Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 236, Issue 1, pp 507–515 | Cite as

Extinction to amphetamine-associated context in female rats is dependent upon conditioned orienting

  • E. N. Hilz
  • S. M. Lewis
  • S. Park
  • M. H. Monfils
  • H. J. LeeEmail author
Original Investigation
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Rationale

Females are considered more susceptible to the reinforcing effects of drugs and subsequently at increased risk for drug abuse and relapse after treatment. Estrogen is known to facilitate drug effects in females. However, other factors which contribute to the incidence of drug abuse are important to identify in order to recognize early risk factors and develop effective prevention and treatment schemes. Cue-directed behavior (aka sign tracking) has been implicated as a behavioral phenotype which identifies populations susceptible to drug abuse, partly due to its association with impulsivity and heightened dopamine function.

Objectives and Methods

In this study, we investigate the viability of conditioned orienting (a form of cue-directed behavior) as a potential phenotype which predicts drug proclivity in female rats. In addition, we examine any influence endogenous female hormones across the estrous cycle may have on conditioned orienting and drug proclivity.

Results and Conclusions

Utilizing an amphetamine-conditioned place preference task, results suggest that the orienting phenotype is an effective predictor of drug proclivity in females. Rats exhibiting enhanced orienting behavior show more robust preference for an amphetamine-associated context and are more resistant to extinction of this preference than nonorienting counterparts. Furthermore, both conditioned orienting behavior and conditioned place preference are minimally influenced by the estrous cycle.

Keywords

Orienting Sign-tracking Amphetamine CPP Extinction Females Estrous cycle 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahrens AM, Singer BF, Fitzpatrick CJ, Morrow JD (2016) Rats that sign-track are resistant to Pavlovian but not instrumental extinction. Behav Brain Res 296:418–430PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anker JJ, Zlebnik NE, Navin SF, Carroll ME (2011) Responding during signaled availability and nonavailability of iv cocaine and food in rats: age and sex differences. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 215(4):785–799Google Scholar
  3. Becker JB, Hu M (2008) Sex differences in drug abuse. Front Neuroendocrinol 29(1):36–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker JB, Molenda H, Hummer DL (2001) Gender differences in the behavioral responses to cocaine and amphetamine. Implications for mechanisms mediating gender differences in drug abuse. Ann N Y Acad Sci 937:172–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker JB, Arnold AP, Kerley KJ et al (2005) Strategies and methods for research on sex differences in brain and behavior. Endocrin 146(4):1650–1673Google Scholar
  6. Becker JB, Perry AN, Westenbroek C (2012) Sex differences in the neural mechanisms mediating addiction: a new synthesis and hypothesis. Biol Sex Differ 3(1)Google Scholar
  7. Butcher RL, Collins WE, Fugo NW (1974) Plasma concentration of LH, FSH, prolactin, progesterone and estradiol-17β throughout the 4-day estrous cycle of the rat. Endocrinology 94(6):1704–1708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardinal RN, Parkinson JA, Hall J, Everitt BJ (2002) Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 26(3):32–52Google Scholar
  9. Carroll ME, Anker JJ (2010) Sex differences and ovarian hormones in animal models of drug dependence. Horm Behav 51(1):44–56Google Scholar
  10. Clark JJ, Hollon NG, Phillips PE (2012) Pavlovian valuation systems in learning and decision making. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22:1054–1061PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. de Wit H (2009) Impulsivity as a determinant and consequence of drug use: a review of underlying process. Addict Biol 14:22–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Feltenstein MW, See RE (2007) Plasma progesterone levels and cocaine-seeking in freely cycling female rats across the estrous cycle. Drug Alcohol Depend 89(2–3):183–189PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Feltenstein MW, Byrd EA, Henderson AR, See RE (2009) Attenuation of cocaine-seeking by progesterone treatment in female rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34:343–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Flagel SB, Watson SJ, Robinson TE, Akil H (2007) Individual differences in the propensity to approach signals vs goals promote different adaptations in the dopamine system of rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 191(3):599–607Google Scholar
  15. Flagel SB, Watson SJ, Akil H, Robinson TE (2008) Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to a reward-related cue: influence on cocaine sensitization. Behav Brain Res 186(1):48–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Flagel SB, Akil H, Robinson TE (2009) Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: implications for addiction. Neuropharmacology 56(1):139–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Flagel SB, Robinson TE, Clark JJ, Clinton SM, Watson SJ, Seeman P, Phillips PEM, Akil H (2010) An animal model of genetic vulnerability to behavioral disinhibition and responsiveness to reward-related cues: implications for addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 35:388–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Flagel SB, Cameron CM, Pickup KN, Watson SJ, Akil H, Robinson TE (2011a) A food predictive cue must be attributed with incentive salience for it to induce c-fos mRNA expression in cortico-striatal-thalamic brain regions. Neuroscience 196:80–96PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Flagel SB, Clark JJ, Robinson TE, Mayo L, Czuj A, Willuhn I, Akers CA, Clinton SM, Phillips PEM, Akil H (2011b) A selective role for dopamine in stimulus–reward learning. Nature 469:53–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldman JM, Murr AS, Cooper RL (2007) The rodent estrous cycle: characterization of vaginal cytology and its utility in toxicological studies. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 80(2):84–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Holland PC (1977) Conditioned stimulus as a determinant of the form of the Pavlovian conditioned response. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 3(1):7–104Google Scholar
  22. Huys QJ, Tobler PN, Hasler G, Flagel SB (2014) The role of learning-related dopamine signals in addiction vulnerability. Prog Brain Res 211:31–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kantak KM, Goodrich CM, Uribe V (2007) Influence of sex, estrous cycle, and drug-onset age on cocaine self-administration in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 15(1):37–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kippin TE, Fuchs RA, Mehta RH, Case JM, Parker MP, Bimonta-Nelson HA, See RE (2005) Potentiation of cocaine-primed reinstatement of drug seeking in female rats during estrus. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 182(2):245–522Google Scholar
  25. Larson EB, Roth ME, Anker JJ, Carroll ME (2005) Effect of short- vs. long-term estrogen on reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior in female rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 82(1):98–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee HJ, Groshek F, Petrovich GD, Cantalini JP, Gallagher M, Holland PC (2005) Role of amygdalo-nigral circuitry in conditioning of a visual stimulus paired with food. J Neurosci 25(15):3881–3888PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Lesaint F, Sigaud O, Flagel SB, Robinson TE, Khamassi M (2014) Modelling individual differences in the form of Pavlovian conditioned approach responses: a dual learning systems approach with factored representations. PLoS Comput Biol 10:e1003466PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Lovic V, Saunders BT, Yager LM, Robinson TE (2011) Rats prone to attribute incentive salience to reward cues are also prone to impulsive action. Behav Brain Res 223(2):255–261PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynch WJ, Arizzi MN, Carroll ME (2000) Effects of sex and the estrous cycle on regulation of intravenously self-administered cocaine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 152(2):132–139Google Scholar
  30. Lynch WJ, Roth ME, Carroll ME (2002) Biological basis of sex differences in drug abuse: preclinical and clinical studies. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 164(2):121–137Google Scholar
  31. Marcondes FK, Bianchi FJ, Tanno AP (2002) Determination of the estrous cycle phases of rats: some helpful considerations. Braz J Biol 64(4a):609–614Google Scholar
  32. Morissette M, Di Paolo T (1993) Sex and estrous cycle variations of rat striatal dopamine uptake sites. Neuroendocrinology 58:16–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Morrison SE, Bamkole MA, Nicola SM (2015) Sign tracking, but not goal tracking, is resistant to outcome devaluation. Front Neurosci 10:3389Google Scholar
  34. Olshavsky ME, Jones CE, Lee HJ, Monfils MH (2013a) Appetitive behavioral traits and stimulus intensity influence maintenance of conditioned fear. Front Neurosci 7:179.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00179 Google Scholar
  35. Olshavsky ME, Song BJ, Powell DJ, Jones CE, Monfils MH, Lee HJ (2013b) Updating appetitive memory during reconsolidation window: critical role of cue-directed behavior and amygdala central nucleus. Front Behav Neurosci 10:1002Google Scholar
  36. Olshavsky ME, Shumake J, Rosenthal AA, Kaddour-Djebbar A, Gonzalez-Lima F, Setlow B, Lee HJ (2014) Impulsivity, risk-taking, and distractibility in rats exhibiting robust conditioned orienting behaviors. J Exp Anal Behav 102(2):162–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Perry JL, Carroll ME (2008) The role of impulsive behavior in drug abuse. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 200:126Google Scholar
  38. Pitchers KK, Kane LF, Kim Y, Robinson TE, Sarter M (2017) ‘Hot’ vs ‘cold’ behavioural-cognitive styles: motivational-dopaminergic vs. cognitive-cholinergic processing of a Pavlovian cocaine cue in sign- and goal-tracking rats. Eur J Neurosci 46:2768–2771PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Robbins TW, Everitt BJ (1996) Neurobehavioural mechanisms of reward and motivation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 6(2):228–236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson TW, Berridge KC (2001) Incentive-sensitization and addiction. Addiction 96(1):103–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson TE, Flagel SB (2009) Dissociating the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-related cues through the study of individual differences. Biol Psychiatry 65(10):869–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth ME, Carroll ME (2004) Sex differences in the escalation of intravenous cocaine intake following long-access to cocaine for self-administration. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 78(2):199–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Saunders BT, Robinson TE (2011) Individual variation in the motivational properties of cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology 36:1668–1676PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Saunders BT, Robinson TE (2012) The role of dopamine in the accumbens core in the expression of Pavlovian-conditioned responses. Eur J Neurosci 36(4):2521–2532PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Singer BF, Guptaroy B, Austin CJ, Wohl I, Lovic V, Seiler JL, Vaughan RA, Gnegy ME, Robinson TE, Aragona BJ (2016) Individual variation in incentive salience attribution and accumbens dopamine transporter expression and function. Eur J Neurosci 43(5):662–670PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Tomie A, Grimes KL, Pohorecky LA (2008) Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse. Brain Res Rev 58(1):121–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Weafer J, Mitchell SH, de Wit H (2014) Recent translational findings on impulsivity in relation to drug abuse. Curr Addict Rep 1:289–300PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. N. Hilz
    • 1
  • S. M. Lewis
    • 2
  • S. Park
    • 3
  • M. H. Monfils
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • H. J. Lee
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Institute for NeuroscienceThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Mental Health ResearchThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations