Evidence for a direct action of monamines on the chick central nervous system

Spooner, Charles E.; Winters, Wendell D.

doi:10.1007/bf02297010

Cited by 56 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Methylscopolamine does not readily cross the blood-brain barrier, but Spooner and Winters (1965) have reported evidence that the blood-brain barrier is not fully developed in chickens until the age of 3 or 4 weeks. Thompson et al tested Copyright 1979 Psychonomic Society, Inc.their chickens at 12 and 19 days.…”

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

“…The behavioural and autonomic effects of DOPA were intensified by pretreatment with an MAO inhibitor (CARLSSON et a1., 1958;BLASCHKO and CHRUSCIEL, 1960;WEIL-MALHERBE et a1., 1961 a;EVERETT and WIEGAND, 1962;SPOONER and WINTERS, 1965;BorSSIER and SIMON, 1966). Behavioural effects of catecholamines injected intra cerebrally were potentiated in species in which MAO inhibition elevates cerebral catecholamine concentration.…”

Section: B) Behaviour Temperature and Electrocortical Activitymentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In general, large doses of DOPA produce electroencephalographic arousal (see below), locomotor stimulation and hyperthermia accompanied by autonomic phenomena such as piloerection, salivation, pupillary dilatation etc; the effects of reserpine are also reversed (BERTLER and ROSENGREN, 1959;BLASCHKO and CHRm3cIEL, 1960;CARLSSON et aI., 1957;EVERETT and WIEGAND, 1962;HALPERN et aI., 1963;KIKUCHI, 1962;GRIESEMER and GASNER, 1962;DEWHURST and MARLEY, 1965a;SPOONER and WINTERS, 1965;LAMMERS and VAN ROSSUM, 1968).…”

Section: B) Behaviour Temperature and Electrocortical Activitymentioning

confidence: 95%

“…induced behavioural and electrocortical sleep in rats (HAVLiCEK, 1967). Many investigators consider DOPA to be pharmacologically inert (CARLSSON, 1966;HORNYKIEWICZ, 1966) but in 1-28 day chicks, L·DOPA produced be· havioural and electrocortical alerting, whereas dopamine and noradrenaline induced behavioural and electrocortical sleep (DEWHURST and MARLEY, 1965a;SPOONER and WINTERS, 1965). L· and DL·DOPA applied by micro.pipettes excited feline cortical neurones, whereas dopamine and noradrenaline depressed cortical neuronal discharge initiated by synaptic activity or by the application of L.glutamate (KRNJEVl6 and PmLus, 1963).…”

Section: B) Behaviour Temperature and Electrocortical Activitymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This accorded with the finding in adult animals of soporific effects when catecholamines were injected intraventricularly or intracisternally, by-passing the blood-brain barrier. For similar reasons, chicks were used for studying the central effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine (HEIlMAN et aI., 1961) and a variety of other drugs (SPOONER and WINTERS, 1965). …”

Section: Blood-brain Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Central Actions of Catecholamines

Marley¹,

Stephenson²

1972

Catecholamines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ontogeny of thermal nociception in domestic fowl: Thermal stimulus intensity and isolation effects

Hughes

Sufka

1990

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socially housed leghorn cockerels were confined to a heated grid (55, 57, or 59 degrees C, Experiment 1; 59, 61, or 63 degrees C, Experiment 2) and tested at posthatch ages of 14 days (Experiment 1) and 1, 3, 7, or 14 days (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, chicks performed a discrete jump response only at 59 degrees C. In Experiment 2, jump latency was inversely related to temperature at each age but significantly so only at 7 and 14 days posthatch. At the highest temperature, jump latency did not differ significantly across ages. At medium and low temperatures, latency increased from 1 and 3 to 7 days posthatch (antinociceptive effect) and decreased thereafter. Chicks raised in isolation from hatch to 7 days posthatch (Experiment 3) did not display the increased jump latency (antinociceptive effect) displayed by socially raised chicks. Developmental increases in jump latency may reflect stress-induced antinociceptive concomitants of neophobia that emerge with age in this precocial species and social experience may be required for the normal development of this stress-induced antinociception.

show abstract

Evidence for a direct action of monamines on the chick central nervous system

Cited by 56 publications

References 5 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’”

Central Actions of Catecholamines

The ontogeny of thermal nociception in domestic fowl: Thermal stimulus intensity and isolation effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About