4.5 Article

Comparison of the behavioral effects of cigarette smoke and pure nicotine in rats

期刊

PHARMACOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY AND BEHAVIOR
卷 96, 期 2, 页码 217-227

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2010.05.008

关键词

Cigarette smoke; Nicotine; Pharmacokinetics; Locomotor sensitization; Intracranial self-stimulation; Withdrawal; Rat

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [DA10714, T32 DA 07097, F32 DA021935]
  2. University of Minnesota Cancer Center
  3. University of Minnesota Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center
  4. Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Animal models of tobacco dependence typically rely on parenteral administration of pure nicotine. Models using cigarette smoke inhalation might more accurately simulate nicotine exposure in smokers. The primary goal of this study was to validate methods for administering cigarette smoke to rats using exposure conditions that were clinically relevant and also produced brain nicotine levels similar to those produced by behaviorally active doses of pure nicotine. A secondary goal was to begin examining the behavioral effects of smoke. Nose-only exposure (NOE) to smoke for 10-45 min or whole-body exposure (WBE) to smoke for 14 h produced serum nicotine concentrations similar to those in smokers (14-55 ng/ml), without excessive carbon monoxide exposure. Daily nicotine (0.1 mg/kg, s.c.) induced locomotor sensitization whereas 45-min NOE producing brain nicotine levels within the same range did not. Nicotine 0.125 mg/kg s.c. reversed withdrawal from a chronic nicotine infusion as measured by elevations in intracranial self-stimulation thresholds whereas 4-h WBE producing similar brain nicotine levels did not. These data demonstrate the feasibility of delivering cigarette smoke to rats at clinically relevant doses, and provide preliminary evidence that the behavioral effects of nicotine delivered in smoke may differ from those of pure nicotine. (C) 2010 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