4.6 Review

Modeling cocaine relapse in rodents: Behavioral considerations and circuit mechanisms

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2018.01.002

关键词

Neural circuits; Reinstatement; Self-administration; Ventral pallidum; Voluntary abstinence

资金

  1. UCI Ayala School of Biological Sciences
  2. UCI Department of Neurobiology and Behavior
  3. UCI Office of Research
  4. Irvine Center for Addiction Neuroscience, Office of Research Seed Grant
  5. [R00 DA035251]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Addiction is a chronic relapsing disorder, in that most addicted individuals who choose to quit taking drugs fail to maintain abstinence in the long-term. Relapse is especially likely when recovering addicts encounter risk factors like small priming doses of drug, stress, or drug-associated cues and locations. In rodents, these same factors reinstate cocaine seeking after a period of abstinence, and extensive preclinical work has used priming, stress, or cue reinstatement models to uncover brain circuits underlying cocaine reinstatement. Here, we review common rat models of cocaine relapse, and discuss how specific features of each model influence the neural circuits recruited during reinstated drug seeking. To illustrate this point, we highlight the surprisingly specific roles played by ventral pallidum subcircuits in cocaine seeking reinstated by either cocaine-associated cues, or cocaine itself. One goal of such studies is to identify, and eventually to reverse the specific circuit activity that underlies the inability of some humans to control their drug use. Based on preclinical findings, we posit that circuit activity in humans also differs based on the triggers that precipitate craving and relapse, and that associated neural responses could help predict the triggers most likely to elicit relapse in a given person. If so, examining circuit activity could facilitate diagnosis of subgroups of addicted people, allowing individualized treatment based on the most problematic risk factors.

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

4.6
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