Capacity of novelty-induced locomotor activity and the hole-board test to predict sensitivity to the conditioned rewarding effects of cocaine

Physiology and Behavior

Volumn 133, Issue , 2014, Pages 152-160

  Arenas, M Carmen ^a   Daza Losada, Manuel ^a   Vidal Infer, Antonio ^a   Aguilar, Maria A ^a   Miñarro, José ^a   Rodríguez Arias, Marta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Adolescence; Cocaine; CPP; Mice; Novelty induced activity; Novelty seeking

Indexed keywords

COCAINE; DOPAMINE UPTAKE INHIBITOR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COCAINE DEPENDENCE; CONDITIONING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFECT; EXPLORATORY BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HABITUATION; HOLE BOARD TEST; LOCOMOTION; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PLACE PREFERENCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REWARD; VULNERABLE POPULATION; YOUNG ADULT; AGE; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; DRUG EFFECTS; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; REACTION TIME; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AGE FACTORS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; COCAINE; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DOPAMINE UPTAKE INHIBITORS; EXPLORATORY BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MICE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; REACTION TIME; REWARD;

EID: 84901987538     PISSN: 00319384     EISSN: 1873507X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.028     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Piazza P.V., Deroche-Gamonet V., Rouge-Pont F., Le Moal M. Vertical shifts in self-administration dose-response functions predict a drug-vulnerable phenotype predisposed to addiction. J Neurosci 2000, 20:4226-4232.
2. Garcia-Fuster M.J., Perez J.A., Clinton S.M., Watson S.J., Akil H. Impact of cocaine on adult hippocampal neurogenesis in an animal model of differential propensity to drug abuse. Eur J Neurosci 2010, 31:79-89.
3. Kuhn C., Johnson M., Thomae A., Luo B., Simon S.A., Zhou G., et al. The emergence of gonadal hormone influences on dopaminergic function during puberty. Horm Behav 2010, 58:122-137.
4. Ballaz S.J., Akil H., Watson S.J. Previous experience affects subsequent anxiety-like responses in rats bred for novelty seeking. Behav Neurosci 2007, 121:1113-1118.
5. Dere E., Huston J.P., De Souza Silva M.A. The pharmacology, neuroanatomy and neurogenetics of one-trial object recognition in rodents. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2007, 31:673-704.
6. Marquez C., Nadal R., Armario A. Responsiveness of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis to different novel environments is a consistent individual trait in adult male outbred rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2005, 30:179-187.
7. 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.
8. Piazza P.V., Deminiere J.M., Le Moal M., Simon H. Factors that predict individual vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Science 1989, 245:1511-1513.
9. Kabbaj M. Individual differences in vulnerability to drug abuse: the high responders/low responders model. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets 2006, 5:513-520.
10. Hooks M.S., Jones G.H., Smith A.D., Neill D.B., Justice J.B. Response to novelty predicts the locomotor and nucleus accumbens dopamine response to cocaine. Synapse 1991, 9:121-128.
11. Kabbaj M. Neurobiological bases of individual differences in emotional and stress responsiveness: high responders-low responders model. Arch Neurol 2004, 61:1009-1012.
12. Dellu F., Piazza P.V., Mayo W., Le Moal M., Simon H. Novelty seeking in rats-biobehavioral characteristics and possible relationship with the sensation-seeking trait in man. Neuropsychobiology 1996, 34:136-145.
13. Davis B.A., Clinton S.M., Akil H., Becker J.B. The effects of novelty-seeking phenotypes and sex differences on acquisition of cocaine self-administration in selectively-bred High-Responder and Low-Responder rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2008, 90:331-338.
14. Cloninger C.R. A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. A proposal. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1987, 44:573-588.
15. Zuckerman M., Neeb M. Sensation seeking and psychopathology. Psychiatry Res 1979, 1:255-264.
16. Klebaur J.E., Bevins R.A., Segar T.M., Bardo M.T. Individual differences in behavioral responses to novelty and amphetamine self-administration in male and female rats. Behav Pharmacol 2001, 12:267-275.
17. Nadal-Alemany R. La búsqueda de sensaciones y su relación con la vulnerabilidad a la adicción y al estrés. Adicciones 2008, 20:59-72.
18. Philpot R.M., Wecker L. Dependence of adolescent novelty-seeking behavior on response phenotype and effects of apparatus scaling. Behav Neurosci 2008, 122:861-875.
19. Belin D., Berson N., Balado E., Piazza P.V., Deroche-Gamonet V. High-novelty-preference rats are predisposed to compulsive cocaine self-administration. Neuropsychopharmacology 2011, 36:569-579.
20. Vidal-Infer A., Arenas M.C., Daza-Losada M., Aguilar M.A., Miñarro J., Rodríguez-Arias M. High novelty-seeking predicts greater sensitivity to the conditioned rewarding effects of cocaine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2012, 102:124-132.
21. Calabrese E.J. An assessment of anxiolytic drug screening tests: hormetic dose responses predominate. Crit Rev Toxicol 2008, 38:489-542.
22. Kliethermes C.L., Kamens H.M., Crabbe J.C. Drug reward and intake in lines of mice selectively bred for divergent exploration of a hole board apparatus. Genes Brain Behav 2007, 6:608-618.
23. Bardo M.T., Bevins R.A. Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward?. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2000, 153:31-43.
24. Tzschentke T.M. Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addict Biol 2007, 12:227-462.
25. Aguilar M.A., Rodríguez-Arias M., Miñarro J. Neurobiological mechanisms of the reinstatement of drug-conditioned place preference. Brain Res Rev 2009, 59:253-277.
26. Laviola G., Adriani W., Terranova L., Gerra G. Psychobiological risk factors for vulnerability to psychostimulants in human adolescents and animal models. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1999, 23:993-1010.
27. Laviola G., Macri S., Morley-Fletcher S., Adriani W. Risk-taking behavior in adolescent mice: psychobiological determinants and early epigenetic influence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2003, 27:19-31.
28. Schramm-Sapyta N.L., Walker Q.D., Caster J.M., Levin E.D., Kuhn C.M. Are adolescents more vulnerable to drug addiction than adults? Evidence from animal models. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2009, 206:1-21.
29. Zakharova E., Wade D., Izenwasser S. Sensitivity to cocaine conditioned reward depends on sex and age. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2009, 92:131-134.
30. Spear L.P. The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2000, 24:417-463.
31. Lynch W.J., Roth M.E., Carroll M.E. Biological basis of sex differences in drug abuse: preclinical and clinical studies. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2002, 164:121-137.
32. Quiñones-Jenab V. Why are women from Venus and men from Mars when they abuse cocaine?. Brain Res 2006, 1126:200-203.
33. Becker J.B., Hu M. Sex differences in drug abuse. Front Neuroendocrinol 2008, 29:36-47.
34. Fattore L., Fadda P., Fratta W. Sex differences in the self-administration of cannabinoids and other drugs of abuse. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009, 34S:S227-S236.
35. Ray J., Hansen S. Temperament in the rat: sex differences and hormonal influences on harm avoidance and novelty seeking. Behav Neurosci 2004, 118:488-497.
36. Sutcliffe J.S., Marshall K.M., Neill J.C. Influence of gender on working and spatial memory in the novel object recognition task in the rat. Behav Brain Res 2007, 177:117-125.
37. Walker Q.D., Nelson C.J., Smith D., Kuhn C.M. Vaginal lavage attenuates cocaine-stimulated activity and establishes place preference in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2002, 73:743-752.
38. Hu M., Crombag H.S., Robinson T.E., Becker J.B. Biological basis of sex differences in the propensity to self-administer cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology 2004, 29:81-85.
39. Maldonado C., Rodriguez-Arias M., Castillo A., Aguilar M.A., Minarro J. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid affects the acquisition and reinstatement of cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in mice. Behav Pharmacol 2006, 17:119-131.
40. Mathews I.Z., Morrissey M.D., McCormick C.M. Individual differences in activity predict locomotor activity and conditioned place preference to amphetamine in both adolescent and adult rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2010, 95:63-71.
41. Jupp B., Dalley J.W. Behavioral endophenotypes of drug addiction: etiological insights from neuroimaging studies. Neuropharmacology 2014, 76:487-497.
42. Beckmann J.S., Marusich J.A., Gipson C.D., Bardo M.T. Novelty seeking, incentive salience and acquisition of cocaine self-administration in the rat. Behav Brain Res 2011, 216:159-165.
43. Larson E.B., Carroll M.E. Wheel running as a predictor of cocaine self-administration and reinstatement in female rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2005, 82:590-600.
44. Gong W., Neill D.B., Justine J.B. Locomotor response to novelty does not predict cocaine place preference conditioning in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1996, 53:191-196.
45. Kosten T.A., Miserendino M.J.D. Dissociation of novelty- and cocaine-conditioned locomotor activity from cocaine place conditioning. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1998, 60:785-791.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Nadal R., Rotllant D., Marquez C., Armario A. Perseverance of exploration in novel environments predicts morphine place conditioning in rats. Behav Brain Res 2005, 165:72-79.
49. Prendergast B.J., Onishi K.G., Zucker I. Female mice liberated for inclusion in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014, [in press]. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.001.
50. Ricceri L., Colozza C., Calamandrei G. Ontogeny of spatial discrimination in mice: a longitudinal analysis in the modified open-field with objects. Dev Psychobiol 2000, 37:109-118.
51. An X.L., Zou J.X., Wu R.Y., Yang Y., Tai F.D., Zeng S.Y., et al. Strain and sex differences in anxiety-like and social behaviors in C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ mice. Exp Anim 2011, 60:111-123.
52. Adriani W., Chiarotti F., Laviola G. Elevated novelty seeking and peculiar d-amphetamine sensitization in periadolescent mice compared with adult mice. Behav Neurosci 1998, 112:1152-1166.
53. Mitchell J.M., Cunningham C.L., Mark G.P. Locomotor activity predicts acquisition of self-administration behavior but not cocaine intake. Behav Neurosci 2005, 119:464-472.
54. Redolat R., Pérez-Martínez A., Carrasco M.C., Mesa P. Individual differences in novelty-seeking and behavioral responses to nicotine: a review of animal studies. Curr Drug Abuse Rev 2009, 2:230-242.
55. Marinelli M. The many facets of the locomotor response to a novel environment test: theoretical comment on Mitchell, Cunningham, and Mark. Behav Neurosci 2005, 119:1144-1151.
56. Belin D., Deroche-Gamonet V. Responses to novelty and vulnerability to cocaine addiction: contribution of a multi-symptomatic animal model. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2012, 2(11):1-20.
57. Robinson T.E., Berridge K.C. The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2008, 363:3137-3146.
58. Sargent J.D., Tanski S., Stoolmiller M., Hanewinkel R. Using sensation seeking to target adolescents for substance use interventions. Addiction 2010, 105:506-514.
59. Spillane N.S., Muller C.J., Noonan C., Goins R.T., Mitchell C.M., Manson S. Sensation-seeking predicts initiation of daily smoking behavior among American Indian high school students. Addict Behav 2012, 37:1303-1306.
60. Pawlak C.R., Ho Y.J., Schwarting R.K.W. Animal models of human psychopathology based on individual differences in novelty-seeking and anxiety. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2008, 32:1544-1568.