Click here to close Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly. We suggest using a current version of Chrome, FireFox, or Safari.
XB-ART-21332
Physiol Behav 1994 May 01;555:927-33. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(94)90081-7.
Show Gene links Show Anatomy links

Effects of monoamine oxidase inhibitors and dopamine agonists on the behavior of mammal- and frog-eating snakes.

Temple JG , Barthalmus GT .


???displayArticle.abstract???
Skin mucus of the frog, Xenopus laevis, induces climbing and attenuates tongue flicking in Nerodia sipedon; these effects are induced alone and are potentiated by L-deprenyl, a monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor (MAO-Bi), but not by clorgyline, an MAO type A inhibitor (MAO-Ai). Both MAO-A and MAO-B metabolize dopamine, with MAO-B having the higher affinity; MAO-A selectively metabolizes serotonin and norepinephrine and MAO-B is selective for phenylethylamine. It was hypothesized that clorgyline and L-deprenyl would differentially modulate tongue flicking and climbing in frog-eating (Nerodia erythrogaster) and mammaphagous (Elaphe o. obsoleta) snakes, based on physiological differences between the species. L-Deprenyl caused a decrease in tongue flicking and climbing by Elaphe and an increase in climbing by Nerodia, whereas clorgyline did not alter tongue flicking, climbing, or locomotor activity in either species. To further assess the role of dopamine, hybrid black/gray rat snakes, E. o. spiloides, were administered the D1 and D2 dopamine receptor agonists SKF 77434 (SKF 38393, N-allyl) and quinpirole, respectively. SKF 77434 and quinpirole attenuated climbing, but only SKF 77434 attenuated tongue flicking in Experiment 3; neither drug affected locomotor activity. Results suggest that dopaminergic stimulation by MAO-Bi and dopamine agonists modulates tongue flicking and climbing behaviors in snakes, and that the contrasting climbing reactions induced by MAO-Bi between Elaphe and Nerodia may be linked to quantitative differences in endogenous catecholamine levels and/or to the numbers and sensitivity of receptors.

???displayArticle.pubmedLink??? 7912837
???displayArticle.link??? Physiol Behav