Effects of the Partial M1 Muscarinic Cholinergic Receptor Agonist CDD-0102A on Stereotyped Motor Behaviors and Reversal Learning in the BTBR Mouse Model of Autism.

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are a set of neurodevelopmental disorders marked by a lack of social interaction, restrictive interests, and repetitive behaviors. There is a paucity of pharmacological treatments to reduce core ASD symptoms. Various lines of evidence indicate that reduced brain muscarinic cholinergic receptor activity may contribute to an ASD phenotype. METHODS: The present experiments examined whether the partial M1 muscarinic receptor agonist, 5-(3-ethyl-1,2,4-oxadiazol-5-yl)-1,4,5,6-tetrahydropyrimidine hydrochloride (CDD-0102A), alleviates behavioral flexibility deficits and/or stereotyped motor behaviors in the BTBR mouse model of autism. Behavioral flexibility was tested using a reversal learning test. Stereotyped motor behaviors were measured by eliciting digging behavior after removal of nesting material in a home cage and by measuring repetitive grooming. RESULTS: CDD-0102A (0.2 and 0.6 mg/kg but not 1.2 mg/kg) injected prior to reversal learning attenuated a deficit in BTBR mice but did not affect performance in B6 mice. Acute CDD-0102A treatment (1.2 and 3 mg/kg) reduced self-grooming in BTBR mice and reduced digging behavior in B6 and BTBR mice. The M1 muscarinic receptor antagonist VU0255035 (3 mg/kg) blocked the effect of CDD-0102A on grooming behavior. Chronic treatment with CDD-0102A (1.2 mg/kg) attenuated self-grooming and digging behavior in BTBR mice. Direct CDD-0102A infusions (1 µg) into the dorsal striatum reduced elevated digging behavior in BTBR mice. In contrast, CDD-0102A injections in the frontal cortex were not effective. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treatment with a partial M1 muscarinic receptor agonist may reduce repetitive behaviors and restricted interests in autism in part by stimulating striatal M1 muscarinic receptors.

Lactose malabsorption and taste aversion learning.

Consumption of foods can be suppressed by two feeding system defense mechanisms: conditioned taste aversion (CTA) or taste avoidance learning (TAL). There is a debate in the literature about which form of intake suppression is caused by various aversive stimuli. For instance, illness-inducing stimuli like lithium chloride are the gold standard for producing CTA and external (or peripheral) painful stimuli, such as footshock, are the traditional model of TAL. The distinction between CTA and TAL, which have identical effects on intake, is based on differential effects on palatability. That is, CTA involves a decrease in both intake and palatability, whereas TAL suppresses intake without influencing palatability. We evaluated whether lactose, which causes gastrointestinal pain in adult rats, produces CTA or TAL. Using lick pattern analysis to simultaneously measure intake and palatability (i.e., lick cluster size and initial lick rate), we found that pairing saccharin with intragastric infusions of lactose suppressed both the intake and palatability of saccharin. These results support the conclusion that gastrointestinal pain produced by lactose malabsorption produces a CTA, not TAL as had previously been suggested. Furthermore, these findings encourage the view that the CTA mechanism is broadly tuned to defend against the ingestion of foods with aversive post-ingestive effects.