Psychopharmacology

, Volume 95, Issue 2, pp 237–244 | Cite as

Contributions of taste factors and gender to opioid preference in C57BL and DBA mice

  • Margaret L. Forgie
  • Barry L. Beyerstein
  • Bruce K. Alexander
Original Investigations

Abstract

C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mouse strains have been characterized as morphine preferrers and avoiders, respectively (Horowitz et al. 1977). Previously, sweetened morphine solutions were presented with a water alternative, primarily with male subjects. Because sweetness may affect the endogenous opioid system and rodents have shown strain and sex differences in taste preferences, this study looked for strain- and gender-related taste preferences that might have affected opiate consumption. Preference for sweetened and unsweetened morphine and etonitazene was compared across gender and strain. In all choice tests, the control was a similar tasting quinine sulphate solution. Under these conditions, C57BL/6J mice continued to show strong preference for morphine. However, DBA/2J mice drank approximately equal amounts of morphine and quinine solutions, rather than avoiding morphine as when water was the alternative. Both strains appeared surprisingly indifferent to the synthetic opioid etonitazene, compared because it is potent at concentrations having barely perceptible bitterness. This raises the possibility of unexpected differences in post-ingestional effects between morphine and etonitazene. Contrary to reports of gender differences in sweet preference in rats, none were found in either strain of mouse. Neither were there any significant sex differences in opiate preference in either strain. C57 mice preferred sweetness more than did DBA mice.

Key words

Morphine Etonitazene Genetics Mice Taste Saccharine Gender 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander BK, Beyerstein BL, Hadaway PF, Coambs RB (1981) Effect of early and later colony housing or oral ingestion of morphine in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 15:571–576Google Scholar
  2. Baran A, Shuster L, Eleftheriou BE, Bailey DW (1975) Opiate receptors in mice: Genetic differences. Life Sci 17(4):633–640Google Scholar
  3. Castellano C, Llovera BE, Oliverio A (1975) Morphine-induced running and analgesia in two strains of mice following septal lesions or modification of brain amines. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol 288:355–370Google Scholar
  4. Chernov HI, Ambrose FG, Plummer AJ (1968) Pattern of consumption of etonitazene solutions by naive rats. Arch Int Pharmacodyn 175(2):309–318Google Scholar
  5. Cooper SJ (1983) Effects of opiate agonists and antagonists on fluid intake and saccharin choice in the rat. Neuropharmacology 22(3A):323–328Google Scholar
  6. Dykstra LA, Wharton W, McMillan DE (1977) Antagonism of etonitazene's effects in rats and pigeons. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 6:215–219Google Scholar
  7. Eriksson K, Kiianmaa K (1971) Genetic analysis of susceptibility to morphine addiction in inbred mice. Ann Med Exp Fenn 49:73–78Google Scholar
  8. Hadaway PF, Alexander BK, Coambs RB, Beyerstein BL (1979) The effect of housing and gender on preference for morphine-sucrose solution in rats. Psychopharmacology 66:87–91Google Scholar
  9. Horowitz G (1976) Morphine self administration by inbred mice: A preliminary report. Behav Genet 6:109–110Google Scholar
  10. Horowitz GP, Whitney G, Smith JC, Stephan FK (1977) Morphine ingestion: Genetic control in mice. Psychopharmacology 52:119–122Google Scholar
  11. Howell DC (1982) Statistical methods for psychology. Duxbury Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Klein TW, DeFries JC (1970) Similar polymorphism of taste sensitivitiy to PTC in mice and men. Nature 225:555–557Google Scholar
  13. Lieblich I, Cohen E, Ganchrow JR, Blass EM, Bermann F (1983) Morphine tolerance in genetically selected rats induced by chronically elevated saccharine intake. Science 221:871–872Google Scholar
  14. McMillan DE, Leander JD, Wilson TW, Wallace SC, Fix T, Redding S, Turk RT (1976) Oral ingestion of narcotic analgesics by rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 196(2):269–279Google Scholar
  15. Meisch RA, Stark LJ (1977) Establishment of etonitazene as a reinforcer for rats by use of schedule-induced drinking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 7:195–203Google Scholar
  16. Nichols JR, Hsiao S (1967) Addiction liability of albino rats: Breeding for quantitative differences in morphine drinking. Science 157:561–563Google Scholar
  17. Oliverio A, Castellano C, Eleftheriou BE (1975) Morphine sensitivity and tolerance: A genetic investigation in the mouse. Psychopharmacologia 42:219–224Google Scholar
  18. Rosow CE, Miller JM, Pelikan EW, Cochin J (1980) Opiates and thermal regulation in mice. 1. Agonists. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 213(2):273–283Google Scholar
  19. Synder SH, Childers SR (1979) Opiate receptors and opioid peptides. Annu Rev Neurosci 2:35–64Google Scholar
  20. Valenstein ES, Kakolewski JW, Cox VC (1967) Sex differences in taste preference for glucose and saccharin solutions. Science 156:942–943Google Scholar
  21. Whitney G, Horowitz GP (1978) Morphine preference of alcohol-avoiding and alcohol-preferring C57BL mice. Behav Genet 8(2):177–182Google Scholar
  22. Zellner DA, Berridge KC, Grill HJ, Ternes JW (1985) Rats learn to like the taste of morphine. Behav Neurosci 99(2):290–300Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret L. Forgie
    • 1
  • Barry L. Beyerstein
    • 1
  • Bruce K. Alexander
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations