, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 225–228 | Cite as

A comparison of the discriminative stimulus properties of R-2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (R-DOM) and S-amphetamine in the rat

  • H. A. Tilson
  • T. G. Baker
  • J. A. Gylys
Animal Studies


The effects of 0.75 mg/kg of R-DOM and 1.0 mg/kg of S-amphetamine served as discriminative stimuli in the control of a two-lever discrimination response. Dose-response evaluation of the two agents indicated that in S-amphetamine-trained animals the drug effects produced by test doses of 0.5 to 2.2 mg/kg of S-amphetamine could be considered as a dose-dependent continuum of low to high stimulus intensity. In R-DOM trained subjects, low to moderate doses of R-DOM (0.5–1.5 mg/kg) produced dose-related discriminative responding, but the high dose of R-DOM (2.2 mg/kg) resulted in random responding. When animals trained to discriminate 1.0 mg/kg of S-amphetamine from saline were given 0.5 or 0.75 mg/kg of R-DOM, they tended to respond on the drug correct lever. However, higher doses of R-DOM (1.5 and 2.2 mg/kg) produced random responding. Similarly, animals trained to discriminate 0.75 mg/kg of R-DOM from saline exhibited correct responses following 0.5 and 0.75 mg/kg of S-amphetamine, but not after 1.5 and 2.2 mg/kg. These data suggest that low doses of R-DOM produce discriminative stimuli that are qualitatively different from those of higher doses. Stimuli following low doses of R-DOM also appear similar in some respects to those following low doses of S-amphetamine.

Key words

R-DOM S-Amphetamine State-dependent discriminative responding Generalization of drug-induced stimuli 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beaton, J. M., Smythies, J. R., Benington, F., Morin, R. D.: The behavioral effects of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl-amphetamine (DOM) in rats. Comm. Behav. Biol. 3, 81–84 (1969)Google Scholar
  2. Benington, F., Morin, R. D., Beaton, J., Smythies, J. R., Bradley, R. J.: Comparative effects of stereoisomers of hallucinogenic amphetamines. Nature New Biol. 242, 185–186 (1973)Google Scholar
  3. Ferster, C., Skinner, B.: Schedules of Reinforcement. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts 1957Google Scholar
  4. Fujimori, M., Himwich, H.: Electroencephalographic alerting sites of d-amphetamine and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methyl-amphetamine. Nature (Lond.) 220, 491–494 (1968)Google Scholar
  5. Fujimori, M., Himwich, H.: EEG arousal reactions to amphetamine and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine in reserpine-pretreated rabbits. Biol. Psychiat. 2, 241–250 (1970)Google Scholar
  6. Hirschhorn, I. D., Winter, J. C.: Mescaline and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) as discriminative stimuli. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 22, 64–71 (1971)Google Scholar
  7. Huang, J.: Biochemical and pharmacological study of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM, STP) and analogs. Ph. D. Thesis. The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences (1972)Google Scholar
  8. Huang, J., Ho, B. T.: Discriminative stimulus properties of d-amphetamine and related compounds in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2, 669–673 (1974)Google Scholar
  9. Kuhn, D., Appel, J., Greenberg, I.: An analysis of some discriminative properties of d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 39, 57–66 (1974)Google Scholar
  10. Shulgin, A. T.: Stereospecific requirements for hallucinogens. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 25, 271–272 (1973)Google Scholar
  11. Snyder, S. H., Faillace, L., Weingartner, H.: DOM (STP), A new hallucinogenic drug and DOET: Effects in normal subjects. Amer. J. Psychiat. 125, 357–364 (1968)Google Scholar
  12. Tilson, H. A., Cavanagh, R. L., Baker, T. G., Gylys, J. A.: Neuropharmacological analysis of R(−)-2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (R-DOM). Pharmacologist 16, 205 (1974)Google Scholar
  13. Tilson, H. A., Baker, T. G., Chamberlain, J. H., Marquis, W. J., Rech, R. H.: Behavioral and neuropharmacological analysis of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine and amphetamine in rats. Psychopharmacologia (Berl.) 44, 229–239 (1975)Google Scholar
  14. Vrbanac, J. J., Tilson, H. A., Moore, K. E., Rech, R. H.: Comparison of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM) and d-amphetamine for in vivo efflux of catecholamines from rat brain. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 3, 57–64 (1975Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. Tilson
    • 1
  • T. G. Baker
    • 1
  • J. A. Gylys
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmacology DepartmentBristol LaboratoriesSyracuse

Personalised recommendations