A BEHAVIOURAL AND BIOCHEMICAL STUDY IN RATS OF 5‐HYDROXYTRYPTAMINE RECEPTOR AGONISTS AND ANTAGONISTS, WITH OBSERVATIONS ON STRUCTURE‐ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AGONISTS

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The effect of the putative 5‐hydroxytryptamine (5‐HT) receptor antagonists, methysergide, methergoline, mianserin, cyproheptadine, cinanserin (all at 10 mg/kg), methiothepin (5 mg/kg) and (−)‐propranolol (20 mg/kg) on the behavioural responses to tranylcypromine (10 mg/kg) followed 30 min later by L‐tryptophan (100 mg/kg) was examined. Methysergide, methergoline, methiothepin and (−)‐propranolol inhibited head weaving, forepaw treading and hind‐limb abduction. Methysergide and methergoline increased reactivity. In contrast, cypropheptadine, cinanserin and mianserin had no effects on the behaviour. Similar findings were obtained when the behaviours were elicited by administration of tranylcypromine (10 mg/kg) followed by the putative 5‐HT receptor agonist, 5‐methoxy‐N, N‐dimethyltryptamine (5‐MeODMT) (2 mg/kg). When the behaviours were elicited by the putative 5‐HT receptor agonist, quipazine (50 mg/kg), all the drugs effectively inhibited head weaving and forepaw treading. When the dose of cypropheptadine was doubled to 20 mg/kg an inhibition of the tranylcypromine/L‐tryptophan induced behaviours was seen. Methiothepin produced a marked inhibition of apomorphine‐induced locomotor activity whilst all the others enhanced this response, suggesting that only methiothepin inhibits the 5‐HT behaviours by dopamine antagonism and that the increased reactivity seen following tranylcypromine/L‐tryptophan after pretreatment with methysergide or methergoline might be due to enhanced dopamine function. Pretreatment with p‐chlorophenylalanine resulted in enhanced behavioural responses to both 5‐MeODMT and quipazine. Both methergoline and methiothepin decreased the rate of 5 ‐HT synthesis in whole brain but not spinal cord and methergoline decreased spinal cord 5‐HIAA concentration. None of the other drugs had any significant effects on the concentration of 5‐HT, 5‐HIAA or 5‐HT synthesis rate in brain or spinal cord. Experiments with compounds structurally related to quipazine and with molecular models suggested that quipazine produces behavioural changes probably by stimulating the 5‐HT receptor in a similar way to 5‐HT but that it would bind weakly, in agreement with ligand‐receptor binding studies. It is suggested, therefore, that cyproheptadine, cinanserin and mianserin fail to inhibit 5‐HT and 5‐MeODMT‐induced behaviours because they are weak antagonists whilst they are able to inhibit the same behaviours induced by quipazine because it is a weak agonist. These data indicate that extreme care should be taken in accepting or rejecting 5‐HT as a mediator of behaviours or of other responses unless several antagonists or agonists have been examined.