4.5 Article

Sex and ovarian hormones influence vulnerability and motivation for nicotine during adolescence in rats

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 43-50

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2009.07.004

关键词

Adolescence; Estradiol; Estrous cycle; Motivation; Nicotine; Progesterone; Progressive-ratio; Self-administration; Sex differences; Testosterone

资金

  1. Virginia Youth Tobacco Project Small Grants Program
  2. University of Virginia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose Of this Study was to examine sex differences in sensitivity to nicotine's reinforcing effects during adolescence, a hormone transition phase characterized by rapid and marked changes in levels of gonadal hormones. Male and female rats were trained to self-administer nicotine (5 or 10 mu g/kg/infusion) under a fixed-ratio 1 schedule beginning on postnatal day 30. Following acquisition, responding was assessed under a progressive-ratio schedule until postnatal day 45 with blood sampling occurring prior to the first 5 sessions in order to determine the relationship between gonadal hormones (i.e., estradiol and progesterone in females and testosterone in males) and responding for nicotine. Under low dose conditions, a greater percentage of females than males acquired nicotine self-administration. Under progressive-ratio testing conditions, although adolescent females and males initially responded at similar levels, by the end of the adolescent testing period, females responded at higher levels than males to obtain nicotine infusions. Levels of responding under the progressive-ratio schedule were negatively associated with progesterone and positively associated with the ratio of estradiol to progesterone. These findings demonstrate an enhanced sensitivity in adolescent females as compared to adolescent males to nicotine's reinforcing effects with evidence implicating circulating hormone levels as modulating this sensitivity. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据