Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Monoamine oxidase inhibition cannot account for changes in visual evoked potentials produced by chlordimeform

Publication Date
DOI: 10.1016/0028-3908(85)90036-x
  • Chlordimeform
  • Formamidine Pesticide
  • Pattern Reversal Evoked Potentials
  • Flash Evoked Potentials
  • Visual Evoked Potentials
  • Monoamine Oxidase Inhibition
  • Pargyline
  • Rats
  • Biology


Abstract 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 chlordimeformtreated 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.

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.