Histamine H3 receptors contribute to drinking elicited by eating in rats

Kraly, F. Scott; Tribuzio, R. A.; Kim, Young-Mee; Keefe, M. E.; Finkell, J

doi:10.1016/0031-9384(95)02048-9

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foodassociated drinking is stimulated by both pregastric, preabsorptive (and possibly conditioned) feeding signals (21,36,37) and postabsorptive consequences of feeding, including dehydration (35,41). Food-associated drinking appears to be partly mediated by the renal renin-angiotensin system, since renal denervation (40), inhibition of peripheral angiotensin II synthesis (37,38), and administration of angiotensin receptor antagonists into the periphery (AT 1 , AT 2 ) or brain (AT 1 ) inhibit mealrelated drinking (41). Accordingly, lesions of periventricular tissue of the anteroventral third ventricle, which responds to humoral signals that motivate drinking, including angiotensin II, abolish the quantitative but not temporal association of drinking with feeding.…”

Section: Drinking Is Part Of the Mealmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring meals: structure of prandial food and water intake of rats

Zorrilla

Inoue²,

Fekete³

et al. 2005

American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comp

128

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attempts to understand ingestion have sought to understand the control of meals. The present study evaluated a meal definition that included prandial drinking (drinking-explicit meals). The spontaneous nocturnal intake of male Wistar rats was studied. The meal breakpoint was defined as the interval between feeding or drinking events providing the most stable estimate of meal structure. Alternative breakpoints derived from prevailing methodology, log-survivorship, or frequency histogram analysis of interfeeding intervals without respect to drinking were compared (drinking-naive meals). Threshold interfeeding intervals that accounted for drinking indirectly were evaluated as surrogate breakpoints (drinking-implicit meals). Definitions were compared by determining which criterion better conformed to predictions of satiety. Microstructural differences resulting from the definitions were also studied. Under the drinking-explicit definition, rats averaged nine or ten 13-min meals/night, during which they consumed food and water equally in duration (5-6 min) and quantity (2.3 g). Individual differences were observed in microstructure measures. Meals defined by drinking-informed, but not drinking-naive, methods were followed by the behavioral satiety sequence and by an initially low likelihood of resuming feeding that monotonically increased with time. The drinking-explicit definition uniquely revealed preprandial and postprandial correlations of similar magnitude. Under drinking-informed definitions, food restriction increased meal size, whereas drinking-naive definitions increased meal frequency. Drinking-implicit definitions provided workable approximations of meal frequency and size but inferior estimates of feeding duration, eating rate, and the preprandial correlation. Thus log-survivorship analysis is not appropriate for identifying meal breakpoints, and the consideration of drinking in meal definitions can provide a better estimate of meal structure. feeding or drinking; food-associated drinking; meal size or duration; eating rate; intermeal interval; behavioral satiety sequence; bout microstructure analysis; meal pattern analysis; satiation

show abstract

Section: Drinking Is Part Of the Mealmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring meals: structure of prandial food and water intake of rats

Zorrilla

Inoue²,

Fekete³

et al. 2005

American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comp

128

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most significantly, a maximal antinociceptive icv dose of improgan did not produce significant motor impairment on an accelerated rotarod test up to 30 min following administration 46…”

Section: Are These Drugs Really Analgesics?mentioning

confidence: 87%

“… On a mechanical nociceptive (tail‐pinch) test in rats, icv improgan induced time‐ and dose‐dependent antinociceptive responses 46 In pilot, unpublished studies performed in collaboration with Dr. Alan Cowan, (Temple University School of Medicine), improgan (80 μg, icv) reduced by 40% the number of flinches observed 20–35 min after a subcutaneous injection of 5% formalin in rats. In mice, improgan 46 and burimamide, 42 both given icv, produced reversible, dose‐related antinociceptive effects in a thermal (tail‐immersion) test. Most significantly, a maximal antinociceptive icv dose of improgan did not produce significant motor impairment on an accelerated rotarod test up to 30 min following administration 46 …”

Section: Are These Drugs Really Analgesics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On a mechanical nociceptive (tail‐pinch) test in rats, icv improgan induced time‐ and dose‐dependent antinociceptive responses 46…”

Section: Are These Drugs Really Analgesics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In mice, improgan 46 and burimamide, 42 both given icv, produced reversible, dose‐related antinociceptive effects in a thermal (tail‐immersion) test.…”

Section: Are These Drugs Really Analgesics?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Third Life for Burimamide: Discovery and Characterization of a Novel Class of Non‐Opioid Analgesics Derived from Histamine Antagonists

Hough

Nalwalk

Barnes

et al. 2000

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Burimamide, a histamine (HA) derivative with both H2‐ and H3‐blocking properties, induces antinociception when injected into the rodent CNS. Several related compounds share this property, and structure‐activity studies have shown that this new class of analgesics is distinct from known HA antagonists. The prototype, named improgan, shows a preclinical profile of a highly effective analgesic, with activity against thermal, mechanical and inflammatory nociception after doses that do not alter motor balance or locomotor activity. Improgan analgesia is not blocked by opioid antagonists and is observed in opioid receptor knock‐out mice. Unlike morphine, improgan does not induce tolerance after daily dosing. Extensive in vitro pharmacology studies have excluded known histaminergic, opioid, serotonergic, GABAergic and adrenergic receptor mechanisms, as well as 50 other sites of action. The improgan‐like analgesic activity of some HA congeners suggests an analgesic action on a novel HA receptor, but further studies are required to substantiate this. Studies in progress are characterizing the sites and mechanisms of action of improgan, and developing brain‐penetrating derivatives that could be useful for clinical pain.

show abstract