4.4 Article

The effect of previous exposure to nicotine on nicotine place preference

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 226, 期 3, 页码 551-560

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-012-2928-1

关键词

Nicotine; Conditioned-place preference; Low and high locomotor activity responders

资金

  1. FONCyT, Argentina
  2. CONICET, Argentina
  3. [MCI P10/063F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prior exposure to drugs of abuse may increase or decrease the reinforcing effects of the drug in later consumptions. Based on the initial locomotor activity (LA) response to an acute drug administration or to novelty in an open-field arena, animals can be classified as low or high LA responders (LR or HR). Few studies have used this classification with nicotine, and the results are controversial. Some authors suggested that nicotine can induce conditioned-place preference (CPP) following prior nicotine exposure, whereas others suggested that previous nicotine exposure extinguishes nicotine-CPP. To explore if the administration of nicotine in a novel environment without explicit behavioral consequences to classify animals in low and high nicotine responders (LNR and HNR) could affect the establishment of nicotine CPP in male Sprague-Dawley rats. Prior exposure to a single dose of nicotine (0.4 mg/kg, subcutaneously) induced CPP in LNR rats after 14 days of conditioning (seven-trial) but not after two or eight conditioning days. In contrast, HNR rats did not show CPP under any condition. In addition, our results indicated that previous exposure to nicotine decreased its rewarding effects in eight conditioning days CPP (four-trial), which can be regularly established without prior exposure to nicotine. The results suggested that response to a single exposure to nicotine predicts the acquisition of nicotine preference in a 14-day conditioning protocol only for LNR rats. Thus, our findings demonstrated the relevance of using LNR and HNR classification when the individual susceptibility to nicotine preference is studied.

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