Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7862846›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology1994

A comparison of the effects of the novel muscarinic receptor agonists L-689,660 and AF102B in tests of reference and working memory.

G R Dawson, P Bayley, S Channell, S D Iversen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G R DawsonMerck, Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories, Neuroscience Research Centre, Harlow, Essex, UK.
P Bayley
S Channell
S D Iversen
MSD (UK) Limited (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Four experiments compared the CNS effects of a novel M1/M3 receptor agonist L-689,660 with those of the M1/M3 muscarinic receptor agonist AF102B. In the mouse tail-flick test of antinociception (TF) the minimum effective doses to increase tail-flick latency (MED) of L-689,660 and AF102B were 0.03 mg/kg and 10.0 mg/kg, respectively. In a rat conditioned-suppression-of-drinking (CSD) test of reference memory, doses of 0.3 and 1.0 mg/kg L-689,660 and a dose of 5.0 mg/kg AF102B reversed a scopolamine-induced deficit in performance (0.6 mg/kg). Although there was a tendency for L-689,660 to reverse the scopolamine-induced (0.4 mg/kg) performance deficit in a rat delayed-matching-to-position (DMTP) test, the difference failed to reach statistical significance. In contrast, a 5.0 mg/kg dose of AF102B potentiated the scopolamine-induced deficit in choice accuracy and the number of trials completed on this task. In a response sensitivity (RS) test, chain-pulling rates were significantly decreased by L-689,660 (MED = 0.03 mg/kg) and by AF102B (MED = 5.0 mg/kg). These results suggest that L-689,660 and AF102B may ameliorate or reverse a scopolamine-induced deficit, but only at doses that also reduce chain-pulling rates on operant schedules of reinforcement.

Indexed as

Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, HeterocyclicThiophenesAnimalsBridged Bicyclo CompoundsConditioning, OperantDrinking BehaviorMaleMemoryMemory, Short-TermMiceMice, Inbred StrainsMuscarinic AgonistsPain MeasurementParasympathomimeticsPyrazinesQuinuclidinesBridged Bicyclo CompoundsBridged Bicyclo Compounds, HeterocycliccevimelineL 689660Muscarinic AgonistsParasympathomimeticsPyrazinesQuinuclidinesScopolamineThiophenes

Identifiers

PMID7862846
OpenAlexW2046352621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.