The suppressive effects of sucrose and cocaine, but not lithium chloride, are greater in Lewis than in Fischer rats: Evidence for the reward comparison hypothesis.

Grigson, Patricia S.; Freet, Christopher S.

doi:10.1037/0735-7044.114.2.353

Cited by 69 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 69 publications

(121 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this interpretation, the sucrose becomes a conditioned stimulus predicting the forthcoming presentation of the more rewarding amphetamine. This effect, called the anticipatory contrast effect, is observed when saccharin is paired with drugs of abuse or when a weaker saccharin solution is paired with a subsequent stronger solution (Grigson and Freet 2000;Schroy et al 2005). Additional support comes from the observation that ibotenic acid lesions of the gustatory thalamus disrupt the avoidance of the saccharin produced by injection of drugs of abuse, but not by injection of lithium chloride (Grigson and Freet 2000;Schroy et al 2005;Reilly et al 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…It is possible that adult and old F-344 rats respond differently to sucrose than do Wistar rats. While strain differences have been reported in the acquisition of a CTA, these studies have used young rats and the differences that are observed are on the effects of specific stimuli and manipulations on CTA learning (Grigson and Freet 2000;Foynes and Riley 2004;Kosten et al 1994;Lancellotti et al 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The acquisition of a CTA can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the nature of the unconditioned stimulus (Glowa et al 1994;Grigson and Freet 2000), the strain (Glowa et al 1994;Grigson and Freet 2000;Foynes and Riley 2004;Kosten et al 1994;Lancellotti et al 2001), and the age Misanin et al 2002a;Valliere et al 1988) of the rat. Previous research, using lithium chloride (LiCl) to produce a CTA in rats, has shown that there are a series of age-related changes in CTA learning Misanin et al 2002a, b;Valliere et al 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Amphetamine-induced taste aversion learning in young and old F-344 rats following exposure to 56Fe particles

Carrihill-Knoll

Rabin

Shukitt‐Hale

et al. 2007

AGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to 56 Fe particles produces changes in dopaminergic function and in dopaminedependent behaviors, including amphetamine-induced conditioned taste aversion (CTA) learning. Because many of these changes are characteristic of the changes that accompany the aging process, the present study was designed to determine whether or not there would be an interaction between age and exposure to 56 Fe particles in the disruption of an amphetamine-induced CTA. One hundred and forty F-344 male rats 2-, 7-, 12-, and 16-months old, were radiated with 56 Fe particles (0.25-2.00 Gy, 1 GeV/n) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Three days following irradiation, the rats were tested for the effects of radiation on the acquisition of a CTA produced by injection of amphetamine (3 mg/kg, i.p.). The main effect of age was to produce a significant decrease in conditioning day sucrose intake; there was no affect of age on the acquisition of the amphetamine-induced CTA. Exposing rats to 56 Fe particles disrupted the acquisition of the CTA produced by injection of amphetamine only in the 2-month-old rats. These results do not support the hypothesis of an interaction between age and exposure to 56 Fe particles in producing a disruption of amphetamine-induced CTA learning. As such, these results suggest that the aging produced by exposure to 56 Fe particles may be endpoint specific.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Amphetamine-induced taste aversion learning in young and old F-344 rats following exposure to 56Fe particles

Carrihill-Knoll

Rabin

Shukitt‐Hale

et al. 2007

AGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In accordance with this prediction, the suppressive effects of drugs of abuse and sucrose, but not those of LiCl, are greatly attenuated by food and water deprivation [52][53][54][55]. The suppressive effects of cocaine and sucrose, but not LiCl, are greater in drug sensitive Lewis, than less sensitive Fischer, rats [16,56 ]. The suppressive effects of cocaine and sucrose, but not LiCl, are augmented in rats with a history of chronic morphine treatment [57].…”

Section: The Model: Experimenter Delivered Drugmentioning

confidence: 71%

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

Grigson

2008

Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the words of the late Charles Flaherty, reward comparison is commonplace. Rats and man, it appears, compare all rewards and this capacity likely contributes to our ability to select the most appropriate reward/behavior (food, water, salt, sex), at the most ideal level (e.g., a certain sweetness), at any given time. A second advantage of our predisposition for reward comparison is that the availability of rich alternative rewards can protect against our becoming addicted to any single reward/behavior. Thus, the potential protective effects of natural rewards/enrichment are addressed. Despite this, behavior can become inflexible when, through the development of addiction, stress, drug, or cues elicit craving, withdrawal, and ultimately, drug-seeking. Drug-seeking corresponds with a 'window of inopportunity', when even potent natural rewards have little or no impact on behavior. During this time, there is a unitary solution to the need state, and that solution is drug. The present animal model explores this 'window of inopportunity' when natural rewards are devalued and drug-seeking is engaged and considers a mode of possible intervention.

show abstract

“…It is this positive rewarding drug state, rather than some aversive effect of drugs that are self-administered, that will lead to suppression of intake due to a conditioned "taste shyness." In a similar direction, the resulting taste avoidance may be due to a comparison between the less valued flavor stimulus and the anticipation of a highly valued drug effect when saccharin serves as the CS, as was often (but not always) the case in the reviewed experiments (Grigson and Freet, 2000). Such an interpretation is hard to maintain, however, when one considers that populations such as DBA/2J mice, and selectively bred NP rats and LAP mice, which drink almost no alcohol in the home cage, show robust conditioned taste aversion to ethanol.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Ethanol drinking in rodents: is free-choice drinking related to the reinforcing effects of ethanol?

Green¹,

Grahame²

2008

Alcohol

179

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have used voluntary ethanol consumption by animals to assess the influence of genetic and environmental manipulations on ethanol drinking. However, the relationship between home cage ethanol consumption and more formal assessments of ethanol-reinforced behavior using operant and instrumental conditioning procedures is not always clear. The present review attempted to evaluate whether there are consistent correlations between mouse and rat home cage ethanol drinking on the one hand, and either operant oral self-administration (OSA), conditioned taste aversion (CTA) or conditioned place preference (CPP) with ethanol on the other. We also review literature on intravenous ethanol self-administration (IVSA). To collect data, we evaluated a range of genetic manipulations that can change both genes and ethanol drinking behavior including selective breeding, transgenic and knock-out models, and inbred and recombinant inbred strain panels. For a genetic model to be included in the analysis, there had to be published data resulting in differences on home cage drinking and data for at least one of the other behavioral measures. A consistent, positive correlation was observed between ethanol drinking and OSA, suggesting that instrumental behavior is closely genetically related to consummatory and ingestive behavior directed at ethanol. A negative correlation was observed between CTA and drinking, suggesting that ethanol's aversive actions may limit oral consumption of ethanol. A more modest, positive relationship was observed between drinking and CPP, and there were not enough studies available to determine a relationship with IVSA. That some consistent outcomes were observed between widely disparate behavioral procedures and genetic populations may increase confidence in the validity of findings from these assays. These findings may also have important implications when researchers decide which phenotypes to use in measuring alcohol-reward relevant behaviors in novel animal models.

show abstract

The suppressive effects of sucrose and cocaine, but not lithium chloride, are greater in Lewis than in Fischer rats: Evidence for the reward comparison hypothesis.

Cited by 69 publications

References 69 publications

Amphetamine-induced taste aversion learning in young and old F-344 rats following exposure to 56Fe particles

Amphetamine-induced taste aversion learning in young and old F-344 rats following exposure to 56Fe particles

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

Ethanol drinking in rodents: is free-choice drinking related to the reinforcing effects of ethanol?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About