DIFFERENTIATION OF IN-VIVO EFFECTS OF AMPA AND NMDA RECEPTOR LIGANDS USING DRUG DISCRIMINATION METHODS AND CONVULSANT/ANTICONVULSANT ACTIVITY

The discriminative stimulus properties of the AMPA ((RS)-2-amino-3-(3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazol-4-yl)propionic acid) receptor agonist ATPA ((RS)-2-amino-3-(3-hydroxy-5-tert-butylisoxazol-4-yl)propionic acid) and NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) in rats have been characterized. It is suggested that the cues are mediated by separate mechanisms in the central nervous system. The ATPA cue is not mimicked by NMDA or an NMDA receptor agonist, and is inhibited by the AMPA receptor antagonist (R)-APPA ((R)-2-amino-3-(3-hydroxy-5-phenylisoxazol-4-yl)propionic acid) but not the AMPA receptor antagonist ATOA ((RS)-2-amino-3-(3-carboxymethoxy-5-tert-butylisoxazol-4-yl)propionic acid) or the NMDA receptor antagonist CPP ((RS)-3-(2-carboxypiperazin-4-yl)propyl)phosphonic acid). The ATPA cue is not mimicked by AMPA which is believed not to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. In contrast, ATPA does not generalize to the NMDA cue, which is mimicked by some NMDA receptor agonists (tetrazol-5-yl-gylcine and AMAA ((RS)-2-amino-2-(3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazol-4-yl)acetic acid)) and is inhibited by the NMDA receptor antagonist CPP. Highly potent convulsant activity was demonstrated in mice with all AMPA and NMDA receptor agonists after intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) injection, whereas weaker or no effects were found after subcutaneous (s.c.) or intravenous injection. Only (RS)-tetrazol-5-yl-glycine had a potent effect after s.c. administration. I.c.v. ATOA and CPP inhibited convulsions induced by i.c.v. injection of AMPA or NMDA, while (R)-APPA was ineffective. These results indicate that there are differences in the structure-activity relations in the drug discrimination and convulsant/anticonvulsant models, even when effects after i.c.v. and s.c. injection are taken into consideration. The convulsion models are rapid tests which can give an indication of central nervous system penetration, but are less pharmacologically specific with respect to differentiation between AMPA and NMDA ligands where cue models demonstrate clear differences in effects of ligands with selectivity for receptor subtypes.