPI

Perospirone D2/5-HT2A/5-HT1A antagonist

↑PPI

HAL (∅PPI), RIS (↑PPI (relative to HAL))

Rueter et al. 2004

SD, M

nVHPC lesion

Risperidone D2/5-HT2/α antagonist (chronic low-dose treatment)

↑PPI

CLO (↑PPI)

Bubenikova et al. 2005

WI, M

DIZ

Zotepine D1/D2/ D3/5-HT2A/5-HT2C5-HT6/5-HT71/H1/NET-affinity

∅DIZ

RIS (∅DIZ), CLO, OLA (both ↓DIZ, but ↓PPI relative to vehicle (no DIZ))

 

Mice

 

Fejgin et al. 2007

NMRI, M

Basal PPI or PCP

Aripiprazole partial agonist at D2/5-HT1A and antagonist at 5-HT2A

↑PPI (basal), ↓PCP

CLO (↑PPI (trend), ∅PCP), OLA, (∅PPI, ∅PCP), HAL (↑PPI, ∅PCP)

Brea et al. 2006

Swiss, M

APO or DOI

QF2004B D1‑4/5-HT1A,2A,2C1,2/M1,2/H1-binding

↓APO, ↓DOI

CLO, HAL (both ↓APO, ↓DOI)

Flood et al. 2008

DBA/2NCrl, DBA/2J, 2NHsd, 2NTac1, 2NTac2,C57BL/6Tac, 129S6/SvEvTac

Basal PPI

Olanzapine D1/D2/5-HT21/muscarinic/H1 antagonist

Reversal of PPI deficit (tested only in DBA/2NCrl mice)

ARI (reversal of PPI deficit), β-CD (reversal of PPI deficit compared to H2O) in DBA/2NCrl mice; both drugs were not tested in other strains

B. D3-preferential antagonists

 

Rats

Zhang et al. 2007b

WI, M

PD128907 (D3 agonist), or APO

A-691990

↓PD128907, ∅APO

HAL (∅PD128907, ↓APO), RAC (∅PD128907), CLO, RIS (both: ↓PD128907, ↓APO), SB 277011 (↓PD128907, ∅APO)

 

Mice

Zhang et al. 2006

DBA, M

Basal PPI or nVHPC lesion

A-437203

↑PPI in unlesioned animals, but ∅PPI after nVHPC lesion)

Intact mice: HAL (↑PPI), RIS (↑PPI), SB277011 (D3 antagonist, ↑PPI), AVE 5997 (D3 antagonist, ∅PPI); nVHPC lesion: HAL (↑PPI), AVE 5997 (∅PPI); BP897 (preferential D3/D2 antagonist, ↑PPI in lesioned and intact mice)

Park et al. 2005

ICR, M

APO

KKHA‑761

↓APO

 

C. D4-preferential antagonists

Boeckler et al. 2004

Rats, WI, M

 

FAUC 213

↓APO

 

II. Glutamatergic mechanisms

A. mGLUR

 

Rats

Kinney et al. 2005

SD, M

AMP

CDPPB Metabotropic GLU 5 allosteric potentiator

↓AMP

 
 

Mice

Galici et al. 2005

C57, M

AMP or PCP

LY487379 Metabotropic GLU 2 allosteric potentiator

↓AMP, ∅PCP

LY379268 (GLU 2/3 agonist; ∅AMP, ∅PCP)

B. NMDA

 

Rats

Zajaczkowski et al. 2003

WI, M

DIZ

CGP 40116 Competitive NMDA antagonist

↓DIZ

 

C. GLY

 

Rats

Le Pen et al. 2003

SD, M

nVHPC lesion

Glycine

↑PPI

ORG 24598 (GLYT1 inhibitor, ↑PPI)

 

Mice

Adage et al. 2007

C57, M

PCP

AS057278 DAAO inhibitor; DAAO is the enzyme which oxidizes D‑serine (→ see below)

↓PCP

CLO (↓PCP)

Depoortere et al. 2005

DBA, M

Basal PPI

SSR5504734 GLYT antagonist

↑PPI

 

Kinney et al. 2003

DBA, M

Basal PPI

NFPS GLYT1 antagonist

↑PPI

CLO (↑PPI)

Lipina et al. 2005

C57, M

Basal PPI or DIZ

d-Serine modulator of the GLY site of the NMDA receptor

↑PPI (basal PPI), ∅DIZ

l-Serine (∅PPI), ALX 5407 (GLYT1 inhibitor, ↓PPI, ↓DIZ), CLO (↑PPI, ↓DIZ)

III. Serotonergic mechanisms

 

5‑HT1

 

Rats

Auclair et al. 2006

SD, M

APO

SSR181507 5-HT1A agonist, partial D2 agonist

∅APO ↓APO (when co-administered with WAY100635)

SLV313 (similar to SSR81507), sarizotan (∅APO), bifeprunox, HAL, ARI, RIS, OLA, QUE, ZIP (all ↓APO)

Auclair et al. 2007

SD, M

Basal PPI

SSR181507

↓PPI (reversed by WAY100,635)

Sarizotan, bifeprunox, 8-OHDPAT, (all ↓PPI), HAL, ARI, RIS, OLA, QUE, ZIP (all ∅PPI)

Krebs-Thomson et al. 2006

 

5-MeO-DMT (hallucinogen)

Way100,635 5-HT1A antagonist

↓5‑MeO-DMT

M100907 (5-HT2A antagonist, ∅5-MeO-DMT), SER-082 (5-HT2C antagonist ↓5-MeO-DMT)

 

Mice

Sakaue et al. 2003

ddY, M

IR, APO or DIZ

MC-242 5-HT1A agonist

↑PPI (in IR mice, antagonized by Way100,635), ∅APO (in SR mice), ∅DIZ (in SR mice)

RIS (↑PPI in IR mice, ↓APO in SR mice)

5‑HT2

 

Rats

Vanover et al. 2006

SD, M

DOI

ACP-103 5-HT2A inverse agonist

↓DOI

 

Siuciak et al. 2007

WI, M

APO

CP-809,101 5-HT2C agonist

↓APO

HAL (↓APO)

Ouagazzal et al. 2001a, b

SD, M

LSD (hallucinogen)

M100907

↓LSD

SB 242084 (5-HT2C antagonist), SDZ SER 082 (5-HT2b/2C antagonist), RO 04-6790 (5-HT6 antagonist), HAL (all ∅LSD)

 

Mice

Barr et al. 2004

DAT-KO, M

Basal PPI

M100907 5-HT2A antagonist

↑PPI

 

Marquis et al. 2007

DBA/2N, M

Basal PPI, DIZ, or DOI

WAY 163909 5-HT2C agonist

↑PPI, ↓DIZ, ↓DOI, ↑AMP

 

5-HT6

Pouzet et al. 2002a

Rats, WI, M

AMP or PCP

SB-271046 5-HT6 antagonist

↓AMP, ∅PCP

CLO (↓AMP, ∅PCP)

5-HT7

 

Rats (+ mice)

Pouzet et al. 2002b

WI, M

AMP or PCP

SB-258741 5-HT7 antagonist

∅AMP, ↓PCP

RIS (↓AMP, ↓PCP)

 

Rats + mice

Semenova et al. 2008

5-HT7KO, M; Mice, C57, M; Rats, SD, M

APO, AMP, or PCP

SB-269970 5-HT7 antagonist

No SB-269970: ↓PCP in KO vs. WT mice; ↓APO and ↓AMP in both KO and WT. SB-269970: ∅PCP in C57 mice and SD rats

 

IV. Noradrenergic mechanisms

 

Rats

Ballmaier et al. 2001a

SD, M

 

Coapplication of Idazoxan α2 antagonist) + RAC (D2/D3 antagonist)

↓APO, but no additional impact of idazoxan over RAC

 

Sallinen et al. 2007

SD, M; WI, M

PCP

JP-1302 α2C antagonist

↓PCP in both strains

Atipamezole (α2 antagonist, ∅PCP)

V. Cholinergic mechanisms

A. Nicotinic agonists

 

Rats

Cilia et al. 2005

LH, M

IR

Compound A α7-agonist

↑PPI

 

Suemaru et al. 2004

WI, M

APO or PCP

Nicotine

∅PPI, ↓APO (eliminated by mecamylamine, but not hexamethonium), ∅PCP

Methyllycaconitine (α7 antagonist), dihydro-beta-erthoidine (α4β2 antagonist), both ∅PPI, HAL (↓APO, ∅PCP), CLO (↓PCP)

 

Mice

Andreasen et al. 2006

BALB, M; NMRI, M

PCP

Nicotine

↓PCP in BALB mice, ∅PCP in NMRI mice

CLO (similar pattern than nicotine), RIS (∅PCP in either strain)

Spielewoy and Markou 2004

DBA, C3H, C57BL or 129, all M

PCP

Nicotine

∅PPI in all strains, ↓PCP in DBA and C3H (trend), ∅PCP in C57 and 129 mice

 

B. Muscarinic agonists

 

Rats

Jones et al. 2005

SD, M

APO or SCO

Xanomeline M1/M4 muscarinic agonist

↓APO, ↓SCO

BuTAC (M2/4-preferring agonist, ↓APO), oxotremorine, RS86, pilocarpine, milameline,sabcomeline (all muscarinic agonists, all ↓APO), HAL (↓APO, ↓SCO), OLA (↓APO), SCH23390 (∅CLO)

Stanhope et al. 2001

SD, M

APO

Xanomeline

∅PPI, ↓APO

HAL (∅PPI, ↓APO), pilocarpine (↓PPI, ∅APO), MUS (↓PPI), SCO (↓PPI), methyoscopolamine (∅PPI)

C. AChE-inhibitors

 

Rats

Hohnadel et al. 2007

WI, M

APO, DIZ, or SCO

Donepezil

↓APO, ∅DIZ, ↓SCO

Galantamine (↓APO, ↓DIZ, ↓SCO)

Ballmaier et al. 2002

SD, M

Immunolesioning of cholinergic neurons in nucleus basalis

Rivastigmine

↑PPI

 

VI. Histaminergic mechanisms

Roegge et al. 2007

Rats, SD, M

DIZ

Pyrilamine H1 antagonist

↓DIZ

 
 

Mice

Fox et al. 2005

DBA, M

Basal PPI

ABT-239 H3 receptor antagonist

↑PPI

RIS (↑PPI)

Ligneau et al. 2007

Swiss, M

APO

BF2.649 H3 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist

↓APO

 

Browman et al. 2004

DBA, M; C57, M

Basal PPIa,(b)

Thioperamide H3 receptor antagonist/inverse agonist

↑PPI in DBA, ∅PPI in C57 mice

Ciproxifan (↑PPI in DBA and C57 (trend), RIS (↑PPI in both strains)

VII. Cannabinoid mechanisms

A. CB1 antagonists

 

Rats

Ballmaier et al. 2007

SD, M

PCP, DIZ, APO

AM251

↓PCP, ↓DIZ, ↓APO

Rimonabant (↓APO, ↓ DIZ, ↓PCP), CLO (↓PCP)

 

Mice

Malone et al. 2004

Swiss, M

APO

SR 141716

↓APO

 

Nagai et al. 2006

ddY, M

Δ9-THC

SR 141716

↓THC

HAL (↓THC), RIS (↓THC)

B. Endocannabinoid transport inhibitor

Bortolato et al. 2006

Rats, SD, M

Basal PPI

AM404

∅PPI

Win55,212 (∅PPI), APO (↓PPI), DIZ (↓PPI)

C. Cannabidiol

Long et al. 2006

Mice, Swiss, M

DIZ

Non-psychoactive constituent of the Cannabis sativa plant, agonist of the TRP receptor VAN1, inhibitor of anandamide-uptake

↓DIZ, ∅DIZ (if pretreated with TRP agonist capsazepine)

CLO (↓DIZ)

VIII. Neuropeptide mechanisms

A. Neurotensin agonists

 

Rats

Shilling et al. 2004

SD, M

DOI or CIR

NT69L

↓DOI, ↓CIR

PD149163 (NT antagonist, ↓CIR)

Shilling et al. 2003

SD, M

AMP or DIZ

NT69L

↑PPI, ↓AMP, ↓DIZ

 

B. Opioids

Bortolato et al. 2005

Rats, SD, M

U50488 kappa-opioid agonist

Nor-BNI Kappa-opioid antagonist

↓U50488, but ∅APO, ∅DIZ

CLO (↓U50488), HAL (∅U50488)

Ukai and Okuda 2003

Mice, ddY, M

APO

Endomorphin-1 Endogenous mu opioid agonist (ICV-infusion)

∅PPI, ↓APO (antagonized by the mu1 antagonist naloxonazine, but not by ICV-infusion of the mu antagonist β-funaltrexamine)

Naloxonazine (∅APO)

C. CCK

Shilling and Feifel 2002

Rats, SD, M

AMP, DIZ or DOI

SR146131 CCKA antagonist

∅AMP, ↓DIZ, ↓DOI

 

IX. Adenosine

Wardas et al. 2003

Rats, WI, M

PCP

CGS 21680 Adenosine A2 agonist

↓PCP

 

X. GABA agonists

Bortolato et al. 2004

Rats, SD, M

PPI, APO or DIZ

Baclofen

∅PPI, ∅APO,↓DIZ, (prevented by SCH50911)

 

Bortolato et al. 2007

Juvenile mice: DBA, M; C57, M

Basal PPI in DBA (and C57)

Baclofen

↑PPI (prevented by SCH50911) in DBA, ∅PPI in C57 mice

CLO (↑PPI in DBA, ∅PPI in C57), HAL (∅PPI in both strains)

XI. Anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers

 

Rats

Frau et al. 2007

SD, M

Basal PPI, APO or DIZ

Topiramate GABAA agonist, voltage‑gated Na‑channel, AMPA/Kainate blocker

↑PPI, ↓APO, potentiation of HAL (↓APO) and CLO (↓APO) effects, ∅DIZ, attenuation of CLO (↓DIZ)

HAL (↓APO), CLO (↓APO, ↓DIZ)

 

Mice

Brody et al. 2003a, b

129, M; C57, M

AMP, KET

Lamotrigine Na-channel blocker

↓KET in 129 mice, ∅AMP in both strains, ↑PPI in KET and ctrl mice (C57)

 
 

Mice

Ong et al. 2005

129, M; C57, M

AMP or KET

Lithium

∅PPI1,2, ↓AMP1,2, ∅KET1

Carbamazepine (∅PPI, ↓KET, ∅AMP), Phenytoin (↑↓PPI (dose-dependent), ∅KET, ∅AMP), valproate (∅PPI, ∅KET, ∅AMP); all in 129 mice

Umeda et al. 2006

ddY, M

APO or DIZ

Valproate

∅PPI, ↓APO, ∅DIZ

Lithium (∅PPI, ↓APO, DIZ), carbamazepine (∅PPI, ↓APO, ↑DIZ)

XII. Hormones

 

Rats

Czyrak et al. 2003

WI, M

8-OHDPAT

Corticosterone hormone

↓8-OHDPAT (repeated CORT), ∅8-OHDPAT (acute CORT)

Way100,135 (↓8OHDPAT)

Gogos and Van den Buuse 2004

SD, F, OVX

8-OHDPAT

Estrogen (implant, 2 weeks) sex hormone

↓8-OHDPAT, ↓8-OHDPAT (in cotreatment with progesterone)

Progesterone (implant, ∅8-OHDPAT)

Myers et al. 2005

SD, M

PCP

Secretin peptide functional in gut and brain

↓PCP

 

XIII. Second-messenger inhibitors

A. Nitric oxide synthase inhibitors

 

Rats

Salum et al. 2006

WI, M

AMP, APO, BRO, QUI

L-NOARG (two injections)

↓AMP, but ∅APO, ∅BRO, (↓QUI (trend))

SKF38393 (∅PPI-independent of pretreatment with L-NOARG)

 

Mice

Klamer et al. 2005b

Mice deficient of neuronal NOS vs. B6129SF2 (ctrl), M

PCP or DIZ

L-NAME

↓PCP

 

Klamer et al. 2004b

NMRI, M

PCP

N-propyl-arginine

↓PCP

 

B. Guanylate cyclase + nos inhibitors

Klamer et al. 2004a

Mice, NMRI, M

PCP

Methylene blue

↓PCP

 

C. PDE-inhibitors

Kanes et al. 2007

Mice, C57, M

PPI or AMP

Rolipram Phosphodiesterase (PDE)4 inhibitor

↑PPI, ↓AMP

HAL (↑PPI)

XIV. Miscellaneous

 

Rats

Wang et al. 2003a

SD,

Perinatal PCP (3 applications)

M40403 Superoxide Dismustase Mimetic

↓PCP (by both short and long-term treatment with M40403)

 
 

Mice

Palsson et al. 2007

NMRI, M

PCP

l-Lysine (subchronic; l-artinine transport inhibitor)

↓PCP

 

Zhang et al. 2007a

Std:ddy, M

DIZ

Minocycline Second generation antibiotic

↓DIZ

 

AChE acetylcholinesterase, AMP amphetamine, APO apomorphine, ARI aripipazole, BN Brown Norway, BRO bromocriptine, CB cannabinoid receptor, β-CD (2-hdroxypropyl)-beta-cyclodextrin, CIR cirazoline, CLO clozapine, CORT corticosterone, DAAOd-aminoacid oxidase, DA dopamine, DAT dopamine transporter, DIZ dizocilpine, F female, GLU glutamate, GLY glycine, GLYT glycine transporter, HAL haloperidol, ICV intracerebroventricular, IR isolation rearing, KET ketamine, KYNA kynuric acid, LE Long Evans, LH Lister hooded, LSD lysergic acid dyethylamide, M male, MPEP 2-methyl-t-(phenylethnyl)-pyridine, MUS muscarine, NE norepinephrine, NET norepinephrine transporter, nHPC neonatal hippocampus, NOS nitric oxyde synthase, NT neurotensin, OLA olanzapine, OVX ovariectomized, ppm parts per million, PND postnatal day, PP prepulse, QUE quetiapine, QUI quinpirole, RAC raclopride, RIS risperidone, Rx treatment, SCO scopolamine, SD Sprague‑Dawley, SR social rearing, THC tetrahydracannabinol, TRP transient receptor potential channel, V ventral, VAN vanilloid, WI Wistar, WKYs Wistar‑Kyoto, WT wild type, ZIP ziprasidone, ↓XYZ reduction of effect XYZ, ↑XYZ enhancement of effect XYZ, ∅XYZ no change of effect XYZ

Table 3

Model organisms, ca. 2001–2007

I. Low and high baseline PPI levels

II. Sub-strains selected by drug sensitivity

IV. Developmental models

III. Genetically engineered organisms, based on genes

               A. Isolation/Deprivation/Stress-related

related to:

                        1. Isolation rearing

           A. Vulnerability for schizophrenia

                        2. Maternal deprivation

           B. Dopamine

                        3. Developmental stressors

           C. Glutamate

                        4. Immune-related

           D. Noradrenaline

               B. Developmental drug exposure

           E. Histamine

               C. Developmental hypoxia

           F. Catecholamines (general)

               D. Developmental nutritional deprivation

           G. Acetylcholine

               E. Neonatal lesions

           H. GABA

      V. Drug-related models

           I. Second Messenger Systems

               A. Drug withdrawal

           J. Neuropeptides

               B. Toxin exposure

           K. Other

      VI. Other

           L. Models for specific disorders

Superscript designates study-specific findings

References

Species, Strain, Sex

Model description/ background/rationale

Basal PPI

Effects of drugs typically used to induce PPI‑deficits

Effects of (presumed) antipsychotics/other treatments

I. Low and high baseline PPI levels

 

Humans

Bitsios et al. 20051; Swerdlow et al. 2006a2; Vollenweider et al. 20063

M

Basal PPI differences between subgroups (“low vs. high gaters”)

 

∅PER, ∅AMA1 in low gaters ↓PER1, ↓AMA1 in high gaters

QUE (↑PPI2), CLO (↑PPI3), both at short PP intervals and in low gaters; ∅PPI3 in high gaters

 

Rats

Feifel and Priebe 20011; Feifel et al. 20042

BB, M

Basal PPI deficits

↓PPI1,2

 

CLO and PD 149 163 (a neurotensin mimetic; both ↑PPI), but HAL (∅PPI)1,2; subchronic HAL (↑PPI)1

Ferguson and Cada 20041; van den Buuse 20042

SHR vs. SD and WKY, M, F

SHR rats display behavioral abnormalities thought to model clinical symptoms

↓PA1,2, ↓PPI relative to SD and WKY1; ↓PPI relative to SD (trend only)2, but ∅PPI relative to WKY rats2

AMP (↓PPI in SHR and WKY, but ∅PPI in SD rats)2; APO (↓PPI in SD, but ∅PPI in SHR and WKY rats)2; DIZ , 8-OHDPAT (both ↓PPI in SHR, WKY, and SD)2

 

Freudenberg et al. 2007

Former WI, M

Selective breeding of rats with high vs. low PPI

   

Fujiwara et al. 2006

LEC and WI, M

A putative animal model of WD

↓PPI in LEC rats

CU (↓PPI in both LEC and WI rats)

 

II. Sub-strains selected by drug sensitivity

 

Rats

 APO Susceptibility

Sontag et al. 20031; van der Elst et al. 20062, 20073

APO-SUS and APO-UNSUS, M

APO-SUS and APO-UNSUS rats were selectively bred to achieve high (SUS) vs. low APO (UNSUS) susceptibility

↓PPI in APO-SUS vs. APO-UNSUS rats1,3 (not apparent in2)

Sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of COC2 or AMP3 (APO-SUS > APO-UNSUS)2,3

Removal of isolation stress: ↑PPI in APO-SUS, but ↓PPI in APO-UNSUS rats1; REMO (↓AMP in APO-SUS, but ∅AMP in APO-UNSUS)3; aMpT (depleted cytosolic DA, ∅PPI in both strains, ∅AMP in APO-SUS, ↓AMP in APO-UNSUS)3, RES (∅PPI in both strains, ∅AMP in both strains)3; Tests in APO‑SUS only: REMO (∅PPI, ↓COC)2, PRAZ (↑PPI, ↓COC)2, KETS (↑PPI, ∅COC)2, aMpT + RES (↓AMP)3

 Alcohol preference

Bell et al. 20031; Ehlers et al. 20072

F, M

Selective breeding of female rats or selection of male rats with high (P) vs. low (NP) alcohol preference

∅PPI after selective breeding; ↑PPI in P rats2; ↓PPI in P rats housed in isolation2

Adult rats: AMP (↓PPI in P, but ↑PPI in NP rats); Adolescent rats: AMP (↓PPI in P, but ∅PPI in NP rats)

 

III. Genetically engineered organisms, based on genes related to:

 A. Vulnerability for schizophrenia

 

Mice

Clapcote et al. 2007

Missense mutations in exon 2 of the DISC1 gene

DISC1 is a proposed schizophrenia susceptibility gene

↓PPI in mice with missense mutation at residues 31L or 100P

 

CLO, HAL, BUP, Rolipram (PDE4 inhibitor; all ↑PPI; reversal of PPI was dependent on the specific type of missense mutation)

Barr et al. 2007

KO for reelin receptors VLDLR or APOER2, M, F

Reelin is reportedly reduced in brains of schizophrenia patients

∅ acoustic PPI in both KO, ↓ crossmodal PPI in VLDLR mice, ↑crossmodal PPI in APOER2 mice

PPI-disruptive effects of PCP: KO > WT

 

Podhorna and Didriksen 2004

Heterozygous, reeler mutants, M, F

Reeler mice have a mutation in the gene for reelin and have been suggested as an animal model for schizophrenia

↓PPI only in fully adult F (trend only)

  

Boucher et al. 2007

Heterozygous NRG1 KO, M

NRG1 is a proposed schizophrenia susceptibility gene

∅PPI

PPI-disruptive effects of THC: KO > WT

 

Mukai et al. 2004

ZDHH8-KO, M, F

ZDHH8 is a proposed schizophrenia susceptibility gene

↓PPI in F, but ∅PPI in M

  

 B. Dopamine

 

DA receptors

 

Mice

Ralph-Williams et al. 2002

D1-KO, or D2-KO, M, F

 

∅PPI in D1-KO, but ↓PPI in D2-KO

APO, SKF82958 (both ∅PPI in D1-KO, but ↓PPI in WT; ↓PPI in D2-KO and WT); AMP (↓PPI in D1-KO and WT, ∅PPI in D2-KO, but ↓PPI in WT); DIZ (↓PPI in D1-KO, D2-KO, and WT)

 

Holmes et al. 2001

DA D5 null mutants, M, F

 

∅PPI

SKF 81297 (∅PPI in mutants, but ↓PPI in WT)

 
 

DAT

 

Mice

Barr et al. 20041; Yamashita et al. 20062

DAT-KO, M

Increase dopamine activity has been proposed in schizophrenia

↓PPI1,2

COC, METP (both ↑PPI in KO, but ↓PPI in WT)2

M100907 (5-HT2A antagonist, ↑PPI in KO, but ∅PPI in WT)1; FLX, NSX (a NET inhibitor, both ↑PPI in KO, but ∅PPI in WT)2, CIT (∅PPI in KO and WT)2

Ralph-Williams et al. 2003b

DAT-knock-downs, M, F

 

∅PPI

  
 

Other Dopamine related

Eells et al. 2006

Mice, nuclear receptor Nurr1 null mutants

Nurr1 is important for development of DA neurons; early postnatal isolation

↓PPI after postnatal isolation in Nurr1+/− mice

  

 C. Glutamate

 

NR1

 

Rats

Inada et al. 2003

WI, M

Antisense knock-down of HPC NR1 by HPJ-liposome vector

↓PPI

  
 

Mice

Bickel et al. 20081; Duncan et al. 20042, 2006a3; Moy et al. 20064

TG with reduced expression of NR1, M, F

NMDA receptor signaling may be reduced in schizophrenia. Microtubule stabilization in neurons depends on STOP

↑PA1,2,3,4, ↓PPI1,2,3,4

Sensitivity to PPI-disruptive effects of AMP: TG > WT4

HAL, CLO, RIS (all ↑PPI in both TG and controls)3

Fradley et al. 2005

TG with reduced expression of NR1 or STOP-KO, M, F

 

↓PPI (in both mouse types)

 

CLO (∅PPI in both mouse types)

 

NR2

 

Mice

Boyce-Rustay and Holmes 20061; Spooren et al. 20042

NR2A-KO, M, F

 

∅PPI1,2

Ro 63-1908 (a selective NR2B receptor antagonist,↓PPI)2

 

Takeuchi et al. 2001

NR2A, NR2B, N2C, N2D, or GLURδ2 mutants

NR2A-D are known subunits of the NMDA receptor channel. GLURδ2 is a relatively novel GLU receptor subunit

↑PA in NR2A, B, C and D mutants, ∅PAin GLURδ2, ↑PPI in NR2B and GLURδ2, ∅PPI in NR2A, C and D

  
 

NR3

Brody et al. 2005

Mice NR3A-KO or TG NR3A overexpressors, M, F

 

↑PPI at 3–4 weeks old M, but ∅PPI in FKO; ∅PPI in TG

  
 

AMPA

Wiedholz et al. 2008

Mice, AMPA GLUR1-KO, M, F

The gene encoding GLUR1 lies within a chromosomal region that is associated with schizophrenia

↓PPI

  
 

mGLU

 

Mice

Brody et al. 2003a, b

mGLU1-KO, M

Reduced glutamate function has been proposed in schizophrenia

↓PPI1,2,3

PCP (↓PPI in KO and WT)

RAC (∅PPI in KO and WT), LAM (↑PPI in KO and WT)

Brody and Geyer 2004b1; Brody et al. 2004a2; Lipina et al. 20073

mGLU5-KO, M, F

 

↓PPI

PPI deficit of KO mice could not be mimicked in WT mice with the mGLU5 antagonist MPEP1, no further disruption of PPI by DIZ in KO3

RAC, CLO, LAM (all ∅PPI)2, CX546 and ARIR (positive modulators of AMPA, both ↑PPI (less pronounced with ARIR))3

 

Other glutamate related

 

Mice

Szumlinski et al. 2005

Homer1-KO or Homer2-KO, M, F

Homer proteins interact with mGLU, and modify the morphology of GLU synapses. A SNP in Homer1 was associated with schizophrenia

↓PPI in Homer1-KO, but ∅PPI in Homer2-KO

 

HAL (↑PPI in Homer1-KO)

Tsai et al. 2004

Heterozygous GLYT-KO, M

GLY is a co-agonist at the NMDA-receptor with presumed sub-saturating concentrations at the receptor

∅PPI

Sensitivity to the PPI-disrupting effects of AMP (KO < WT) or DIZ (KO > WT)

 

Wolf et al. 2007

CPB-K vs. Balb, M

CPB-K mice display low levels of NMDA receptors

↑PA, ↓PPI relative to BalbC mice

 

Acute or subchronic CLO (∅PPI)

 D. Noradrenaline

Lahdesmaki et al. 2004

Mice, adrenergic α2A-KO, M, F

Adrenergic α2A receptors modulate transmitter release of DA and 5-HT neurons

↑PPI

AMP (↓PPI in KO, and WT; greater sensitivity to AMP in KO), DEXM (an α2 agonist, ∅PPI, ↓AMP in KO, but not WT)

ATI (an α2 antagonist, ∅PPI, ∅AMP)

 E. Histamine

Dai et al. 2005

Mice, H1-KO, M

Histaminic abnormalities have been implicated in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia

↓PPI in WT, but ∅PPI in KO after IR

 

Sensitization to METH enhanced effects of IR on PPI in WT, but not in KO mice

 F. Cathecholamines (General)

Klejbor et al. 2006

Mice, FGFR1-TG, M, F

FGFR1-TG express a dominant-negative mutant from the catecholaminergic, neuron-specific TH promoter

↑PA, ↓PPI

 

FLUP (a DA antagonist, ↑PPI)

 G. Acethylcholine (ACh)

 

Nicotinic

 

Mice

Bowers et al. 2005

Nicotinic α7-KO, M

Evidence suggests reduced α7 expression in schizophrenia patients

∅PPI

PPI-disruptive effects of EtOH: KO=WT

 

Cui et al. 2003

Nicotinic β3-KO, M, F

β3-subunit of the nACH is highly expressed in DA neurons of the SN and VTA

↓PPI

  
 

Muscarinic

Thomsen et al. 2007

Mice, M5-KO, M, F

The M5 muscarinic ACh receptor has been implicated in susceptibility to schizophrenia

↓PPI

AMP (↓PPI in KO and WT)

CLO (↑PPI in KO, but ∅PPI in WT; ∅AMP in both KO and WT), HAL (↑PPI in KO and WT; ↓APO in both KO and WT)

 H. GABA

 

GABAA

 

Mice

Hauser et al. 2005

GABAA α5 mutants, M, F

The α5 subunit of the GABAA channel is strongly expressed in the HPC

↓PPI

  

Yee et al. 2005

GABAA α3-KO, M, F

The α3-GABAA receptor is the main receptor subtype expressed by GABA-ergic neurons involved in controlling monoaminergic neurons

↓PPI

 

HAL (↑PPI)

 

Other GABA related

 

Mice

Chiu et al. 2005

GAT1-KO, M, F

GAT1-KOs display behavioral abnormalities proposed to model some aspects of psychopathology

↓PPI

  

Heldt et al. 2004

GAD65-KO, M, F

GAD65 is a GABA synthesizing enzyme

↓PPI

 

CLO reversed the PPI deficit of KO

 I. Second messenger systems

 

Mice

Gould et al. 20041; Kelly et al. 20072

TG with a constituitively active Gsα or TG with R(AB), or Gsα x PKA double TG mice, M, F

R(AB) TG express a PKA type inhibitor. G-protein signaling related to the cAMP/PKA pathway may be abnormal in schizophrenia

↓PPI in Gsα TG, but ∅PPI in PKA TG1,2 and Gsα x R(AB) double TG2

 

HAL (↑PPI in Gsα TG, but ∅PPI in R(AB) TG), ROL (↑PPI in Gsα TG)2

Harrison et al. 2003

LAP1, M, F

LAP1 is a G-protein coupled receptor with developmental expression suggesting a role in psychopathology

↓PPI

  

Koh et al. 2008

PLCβ1-KO, M, F

PLCβ1 may be altered in brains of schizophrenia patients

↓PPI

 

HAL (↑PPI in KO, but ∅PPI in WT)

Shum et al. 2005

CaMKIV-KO, M

CaMKIV is thought to be involved in neuroplasticity and aspects emotional behavior

↓PPI (and ↓PA)

  

van den Buuse et al. 2005a

Gzα-KO, M

Gzα is a G-protein of the Gi type and associated with DA D2-receptors

∅PPI

Sensitivity to the PPI disruptive effects of AMP, APO (both: KO > WT) or DIZ (KO = WT)

 

 J. Neuropeptides

 

Neurotensin

 

Rats

Caceda et al. 2005

M

Virally mediated over expression of NT1 in the NAC

∅PPI

↓AMP, ↓DIZ

 
 

Mice

Kinkead et al. 2005

NT null mutants, M, F

NT is proposed to have “endogenous antipsychotic” properties

↑PA, ↓PPI

AMP (∅PPI in mutants, but ↓PPI in WT)

HAL, QUET (both ∅PPI in mutants, but ↑PPI in WT), CLO (↑PPI in mutants and WT), OLA (∅PPI in mutants amd WT)

 

CRF

 

Mice

Dirks et al. 20021, 20032; Groenink et al. 20083

TG CRF1 overexpressors, M

CRF abnormalities may play a role in psychopathology

↓PPI1,2,3

 

CRF1 antagonists (↑PPI in TG, but ∅PPI in WT), GR antagonists (∅PPI in TG and WT), adrenelectomy (∅PPI in TG and WT)3; HAL, CLO, RIS, but not CDP all reduce PPI deficit of TG relative to WT

Risbrough et al. 2004

CRF1-KO, M

 

∅PPI

CRF (↑PPI in KO, but ↓PPI (and ↑PA) in WT)

 
 

Arginine Vasopressin

Egashira et al. 2005

Mice, V1b-KO, M

V1b plays a role in regulation of the physiological response to stress

↑PA, ↓PPI

 

CLO, RIS (both ↑PPI), but HAL (∅PPI)

 

Gastrin

van den Buuse et al. 2005b

Gastrin-KO, M

Gastrin is a peptide hormone. It is also produced in the brain and binds to the CCK receptor. CCK interacts with DA in the brain

∅PPI

Sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of AMP (KO < WT), but for APO, DIZ, 8-OHDPAT (all KO = WT)

 
 

Neurexin

Beglopoulos et al. 2005

Mice, Nxph3-KO, M

Nxph3 is a ligand of synaptic α-neurexins

↑PA, ↓PPI

  
 

PACAP

Tanaka et al. 2006

Mice, Adcyap1-mutants

Adcyap1 mutants lack the gene encoding for PACAP and display marked behavioral abnormalities including hyperlocomotion and jumping behavior

↓PPI

AMP (↑PPI)

HAL (∅PPI)

 K. Other

Wang et al. 2003a, b

Mice, adenosine A2-KO, M

Adenosine may influence PPI by interacting with the DA system of the brain

↓PA, ↓PPI

AMP (∅PPI in KO and WT (slight trend towards ↓PPI in KO, but ↑PPI in WT); DIZ (↓PPI in KO and somewhat more pronounced in WT)

 

Wolinsky et al. 2007

Mice, TA1-KO, M

Trace amines have been implicated in schizophrenia

↓PPI

  
 

Mice

Gogos et al. 20061; van den Buuse et al. 20032

Aro-KO, M, M (castrated), F

Gender differences in psychiatric disease; aromatase converts testosterone into estrogen

∅PPI in M, castrated M, and F1; age-dependent ↓PPI in M, but ∅PPI in F (slight trends only)2

PPI-disruptive effect of 8-OHDPAT (F K0 = F WT; M KO > M WT; enhanced in castrated M WT, but not in KO)1

 

Weil et al. 2006

MT1-KO, M, F

Melatonin has been implicated in psychiatric disease

↓PPI

  
 

Mice

Petitto et al. 2002a

Double deletion of IL2/IL15Rβ-double-KO, M, F

IL2 and IL15 are cytokines that share a common β-receptor subunit, which is essential for intracellular signaling. Expression levels are high in HPC and limbic regions

↓PA, ↓PPI

  

Petitto et al. 2002b

MRL-lpr substrain, M

MRL-lpr mice develop lupus-like autoimmune disease, but also reduced IL2 production. Schizophrenia may involve immune processes of the CNS

∅PPI in pre-disease MRL-lpr, but ↓PPI with evidence of autoimmune disease

  
 

Mice

Irintchev et al. 2004

L1 or CHL1, M, F

The cell-adhesion molecule L1 and its close homologue CHL1 may be linked to schizophrenia

↓PPI

  

Jaworski et al. 2005

TIMP-2-KO or knock-down, M, F

TIMP influence extracellular matrix molecules and may be involved in brain plasticity and possibly brain development

↓PPI in KO when compared to heterozygous, but not knock-down or WT animals

  

Pillai-Nair et al. 2005

NCAM-TG, M, F

NCAM is elevated in brains from schizophrenia patients

↓PPI

 

CLO (↑PPI), HAL (∅PPI)

 

Mice

Brunskill et al. 20051; Erbel-Sieler et al. 20042

Npas1-KO, Npas3-KO, M, F

Npas is a transcription factor highly expressed in developing neuroepithelium

↓PPI in Npas12 and Npas31,2-KO

  

Burne et al. 2005

Vitamin D receptor KO, M, F

Vitamin D contributes to normal brain development.

↓PPI at long PP intervals

  

Cao and Li 2002

Emx1 mutants, M, F

Emx1 is implicated in forebrain development and behavioral processes.

(↓PPI; trend only)

  

McDonald et al. 2001

FGFR3-null mutants, M, F

FGFR may contribute to neuronal growth, angiogenesis, mitagenesis and skeletal development

↓PPI

  

Miyakawa et al. 2003

CN-mutants, M

CN is involved in neurite extension and neuronal plasticity. CN-mutants display behavioral abnormalities

↓PPI

  

Park et al. 2002

CDF‑mutants and Catna2-TG (of CDF mutants)

CDF-mutants show morphological abnormalities in the HPC and cerebellum as well as behavioral abnormalities. Catna2-TG have partially restored CDF regions and normal HPC and cerebellum morphology

↓PPI in CDF-mutants; ∅PPI in Catna2-TG

  

Porras-Garcia et al. 2005

Heterozygous Lurcher mutants, M

Lurcher mutants display a progressive loss of Purkinje neurons

↓PPI

  

Yukawa et al. 2005

STAT6-deficient, M

STAT6 is expressed in the CTX, HPC, striatum (developing brain), and basal forebrain (adults). STAT are signaling molecules that mediate cytokine-related mechanisms

↓PPI

  

 L. Models for specific disorders

 

Fragile X-syndrome

 

Humans + mice

Frankland et al. 20041; Spencer et al. 20062

Human children with FXS, Fmr1-KO, Fmr2, or Fmr1+2 double KO mice, M

Fmr-KO mice are putative animal models of FXS

↓PPI in children with FXS1 and in Fmr1-KO1, but ∅PPI in Fmr1-KO2 and FMR1+2 double KO2

  

Bontekoe et al. 2002

FXR2-KO, M

FXR2 is a homolog of the FMRP protein, which is lacking or mutated in FXS.

↓PPI

  

Chen and Toth 2001

FMR1-KO, M

FMR1-gene encodes the FMRP protein, which is lacking or mutated in FXS.

↑PPI

  
 

Nasu-Hasu-Hikala disease

Kaifu et al. 2003

Mice, DAP12-deficient, M, F

DAP12 deletions lead to the Nasu-Hikala disease

↓PA, ↓PPI

  
 

22q11 deletion syndrome

Paylor et al. 2006

Mice, with chromosomal deletions Df1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, or mutations of genes Tbx1, Gnb1l, or Cdcrel1, M, F

Chromosomal Df1 deletions are a putative animal model of 22q11 deletion syndrome, which is linked to high schizophrenia rates. Df1 deletions were “behaviorally mapped” to mutations of single genes via PPI

↓PPI in mice with deletions of Df1, Df2, Df3 and mutations of TbX1, Gnb1l. ∅PPI in mice with deletions of Df4 or Df5, and mutations of Cdcrel1

  
 

Huntington’s disease

Van Raamsdonk et al. 2005

Mice, YAC128

HD patients have motor-, cognitive- and psychiatric disturbances. YAC128 mice express mutant huntingtin and are a presumed animal model for HD

↓PPI in older mice

  
 

Alzheimer’s disease

 

Mice

Ewers et al. 2006

APP&PS1 double-KO, M, F

AD involves neuropathological changes in the HIP

∅PPI, but correlation between PPI deficits and neuropathological changes

  

McCool et al. 2003

CRND8-TG, M

CRND8-TG show over expression of Swedish/Indiana familial mutations of APP and an age‑dependent increase of amyloid production

↓PPI (small effects)

  

Taniguchi et al. 2005

WILD and N279K mutants, M, F

TAU mutations may play a causal role in forms of dementia and PD. N279K and WILD mutants contain a mutation of the human TAU gene

↓PPI in N279K mutants, ∅PPI in WILD mutants

  

IV. Developmental models

 A. Isolation/deprivation/stress-related

 1. Isolation Rearing

 

Rats

Barr et al. 20061; Cilia et al. 20052; Day-Wilson et al. 20063; Harte et al. 20074; Powell et al. 20025, 20036; Rosa et al. 20057

SD, FLH, M; LE, M; WI, M

IR

↓PPI in M and F, and all strains 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Water deprivation (∅PPI)5

Iloperidone (broad spectrum DA/5-HT/NE antagonist, maternal dep 3. ∅PPI)1; compound A (α7 agonist, ↑PPI2); DA-depletion with 6-OHDA (↑PPI)6; handling (↑PPI)7

Nunes Mamede Rosa et al. 2005

WI, M

Post-weaning isolation for 10 days

↑PPI (not reversed by resocialization)

  
 

Mice

Dai et al. 20041, 20052; Sakaue et al. 20033; Varty et al. 20064

C57, ddY, 129 and H1-KO, all M

IR

↓PPI in WT mice 1,2,3; ↓PPI (C57 and 129 mice in at least one of the two test sessions)4 ∅PPI in H1-KO2

 

Sensitization to AMP enhanced effects of IR on PPI in WT1,2 but not in H1-KO2, RIS and MKC-242 (a 5HT1a agonist, both ↑PPI)3

 2. Maternal deprivation

 

Rats

Choy and van den Buuse 2007

 

Early stress: MD. Later stress: implantation of CORT pellets

↓PPI (trend only in MD rats)

APO (↓PPI in CTR and rats treated with either MD or CORT, but ∅PPI in rats exposed to MD and CORT); AMP (↓PPI in CTR, but ∅PPI in rats exposed to MD); 8-OHDPAT (↓PPI in all groups)

 

Ellenbroek and Cools 2002

WI, M, nulliparous F

IR, MD, rearing by MD mother

↓PPI in IR rats; ↓PPI in MD rats; ∅PPI in MD+IR rats; ↓PPI in pups reared by a MD mother; ↓PPI in MD pups reared by a non-MD mother

  

Garner et al. 2007

WI, F

Early stress: MD. Later stress: Implantation of CORT pellets

↓PPI in MD rats, ∅PPI in CORT treated rats

  

Husum et al. 2002

WI, M

MD

↓PPI

  

 3. Developmental stressors

 

Rats

Hauser et al. 2006

WI, M, F

Prenatal DEX exposure

↑PPI in M (not replicated in a second study)

  

Koenig et al. 2005

SD, M

Exposure of pregnant females to stressors

↓PPI

  

Burton et al. 20061; Lovic and Fleming 20042

SD, M, F

Exposure of pregnant females to restraint stress or exposure of offspring to AR with or without mechanical stimulation

∅PPI in response to restraint condition1.↓PPI after AR with minimal stimulation1,2, but ∅PPI after AR with maximal stimulation2

  

Iso et al. 2007

Mice, C57, M

Animals were exposed to enriched or impoverished conditions during development

↓PPI in mice continuously kept in impoverished conditions

  

 4. Immune-related

 

Rats

Borrell et al. 20021; Romero et al. 20072

WI, M, F

Prenatal bacterial immune challenge with LPS

↓ acoustic PPI in M rats 1,2, ↓ visual PPI in F rats2

 

HAL, CLO (both ↑PPI in M and F)1; chronic HAL (↑PPI)2

Fortier et al. 2007

SD, M

Prenatal (or postnatal) systemic bacterial (LPS), viral (poly I:C) or local (TUR) immune challenge

LPS (↓PPI at E15-16 and E18-19); poly I:C (∅PPI); TUR (↓PPI at E15-16)

  

Pletnikov et al. 2002

Lewis or Fisher, M

IC-infusion of BDV on PND0

↓PPI in Fisher rats, but ∅PPI in Lewis rats

  
 

Mice

Nyffeler et al. 20061; Ozawa et al. 20062

C57, M, F; Balb, M, F

Prenatal viral (poly I:C) immune challenge

↓PPI in adults, but ∅PPI in Balb juveniles2. Correlation between immunoreactivity for α2 GABAA immunoreactivity in the ventral dentate gyrus and PPI in CTR, but not in immune-challenged C557 mice1

  

Rajakumar et al. 2004

SD, M

IC-injection of antibody against the p75 neurotrophin receptor at PND0 to suppress neurotrophin activity

↓PPI

  

Shi et al. 2003

Balb or C57, M, F

Prenatal systemic immune challenge with influenza or poly I:C virus

↓PPI under both conditions

 

CLO, CHLO (both ↑PPI following challenge with influenza virus)1

 B. Developmental drug exposure

 

Rats

Tan 2003

WI, M, F

Exposure to AMP or vehicle during pregnancy (GD8 to parturition) followed by an acute AMP or vehicle exposure challenge on the day of testing

↓PPI and ↑PA after prenatal AMP treatment

  

Harris et al. 2003

SD, M, F

Neonatal DIZ exposure

↓PPI in F, but ∅PPI in M

  

Rasmussen et al. 2007

SD, M, F

Neonatal PCP or vehicle exposure on PND 7, 9 and 11 followed by a single PCP or vehicle exposure at PND45. Rats were tested at PND32-34 and 1,4 and 6 weeks after the PND45 treatment

∅PPI after neonatal PCP treatment only; transient ↓PPI after neonatal + adolescent PCP; ↑PPI in F, but ∅PPI in M after adolescent PCP only

  

Takahashi et al. 2006

WI, M, F

Daily exposure to PCP over 2 weeks in neonatal vs. adult rats

Persistent ↓PPI after neonatal PCP treatment, in M and F, transient ↓PPI after adult PCP administration in M

  

Wang et al. 2003a

SD

Neonatal PCP or vehicle exposure on PND 7, 9 and 11

↓PPI

 

M40403 (a SOD mimetic, ∅PCP after short term treatment, but ↓PCP after long term treatment)

Slawecki and Ehlers 2005

SD, M

Alcohol exposure during adolescence or adulthood

↑PPI after adolescent exposure, but ∅PPI after adult exposure (↓PA for both groups)

  

Schneider and Koch 20031; Schneider et al. 20052

WI, M

Chronic prepubertal, pubertal, or adult exposure to the CB agonist WIN 55,212-2

↓PPI in prepubertal2 and pubertal1 rats, but ∅PPI in adult1 rats

 

HAL (↑PPI)1,2

Schneider et al. 2006

WI, M

Prenatal valproate exposure

↓PPI

 

Environmental enrichment (↑PPI)

Gizerian et al. 20061; Grobin et al. 20062

SD, M, F

Neonatal ALO administration on PND2 or PND5 or PND1 and PND5

↓PPI at PND 801,2 and 202, but not at PND 402 and 602

 

CLO (↑PPI in the ALO PND2 group; ∅PPI in the PND5 group)1

Watanabe et al. 2004

SD, M

Cytokines have been implicated in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Neonatal challenge with the cytokine LIF from PND2 to PND10

↓PPI during and after adolescence

  

Futamura et al. 20031; Sotoyama et al. 20072

SD, M, F

Neonatal perturbation of neurotrophic signaling via EGF administration

↑PA1,2, ↓PPI1,2

Sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of subthreshold APO or QUIN in EGF-treated rats > controls; SKF38393 (∅PPI)2

Subchronic CLO (↑PPI), but subchronic HAL (∅PPI)1

Henck et al. 2001

WI, M, F

Neonatal exposure to supraphysiological doses of the mitogen EGF

↓PPI in F, but ∅PPI in males

  
 

Mice

Thomsen et al. 2007

DBA, C57, C3H, ddyY, M, F

Neonatal EGF administration

↑PA for all strains, ↓PPI in DBA and C57, but ∅PPI in C3H and ddyY mice

  
 

Rats

Elmer et al. 2004

SD, M

Prenatal challenge with antimitotic Ara-C.

↓PA, ↓PPI in post-adolescent rats

APO (∅PPI)

 

Jongen-Relo et al. 20041; Le Pen et al. 20062

WI, F, M; SD, M

Prenatal challenge with antimitotic MAM (at different time points during pregnancy)

↓PPI in M SD rats 2, (↓PPI for specific PP and PND of MAM challenge in WI rats, trend only)1

  

Shishkina et al. 2004

WI, M

Neonatal short-term reduction of brainstem α2 adrenergic receptors via injection of antisense oligonucleotides

↓PPI at PND 34, but ∅PPI at PND 22 and 80

  

Howland et al. 2004a

Rats, LE, M

Neonatal i.p. injections of KA

↓PPI

Sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of APO in KA-treated rats = controls

 

 C. Developmental hypoxia

 

Guinea pigs

Rehn et al. 2004

DH, Dunkin-Hartley, F

Reduction in utero-placental blood flow via unilateral ligation of the uterine artery

↓PPI

  
 

Rats

Tejkalova et al. 2007

WI, M

Hypoxia on PND12 via bilateral carotid arterial occlusion

↓PPI

  

Sandager-Nielsen et al. 2004

SPF-WI, M

Anoxia on PND9

(↓PPI in 1 of 2 experiments only)

AMP (↓PPI to low dose, trend only)

 

Schmitt et al. 2007

SD, M

Repeated mild hypoxia from PND4-8

↓PPI

  

 D. Developmental nutritional deprivation

 

Rats

Burne et al. 2004

SD, M, F

Pre- and postnatal vitamin D deprivation.

↓PPI only after combined pre- and chronic postnatal vitamin D deficiency

  

Palmer et al. 2004

WKY, M, F

Prenatal protein deprivation. Prenatal malnutrition may increase the risk for schizophrenia

↓PPI in F at PND56, but ∅PPI at PND35; ∅PPI in M

  

 E. Neonatal lesions

 

Rats

Daenen et al. 2003

WI, M

Neonatal IA-lesion of the vHPC or AMY

↓PPI in adult rats lesioned at PND7, ∅PPI in adult rats lesioned at PND21

  

Laplante et al. 20051; Powell et al. 2006; Le Pen and Moreau 20022; Le Pen et al. 20032; Rueter et al. 20044; Zhang et al. 20065

SD, M

Neonatal IA-lesion of the vHPC

↓PPI in lesioned post-pubertal rats1,2,3,4,5

OXO (a muscarinic agonist, ∅PPI in lesioned rats, but ↓PPI in non-lesioned rats)1

HAL (∅PPI in lesioned rats and ↓PPI in non-lesioned rats2, but ↑PPI in lesioned rats and ∅PPI in non-lesioned rats)5, CLO and OLA (↑PPI in lesioned rats, ↓PPI in non-lesioned rats)2, RIS2, BIP1 (a muscarinic antagonist), GLY3, and ORG 245983 (a NMDA co-agonist, all ↑PPI in lesioned rats, ∅PPI in non-lesioned rats)3; chronic CLO or RIS (↑PPI); BP 897, AVE 5997, A-437203 (all preferential D3 antagonists, ∅PPI)5

Schneider and Koch 2005

Rats, WI, M

Neonatal IA-lesion of the mPFC. Morphological changes in the mPFC in schizophrenia patients have been reported

↑PPI after neonatal lesion in juvenile rats, but ∅PPI in adult rats

Sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of APO in adults: lesioned > non-lesioned

 

Schwabe et al. 2004

Rats, WI, M

Neonatal or adult IA-lesion of the mPFC

↑PPI in adult rats after neonatal lesion, but ∅PPI after adult lesions

APO (↓PPI)

 

V. Drug-related models

 A. Drug withdrawal

 

Rats

Peleg-Raibstein et al. 2006a1, b2; Tenn et al. 20033

WI, M, SD, M

Withdrawal from repeated, escalating AMP administration schedules (up to 5 mg/kg, 8 mg/kg, or 10 mg/kg). The endogenous DA system of unmedicated schizophrenia patients has been hypothesized to be “sensitized”

∅PPI with up to 5mg/kg AMP in WI1, but ↓PPI in SD3; ↓PPI under all other conditions

  

Wilmouth and Spear 2006

SD, M

Withdrawal from nicotine (7 days of exposure). Withdrawal was induced by mecamylamine after nicotine treatment

↓PPI in adolescents on day 1, but ∅PPI on day 4 of withdrawal. ∅PPI at either day in adults

  

 B. Toxin exposure

 

Rats

Terry et al. 2007

SD, M

Chronic, intermittent exposure to the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos

↓PPI

  

Tadros et al. 2005

WI, M

Repeated injection of the mitochondrial toxin 3-NP leads to selective striatal lesions and behavioral changes linked to HD

↓PPI (↓PA)

 

TAUR (a semi-essential β-amino acid, when administered prior to 3-NP: ↓3-NP)

VI. Other

 

Rats

Pijlman et al. 2003

WI, M

Exposure to physical stress (PS, foot shock) or emotional stress (ES, witness of foot shock to PS rat)

↑PPI in PS, but ∅PPI in ES rats

  
 

Mice

van den Buuse et al. 2004

C57, M

ADX. CORT replacement. Stress is a risk factor in psychiatric disease

∅PPI (for ADX, ADX+CORT)

 

HAL (↑PPI in ADX+CORT and CTRL mice, but ∅PPI in ADX mice)

 

Rats

Byrnes et al. 2007

SD, F postpartum rats

Postpartum female rats

∅PPI

Sensitivity to the PPI-disrupting effects of QUIN: Postpartum rats < controls

 
 

Mice

Tremolizzo et al. 2005

BtC3Fe, M

Hypermethylation may be related to downregulation of Reelin and GAD67 in schizophrenia patients. Methionine exposure for 2 weeks is used as an epigenetic model for schizophrenia

↓PPI

 

Chronic VAL (↓Methionine), acute IMID (↓Methionine)

ACH Acetylcholine (receptor), AD Alzheimer’s disease, ADX adrenalectomy, ALO allopregnanolone, AMA amantadine, AMP amphetamine, aMpT alpha-methyl-para-tyrosine, AMY amygdala, APP amyloid precursor protein, AR artificial rearing, ARIR ariracepam, APO apomorphine, ATI atipamezole, BB Brattleboro, BDV Borna Disease virus, BIP biperiden, BUP bupropion, CaMKIV Calcium–calmodulin-dependent protein kinease IV, CCK cholecystokinin, CB cannabinoid (receptor), CDP chlordiazepoxide, CHLO chlorpromazine, CIT citalopram, CLO clozapine, CNS central nervous system, COC cocaine, CORT corticosterone, CRF corticotropin releasing factor, CTR controls, CU copper, DA dopamine (receptor), DAT dopamine transporter, DEX dexamethasone, DEXM dexmedetomidene, DIZ dizocilpine, E embryonic day, EGF epidermal growth factor, F female, FGFR fibroblast growth factor receptor, Fmr1 fragile X mental retardation 1 gene, FLUP flupenthixol, FLX fluoxetine, FXS Fragile X syndrome, GAD glutamic acid decarboxylase, GAT GABA transporter, GD gestation day, GR glucocorticoid receptor, GLU glutamate, GLY glycine, H histamine (receptor), HAL haloperidol, HD Huntington’s disease, HPC hippocampus, IMID imidazenil, KA kainic acid, KETS ketanserin, KO knock-out, LAM lamotrigine, LAP lysophosphatidic acid receptor, LE Long–Evans rat, LEC Long–Evans Cinnamon rat, LIF leukemia inhibitory factor, LPS lipopolysaccharide, M male, m metabotropic, MAM metholazoxymethanol acetate, MD maternal deprivation/maternally deprived, MT melatonin (receptor), n nicotinic, METH metamphetamine, METP methylphenidate, NAC nucleus accumbens, NBM nucleus basalis magnocellularis, NCAM neural cell adhesion molecule, NET norepinephrine transporter, 3-NP 3-nitropropionic acid, NR NMDA receptor subunit, NRG neuregulin, NSX nisoxetine, NT neurotensin, Nxph neurexophilin, OLA olanzapine, OXO oxotremorine, PA response to pulse alone, PACAP pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide, PD Parkinson’s disease, PND postnatal day, PER pergolide, PLC phospholipase C, poly I:C polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid, PRAZ prazosin, PS1 presinilin1, QUET quetiapine, QUIN quinpirole, RAC raclopride, REMO remoxipride, RIS risperidone, ROL rolipram, ROP ropinirole, SD Sprague–Dawley rat, SHR spontaneously hypertensive rat, SN substantia nigra, SOD superoxide dismutase, STAT signal transducers and activators of transcription, SUS susceptible, TA trace amine (receptor), TAUR taurine, TG transgenic, TH tyrosine hydroxylase, THC tetrahydrocannabinol, TIMP tissue inhibitor of metalloprotease, TUR turpentine, UNSUS unsusceptible, VAL valproate, VTA ventral tegmental area, V1b Vasopressin receptor 1b, WD Wilson’s Disease, WI Wistar rat, WKY Wistar–Kyoto rat, WT wild-type, decreased, increased, unchanged

Table 4

Examples of studies providing anatomically-specific information regarding the neural substrates of PPI, ca. 2001–2007

I. Nucleus accumbens

VI. Dorsomedial thalamus

X. Inferior Colliculus

II. Hippocampus

VII. Habenula

XI. Pedunculopontine nucleus

III. Prefrontal cortex

VIII. Medial septum

XII. Laterodorsal tegmental nucleus

IV. Entorhinal cortex

IX. Nucleus Basalis of Meynert

XIII. Raphe complex

V. Amygdala

XIV. Brainstem

Reference

Rat strain, sex

Brain regions

Manipulation

Effect on PPI

 

I. NAC

 

Adults

Caceda et al. 2005

LE, M

 

Virally mediated increase in NT1 receptor

Blocked AMP & DIZ-induced PPI deficits

Culm et al. 2003

SD, M

 

Infusion of PTX

Blocked QUIN-induced PPI deficit

Culm et al. 2004

SD, M

 

Infusion of Sp-cAMP

Blocked QUIN-induced PPI deficit

Mohr et al. 2007

Mice, C3H, F

 

Infusion of DIH or QUIN

↑ PPI after QUIN, but ∅ PPI after DIH

Nagel et al. 2003

SD, M

 

Infusion of MSX-3 (A2 antagonist)

↓ PPI

Pothuizen et al. 2005

WI, M

Core, shell

Infusion of muscimol

Loss of PP intensity dependency after infusion into NAC core but not shell

Pothuizen et al. 2006

WI, M

Core

NMDA-lesion of the NAC core

enhanced PPI disruption by DIZ but not APO

Powell et al. 2003

LE, F

 

Intra-NAC 6-OHDA in SR & IR rats

blocked ↓ in PPI in IR rats

Schwienbacher et al. 2002

SD, M

+ VTA

Infusion of DAergic, adenosinergic, or GABAergic compounds into NAC and/or VTA

↑ PPI after combined VTA PTX + NAC SCH23390

Swerdlow et al. 2006d

SD, LE and F1 (SDxLE), M

+ Striatum

Measured DA-stimulated [35S]GTPγS-binding in NAC, striatum

PPI-APO sensitivity: SD > F1 > LE. [35S]GTPγS-binding in NAC, striatum: LE > F1 > SD

 

II. HPC

 

Adults

Ellenbroek et al. 2002b

WI, M

CA1

Infusion of AMP, SKF81297 or QUIN

↓ PPI after AMP, SKF81297 or QUIN; AMP-induced PPI deficits blocked by intra-NAC SCH23390 but not sulpiride

Ma and Leung 2004

LE, M

CA1

Electrical kindling

↓ PPI (and ↓ PA)

Finamore et al. 2001

Rats

 

Infusion of KA or NMDA antagonists

↓ PPI with infusion of NMDA antagonists

Fitting et al. 2006a

SD, M

 

Infusion of viral toxin TAT

↑ PPI (and ↓ PA)

Inada et al. 2003

WI, M

 

Antisense NR1 knockdown

↓ PPI with knockdown 6, but not 14d pre-testing

 

Neonates

Fitting et al. 2006c

SD, M, F

 

Neonatal infusion of viral toxin gp120

↓ PPI (and ↑ PA); + Vehicle: ↓ PPI with increasing gp120 doses. + APO: ↑ PPI with increasing gp120 doses

Fitting et al. 2006b

SD, M, F

 

Neonatal TAT infusion

Males: ↓ PPI at d 30 and 60, but not d 90

 

vHPC

 

Adults

Howland et al. 2004b

LE, M

+ dHPC

Electrical stimulation VHPC vs. DHPC combined with NAC microdialysis

↓ PPI after VHPC but not DHPC stim.; ↑DA efflux: ipsi- but not contralateral NAC after unilateral stim. VHPC but not DHPC

Klamer et al. 2005b

SD, M

 

Microdialysis of the VHPC after systemic (or local) PCP

↓ PPI and ↑ cAMP after PCP; blocked by NO-synthase inhibitor L-NAME

Kusljic and van den Buuse 2004

SD, M

+ dHPC

5,7-DHT lesion

↓ PPI for DHPC lesioned rats, and partially for VHPC lesioned rats

Zhang et al. 2002a

WI, M

+ dHPC

Infusion of NMDA

↓ PPI after intra-VHPC but not -DHPC infusion

Swerdlow et al. 2004b

SD, M

+ FX

Infusion of NMDA into the VHPC in rats with EL lesions of the FX

↓ PPI after NMDA infusion into VHPC, unaffected by FX lesion; IA lesion of the VHPC but not EL FX lesion enhanced ↓PPI by APO

 

Neonates

Laplante et al. 2005

SD, M

 

IA-neonatal lesion

↓ PPI; blocked by biperiden

Zhang et al. 2002b

WI, M

+ dHPC

Muscimol or TTX infusion

↓ PPI, not blocked by HAL or CLO

Risterucci et al. 2005

SD, M

 

IA-neonatal lesion

↓ PPI, ↓ blood flow in NAC, BLA,VP, BNST, entorhinal–piriform and orbital CTX

 

Adults

Caine et al. 2001

LH, M

dSUB or vSUB

QA‑lesions

↓ PPI after vSUB lesions. ↓ PPI to AMP (not APO) after vSUB lesions.

 

III. PFC

 

Adults

de Jong and van den Buuse 2006

SD, M

 

Infusion of SCH23390

enhanced PPI deficits to APO but not DIZ

 

Neonates

Grobin et al. 2006

M, F

+ MD

Neonatal elevation of allopregnanolone

↓ PPI in castrates before and after puberty (PD20 and 80), but ∅ PPI during puberty (PD40 and 60)

Rajakumar et al. 2004

SD, M

 

Neonatal infusion of antibody to the p75 neurtrophin receptor

↓ PPI at age 10 wks, but not 5 wks

 

mPFC

 

Adults

Afonso et al. 2007

SD, F

 

NMDA-lesion

↓ PPI

Bast et al. 2001

WI, M

 

Infusion of NMDA

↓ PPI, not blocked by HAL or CLO

Day-Wilson et al. 2006

LH, M

 

IR (associated with ↓mPFC volume)

↓ PPI

Schwabe and Koch 2004

WI, M

 

IA-lesion

lesion blocked DIZ-induced ↓ PPI but not APO-induced ↓ PPI

Shoemaker et al. 2005

SD, M

 

Infusion of SCH23390 into the mPFC; infusion of NMDA into the VHPC in rats with IA mPFC lesion

↓ PPI after infusion of SCH23390 in mPFC; mPFC lesions block ↓ PPI after intra-VHPC NMDA infusion

Swerdlow et al. 2006c

SD, M

+ NAC

Systemic SCH23390, IA lesion of mPFC, 6-OHDA DA depletion of mPFC or NAC

↓ PPI after SCH23390, not blocked by either NAC DA depletion or mPFC lesion; ↓ PPI after mPFC DA depletion

 

Neonates

Schneider and Koch 2005

WI, M

 

IA-neonatal lesion

↑ PPI in juveniles; enhanced PPI deficits to APO in adults

Schwabe et al. 2004

WI, M

 

IA-neonatal lesion

↑ PPI after neonatal lesions; ↓ PPI in both lesioned and intact rats after APO

 

IV. eCTX

 

Adults

Goto et al. 2002

WI, M

 

IA‑lesion

↓ PPI, partially blocked by HAL

Goto et al. 2004

WI, M

+ NAC

eCTX lesion with IA, microdialysis of NAC

↓ PPI, ↑ DA concentration in NAC

Uehara et al. 2007

WI, M

+ mPFC

eCTX lesion with QA, mPFC lidocaine infusion

↓ PPI after eCTX lesion or mPFC lidocaine

 

V. AMY

 

Neonatal

Daenen et al. 2003

F1 of WI/UWU, M

AMY (or vHPC)

Neonatal AMY or VHPC lesions with IA

↓ PPI in rats lesioned in the AMY or VHPC on d 7, but not on d 21

 

BLA

 

Adults

Howland et al. 2007

LE, M

+ eCTX, + vHPC

Electrical kindling

↓ PPI shortly after kindling of BLA, but not of eCTX or VHPC

Kusljic and van den Buuse 2006

SD, M

+ CnA

5,7-DHT lesion

↓ PPI with lesions of CnA but not BLA

Shoemaker et al. 2003

SD, M

 

QA lesion of the BLA

↓ PPI, blocked by quetiapine

Stevenson and Gratton 2004

LE, M

+ Striatum

Infusion of SCH23390 or raclopride

↑ PPI after intra-BLA SCH23390, ↓ PPI after intra-BLA raclopride

 

VI. MD

 

Adults

Swerdlow et al. 2002c

SD, M

 

Infusion of QUIN or TTX

↓ PPI after TTX but not QUIN, not blocked by quetiapine

 

VII. Habenula

 

Adults

Heldt and Ressler 2006

Mice, C57, M

 

Electrolytic lesion

∅ PPI in the absence of stress; but ↓ PPI after stress in habenula lesioned rats; blocked by CLO

 

VIII. mS

 

Adults

Ma and Leung 2007

LE, M

+ SUM

Infusion of muscimol

Muscimol into mS or SUM blocked ketamine- or DIZ-induced PPI deficits

Ma et al. 2004

LE, M

 

Infusion of muscimol

Infusion of muscimol into mS blocked PCP-induced PPI deficits

 

IX. NBM

Ballmaier et al. 2002

SD, M

 

Immunolesion of cholinergic NBM neurons

↓ PPI, blocked by single or repeated admin. of rivastigmine

 

X. IC

 

Adults

Silva et al. 2005

LE, M

 

Electrical stimulation

↓ PPI

Sandner et al. 2002

SD, M

+ PnC

Evoked potentials from IC or PnC

↓ PPI by ketamine and ↑ evoked potentials

Yeomans et al. 2006

WI, M

SC, + intercollicular nuc. or PPTg

Electrical PP and pulses via electrodes to the SC, IC, intercollicular nucleus, or PPTg

PPI after electrical PP to most SC sites. Longer PPI latencies for electrical PP to the SC than IC, intercollicular nuc. or PPTg

 

XI. PPTg

 

Adults

Diederich and Koch 2005

WI, M

 

Infusion of muscimol

↓ PPI at intervals ≥ 120 ms

Takahashi et al. 2007

Mice, ICR, M

+ lGP, ssCTX

Infusion of phaclofen into the PPTg or lidocain into the lGP, c-fos labeling of brain regions after acoustic pulses or prepulses

↓ PPI after intra-PPTg phaclofen or intra-lGP lidocaine; ↑c-fos in lGP after prepulses; ↑c-fos in NAC shell, PnC, and ssCTX after pulses, blocked in NAC and PnC by prepulses

 

XII. LDTN, SN

 

Adults

Jones and Shannon 2004

SD, M

 

IA-lesion of the LDTN or SN

↓ PPI after lesion of LDTN but not SN

 

XIII. DRN or MRN

 

Adults

Kusljic et al. 2006

SD, M

 

5,7-DHT lesion

↓ PPI in MRN but not DRN lesioned rats, blocked by HAL or CLO

Kusljic et al. 2003

SD, M

 

5,7-DHT lesion

↓ PPI at all PP intensities for MRN-lesioned rats and for some PP intensities for DRN lesioned rats

 

XIV. Brainstem

 

Neonates

Shishkina et al. 2004

WI, M

 

Neonatal infusion of antisense oligonucleotide complementary to the α2 adrenoceptor

↓ PPI at PD34, associated with ↑α2 adrenoceptors in HPC, AMY

AMP Amphetamine, AMY amygdala, APO apomorphine, BG background, BLA basolateral amygdala, BNST bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, C57 C57BL/6J, CLO clozapine, CnA central nucleus of the amygdala, CPA N(6)-cyclopentanyladenosine, CTX cortex, d dorsal, 5,7-DHT 5,7 dihydroxytryptamine, DIH dihydrexidine, DIZ dizocilpine, DRN dorsal raphe nucleus, e entorhinal, EL electrolytic, F females, FX fornix, HAL haloperdidol, HPC hippocampus, IA ibotenic acid, IC inferior colliculus, IR isolation rearing, KA kainic acid, l lateral, LDTN laterodorsal tegmental nucleus, LE Long Evans, LH Lister Hooded, M males, m medial, MD dorsomedial thalamus, MET methamphetamine, MRN median raphe nucleus, NAC nucleus accumbens, NBM nucleus basalis of Meynert, NMDA N-methyl-d-aspartate, NO nitric oxide, OVX ovariectomized, NT neurotensin, 6-OHDA 6-hydroxydopamine, PD postnatal day, PA pulse alone trial, PCP phencyclidine, PFC prefrontal cortex, PnC nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis, PPI prepulse inhibition, PPTg pendunculopontine nucleus, PTX pertussis toxin, QA quinolinic acid, QUIN quinpirole, S septum, SD Sprague–Dawley, SC superior colliculus, SN substantia nigra, Sp-cAMP cyclic adenosine monophosphate analogue, SR socially reared, ss somatosensory, SUB subiculum, SUM supramamillary area, v ventral, VP ventral pallidum, VTA ventral tegmental area, WI Wistar, decreased, increased, unchanged

This quantitative physiological abnormality in schizophrenia patients, conceptually linked to an intuitive clinical construct and neurochemical, anatomical, developmental, and genetic substrates, has provided a powerful focus for scientific developments. With the rapid expansion and broad application of variations of PPI measures, new expectations for its use to inform us about the biology of schizophrenia have at times outpaced critical thinking and falsifiable hypotheses about the relative strengths vs limitations of these complex studies. Here, we hope to enumerate some of these expectations and the future promises and potential limitations of PPI studies.

Human studies: What can our field realistically expect to learn about schizophrenia based on studies of PPI in humans?

Diagnosis

As an isolated measure, PPI is not a “diagnostic instrument”. There is substantial variability and significant overlap in PPI distributions among normal and disordered populations. In addition, there are many different disorders in which affected individuals are characterized by reduced PPI, on average, compared to a normal comparison population (cf. Braff et al. 2001b). The reason for the “non-pathognomonic” nature of PPI deficits is simple: the amount of PPI exhibited by any organism at any given moment reflects activity at many different levels of integrated cortico–striato–pallido–thalamic (CSPT) circuitry and its output via the pontine tegmentum. Low levels of PPI can result from normal variations at several levels of this circuitry; alternatively, disease processes can impact different levels of this circuit, with synergistic effects on pontine activity that mediates PPI. Conceivably, disease processes might even impact this circuitry in such a way as to bias it towards elevated levels of PPI, and compensatory or allostatic changes within feedback or downstream elements of the circuitry might offset the effects of otherwise PPI-disruptive disease processes. Thus, absolute levels of PPI—either low or high—are neither diagnostically nor neurophysiologically specific.

A corollary of this fact—that PPI is not “diagnostic”—is that no simple qualitative value of “normal” or “deficient” can accurately be applied to any particular level of PPI, particularly among clinically normal individuals. It is common in the literature (including our own reports) to describe relatively low levels of PPI as “deficient”, “impaired”, or “poor”. In fact, we know of no clear adaptive or functional advantage of higher vs. lower levels of PPI among clinically normal individuals. Perhaps, this idea is most easily conveyed in the comparison between clinically normal men and women: on average, under specific stimulus conditions (e.g., 20 ms white noise prepulses, 10 dB over a 70-dB(A) white nose background, 100 ms before a 115-dB(A) 40 white noise pulse), men exhibit more PPI than do women (Swerdlow et al. 1993b, 2006f; Kumari et al. 2004; Aasen et al. 2005). Furthermore, there is some evidence that among normal women, PPI shifts across the menstrual cycle (Swerdlow et al. 1997; Jovanovic et al. 2004). Clearly, there is no basis for describing PPI in women vs. men as “deficient”, nor for describing luteal- vs. follicular-phase PPI as “impaired”. Similarly, drugs that increase PPI in normals cannot be accurately claimed to “improve” PPI.

At a more basic level, at any given moment in time, individuals are not characterized by a single “PPI” value, in the same manner in which they might be characterized by other quantitative traits such as height, Q–T interval, or fasting glucose level. One of PPI’s strengths as an experimental measure is its exquisite sensitivity to stimulus parameters and test conditions [as described for the startle reflex by Davis 1984]. The inhibition generated by prepulses under different stimulus conditions likely reflects different underlying physiological substrates. Thus, under a variety of test/stimulus conditions, the same clinical population might conceivably exhibit PPI levels that are reduced, equal to, or elevated, compared to normal comparison subjects. An instructive example from preclinical studies of PPI is found in the report that inbred Brown Norway (BN) rats exhibit “deficient” PPI compared to outbred Sprague Dawley (SD) rats, based on measurements with 100 ms prepulse intervals (Palmer et al. 2000). Subsequent studies reproduced this finding, but also demonstrated that at shorter prepulse intervals, the opposite relationship existed: BN rats exhibited significantly more PPI compared to SD rats (Swerdlow et al. 2006a, 2008). Thus, depending on the stimulus parameters, populations can exhibit either relatively reduced or excessive PPI.

PPI is also highly sensitive to state variables and influences, such as medications (Table 1), cigarette smoking (Table 1), fatigue (van der Linden et al. 2006), stress (Grillon et al. 1998), and hormonal status (Swerdlow et al. 1997; Jovanovic et al. 2004). While some of these variables and influences can be controlled under experimental conditions, the notion of using such a sensitive measure in isolation as a diagnostic tool is not realistic. This being said, one potentially valuable strategy in the characterization of clinical populations is the use of PPI in combination with multiple other measures of forebrain inhibitory function, such as P50 event-related potential (ERP) suppression (“P50 gating”; Adler et al. 1982) and antisaccade deficits (Radant et al. 2007), to identify multiple measures and patterns of normal vs. deficient function (Cadenhead et al. 2002; Braff et al. 2008; Sugar et al. 2007). PPI and P50 gating are both deficient but correlate weakly, if at all, in schizophrenia patients (Braff et al. 2007b); similarly, PPI and antisaccade performance are both deficient but do not correlate significantly in schizophrenia patients (Kumari et al. 2005b). Thus, these measures apparently assess forebrain inhibitory processes that are dissociable and nonredundant. More importantly, there are patients who exhibit normal levels of some but not other gating measures (and presumably normal function within brain circuitry regulating some but not other measures), and subpopulations of patients who exhibit different profiles in these deficits (Kumari et al. 2005b; Swerdlow et al. 2006f; Braff et al. 2007b). These subpopulations may reflect different patterns of brain dysfunction and conceivably distinct genetic substrates and treatment sensitivities (Braff et al. 2007a).

Symptoms, course, and outcome

Can we predict the clinical course or even clinical features of schizophrenia based on PPI levels? There is no compelling data to suggest that among schizophrenia patients, levels of PPI predict clinical course, nor are there consistent robust relationships between lower levels of PPI and higher levels of specific symptoms of schizophrenia, or cumulative positive or negative symptoms scores (Table 1). Certainly, there is much interest in determining whether, with repeated or longitudinal measures, a change in PPI predicts or accompanies clinical deterioration or improvement, including the prediction of illness onset in prodromal subjects (Cadenhead 2002; Addington et al. 2007; Cannon et al. 2008). Very few studies have collected longitudinal measures of PPI in schizophrenia populations with adequate sample size and duration to be informative, although some are in progress. One might predict a relationship between PPI and psychosis in extreme conditions, such as the shift from euthymic to manic bipolar disorder, but even in this case, studies have been limited to cross-sectional comparisons, and results across studies have not been consistent (Perry et al. 2001; Rich et al. 2005; Barrett et al. 2005; Carroll et al. 2007). Duncan et al. (2006a, b) did detect an association between lower levels of PPI, and greater levels of psychotic symptoms and psychological discomfort among unmedicated schizophrenia patients.

Interestingly, while robust relationships between PPI and the most common clinical indices of schizophrenia have been hard to detect, reports have identified significant correlations between PPI and a number of relatively complex clinical measures, ranging from quantitative Rorschach ink blot indices of thought disturbance (Perry and Braff 1994) to scales of distractibility and attention (Karper et al. 1996). One report (Swerdlow et al. 2006f) identified a significant positive correlation between PPI and global functioning levels (GAF score) in schizophrenia patients, but this relationship was evident only among male patients, and the correlation—while highly significant (p < 0.005)—accounted for a relatively modest amount of the total PPI variance. In addition, PPI levels were associated with levels of independent living, also perhaps reflecting its relationship to global functioning. As a result, more sophisticated and sensitive analyses of PPI, related gating measures, and function in schizophrenia patients are being pursued (Light et al. 2007a; Braff et al. 2007a). Studies have detected modest but statistically significant relationships between PPI and measures of executive function in some patient groups [e.g., children with 22q11DS (Sobin et al. 2005a, b)]. A preliminary qualitative article by Butler et al. (1991) noted a nonsignificant trend toward greater tactile (but not acoustic) PPI among six (predominantly male) patients with schizophrenia and low levels of Wisconsin Card Sorting Test perseverative responses than among nine (predominantly female) patients distinguished by high levels of Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) perseverative responses. Kumari et al. (2007a) recently reported a significant (p < 0.03) correlation between tactile PPI and WCST perseverative responses in male schizophrenia patients. Significant positive relationships between acoustic PPI and working memory as well as other formal indices of neurocognitive function have been detected among clinically normal individuals (Bitsios et al. 2006; Light et al. 2007b, 2008; Csomor et al. 2008), although no such relationships have been reported for schizophrenia patients.

The relative insensitivity of PPI to clinical state speaks of the importance of trait features of this measure, which may reflect more “hard-wired” anatomical and genetic determinants. The fact that some relationships can be detected between PPI and relatively global measures of function in schizophrenia patients, but not between PPI and clinical state per se, is consistent with the hypothesis that the causal link between genes and functional outcome in schizophrenia reflects the impact of forebrain circuits that regulate basic gating mechanisms, more than those that control the expression of specific symptom states (Light et al. 2004; Braff and Light 2004; Light and Braff 2005). Thus, while diagnosis in schizophrenia will remain symptom-based for the foreseeable future, it could be argued that studies of the biology of schizophrenia and its relationship to functional outcome may be best advanced through quantitative measures of forebrain inhibitory function such as PPI.

Treatment

As PPI deficits in schizophrenia reflect dysfunction in forebrain circuitry and are linked to both cognitive and functional deficits in schizophrenia patients, can PPI or its potentiation by drugs in patients be used to predict individualized treatment for this disorder? Certainly, in terms of preclinical predictive models, PPI has been quite powerful, as discussed below. In schizophrenia patients, cross-sectional data and some longitudinal findings demonstrate that antipsychotic treatment is associated with elevated (i.e., “normalized”) PPI and that this association is most robust with atypical antipsychotics as a class, compared to first generation antipsychotics (Table 1). Of course, interpreting medication effects in most of these reports is difficult because patients are uniformly being treated with complex multidrug regimens across a range of doses, and medication compliance is known to be poor among schizophrenia outpatients (Lieberman et al. 2005). A recent controlled study with a multidrug cross-over design detected PPI-increasing effects of olanzapine (but not risperidone or haloperidol) in chronically ill schizophrenia patients (Wynn et al. 2007). Findings of PPI-increasing effects of both quetiapine and clozapine in clinically normal, “low-gating” subjects suggests that the PPI-increasing effects of these drugs in schizophrenia patients may not reflect disorder-specific processes (Swerdlow et al. 2006a; Vollenweider et al. 2006). We do not know if the PPI-enhancing effects of these drugs, and conceivably some of their clinical benefit, may reflect their ability to optimize function within spared (intact) gating mechanisms, rather than their ability to correct or normalize activity within dysfunctional mechanisms.

Still, it is reasonable to ask whether the ability of drugs to normalize PPI in patients, or to increase PPI in “low-gating” normals, might reflect their impact on brain processes and resulting cognitive abilities that ultimately would have clinical utility and perhaps cognitive-enhancing effects in schizophrenia. While clinically effective antipsychotics (particularly atypical antipsychotics) are associated with increased PPI in patients and low-gating normals (Table 1), PPI is also increased in non-patients by ketamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; discussed below; Duncan et al. 2001; Abel et al. 2003; Vollenweider et al. 1999), neither of which would be on anyone’s list of likely antipsychotic agents. Nicotine is associated with increased PPI in schizophrenia patients (Kumari et al. 2001; Swerdlow et al. 2006f), but despite the hypothesis that smoking reflects a form of “self-medication” in schizophrenia patients, there is no clear evidence for either antipsychotic or cognitive-enhancing effects of nicotine in these patients. While there is an active quest by many groups to develop cognitively enhancing nicotinic receptor-specific agonists, based on the putative relationship between the alpha-7 nicotinic receptor subtype and schizophrenia (Freedman et al. 1997), there is presently no evidence that such compounds either increase PPI or enhance cognition in patients. Thus, screening compounds as effective antipsychotics based on their PPI-enhancing effects in clinical or special populations is likely to yield both true and false positives. At this point, there is an inferential, but not empirical, basis for using PPI enhancement as a basis for predicting the ability of a compound to enhance cognition and real-world daily functioning in schizophrenia. Clearly, this is an area of active investigation, and such empirical evidence might emerge based on these efforts.

A reliable, robust quantitative phenotype

While the realistic expectations for PPI as a clinically useful biomarker may be somewhat limited, it is very realistic to expect that PPI will continue to be a valuable tool for investigating brain functions relevant to several neuropsychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia. The many strengths of PPI as an experimental measure have been reviewed elsewhere (Braff et al. 2001b), and none of the realistic limitations described above detract from its attributes as an objective, quantifiable, reliable, robust, neurochemically and parametrically sensitive cross-species measure of a neurobiologically important process. Nonetheless, even in its use as an investigative experimental tool in humans, there should be a realistic assessment of what we can and cannot expect from PPI.

Two types of studies speak strongly to the general reliability of this quantitative phenotype. First, test–retest reliability has been established for PPI in normal comparison subjects (NCS), across days (Abel et al. 1998; Swerdlow et al. 2001c; Flaten 2002), weeks, and months (Cadenhead et al. 1999; Ludewig et al. 2002). More recently, 1-year retest data collected in 68 schizophrenia patients yielded intra-class correlations of 0.75 (30 ms)–0.89 (120 ms; Light et al. 2007a), suggesting a very high stability of this phenotype in patients. Second, a multisite study of PPI in NCS was conducted, using carefully standardized equipment, test methods, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. No significant differences in PPI were detected across seven geographically dispersed test sites, despite some modest methodological drift that was detected via rigorous quality assurance efforts (Swerdlow et al. 2007). Thus, within individuals, and across test samples, PPI appears to be a reliable phenotype.

While PPI is a reliable phenotype, at least among NCS, it is not reasonable to expect that every schizophrenia patient will exhibit a “deficient-PPI” phenotype. In fact, as noted above, there is no way to test this possibility because there is no absolute value that defines “deficient” PPI. Under commonly used test conditions, there is substantial overlap in the distribution of PPI values, between schizophrenia patients and community comparison subjects (cf. Braff et al. 2001b). Clearly, there are schizophrenia patients who have higher levels of PPI compared to many NCS. The overlapping group distributions with this measure likely reflect the many influences on PPI, other than schizophrenia-related pathology, such as sex, hormonal status, smoking, withdrawal from caffeine or nicotine, fatigue, and medications. There are also normal interindividual differences in activity within brain circuitry (e.g., in the pallidum, pons, or cerebellum) that regulates PPI, but is not primarily involved in schizophrenia. With typical testing parameters, NCS vs. unmedicated patients or patients receiving only typical antipsychotics, group separation in mean percent PPI might be reasonably expected to reach 1 SD (e.g., Kumari et al. 1999; Ludewig et al. 2003; Swerdlow et al. 2006f), which corresponds to 55% nonoverlap. However, when patients taking atypical antipsychotics are included, group separation drops dramatically, to about 0.3 SD (e.g. Swerdlow et al. 2006f)—or 21% nonoverlap. This latter fact is particularly important, given that upwards of 90% of schizophrenia patients in most current open-enrollment studies report taking atypical antipsychotic medications [although true compliance is likely lower (Dolder et al. 2002; Lacro et al. 2002)].

In addition to medication status, studies have reported many other variables in patient selection that influence group separation in comparisons of schizophrenia patients vs. NCS. One issue that may ultimately impact the utility of PPI as a quantitative phenotype is its potential sensitivity to ascertainment bias. As noted above, PPI correlates positively with global function in schizophrenia patients. Thus, on average, studies of lower functioning patients will detect greater separation vs. NCS, and those of higher functioning patients will detect less group separation. For this reason, investigators are considering the impact of study designs that select for higher- vs. lower-functioning schizophrenia patients, such as those that require a proband within an intact family structure (and who thus may be relatively higher functioning) vs. those utilizing patients without intact families, who are often homeless or medically indigent (Calkins et al. 2007).

Perhaps equally important as the selection of patients is the selection of NCS. Comparison samples differ substantially across studies and can range from generally healthy, young college students, to “professional controls”, who are often low-functioning and unemployed, beyond their activities as test subjects in biomedical research. The latter group is more likely to have histories of disorders that are associated with reduced PPI, such as anxiety disorders (OCD, panic disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder) or “cluster A” personality disorders; they may also be more likely to carry vulnerability genes for neuropsychiatric disorders, take psychotropic medications that influence PPI, and have histories of substance use or brain trauma that might impact PPI-regulatory brain circuitry. Much has been written about the considerations in selecting a “matched”, “representative”, “normal” or “supernormal” comparison group in biomedical research (e.g., Roy et al. 1997; Calkins et al. 2004), and without belaboring this point, these same considerations apply to studies of PPI and may greatly impact group separation in comparisons of control vs. schizophrenia populations.

As reviewed in Braff et al. (2001b) and elsewhere, the amount of separation between schizophrenia and NCS populations in PPI is highly dependent on testing conditions, and specifically, on stimulus parameters. Thus, if all else is equal, schizophrenia-linked PPI deficits are most pronounced under conditions in which prepulse salience, often based on its intensity over background, is within a “dynamic range”: not too high, but not too low. For example, most studies find this “sweet spot” of maximal schizophrenia vs. NCS separation using discrete white noise prepulses 8–16 dB over a 70-dB(A) background, with about 60 ms prepulse intervals [or stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs; Table 1)]. Some studies failing to detect PPI deficits in schizophrenia samples have used prepulses in the absence of a background white noise, effectively creating very large prepulse intensities of 25–40 dB(A; Hazlett et al. 2003, Wynn et al. 2004, 2005). In addition to prepulse intensity relative to background, prepulse frequency (e.g., tone vs. white noise), duration (discrete vs. continuous) and other variables (including the use of binaural vs. mono-aural stimuli) may contribute to maximizing the group separation in PPI between schizophrenia and NCS populations (Braff et al. 2001a; Hsieh et al. 2006; Kumari et al. 2005b, 2007b).

As noted above, the temporal “sweet spot” for detecting automatic (uninstructed) PPI deficits in schizophrenia patients appears to occur with prepulse intervals between 30 and 240 ms, depending somewhat on other stimulus characteristics. The temporal range around 60 ms appears to be most sensitive in several studies (Braff et al. 1978, 1992, 2005; Weike et al. 2000; Leumann et al. 2002; Swerdlow et al. 2006f) and may be the range in which PPI deficits are most resistant to normalization by antipsychotic medications. Interestingly, this interval sits at the juncture between preconscious and conscious information processing, based on perceptual detection thresholds (Libet et al. 1979; Kanabus et al. 2002). The possibility that PPI in this temporal range may be most deficient in schizophrenia suggests that automatic inhibitory mechanisms may be most “porous” at a critical barrier between preconscious processing and conscious awareness. While clearly a point for more systematic analysis, such a notion suggests a biological mechanism that is syntonic with psychological models for the intrusion of unedited, preconscious content into conscious awareness in this disorder (Libet et al. 1979; Gray 1995; Swerdlow 1996; Grobstein 2005).

A useful tool for probing the neurobiology and genetics of gating deficits in schizophrenia

Perhaps the most realistic expectation is that PPI is and will remain a useful tool for studying the neurobiology of information processing abnormalities in schizophrenia. While the PPI deficit “signal” in genetic studies of schizophrenia has been blunted by the widespread use of atypical antipsychotics, investigators are increasingly well informed about the many other factors affecting the measurement of PPI and the detection of schizophrenia-associated deficits, and in this way are better positioned to study the basis for these deficits at the levels of their neurobiological and genetic substrates. These studies will be aided by special populations, including “low-gating” normals (Swerdlow et al. 2006a; Vollenweider et al. 2006) and asymptomatic relatives of schizophrenia probands (Kumari et al. 2005b), and by patients with related disorders, such as 22q11 deletion syndrome and unmedicated “prodromal” individuals (Sobin et al. 2005a, b).

As a relatively robust and reliable quantitative phenotype, PPI will be used to map genes associated with deficient sensorimotor gating in schizophrenia probands and families (Swerdlow et al. 2007; Greenwood et al. 2007). The strength of this “endophenotype” approach to understanding disease genetics has been described by many, including Gottesman and Gould (2003), Gould and Gottesman (2006), and Braff et al. (2007a), and largely reflects the fact that the quantitative laboratory measure (in this case, PPI), is closer to the underlying biology (i.e., aberrant neural circuits and their regulation by disease genes), compared to the more variable clinical phenotype (Braff et al. 2007a). There are a small but growing number of examples in which this strategy has proven successful, in identifying genes that confer risk for colon cancer (Leppert et al. 1990) and Type II diabetes (Scott et al. 2007). Whether this strategy can succeed in identifying vulnerability genes for more complex neuropsychiatric disorders is a question at the core of several large ongoing investigative efforts.

Gains will likely be made through the combined use of PPI with sophisticated neurocognitive, neuroimaging, and genetic/genomic tools in schizophrenia and normal populations. It is realistic to expect that these various applications will converge in a top‑down or bottom‑up fashion, i.e., to link: (1) genes with (2) brain substrates that cause (3) gating deficits responsible for (4) neurocognitive disturbances and (5) the resulting daily functional impairment in schizophrenia. Based on the genes and brain substrates identified in these studies, one might reasonably expect that novel treatments will be identified, perhaps acting on intracellular G-protein-coupled signal transduction mechanisms that have already been implicated in the regulation of PPI (van den Buuse et al. 2005a; Kelly et al. 2007; Swerdlow et al. 2006d; Culm et al. 2004; Svenningsson et al. 2003), and which may also be abnormal in some schizophrenia patients (cf. Catapano and Manji 2007). There are also mature lines of research suggesting that novel treatments may target neuropeptides, such as neurotensin (Kinkead et al. 2005; Feifel et al. 2004), that potently regulate PPI and its dopaminergic control, or may target specific dopamine receptors subtypes that regulate PPI via relatively localized effects within mesolimbic and limbic–fronto–striatal circuits (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). At some stage, it is reasonable to expect that the development of any one of these or other novel treatments might be guided by their effects on PPI in control or clinical populations.

A surrogate measure for neural processes with wide-reaching psychological implications

The frontal, limbic, and mesolimbic circuitry that regulates PPI also regulates many higher-order psychological processes. Thus, PPI can be viewed as a simple surrogate “readout” of activity in this circuitry—an experimentally generated signal from the forebrain, detected through efferents descending through a “pontine portal”. Alternatively, PPI can be viewed as a measure of a fundamental psychological process—sensorimotor gating—with broad-reaching implications for the structure of complex behavior and thoughts. In truth, both views are at least partly accurate, under specific uses of the PPI paradigm.

“Gating” can be a very specific process when operationalized in the laboratory, but is less precisely defined when used as a psychological construct. How broadly can we extrapolate from the laboratory measure of one type of gating—sensorimotor gating—to other forms of automatic inhibition of sensory, cognitive, or motor information? There is credible evidence that PPI correlates significantly with a form of perceptual “gating”, measured by the degree to which the prepulse reduces the perceived intensity of the startling stimulus (Peak 1939; Swerdlow et al. 2005b). On the other hand, PPI does not correlate strongly with the most structurally similar form of “gating”—sensory gating—measured by suppression of the P50 auditory event-related potential (ERP; Light et al. 2006; Hong et al. 2007). Nor does PPI in normal humans correlate strongly with other measures thought to assess inhibitory processes that contribute to forms of “cognitive gating”, such as latent inhibition (Murphy et al. 2001; Leumann et al. 2002; Peleg-Raibstein et al. 2006a, b) or visuospatial or semantic priming (Swerdlow et al. 1995b). Certainly, there is little evidence that PPI assesses processes that are strong determinants of normal personality structure and dimensions (Swerdlow et al. 2003d). At the least, it is important to recognize that the construct of “gating” is applied to many different processes and that it is reasonable to expect PPI to be informative about some, but not all or even most of these processes.

Summary: human studies

Human studies of PPI will continue to provide one important level of information within a top‑down or bottom‑up understanding of the biology of schizophrenia. PPI offers great promise as a quantitative phenotype for genetic studies and will be used in combination with other measures to connect an aberrant physiological signal (impaired startle inhibition) with its underlying neural substrates (via neuroimaging studies) and with its consequences in terms of cognitive deficits (via neurocognitive measures) and real-life impairment (via functional measures). It is realistic to expect that as we gain a better understanding of its modulating variables and optimal experimental methods, PPI in humans will continue its evolution, started in 1978 (Braff et al. 1978) from an isolated laboratory-based psychophysiological phenomenon, into a productive clinical research tool for understanding psychopathology. As we learn more about PPI, our scientific approaches to its use will continue to become more sophisticated, and we will be better positioned to take full advantage of what it can tell us about normal and abnormal brain functions.

Animal studies: What can our field realistically expect to learn about schizophrenia based on studies of PPI in laboratory animals?

Etiology

Two general applications of animal studies of PPI will be considered here: (1) the use of PPI to evaluate models or model organisms relevant to the etiology of schizophrenia; and (2) the use of PPI to “map” the neural substrates of deficient PPI in schizophrenia.

Model organisms, created via genetic, developmental, surgical, pharmacological, or immune manipulations, have been a mainstay of studies of the etiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of schizophrenia. Of course, schizophrenia—as defined clinically—is a uniquely human disorder (least we ascribe to rats the ability to have “two or more voices conversing with one another or voices maintaining a running commentary on the [rat’s] thoughts or behavior,” or the ability to conceptualize that “alien thoughts have been put into his or her mind...”, or to have homologous complex social cognitive deficits; APA 2000). However, investigators can apply schizophrenia-linked constructs to these models and test whether the resulting animal reproduces laboratory-based phenotypes exhibited by schizophrenia patients. The degree to which these phenotypes are reproduced in the model organism provides a level of validity to the construct, even if it is specific to the laboratory-based phenotype, rather than the broader clinical disorder.

For example, given a particular schizophrenia candidate gene “X”, it is reasonable to ask whether manipulations of gene “X” produce an animal that exhibits reduced levels of PPI compared to a wild-type animal. If so, then the gene “X” mutant would be a valid model for PPI deficits in schizophrenia. Such an approach has been taken with many different animal models (Table 3). There are obvious limitations to the specificity and sensitivity of this approach, which could be deduced from the above discussions of the PPI findings in humans.

Because deficient PPI is not unique to schizophrenia populations, there is no a priori justification for claiming that such a mutant specifically models the PPI deficits in schizophrenia, rather than OCD (Swerdlow et al. 1993a; Hoenig et al. 2005), Tourette Syndrome (Smith and Lees 1989; Castellanos et al. 1996; Swerdlow et al. 2001b), Blepharospasm (Gomez-Wong et al. 1998), or a number of other conditions. The specificity of the linkage of the model with schizophrenia, and hence with PPI deficits in schizophrenia, must come from the construct. For example, the finding of PPI deficits in a murine model of 22q11 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) links this model to PPI deficits in schizophrenia (Paylor et al. 2006; Sobin et al. 2005a, b), on the basis of the clinical relationship between 22q11DS and schizophrenia. Without this clinical relationship, this would just be a mouse with low PPI, and the model would most likely be a “false positive” for the schizophrenia phenotype.

Certainly, it is unlikely that most genes associated with low vs. high levels of PPI will be related to reduced PPI in schizophrenia or any one other disease states. This is because the most potent influences regulating baseline PPI involve physiological substrates that are probably not relevant to schizophrenia. For example, a very potent determinant of acoustic PPI is hearing threshold, as an organism that cannot hear a prepulse will not exhibit PPI. Thus, many candidate “PPI genes” identified via gene inactivation or mapping strategies of drug-free PPI in inbred and recombinant rodents will likely be associated with hearing threshold. Beyond the level of sensory detection, the most potent neural control of baseline PPI is exerted by the pedunculopontine nucleus (PPTg) (Swerdlow and Geyer 1993a), which mediates PPI via its impact on the nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis (NRPC; Koch et al. 1993). For the same reasons noted for hearing threshold, genetic studies of PPI will likely be influenced strongly by genes coding for the normal function of the PPTg—a structure that does not play a central role in any model for the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. In contrast, the prefrontal cortex (PFC)—which is viewed as a critical substrate for some core symptoms of schizophrenia (e.g., cognitive disorganization, deficient working memory, executive functioning, abstract reasoning, cognitive flexibility and context processing, and negative symptoms)—is likely to be three or four synapses removed from the primary startle circuit; in a normal human or rodent, genes controlling the PFC will likely contribute only weakly to a genetic “signal” based on levels of baseline PPI.

One might argue that a finding of PPI deficits provides additional validation that a particular model reproduces one of the quantitative phenotypes associated with schizophrenia. But as noted above, there is no definitive evidence that PPI deficits—or the neural abnormalities that produce them—are necessary for the expression of the broader schizophrenia phenotype. Rather, it is almost certainly true that there are large numbers of functionally impaired, symptomatic schizophrenia patients who exhibit levels of PPI in the “normal” range. Thus, rejecting animal models on the basis of “normal” PPI levels would likely result in a number of “false-negative” models—i.e., ones in which some features of the model accurately recreate important aspects of the biology of schizophrenia, but do not result in reduced PPI.

Perhaps the most realistic expectation of PPI in the assessment of animal models of schizophrenia is that it can provide validation for specific existing constructs—i.e., that the construct can reproduce PPI deficits exhibited by a significant subgroup of the heterogeneous population of schizophrenia patients. On the other hand, “normal” or unaltered PPI should not be used as the basis for rejecting a model: even in the presence of “normal” (i.e., wild-type, sham lesioned or placebo-treated) PPI levels, it is very possible that a model might be highly informative about the biology of schizophrenia.

Animal studies are also used to explicate the neural regulation of PPI, as a means of understanding the neural basis of PPI deficits in schizophrenia and other disorders. In this case, the manipulations are selected not necessarily based on a “construct” of schizophrenia, but rather based on the extant PPI neural “map”, and the understanding of anatomical and neurochemical properties of that map. In general, the organism used in these studies is not a schizophrenia “model” per se, but is more akin to a canvas on which a neural map can be painted. A reasonably comprehensive understanding of this “map”, ca. 2000, is found in Swerdlow et al. (2001a), and an updated list of studies of “PPI anatomy” is found in Table 4.

Much can be gleaned about PPI and its broader context by considering two facts related to its anatomical substrates. First, PPI remains intact after acute trans-collicular decerebration in the rat (Davis et al. 1982). In other words, the expression of unimodal acoustic PPI in rats does not require any part of the forebrain, and therefore, it must be mediated at or below the pons. The prepulse does not (and by physical and temporal constraints, cannot) “travel” to the forebrain to generate its inhibitory impact on the simple startle reflex (see discussion in Swerdlow et al. 2001a). Second, PPI can be regulated, and even eliminated, by subtle pharmacological manipulations at the most rostral tip of the forebrain [e.g., D1 receptor blockade within the medial prefrontal cortex (Ellenbroek et al. 1996; Shoemaker et al. 2005; Swerdlow et al. 2005c)]. Thus, brain substrates at the furthest point from the PPI “mediating” circuitry in the pons are capable of potently regulating the amount of inhibition generated by the prepulse, presumably via tonic, “thermostat-like stimulus-independent changes in activity within descending circuitry.

These two facts lead to a simple conclusion: while PPI is mediated via the pons, it can be regulated by the forebrain. A relative loss of PPI in clinical populations, and in the animal models that are used to study them, can be a consequence of aberrant activity within this descending circuitry—somewhere “between” the cortex and pons—or within substrates that impinge upon it. The efforts to “map” this PPI-regulatory circuitry, point-to-point, from cortex to pons, are aimed to help investigators identify candidate substrates that contribute to the loss of PPI in patient populations and candidate targets for therapeutic interventions. Of the many words of caution related to this use of animals to “map PPI”, two will be noted here.

First, rodent brains and human brains are not the same. Thus, a map of neural circuitry regulating PPI in rodents cannot be expected to translate exactly to human brains. Indeed, it is surprising how much overlap is suggested across species, based on neuroimaging findings in humans (Kumari et al. 2003a, 2005, 2007a; Postma et al. 2006), and based on examples of localized neuropathology associated with PPI deficits in brain disorders such as HD and in rat and murine models of this disorder (Swerdlow et al. 1995a; Carter et al. 1999; Van Raamsdonk et al. 2005). These findings notwithstanding, it is clear that species differences will be most pronounced in phylogenetically newest regions, some of which—e.g., frontal cortex—may be of most relevance to schizophrenia. As we attempt to interpret these circuit maps at higher levels of resolution to guide drug development—i.e., beyond simple efferent/afferent patterns, and down to the receptor- and subcellular levels—these cross-species differences may become increasingly important. A number of these differences are already suggested based on simple pharmacological challenge studies, described below.

Second, all rodent brains are not the same. Strain differences in PPI, and in sensitivity to drug effects on PPI, are quite remarkable across inbred and outbred rat strains, and across inbred and outbred mouse strains. These differences must reflect differences in the PPI-regulatory brain circuitry, potentially at any level from the presence of different cell types within a larger circuit organization, down to differences in the activity of specific enzymes within signal transduction pathways. Inbred Brown Norway rats exhibit significantly more PPI at short prepulse intervals and significantly less PPI at long prepulse intervals, compared to outbred Sprague Dawley (SD) rats (Swerdlow et al. 2006a). These differences are heritable (Swerdlow et al. 2008), and must reflect genetically mediated differences in brain organization. Albino SD and hooded Long Evans (LE) rats differ significantly in their sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of dopamine (DA) agonists (e.g., Swerdlow et al. 2004a, 2006d) and in the expression of DA-regulatory enzymes [e.g., catechol-o-methyl transferase (COMT)] and signal transduction enzymes (e.g., protein kinase) within the nucleus accumbens (Shilling et al. 2008). Which of these strains provides an anatomical/neurochemical “map” of PPI that is most informative about human PPI circuitry, and hence, about PPI circuit abnormalities in schizophrenia? The answer is likely to differ, based on the neural systems and levels of resolution being studied, and the models being applied.

Treatment

It is reasonable to expect that studies of PPI in laboratory animals will continue to play a major role in the discovery and development of novel therapeutics for schizophrenia. As noted above, there is no compelling empirically based reason to expect that increased PPI per se might be desirable or functionally enhancing, nor that the ability of a drug to increase PPI in schizophrenia patients should be necessary or sufficient for clinical benefit. Despite this caveat, there is clear empirical evidence that the ability of drugs to “normalize” PPI levels after they have been reduced experimentally by specific drugs or perhaps by other manipulations (e.g., developmental manipulations) strongly predicts clinical utility and even potency of antipsychotic agents (Swerdlow et al. 1994; Swerdlow and Geyer 1998; Fig. 2). Towards this end, PPI has been used in several different types of predictive models, which differ in their sensitivity, specificity, logistical complexity, and even in the types of antipsychotics that they appear to identify. These issues are reviewed in Geyer et al. (2001), and an update of studies using PPI for its predictive validity since 2000 are found in Table 2.
Fig. 2

Evidence supporting the predictive validity of one “rapid-throughput” animal model of PPI deficits. In these studies (Swerdlow et al. 1994), PPI was disrupted in adult male Sprague–Dawley rats by the mixed D1/D2 agonist, apomorphine (0.5 mg/kg sc). The ED50 of a number of drugs to reverse this apomorphine effect correlated significantly with their clinical potency. Subsequent studies have identified many other clinically effective antipsychotic agents from different chemical classes that prevent the PPI-disruptive effects of apomorphine in rats [see Table 2 and Geyer et al. (2001)]. A small number of potential “false-positive” compounds have also been detected, primarily in other species or strains. Other predictive models have been developed using PPI as a dependent measure, as described in the text and Table 2, each with different sensitivity, specificity, and logistical complexities

The four most common variations of the PPI paradigm in models predictive of antipsychotic effects involve the use of (1) DA agonists (Fig. 2), (2) NMDA antagonists, (3) isolation rearing (IR), and (4) neonatal ventral hippocampal lesions (NVHLs). While each of these variations is based on a biological “construct” for the etiology of schizophrenia, i.e., hyperdopaminergia, hypoglutamatergia, and specific neurodevelopmental insults, they have all been applied towards predicting antipsychotic properties in novel compounds. In truth, only the former two variants are well suited to traditional “rapid throughput” drug screens, based on the amount of time and resources necessary for the developmental models, and the relatively small (and often strain- or sex-dependent) effects of isolation rearing on PPI (Weiss et al. 1999, 2000; Powell et al. 2002). In each of these variations, the ability of a drug to “normalize” PPI is interpreted as evidence for antipsychotic potential. Some second generation antipsychotics, such as clozapine, quetiapine, and olazapine, tend to increase PPI in otherwise intact animals (Swerdlow and Geyer 1993b; cf. Geyer et al. 2001), particularly in mice, adding some interpretative complexity to their ability to normalize PPI after pharmacological, developmental, or surgical manipulations. In fact, the ability to enhance baseline PPI is a signal that has been used as a predictor of antipsychotic potential in mice, in some normally “low-gating” mouse strains (cf. Ouagazzal et al. 2001a), rat strains (Feifel et al. 2001, 2004), and even in normal “low-gating” humans (Swerdlow et al. 2006a; Vollenweider et al. 2006).

Beyond the dopamine system, some new targets of antipsychotics have emerged in recent years, based in part on studies using variations of PPI paradigms as predictive models. Examples of these targets include (but are not limited to) selective 5-HT2C receptor agonists (Marquis et al. 2007), CB1 cannabinoid receptor antagonists (Nagai et al. 2006), neurotensin-1 receptor agonists (Shilling et al. 2003, 2004; Caceda et al. 2005), selective adenosine A(2A) receptor agonists (Wardas et al. 2003), alpha-7 nicotinic receptor agonists (Suemara et al. 2004), and selective histamine H3 receptor antagonists (Fox et al. 2005; Table 2). It should be emphasized that in some cases, these targets were identified based on PPI assays with less compelling predictive validity, such as the ability of compounds to increase basal PPI levels in mice, or to normalize PPI after its disruption by 5HT agonists or NMDA antagonists. These assays may have strong sensitivity, particularly for identifying compounds with potentially novel mechanisms, but they also may lack specificity for detecting antipsychotic properties, at least in comparison to assays based on the ability to block the PPI-disruptive effects of apomorphine and perhaps other DA agonists (Fig. 2). We will have to await clinical evidence to determine whether these reports reflect “false positives” of these models.

PPI has only more recently begun to be used in models for detecting preventative or neuroprotective interventions, to identify strategies that would prevent the neuropathological and clinical consequences of a vulnerability gene or developmental insult involved in the prodrome and onset of schizophrenia. Some studies are approaching such an application, using early neuroimmune challenges to yield PPI deficits during adulthood (e.g., Borrell et al. 2002), or using sustained early life antipsychotic exposure to blunt the PPI-disruptive effects of developmental insults (Powell et al. 2006a, b). Assuming that these models succeed, it remains to be determined how one would test or apply such interventions in a clinical setting.

A reliable, robust, quantitative phenotype

In any given rodent species and strain, both PPI and its drug sensitivity are quite robust and reliable phenotypes. Within a range of 30–120 ms prepulse intervals, and 2–16 dB noise prepulses over a 65- to 70-dB(A) noise background, and 105–120 dB(A) noise pulses, PPI in rats exhibits a magnitude and parametric sensitivity that are strikingly similar across a number of studies from different laboratories and, conveniently, are also quite similar to those exhibited by humans. Similarly, PPI-disruptive effects of a number of simple manipulations (e.g., administration of a direct DA agonist) have been replicated across laboratories to the point that they have become “standard assays”, in predictive models for antipsychotic development. The PPI-disruptive effects of more complex manipulations, including early developmental lesions or isolation rearing, tend to be more variable across laboratories (discussed above), perhaps due to the complexities (and hence variability) of the methods and uncontrolled sources of variance. Some differences in reports of PPI drug sensitivity and sensitivity to developmental manipulations clearly seem to result from differences in rat strain or even supplier (e.g., Swerdlow et al. 1998, 2000b, 2003a, 2004a), and these differences are being explicated at the levels of heritable differences in neural substrates regulating PPI.

Some disparities in reported drug or other manipulation effects on PPI may also reflect differences in the recording properties of a variety of “home built“ and commercially available startle response acquisition systems. While there is no “gold standard” for such an apparatus, there are a number of characteristics that should be evaluated in interpreting whether response measurements “obey the laws of physiology”, e.g., intensity- and interval-dependence of PPI, and relative insensitivity of PPI to weight differences across animals. These issues are reviewed in Geyer and Swerdlow (1998).

Startle and PPI data can be deceptively complex, and some disparities in reported effects on PPI in rodents undoubtedly reflect these complexities and resulting interpretative differences across studies. Despite the impressive degree of automation in laboratory measures of PPI, one cannot automatically enter startle data into an equation and reasonably expect the calculated percent PPI to be informative. For example, we have previously reviewed the importance of considering the impact of changes in startle magnitude on changes in PPI (Swerdlow et al. 2000a). Simply put, the only unambiguous changes in sensorimotor gating are ones that can be demonstrated in the absence of changes in startle magnitude. In this case, reduced sensorimotor gating reflects a diminished impact of the prepulse on startle magnitude and, hence, an increase in startle magnitude on prepulse + pulse trials only. Any other related pattern of results, involving significantly reduced or increased startle magnitude on pulse-alone trials, must be interpreted in the context of additional supportive evidence. Such evidence might come from the use of low and high pulse intensities or from subgroups of rats that are matched based on comparable levels of startle magnitude.

Another interpretative issue that has been discussed in several recent reports relates to the potential impact of prepulse-induced startle activity on PPI and its modification by drugs or other experimental manipulations (Yee et al. 2004; Swerdlow et al. 2004c). A stimulus is only considered a “prepulse” in relationship to a second stimulus. By any other metric, it is simply a stimulus and can elicit motor activity including a startle reflex, depending on its properties. If the prepulse intensity exceeds the startle threshold, a “prepulse + pulse” configuration is better described as a “paired-pulse” configuration, and the resulting decrement in the startle response elicited by the second pulse is described as “paired-pulse inhibition”, comparable to the phenomenon used to study “blink excitability” (e.g., Kimura and Harada 1976; Valls-Sole et al. 2004). The similarities and differences of PPI and paired-pulse inhibition have been described for a small number of drug effects (e.g. Swerdlow et al. 2002a), but relatively little is known about this relationship for the long list of manipulations that have been applied towards PPI studies.

The interpretative ambiguities created by “prepulse-elicited startle” are most relevant to conditions in which the prepulse exceeds startle threshold. In a rat, for 20 ms noise prepulses over a 70-dB(A) noise background, this threshold is generally between 12 and 15 dB, although the precise value varies with strain, sex, age, and other factors. Other prepulse characteristics, including frequency (pure tone vs. white noise), duration, and configuration (continuous vs. discrete) can impact its motor-inhibiting and activating properties. For the vast majority of published PPI studies, prepulses are used at levels that elicit no or little detectable motor activity; even relatively intense prepulses (e.g., 10–15 dB salience, based on the stimulus conditions described above) might elicit a motor “signal” that is <1% of the total startle signal (Swerdlow et al. 2004c). In fact, this signal is comparable to that detected on “NOSTIM” trials, i.e., when no motor activity is recorded in the absence of stimulus delivery, suggesting that this small signal reflects ongoing motor activity rather than a prepulse-elicited motor response (e.g. Swerdlow et al. 2004c; Weber and Swerdlow 2008). Importantly, only a small fraction of studies utilize prepulses with supra-threshold intensities, and among these, most also utilize much weaker prepulses as internal comparisons. PPI is used to assess many things, and in some cases, a range of prepulse intensities is used to create a complete parametric characterization for purposes unrelated to drug effects (e.g., QTL analyses). Clearly, in these cases, the use of intense prepulses is not a “confound”, but simply a way to fully characterize a phenotype.

It is argued that potentially confounding effects might arise if a drug or other manipulation lowers startle threshold and, hence, transforms a non-startling prepulse into one that elicits a motor response (Yee et al. 2004). Specifically, a potentially confounding interaction might arise if increases in prepulse-evoked motor responses diminished the prepulse’s inhibitory effects on a subsequent startle response. In fact, there is no reason to predict such an effect: full startle responses elicited by an S1 in a paired-pulse paradigm do not interfere with the inhibitory impact of S1 on the startle response to S2 (e.g., Swerdlow et al. 2002a), so there is no credible reason to predict that such interference would result from a prepulse-evoked response that is 100-fold less intense. Nonetheless, under drug conditions, a number of control comparisons can be conducted—analogous to those used to understand the impact on PPI of drug-induced changes in startle magnitude—to determine whether drug effects on prepulse-evoked motor activity and PPI can be “dissociated”. We might predict that a common drug receptor (e.g., D1 or D2) might mediate two processes (reduced PPI and increased prepulse-induced motor activity), via effects within different brain substrates. Similar to changes in startle magnitude, a given drug might elicit either increases, decreases, or no change in prepulse-induced motor responses, yet have a consistent effect on PPI (e.g., Weber and Swerdlow 2008); even in cases where drug-induced changes in prepulse-induced activity are detected, they amount to shifts of less than 1% of the total “signal” of the startle response and, as noted above, are comparable to changes observed in “NOSTIM” activity. Thus, while it is a reasonable precaution to consider measuring prepulse-elicited motor activity to ascertain whether it is significantly greater than ongoing background motor activity, and whether it might potentially interact with the startling effects of the startle pulse, in our experience, such an exercise amounts to “much ado about [almost] nothing” (Swerdlow 2005).

A useful tool for modeling the neurobiology and gating and its deficits in humans

The most compelling contribution of animal studies of PPI towards the understanding of the basis for PPI deficits in schizophrenia comes in the ability to directly manipulate neural and genetic substrates and test hypotheses in a controlled experimental setting. The challenges of extrapolating such findings across species are not trivial, as discussed above in relationship to neural circuit maps. Still, for understanding the contribution to PPI deficits in schizophrenia of pathology in medial prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, amygdala or ventral striatum, or of specific candidate genes or early developmental insults, cross-species studies are a unique, powerful tool.

PPI studies have also identified neurobiological bridges across species that may reveal potential limitations of these studies and, perhaps, more generally of animal models of schizophrenia. For example, several drugs potently disrupt PPI in rats and yet increase PPI in normal humans. This is most notable because the drugs in question—ketamine (Abel et al. 2003; Duncan et al. 2001), MDMA (Vollenweider et al. 1999) and under some conditions, DA agonists (Bitsios et al. 2005)—have pharmacological and clinical properties that are central to models for the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. These findings raise both experimental and conceptual issues.

At an experimental level, drug doses, routes of administration, and pharmacokinetic/dynamic properties differ substantially across species. As one example, amphetamine reliably decreases PPI in rats only at doses above 2 mg/kg administered subcutaneously (Mansbach et al. 1988; Sills 1999; Swerdlow et al. 2006d), while the oral dose of amphetamine given to normal humans in PPI studies rarely exceeds 0.29 mg/kg (20 mg total; e.g., Hutchison and Swift 1999; Swerdlow et al. 2003b). Species differences in drug effects might also reflect contextual differences in the test setting. Humans volunteer and are paid for study participation, have the test conditions explained by a supportive research assistant, swallow a pill, and sit in a comfortable chair during testing; by contrast, rats are removed from a cage, injected with a drug, and then placed alone in a plastic tube inside an unfamiliar box where they are exposed to loud, unexpected noises. One might imagine that drug effects on a fight-or-flight reflex (startle) might differ in these two conditions, independent of species. Furthermore, while the parametric properties of PPI (e.g., sensitivity to prepulse intensity and interval) are strikingly similar across species, drug effects might reveal some cross-species differences in these parametric effects. For example, at 120 ms prepulse intervals, ketamine has opposite effects on PPI in rats (disrupts PPI; Mansbach and Geyer 1989) and humans (increases PPI; Abel et al. 2003; Duncan et al. 2001); on the other hand, ketamine can increase PPI in rats at shorter prepulse intervals (e.g., 30 ms; Mansbach and Geyer 1989). Our group has detected similar species- and interval-dependent effects with the NMDA antagonist, memantine (Swerdlow et al. 2003c, 2005a). Conceivably, NMDA-related mechanisms of drug effects on gating at 30 ms in rats might best approximate those at 120 ms in humans.

However, this explanation does not address the conceptual dilemma created by the fact that psychotomimetic drugs increase PPI in normal humans, while schizophrenia is associated with reduced PPI. While PPI deficits in schizophrenia might possibly reflect the consequences of sustained deficiencies in glutamatergic activity in the context of developmentally aberrant neural connections, it does not follow that such effects would be reproduced by an acute challenge of an NMDA antagonist to a normal individual with normal neural connectivity. Furthermore, one might easily imagine that acute drug effects on an intact brain might enhance sensorimotor gating via a mechanism that is very distinct from (e.g., “upstream” or “downstream” from) those responsible for reduced gating in the brain of a schizophrenia patient. Nonetheless, faced with these discrepant effects of psychotomimetic drugs on PPI, it is difficult to know whether the failings lie in the cross-species translation of the PPI model, in the validity of the acute ketamine/glutamate antagonist model of schizophrenia, or both.

An additional challenge in building neurobiological bridges of PPI studies across species comes from the human side of the bridge—from the observations that drug effects on PPI in humans can differ significantly, depending on basal levels of PPI. A number of drugs—including amphetamine (Swerdlow et al. 2003b), pergolide, amantadine (Bitsios et al. 2005), quetiapine (Swerdlow et al. 2006a), and clozapine (Vollenweider et al. 2006)—have been demonstrated to have effects that differ significantly (and in some cases, are arithmetically opposite) in normal humans with low vs. high PPI levels, relative to the overall test population. Similar findings may be emerging from animal studies, e.g., among inbred strains with low basal levels of PPI (cf. Ouagazzal et al. 2001a). How we interpret this “rate dependency” of drug effects on PPI in humans and laboratory animals and what it means about the many reported drug effects on PPI that have not considered or tested the impact of basal PPI levels, are issues that remain to be resolved.

While this discussion has focused primarily on cross-species comparisons between rodents and humans, and we discussed earlier the strain differences in PPI that have been detected in both rats and mice, it is also worth noting that there are also a number of important cross-species differences in PPI and its parametric and pharmacological sensitivity between rats and mice. Just as one example, while PPI is disrupted by DA agonists in both rats and mice, there is some evidence that this effect primarily reflects activation of D2 receptors in rats (Swerdlow et al. 1994; cf. Geyer et al. 2001), but of D1 receptors in mice (Ralph-Williams et al. 2003a; Ralph and Caine 2005). Within a restricted set of stimulus parameters (particularly prepulse intervals), infusion of D2 agonists into the nucleus accumbens decreases PPI in rats and increases PPI in mice (Mohr et al. 2007). This issue is not yet settled, as mice lacking D2 receptors are insensitive to the PPI-disruptive effects of d-amphetamine (Ralph et al. 1999), and some mouse strains exhibit “rat-like” PPI sensitivity to D2 agonists (Ralph and Caine 2007). Nonetheless, enough data exists that we can be fairly confident that a similar drug effect on PPI in rats and mice does not necessarily reflect a common underlying brain substrate. This raises the dilemma that when modeling the loss of PPI in schizophrenia, we are almost certainly studying very different neurobiological substrates, depending on the model species; this makes it very difficult to identify a clear, a priori rationale for selecting one species over another.

A surrogate measure for neural processes with wide-reaching psychological implications

Models of higher cognitive processes are only now being developed in rodents. Given the limited size and processing capacity of the frontal cortex in mice and rats vs. primates, and its relatively weaker contribution to the organization of behavior, there is reason to be skeptical that rodent models of higher cognitive processes will provide meaningful homology to human cognition. Nonetheless, mice and rats are amenable to complex conditioning schedules and are capable of performing choices and sophisticated behavioral sequences, and it is certain that studies will assess the potential relationship of PPI to these processes (e.g., Roegge et al. 2007; Depoortere et al. 2007a, b; Garner et al. 2007; Paine et al. 2007). Extrapolating these findings to humans will present many challenges. In general, the farther forward one moves in the brain, the greater the anatomical and functional differences between rodents and humans. For example, one might imagine a scenario in which “cognitive” control in rodents involves a prominent role for subcortical (e.g., basal ganglia) functions that overlap with PPI-regulatory circuitry, while in humans, higher cognitive control is “encephalized” to discrete frontal circuits that participate less in the regulation of startle gating.

There is already some evidence for both convergence and divergence of PPI and other operational animal models of “gating”, in terms of their underlying neural substrates. For example, contemporaneous measures of PPI and N40 gating—an animal model of P50 ERP gating in humans—revealed that apomorphine, phencyclidine, and DOI each disrupt PPI and reduce ERP responsivity to the S1 stimulus in the N40-gating paradigm, but do not specifically disrupt N40 gating per se (Swerdlow et al. 2006b). Some overlap has been reported in the pharmacological sensitivity of PPI and [some of the various forms of] latent inhibition to DA agonists and NMDA antagonists (Mansbach and Geyer 1989; Bakshi et al. 1995; Razoux et al. 2007), although many conditions lead to a loss of PPI in rats but leave latent inhibition intact (e.g., amphetamine withdrawal (Peleg-Raibstein et al. 2006a, b) and D2 blockade in the basolateral amygdala (Stevenson and Gratton 2004)). Thus, neurobiological mechanisms of PPI cannot be assumed to be common to experimental measures of either sensory or cognitive gating in rats. The potential overlap in the neurobiology of PPI and higher-order functions in rats, such as working memory, is an area of ongoing investigation. At present, there is no compelling evidence that such an overlap exists or that PPI is informative about higher cognitive functions in rodents.

Summary: animal studies

Animal models will remain an important tool in developing and testing hypotheses for the pathogenesis of brain disorders. As a reliable, quantitative “read out” of relatively well-defined neural circuitry, measures of PPI in laboratory animals will continue to be used to test and validate these hypotheses and to generate important new hypotheses regarding cellular mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. PPI models provide predictive validity in drug discovery and development, both as rapid through-put screens and as components of more biologically sophisticated models involving developmental, immunologic, and genetic manipulations. Areas of convergence and divergence are being identified in the cross-species pharmacology of PPI; areas of convergence will be exploited so that human drug effects can be predicted and understood based on PPI drug effects in rodents and their underlying cellular and molecular substrates. Finally, the relationship of PPI to higher-order learning processes is being explored in rodents, and the findings will be used to generate and test hypotheses regarding the interplay of sensorimotor gating and cognition in normal and disordered humans.

Conclusions

The construct of gating deficits in neuropsychiatric disorders has empirical support and intuitive appeal, and serves as a unifying heuristic for understanding the psychological and neural substrates shared by otherwise apparently unrelated disorders. PPI is an operational measure of basic, brain-based gating processes. It is robust, reliable, easily quantified, and versatile as an experimental tool, and is abnormal in several brain disorders including schizophrenia, that are characterized by clinical evidence of impaired gating of sensory, cognitive, motor of affective information. PPI can be measured across species and is regulated in laboratory animals by neurochemical, anatomical, developmental, and genetic substrates that can be systematically studied and used as the basis for developing and testing hypotheses for the biological basis of PPI deficits in patients.

For all of these reasons, studies of PPI in humans and laboratory animals have multiplied and expanded, and this measure is being used to explore many new questions at many different levels of analysis. While our field does not yet face the floods of the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (von Goethe 1779), it is clear that findings have amassed at an exponential rate and are testing our collective ability to critically integrate results, to identify areas of consistency, redundancy, and disagreement. Based on a review of the present literature, we reached several conclusions: (1) in humans, PPI is not “diagnostic”; levels of PPI do not predict clinical course, specific symptoms, or individual medication responses; (2) in preclinical studies, PPI is valuable for evaluating models or model organisms relevant to schizophrenia, “mapping” neural substrates of deficient PPI in schizophrenia, and advancing the discovery and development of novel therapeutics; (3) across species, PPI is a reliable, robust quantitative phenotype that is useful for probing the neurobiology and genetics of gating deficits in schizophrenia. In this review, we also identify some realistic expectations of this paradigm, describing its considerable strengths but also limitations, and stress some interpretative issues for consideration as we move forward with this powerful tool for translational neuropsychiatric research.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this study were supported by grants from the NIMH (NRS, DLB, GAL: MH 42228, MH 65571; NRS: MH 68366, MH 53484, MH 58903, MH 69589; GAL: MH 79777) and the VISN 22 MIRECC (DLB, GAL). DLB also was supported by a NARSAD Distinguished Investigator Award. The authors have also served as paid consultants to pharmaceutical companies or have had research supported by these companies (NRS, DLB, GAL: Allergan Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; DLB: Acadia Pharmaceuticals; GAL: Memory Pharmaceuticals, Sepacor and Astra-Zeneca). No funding entity provided any input to, oversight of, or influence over the contents of this review. The authors thank Ms. Maria Bongiovanni and Mr. David Ko for their expert assistance in manuscript preparation.

References

  1. Aasen I et al (2005) Sex effects in prepulse inhibition and facilitation of the acoustic startle response: implications for pharmacological and treatment studies. J Psychopharmacol 19:39–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abel K et al (1998) Repeated testing of prepulse inhibition and habituation of the startle reflex: a study in healthy human controls. J Psychopharmacol 12:330–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Abel KM et al (2003) Low dose ketamine increases prepulse inhibition in healthy men. Neuropharmacology 44:729–737PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Adage T et al (2007) In vitro and in vivo pharmacological profile of AS057278, a selective d–amino acid oxidase inhibitor with potential anti-psychotic properties. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Addington J et al (2007) North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study. North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study: a collaborative multisite approach to prodromal schizophrenia research. Schizophr Bull 33:665–672PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Adler LE et al (1982) Neurophysiological evidence for a defect in neuronal mechanisms involved in sensory gating in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 17:639–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Afonso VM et al (2007) Medial prefrontal cortex lesions in the female rat affect sexual and maternal behavior and their sequential organization. Behav Neurosci 121:515–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision)Google Scholar
  9. Andreasen JT et al (2006) Nicotine and clozapine selectively reverse a PCP–induced deficit of PPI in BALB/cByJ but not NMRI mice: comparison with risperidone. Behav Brain Res 167:118–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Auclair AL et al (2006) Actions of novel antipsychotic agents on apomorphine–induced PPI disruption: influence of combined serotonin 5-HT1A receptor activation and dopamine D2 receptor blockade. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:1900–1909PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Auclair AL et al (2007) Putative antipsychotics with pronounced agonism at serotonin 5-HT1A and partial agonist activity at dopamine D2 receptors disrupt basal PPI of the startle reflex in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 193:45–54Google Scholar
  12. Bakshi VP et al (1995) A comparison of the effects of amphetamine, strychnine and caffeine on prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition. Behav Pharmacol 6:801–809PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ballmaier M et al (2001a) Combined alpha 2-adrenergic/D2 dopamine receptor blockade fails to reproduce the ability of clozapine to reverse phencyclidine-induced deficits in prepulse inhibition of startle. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 159:105–110Google Scholar
  14. Ballmaier M et al (2001b) Selective immunolesioning of cholinergic neurons in nucleus basalis magnocellularis impairs prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle. Neuroscience 108:299–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ballmaier M et al (2002) Rivastigmine antagonizes deficits in prepulse inhibition induced by selective immunolesioning of cholinergic neurons in nucleus basalis magnocellularis. Neuroscience 114:91–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ballmaier M et al (2007) Cannabinoid receptor antagonists counteract sensorimotor gating deficits in the phencyclidine model of psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:2098–2107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Barr AM et al (2004) The selective serotonin-2A receptor antagonist M100907 reverses behavioral deficits in dopamine transporter knockout mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:221–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Barr AM et al (2006) Iloperidone reduces sensorimotor gating deficits in pharmacological models, but not a developmental model, of disrupted prepulse inhibition in rats. Neuropharmacology 51:457–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Barr AM et al (2007) The reelin receptors VLDLR and ApoER2 regulate sensorimotor gating in mice. Neuropharmacology 52:1114–1123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Barrett SL et al (2005) Normal levels of prepulse inhibition in the euthymic phase of bipolar disorder. Psychol Med 35:1737–1746PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bast T et al (2001) Hyperactivity and disruption of prepulse inhibition induced by N-methyl-d-aspartate stimulation of the ventral hippocampus and the effects of pretreatment with haloperidol and clozapine. Neuroscience 103:325–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Beglopoulos V et al (2005) Neurexophilin 3 is highly localized in cortical and cerebellar regions and is functionally important for sensorimotor gating and motor coordination. Mol Cell Biol 25:7278–7288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bell RL et al (2003) Amphetamine-modified acoustic startle responding and prepulse inhibition in adult and adolescent alcohol-preferring and -nonpreferring rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 75:163–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Bickel S et al (2008) Early auditory sensory processing deficits in mouse mutants with reduced NMDA receptor function. Neuropsychopharmacology (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Bitsios P et al (2005) The effects of dopamine agonists on prepulse inhibition in healthy men depend on baseline PPI values. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 182:144–152Google Scholar
  26. Bitsios P et al (2006) Increased prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response is associated with better strategy formation and execution times in healthy males. Neuropsychologia 44:2494–2499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Bleuler E (1911/1950) Dementia praecox; or, the group of schizophrenias. International Universities Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Boeckler F et al (2004) FAUC 213, a highly selective dopamine D4 receptor full antagonist, exhibits atypical antipsychotic properties in behavioural and neurochemical models of schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 175:7–17Google Scholar
  29. Bontekoe CJ et al (2002) Knockout mouse model for Fxr2: a model for mental retardation. Hum Mol Genet 11:487–498PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Borrell J et al (2002) Prenatal immune challenge disrupts sensorimotor gating in adult rats. Implications for the etiopathogenesis of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 26:204–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bortolato M et al (2004) Baclofen reverses the reduction in prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response induced by dizocilpine, but not by apomorphine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 171:322–330Google Scholar
  32. Bortolato M et al (2005) Kappa opioid receptor activation disrupts prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle in rats. Biol Psychiatry 57:1550–1558PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Bortolato M et al (2006) Anxiolytic-like properties of the anandamide transport inhibitor AM404. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:2652–2659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Bortolato M et al (2007) Activation of GABA(B) receptors reverses spontaneous gating deficits in juvenile DBA/2J mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 194:361–369Google Scholar
  35. Boucher AA et al (2007) Heterozygous neuregulin 1 mice are more sensitive to the behavioural effects of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 192:325–336Google Scholar
  36. Bowers BJ et al (2005) Deletion of the alpha7 nicotinic receptor subunit gene results in increased sensitivity to several behavioral effects produced by alcohol. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 29:295–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Boyce-Rustay JM, Holmes A (2006) Genetic inactivation of the NMDA receptor NR2A subunit has anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:2405–2414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Braff DL, Light GA (2004) Preattentional and attentional cognitive deficits as targets for treating schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 174:75–85Google Scholar
  39. Braff D et al (1978) Prestimulus effects on human startle reflex in normals and schizophrenics. Psychophysiology 15:339–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Braff DL et al (1992) Gating and habituation of the startle reflex in schizophrenic patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 49:206–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Braff DL et al (2001a) Impact of prepulse characteristics on the detection of sensorimotor gating deficits in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 49:171–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Braff DL et al (2001b) Human studies of prepulse inhibition of startle: normal subjects, patient groups, and pharmacological studies. Psychopharmacology 156:234–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Braff DL et al (2005) Female schizophrenia patients have prepulse inhibition deficits. Biol Psychiatry 57:817–820PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Braff DL et al (2007a) Deconstructing schizophrenia: an overview of the use of endophenotypes in order to understand a complex disorder. Schizophr Bull 33:21–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Braff DL et al (2007b) Prepulse Inhibition and P50 Suppression are both deficient but not correlated in schizophrenia patients. Biol Psychiatry 61:1204–1207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Braff et al (2008) One-year longitudinal study of 200 schizophrenia patients: no clinical, cognitive, neurophysiological or functional differences at intake in retested vs. non-retested patients. Abstr Society for Neuroscience (in press)Google Scholar
  47. Brea J et al (2006) QF2004B, a potential antipsychotic butyrophenone derivative with similar pharmacological properties to clozapine. Neuropharmacology 51:251–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Brody SA, Geyer MA (2004b) Interactions of the mGluR5 gene with breeding and maternal factors on startle and prepulse inhibition in mice. Neurotox Res 6:79–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Brody SA et al (2003a) Disruption of prepulse inhibition in mice lacking mGluR1. Eur J Neurosci 18:3361–3366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Brody SA et al (2003b) Lamotrigine prevents ketamine but not amphetamine-induced deficits in prepulse inhibition in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 169:240–246Google Scholar
  51. Brody SA et al (2004a) Effect of antipsychotic treatment on the prepulse inhibition deficit of mGluR5 knockout mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 172:187–195Google Scholar
  52. Brody SA et al (2005) A developmental influence of the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor NR3A subunit on prepulse inhibition of startle. Biol Psychiatry 57:1147–1152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Browman KE et al (2004) Enhancement of prepulse inhibition of startle in mice by the H3 receptor antagonists thioperamide and ciproxifan. Behav Brain Res 153:69–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Brunskill EW et al (2005) Abnormal neurodevelopment, neurosignaling and behaviour in Npas3-deficient mice. Eur J Neurosci 22:1265–1276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Bubenikova V et al (2005) The effect of zotepine, risperidone, clozapine and olanzapine on MK-801-disrupted sensorimotor gating. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 80:591–596PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Burne TH et al (2004) Combined prenatal and chronic postnatal vitamin D deficiency in rats impairs prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle. Physiol Behav 81:651–655PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Burne TH et al (2005) Behavioural characterization of vitamin D receptor knockout mice. Behav Brain Res 157:299–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Burton C et al (2006) Early adversity alters attention and locomotion in adult Sprague–Dawley rats. Behav Neurosci 120:665–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Butler RW, Jenkins MA, Geyer MA, Braff D (1991) Wisconsin card sorting deficits and diminished sensorimotor gating in a discrete subgroup of schizophrenic patients. In: Tamminga CA, Schulz SC (eds) Advances in neuropsychiatry and psychopharmacology. New York, NY: Raven Press, pp 163–168Google Scholar
  60. Byrnes EM et al (2007) Sensorimotor gating and dopamine function in postpartum rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:1021–1031PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Caceda R et al (2005) Virally mediated increased neurotensin 1 receptor in the nucleus accumbens decreases behavioral effects of mesolimbic system activation. J Neurosci 25:11748–11756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Cadenhead KS (2002) Vulnerability markers in the schizophrenia spectrum: implications for phenomenology, genetics, and the identification of the schizophrenia prodrome. Psychiatr Clin North Am 25:837–853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Cadenhead KS et al (1999) Prepulse inhibition and habituation of the startle response are stable neurobiological measures in a normal male population. Biol Psychiatry 45:360–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Cadenhead KS et al (2002) Neurobiological measures of schizotypal personality disorder: defining an inhibitory endophenotype. Am J Psychiatry 159:869–871PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Caine SB et al (2001) Behavioral effects of psychomotor stimulants in rats with dorsal or ventral subiculum lesions: locomotion, cocaine self-administration, and prepulse inhibition of startle. Behav Neurosci 115:880–894PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Calkins ME et al (2004) Antisaccade performance is impaired in medically and psychiatrically healthy biological relatives of schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Res 71:167–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Calkins ME et al (2007) The consortium on the genetics of endophenotypes in schizophrenia: model recruitment, assessment, and endophenotyping methods for a multi-site collaboration. Schiz Bull 33:33–48Google Scholar
  68. Cannon TD et al (2008) Prediction of psychosis in youth at high clinical risk: a multi-site longitudinal study in North America. Arch Gen Psychiatry 65:28–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Cao BJ, Li Y (2002) Reduced anxiety- and depression-like behaviors in Emx1 homozygous mutant mice. Brain Res 937:32–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Carroll CA et al (2007) Sensorimotor gating in manic and mixed episode bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 9:221–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Carter RJ et al (1999) Characterization of progressive motor deficits in mice transgenic for the human Huntington’s disease mutation. J Neurosci 19:3248–3257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Castellanos FX et al (1996) Sensorimotor gating in boys with Tourette’s syndrome and ADHD: preliminary results. Biol Psychiatry 39:33–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Catapano LA, Manji HK (2007) G protein-coupled receptors in major psychiatric disorders. Biochim Biophys Acta 1768:976–993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Chen L, Toth M (2001) Fragile X mice develop sensory hyperreactivity to auditory stimuli. Neuroscience 103:1043–1050PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Chiu CS et al (2005) GABA transporter deficiency causes tremor, ataxia, nervousness, and increased GABA-induced tonic conductance in cerebellum. J Neurosci 25:3234–3245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Choy KH, van den Buuse M (2007) Attenuated disruption of prepulse inhibition by dopaminergic stimulation after maternal deprivation and adolescent corticosterone treatment in rats. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 18:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Cilia J et al (2005) Reversal of isolation-rearing-induced PPI deficits by an alpha7 nicotinic receptor agonist. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 182:214–219Google Scholar
  78. Cilia J et al (2007) (+/−) Ketamine-induced prepulse inhibition deficits of an acoustic startle response in rats are not reversed by antipsychotics. J Psychopharmacol 21:302–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Clapcote SJ et al (2007) Behavioral phenotypes of Disc1 missense mutations in mice. Neuron 54:387–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Conti LH et al (2005) Effects of a typical and an atypical antipsychotic on the disruption of prepulse inhibition caused by corticotropin-releasing factor and by rat strain. Behav Neurosci 119:1052–1060PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Csomor PA et al (2008) Haloperidol differentially modulates prepulse inhibition and P50 suppression in healthy humans stratified for low and high gating levels. Neuropsychopharmacology 33:497–512Google Scholar
  82. Cui C et al (2003) The beta3 nicotinic receptor subunit: a component of alpha-conotoxin MII-binding nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that modulate dopamine release and related behaviors. J Neurosci 23:11045–11053PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Culm KE et al (2003) Reduced G(i) and G(o) protein function in the rat nucleus accumbens attenuates sensorimotor gating deficits. Brain Res 982:12–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Culm KE et al (2004) Repeated quinpirole treatment increases cAMP-dependent protein kinase activity and CREB phosphorylation in nucleus accumbens and reverses quinpirole-induced sensorimotor gating deficits in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:1823–1830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Czyrak A et al (2003) 8-OHDPAT-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition in rats is attenuated by prolonged corticosterone treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology 28:1300–1310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Daenen EW et al (2003) Neonatal lesions in the amygdala or ventral hippocampus disrupt prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response; implications for an animal model of neurodevelopmental disorders like schizophrenia. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 13:187–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Dai H et al (2004) Social isolation stress significantly enhanced the disruption of prepulse inhibition in mice repeatedly treated with methamphetamine. Ann NY Acad Sci 1025:257–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Dai H et al (2005) Blockage of histamine H1 receptor attenuates social isolation-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition: a study in H1 receptor gene knockout mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 183:285–293Google Scholar
  89. Davis M (1984) The mammalian startle response. In: Eaton RC (ed) Neural mechanisms of startle behavior. Plenum Press, New York, pp 287–342Google Scholar
  90. Davis M et al (1982) A primary acoustic startle circuit: lesion and stimulation studies. J Neurosci 2:791–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Day-Wilson KM et al (2006) Medial prefrontal cortex volume loss in rats with isolation rearing–induced deficits in prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle. Neuroscience 141:1113–1121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. de Jong IE, van den Buuse M (2006) SCH 23390 in the prefrontal cortex enhances the effect of apomorphine on prepulse inhibition of rats. Neuropharmacology 51:438–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Depoortere R et al (2005) Neurochemical, electrophysiological and pharmacological profiles of the selective inhibitor of the glycine transporter-1 SSR504734, a potential new type of antipsychotic. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:1963–1985PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Depoortere R et al (2007a) F15063, a compound with D2/D3 antagonist, 5-HT 1A agonist and D4 partial agonist properties. III. Activity in models of cognition and negative symptoms. Br J Pharmacol 151:266–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Depoortere R et al (2007b) F15063, a compound with D(2)/D(3) antagonist, 5-HT(1A) agonist and D(4) partial agonist properties: (II) Activity in models of positive symptoms of schizophrenia. Br J Pharmacol 151:253–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Diederich K, Koch M (2005) Role of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in sensorimotor gating and reward-related behavior in rats. Psychopharmacology 179:402–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Dirks A et al (2002) Reduced startle reactivity and plasticity in transgenic mice overexpressing corticotrophin-releasing hormone. Biol Psychiatry 51:583–590PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Dirks A et al (2003) Reversal of startle gating deficits in transgenic mice overexpressing corticotrophin-releasing factor by antipsychotic drugs. Neuropsychopharmacology 28:1790–1708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Dolder CR et al (2002) Antipsychotic medication adherence: is there a difference between typical and atypical agents. Am J Psychiatry 159:103–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Duncan EJ et al (2001) Clinical and sensorimotor gating effects of ketamin in normals. Neuropsychopharmacology 25:72–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Duncan E et al (2003a) Prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle in subjects with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine or haloperidol. Psychiatry Res 120:1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Duncan EJ et al (2003b) Effect of treatment status on prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle in schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 167:63–71Google Scholar
  103. Duncan GE et al (2004) Deficits in sensorimotor gating and tests of social behavior in a genetic model of reduced NMDA receptor function. Behav Brain Res 153:507–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Duncan EJ et al (2006a) Medication status affects the relationship of symptoms to prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 145:137–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Duncan GE et al (2006b) Typical and atypical antipsychotic drug effects on locomotor hyperactivity and deficits in sensorimotor gating in a genetic model of NMDA receptor hypofunction. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 85:481–491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Eells JB et al (2006) Early postnatal isolation reduces dopamine levels, elevates dopamine turnover and specifically disrupts prepulse inhibition in Nurr1-null heterozygous mice. Neuroscience 140:1117–1126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Egashira N et al (2005) Disruption of the prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in vasopressin V1b receptor knockout mice: reversal by antipsychotic drugs. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:1996–2005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Ehlers CL et al (2007) Increased alcohol drinking in isolate-housed alcohol-preferring rats. Behav Neurosci 121:111–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Ellenbroek BA, Cools AR (2002) Early maternal deprivation and prepulse inhibition: the role of the postdeprivation environment. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 73:177–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Ellenbroek BA et al (1996) Prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition: the role of dopamine in the medial prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience 75:535–542PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Ellenbroek BA et al (2001) Effects of JL13, a pyridobenzoxazepine with potential atypical antipsychotic activity, in animal models for schizophrenia. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 298:386–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Ellenbroek BA et al (2002b) The role of hippocampal dopamine receptors in prepulse inhibition. Eur J Neurosci 15:1237–1243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. Elmer GI et al (2004) Altered prepulse inhibition in rats treated prenatally with the antimitotic Ara-C: an animal model for sensorimotor gating deficits in schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 174:177–189Google Scholar
  114. Erbel-Sieler C et al (2004) Behavioral and regulatory abnormalities in mice deficient in the NPAS1 and NPAS3 transcription factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13648–13653PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Erhardt S et al (2004) Endogenous kynurenic acid disrupts prepulse inhibition. Biol Psychiatry 56:255–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Ewers M et al (2006) Associative and motor learning in 12-month-old transgenic APP+PS1 mice. Neurobiol Aging 27:1118–1128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Feifel D, Priebe K (2001) Vasopressin-deficient rats exhibit sensorimotor gating deficits that are reversed by subchronic haloperidol. Biol Psychiatry 50:425–433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Feifel D et al (2001) Startle and sensorimotor gating in rats lacking CCK-A receptors. Neuropsychopharmacology 24:663–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Feifel D et al (2004) Reversal of sensorimotor gating deficits in Brattleboro rats by acute administration of clozapine and a neurotensin agonist, but not haloperidol: a potential predictive model for novel antipsychotic effects. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:731–738PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. Fejgin K et al (2007) The atypical antipsychotic, aripiprazole, blocks phencyclidine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 191:377–385Google Scholar
  121. Ferguson SA, Cada AM (2004) Spatial learning/memory and social and nonsocial behaviors in the spontaneously hypertensive, Wistar–Kyoto and Sprague–Dawley rat strains. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 77:583–594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Finamore TL et al (2001) Contributions of hippocampal cellular damage and NMDA receptor dysfunction to behavioral markers of schizophrenia. Int J Neurosci 109:61–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Fitting S et al (2006a) Intrahippocampal injections of Tat: effects on prepulse inhibition of the auditory startle response in adult male rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 84:189–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Fitting S et al (2006b) Neonatal hippocampal Tat injections: developmental effects on prepulse inhibition (PPI) of the auditory startle response. Int J Dev Neurosci 24:275–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Fitting S et al (2006c) Neonatal intrahippocampal glycoprotein 120 injection: the role of dopaminergic alterations in prepulse inhibition in adult rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 318:1352–1358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Flaten MA (2002) Test-retest reliability of the somatosensory blink reflex and its inhibition. Int J Psychophysiol 45:261–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Flood DG et al (2008) Variables affecting prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex and the response to antipsychotics in DBA/2NCrl mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 195:203–211Google Scholar
  128. Fortier ME et al (2007) Effects of prenatal infection on prepulse inhibition in the rat depend on the nature of the infectious agent and the stage of pregnancy. Behav Brain Res 181:270–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Fox GB et al (2005) Pharmacological properties of ABT-239 [4-(2-{2-[(2R)-2-Methylpyrrolidinyl]ethyl}-benzofuran-5-yl)benzonitrile]: II. Neurophysiological characterization and broad preclinical efficacy in cognition and schizophrenia of a potent and selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 313:176–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Fradley RL et al (2005) STOP knockout and NMDA NR1 hypomorphic mice exhibit deficits in sensorimotor gating. Behav Brain Res 163:257–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. Frankland PW et al (2004) Sensorimotor gating abnormalities in young males with fragile X syndrome and Fmr1-knockout mice. Mol Psychiatry 9:417–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Frau R et al (2007) Effects of topiramate on the prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:320–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Freedman R et al (1997) Linkage of a neurophysiological deficit in schizophrenia to a chromosome 15 locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:587–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Freudenberg F et al (2007) Selective breeding for deficient sensorimotor gating is accompanied by increased perseveration in rats. Neuroscience 148:612–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. Fujiwara N et al (2006) Effects of copper metabolism on neurological functions in Wistar and Wilson’s disease model rats. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 349:1079–1086PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. Futamura T et al (2003) Neonatal perturbation of neurotrophic signaling results in abnormal sensorimotor gating and social interaction in adults: implication for epidermal growth factor in cognitive development. Mol Psychiatry 8:19–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. Galici R et al (2005) A selective allosteric potentiator of metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) 2 receptors has effects similar to an orthosteric mGlu2/3 receptor agonist in mouse models predictive of antipsychotic activity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 315:1181–1187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. Garner B et al (2007) Early maternal deprivation reduces prepulse inhibition and impairs spatial learning ability in adulthood: no further effect of post-pubertal chronic corticosterone treatment. Behav Brain Res 176:323–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. George TP et al (2006) A preliminary study of the effects of cigarette smoking on prepulse inhibition in schizophrenia: involvement of nicotinic receptor mechanisms. Schizophr Res 87:307–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Geyer MA, Swerdlow NR (1998) Measurement of startle response, prepulse inhibition, and habituation. In: Crawley JN, Skolnick P (eds) Current protocols in neuroscience, Unit 8.7. Wiley, New York, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  141. Geyer MA et al (1993) Isolation rearing of rats produces a deficit in prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle similar to that in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 34:361–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. Geyer MA et al (2001) Pharmacological studies of prepulse inhibition models of sensorimotor gating deficits in schizophrenia: a decade in review. Psychopharmacology 156:117–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. Geyer MA et al (2002) Mouse genetic models for prepulse inhibition: an early review. Mol Psychiatry 7:1039–1053PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. Gizerian SS et al (2006) Neonatal neurosteroid administration results in development-specific alterations in prepulse inhibition and locomotor activity: neurosteroids alter prepulse inhibition and locomotor activity. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 186:334–342Google Scholar
  145. Gogos A, Van den Buuse M (2004) Estrogen and progesterone prevent disruption of prepulse inhibition by the serotonin-1A receptor agonist 8-hydroxy-2-dipropylaminotetralin. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 309:267–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. Gogos A et al (2006) Oestrogen modulation of the effect of 8-OH-DPAT on prepulse inhibition: effects of aromatase deficiency and castration in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 188:100–110Google Scholar
  147. Gomez-Wong E et al (1998) Sensory modulation of the blink reflex in patients with blepharospasm. Arch Neurol 55:1233–1237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. Goto K et al (2002) Reduced prepulse inhibition in rats with entorhinal cortex lesions. Behav Brain Res 134:201–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Goto K et al (2004) Involvement of nucleus accumbens dopaminergic transmission in acoustic startle: observations concerning prepulse inhibition in rats with entorhinal cortex lesions. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 58:441–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. Gottesman II, Gould TD (2003) The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry 160:636–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. Gould TD, Gottesman II (2006) Psychiatric endophenotypes and the development of valid animal models. Genes Brain Behav 5:113–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Gould TJ et al (2004) Sensorimotor gating deficits in transgenic mice expressing a constitutively active form of Gs alpha. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:494–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. Graham F (1975) The more or less startling effects of weak prestimuli. Psychophysiology 12:238–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. Gray JA (1995) The contents of consciousness: a neuropsychological conjecture. Behav Brain Sci 18:659–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Greenwood TA et al (2007) The Consortium on the Genetics of Schizophrenia (COGS): Preliminary heritability analyses of endophenotypic measures for schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 33:33–48Google Scholar
  156. Grillon C et al (1998) Effects of experimental context and explicit threat cues on acoustic startle in Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Biol Psychiatry 44:1027–1036PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. Grobin AC et al (2006) Perinatal allopregnanolone influences prefrontal cortex structure, connectivity and behavior in adult rats. Neuroscience 138:809–819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. Grobstein P (2005) Making the unconscious conscious: a bi-directional bridge between neuroscience/ cognitive science and psychotherapy. Cortex 41:663–668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. Groenink L et al (2008) CRF(1) not glucocorticoid receptors mediate prepulse inhibition deficits in mice overexpressing CRF. Biol Psychiatry 63:360–368Google Scholar
  160. Harris LW et al (2003) Long-term behavioural, molecular and morphological effects of neonatal NMDA receptor antagonism. Eur J Neurosci 18:1706–1710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. Harrison SM et al (2003) LPA1 receptor-deficient mice have phenotypic changes observed in psychiatric disease. Mol Cell Neurosci 24:1170–1179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. Harte MK et al (2007) Deficits in parvalbumin and calbindin immunoreactive cells in the hippocampus of isolation reared rats. J Neural Transm 114:893–898PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. Hauser J et al (2005) Hippocampal alpha5 subunit-containing GABAA receptors modulate the expression of prepulse inhibition. Mol Psychiatry 10:201–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. Hauser J et al (2006) Prenatal dexamethasone exposure, postnatal development, and adulthood prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition in Wistar rats. Behav Brain Res 175:51–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. Hazlett EA et al (2003) Deficient attentional modulation of the startle response in patients with schizotypal personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 160:1621–1626PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. Heldt SA, Ressler KJ (2006) Lesions of the habenula produce stress- and dopamine-dependent alterations in prepulse inhibition and locomotion. Brain Res 1073–1074:229–239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. Heldt SA et al (2004) Prepulse inhibition deficits in GAD65 knockout mice and the effect of antipsychotic treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:1610–1619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. Henck JW et al (2001) Growth and development in rats given recombinant human epidermal growth factor(1–48) as neonates. Toxicol Sci 62:80–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. Heresco-Levy U et al (2007) High glycine levels are associated with prepulse inhibition deficits in chronic schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Res 91:14–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  170. Hoenig K et al (2005) Impaired prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle in obsessive–compulsive disorder. Biol Psychiatry 57:1153–1158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. Hohnadel E et al (2007) Galantamine and donepezil attenuate pharmacologically induced deficits in prepulse inhibition in rats. Neuropharmacology 52:542–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. Holmes A et al (2001) Behavioral characterization of dopamine D5 receptor null mutant mice. Behav Neurosci 115:1129–1144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. Hong LE et al (2007) Independent domains of inhibitory gating in schizophrenia and the effect of stimulus interval. Am J Psychiatry 164:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. Howland JG et al (2004a) Delayed onset of prepulse inhibition deficits following kainic acid treatment on postnatal day 7 in rats. Eur J Neurosci 20:2639–2648PubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. Howland JG et al (2004b) Electrical stimulation of the hippocampus disrupts prepulse inhibition in rats: frequency- and site-dependent effects. Behav Brain Res 152:187–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. Howland JG et al (2007) Kindling of basolateral amygdala but not ventral hippocampus or perirhinal cortex disrupts sensorimotor gating in rats. Behav Brain Res 177:30–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. Hsieh MH et al (2006) Effects of background and prepulse characteristics on prepulse inhibition and prepulse facilitation: implications for neuropsychiatric research. Biol Psychiatry 15 59(6):555–559Google Scholar
  178. Husum H et al (2002) Early maternal deprivation alters hippocampal levels of neuropeptide Y and calcitonin-gene related peptide in adult rats. Neuropharmacology 42:798–806PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. Hutchison KE, Swift R (1999) Effect of d-amphetamine on prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 143:394–400Google Scholar
  180. Inada K et al (2003) Antisense hippocampal knockdown of NMDA-NR1 by HVJ-liposome vector induces deficit of prepulse inhibition but not of spatial memory. Neurosci Res 45:473–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. Irintchev A et al (2004) Impairment of sensorimotor gating in mice deficient in the cell adhesion molecule L1 or its close homologue, CHL1. Brain Res 1029:131–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. Iso H et al (2007) Environmental change during postnatal development alters behaviour, cognitions and neurogenesis of mice. Behav Brain Res 179:90–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  183. Jaworski DM et al (2005) Prepulse inhibition and fear-potentiated startle are altered in tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2) knockout mice. Brain Res 1051:81–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  184. Jones CK, Shannon HE (2004) Lesions of the laterodorsal tegmental nucleus disrupt prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 78:229–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  185. Jones CK et al (2005) Pharmacologic interactions between the muscarinic cholinergic and dopaminergic systems in the modulation of prepulse inhibition in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 312:1055–1063PubMedGoogle Scholar
  186. Jongen-Relo AL et al (2004) The prenatal methylazoxymethanol acetate treatment: a neurodevelopmental animal model for schizophrenia. Behav Brain Res 149:159–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  187. Jovanovic T et al (2004) Menstrual cycle phase effects on prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle. Psychophysiology 41:401–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  188. Kaifu T et al (2003) Osteopetrosis and thalamic hypomyelinosis with synaptic degeneration in DAP12-deficient mice. J Clin Invest 111:323–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. Kanabus M et al (2002) Temporal order judgement for auditory and visual stimuli. Acta Neurobiol Exp 62:263–270Google Scholar
  190. Kanes SJ et al (2007) Rolipram: a specific phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor with potential antipsychotic activity. Neuroscience 144:239–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  191. Karper LP et al (1996) Preliminary evidence of an association between sensorimotor gating and distractibility in psychosis. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 8:60–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. Kedzior KK, Martin-Iverson MT (2007) Attention-dependent reduction in prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in cannabis users and schizophrenia patients—a pilot study. Eur J Pharmacol 560:176–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. Kelly MP et al (2007) Constitutive activation of Galphas within forebrain neurons causes deficits in sensorimotor gating because of PKA-dependent decreases in cAMP. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:577–588PubMedGoogle Scholar
  194. Kimura J, Harada O (1976) Recovery curves of the blink reflex during wakefulness and sleep. J Neurol 213:189–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  195. Kinkead B et al (2005) Neurotensin-deficient mice have deficits in prepulse inhibition: restoration by clozapine but not haloperidol, olanzapine, or quetiapine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 315:256–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. Kinney GG et al (2003) The glycine transporter type 1 inhibitor N-[3-(4′-fluorophenyl)-3-(4′-phenylphenoxy)propyl]sarcosine potentiates NMDA receptor-mediated responses in vivo and produces an antipsychotic profile in rodent behavior. J Neurosci 23:7586–7591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  197. Kinney GG et al (2005) A novel selective positive allosteric modulator of metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 5 has in vivo activity and antipsychotic-like effects in rat behavioral models. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 313:199–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  198. Klamer D et al (2004a) Phencyclidine-induced behaviour in mice prevented by methylene blue. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 94:65–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. Klamer D et al (2004b) The neuronal selective nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, Nomega-propyl-l-arginine, blocks the effects of phencyclidine on prepulse inhibition and locomotor activity in mice. Eur J Pharmacol 503:103–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  200. Klamer D et al (2005a) Activation of a nitric-oxide-sensitive cAMP pathway with phencyclidine: elevated hippocampal cAMP levels are temporally associated with deficits in prepulse inhibition. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 179:479–488Google Scholar
  201. Klamer D et al (2005b) Effects of phencyclidine on acoustic startle and prepulse inhibition in neuronal nitric oxide synthase deficient mice. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 15:587–590PubMedGoogle Scholar
  202. Klejbor I et al (2006) Fibroblast growth factor receptor signaling affects development and function of dopamine neurons—inhibition results in a schizophrenia-like syndrome in transgenic mice. J Neurochem 97:1243–1258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  203. Koch M, Schnitzler HU (1997) The acoustic startle response in rats—circuits mediating evocation, inhibition and potentiation. Behav Brain Res 89:35–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  204. Koch M et al (1993) Cholinergic neurons in the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus are involved in the mediation of prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response in the rat. Exp Brain Res 97:71–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  205. Koenig JI et al (2005) Prenatal exposure to a repeated variable stress paradigm elicits behavioral and neuroendocrinological changes in the adult offspring: potential relevance to schizophrenia. Behav Brain Res 156:251–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. Koh HY et al (2008) Deficits in social behavior and sensorimotor gating in mice lacking phospholipase Cbeta1. Genes Brain Behav 7:120–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  207. Kraepelin E, Robertson GM (1919) Dementia praecox and paraphrenia. Livingstone EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  208. Krebs-Thomson K et al (2006) The roles of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 receptors in the effects of 5-MeO-DMT on locomotor activity and prepulse inhibition in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 189:319–329Google Scholar
  209. Kumari V et al (1999) Normalization of information processing deficits in schizophrenia with clozapine. Am J Psychiatry 156:1046–1051PubMedGoogle Scholar
  210. Kumari V et al (2001) Influence of cigarette smoking on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response in schizophrenia. Hum Psychopharmacol 16:321–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  211. Kumari V et al (2002) Prepulse inhibition of the startle response in risperidone-treated patients: comparison with typical antipsychotics. Schizophr Res 55:139–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  212. Kumari V et al (2003a) Neural correlates of tactile prepulse inhibition: a functional MRI study in normal and schizophrenic subjects. Psychiatry Res 122:99–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  213. Kumari V et al (2003b) Effects of acute procyclidine administration on prepulse inhibition of the startle response in schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Psychopharmacol 17:89–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  214. Kumari V et al (2004) Sex differences in prepulse inhibition deficits in chronic schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 69:219–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  215. Kumari V et al (2005a) Association between violent behaviour and impaired prepulse inhibition of the startle response in antisocial personality disorder and schizophrenia. Behav Brain Res 158:159–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  216. Kumari V et al (2005b) Lack of association between prepulse inhibition and antisaccadic deficits in chronic schizophrenia: implications for identification of schizophrenia endophenotypes. J Psychiatr Res 39:227–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  217. Kumari V et al (2005c) Structural brain correlates of prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response in healthy humans. Neuroimage 26:1052–1058PubMedGoogle Scholar
  218. Kumari V et al (2005d) Reduced prepulse inhibition in unaffected siblings of schizophrenia patients. Psychophysiology 42:588–594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  219. Kumari V et al (2007a) A fMRI investigation of startle gating deficits in schizophrenia patients treated with typical or atypical antipsychotics. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 10:463–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  220. Kumari V et al (2007b) Startle gating in antipsychotic-naive first episode schizophrenia patients: one ear is better than two. Psychiatry Res 151:21–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  221. Kusljic S, van den Buuse M (2004) Functional dissociation between serotonergic pathways in dorsal and ventral hippocampus in psychotomimetic drug-induced locomotor hyperactivity and prepulse inhibition in rats. Eur J Neurosci 20:3424–3432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  222. Kusljic S, van den Buuse M (2006) Differential involvement of 5-HT projections within the amygdala in prepulse inhibition but not in psychotomimetic drug-induced hyperlocomotion. Behav Brain Res 168:74–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  223. Kusljic S et al (2003) Differential role of serotonergic projections arising from the dorsal and median raphe nuclei in locomotor hyperactivity and prepulse inhibition. Neuropsychopharmacology 28:2138–2147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  224. Kusljic S et al (2006) Effects of haloperidol and clozapine on sensorimotor gating deficits induced by 5-hydroxytryptamine depletion in the brain. Br J Pharmacol 147:800–807PubMedGoogle Scholar
  225. Lacro JP et al (2002) Prevalence of and risk factors for medication nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia: a comprehensive review of recent literature. J Clin Psychiatry 63:892–909PubMedGoogle Scholar
  226. Lahdesmaki J et al (2004) Alpha2A-adrenoceptors are important modulators of the effects of d-amphetamine on startle reactivity and brain monoamines. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:1282–1293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  227. Laplante F et al (2005) Alterations in behavioral responses to a cholinergic agonist in post-pubertal rats with neonatal ventral hippocampal lesions: relationship to changes in muscarinic receptor levels. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:1076–1087PubMedGoogle Scholar
  228. Le Pen G, Moreau JL (2002) Disruption of prepulse inhibition of startle reflex in a neurodevelopmental model of schizophrenia: reversal by clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone but not by haloperidol. Neuropsychopharmacology 27:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  229. Le Pen G et al (2003) Prepulse inhibition deficits of the startle reflex in neonatal ventral hippocampal-lesioned rats: reversal by glycine and a glycine transporter inhibitor. Biol Psychiatry 54:1162–1170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  230. Le Pen G et al (2006) Peri-pubertal maturation after developmental disturbance: a model for psychosis onset in the rat. Neuroscience 143:395–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  231. Leppert M et al (1990) Genetic analysis of an inherited predisposition to colon cancer in a family with a variable number of adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med 322:904–908PubMedGoogle Scholar
  232. Leumann L et al (2002) Effects of typical and atypical antipsychotics on prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition in chronic schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 52:729–739PubMedGoogle Scholar
  233. Libet B et al (1979) Subjective referral of the timing for a conscious sensory experience. Brain 102:192–224Google Scholar
  234. Lieberman JA et al (2005) Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) Investigators. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 353:1209–1223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  235. Light GA, Braff DL (2005) Mismatch negativity deficits are associated with poor functioning in schizophrenia patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:127–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  236. Light GA et al (2004) Probing cortical-cortical interactions that underlie the multiple sensory, cognitive, and “real-world” functional deficits in schizophrenia. Behav Brain Sci 27:799Google Scholar
  237. Light GA et al (2007a) One year stability of neurophysiological and cognitive endophenotypes of schizophrenia. Proc Am Col Neuropsychopharmacology (in press)Google Scholar
  238. Light GA et al (2007b) Prepulse inhibition of startle is positively associated with higher order cognition in women. Abstr Soc Neurosciences 806.17Google Scholar
  239. Light GA et al (2008) Preattentive sensory processing is associated with cognitive and psychosocial functioning in healthy adults. J Cog Neurosci 7:120–128Google Scholar
  240. Ligneau X et al (2007) Brain histamine and schizophrenia: potential therapeutic applications of H3-receptor inverse agonists studied with BF2.649. Biochem Pharmacol 73:1215–1224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  241. Linn GS et al (2003) Reversal of phencyclidine-induced prepulse inhibition deficits by clozapine in monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 169:234–239Google Scholar
  242. Lipina T et al (2005) Modulators of the glycine site on NMDA receptors, D-serine and ALX 5407, display similar beneficial effects to clozapine in mouse models of schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 179:54–67Google Scholar
  243. Lipina T et al (2007) The ampakine CX546 restores the prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition deficits in mGluR5-deficient mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:745–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  244. Lipska BK et al (1995) Neonatal excitotoxic hippocampal damage in rats causes post-pubertal changes in prepulse inhibition of startle and its disruption by apomorphine. Psychopharmacology 122:35–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  245. Long LE et al (2006) Cannabidiol reverses MK-801-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:795–803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  246. Lovic V, Fleming AS (2004) Artificially-reared female rats show reduced prepulse inhibition and deficits in the attentional set shifting task-reversal of effects with maternal-like licking stimulation. Behav Brain Res 148:209–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  247. Ludewig K, Vollenweider FX (2002) Impaired sensorimotor gating in schizophrenia with deficit and with nondeficit syndrome. Swiss Med Wkly 132:159–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  248. Ludewig K et al (2002) Stability of the acoustic startle reflex, prepulse inhibition, and habituation in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 55:129–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  249. Ludewig K et al (2003) Deficits in prepulse inhibition and habituation in never-medicated, first-episode schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 54:121–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  250. Ma J, Leung LS (2004) Schizophrenia-like behavioral changes after partial hippocampal kindling. Brain Res 997:111–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  251. Ma J, Leung LS (2007) The supramammillo-septal-hippocampal pathway mediates sensorimotor gating impairment and hyperlocomotion induced by MK-801 and ketamine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 191:961–974Google Scholar
  252. Ma J et al (2004) The medial septum mediates impairment of prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle induced by a hippocampal seizure or phencyclidine. Behav Brain Res 155:153–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  253. Mackeprang T et al (2002) Effects of antipsychotics on prepulse inhibition of the startle response in drug–naive schizophrenic patients. Biol Psychiatry 52:863–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  254. Malone DT et al (2004) The effect of SR 141716 and apomorphine on sensorimotor gating in Swiss mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 77:839–845PubMedGoogle Scholar
  255. Mansbach RS, Geyer MA (1989) Effects of phencyclidine and phencyclidine biologs on sensorimotor gating in the rat. Neuropsychopharmacology 2:299–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  256. Mansbach RS et al (1988) Dopaminergic stimulation disrupts sensorimotor gating in the rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 94:507–514Google Scholar
  257. Marquis KL et al (2007) WAY-163909 [(7bR,10aR)-1,2,3,4,8,9,10,10a-octahydro-7bH-cyclopenta-[b][1,4]diazepino[6,7,1hi]indole]: a novel 5-hydroxytryptamine 2C receptor-selective agonist with preclinical antipsychotic-like activity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 320:486–496PubMedGoogle Scholar
  258. McCool MF et al (2003) Increased auditory startle response and reduced prepulse inhibition of startle in transgenic mice expressing a double mutant form of amyloid precursor protein. Brain Res 994:99–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  259. McDonald MP et al (2001) Motor deficits in fibroblast growth factor receptor-3 null mutant mice. Behav Pharmacol 12:477–486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  260. McGhie A, Chapman J (1961) Disorders of attention and perception in early schizophrenia. Brit J Med Psychol 34:103–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  261. Meincke U et al (2004) Prepulse inhibition of the acoustically evoked startle reflex in patients with an acute schizophrenic psychosis—a longitudinal study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 254:415–421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  262. Metzger KL et al (2007) Pharmacokinetic and behavioral characterization of a long-term antipsychotic delivery system in rodents and rabbits. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 190:201–211Google Scholar
  263. Minassian A et al (2007) The relationship between sensorimotor gating and clinical improvement in acutely ill schizophrenia patients. Schizophr Res 89:225–231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  264. Miyakawa T et al (2003) Conditional calcineurin knockout mice exhibit multiple abnormal behaviors related to schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8987–8992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  265. Mohr D et al (2007) Accumbal dopamine D2 receptors are important for sensorimotor gating in C3H mice. Neuroreport 18:1493–1497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  266. Moy SS et al (2006) Amphetamine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition in mice with reduced NMDA receptor function. Brain Res 1089:186–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  267. Mukai J et al (2004) Evidence that the gene encoding ZDHHC8 contributes to the risk of schizophrenia. Nat Genet 36:725–731PubMedGoogle Scholar
  268. Murphy CA et al (2001) Latent inhibition, but not prepulse inhibition, is reduced during withdrawal from an escalating dosage schedule of amphetamine. Behav Neurosci 115:1247–1256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  269. Myers KM et al (2005) Partial reversal of phencyclidine-induced impairment of prepulse inhibition by secretin. Biol Psychiatry 58:67–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  270. Nagai H et al (2006) Antipsychotics improve Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced impairment of the prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 84:330–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  271. Nagel J et al (2003) Effects of an adenosine A2A receptor blockade in the nucleus accumbens on locomotion, feeding, and prepulse inhibition in rats. Synapse 49:279–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  272. Nunes Mamede Rosa ML et al (2005) Isolation-induced changes in ultrasonic vocalization, fear-potentiated startle and prepulse inhibition in rats. Neuropsychobiology 51:248–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  273. Nyffeler M et al (2006) Maternal immune activation during pregnancy increases limbic GABAA receptor immunoreactivity in the adult offspring: implications for schizophrenia. Neuroscience 143:51–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  274. Ojima T et al (2004) Effects of serotonin–dopamine antagonists on prepulse inhibition and neurotransmitter contents in the rat cortex. Neurosci Lett 366:130–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  275. Ong JC et al (2005) An investigation of the efficacy of mood stabilizers in rodent models of prepulse inhibition. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 315:1163–1171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  276. Oranje B et al (2002) Effects of typical and atypical antipsychotics on the prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in patients with schizophrenia. J Clin Psychopharmacol 22:359–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  277. Ouagazzal AM et al (2001a) Drug-induced potentiation of prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle reflex in mice: a model for detecting antipsychotic activity. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 156:273–283Google Scholar
  278. Ouagazzal AM et al (2001b) Effect of LSD on prepulse inhibition and spontaneous behavior in the rat. a pharmacological analysis and comparison between two rat strains. Neuropsychopharmacology 25:565–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  279. Ozawa K et al (2006) Immune activation during pregnancy in mice leads to dopaminergic hyperfunction and cognitive impairment in the offspring: a neurodevelopmental animal model of schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 59:546–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  280. Paine TA et al (2007) Sensitivity of the five-choice serial reaction time task to the effects of various psychotropic drugs in Sprague–Dawley rats. Biol Psychiatry 62:687–693PubMedGoogle Scholar
  281. Palmer AA et al (2000) Prepulse startle deficit in the Brown Norway rat: a potential genetic model. Behav Neurosci 114:374–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  282. Palmer AA et al (2004) Prenatal protein deprivation in rats induces changes in prepulse inhibition and NMDA receptor binding. Brain Res 996:193–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  283. Palsson E et al (2007) The amino acid l-lysine blocks the disruptive effect of phencyclidine on prepulse inhibition in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 192:9–15Google Scholar
  284. Park C et al (2002) Deletion in Catna2, encoding alpha N-catenin, causes cerebellar and hippocampal lamination defects and impaired startle modulation. Nat Genet 31:279–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  285. Park WK et al (2005) KKHA-761, a potent D3 receptor antagonist with high 5-HT1A receptor affinity, exhibits antipsychotic properties in animal models of schizophrenia. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 82:361–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  286. Paylor R et al (2006) Tbx1 haploinsufficiency is linked to behavioral disorders in mice and humans: implications for 22q11 deletion syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:7729–7734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  287. Peak H (1939) Time order error in successive judgements and in reflexes. I. Inhibition of the judgement and the reflex. J Exper Psychol 25:535–565Google Scholar
  288. Peleg-Raibstein D et al (2006a) Differential effects on prepulse inhibition of withdrawal from two different repeated administration schedules of amphetamine. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 9:737–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  289. Peleg-Raibstein D et al (2006b) Withdrawal from repeated amphetamine administration leads to disruption of prepulse inhibition but not to disruption of latent inhibition. J Neural Transm 113:1323–1336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  290. Perry W, Braff DL (1994) Information-processing deficits and thought disorder in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 151:363–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  291. Perry W et al (2001) Sensorimotor gating deficits in bipolar disorder patients with acute psychotic mania. Biol Psychiatry 50418–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  292. Perry W et al (2002) Information processing deficits in acutely psychotic schizophrenia patients medicated and unmedicated at the time of admission. Am J Psychiatry 159:1375–1381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  293. Perry W et al (2004) Prepulse inhibition in patients with non-psychotic major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord 81:179–184PubMedGoogle Scholar
  294. Petitto JM et al (2002a) IL-2/15 receptor-beta gene deletion alters neurobehavioral performance. Brain Res 929:218–225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  295. Petitto JM et al (2002b) Relationship between the development of autoimmunity and sensorimotor gating in MRL-lpr mice with reduced IL-2 production. Neurosci Lett 328:304–308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  296. Pijlman FT et al (2003) Behavioural changes after different stress paradigms: prepulse inhibition increased after physical, but not emotional stress. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 13:369–380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  297. Pillai-Nair N et al (2005) Neural cell adhesion molecule-secreting transgenic mice display abnormalities in GABAergic interneurons and alterations in behavior. J Neurosci 25:4659–4671PubMedGoogle Scholar
  298. Pletnikov MV et al (2002) Effects of genetic background on neonatal Borna disease virus infection-induced neurodevelopmental damage. I. Brain pathology and behavioral deficits. Brain Res 944:97–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  299. Podhorna J, Didriksen M (2004) The heterozygous reeler mouse: behavioural phenotype. Behav Brain Res 153:43–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  300. Porras-Garcia E et al (2005) Purkinje cell loss affects differentially the execution, acquisition and prepulse inhibition of skeletal and facial motor responses in Lurcher mice. Eur J Neurosci 21:979–988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  301. Postma P et al (2006) A behavioural and functional neuroimaging investigation into the effects of nicotine on sensorimotor gating in healthy subjects and persons with schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology 184:589–599PubMedGoogle Scholar
  302. Pothuizen HH et al (2005) The effects of temporary inactivation of the core and the shell subregions of the nucleus accumbens on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex and activity in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 30:683–696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  303. Pothuizen HH, Neumann KR, Feldon J, Yee BK (2006) Selective nucleus accumbens core lesions enhance dizocilpine-induced but not apomorphine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition in rats. Behav Pharmacol 17:107–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  304. Pouzet B et al (2002a) Effects of the 5-HT(6) receptor antagonist, SB-271046, in animal models for schizophrenia. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 71:635–643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  305. Pouzet B et al (2002b) Effects of the 5-HT(7) receptor antagonist SB-258741 in animal models for schizophrenia. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 71:655–665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  306. Powell KJ et al (2006) Neonatal ventral hippocampal lesions produce an elevation of DeltaFosB-like protein(s) in the rodent neocortex. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:700–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  307. Powell SB et al (2002) Isolation rearing-induced deficits in prepulse inhibition and locomotor habituation are not potentiated by water deprivation. Physiol Behav 77:55–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  308. Powell SB et al (2003) Dopamine depletion of the nucleus accumbens reverses isolation-induced deficits in prepulse inhibition in rats. Neuroscience 119:233–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  309. Powell SB et al (2006a) Antipsychotic prophylaxis: initial studies on prepulse inhibition and weight gain with sustained clozapine treatment. Society for Neuroscience Atlanta, GA, Program No. 587.12Google Scholar
  310. Powell SB et al (2006b) Startle gating deficits after isolation rearing: strain differences and effects of sustained clozapine treatment. Biol Psychiatry 59:221SGoogle Scholar
  311. Quednow BB et al (2006) Sensorimotor gating and habituation of the startle response in schizophrenic patients randomly treated with amisulpride or olanzapine. Biol Psychiatry 59:536–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  312. Radant AD et al (2007) Successful multi-site measurement of antisaccade performance deficits in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 89:320–329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  313. Rajakumar N et al (2004) Altered neurotrophin receptor function in the developing prefrontal cortex leads to adult-onset dopaminergic hyperresponsivity and impaired prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle. Biol Psychiatry 55:797–803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  314. Ralph RJ, Caine SB (2005) Dopamine D1 and D2 agonist effects on prepulse inhibition and locomotion: comparison of Sprague–Dawley rats to Swiss-Webster, 129X1/SvJ, C57BL/6J, and DBA/2J mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 312:733–741PubMedGoogle Scholar
  315. Ralph RJ, Caine SB (2007) Effects of selective dopamine D1-like and D2-like agonists on prepulse inhibition of startle in inbred C3H/HeJ, SPRET/EiJ, and CAST/EiJ mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 191:731–739Google Scholar
  316. Ralph RJ et al (1999) The dopamine D2, but not D3 or D4, receptor subtype is essential for the disruption of prepulse inhibition produced by amphetamine in mice. J Neurosci 19:4627–4633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  317. Ralph-Williams RJ et al (2002) Differential effects of direct and indirect dopamine agonists on prepulse inhibition: a study in D1 and D2 receptor knock-out mice. J Neurosci 22:9604–9611PubMedGoogle Scholar
  318. Ralph-Williams RJ et al (2003a) Dopamine D1 rather than D2 receptor agonists disrupt prepulse inhibition of startle in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 28:108–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  319. Ralph-Williams RJ et al (2003b) Valproate attenuates hyperactive and perseverative behaviors in mutant mice with a dysregulated dopamine system. Biol Psychiatry 53:352–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  320. Rasmussen BA et al (2007) Long-term effects of developmental PCP administration on sensorimotor gating in male and female rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 190:43–49Google Scholar
  321. Razoux F et al (2007) Ketamine, at a dose that disrupts motor behavior and latent inhibition, enhances prefrontal cortex synaptic efficacy and glutamate release in the nucleus accumbens. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:719–727PubMedGoogle Scholar
  322. Rehn AE et al (2004) An animal model of chronic placental insufficiency: relevance to neurodevelopmental disorders including schizophrenia. Neuroscience 129:381–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  323. Rich BA et al (2005) An investigation of prepulse inhibition in pediatric bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 7:198–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  324. Risbrough VB et al (2004) Corticotropin-releasing factor receptors CRF1 and CRF2 exert both additive and opposing influences on defensive startle behavior. J Neurosci 24:6545–6552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  325. Risterrucci C et al (2005) Functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals similar brain activity changes in two different animal models of schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology 180:724–734Google Scholar
  326. Roegge CS et al (2007) Histamine H1 receptor involvement in prepulse inhibition and memory function: relevance for the antipsychotic actions of clozapine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 86:686–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  327. Romero E et al (2007) Neurobehavioral and immunological consequences of prenatal immune activation in rats. Influence of antipsychotics. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:1791–1804PubMedGoogle Scholar
  328. Rosa ML et al (2005) Routine post-weaning handling of rats prevents isolation rearing–induced deficit in prepulse inhibition. Braz J Med Biol Res 38:1691–1696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  329. Roy MA et al (1997) Selecting a control group in studies of the familial coaggregation of two disorders: a quantitative genetics perspective. Am J Med Genet 74:296–303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  330. Rueter LE et al (2004) Chronic low dose risperidone and clozapine alleviate positive but not negative symptoms in the rat neonatal ventral hippocampal lesion model of schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 176:312–319Google Scholar
  331. Russig H et al (2004) Apomorphine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition that can be normalised by systemic haloperidol is insensitive to clozapine pretreatment. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 175:143–147Google Scholar
  332. Sakaue M et al (2003) The 5-HT1A receptor agonist MKC-242 reverses isolation rearing-induced deficits of prepulse inhibition in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 170:73–79Google Scholar
  333. Sallinen J et al (2007) Pharmacological characterization and CNS effects of a novel highly selective alpha2C-adrenoceptor antagonist JP-1302. Br J Pharmacol 150:391–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  334. Salum C et al (2006) Dopamine and nitric oxide interaction on the modulation of prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response in the Wistar rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 185:133–141Google Scholar
  335. Sandager-Nielsen K et al (2004) Effects of postnatal anoxia on striatal dopamine metabolism and prepulse inhibition in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 77:767–774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  336. Sandner G et al (2002) Effects of ketamine and apomorphine on inferior colliculus and caudal pontine reticular nucleus evoked potentials during prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in rats. Behav Brain Res 128:161–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  337. Schmitt A et al (2007) Altered NMDA receptor expression and behavior following postnatal hypoxia: potential relevance to schizophrenia. J Neural Transm 114:239–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  338. Schneider M, Koch M (2003) Chronic pubertal, but not adult chronic cannabinoid treatment impairs sensorimotor gating, recognition memory, and the performance in a progressive ratio task in adult rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 28:1760–1769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  339. Schneider M, Koch M (2005) Behavioral and morphological alterations following neonatal excitotoxic lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex in rats. Exp Neurology 195:185–198Google Scholar
  340. Schneider M et al (2005) Behavioral effects in adult rats of chronic prepubertal treatment with the cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN 55,212-2. Behav Pharmacol 16:447–454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  341. Schneider T et al (2006) Environmental enrichment reverses behavioral alterations in rats prenatally exposed to valproic acid: issues for a therapeutic approach in autism. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:36–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  342. Schwabe K, Koch M (2004) Role of the medial prefrontal cortex in N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist induced sensorimotor gating deficit in rats. Neurosci Lett 355:5–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  343. Schwabe K et al (2004) Effects of neonatal lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex on adult rat behaviour. Behav Brain Res 153:21–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  344. Schwienbacher I et al (2002) Dopamine D1 receptors and adenosine A1 receptors in the rat nucleus accumbens regulate motor activity but not prepulse inhibition. Eur J Pharmacol 444:161–169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  345. Scott LJ et al (2007) A genome-wide association study of type 2 diabetes in Finns detects multiple susceptibility variants. Science 316:1341–1345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  346. Semenova S et al (2008) Inactivation of the 5-HT(7) receptor partially blocks phencyclidine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition. Biol Psychiatry 63:98–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  347. Shi L et al (2003) Maternal influenza infection causes marked behavioral and pharmacological changes in the offspring. J Neurosci 23:297–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  348. Shilling PD, Feifel D (2002) SR146131, a cholecystokinin-A receptor agonist, antagonizes prepulse inhibition deficits produced by dizocilpine and DOI. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 164:285–293Google Scholar
  349. Shilling PD et al (2003) The effects of systemic NT69L, a neurotensin agonist, on baseline and drug-disrupted prepulse inhibition. Behav Brain Res 143:7–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  350. Shilling PD et al (2004) Neurotensin agonists block the prepulse inhibition deficits produced by a 5-HT2A and an alpha1 agonist. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 175:353–359Google Scholar
  351. Shilling PD et al (2008) Strain differences in gating-disruptive effects of apomorphine: relationship to accumbens gene expression. Abstr Soc Biol Psychiatry (in press)Google Scholar
  352. Shishkina GT et al (2004) Influence of neonatal short-term reduction in brainstem alpha2A-adrenergic receptors on receptor ontogenesis, acoustic startle reflex, and prepulse inhibition in rats. Behav Neurosci 118:1285–1292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  353. Shoemaker JM et al (2003) Quetiapine produces a prolonged reversal of the sensorimotor gating-disruptive effects of basolateral amygdala lesions in rats. Behav Neurosci 117:136–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  354. Shoemaker JM et al (2005) Prefrontal D1 and ventral hippocampal N-methyl-d-aspartate regulation of startle gating in rats. Neuroscience 135:385–394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  355. Shum FW et al (2005) Genetic alteration of anxiety and stress-like behavior in mice lacking CaMKIV. Mol Pain 1:22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  356. Sills TL (1999) Amphetamine dose dependently disrupts prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response in rats within a narrow time window. Brain Res Bull 48:445–448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  357. Silva RC et al (2005) Unilateral electrical stimulation of the inferior colliculus of rats modifies the prepulse modulation of the startle response (PPI): effects of ketamine and diazepam. Behav Brain Res 160:323–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  358. Siuciak JA et al (2007) CP-809,101, a selective 5-HT2C agonist, shows activity in animal models of antipsychotic activity. Neuropharmacology 52:279–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  359. Slawecki CJ, Ehlers CL (2005) Enhanced prepulse inhibition following adolescent ethanol exposure in Sprague–Dawley rats. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 29:829–836Google Scholar
  360. Smith SJ, Lees AJ (1989) Abnormalities of the blink reflex in Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 52:895–898PubMedGoogle Scholar
  361. Sobin C et al (2005a) Associations between prepulse inhibition and executive visual attention in children with the 22q11 deletion syndrome. Mol Psychiatry 10:553–562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  362. Sobin C et al (2005b) Lower prepulse inhibition in children with the 22q11 deletion syndrome. Am J Psychiatry 162:1090–1099PubMedGoogle Scholar
  363. Sontag TA et al (2003) Removal of short-term isolation stress differentially influences prepulse inhibition in APO-SUS and APO-UNSUS rats. Behav Brain Res 141:171–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  364. Sorenson CA, Swerdlow NR (1982) The effect of tail pinch on the acoustic startle response in rats. Brain Res 247:105–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  365. Sotoyama H et al (2007) Neonatal exposure to epidermal growth factor induces dopamine D(2)-like receptor supersensitivity in adult sensorimotor gating. Psychopharmacology 191:783–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  366. Spencer CM et al (2006) Exaggerated behavioral phenotypes in Fmr1/Fxr2 double knockout mice reveal a functional genetic interaction between Fragile X-related proteins. Hum Mol Genet 15:1984–1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  367. Spielewoy C, Markou A (2004) Strain-specificity in nicotine attenuation of phencyclidine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition in mice: relevance to smoking in schizophrenia patients. Behav Genet 34:343–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  368. Spooren W et al (2004) Pharmacological and genetic evidence indicates that combined inhibition of NR2A and NR2B subunit containing NMDA receptors is required to disrupt prepulse inhibition. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 175:99–105Google Scholar
  369. Stanhope KJ et al (2001) The muscarinic receptor agonist xanomeline has an antipsychotic-like profile in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 299:782–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  370. Stevenson CW, Gratton A (2004) Role of basolateral amygdala dopamine in modulating prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition in the rat. Psychopharmacology 176:139–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  371. Suemaru K et al (2004) Nicotine blocks apomorphine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle in rats: possible involvement of central nicotinic alpha7 receptors. Br J Pharmacol 142:843–850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  372. Sugar C et al (2007) Subtyping the group of schizophrenias using neurophysiological endophenotypes. Abstr Soc Neuroscience 226.6Google Scholar
  373. Svenningsson P et al (2003) Diverse psychotomimetics act through a common signaling pathway. Science 302:1412–1415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  374. Swerdlow NR (1996) Cortico–striatal substrates of cognitive, motor and sensory gating: Speculations and implications for psychological function and dysfunction. In: Panksepp J (ed) Advances in biological psychiatry, vol. 2. JAI Press Inc, Greenwich CT, pp 179–208Google Scholar
  375. Swerdlow NR (2005) Much ado about (almost) nothing: response to ‘prepulse lost and regained’. Psychopharmacology 179:893–894PubMedGoogle Scholar
  376. Swerdlow NR, Geyer MA (1993a) Prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle in rats after lesions of the pedunculopontine nucleus. Behav Neurosci 107:104–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  377. Swerdlow NR, Geyer MA (1993b) Clozapine and haloperidol in an animal model of sensorimotor gating deficits in schizophrenia. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 44:741–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  378. Swerdlow NR, Geyer MA (1998) Using an animal model of deficient sensorimotor gating to study the pathophysiology and new treatments of schizophrenia. Schizphr Bull 24:285–301Google Scholar
  379. Swerdlow et al (1986) Central dopamine hyperactivity in rats mimics abnormal acoustic startle response in schizophrenics. Biol Psychiatry 21:23–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  380. Swerdlow NR et al (1992) The neural substrates of sensorimotor gating of the startle reflex: a review of recent findings and their implications. J Psychopharmacol 6:176–190Google Scholar
  381. Swerdlow NR et al (1993a) A preliminary assessment of sensorimotor gating in patients with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Biol Psychiatry 33:298–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  382. Swerdlow NR et al (1993b) Men are more inhibited than women by weak prepulses. Biol Psychiatry 34:253–261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  383. Swerdlow NR et al (1994) Assessing the validity of an animal model of sensorimotor gating deficits in schizophrenic patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry 51:139–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  384. Swerdlow NR et al (1995a) Impaired prepulse inhibition of acoustic and tactile startle in patients with Huntington’s Disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 58:192–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  385. Swerdlow NR et al (1995b) “Normal” personality correlates of sensorimotor, cognitive, and visuospatial gating. Biol Psychiatry 37:286–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  386. Swerdlow NR et al (1997) Changes in sensorimotor inhibition across the menstrual cycle: Implications for neuropsychiatric disorders. Biol. Psychiatry 41:452–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  387. Swerdlow NR et al (1998) Discrepant findings of clozapine effects on prepulse inhibition of startle: is it the route or the rat. Neuropsychopharmacology 18:50–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  388. Swerdlow NR et al (2000a) Animal models of deficient sensorimotor gating: What we know, what we think we know, and what we hope to know soon. Behav Pharmacol 111:185–204Google Scholar
  389. Swerdlow NR et al (2000b) Towards understanding the biology of a complex phenotype: rat strain and substrain differences in the sensorimotor gating-disruptive effects of dopamine agonists. J Neurosci 20:4325–4336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  390. Swerdlow NR et al (2001a) Neural circuit regulation of prepulse inhibition of startle in the rat: current knowledge and future challenges. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 156:194–215Google Scholar
  391. Swerdlow NR et al (2001b) Tactile prepuff inhibition of startle in children with Tourette’s syndrome: in search of an “fMRI-friendly” startle paradigm. Biol. Psychiatry 50:578–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  392. Swerdlow NR et al (2001c) Matching strategies for drug studies of prepulse inhibition in humans. Behav Pharmacol. 12:45–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  393. Swerdlow NR et al (2002a) Prestimulus effects on startle magnitude: sensory or motor. Behavioral Neuroscience 116:672–681PubMedGoogle Scholar
  394. Swerdlow NR et al (2002b) Prestimulus modification of the startle reflex: Relationship to personality and physiological markers of dopamine function. Biol Psychology 62:17–26Google Scholar
  395. Swerdlow NR et al (2002c) Startle gating in rats is disrupted by chemical inactivation but not D2 stimulation of the dorsomedial thalamus. Brain Research 953:246–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  396. Swerdlow NR et al (2003a) Sensitivity to sensorimotor gating-disruptive effects of apomorphine in two outbred parental rat strains and their F1 and N2 progeny. Neuropsychopharmacology 28:226–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  397. Swerdlow NR et al (2003b) Amphetamine effects on prepulse inhibition across species: Replication and parametric extension. Neuropsychopharmacology 28:640–650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  398. Swerdlow NR et al (2003c) Memantine effects on startle gating in rats: pretreatments with quetiapine and haloperidol. Society for Neuroscience, Program No. 858.17, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  399. Swerdlow NR et al (2003d) Prestimulus modification of the startle reflex: relationship to personality and physiological markers of dopamine function. Biol Psychology 62:17–26Google Scholar
  400. Swerdlow NR et al (2004a) Sensitivity to drug effects on prepulse inhibition in inbred and outbred rat strains. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 77:291–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  401. Swerdlow NR et al (2004b) The ventral hippocampal regulation of prepulse inhibition and its disruption by apomorphine in rats are not mediated via the fornix. Neuroscience 123:675–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  402. Swerdlow NR et al (2004c) Weak prepulses inhibit but do not elicit startle in rats and humans. Biol Psychiatry 55:1195–1198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  403. Swerdlow NR et al (2004d) Heritable differences in the dopaminergic regulation of sensorimotor gating: II. Temporal, pharmacologic and generational analyses of apomorphine effects on prepulse inhibition. Psychopharmacology 174:452–462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  404. Swerdlow NR et al (2005a) Effects of memantine on startle gating in normal adult men. Proc Am Coll Neuropsychopharm, Waikoloa, HIGoogle Scholar
  405. Swerdlow NR et al (2005b) Prepulse inhibition of perceived stimulus intensity: paradigm assessment. Biol Psychology 69:133–147Google Scholar
  406. Swerdlow NR et al (2005c) Reduced startle gating after D1 blockade: effects of concomitant D2 blockade. Pharm Biochem Behav 82:293–299Google Scholar
  407. Swerdlow NR et al (2006a) Antipsychotic effects on prepulse inhibition in normal ‘low gating’ humans and rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:2011–2021PubMedGoogle Scholar
  408. Swerdlow NR et al (2006b) Convergence and divergence in the neurochemical regulation of prepulse inhibition of startle and N40 suppression in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:506–515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  409. Swerdlow NR et al (2006c) Forebrain D1 function and sensorimotor gating in rats: effects of D1 blockade, frontal lesions and dopamine denervation. Neurosci Lett 402:40–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  410. Swerdlow NR et al (2006d) Heritable differences in the dopaminergic regulation of behavior in rats: relationship to D2-like receptor G-protein function. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:721–729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  411. Swerdlow NR et al (2006e) Separable noradrenergic and dopaminergic regulation of prepulse inhibition in rats: implications for predictive validity and Tourette Syndrome. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 186:246–254Google Scholar
  412. Swerdlow NR et al (2006f) Startle gating deficits in a large cohort of patients with schizophrenia: relationship to medications, symptoms, neurocognition, and level of function. Arch Gen Psychiatry 63:1325–1335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  413. Swerdlow NR et al (2006g) The “low gating” phenotype in rats: antipsychotic sensitivity, heritability and sex differences. Biol Psychiatry 59:220SGoogle Scholar
  414. Swerdlow NR et al (2007) Multi-site studies of acoustic startle and prepulse inhibition in humans: Initial experience and methodological considerations based on studies by the Consortium on the Genetics of Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 92:237–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
  415. Swerdlow NR et al (2008) A novel rat strain with enhanced sensitivity to the effects of dopamine agonists on startle gating. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 88:280–290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  416. Szumlinski KK et al (2005) Behavioral and neurochemical phenotyping of Homer1 mutant mice: possible relevance to schizophrenia. Genes Brain Behav 4:273–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  417. Tadros MG et al (2005) Neuroprotective effect of taurine in 3-nitropropionic acid-induced experimental animal model of Huntington’s disease phenotype. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 82:574–582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  418. Takahashi M et al (2006) Sustained brain-derived neurotrophic factor up-regulation and sensorimotor gating abnormality induced by postnatal exposure to phencyclidine: comparison with adult treatment. J Neurochem 99:770–780PubMedGoogle Scholar
  419. Takahashi K et al (2007) Neural circuits containing pallidotegmental GABAergic neurons are involved in the prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in mice. Biol Psychiatry 62:148–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  420. Takeuchi T et al (2001) Roles of the glutamate receptor epsilon2 and delta2 subunits in the potentiation and prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex. Eur J Neurosci 14:153–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  421. Tan SE (2003) Prenatal amphetamine exposure alters behavioral reactivity to amphetamine in rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol 25:579–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  422. Tanaka K et al (2006) Psychostimulant-induced attenuation of hyperactivity and prepulse inhibition deficits in Adcyap1-deficient mice. J Neurosci 26:5091–5097PubMedGoogle Scholar
  423. Taniguchi T et al (2005) Transgenic mice expressing mutant (N279K) human tau show mutation dependent cognitive deficits without neurofibrillary tangle formation. FEBS Lett 579:5704–5712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  424. Tejkalova H et al (2007) Does neonatal brain ischemia induces schizophrenia-like behaviour in young adult rats? Physiol Res 56:815–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  425. Tenn CC et al (2003) Amphetamine-sensitized animals show a sensorimotor gating and neurochemical abnormality similar to that of schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 64:103–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  426. Terry AV Jr et al (2007) Chronic, intermittent exposure to chlorpyrifos in rats: protracted effects on axonal transport, neurotrophin receptors, cholinergic markers, and information processing. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 322:1117–1128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  427. Thomsen M et al (2007) Decreased prepulse inhibition and increased sensitivity to muscarinic, but not dopaminergic drugs in M5 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor knockout mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 192:97–110Google Scholar
  428. Tremolizzo L et al (2005) Valproate corrects the schizophrenia-like epigenetic behavioral modifications induced by methionine in mice. Biol Psychiatry 57:500–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  429. Tsai G et al (2004) Gene knockout of glycine transporter 1: characterization of the behavioral phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8485–8490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  430. Uehara T et al (2007) Effect of prefrontal cortex inactivation on behavioral and neurochemical abnormalities in rats with excitotoxic lesions of the entorhinal cortex. Synapse 61:391–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  431. Ukai M, Okuda A (2003) Endomorphin-1, an endogenous mu-opioid receptor agonist, improves apomorphine-induced impairment of prepulse inhibition in mice. Peptides 24:741–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  432. Umeda K et al (2006) Effects of mood stabilizers on the disruption of prepulse inhibition induced by apomorphine or dizocilpine in mice. Eur J Pharmacol 553:157–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  433. Valls-Sole J et al (2004) Abnormalities of prepulse inhibition do not depend on blink reflex excitability: a study in Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease. Clin Neurophysiol 115:1527–1536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  434. van den Buuse M (2004) Prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Behav Brain Res 154:331–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  435. van den Buuse M, Gogos A (2007) Differential effects of antipsychotic drugs on serotonin-1A receptor-mediated disruption of prepulse inhibition. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 320:1224–1236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  436. van den Buuse M et al (2003) Prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle in aromatase knock-out mice: effects of age and gender. Genes Brain Behav 2:93–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  437. van den Buuse M et al (2004) Effect of adrenalectomy and corticosterone replacement on prepulse inhibition and locomotor activity in mice. Br J Pharmacol 142:543–550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  438. van den Buuse M et al (2005a) Enhanced effect of dopaminergic stimulation on prepulse inhibition in mice deficient in the alpha subunit of G(z). Psychopharmacology 183:358–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  439. van den Buuse M et al (2005b) Reduced effects of amphetamine on prepulse inhibition of startle in gastrin-deficient mice. Neurosci Lett 373:237–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  440. van der Elst MC et al (2006) Cocaine strongly reduces prepulse inhibition in apomorphine-susceptible rats, but not in apomorphine-unsusceptible rats: regulation by dopamine D2 receptors. Behav Brain Res 175:392–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  441. van der Elst MC et al (2007) Differences in the cellular mechanism underlying the effects of amphetamine on prepulse inhibition in apomorphine-susceptible and apomorphine-unsusceptible rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 190:93–102Google Scholar
  442. van der Linden D et al (2006) Disrupted sensorimotor gating due to mental fatigue: preliminary evidence. Int J Psychophysiol 62:168–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  443. Van Raamsdonk JM et al (2005) Cognitive dysfunction precedes neuropathology and motor abnormalities in the YAC128 mouse model of Huntington’s disease. J Neurosci 25:4169–4180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  444. Vanover KE et al (2006) Pharmacological and behavioral profile of N-(4-fluorophenylmethyl)-N-(1-methylpiperidin-4-yl)-N′-(4-(2-methylpropylo xy)phenylmethyl) carbamide (2R,3R)-dihydroxybutanedioate (2:1) (ACP-103), a novel 5-hydroxytryptamine(2A) receptor inverse agonist. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 317:910–918PubMedGoogle Scholar
  445. Varty GB et al (2006) Isolation rearing of mice induces deficits in prepulse inhibition of the startle response. Behav Brain Res 169:162–167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  446. Venables P (1964) Input dysfunction in schizophrenia. Prog Exp Pers Res 1:1–47Google Scholar
  447. Vollenweider FX et al (1999) Opposite effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) on sensorimotor gating in rats versus healthy humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 143:365–372Google Scholar
  448. Vollenweider FX et al (2006) Clozapine enhances prepulse inhibition in healthy humans with low but not with high prepulse inhibition levels. Biol Psychiatry 60:597–603PubMedGoogle Scholar
  449. Volz M et al (2003) Temporal course of emotional startle modulation in schizophrenia patients. Int J Psychophysiol 49:123–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  450. von Goethe JW (1779) The sorcerer’s apprenticeGoogle Scholar
  451. Wang C et al (2003a) Blockade of phencyclidine-induced cortical apoptosis and deficits in prepulse inhibition by M40403, a superoxide dismutase mimetic. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 304:266–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  452. Wang JH et al (2003b) Reduced startle habituation and prepulse inhibition in mice lacking the adenosine A2A receptor. Behav Brain Res 143:201–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  453. Wardas J et al (2003) Influence of CGS 21680, a selective adenosine A(2A) agonist, on the phencyclidine-induced sensorimotor gating deficit and motor behaviour in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 168:299–306Google Scholar
  454. Watanabe Y et al (2004) Neonatal impact of leukemia inhibitory factor on neurobehavioral development in rats. Neurosci Res 48:345–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  455. Weber M, Swerdlow NR (2008) Rat strain differences in startle gating-disruptive effects of apomorphine occur with both acoustic and visual prepulses. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 88:306–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  456. Weike AI et al (2000) Effective neuroleptic medication removes prepulse inhibition deficits in schizophrenia patients. Biol. Psychiatry 47:61–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  457. Weike AI et al (2001) Sensorimotor gating and attitudes related to schizotypal proneness. Psychol Rep 88:1035–1045PubMedGoogle Scholar
  458. Weil ZM et al (2006) Melatonin receptor (MT1) knockout mice display depression-like behaviors and deficits in sensorimotor gating. Brain Res Bull 68:425–429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  459. Weiss IC et al (1999) Isolation rearing-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition: further evidence for fragility of the response. Behav Pharmacol 10:139–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  460. Weiss IC et al (2000) Strain differences in the isolation-induced effects on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response and on locomotor activity. Behav Neurosci 114:364–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  461. Wiedholz LM et al (2008) Mice lacking the AMPA GluR1 receptor exhibit striatal hyperdopaminergia and ‘schizophrenia-related’ behaviors. Mol Psychiatry (in press)Google Scholar
  462. Wilmouth CE, Spear LP (2006) Withdrawal from chronic nicotine in adolescent and adult rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 85:648–657PubMedGoogle Scholar
  463. Wolf R et al (2007) Acute or subchronic clozapine treatment does not ameliorate prepulse inhibition (PPI) deficits in CPB-K mice with low levels of hippocampal NMDA receptor density. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 194:93–102Google Scholar
  464. Wolinsky TD et al (2007) The trace amine 1 receptor knockout mouse: an animal model with relevance to schizophrenia. Genes Brain Behav 6:628–639PubMedGoogle Scholar
  465. Wynn JK et al (2004) Prepulse facilitation and prepulse inhibition in schizophrenia patients and their unaffected siblings. Biol Psychiatry 55:518–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  466. Wynn JK et al (2005) Sensorimotor gating, orienting and social perception in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 73:319–325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  467. Wynn JK et al (2007) Effects of olanzapine, risperidone and haloperidol on prepulse inhibition in schizophrenia patients: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Schizophr Res 95:134–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  468. Yamashita M et al (2006) Norepinephrine transporter blockade can normalize the prepulse inhibition deficits found in dopamine transporter knockout mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:2132–2139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  469. Yee BK et al (2004) Apomorphine-induced prepulse inhibition disruption is associated with a paradoxical enhancement of prepulse stimulus reactivity. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:240–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  470. Yee BK et al (2005) A schizophrenia-related sensorimotor deficit links alpha 3-containing GABAA receptors to a dopamine hyperfunction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:17154–17159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  471. Yeomans JS et al (2006) Midbrain pathways for prepulse inhibition and startle activation in rat. Neuroscience 142:921–929PubMedGoogle Scholar
  472. Yukawa K et al (2005) Reduced prepulse inhibition of startle in STAT6-deficient mice. Int J Mol Med 16:673–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  473. Zajaczkowski W et al (2003) A competitive antagonist of NMDA receptors CGP 40116 attenuates experimental symptoms of schizophrenia evoked by MK-801. Pol J Pharmacol 55:703–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  474. Zhang WN et al (2002a) Effects of hippocampal N-methyl-d-aspartate infusion on locomotor activity and prepulse inhibition: differences between the dorsal and ventral hippocampus. Behav Neurosci 116:72–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  475. Zhang WN et al (2002b) Prepulse inhibition in rats with temporary inhibition/inactivation of ventral or dorsal hippocampus. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 73:929–940PubMedGoogle Scholar
  476. Zhang M et al (2006) Effect of dopamine D3 antagonists on PPI in DBA/2J mice or PPI deficit induced by neonatal ventral hippocampal lesions in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:1382–1392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  477. Zhang L et al (2007a) Minocycline attenuates hyperlocomotion and prepulse inhibition deficits in mice after administration of the NMDA receptor antagonist dizocilpine. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:2004–2010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  478. Zhang M et al (2007b) Effects of antipsychotics and selective D(3) antagonists on PPI deficits induced by PD 128907 and apomorphine. Behav Brain Res 182:1–11PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neal R. Swerdlow
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin Weber
    • 1
  • Ying Qu
    • 1
  • Gregory A. Light
    • 1
  • David L. Braff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUCSD School of MedicineLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations