4.5 Article

Rat strain differences in nicotine self-administration using an unlimited access paradigm

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 930, 期 1-2, 页码 12-20

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(01)03375-3

关键词

nicotine; self-administration; fixed ratio; Lewis; Holtzman; Fisher 344; dependence

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA 03977] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An effective animal model for elucidating the neurobiological basis of human smoking should simulate important aspects of this behavior. Therefore, a 23 h unlimited access nicotine self-administration model was used to compare inbred Lewis rats, which have a propensity to self-administer drugs of abuse, to inbred Fisher 344 rats and to the outbred Holtzman strain. Using this unlimited access model, 88.8% of Lewis vs. 57.1% of Holtzman rats achieved maintenance self-administration at a fixed ratio 1 (FR 1) at 0.03 mg/kg IV nicotine (P<0.05). In contrast, Fisher rats did not acquire self-ad ministration under these conditions. Of the Lewis and Holtzman rats that achieved maintenance self-administration on an FR 1 schedule, a greater percentage of Lewis rats acquired nicotine self-administration at FR 2 (P<0.05) and progressed to FR 4 (P<0.05). Using naive cohorts in a progressive dose reduction study, 83.3% of Lewis rats achieved maintenance at 0.0075 mg/kg nicotine as compared to 31.8% of Holtzman rats (P<0.05). Furthermore, only Lewis rats showed differences in active vs. inactive bar presses during maintenance at sequential dose reductions (P<0.001). Thus, in this unlimited access model, inbred Lewis rats will more reliably acquire nicotine self-administration than outbred Holtzman rats. Moreover, Lewis rats showed a significantly higher likelihood of continuing to self-administer nicotine in face of both increasing work requirements and decreasing drug reinforcement. Therefore, it is likely that Lewis rats would be genetically susceptible to nicotine addiction. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. 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