The Reactivity of Wistar Rats Highly Selected for Good and Bad Learning, Observed in Various Physiological and Pharmacological Test Models. 1st. Communication
No differences could be detected between GL and BL as far as the pharmacological action on peripheral organs and receptors are concerned, viz. inflammation by means of Freund’s adjuvant, sensitivity to nor-adrenalin of the vascular system and sensitivity to carbachol and acetylcholine of cholinergic receptors in the gastrointestinal tract.
Without detectable differences in GL and BL were the effects of centrally acting substances such as myotonolytic tranquilizers, cataleptics, convulsants and narcotics.
Equally undifferentiated were pain sensitivity and exploration behaviour in both strains. These factors, therefore, do not come into consideration as causal agents of the differences in learning capacity of GL and BL.
Contrary to this, GL generally appeared to be slightly more sensitive to central stimulants and the sympathomimetic amphetamine, BL, however, distinctly more sensitive to the cholinergic tremorine(induced tremor). This is in accordance with the concepts of KHAVARI (1971) and LEITH and BARRETT (1971). KHAVARI assumes “implication of a dichotomous CNS adrenergic-cholinergic neurotransmitter mechanism in the control of learned behaviour”. LEITH and BARRETT conclude that “differences between strains in the avoidance performance are, at least partially, related to variations in the relative activity of the cholinergic and adrenergic systems”. Our own observations, however, demonstrated here a marked overlapping with the sex differences.
Distinct sex differences often exist.
The female animals are more sensitive to the chemical pain stimulant phenylbenzoquinone and explore slightly more frequently than the males. This could explain, at least in part, a difference in learning ability between the two sexes of the same strain.
In contradistinction to this, the females are more insensitive to two centrally acting muscle relaxants (at a higher level of the basic tonus), two narcotics and two cataleptics. A prominent sex difference was brought about by the cataleptic tetrabenazine. This sex difference could also be demonstrated in the control animals of two unselected strains. No sex differences in the narcotic action could be observed after hexobarbital administration. It is envisaged to extend our studies with GL and BL.
The last contribution contains a literature survey as well as an extensive discussion on the results of our own investigations.
KeywordsExploration Behaviour Pain Sensitivity Female Animal Avoidance Performance Avoidance Training
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Benesova, O., and V. Benes: The relation between the type of higher nervous activity, some biochemical parameters and the reactivity to drugs. Act. nerv. sup. 10, 223–231 (1968).Google Scholar
- Collins, T. B., Jr., and D. F. Lott: Stock and sex specifity in the response of rats to pentobarbital sodium. Labor. Anim. Care 18, 192–194 (1968).Google Scholar
- Courvoisier, S., R. Ducrot, and L. Julou: Psychotropic Drugs. In: S. Garattini and V. Ghetti), p. 373, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1957, cited by TaeschlerGoogle Scholar
- Craig, A. L., and H. J. Kupferberg: Heat loss and heat production in d-amphetamine hyperthermia in two strains of aggregated mice. Pharmacologist 13, 2: 306 (1971).Google Scholar
- Fleckenstein, A.: Symposium International on Drugs and Metabolism of Myocardium and Striated Muscle. Ed. by M. Lamarche and R. Roye, Nancy 1969.Google Scholar
- Hillebrecht, J.: Zur routinemäßigen Prüfung antiphlogistischer Substanzen im Rattenpfotentest. Arzneimittel forsch. 4, 607–614 (1954).Google Scholar
- Hornykiewicz, O.: Dopamine (3-hydroxytyramine) and brain functions. Pharmacol. Reviews 18, 925–964 (1964).Google Scholar
- Isom, G. E., R. B. Nelson, and A. I. Edlin: A comparison of the lethal and respiratory effects of morphine in Long-Evans and Sprague-Dawley rats. Arch. int. Pharmacodyn. 182, 130–138 (1969).Google Scholar
- Kuhlenkampf, C., and G. Tarnow: Ein eigentümliches Syndrom im oralen Bereich bei Megaphenapplikation. Nervenarzt 27, 178 (1956).Google Scholar
- Leith, N. J., and R. J. Barrett: Relationship of adrenergic and cholinergic systems to strain differences in avoidance performance. Pharmacologist 13, 232 (1971).Google Scholar
- Mann, Whitney: The Mann-Whitney U-Test. In: Nonparametric Statistics (S. S. Siegel, ed.), pp. 116–117, Mc. Graw Hill, Book Comp., New York (1956).Google Scholar
- Müller-Calgan, H: Teste des psychotropen Screening, Ratte (unveröffentlichte Methodensammlung).Google Scholar
- Müller-Calgan, H., and S. Sommer: Das Reserpin-Parkinsonoid beim Schimpansen und seine Behandlung mit Fencamfamin. Arch. Pharmak. exp. Path. 260, 177 (1968).Google Scholar
- Newbould, B. B.: Chemotherapy of arthritis induced in rats by mycobacterial adjuvant. Brit. J. Pharmacol. Chemother. 21, 127–136 (1963).Google Scholar
- Stille, G.: Zur Pharmakologie katatonogener Stoffe. Editio Cantor, Aulendorf i. Württb. 1971, Arzneimittelforsch. 21, (1.–6. Mitteilung), 225; 997 (1971).Google Scholar
- Selye, H.: The pluricausal cardiopathies. Ch. C. Thoma Publ. Springfield/Ill., p. 114 (1961).Google Scholar
- Shipley, R. E., and J. H. Tilden: Pithed rat preparation suitable for essaying pressor substances. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 64, 453–455 (1967).Google Scholar
- Taeschler, M., H. Weidmann, and A. Cerletti: Zur Pharmakologie von Pönal id, einem neuen zentralen Anticholinergikum. Schweiz. Med. Wschr. 92, 1542–1545 (1962).Google Scholar
- Wilcoxon, F. in Siegel, S. S.: The Wilcoxon-Matched-pairs signed-ranks test. Mc. Graw Hill Book Comp., New York, pp. 75–83 (1956).Google Scholar