Boyes W K, Moser V C, MacPhail R C, Dyer R S
Neuropharmacology. 1985 Sep;24(9):853-60. doi: 10.1016/0028-3908(85)90036-x.
Chlordimeform (CDM), a formamidine insecticide and monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor, has recently been shown to produce large changes in visual evoked potentials of hooded rats (Boyes and Dyer, 1984a). Two experiments were performed to determine if the changes in evoked potentials were a result of the inhibition of MAO. In the first, the degree of inhibition of MAO in the brains of rats treated with chlordimeform (1.0-100 mg/kg, i.p.) was compared with that produced by pargyline (0.3-30 mg/kg, i.p.). Both compounds preferentially inhibited MAO-B, although MAO-A was substantially inhibited at larger doses. Pargyline was a relatively more potent inhibitor of MAO than chlordimeform, but not more efficacious. In the second experiment, pattern reversal evoked potentials (PREPs) and flash-evoked potentials (FEPs) were recorded from groups of rats after treatment with either saline, 0.4 mg/kg pargyline, 20 mg/kg pargyline or 40 mg/kg chlordimeform. The latter two groups were selected so as to have similar levels of inhibition of MAO, about 90% inhibition of MAO-B and 60% inhibition of MAO-A. The results showed a doubling of the amplitude of pattern reversal evoked potentials and increased latencies of the pattern reversal evoked potential and the flash-evoked-potentials in the chlordimeform-treated group, but no significant changes from saline control values in the pargyline-treated groups. These results confirm that chlordimeform is a MAO inhibitor at doses which produce behavioral and electrophysiological changes, but demonstrate further that the changes in visual evoked potentials produced by chlordimeform are not a direct result of the inhibition of MAO.
杀虫脒(CDM)是一种脒类杀虫剂和单胺氧化酶(MAO)抑制剂,最近研究表明,它可使长吻大鼠的视觉诱发电位产生显著变化(博伊斯和戴尔,1984年a)。进行了两项实验以确定诱发电位的变化是否是MAO受抑制的结果。在第一项实验中,比较了用杀虫脒(1.0 - 100毫克/千克,腹腔注射)处理的大鼠脑中MAO的抑制程度与用优降宁(0.3 - 30毫克/千克,腹腔注射)产生的抑制程度。两种化合物均优先抑制MAO - B,不过在较大剂量时MAO - A也会受到显著抑制。优降宁对MAO的抑制作用相对比杀虫脒更强,但效果并非更佳。在第二项实验中,记录了用生理盐水、0.4毫克/千克优降宁、20毫克/千克优降宁或40毫克/千克杀虫脒处理后的大鼠组的图形翻转诱发电位(PREPs)和闪光诱发电位(FEPs)。选择后两组是为了使其MAO抑制水平相似,即MAO - B抑制约90%,MAO - A抑制60%。结果显示,杀虫脒处理组的图形翻转诱发电位幅度加倍,图形翻转诱发电位和闪光诱发电位的潜伏期增加,但优降宁处理组与生理盐水对照组相比无显著变化。这些结果证实,杀虫脒在产生行为和电生理变化的剂量下是一种MAO抑制剂,但进一步表明,杀虫脒引起的视觉诱发电位变化并非MAO抑制的直接结果。