ArticleBehavioural pharmacology2020
Comparison of the muscarinic antagonist effects of scopolamine and L-687,306.
Article in Behavioural pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neuroprotective Potential of Phytocompounds in the Treatment of Dementia: The State of Knowledge from the Scopolamine-Induced Animal Model of Alzheimer's Disease.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Research progress in myocardial function and diseases related to muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Nicotinic aspects of the discriminative stimulus effects of arecoline.Behavioural pharmacology · 2021Article
- Novel Antimuscarinic Antidepressant-like Compounds with Reduced Effects on Cognition.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to use central and peripheral assays to compare the effects of the muscarinic antagonist scopolamine with those of a novel muscarinic antagonist, L-687,306 [(3R,4R)-3-(3-cyclopropyl-1,2,4,oxadiazol[5-yl]-1-azabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane. Groups of rats were trained to discriminate the stimulus effects of the muscarinic agonist, arecoline (1.0 mg/kg); concomitant measures of response rate were recorded. Separate groups were prepared with telemetery devices for recording bradycardia induced by arecoline (10 mg/kg). Methyl arecoline and arecoline were nearly equally potent in producing a brief but profound bradycardia, indicative of an equivalent effect in the heart. L-687,306 and scopolamine were both able to block this peripheral effect of arecoline. L-687,306 produced a surmountable antagonism of both the discriminative and rate-suppressing effects of arecoline. Scopolamine, however, was unable to antagonize the rate-reducing effects of arecoline in the discrimination assay. This limited the number of rats that could respond to the discriminative stimulus effects of arecoline, as well as the amount of arecoline stimulus effects they were able to report. The data suggest that L-687,306 may be a more generally effective muscarinic antagonist than scopolamine and support earlier reports that this antagonist has less direct effect on behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.