Sensitivity to the discriminative stimulus and antinociceptive effects of mu opioids: Role of strain of rat, stimulus intensity, and intrinsic efficacy at the mu opioid receptor
D. Morgan et al., Sensitivity to the discriminative stimulus and antinociceptive effects of mu opioids: Role of strain of rat, stimulus intensity, and intrinsic efficacy at the mu opioid receptor, J PHARM EXP, 289(2), 1999, pp. 965-975
Citations number
39
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
Effects of low (butorphanol, nalbuphine)-, intermediate (buprenorphine)-, a
nd high (morphine, levorphanol)-efficacy mu opioids were examined in F344,
Sprague-Dawley (SD), Long-Evans (LE), and Lewis rats using a tail withdrawa
l and a drug discrimination procedure. In the tail withdrawal procedure usi
ng low (50 degrees C), intermediate (52 degrees C), and high (56 degrees C)
water temperatures, morphine and levorphanol produced maximal effects in e
ach of the strains and were most potent in F344 and least potent in Lewis,
Similar differences across strains were obtained with buprenorphine, and at
the high intensity, maximal effects were not obtained in Lewis. At the low
intensity, butorphanol produced maximal effects in F344 and SD at relative
ly low doses, half-maximal effects in LE at very high doses, and no effect
in Lewis. Nalbuphine produced near maximal effects in F344 and SD when test
ed with the low intensity and no effect in the LE and Lewis. Similar result
s were obtained at the intermediate intensity for these opioids, although t
he absolute level of antinociception was lower. These results indicate that
there are profound differences to the antinociceptive effects of mu opioid
s across rat strains. The magnitude of these differences increased with hig
her stimulus intensities and when tested with lower efficacy opioids. In ra
ts trained to discriminate morphine (3.0 or 5.6 mg/kg) from water, there we
re no consistent differences across rat strains to the effects of these mu
opioids. Possible reasons for differences between the results obtained in t
he tail withdrawal and drug discrimination procedures are discussed.