Sensorimotor gating, measured by prepulse inhibition (PPI) of the startle reflex, is reduced in schizophrenia patients and in rats treated with dopamine agonists. Strain differences in the sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of dopamine agonists may provide insight into the genetic basis for human population differences in sensorimotor gating. We reported strain differences in the sensitivity to the PPI-disruptive effects of the D1/D2 agonist apomorphine in adult rats, with greater sensitivity in Harlan Sprague Dawley (SDH) versus Wistar (WH) rats. However, Kinney et al. (1999) recently reported opposite findings, using Bantin-Kingman Sprague Dawley (SDBK) and Wistar (WBK) rats; in fact, SDBK rats did not exhibit clear apomorphine-induced reductions in sensorimotor gating. These new findings of Kinney et al. (1999) directly conflict with over 15 years of results from our laboratories and challenge interpretations from a large body of literature. The present studies carefully assessed drug effects on sensorimotor gating in SD versus W strains, across rat suppliers (H vs BK). Significantly greater SDH than WH apomorphine sensitivity in PPI measures was observed in both adult and 18 d pups, confirming that these strain differences are both robust and innate. These strain differences in apomorphine sensitivity were not found in adult BK rats. Supplier differences in sensitivity (SDH > SDBK) were also evident in the PPI-disruptive effects of D1 but not D2-family agonists; PPI was clearly disrupted by quinpirole in both SDH and SDBK rats. These findings demonstrate robust, innate, neurochemically specific, and apparently heritable phenotypic differences in an animal model of sensorimotor gating deficits in human neuropsychiatric disorders.
Despite the similarities of prepulse inhibition (PPI) of the startle reflex and its apparent neural regulation in rodents and humans, it has been difficult to demonstrate cross-species homology in the sensitivity of PPI to pharmacologic challenges. PPI is disrupted in rats by the indirect dopamine (DA) agonist amphetamine, and while studies in humans have suggested similar effects of amphetamine, these effects have been limited to populations characterized by smoking status and specific personality features. In the context of a study assessing the time course of several DA agonist effects on physiological variables, we failed to detect PPI-disruptive effects of amphetamine in a small group of normal males. The present study was designed to reexamine this issue, using a larger sample and a paradigm that should be more sensitive for detecting drug effects. PPI in rats was shown to be disrupted by the highest dose of amphetamine (3.0 mg/kg) at relatively longer prepulse intervals (430 ms). In humans, between-subject comparisons of placebo (n 录 15) vs 20 mg amphetamine (n 录 15) failed to detect significant PPI-disruptive effects of amphetamine, but significant PPI-disruptive effects at short (10-20 ms) prepulse intervals were detected using within-subject analyses of postdrug PPI levels relative to each subject's baseline PPI. Post hoc comparisons failed to detect greater sensitivity to amphetamine among subjects characterized by different personality and physiological traits. Bioactivity of amphetamine was verified by autonomic and subjective changes. These results provide modest support for crossspecies homology in the PPI-disruptive effects of amphetamine, but suggest that these effects in humans at the present dose are subtle and may be best detected using within-subject designs and specific stimulus characteristics.
Despite evidence of "bioactivity", under the specific experimental conditions of this study, neither direct nor indirect DA agonists had robust effects on startle or PPI. In some cases (for example, amantadine), a time course was identified that will facilitate future studies of DA agonist effects on PPI in humans.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations鈥揷itations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.