4.4 Article

Comparative effects of the α7 nicotinic partial agonist, S 24795, and the cholinesterase inhibitor, donepezil, against aging-related deficits in declarative and working memory in mice

Journal

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 197, Issue 3, Pages 499-508

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-007-1063-x

Keywords

cognition; radial arm maze; mnemonic flexibility; nicotinic receptors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction The comparative effects of a newly described specific alpha 7 nAChR partial agonist, S 24795, and a cholinesterase inhibitor, donepezil, currently used as a symptomatic Alzheimer's disease treatment were studied in two mouse models of aging-related memory deficits. Materials and methods We employed radial arm-maze paradigms assessing short-term working memory (STWM, experiment A) and mnemonic flexibility, a cardinal property of long-term declarative (LTDM, experiment B). Both compounds were administered daily at 0.3 and 1 mg/kg subcutaneously (similar to 3 weeks). Results In the STWM experiment, vehicle-treated aged mice displayed a severe and persistent deficit in the retention of successive arm visits in comparison to younger controls. S 24795 at 1 mg/kg (trends at 0.3 mg/kg) and donepezil at 0.3 mg/kg (but not 1 mg/kg) exerted beneficial effects on this deficit: The performance of aged mice treated with these drugs remarkably increased across the testing days and almost reached young adult performance level. In the critical test trials of memory flexibility (i.e., LTDM), in experiment B, S 24795 at 1 mg/kg (trends at 0.3 mg/kg) and donepezil at the dose of 1 mg/kg (but not 0.3 mg/kg) improved aged mice performance. Conclusion This preclinical demonstration that S 24795 restored specific age-related memory deficits with as much efficacy as donepezil adds to recent literature in highlighting the potential interest of an alpha 7 nAChR drug as a symptomatic AD therapeutic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available