ライフサイエンスコーパス: drug discrimination

1 were evaluated for generalization to cocaine drug discrimination after i.p. administration, and twelv

2 urement of stimulated locomotor activity and drug discrimination against cocaine (10 mg/kg, ip) with

3 roduced dose-related effects in food intake, drug-discrimination and neurotoxicity studies.

4 nd in vitro, 6b, was tested in the two-lever drug discrimination assay in rats trained to discriminat

5 For example, 7b substituted for LSD in the drug discrimination assay with an ED50 of 61 nmol/kg and

6 ctive 5-HT(2C)R agonist was established in a drug discrimination assay.

7 tive compounds yet discovered in the in vivo drug discrimination assay.

8 Two-lever drug discrimination assays in rats trained to discrimina

9 Falling into this latter category was drug discrimination behavior, where dual FAAH/MAGL block

10 ne, do not lead to locomotor stimulation and drug discrimination behaviors in animal models.

11 Drug discrimination by prokaryotic and eukaryotic topois

12 and sedative side effects of ketamine in the drug discrimination, conditioned place preference, pre-p

13 The drug discrimination data in both LSD- and DOI-trained ra

14 ayed initially for activity in the two-lever drug discrimination (DD) paradigm in rats trained to dis

15 d along with 1 for activity in the two-lever drug discrimination (DD) paradigm in rats trained to dis

16 Using drug discrimination learning, rats were trained to discr

17 Indeed, through the use of drug discrimination methods, rats show decreased sensiti

18 pound was selected for testing in an in vivo drug discrimination model of hallucinogenesis.

19 ike behavioral activity in the rat two lever drug discrimination model that was slightly more potent

20 ys, engender nicotine-like responding in rat drug discrimination, or alter current amplitude in alpha

21 and evaluated for activity in the two-lever drug discrimination paradigm in rats trained to discrimi

22 like activity was evaluated in the two-lever drug discrimination paradigm using LSD- and DOI-trained

23 en-like activity, evaluated in the two-lever drug discrimination paradigm using LSD-trained rats, was

24 The ED(50) of 6 in the two-lever drug discrimination paradigm using rats trained to discr

25 a, catalepsy, locomotor activity, and in the drug discrimination paradigm.

26 ompared to cocaine in locomotor activity and drug discrimination paradigms in mice.

27 nol (i.g.) in rhesus monkeys (n = 7) using a drug discrimination procedure.

28 from vehicle in a two-lever food-reinforced drug discrimination procedure.

29 or nicotine-like interoceptive effects under drug-discrimination procedures, and neither of the FAAH

30 , and locomotor activity effects in mice and drug discrimination results in cocaine-trained rats of t

31 he new analogue substituted fully for LSD in drug discrimination studies and was 5-fold more potent t

32 Drug discrimination studies employing a training dose of

33 10 mg/kg) does not substitute for cocaine in drug discrimination studies in rats.

34 omotor effects or substituted for cocaine in drug discrimination studies, suggesting that the mu-opio

35 Drug-discrimination studies failed to demonstrate a sign

36 In drug-discrimination studies these selected compounds inc

37 In a drug discrimination study procedure, none of these three

38 a contextual CS in that appetitive Pavlovian drug discrimination task.

39 In vivo drug discrimination techniques and in vitro receptor/tra

40 ere shown to fully substitute for cocaine in drug discrimination tests in rats, and one had a very lo

41 d have potency similar to that of cocaine in drug discrimination tests.

42 eir ability to substitute for cocaine in rat drug discrimination tests.