Tonic immobility in chickens: Possible involvement of monoamines.

Maser, Jack D.; Gallup, Gordon G.; Hicks, Lou E.

doi:10.1037/h0076810

Cited by 61 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Atropine, another anticholinergic which is generally regarded to have effects similar to those of scopolamine, was reported by Maser et al (1975) to have no effect on TI duration in chickens. Woodruff, Hatton, Frankl, and Meyer (1976) found decreased TI duration in ducks, but increased TI duration in guinea pigs and rabbits, using scopolamine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Richard W. Thompson’s “Comments on Ksir, C. ‘Scopolamine does not reduce tonic immobility in chickens’”

Ksir

1979

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thompson's (1979) comment points out four areas of difficulty in interpreting my results (Ksir, 1978). The first, that strain differences in TI duration might have masked the effects of scopolamine, is a possible explanation of the difference in results between our two studies. However, the saline and methylscopolamine durations reported in my paper were quite similar to the durations reported for their birds under similar drug conditions. Thus, strain differences in scopolamine action, rather than in baseline TI duration, would have to be invoked to explain the different results. I do not know of studies reporting strain differences in scopolamine action among chickens.Their fourth point, that I referred to activity effects as changes in "open-field" activity when both experiments were done in fairly small activity chambers points out a careless choice of words on my part, but since there were no substantive differences in the results of our two experiments, this is a minor point.Their third point, that I used an "unusual" testing procedure in my second experiment, is irrelevant. In my paper, under the bold heading "EXPERI-MENT 1," is the statement, "Experiment 1 was an attempt to replicate as nearly as possible .... " The second experiment had a different purpose entirely, that of separating induction effects from duration of TI once induced. That this analytic procedure had not been published before is true, and in that sense it was "unusual."The most substantive failure of my experiment to replicate theirs was apparently my failure to use three successive inductions rather than a single induction . I had wished to avoid the possible difficulty of nonindependence of repeated tests with the same bird within a short period of time. I used 12 chickens per group rather than their 10, hoping to offset somewhat the loss of statistical power. The Thompson et aI. (1974) report had stated that "examination of the data indicated that there were no consistent changes across trials within a session, so the mean duration of TI for each bird for each session was used for analysis." This pooling no doubt had the effect of reducing variance. Thompson's letter states that analysis of the data from the first trial only showed no significant effect of scopolamine, which he says is similar to my result. However, if their data showed no consistent changes across trials, then we must assume that data from the first trial looked like the mean data, that is, there would have appeared to be a dose-related decrease in TI duration, but the variability of the first-trial-only data resulted in nonsignificance. Had I actually obtained such results, that is, data that sort of looked like theirs but didn't reach significance due to variability, I would not have submitted them for publication. The reason for publishing my results was that the means for the drug and control groups did not vary much and were remarkably consistent (and similar to their control values). In other words, one can fail to find an effect either because the effect ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Richard W. Thompson’s “Comments on Ksir, C. ‘Scopolamine does not reduce tonic immobility in chickens’”

Ksir

1979

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contradictory results regarding 5-HT and TI have also been reported. Intravenous administration of 5-HT decreased TI duration in young chickens (Maser et al, 1975) as did intracerebroventricular injections of 5-HT into rabbits (Hatton et al, 1978). The 5-HT receptor agonists, quipazine and fenfluramine, also reduced the duration of TI in chickens when injected systemically (Wallnau et al, 1981).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Tyrosine and Tryptophan Influence on Tonic Immobility in the Chicken

1984

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The serotonergic and catecholaminergic systems have been shown to affect both tonic immobility and food intake in the domestic fowl. Tryptophan, the amino acid precursor of serotonin, has been demonstrated to influence tonic immobility and food intake when injected intraperitoneally. Tyrosine, amino acid precursor of the catecholamines, is also known to affect food intake when administered orally. In two experiments, tryptophan and tyrosine were intubated intragastrically into male chickens at levels known to affect food intake, and their effect on tonic immobility was measured. Tryptophan and tyrosine delivered intragastrically had no effect on either duration or susceptibility of tonic immobility. These data suggest that changes in appetite observed as a result of orally administered tyrosine and tryptophan were not due to a general inhibition or stimulation of the central nervous system.

show abstract

“…The possible peripheral effect of tryptophan on body temperature fosters speculation as to whether the effect of tryptophan on food intake may also be peripherally based. In an earlier study, Lacy et al (1984) found that orally administered tryptophan had no effect on tonic immobility, a behavior known to be very sensitive to brain 5-HT manipulation (Maser et al, 1975;Harston et al, 1976;Wallnau and Gallup, 1977;Hennig, 1980). It was postulated at that time that tryptophan might not be influencing food intake by increasing brain 5-HT concentrations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Tryptophan’s Influence on Feeding and Body Temperature in the Fowl

et al. 1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neurotransmitter, serotonin, has been implicated in both food intake and body temperature regulation. In this experiment, the effect of tryptophan, the amino acid precursor of serotonin, on food consumption and rectal temperature in the fowl was determined. Single Comb White Leghorn cockerels were intubated with a tryptophan solution or distilled water. Tryptophan significantly (P less than or equal to .05) decreased both food intake and body temperature of the birds. These results suggest that tryptophan may inhibit food intake via peripheral rather than central mechanisms.

show abstract

Tonic immobility in chickens: Possible involvement of monoamines.

Cited by 61 publications

References 36 publications

Reply to Richard W. Thompson’s “Comments on Ksir, C. ‘Scopolamine does not reduce tonic immobility in chickens’”

Reply to Richard W. Thompson’s “Comments on Ksir, C. ‘Scopolamine does not reduce tonic immobility in chickens’”

Tyrosine and Tryptophan Influence on Tonic Immobility in the Chicken

Tryptophan’s Influence on Feeding and Body Temperature in the Fowl

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About