Responses to apomorphine of pigs with different coping characteristics

Abstract. Rationale: Classification of pigs based on the degree of resistance they display in a so-called "backtest" seems, to a certain extent, predictive for their coping strategy. Objective: The present study examined whether, as found in rodents, the behavioral response to apomorphine of pigs relates to individual coping characteristics. Methods: During the suckling period pigs were subjected to the backtest. In this test, each pig is restrained on its back for 1 min and the resistance (i.e. number of escape attempts) is scored. Pigs classified as low-resisting (LR, n=10) or high-resisting (HR, n=10) were selected. At 17–18 weeks of age they received a saline and an apomorphine injection (0.2 mg/kg SC) on 2 consecutive days in a balanced design. Behavior was recorded until 120 min after injection. Results: Apomorphine increased locomotion in all pigs and reduced standing, standing alert and defecating. In addition, apomorphine induced the occurrence of some peculiar activities, rarely seen in saline-treated pigs, which seemed to represent either a transition between different postures or a conflict between hind- and forelimb activities. Apomorphine-treated LR pigs performed significantly more of these activities than HR pigs. However, snout contact with the floor, an oral stereotypy, was significantly increased in apomorphine-treated HR pigs, but not in apomorphine-treated LR pigs. Conclusions: In conclusion, the response to apomorphine of pigs relates to their behavioral response, high-resisting (HR) versus low-resisting (LR), in the backtest. The contrasts in behavioral response to apomorphine suggest a difference in the dopaminergic system between HR and LR pigs.

[1]  S. Iversen,et al.  Amphetamine and apomorphine responses in the rat following 6-OHDA lesions of the nucleus accumbens septi and corpus striatum , 1975, Brain Research.

[2]  T. Ljungberg,et al.  Different behavioural patterns induced by apomorphine: evidence that the method of administration determines the behavioural response to the drug. , 1977, European journal of pharmacology.

[3]  P. R. Wiepkema,et al.  Individual behavioral and physiological strategies in pigs , 1994, Physiology & Behavior.

[4]  A. Cools,et al.  Subcutaneous injections of apomorphine, stimulus generalization and conditioning: Serious pitfalls for the examiner using apomorphine as a tool , 1977, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[5]  A. R. Cools,et al.  Evidence that apomorphine and (+)-amphetamine produce different types of circling in rats , 1989, Behavioural Brain Research.

[6]  P. R. Wiepkema,et al.  Coping styles of tethered sows , 1991, Behavioural Processes.

[7]  A. Lawrence,et al.  Individual differences in behavioural responses of pigs exposed to non-social and social challenges , 1991 .

[8]  A. Cools,et al.  Behavioural correlates of a progressive dysfunctioning of the caudate nucleus: Effects of apomorphine , 1988, Behavioural Brain Research.

[9]  J. Fry,et al.  Cerebral dopamine, apomorphine and oral activity in the neonatal pig. , 1981, Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics.

[10]  A. Cools,et al.  Search after neurobiological profile of individual-specific features of wistar rats , 1990, Brain Research Bulletin.

[11]  McKenzie Gm Role of the tuberculum olfactorium in streotyped behaviour induced by apomorphine in the rat. , 1972 .

[12]  K. Antoniou,et al.  A comparative study of the behavioral effects of d-amphetamine and apomorphine in the rat , 1991, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[13]  S. Cabib,et al.  Chronic stress enhances apomorphine-induced stereotyped behavior in mice: Involvement of endogenous opioids , 1984, Brain Research.

[14]  M. Mendl,et al.  Tonic immobility and emergence time in pigs—more evidence for behavioural strategies , 1999 .

[15]  J. Koolhaas,et al.  Behavioural differences between artificially selected aggressive and non-aggressive mice: response to apomorphine , 1991, Behavioural Brain Research.

[16]  M. Mendl,et al.  Physiological and reproductive correlates of behavioural strategies in female domestic pigs , 1992, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  E. Motles,et al.  Comparative study of the behavioral changes evoked by d-amphetamine and apomorphine in adult cats. Dose-response relationship , 1989, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[18]  A. Cools,et al.  Bimodal shape of individual variation in behavior of Wistar rats: the overall outcome of a fundamentally different make-up and reactivity of the brain, the endocrinological and the immunological system. , 1993, Neuropsychobiology.

[19]  P. Teitelbaum,et al.  The morphogenesis of stereotyped behavior induced by the dopamine receptor agonist apomorphine in the laboratory rat , 1985, Neuroscience.

[20]  R. Naylor,et al.  Hyperactivity response to apomorphine and amphetamine in the mouse: the importance of the nucleus accumbens and caudate‐putamen , 1979, The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology.

[21]  Willem G.P. Schouten,et al.  Individual behavioural characteristics in pigs , 1993 .

[22]  A. Cools,et al.  Role of neostriatum and nucleus accumbens in stepping induced by apomorphine and dexamphetamine , 1991, Brain Research Bulletin.

[23]  J. Schrama,et al.  Effect of hemoglobin status on humoral immune response of weanling pigs differing in coping styles. , 1997, Journal of animal science.

[24]  A. Cools,et al.  Apomorphine-Susceptible and Apomorphine-Unsusceptible Wistar Rats: A New Tool in the Search for the Function of the Striatum in Switching Behavioural Strategies , 1994 .

[25]  Andrew W. Illius,et al.  Behavioural responses to amphetamine and apomorphine in pigs , 1992, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[26]  A. Cools,et al.  Nijmegen High and Low Responders to Novelty: A New Tool in the Search After the Neurobiology of Drug Abuse Liability , 1998, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[27]  P. Teitelbaum,et al.  Snout contact fixation, climbing and gnawing during apomorphine stereotypy in rats from two substrains. , 1982, European journal of pharmacology.

[28]  M. Vaiman,et al.  Individual differences in cell-mediated and humoral immunity in pigs. , 1995, Veterinary immunology and immunopathology.