Posted by zeugma on July 22, 2008, at 12:20:16
In reply to Re: Provigil- an unequivocal study revealing mechanism » zeugma, posted by seldomseen on July 21, 2008, at 19:08:29
> I'm wary of meeting abstracts as they typically haven't gone through the same peer review as a manuscript has.
> SeldomI hope they fix the mistake as to the species used in the Madras et al. study- Macaca mulatta (rhesus monkeys), not baboons.
The reason I find this abstract credible is because it is consistent with well-validated models of animal wakefulness- i.e., DAT inhibition is one mechanism identified as causing increased levels of waking except in DAT-null mice. Also, the numbers seem right- if c.50% occupation of DAT is necessary for strongly wakefulness promoting effects, and 8 mg/kg is the standard dose used iv to increase wakefulness in rhesus monkeys(DAT occupation in Madras' study was 56%), then that correlates well with the results of this study, using the standard dose used against narcolepsy in humans.
Also, in Wisor's 2001 study, modafinil and d-amphetamine increased DA levels to equal amounts in the caudate of narcoleptic dogs.
But the peer-reviewed manuscript will provide stronger empirical evidence.dbc, I have taken both MPD and modafinil and the two drugs are totally unlike subjectively.MPD I have always thought worked more on recognition memory than modafinil- and has a more pro-emotional effect, leading me to think it worked on mesolimbic circuitry. Modafinil has a more detached feeling and does not help with detail perception or recognition memory. Modafinil helps with spatial awareness, which I always thought was a mesocortical effect.
M, you're welcome! And thanks for all replies.
poster:zeugma
thread:841206
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080718/msgs/841422.html