Individual differences in activity predict locomotor activity and conditioned place preference to amphetamine in both adolescent and adult rats

Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

Volumn 95, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 63-71

  Mathews, Iva Z ^a   Morrissey, Mark D ^a   McCormick, Cheryl M ^a  

^a BROCK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Activity; Adolescence; Amphetamine; Conditioned place preference; Forced novelty; Individual differences; Locomotion; Novelty seeking

Indexed keywords

AMPHETAMINE; PSYCHOSTIMULANT AGENT; SODIUM CHLORIDE;

ACCLIMATIZATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT ANIMAL; AGE; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; LOCOMOTION; MALE; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

AGING; AMPHETAMINES; ANIMALS; CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; LOCOMOTION; MALE; RATS; RATS, LONG-EVANS;

RATTUS; RODENTIA;

EID: 77249142767     PISSN: 00913057     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbb.2009.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adriani W., Laviola G. A unique hormonal and behavioural hyporesponsivity to both forced novelty and d-amphetamine in periadolescent mice. Neuropharmacology 2000, 3:334-346.
2. Allen R.M., Everett C.V., Nelson A.M., Gulley J.M., Zahniser N.R. Low and high locomotor responsiveness to cocaine predicts intravenous cocaine conditioned place preference in male Sprague-Dawley rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2007, 86:37-44.
3. Arnett J. Reckless behavior in adolescence: a developmental perspective. Dev Rev 1992, 12:339-373.
4. Badanich K., Maldonado A., Kirstein C. Early adolescents show enhanced acute cocaine-induced locomotor activity in comparison to late adolescent and adult rats. Dev Psychobiol 2008, 50:127-133.
5. Bevins R., Klebaur J., Bardo M. Individual differences in response to novelty, amphetamine-induced activity and drug discrimination in rats. Behav Pharmacol 1997, 8:113-123.
6. Blanchard M.M., Mendelsohn D., Stamp J.A. The HR/LR model: further evidence as an animal model of sensation seeking. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2009, 33:1145-1154.
7. Brabant C., Quertemont E., Tirelli E. Evidence that the relations between novelty-induced activity, locomotor stimulation and place preference induced by cocaine qualitatively depend upon the dose: a multiple regression analysis in inbred C57BL/6J mice. Behav Brain Res 2005, 158:201-210.
8. Cain M., Denehy E., Bardo M. Individual differences in amphetamine self-administration: the role of the central nucleus of the amygdala. Neuropsychopharmacology 2008, 33:1149-1161.
9. Carey R., DePalma G. Response to novelty as a predictor of cocaine sensitization and conditioning in rats: a correlational analysis. Psychopharmacology 2003, 268:245-252.
10. Dietz D., Wang H., Kabbaj M. Corticosterone fails to produce conditioned place preference or conditioned place aversion in rats. Behav Brain Res 2007, 181:287-291.
11. Erb S.M., Parker L.A. Individual differences in novelty-induced activity do not predict strength of amphetamine-induced place conditioning. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1994, 48:581-586.
12. Exner M., Clark D. Behaviour in the novel environment predicts responsiveness to d-amphetamine in the rat: a multivariate approach. Behav Pharmacol 1993, 4:47-56.
13. Gong W., Neill D.B., Justice J.B.J. Locomotor response to novelty does not predict cocaine place preference conditioning in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1996, 53:185-190.
14. Hefner K., Holmes A. Ontogeny of fear-, anxiety- and depression-related behavior across adolescence in C57BL/6J mice. Behav Brain Res 2007, 176:210-215.
15. Hooks M., Jones G., Neill D., Justice J.J. Individual differences in amphetamine sensitization: dose-dependent effects. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1992, 41:203-210.
16. Kabbaj M. Individual differences in vulnerability to drug abuse: the high responders/low responders model. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets 2006, 5:513-520.
17. Klebaur J., Bevins R., Segar T., Bardo M. Individual differences in behavioral responses to novelty and amphetamine self-administration in male and female rats. Behav Pharmacol 2001, 12:267-275.
18. Kosten T.A., Miserendino M.J. Dissociation of novelty- and cocaine-conditioned locomotor activity from cocaine place conditioning. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1998, 60:785-791.
19. Lanier L.P., Isaacson R.L. Early developmental changes in the locomotor response to amphetamine and their relation to hippocampal function. Brain Res 1977, 126:567-575.
20. Lynn D.A., Brown G.R. The ontogeny of exploratory behavior in male and female adolescent rats (Rattus norvegicus). Dev Psychobiol 2009, 51:513-520.
21. Mathews I.Z., Mills R.G., McCormick C.M. Chronic social stress in adolescence influenced both amphetamine conditioned place preference and locomotor sensitization. Dev Psychobiol 2008, 50:451-459.
22. Mathews I.Z., Waters P., McCormick C.M. Changes in hyporesponsiveness to acute amphetamine and age differences in tyrosine hydroxylase immunoreactivity in the brain over adolescence in male and female rats. Dev Psychobiol 2009, 51:417-428.
23. Pelloux Y., Costentin J., Duterte-Boucher D. Differential effects of novelty exposure on place preference conditioning to amphetamine and its oral consumption. Psychopharmacology 2004, 171:277-285.
24. Philipot R., Wecker L. Dependence of adolescent novelty-seeking behavior on response phenotype and effects of apparatus scaling. Behav Neurosci 2008, 122:861-875.
25. Piazza P., Deminière J., Le Moal M., Simon H. Factors that predict individual vulnerability to amphetamine after self-administration. Science 1989, 245:1511-1513.
26. Pierre P., Vezina P. Predisposition to self-administer amphetamine: the contribution of response to novelty and prior exposure to the drug. Psychopharmacology 1997, 129:277-284.
27. Quertemont E., Brabant C., Tirelli E. Response to novelty as a predictor for drug effects: the pitfalls of some correlational studies. Psychopharmacology 2004, 173:221-224.
28. Robinet P.M., Rowlett J.K., Bardo M.T. Individual differences in novelty-induced activity and the rewarding effects of novelty and amphetamine in rats. Behav Processes 1998, 44:1-9.
29. Sellings L., Clarke P. Segregation of amphetamine reward and locomotor stimulation between nucleus accumbens medial shell and core. J Neurosci 2003, 23:6295-6303.
30. Seymour C.M., Wagner J.J. Simultaneous expression of cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization and conditioned place preference in individual rats. Brain Res 2008, 1213:57-67.
31. Shimosato K., Watanabe S. Concurrent evaluation of locomotor response to novelty and propensity toward cocaine conditioned place preference in mice. J Neurosci Methods 2003, 128:103-110.
32. Stansfield K., Kirstein C. Neurochemical effects of cocaine in adolescence compared to adulthood. Dev Brain Res 2005, 159:119-125.
33. Wills T., Sandy J., Shinar O. Cloninger's constructs related to substance use level and problems in late adolescence: a mediational model based on self-control and coping motives. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1999, 7:122-134.
34. Wise R.A., Bozarth M.A. A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction. Psychol Rev 1987, 94:469-492.
35. Wooters T.E., Dwoskin L.P., Bardo M.T. Age and sex differences in the locomotor effect of repeated methylphenidate in rats classified as high or low novelty responders. Psychopharmacology 2006, 188:18-27.