Psychopharmacology

, Volume 201, Issue 1, pp 97–106

Reference-dose place conditioning with ethanol in mice: empirical and theoretical analysis

  • Peter A. Groblewski
  • Laura S. Bax
  • Christopher L. Cunningham
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

A frequently expressed criticism of the conditioned place preference (CPP) procedure is that it sometimes lacks a graded dose–response curve for many drugs.

Objective

We used a combination of standard and reference-dose CPP procedures to examine the dose–response curve for ethanol-induced CPP in DBA/2J mice.

Materials and methods

In the standard procedure, ethanol (0.5, 1.5, 2, and 4 g/kg) was paired with a distinctive floor cue, whereas saline was paired with a different floor cue. In the reference-dose procedure, each cue was paired with a different dose of ethanol. All mice received four 5-min trials of each type in both procedures.

Results

Standard procedures yielded similar levels of CPP at doses of 1.5, 2, and 4 g/kg, whereas 0.5 g/kg did not produce significant CPP. However, in the reference-dose procedure, exposure to the 0.5-g/kg dose interfered with CPP normally produced by 1.5 or 2 g/kg. Moreover, mice showed significant preference for the 4-g/kg-paired cue over the 1.5-g/kg-paired cue.

Conclusions

These studies show that a reference-dose procedure can reveal effects of low doses that are sometimes difficult to detect in a standard procedure. The reference-dose procedure may also uncover differences between higher doses that normally produce similar preference. Efficacy of the reference-dose procedure may be explained by a theoretical analysis that assumes the procedure places behavior between the extremes of the performance range, offering a more sensitive method for detecting effects of manipulations that produce small changes and/or differences in the rewarding effects of ethanol.

Keywords

Conditioned place preference Reference-dose procedure Reward Ethanol Locomotor activity Inbred mice (DBA/2J) 

References

  1. Bardo MT, Bevins RA (2000) Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? Psychopharmacology 153:31–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardo MT, Rowlett JK, Harris MJ (1995) Conditioned place preference using opiate and stimulant drugs: A meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 19:39–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr GA, Paredes W, Bridger WH (1985) Place conditioning with morphine and phencyclidine: Dose dependent effects. Life Sciences 36:363–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevins RA (2005) The reference-dose place conditioning procedure yields a graded dose–effect function. Int J Comp Psychol 18:101–11Google Scholar
  5. Carr GD, Fibiger HC, Phillips AG (1989) Conditioned place preference as a measure of drug reward. In: Liebman JM, Cooper SJ (eds) Neuropharmacological basis of reward. Oxford, New York, pp 264–319Google Scholar
  6. Cunningham CL, Okorn D, Howard C (1997) Interstimulus interval determines whether ethanol produces conditioned place preference or aversion in mice. Anim Learn Behav 25:31–42Google Scholar
  7. Cunningham CL, Prather L (1992) Conditioning trial duration affects ethanol-induced conditioned place preference in mice. Anim Learn Behav 20:187–194Google Scholar
  8. Cunningham CL, Clemans JM, Fidler TL (2002a) Injection timing determines whether intragastric ethanol produces conditioned place preference or aversion in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 72:659–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunningham CL, Ferree NK, Howard MA (2003) Apparatus bias and place conditioning with ethanol in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 170:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunningham CL, Gremel CM, Groblewski PA (2006) Drug-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice. Nature Protocols 1:1662–1670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunningham CL, Henderson CM, Bormann NM (1998) Extinction of ethanol-induced conditioned place preference and conditioned place aversion: effects of naloxone. Psychopharmacology 139:62–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham CL, Niehus DR, Malott DH, Prather LK (1992) Genetic differences in the rewarding and activating effects of morphine and ethanol. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 107:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham CL, Noble D (1992a) Conditioned activation induced by ethanol: role in sensitization and conditioned place preference. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 43:307–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham CL, Noble D (1992b) Methamphetamine-induced conditioned place preference or aversion depending on dose and presence of drug. Ann N Y Acad Sci 654:431–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham CL, Tull LE, Rindal KE, Meyer PJ (2002b) Distal and proximal pre-exposure to ethanol in the place conditioning task: tolerance to aversive effect, sensitization to activating effect, but no change in rewarding effect. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 160:414–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Font L, Aragon CM, Miquel M (2006) Ethanol-induced conditioned place preference, but not aversion, is blocked by treatment with D-penicillamine, an inactivation agent for acetaldehyde. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 184:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gremel CM, Cunningham CL (2007) Role of test activity in ethanol-induced disruption of place preference expression in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 191:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meisch RA, Thompson T (1974) Ethanol intake as a function of concentration during food deprivation and satiation. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2:589–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99Google Scholar
  20. Risinger FO, Malott DH, Prather LK, Niehus DR, Cunningham CL (1994) Motivational properties of ethanol in mice selectively bred for ethanol-induced locomotor differences. Psychopharmacology 116:207–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Risinger FO, Oakes RA (1996) Dose- and conditioning-trial dependent ethanol-induced conditioned place preference in Swiss–Webster mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 55:117–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Swerdlow NR, Gilbert D, Koob GF (1989) Conditioned drug effects on spatial preference: critical evaluation. In: Boulton AA, Baker GB, Greenshaw AJ (eds) Psychopharmacology (Neuromethods vol. 13). Humana, Clifton, NJ, pp 399–446Google Scholar
  23. Wise RA (1987) Intravenous drug self-administration: A special case of positive reinforcement. In: Bozarth MA (ed) Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. Springer, New York, pp 117–141Google Scholar
  24. Yokel RA (1987) Intravenous self-administration: response rates, the effects of pharmacological challenges, and drug preference. In: Bozarth MA (ed) Methods of assessing the reinforcing properties of abused drugs. Springer, New York, pp 1–33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Groblewski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laura S. Bax
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christopher L. Cunningham
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, L470Oregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Portland Alcohol Research CenterOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations