4.4 Article

Dose preference and dose escalation in extended-access cocaine self-administration in Fischer and Lewis rats

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 211, 期 3, 页码 313-323

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-010-1899-3

关键词

Cocaine; Self-administration; Escalation; Fischer; Lewis; HPA

资金

  1. NIH-NIDA [P60-DA05130]
  2. Arcadia Charitable Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drug addiction is a disease with a genetic component that may be involved in different stages of its progression. Cocaine users escalate unit doses and frequency of self-administration events in naturalistic settings. Rats that self-administer drugs of abuse over extended sessions increase the number of infusions over days. Comparison of two genetically different inbred rat strains, Fischer and Lewis, in a new self-administration paradigm whereby rats select between different unit doses of cocaine, thus potentially escalating the unit dose and the number of infusions. Extended (18 h/day) self-administration sessions lasted for 14 days. Rats had access to two active levers associated with two different unit doses of cocaine. If a rat showed preference for the higher unit dose, then the available doses were escalated in the following session. Four cocaine unit doses were available (0.2, 0.5, 1.25, and 2.5 mg/kg/infusion). Lewis rats showed a clear preference for the two higher doses of cocaine (70% of rats), with a high percentage (35%) of the individuals escalating to the highest unit dose, and escalated the total amount of cocaine taken over days. Fischer rats, however, preferred the two lower doses (63%) and did not escalate the amount of cocaine taken over days. Fischer, but not Lewis, rats showed an activated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in acute withdrawal (24 h). This work shows the power of a model of extended-access self-administration that allows for the subject-controlled dose-escalation of the unit dose of cocaine, and underlines the genetic differences that modulate cocaine intake.

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

4.4
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