Metabotropic glutamate receptors as therapeutic targets for cognitive disorders.

Since more than one decade, metabotropic glutamate receptors have been under investigation as targets for various CNS disorders such as anxiety, pain, depression, schizpohrenia, Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. It has been shown that some mGluRs play a crucial role in cognitive processes such as learning and memory, which was initially, demonstrated using knockout mice for each receptor subtype. Later, selective pharmacological tools were developed allowing more specific examinations of the involvement of mGluR1-8 in various forms of learning and memory. Ligands for group I and II mGluRs have been proposed as promising candidates for the treatment of cognitive disorders such as schizophrenia, Fragile X syndrome, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and post traumatic stress disorder, of which some have made it to clinical testing. The present paper reviews relevant data on the role of mGluRs in learning and cognition processes focusing on their utility as targets for cognition enhancement in several CNS diseases.

The role of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors in schizophrenia.

It has been proposed that glutamatergic transmission, in particular NMDA receptor function, might be altered in schizophrenia. This hypothesis is mainly based on the observation that uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists, e.g. phencyclidine, evoke psychotic symptoms in healthy subjects, whereas agonists interacting at the glycine site of the NMDA receptor complex, e.g. glycine or D-serine, administered jointly with typical neuroleptics, can alleviate schizophrenic symptoms. The function of NMDA receptors may be modulated by group I mGluRs (mGluR1 and mGluR5), which have also been shown to be altered in schizophrenia. In rodents, mGluR5 antagonists, but not mGluR1 ones, potentiate the locomotor activity and the deficit of prepulse inhibition (PPI) induced by uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists. These antagonists (of either type) administered alone are not active in the above tests. Hence, antagonists of mGluR1 and mGluR5 may evoke different effects on the NMDA receptor antagonists-induced behavior and, possibly, on schizophrenic symptoms.

The role of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors in acquisition and expression of contextual and auditory fear conditioning in rats - a comparison.

Glutamatergic neurotransmission in the CNS plays a predominant role in learning and memory. While NMDA receptors have been extensively studied, less is known about the involvement of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors in this area. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the contribution of mGluR1 and mGluR5 to both acquisition and expression of behaviours in contextual and auditory fear conditioning models. The effects of both receptor types were tested using selective antagonists: (3-ethyl-2-methyl-quinolin-6-yl)-(4-methoxy-cyclohexyl)-methanone methanesulfonate (EMQMCM) for mGluR1, and [(2-methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl]pyridine (MTEP) for mGluR5. Their effects on acquisition were compared to those of the NMDA receptor antagonist (+)MK-801, and the unselective muscarinic antagonist scopolamine, while diazepam and citalopram served as reference compounds in the expression experiments. EMQMCM (1.25 to 5mg/kg) impaired acquisition of contextual fear conditioning (CFC), but not auditory fear conditioning (AFC). Similarly, administration of MTEP during the acquisition phase impaired learning in CFC at doses of 2.5 to 10mg/kg, but was ineffective in AFC. When given before the retention test, both EMQMCM (1 and 3mg/kg) and MTEP (3mg/kg) impaired expression of CFC. In contrast, MTEP (2.5 and 5mg/kg) blocked the expression of AFC, while EMQMCM was ineffective. In conclusion, group I mGlu receptors are shown to be involved in the acquisition of hippocampus-dependent CFC, but not hippocampus-independent AFC. Unlike mGluR5, mGluR1 does not seem be involved in expression of AFC.

Functional interaction of NMDA and group I metabotropic glutamate receptors in negatively reinforced learning in rats.

RATIONALE: The role of glutamatergic system in learning and memory has been extensively studied, and especially N-methyl-D: -aspartate (NMDA) receptors have been implicated in different learning and memory processes. Less is known, however, about group I metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) receptors in this field. Recent studies indicated that the coactivation of both NMDA and group I mGlu receptors is required for the induction of long-term potentiation (LTP) and learning. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate if there is a functional interaction between NMDA and group I mGlu receptors in two different models of aversive learning. METHODS: Effects of NMDA, mGlu1, and mGlu5 receptor antagonists on acquisition were tested after systemic coadministration of selected ineffective doses in passive avoidance (PA) and fear-potentiated startle (FPS). RESULTS: Interaction in aversive learning was investigated using selective antagonists: (3-ethyl-2-methyl-quinolin-6-yl)-(4-methoxy-cyclohexyl)-methanone methanesulfonate (EMQMCM) for mGlu1, [(2-methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl]pyridine (MTEP) for mGlu5, and (+)-5-methyl-10,11-dihydro-5H-dibenzocyclohepten-5,10-imine maleate [(+)MK-801] for NMDA receptors. In PA, the coapplication of MTEP at a dose of 5 mg/kg and (+)MK-801 at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg 30 min before training impaired the acquisition tested 24 h later. Similarly, EMQMCM (2.5 mg/kg) plus (+)MK-801 (0.1 mg/kg), given during the acquisition phase, blocked the acquisition of the PA response. In contrast, neither the combination of MTEP (1.25 mg/kg) nor EMQMCM (5 mg/kg) plus (+)MK-801 (0.05 mg/kg) was effective on the acquisition assessed in the FPS paradigm. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest differences in the interaction of the NMDA and mGlu group I receptor types in aversive instrumental conditioning vs conditioning to a discrete light cue.

mGluR5, but not mGluR1, antagonist modifies MK-801-induced locomotor activity and deficit of prepulse inhibition.

Hypoglutamatergic theory of schizophrenia is substantiated by observation that high affinity uncompetitive antagonists of NMDA receptors such as PCP can induce psychotic symptoms in humans. Recently, metabotropic glutamate receptors of the mGluR5 type have also been discussed as possible players in this disease. However, less is known about the potential contribution of mGluR1 in schizophrenia. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the effect of selective mGluR1 antagonist EMQMCM, (3-ethyl-2-methyl-quinolin-6-yl)-(4-methoxy-cyclohexyl)-methanone methanesulfonate) and mGluR5 antagonist (MTEP ([(2-methyl-1, 3-thiazol-4-yl) ethynyl] pyridine) either alone or in combination with (+)MK-801 in a prepulse inhibition (PPI) model and locomotor activity tests. Additionally, the effect of both mGluR1 and mGluR5 antagonists on (+)MK-801-evoked ataxia was tested. In contrast to (+)MK-801, which induced disruption of PPI, neither MTEP (1.25-5 mg/kg) nor EMQMCM (0.5-4 mg/kg) altered the PPI. However, MTEP, but not EMQMCM, enhanced disruption of PPI induced by (+)MK-801. Although neither mGluR1 nor mGluR5 antagonists given alone changed locomotor activity of rats, MTEP at 5 mg/kg potentiated the effect of (+)MK-801 while EMQMCM (up to 4 mg/kg) turned out to be ineffective. On the other hand, EMQMCM, but not MTEP, enhanced ataxia evoked by MK-801. The present results demonstrate that blockade of mGluR1 and mGluR5 evokes different effects on behavior induced by NMDA receptor antagonists.

Effects of mGlu1 and mGlu5 receptor antagonists on negatively reinforced learning.

Effects on aversive learning of the novel highly selective mGlu5 receptor antagonist [(2-methyl-1,3-thiazol-4-yl)ethynyl]pyridine (MTEP) and mGlu1 receptor antagonist (3-ethyl-2-methyl-quinolin-6-yl)-(4-methoxy-cyclohexyl)-methanone methanesulfonate (EMQMCM) were tested, after systemic administration, in the passive avoidance (PA) and fear potentiated startle (FPS) paradigms. Both MTEP at 10 mg/kg and EMQMCM at 5 and 10 mg/kg, given 30 min before training, impaired acquisition of the passive avoidance response (PAR). Co-administration of MTEP and EMQMCM at doses ineffective when administered alone, produced anterograde amnesia when given 30 min before the acquisition phase. Neither EMQMCM (5 mg/kg) nor MTEP (10 mg/kg) impaired retention of the PAR after direct post-training injections. EMQMCM (5 mg/kg), but not MTEP (10 mg/kg) blocked the PAR when given 30 min before testing. Pre-training administration of MTEP at doses of 2.5 and 5 mg/kg inhibited fear conditioning in the FPS when tested 24 h later. In contrast, EMQMCM was ineffective. Our findings suggest diverse involvement of mGlu1 and mGlu5 receptors in negatively reinforced learning.