Download THE EFFECTS OF CAFFEINE AND PIRACETAM ON Mus musculus

THE EFFECTS OF CAFFEINE AND PIRACETAM ON Mus musculus IN RELATION TO
MAZE COMPLETION TIMES
Katherine Good, Kassy Nikkhah, & Trung Dihn. Department of Biological Sciences, Saddleback
College, Mission Viejo, Ca 92692. Use title formating
ABSTRACT
Memory formation and learning involve a combination of highly complex physiological systems
and require a delicate balance of homeostasis unique to all organisms. The addition of variables, the
substances caffeine and piracetam, disrupts the organism’s homeostasis therefore potentially
altering the ability to learn and form new memories. Ten house mice, Mus musculus, were tested by
being exposed to a maze and timed. After establishing five days of control trials, two groups were
formed and introduced to either caffeine or piracetam prior to running the maze for another five
days. We hypothesized that there were be a difference in the mean maze completion times between
the control group, and the groups exposed to a substance. The control grou of Mus musculus
exhibited a mean maze completion time of 117.8 sec ± 12.19 sec. The caffeine-enhanced Mus
musculus group had a mean completion time of 63.2 sec ± 9.018 sec, and the piracetam group’s
mean completion time was 30.6 sec ± 8.133 sec. These data reflect a significant difference between
each of the three groups (ANOVA P < 0.05), and supported our initially proposed hypothesis.
INTRODUCTION
Memory formation, learning, and cognitive thinking are three of the most powerfully interrelated processes composing the very foundation of human life. Memories are often thought of as
merely being past events, however, it is memory that allows us to utilize past knowledge and
experience to think, reason, and plan for the future. For the past few decades, a variety of factors
such as the weakening economy, fierce competition for higher education, longer life expectancies,
traumatic brain injuries, and genetic diseases, have all contributed to an amplified interest
throughout the scientific community with respect to memory and learning; emphasizing ways in
which they can be preserved, prolonged, and most importantly, improved. Two psychoactive
substances that are currently of particular interest to researchers are caffeine and piracetam.
Caffeine is a white, crystalline xanthine alkaloid derived from the seeds, leaves, and fruits of
various plants (Iancu et al., 2007). When consumed, caffeine acts as both a metabolic and central
nervous system stimulant; giving it properties that help temporarily reduce fatigue and restore
alertness (Neglih, 2010).
There are three primary mechanisms of action that described the exertion by caffeine on the
central nervous system (Nehlig & Daval, 1992). To begin with, caffeine acts as an antagonist to
adenosine receptors in the brain, thereby reducing overall adenosine transmission. Second, caffeine
stimulates the mobilization of intracellular calcium and inhibition of specific phosphodiesterases,
and third, methylxanthine acts as the antagonist directly at the level of adenosine receptors (Nehlig
& Daval, 1992). Studies have suggested that a significant amount of the stimulating effects of
caffeine may be related to the action of the methylxanthine on serotonin neurons (Hameleers et al.,
2000).
In addition to its desired stimulant properties, side effects of the drug can include sleep
disturbances, dependency, muscle twitches, headaches, heart palpitations, pregnancy complications,
and dehydration as the result of its diuretic properties (Snel & Lorist, 2011).
In North America, 90% of adults consume caffeine on a daily basis (Lovett, 2005). The
sheer availability and growing prevalence of caffeine in a massive variety of popular beverages, and
sports drinks significantly contributes to the immense amount that is consumed everyday. With the
development of over the counter caffeine pills, the unregulated, ubiquitous and easily accessible
nature of caffeine has made it the world’s most widely consumed legal psychoactive drug (Nehlig &
Daval, 1992).
Extensive research has been conducted regarding both the positive and negative effects of
caffeine on memory, learning, and cognition, along with an equally vast amount of published
literature. According to research performed by Nehlig & Daval (1992), caffeine increases energy
metabolism throughout the brain, but at the same time decreases cerebral blood flow, which results
in a relative state of brain hypoperfusion. Caffeine also activates noradrenaline neurons and seems
to affect the local release of dopamine, which may have a minor stimulatory effect, but not likely
enough to stimulate memory and learning.
On the other hand, Angelucci et al., (2002) found that moderate doses of caffeine induce
behavioral stimulant effects that suggest an increase in cognitive stimulation, but higher doses can
suppress behavioral activity and even performances associated with learning and memory.
According to another study performed by Reidel et al., (1995), although caffeine is widely
recognized as simply a mild central nervous system stimulant drug, the most important consequence
of its adenosine antagonism is cholinergic stimulation, which might lead to improvement of higher
cognitive functions; particularly memory.
Growing interest in the unique properties of a less common drug, Piracetam, has recently
generated a great deal of research and intrigue throughout the scientific community. Piracetam is a
cyclic derivative of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), yet despite its
structural similarity, it has no direct effect on GABA receptors or metabolism of the
neurotransmitter in the brain (Winnicka et al., 2005). Physicians will sometimes prescribe Piracetam
for a condition called myoclonus, however, the off-label Piracetam supplement available over the
counter is used for a much more expansive range of applications (Tacconi & Wurtman, 1996).
Piracetam is referred to as a nootropic drug; a group of substances associated with improved mental
functions such as memory, intelligence, concentration, and overall cognitive enhancement
(Winnicka et al., 2005).
Piracetam has a highly unique mechanism of action, which facilitates influences on neuronal
and vascular functions in the brain without operating as a stimulant or sedative (Muller et al., 1999).
Though research regarding the complexities of piracetam behavior within the brain is ongoing,
numerous studies have been conducted examining specific, isolated reactions, as well as the overall
collective mechanism. The research findings thus far provide valuable insight and several pertinent
hypotheses about the effects of piracetam on the brain, memory, and learning.
Whereas caffeine acts as a specific competitive inhibitor for adenosine in the brain, Jordaan
et al., (1996) performed a study utilizing single photon emission computed tomography to reveal
how piracetam acts on ion channels and carriers, which subsequently promotes a non-specific
increase in neuron excitability.
Extensive research over the past few years has demonstrated that piracetam can be
extremely effective in the treatment of cognitive decline in aging and dementia. Its mechanism of
action has been commonly associated with neurochemical deficits, such as acetylcholine, of the
aged brain relevant to cognitive dysfunctions. Because many of these neurochemical deficits rely
heavily on changes of the membrane properties, such as increased fluidity, it is incredibly
significant to note that piracetam is capable of modifying membrane properties by interacting with
the polar heads of the phospholipid bilayer (Muller et al., 1999).
Piracetam has also shown to improve the function of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine
through muscarinic cholinergic receptors involved in cognitive and memory functions (Winnicka et
al., 2005), as well as increase communication between the two hemispheres of the brain, as well as
increase neuron firing and activity of the corpus collusm (Buresová & Bures, 1976).
Despite the number of existing studies regarding the effects of caffeine and piracetam on
memory and learning, cognitive abilities and intelligence are such difficult quantities to measure,
making valid, accurate data collection difficult. One of the motivations behind this study was an
attempt to make a valid effort to assist researchers attempting to bridge this gap of knowledge. This
particular experiment focuses on the hypothesis that house mice, Mus musculus will have different
maze completion times when the are exposed to the control, piracetam, and caffeine.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Ten mice, Mus musculus, were used to test the effects of caffeine and piracetam on the
ability to complete a maze. The ten mice were purchased at Petco animal supply store in Aliso
Viejo, California on Wednesday 26 October 2011. The mice were separated into two groups of five,
and housed in controlled environments of cages lined with pine bedding, food pellets purchased
from Petco, and plain, distilled water. On 23 October 2011, the experimental maze was constructed
using white foam core board purchased from Michael’s Craft Supply Store in Aliso Viejo,
California. The dimensions of the maze measured 20 square inches around the edges, and each of
the wall structures measured 4 inches high to ensure that the mice would take a path through the
maze rather than attempt to climb over the walls. The entrance to the maze had a door-like
mechanism that could swing shut when the mouse was placed inside to block the opening, and a
reward of cheese and peanut butter were placed at the finish to entice the mouse through the maze.
Data collection began on 27 October 2011 at 7:00pm with the first control group of five
mice. Each of the five mice was introduced to the maze, and the average of their completion times
was recorded. At 8:00pm, the second control group was tested, and the average maze completion
time of each of the other five mice was recorded. This control testing of each group of five mice
occurred at the same time everyday and lasted for a total of five days.
On 2 November 2011, the experimental testing began. Caffeine and piracetam supplements
were purchased at Rite Aid Pharmacy in Laguna Niguel, California, and were crushed and
measured in the chemistry laboratory at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California. The
recommended adult dosage for over the counter caffeine pills as well as over the counter piracetam
supplements is a single 200 mg pill. The average adult has a body mass of 68 kg, and the average
body mass for a single mouse is roughly 25 g. By comparing the recommended 200 mg dosage of
caffeine and piracetam for an adult to the average body mass of a mouse, the appropriate amount of
substance that was administered calculated out to 0.06 mg of substance per mouse. A total of 25
doses of 0.06 mg of both the caffeine and piracetam were crushed and measured into separate bags.
A total of 50 sterile medical supply syringes used for oral dosage administration were donated from
the Ronald Regan Emergency Room at the University of California, Los Angeles hospital.
One the first day of experimental testing, the five mice in control group #1 were orally
administered a dosage of 0.06 mg of caffeine dissolved in 1 ml of distilled water along with a small
amount of table sugar. The mice were returned to their cages for thirty minutes to allow substance
absorption, and at 7:30 pm, the mice were again individually introduced to the maze and the
average of their completion times was recorded. At 8:00pm, the same process took place with
control group #2, except piracetam was the administered variable rather than caffeine. At 8:30 pm,
each of the five mice was individually put through the maze and their average completion time was
recorded. During the five days of experimental testing, all environmental conditions remained the
same, with the only change in variable being the introduction of either caffeine or piracetam. On
Sunday 6 November 2011, experimental testing and data collection was completed, and the ten
mice were returned to Petco in Aliso Viejo, California. During the collection period, the data were
entered into the program Microsoft Excel. Using this program, the appropriate statistical analysis
tests were performed. A two-tailed, paired t-test along with an ANOVA test were conducted, and
the p-values were appropriately evaluated to establish results.
RESULTS
The mean maze completion time for the group of mice receiving caffeine-enhanced water
was significantly greater than the mean completion time of the control group of mice (two-tailed,
paired t-test, p = 0.00179) (Figure 1). The mean maze completion time for the group of mice
receiving caffeine-enhanced water was significantly shorter than the control group (two-tailed,
paired t-test, p = 0.00179). The mean maze completion time between the control group, the caffeine
group, and the piracetam group were all significantly different. The mean maze completion time for
the group of caffeine-enhanced mice was significantly greater than the mean maze completion time
for the piracetam-enhanced group of mice. An ANOVA test was conducted with p = 0.00431. A
Post-Hoc test was then conducted to establish a difference between the caffeine and piracetam
groups p = 0.005.
Figure 1. The mean maze completion time for the group of mice receiving caffeine-enhanced water
was significantly shorter than the control group. A two-tailed, paired t-test was conducted with p =
0.00179; error bars are mean ± SEM.
Figure 2. The mean maze completion time for the group of mice receiving piracetam-enhanced
water was significantly shorter than the control group receiving regular, plain distilled water. A
two-tailed, paired t-test was conducted with p = 0.000738; error bars are mean ± SEM.
Figure 3. The mean maze completion time between the control group, the caffeine group, and the
piracetam group were all significantly different. The mean maze completion time for the group of
caffeine-enhanced mice was significantly greater than the mean maze completion time for the
piracetam-enhanced group of mice. An ANOVA test was conducted with p = 0.00431. A Post-Hoc
test was then conducted to establish a difference between the caffeine and piracetam groups p =
0.005.
DISCUSSION
The results gathered from the study not only prominently supported the initially proposed
hypothesis, the data that were collected provided valuable results with the statistical significance to
establish even further specific conclusions regarding the differences between experimental groups.
Similar results to those obtained throughout the study supporting the hypothesis were
obtained in a 2002 study performed by Angelucci et al., on the effects of caffeine on learning and
memory in rats tested in the Morris water maze. This particular research was extremely thorough
and examined the differences between pre-training caffeine administration and post-training
caffeine administration in rats, in correlation to maze completion time. The data obtained by the
researchers provided evidence that caffeine improves memory retention, but not memory
acquisition. These results coincide with those obtained during our study, and also provide a
reasonable explanation for some of the discrepancies and contradictions found in other literature.
In a study performed by Diamond and Brouwers (2005), the researchers conducted a doubleblind placebo-controlled study on the effects of Piracetam on verbal memory in healthy college
students. The subjects were given 3x4 capsules at 400 mg per day for two weeks. Each of the
subjects learned series of words presented as stimuli flashed on a memory card. Although no
significant effects were observed after 7 days, it was found that after a two-week regimen of the
drug, the student’s verbal learning and memory had increased significantly, nearly doubling from
the results of the first 7 days of the trial. These data provide support for the results obtained through
our study.
While the majority of data compiled in preparation for this study serves as support for the
hypothesis, it is always critically important to seek out conflicting research, and in doing so, it
improved overall conceptual understanding of our topic and helped build an appreciation for the
opposing hypothesis. Most importantly, however, including non-supportive data forces to challenge
and confront the research, which helps maintain drive, energy, and motivation to strive for better
and more accurate results.
A study conducted by Moran et al., (2002) at the Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine examined the effects of piracetam on cognitive performance in mice. This particular study
took place over the course of eight weeks, and utilized the Morris water maze and correlation of
maze completion times. The first four weeks of testing involved low dosages of piracetam
administered to the mice, which were then put through the visible platform component of the maze.
During the second four weeks of testing, the amount of piracetam administered to the mice
remained the same, but the maze now consisted of various hidden platform components. These data
obtained do not provide support for the hypothesis that treatment with piracetam will decrease maze
completion time. These conflicting results, however, could very potentially be explained by
differences in experimental procedures. Moran et al., (2002) administered a very low dosage of
piracetam, and allowed the study to progress for a total of eight weeks, and included an extra set of
variables by testing the maze uncovered and then covered, whereas in this study, an appropriate
mass ratio of piracetam was administered to the mice, and the dry maze was tested unchanged for a
total of ten days. These differences in experimental methods could very reasonably account for the
conflicting results.
A promising study for patients suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease was conducted by
Arendash et al., (2009) with the use of treating transgenic mice with moderate levels of caffeine.
The study revealed that Alzheimer's disease transgenic mice given a moderate level of caffeine
intake (the human equivalent of 5 cups of coffee per day) were protected from development of
otherwise certain cognitive impairment, and had decreased hippocampal amyloid-beta levels. At 4-5
weeks into the caffeine treatment, those impaired transgenic mice that were given caffeine exhibited
vastly superior working memory compared to the continuing impairment of control transgenic mice.
Even with pre-existing and substantial amyloid-beta burden, aged mice exhibited memory
restoration and reversal of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, suggesting a treatment potential of
caffeine in cases of established Alzheimer’s disease. These results obtained from Arendash et al.,
(2009) provide support for the initial hypothesis as well as the results obtained during the study.
While this particular study did differ significantly with the use of Alzheimer’s transgenic mice, it
helps to emphasize the significance of continued academic research, and provides a positive,
hopeful reminder that effective scientific and medical advances are possible.
REFERENCES CITED
Angelucci, M., Cesario, C., Hiroi, R.H., Rosalen, P.L., and Cunha, C. (2002). Effects of caffeine
on learning and memory in rats tested in the Morris Water Maze. 35 (10) 1201-1208
Buresová, O. & Bures, J (1976). Piracetam-induced facilitation of interhemispheric transfer of
visual information in rats. Psychopharmacology 46 (1): 93–102
Dimond, S.J., & Brouwers, E.M. (1976). "Increase in the power of human memory in normal
man through the use of drugs". Psychopharmacology 49 (3): 307–9.
Fisone, G, Borgkvist, A., & Usiello, A. (2004) Caffeine as a psychomotor stimulant: mechanisms
of action. General pharmacology 10 (1): 25–110
Grau, M., Montero, J.L., & Balasch, J (1987). "Effect of Piracetam on electrocorticogram and
local cerebral glucose utilization in the rat". General pharmacology 18 (2): 205–11.
Iancu I, Olmer A, Strous RD (2007). Caffeinism: History, clinical features, diagnosis, and
treatment. In Smith BD, Gupta U, Gupta BS. Caffeine and activation theory: effects on
health and behavior. CRC Press. pp. 331–344.
Jordaan, B; Oliver, DW; Dormehl, IC; Hugo, N (1996). Cerebral blood flow effects of piracetam,
pentifylline, and nicotinic acid in the baboon model compared with the known effect of
acetazolamide. Arzneimittel-Forschung 46 (9): 844–7.
Kristina M. Hall et al., "Illicit Use of Prescribed Stimulant Medication Among College
Students," Journal of American College Health, Vol. 53, No. 4 (2005)
Lovett, Richard (24 September 2005). "Coffee: The demon drink?". New Scientist (2518).
Retrieved 2011-09-08.
Mondadori, Cesare, Hengerer, Bastian, Ducret, Thomas, and Borkowski, Juergen. (1994).
Delayed emergence of effects of memory-enhancing drugs: Implications for the dynamics of
long-term memory. (91) 2041-2045
Müller, WE; Eckert, GP; Eckert, A (1999). Piracetam: novelty in a unique mode of action.
Pharmacopsychiatry 32 Suppl 1: 2–9.
Nehlig, A; Daval, JL; Debry, G (1992). Caffeine and the central nervous system: mechanisms of
action, biochemical, metabolic and psychostimulant effects. Brain Research Reviews 17 (2):
139–70.
Nicholson, A. N., and Ward, J. (Eds). Psychotropic drugs and performance. British Journal of
Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 18 (Suppl. 1): 1-139,1984.
Peters, Josef M. (1967). "Factors Affecting Caffeine Toxicity: A Review of the Literature". The
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal of New Drugs (7): 131–141
Reidel, W., Hogervorst, E., Leboux, R., Verhey, F., Praag, H., and Jolles, J. (1995). Caffeine
attenuates scopolamine-induced memory impairment in humans. Psychopharmacology. 122
(2): 158-168.
Snel J, Lorist MM (2011). Effects of caffeine on sleep and cognition. Prog. Brain Res. 190:
105–17.
Winblad, B (2005). "Piracetam: a review of pharmacological properties and clinical uses". CNS
drug reviews 11 (2): 169–82.
Winnicka, K; Tomasiak, M; Bielawska, A (2005). "Piracetam--an old drug with novel
properties?" Biochemical Pharmacology 62 (5): 405–9.
Review Form
Department of Biological Sciences
Saddleback College, Mission Viejo, CA 92692
Author (s):____Good,Nikkah and Dihn_________________________________
Title:_____ THE EFFECTS OF CAFFEINE AND PIRACETAM ON Mus musculus IN
RELATION TO MAZE COMPLETION
TIMES_________________________________________________
Summary
Summarize the paper succinctly and dispassionately. Do not criticize here, just show that you
understood the paper.
The investigators did background research regarding the substances caffeine and piracetam
that showed that these substances can potentially affect learning and memory by various
mechanisms. For example, caffeine can increase alertness by acting as an adenosine antagonist.
They sought to test the hypothesis that after ingesting caffeine and piracetam, Mus musculus would
show different mean maze completion times than that of the control trials. Control trials were
conducted for 5 days prior to dividing the ten mice up into two different groups (the caffeine and
piracetam groups). The investigators conducted this study by creating their own cardboard maze for
the mice to complete. The mice were rewarded with a treat at the end of the maze across the various
conditions. The experimental groups were orally injected with sugar water and .06g either caffeine
or the piracetam. Average completion times were recorded for mice across all conditions and were
compared using a two-tailed paired t-test, along with an ANOVA. The results showed that the mean
maze completion times for the caffeine group were significantly shorter than the control group, and
that the mean maze completion times for the piracetam were also significantly shorter than the
control group. Finally, the mean maze completion times for all three groups compared were all
significantly different as well, with the piracetam having also a significantly shorter completion
time than the caffeine group. Their results confirmed their hypothesis, and in their discussion the
investigators compared their study with previous studies than showed both similar and disparate
results.
General Comments
Generally explain the paper’s strengths and weaknesses and whether they are serious, or important
to our current state of knowledge.
The paper has a lot of good introduction material. It clearly explained exactly why they are
choosing to study the effects of caffeine and piracetam; it also went into great detail about the
various mechanisms of action of these two substances. It also further explained the benefits of these
substances as well as the potential harms. This introduction was a wonderful segway into their
hypothesis that they believed these substances were going to cause a difference in mean completion
time in either direction (higher or lower) because of their potential harmful or beneficial effects.
Another strength of the paper was the discussion section. They cited many studies that related to
their own study, and it is clear that they had done much research. They also pointed how their study
was similar to these previous studies and what exactly they did differently that made theirs different
than the others. They also went on to elaborate possible reasons their results were similar or
different to these other studies, which is very analytically sound. Overall, they wrote a great paper
that only needs a few minor revisions.
Some weaknesses of this paper were the fact that some of the introduction was repetitive in
terms of the information they were giving. If they had been more succinct, the intro would have
been even more effective, since scientific papers are very to the point and not meant to be fluffed up
too much.
Also, in the results section they only give the p values but forgot to write the means and the
standard errors. Be sure to include those in your results section. The overall writing style had many
run on sentences and repetitions. It would be beneficial to make clearer, shorter, more succinct
sentences.
Technical Criticism
Review technical issues, organization and clarity. Provide a table of typographical errors,
grammatical errors, and minor textual problems. It's not the reviewer's job to copy Edit the paper,
mark the manuscript.
This paper was a rough draft
Typographical errors
-Does piracetam need to capitalized or not? Because sometimes it
is and other times it is not; be careful with that.
-Watch out for typos; a couple of times you meant to write “they”
but instead you wrote “the”
-“every day” is two words, not one
Grammatical Errors
-Sometimes you switched tenses throughout the paper, make sure
to write in a consistent tense (past tense)
-A few run on sentences, especially in your intro and discussion.
-data is plural so write the data were collected, not data was
collected
Minor Textual problems -The word “we” was mentioned a couple times throughout the
paper; avoid that.
-Make sure to center your title and headings and put them in bold
-Abstract should also be in bold
-Write exactly how much table sugar was used
-I don’t think you need to write that the data were entered into
Excel, just state the type of test used
-In your graphs, be sure to label how much substance you used (.06
mg)
-Italicize your figure captions
-refer to all of your figures in the results section
-Add an acknowledgements section
Recommendation
 This paper should be published as is
 This paper should be published with revision
 This paper should not be published