Effects of isolation, handling and novelty on the pituitary-adrenal response in the mouse

Misslin, René; Herzog, Francine; Koch, Bernard; Ropartz, P

doi:10.1016/0306-4530(82)90015-4

Cited by 115 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, the tests for inescapable and freechoice novelty are not related to one another, and thus, they measure different aspects of response to novelty. While HR rats have a longer duration of corticosterone secretion after exposure to a novel environment (Piazza et al, 1991a), the novelty place preference test does not elevate levels of corticosterone (Misslin et al, 1982). This suggests that the ability of ACe inactivation to decrease responding for amphetamine in HR rats is due to a role of the ACe in activating the HPA axis (Beaulieu et al, 1986).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, rats classified as high-or low-novelty seekers based on a median split of novelty place preference scores do not differ in amphetamine self-administration (Klebaur et al, 2001;Cain et al, 2004); however, see Cain et al (2005). Further, in contrast to activity in inescapable novelty, free-choice novelty does not result in corticosterone release (Misslin et al, 1982), suggesting that the specific ability of activity in inescapable novelty to predict amphetamine self-administration may depend on individual differences in glucocorticoid release by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis (HPA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Differences in Amphetamine Self-Administration: The Role of the Central Nucleus of the Amygdala

Cain

Denehy

Bardo

2007

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats categorized as high responder (HR), based on their activity in an inescapable novel environment, self-administer more amphetamine than low responder (LR) rats. The current study examined if the central nucleus of the amygdala (ACe) contributes to the elevated response for amphetamine in HR rats. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were classified as HR and LR rats based on their activity in inescapable novelty and novelty place preference, and then were trained to self-administer amphetamine (0.1 mg/kg/infusion). Once stable responding was achieved, rats received microinfusions of the GABA A agonist muscimol (0.5 mg/0.5 ml) or phosphate-buffered saline into the ACe immediately before self-administration of amphetamine (0.1, 0.03, 0.01, or 0.001 mg/kg/infusion) or saline. An additional group of rats was trained to lever press for sucrose rather than amphetamine. Based on the inescapable novelty test, HR rats self-administered more amphetamine than LR rats at the 0.03 and 0.01 mg/kg/infusion unit doses; there were no significant individual differences in amphetamine self-administration based on the novelty place preference test. Inactivation of the ACe with muscimol decreased selfadministration at the 0.03 and 0.01 mg/kg/infusion unit doses in HR rats, but had no effect on LR rats. ACe inactivation had no reliable effect on inactive lever responding and appeared to be region specific based on anatomical controls. In addition, while inactivation of the ACe decreased responding for sucrose, inactivation did not differentially affect HR and LR rats. These results suggest that the ACe contributes to the elevated rate of amphetamine self-administration in HR rats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Individual Differences in Amphetamine Self-Administration: The Role of the Central Nucleus of the Amygdala

Cain

Denehy

Bardo

2007

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In each of these studies, rehousing ethanolexperienced rats in a social setting produced an increase in ethanol consumption; whereas the former studies were performed in ethanolnaive animals. From previous rodent research, we know that changes to housing conditions are stressful for rodents (Misslin, Herzog, Koch, & Ropartz, 1982;Tuli, Smith, & Morton, 1995), rodents in an isolated housing environment are more sensitive to stress than those in a social environment (Giralt & Armario, 1989), stress alters ethanol consumption (Cozzoli, Tanchuck-Nipper, Kaufman, Horowitz, & Finn, 2014;Meyer, Long, Fanselow, & Spigelman, 2013), ethanol experience alters ethanol reward value (Shimizu et al, 2015;McCusker & Bell, 1988), and ethanol consumption reduces the ability to cope with stress (Zhao, Weiss, & Zorrilla, 2007). Taken together, one could argue that for ethanol-naïve rats, the provision of social interactions provides greater rewarding benefits/stress relief than the biological effects obtained from ethanol consumption.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and environmental enrichment has different effects on ethanol and sucrose consumption in mice

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Forced exposure to novelty is generally stressful to rodents (Hennessy et al 1979;Misslin et al 1982), whereas, under free-choice conditions, periadolescent rodents are known to be characterized by a marked preference for novelty (Adriani et al 1998;Laviola et al 1999;Spear 2000). Hence, it is possible to hypothesize that an age-related discontinuity in the response to the novel taste of nicotine emerged.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peculiar Vulnerability to Nicotine Oral Self-administration in Mice during Early Adolescence

Adriani

Macrı̀

Pacifici

et al. 2002

Neuropsychopharmacology

194

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(10 mg/l). After a 6-day period, a fading study was carried out, in which nicotine concentration was reduced to 7 mg/l (days 7-9) and 5 mg/l (days 10-12), to assess whether animals would compensate by increasing their intake from the nicotine solution. In Experiment 2, psychopharmacological effects on locomotion induced by the nicotine solution (0, 10, 30 mg/l) Recent research has emphasized that adolescence is associated with patterns of temporary deviance (Arnett 1992) and the use of various kinds of psychoactive agents (Mathias 1996). Drug abuse in adolescents ranging from 11-12 to 17-18 years of age is likely to start with tobacco smoking, which can be followed by marijuana and/or 1991;Breslau et al. 1993;Nides et al. 1995;Kandel and Chen 2000). Despite the social and scientific importance of deepening our knowledge of this issue (see e.g. Colby et al. 2000), there have been very few investigations on the psychobiological factors contributing to the specific adolescence-related willingness to experience various psychoactive drugs (for a review, see Laviola et al. 1999;Spear 2000). For the purpose of laboratory studies, a suitable animal model of human adolescence is available in rodents. Namely, periadolescence is classically defined as the ontogenetic period that encompasses the week preceding the onset of puberty and the first few days thereafter (Spear and Brake 1983). Periadolescent rodents differ markedly from adults in their spontaneous behavioral repertoire (Cirulli et al. 1996;Terranova et al. 1993;Meaney and Stewart 1981;Panksepp 1981). In fact, elevated levels of novelty seeking and a reduced behavioral and hormonal response to stress (Adriani et al. 1998;Adriani and Laviola 2000) are exhibited by animals around this age. A characteristic hyporesponsivity to the effects of an acute administration of psychostimulants (Spear and Brake 1983;Laviola et al. 1995;Bolanos et al. 1998;Adriani and Laviola 2000), a peculiar pattern of behavioral sensitization following repeated drug exposure (Laviola et al. 1995(Laviola et al. , 2001Adriani et al. 1998), as well as a weak drug-induced place conditioning profile (Adriani et al. 1998;Bolanos et al. 1996Bolanos et al. , 1998 but see Campbell and Spear 2000), are also reported. Based on these findings, an increased vulnerability to the addictive properties of abused drugs has been suggested to be typical of adolescence in both humans and animals models (see Laviola et al. 1999).In the present study, we were interested in nicotine, which beside being the main psychoactive compound implied in tobacco smoking, also shares most of the characteristics of other addictive drugs (Corrigall et al. 1992(Corrigall et al. ,1994Pontieri et al. 1996;Merlo-Pich et al. 1997;Stolerman 1999). Nicotine's effects in mice have been shown to be highly dependent on the genetic background (see Marks et al. 1989;Robinson et al. 1996). However, the interaction between the pharmacological effects and the incentive properties of nicotine during the adolescent period has been largel...

show abstract

Effects of isolation, handling and novelty on the pituitary-adrenal response in the mouse

Cited by 115 publications

References 15 publications

Individual Differences in Amphetamine Self-Administration: The Role of the Central Nucleus of the Amygdala

Individual Differences in Amphetamine Self-Administration: The Role of the Central Nucleus of the Amygdala

Social and environmental enrichment has different effects on ethanol and sucrose consumption in mice

Peculiar Vulnerability to Nicotine Oral Self-administration in Mice during Early Adolescence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About