Gregory N. Ervin

Interactions of neurotensin with dopamine-containing neurons in the central nervous system

1. Neurotensin (NT) is a tridecapeptide that fulfills many of the requisite criteria for neurotransmitter status in the mammalian central nervous system. 2. Neuroanatomical studies have revealed that DA and NT neurons are proximal in several limbic areas and that NT receptors are present on both DA perikarya and certain DA nerve terminals. 3. When injected intraventricularly or directly into the nucleus accumbens (ACC), NT produces effects similar to antipsychotic drugs, e.g. blockade of the hyperactivity produced by d-amphetamine or cocaine. 4. Chronic administration of antipsychotic drugs such as haloperidol produces increases in NT concentration in the ACC and caudate nucleus. Atypical antipsychotic drugs produce increases in NT concentration only in the ACC. 5. In certain drug-free schizophrenic patients, the concentration of NT in cerebrospinal fluid is reduced. 6. It appears that NT may modulate the activity of DA neurons in the mesolimbicocortical DA system.

Cholecystokinin octapeptide and lithium produce different effects on feeding and taste aversion learning

The strengths of taste aversion induced by sulphated cholecystokinin 26-33 (CCK-8; 1,2,4 and 8 micrograms/kg IP) and lithium chloride (LiCl; 7.5, 15, 30 and 60 mg/kg IP) were determined in order to assess the relative aversiveness of the two compounds. All doses of LiCl induced strong aversion, but only the highest dose of CCK-8 induced aversion, which was mild. Effects of CCK-8 and LiCl on food intake were then compared in the hour (hr) following 8 hr of food deprivation; rats were on this food deprivation schedule for a relatively long time (78 days) throughout testing. All doses of CCK-8 reduced food intake significantly. Most doses of LiCl either did not affect or significantly increased food intake. Although 60 mg/kg LiCl did not affect food intake when administered 15 or 30 min before food presentation, it significantly increased food intake when administered 1, 2 or 3 hr before food presentation. Overeating of solid food may be an illness-induced behavior. Although a very high dose of LiCl (120 mg/kg) decreased food intake markedly, the rats were obviously distressed, not satiated. Failure of CCK-8 to affect feeding behavior like LiCl is indirect evidence that the reduction of food intake by CCK-8 is not merely the result of aversiveness, but is an extremely potent and specific behavioral effect.

1,4-Benzodiazepine peripheral cholecystokinin (CCK-A) receptor agonists.

A series of 1,4-benzodiazepines, N-1-substituted with an N-isopropyl-N-phenylacetamide moiety, was synthesized and screened for CCK-A agonist activity. In vitro agonist activity on isolated guinea pig gallbladder along with in vivo induction of satiety following intraperitoneal administration in a rat feeding assay was demonstrated.

Multiple, small doses of cholecystokinin octapeptide are more efficacious at inducing taste aversion conditioning than single, large doses ☆

Using a one-bottle taste aversion conditioning paradigm, sulfated cholecystokinin(26-33) (CCK-8) has again been shown to induce taste aversion conditioning in rats. Even though the effective doses of CCK-8 are relatively high, they do not induce as strong an aversion as has been demonstrated with LiCl. This pharmacodynamic profile of CCK-8 (i.e., relatively moderate, but not strong, taste aversion induction) may result, in part, from its unusual pharmacokinetic profile. CCK-8 seems to have a plasma half-life of just several minutes, whereas LiCl has a plasma half-life of 6 h in rats. In the present study, CCK-8, CCK-4, or LiCl was administered either as single, large doses immediately following consumption of 0.2% sodium saccharin (SACC), or as 10 half-hourly injections of one-tenth the large dose. Presumably, multiple small doses extended the time CCK-8 and CCK-4 were acting in the body, even though the peak plasma concentrations were quantitatively lower than after the large, single doses. Ten injections of CCK-8 of 10 or 100 nmol/kg (11.4 or 114.3 micrograms/kg) induced significantly stronger taste aversions than single injections of the same total dose of 100 or 1000 nmol/kg (114.3 or 1143.3 micrograms/kg), whereas multiple injections of LiCl of 70.8 mumol/kg (3.0 mg/kg x 10) did not induce stronger taste aversions than single injections of 708 mumol/kg (30.0 mg/kg). Neither single nor multiple injections of CCK-4 of 1000 nmol/kg (596.7 micrograms/kg) x 1, or 100 or 1000 nmol/kg (59.7 or 596.7 micrograms/kg) x 10 induced any sign of taste aversion conditioning.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Evidence that taste aversion learning induced by l-5-hydroxytryptophan is mediated peripherally.

Rats learned to avoid a saccharin solution if their initial consumption of it was followed by intraperitoneal (IP) administration of 25 mg/kg l-5-hydroxytryptophan (l-5-HTP); this taste aversion learning did not occur in rats pretreated with 50 mg/kg (IP) of the aromatic l-amino acid decarboxylase inhibitor RO 4-4602 (benserazide). RO 4-4602 antagonized the l-5-HTP-induced elevation of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) in the mesentery but significantly increased the l-5-HTP-induced elevation of 5-HT in the brain. These results indicate that l-5-HTP-induced taste aversion is correlated with peripheral, but not central, elevation of 5-HT.

Sulfated Cholecystokinin [26–33]Induces Mild Taste Aversion Conditioning in Rats when Administered by Three Different Routes

We investigated the ability of sulfated cholecystokinin (26-33) (CCK-8) and cholecystokinin (30-33) (CCK-4) to induce taste aversion or avoidance conditioning (TAC) in a one-bottle testing paradigm after either intravenous (i.v.), intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.), or intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration. Significant TAC was induced by i.p. administration of CCK-8 at 0.1 but not at 0.025, 0.5, or 1.0 micromol/kg; the TAC was not robust and, in this case, not even dose related. I.p. administration of CCK-4 at 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 micromol/kg did not induce TAC, replicating other studies from our lab. Mild but significant TAC was also induced by i.v. administration of CCK-8 (at 0.025 and 1.0 but not 0.1 or 0.5 micromol/kg) but not by i.v. administration of CCK-4 (at 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 micromol/kg). Finally, mild but significant TAC was induced by i.c.v. (i.e., lateral ventricular) administration of CCK-8 (at 0.0015 but not at 0.015 micromol/brain) but not by i.c.v. administration of CCK-4 (at 0.005 or 0.010 micromol/brain). Because CCK-4 failed to induce TAC, CCK-8 apparently induced TAC via all three routes by an action at a CCK(a), not CCK(B), receptor mechanism. Because i.c.v. or i.v. administrations of CCK-8 were not more efficacious than i.p. administration, the taste avoidance induced by i.p. administration of CCK-8 was not so mild simply because it failed to reach a critical central locus adequately or because it failed to be delivered at a critical speed (i.e., via i.v. injections). We demonstrate that CCK-8 can induce mild TAC at either peripheral or central sites and suggest that these effects of CCK-8 may be independent and may be a sign of salience but not necessarily of toxicosis.

Several roles of CCKA and CCKB receptor subtypes in CCK-8-induced and LiCl-induced taste aversion conditioning.

Administration of a relatively large IP dose of sulfated cholecystokinin (26-33) (CCK-8; 1.0 mumol/kg) consistently induced moderate taste aversion conditioning (TAC) using a 20-min, one-bottle test in Long-Evans rats. Because CCK-8 has affinity for both CCKA and CCKB receptor subtypes, we wanted to determine the subtype involved in CCK-8-induced TAC. Pretreatment with the selective CCKA antagonist MK-329 (L-364, 718 or devazepide), at doses of 0.1, 1.0, or 10.0 mumol/kg, markedly antagonized (> 70%) CCK-8-induced TAC. Pretreatment with the selective CCKB antagonist L-365,260, at doses of 0.1 or 1.0 mumol/kg, partially antagonized (approximately 50%) CCK-8-induced TAC, although the highest dose of L-365,260. 10.0 mumol/kg, did not. These partial antagonistic effects of L-365,260 on CCK-8-induced TAC were replicated in our second study. In our third study, we observed that another CCKB antagonist, the dipeptoid CI-988, also partially antagonized CCK-8-induced TAC at a dose of 0.1, but not 1.0 or 10.0, mumol/kg. In our final study, pretreatments with a single dose (i.e., 10.0, but not 0.1 or 1.0, mumol/kg) of either MK-329 or L-365,260 were also shown to partially antagonize the formation of moderate TAC induced by treatment with LiCl at 708 mumol/kg. Marked antagonism of LiCl-induced TAC was also observed following pretreatment with the known anxiolytic chlordiazepoxide HCl at 7.4 mumol/kg. Considering the existing data on the induction of TAC by various CCK analogues, we consider an action of CCK-8 on peripheral CCKA, but not CCKB, receptors necessary for the induction of TAC. Our results of partial antagonism of CCK-8- and LiCl-induced TAC by L-365,260, CI-988, or MK-329 suggest, but do not prove, that both CCKA and CCKB mechanisms may be operative during TAC. Because the CCK antagonists affected TAC like chlordiazepoxide, blockade of CCKA and CCKB mechanisms may produce a mild anxiolytic effect.

Cholecystokinin and Satiety: A Time Line

Satiety may still be little understood, but because of the recent study of cholecystokinin (CCK), it is better understood today than it was in 1932. For reasons that are obvious in TABLE 1, space limitations do not permit a review of the most important literature on CCK, feeding, and satiety. Instead of reviewing a few salient papers (and ignoring their controversy), I will review the literature in a different way, by presenting estimates of total citation counts for these various topics over time. Citation counts were summoned from two databases, Scisearch and Medline. The Medline database for human and animal studies takes us back to 1966 and Scisearch to 1974. Over that period, the citation count for Feeding (or Eating) was enormous (TABLE 1). (Duplicate counts for all topics in TABLE 1were deleted except for the Feeding topic, because of its size. Based on other topics, total Feeding citations are probably overestimated by about 25%.) The total number of citations for CCK was also large, but only a fraction of these dealt specifically with both CCK and either feeding or satiety. Total citation counts for CCK and Feeding, Satiety, and CCK and Satiety are presented as time lines: 1966-1969,197&1979,1980-1989, and 1990-1993 (FIGS. 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Citations for all three of these topics was very low in the first epoch (1966-1969). This is not surprising. Studies in the CCK and Feeding area include investigations on some effect of CCK in either the fasted or the fed state. The first attempt specifically to relate CCK and satiety came in 1971 when Glick et al.’ reported that intraperitoneal or intraaortic administration of 12-30 Crick, Harper, and Raper units had no significant effect on the feeding of fasted or fed rats. (Their doses were very low and, in retrospect, undoubtedly subthreshold for marked anorexia.) In 1973 Gibbs et al.*v3 of the Bourne Lab (Cornell University Medical Center/The New York Hospital, White Plains, NY) reported that CCK (either synthetic or partially purified) reduced the food intake (liquid or solid), but not water intake, of intact rats* or the liquid diet intake of sham-feeding rats, in which food was diverted with a gastric fistula before entering the in te~t ine .~ This definitely got research on CCK and feeding and CCK and satiety rolling, but the publication output did not show prolific growth till the 1980s (FIGS. 1 and 3). The Bourne Lab has endured in its study of CCK-induced anorexia, and a summary report will be given by Gerry Smith (this volume). The novel finding of CCK-induced anorexia attracted attempts at both replication and alternate explanations. For example, it was reported in a letter4 (not a refereed manuscript) to Nature that CCK-8 could induce mild to moderate taste aversion conditioning in rats; these investigators suggested that CCK-&induced anorexia might reflect “some form of sickness” rather than satiation. Of course, the relation between anorexia and the induction of taste aversions is neither straightforward nor well understood (see ref. 5) . Just because CCK induces effects in addition

Sulfated Cholecystokinin 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31; 32 ; 33Induces Mild Taste Aversion Conditioning in Rats when Administered by Three Different Routes 1

We investigated the ability of sulfated cholecystokinin (26-33) (CCK-8) and cholecystokinin (30-33) (CCK-4) to induce taste aversion or avoidance conditioning (TAC) in a one-bottle testing paradigm after either intravenous (i.v.), intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.), or intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration. Significant TAC was induced by i.p. administration of CCK-8 at 0.1 but not at 0.025, 0.5, or 1.0 micromol/kg; the TAC was not robust and, in this case, not even dose related. I.p. administration of CCK-4 at 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 micromol/kg did not induce TAC, replicating other studies from our lab. Mild but significant TAC was also induced by i.v. administration of CCK-8 (at 0.025 and 1.0 but not 0.1 or 0.5 micromol/kg) but not by i.v. administration of CCK-4 (at 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, or 1.0 micromol/kg). Finally, mild but significant TAC was induced by i.c.v. (i.e., lateral ventricular) administration of CCK-8 (at 0.0015 but not at 0.015 micromol/brain) but not by i.c.v. administration of CCK-4 (at 0.005 or 0.010 micromol/brain). Because CCK-4 failed to induce TAC, CCK-8 apparently induced TAC via all three routes by an action at a CCK(a), not CCK(B), receptor mechanism. Because i.c.v. or i.v. administrations of CCK-8 were not more efficacious than i.p. administration, the taste avoidance induced by i.p. administration of CCK-8 was not so mild simply because it failed to reach a critical central locus adequately or because it failed to be delivered at a critical speed (i.e., via i.v. injections). We demonstrate that CCK-8 can induce mild TAC at either peripheral or central sites and suggest that these effects of CCK-8 may be independent and may be a sign of salience but not necessarily of toxicosis.