Exposure to nicotine enhances its subsequent self-administration: Contribution of nicotine-associated contextual stimuli

Abstract

Contextual stimuli present during nicotine exposure can come to act as conditioned stimuli and have been shown to play an important role in ongoing nicotine self-administration. In the present study, we characterized the effects of contextual stimuli previously paired with non-contingent nicotine exposure injections on subsequent nicotine self-administration. Rats were exposed to five injections of either saline or nicotine (0.4 mg/kg, IP) in either their home cage or a self-administration chamber with the levers retracted. Two weeks later, they were allowed to self-administer nicotine (30 μg/kg/infusion, IV) under fixed ratio (FR) schedules of reinforcement across 12 consecutive sessions. Lastly, responding under a progressive ratio (PR) schedule was assessed. Rats exposed to nicotine in the self-administration chamber subsequently increased their intake of nicotine across the FR test days, obtaining more infusions on average by days 7–12 compared to their saline exposed controls. This increase was not due to nicotine exposure alone as rats exposed to nicotine in the home cage did not show this effect. It was also not due to differences in the final ratio achieved between nicotine and saline exposed rats. Although rats exposed to nicotine in the self-administration chambers displayed reduced discrimination between the active and inactive levers during FR testing, they showed increased motivation to self-administer nicotine under the PR schedule. These results indicate that exposure to nicotine can enhance its subsequent self-administration and highlight the contribution of nicotine-associated contextual stimuli to the work output rats ultimately emit to obtain the drug.

Environmental condition alters amphetamine self-administration: role of the MGluR5 receptor and schedule of reinforcement

“…Due to the low response rate of the EC rats and previous literature demonstrating that MTEP was only effective during the first 90 min of the PR session (Gass et al 2009), the PR session was only 60 min long and terminated regardless of lever press activity (Corrigall et al 2001; Garcia et al 2014; Neugebauer et al 2014; Ross et al 2007). Under this PR schedule, the number of responses required to earn each successive amphetamine infusion was determined by ROUND [5 × EXP (0.25 × infusion number) - 5] to produce the following sequence of required lever presses: 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 17, 24, 32, 42, 56, 73, etc.…”

Dopamine ups and downs in vulnerability to addictions: a neurodevelopmental model

“…If, more typically, drug cues are presented in association with the possibility of receiving drug, drug-seeking behaviors are fostered [77,81,101]; if the drug is administered, the expression of dopamine [101] and behavioral sensitization is enabled [102-103]. Conversely, cues explicitly paired with the absence of drug reward can have potent inhibitory effects, actively decreasing dopamine release [104], behavioral activation [97,102-103,105-106] as well as drug-taking and reinstatement [107-108]. …”

How fast and how often: The pharmacokinetics of drug use are decisive in addiction

“…Intermittent i.p. injections of amphetamine, cocaine or nicotine also increase the susceptibility to subsequently initiate voluntary selfadministration of these drugs (Horger et al, 1990, Neugebauer et al, 2014, Piazza et al, 1990, Pierre and Vezina, 1997and Pierre and Vezina, 1998 and increase the work output animals will emit to obtain drug (Mendrek et al, 1998, Neugebauer et al, 2014and Vezina et al, 2002.…”