DA antagonist APDs have been in use for nearly 60 years; however the mechanism by which they alleviate psychosis is still not completely understood. Research in animal models has to date been examined only in normal rats. Nonetheless, it is known that schizophrenia patients respond much differently to APD administration than the control population. In this study, we show that a developmental animal model of schizophrenia that has a clear hyperdopaminergic phenotype (
Lodge and Grace, 2007)demonstrates electrophysiological responses to both first and second generation APDs that are qualitatively different from that observed in normal animals. Indeed, it is the presence of the hyper-responsive DA system, in the form of increased DA neuron population activity, that enables antipsychotic medications to restore baseline DA neuron activity levels, albeit not by restoring the system to a normal condition.
In control rats, acute APD administration leads to compensatory changes in activity, including increased firing rate and burst firing. However, the most robust change is in the number of DA neurons firing. Thus, following acute administration of either first generation (
Bunney and Grace, 1978) or second generation (
Chiodo and Bunney, 1983;
White and Wang, 1983a;
Skarsfeldt, 1992;
Valenti and Grace, 2010) APDs, there is a twofold increase in the number of spontaneously firing DA neurons. However, if the APDs are given repeatedly over a 3+ week period, a different phenomenon ensues -i.e., one of depolarization block. In this state, the DA neurons are not firing due to overdepolarization and inactivation of spike generation (
Grace and Bunney, 1986). This phenomenon has been repeated across a number of laboratories and drugs (
Chiodo and Bunney, 1983;
White and Wang, 1983a;
Grace, 1991;
Skarsfeldt, 1992). This delayed onset of depolarization block was proposed to explain the delayed development of therapeutic actions and Parkinsonian side effects associated with these medications (
Grace et al., 1997).
On the other hand, recent studies have pointed out that, although the Parkinsonian side effects of first generation APDs are delayed in development, the onset of antipsychotic efficacy occurs with a rapid time course. Thus, Kapur and colleagues (
Agid et al., 2003)showed that the onset of antipsychotic action can occur within the first few doses of APD treatment. Although this does not parallel what one observes in normal rats, it is important to note that in the normal rat APDs induce a large increase in DA neuron population activity that can act to offset the effects of receptor blockade (
Bunney and Grace, 1978;
Chiodo and Bunney, 1983;
White and Wang, 1983a). As a result, one would predict that in the normal individual, the effects of APDs administered acutely would be blunted. This contrasts with the condition in the MAM model of schizophrenia, in which DA neuron population activity is already near maximal, with 2x the number of DA neurons firing spontaneously due to a ventral hippocampal overdrive (
Lodge and Grace, 2007). In this condition, the ability to increase DA neuron population activity is blunted, leading to the rapid induction of depolarization block. This is similar in nature to the effects of first generation APDs in rats with partial lesions of the nigrostriatal DA system, in which doses of DA antagonists that do not substantially affect locomotion in control rats produce immediate depolarization block and akinesia in rats in which the DA system has already undergone compensation for the lesion (
Bunney and Grace, 1978;
Hollerman et al., 1992). In both lesion-induced depolarization block in the substantia nigra and APD-induced depolarization block produced acutely in the MAM-treated rat and following 21 days of drug administration in normal rats, the depolarization block is reversed by administering an agent that normally inhibits DA neuron firing - i.e., the direct-acting DA agonist apomorphine (
Hollerman et al., 1992). This has consistently been an accepted method for distinguishing decreases in DA neuron population activity that are due to depolarization block from that resulting from inhibition of firing (e.g., maintained stress;
Moore et al., 2001).
Although the APDs apparently were effective in the MAM-treated rat in inducing excitation-mediated inactivation of DA neuron firing, they did not produce a significant change in the average firing rate of the DA neurons. This was likely due to the effects produced across the population of neurons recorded. Thus, although there was not an average increase in firing rate, sertindole did cause a significant shift in the firing rate distribution in MAM rats (haloperidol showed a trend to cause a similar shift, but did not reach significance). This suggests that the change in firing rate was masked by the change in distribution -i.e., the activation of nonfiring neurons into slow firing balancing out the shift of firing neurons to faster rates. With respect to burst firing, both sertindole and haloperisol shifted the distribution significantly to the right; this increase in neurons showing a high degree of burst firing was likely indicative of neurons that were approaching depolarization block (
Grace et al., 1997).
With continued treatment, additional differences between the saline and MAM rats emerged. Thus, in the MAM rats two weeks of sertindole treatment resulted in a maintained lower level of DA neuron population activity compared to the baseline state; this contrasted with the control rats in which baseline activity was reinstated with treatment. Although haloperidol only decreased population activity below saline with acute administration, it nonetheless did induce depolarization block across all time points. However, at 21 days of APD treatment, all groups of rat demonstrated equivalent levels of population activity corresponding to induction of depolarization block in saline animals and a small accentuation of depolarization block in the MAM-treated rat. Therefore, with continued treatment, depolarization block tended to become more prominent. Such a condition may be consistent with the propensity of APDs to show maximal efficacy with >3 weeks of treatment, without showing tolerance (
Johnstone et al., 1978;
Palmstierna and Wistedt, 1987).
Of course, these studies were performed on either control rats or MAM treated rats with nearly identical prenatal disruption. In contrast, schizophrenia patients show a wide range of premorbid states and responses to APDs. Interestingly, studies have shown that the level of tonic striatal DA D2 occupancy predicts faster responses of psychotic symptoms to APDs (
Abi-Dargham et al., 2000). Furthermore, it is generally accepted that patients with the most prominent psychotic signs typically show the best response to antipsychotic medication (
Murray and Dean, 2008). By analogy to the MAM-treated rat, this would be consistent with a condition in which the patients showing the greatest DA neuron population activity would also be more susceptible to the rapid induction of depolarization block. Indeed, Kapur has shown that the response of the patient to initial APD treatment best predicts their eventual therapeutic efficacy (
Kinon et al., 2010), which would again be consistent with a DA system that is most readily overdriven by the APD.
Of course much of this argument depends on the validity of the MAM model. The model has shown substantial face and construct validity with respect to behavior, pharmacology, and neuroanatomical changes (
Moore et al., 2006). Furthermore, the model does demonstrate consistency with respect to the behavioral hyper-responsivity to amphetamine (
Moore et al., 2006;
Lodge and Grace, 2007), which appears to be a good correlate of DA neuron population activity across models (
Lodge and Grace, 2007;
Cifelli et al., 2009;
Valenti et al., 2011). Therefore, although DA neuron population activity cannot be evaluated in human schizophrenia patients, the correspondence to increased response to amphetamine in imaging studies (
Laruelle et al., 1996;
Abi-Dargham et al., 2000) and with respect to exacerbation of psychosis (
Janowsky et al., 1973;
Laruelle et al., 1999) lends credence to this association.
In summary, the rapid induction of depolarization block by therapeutically effective APDs is consistent with the dopaminergic nature of psychosis, the rapid response of schizophrenia patients to antipsychotic medication, and the lack of substantial development of tolerance. Physiologically, this appears to be produced by reversing what we propose to underlie psychosis - i.e., a pathologically high number of DA neurons firing. Thus, the primary effect of induction of partial depolarization block is to restore the basal condition of DA neuron population activity. However, this is not to say that the DA system is restored to normal, since partial depolarization block is not likely to be the “normal” state of the DA system. Instead, it is inducing an offsetting pathological condition; one in which DA neuron population activity is attenuated, but also where increases in population activity cannot be produced when environmental conditions warrant. A much more effective approach would be to attack the disorder at the site of pathology, which we and others have proposed may be the limbic hippocampal region (
Heckers et al., 1998;
Malaspina et al., 1999;
Medoff et al., 2001;
Lodge and Grace, 2008;
Grace, 2010;
Tamminga et al., 2010). If a therapeutic approach that reverses the disrupted systems that are responsible for overdriving DA neuron population activity is developed, it is highly likely that this will be reflected in a more positive patient outcome. Nonetheless, this study provides direct evidence that the current generations of APDs, via overdrive of DA neurons, can restore somewhat normal responses. However, by doing so, the ability of the DA system to respond to normal activating stimuli by increasing DA neuron population activity is also blunted.