Psychopharmacology

, Volume 167, Issue 3, pp 281–290 | Cite as

Strain differences in response to escapable and inescapable novel environments and their ability to predict amphetamine-induced locomotor activity

  • Mindy J. D. Miserendino
  • Colin N. Haile
  • Therese A. Kosten
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

Locomotor response to novelty predicts locomotor and reinforcing effects of psychostimulant drugs in outbred rats. Among Lewis and Fischer 344 (F344) inbred rats this association is less clear, perhaps due to strain-selective differences in responses to novelty.

Objective

We examined responses to novel inescapable and escapable environments and to novel objects in these strains.

Methods

Experiment 1 utilized a place conditioning procedure. Rats were confined to one side for 8 days and then allowed access to both this (familiar) and the novel sides. Experiment 2 assessed locomotor response within an inescapable environment. On another occasion, contacts with novel objects within a novel environment were tabulated. Corticosterone levels and fecal boli were measured. Whether these responses predicted amphetamine-induced locomotor activity was determined. To further assess genetic contributions to this association, experiment 3 assessed novelty responses in F1 hybrid Lewis-F344 rats.

Results

Lewis rats showed greater novelty-seeking behavior in the escapable environment but lower locomotor activity in the inescapable environment compared to F344 rats. There were no strain differences in novel object contacts, corticosterone, or fecal boli responses. Baseline corticosterone levels and activity levels in the novel environment were positively correlated with amphetamine activity based on data from all rats. However, novelty and amphetamine-induced activity showed non-significant negative correlations in F344 and Lewis rats. Yet, F1 rats showed a significant positive correlation between these variables, even though some of their other responses were Lewis-like or F344-like.

Conclusions

These data suggest that responses to different novelty situations are strain-dependent.

Keywords

Lewis inbred rats Fischer 344 inbred rats Genetics Risk factors Drug abuse Stress Novelty 

References

  1. Ambrosio E, Goldberg SR, Elmer GI (1995) Behavior genetic investigation of the relationship between spontaneous locomotor activity and the acquisition of morphine self-administration behavior. Behav Pharmacol 6:229–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer J (1973) Tests for emotionality in rats and mice: a review. Anim Behav 21:205–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardo MT, Donohew RL, Harrington NG (1996) Psychobiology of novelty seeking and drug seeking behavior. Behav Brain Res 77:23–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann MH, Elmer GI, Goldberg SR, Ambrosio E (2000) Differential neuroendocrine responsiveness to morphine in Lewis, Fischer 344, and ACI inbred rats. Brain Res 858:320–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brodkin ES, Carlezon WA, Haile CN, Kosten TA, Heninger GR, Nestler EJ (1998) Genetic analysis of behavioral, neuroendocrine, and biochemical parameters in inbred rodents: initial studies in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats and in A/J and C57BL/6J mice. Brain Res 805:55–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Camp DM, Browman KE, Robinson TE (1994) The effects of methamphetamine and cocaine on motor behavior and extracellular dopamine in the ventral striatum of Lewis versus Fischer 344 rats. Brain Res 668:180–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaouloff F, Kulikov A, Sarrieau A, Castanon N, Mormede P (1995) Male Fischer 344 and Lewis rats display differences in locomotor reactivity, but not in anxiety-related behaviours: relationship with the hippocampal serotonergic system. Brain Res 693:169–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dellu F, Piazza PV, Mayo W, LeMoal M, Simon H (1996) Novelty-seeking in rats—biobehavioral characteristics and possible relationship with the sensation-seeking trait in man. Neuropsychobiology 34:136–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Deroche V, Piazza PV, LeMoal M, Simon H (1993) Individual differences in the psychomotor effects of morphine are predicted by reactivity to novelty and influenced by corticosterone secretion. Brain Res 623:341–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Deroche V, Marinelli M, LeMoal M, Piazza PV (1995) Gluococorticoids and behavioral effects of psychostimulants. II: cocaine intravenous self-administration and reinstatement depend on glucocorticoid levels. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 281:1401–1407Google Scholar
  11. Dhabhar FS, McEwen BS, Spencer RL (1993) Stress response, adrenal steroid receptor levels an corticosteroid-binding globulin levels—a comparison between Sprague-Dawley, Fischer 344, and Lewis rats. Brain Res 616:89–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. DiChiara G, Imperato A (1988) Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:5274–5278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Erb SM, Parker LA (1994) Individual differences in novelty-induced activity do not predict strength of amphetamine-induced place conditioning. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 48:581–586PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Exner M, Clark D (1993) Behaviour in the novel environment predicts responsiveness to d-amphetamine in the rat: a multivariate approach. Behav Pharmacol 4:47–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. George FR, Porrino LJ, Ritz MC, Goldberg SR (1991) Inbred rat strain comparisons indicate different sites of action for cocaine and amphetamine locomotor stimulant effects. Psychopharmacology 104:457–462Google Scholar
  16. Glowa JR, Geyer MA, Gold PW, Sternberg EM (1992a) Differential startle amplitude and corticosterone response in rats. Neuroendocrinology 56:719–723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Glowa JR, Sternberg EM, Gold PW (1992b) Differential behavioral response in Lew/N and F344/N rats: effects of corticotropin releasing hormone. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 16:549–560Google Scholar
  18. Gong W, Neill DB, Justice JB (1996) Locomotor response to novelty does not predict cocaine place preference conditioning in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 53:191–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffin AC, Whitacre CC (1991) Sex and strain differences in the circadian rhythm fluctuation of endocrine and immune function in the rats: implications for rodent models of autoimmune disease. J Neuroimmunol 35:53–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Guitart X, Beitner-Johnson D, Marby DW, Kosten TA, Nestler EJ (1992) Fischer and Lewis rat strains differ in basal levels of neurofilament proteins and their regulation by chronic morphine in the mesolimbic dopamine system. Synapse 12:242–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Haile CN, Grandpre TN, Kosten TA (2001a) Chronic unpredictable stress, but not chronic predictable stress, enhances the sensitivity to the behavioral effects of cocaine. Psychopharmacology 154:213–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Haile CN, Hiroi N, Nestler EJ, Kosten TA (2001b) Differential behavioral responses to cocaine are associated with dynamics of mesolimbic proteins in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats. Synapse 41:179–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall CS (1934) Emotional behavior in the rat. I. Defecation and urination as measures of individual differences inemotionality. J Comp Physiol Psychol 18:385–403Google Scholar
  24. Hall CS (1936) Emotional behavior in the rat. III. The relationship between emotionality and ambulatory activity. J Comp Physiol Psychol 22:345–352Google Scholar
  25. Hooks MS, Jones GH, Neill DB, Justice JB (1991a) Individual differences in amphetamine sensitization: dose-dependent effects. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 41:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooks MS, Jones GH, Smith AD, Neill DB, Justice JB (1991b) Response to novelty predicts the locomotor and nucleus accumbens dopamine response to cocaine. Synapse 91:121–128Google Scholar
  27. Hooks MS, Colvin AC, Juncos JL, Justice JB (1992) Individual differences in basal and cocaine stimulated extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens using quantitative microdialysis. Brain Res 587:306–312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Horan B, Smith M, Gardner EL, Lepore M, Ashby CR (1997) (–)-Nicotine produces conditioned place preference in Lewis, but not in Fischer 344 rats. Synapse 26:93–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Klebaur JE, Bardo MT (1999) Individual differences in novelty seeking on the playground maze predict amphetamine conditioned place preference. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 63:131–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Koob GF, Bloom FE (1988) Cellular and molecular mechanisms of drug dependence. Science 242:715–723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kosten TA, Ambrosio E (2002) HPA axis function and drug addictive behaviors: Insights from studies with Lewis and Fischer 344 inbred rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology 27:35–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kosten TR, Kleber HD (1992) Clinician's guide to cocaine addiction. In: Blaine H, Kosten TR (eds) The Guilford substance abuse series. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Kosten TA, Miserendino MJD (1998) Dissociation of novelty- and cocaine-conditioned locomotor activity from cocaine place conditioning. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 60:785–791PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kosten TA, Ball SA, Rounsaville BJ (1994a) A sibling study of sensation seeking and opiate addiction. J Nerv Mental Dis 182:284–289Google Scholar
  35. Kosten TA, Miserendino MJD, Chi S, Nestler EJ (1994b) Fischer and Lewis rat strains show differential cocaine effects in conditioned place preference and behavioral sensitization but not in locomotor activity or conditioned taste aversion. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 269:137–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kosten TA, Miserendino MJD, Haile CN, DeCaprio JL, Jatlow PI, Nestler EJ (1997) Acquisition and maintenance of intravenous cocaine self-administration in Lewis and Fischer inbred rat strains. Brain Res 778:418–429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Montgomery KC (1955) The relation between fear induced by novel stimulation and exploratory behavior. J Comp Physiol Psychol 48:254–260Google Scholar
  38. Newcomb MD, Bentler PM (1988) Impact of adolescent drug use and social support on problems of young adults: a longitudinal study. J Abnorm Psychol 97:64–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicholls B, Springham A, Mellanby J (1992) The playground maze: a new method for measuring directed exploration in the rat. J Neurosci Meth 43:171–180Google Scholar
  40. Ortiz J, DeCaprio JL, Kosten TA, Nestler EJ (1995) Strain-selective effects of corticosterone on locomotor sensitization to cocaine and on levels of tyrosine hydroxylase and glucocorticoid receptor in the ventral tegmental area. Neuroscience 67:383–397Google Scholar
  41. Paulus MP, Geyer MA, Sternberg E (1998) Differential movement patterns but not amount of activity in unconditioned motor behavior of Fischer, Lewis, and Sprague-Dawley rats. Physiol Behav 65:601–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Piazza PV, Deminiere J-M, LeMoal M, Simon H (1989) Factors that predict individual vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Science 245:1511–1513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Piazza PV, Deminiere JM, LeMoal M, Simon H (1990) Individual reactivity to novelty predicts probability of amphetamine self-administration. Behav Pharmacol 1:339–345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Piazza PV, Maccari S, Deminiere JM, LeMoal M, Mormede P, Simon H (1991a) Corticosterone levels determine individual vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:2088–2092PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Piazza PV, Rouge-Pont F, Deminiere JM, Kharouby M, LeMoal M, Simon H (1991b) Dopaminergic activity is reducd in the prefrontal cortex and increased in the nucleus accumbens of rats predisposed to develop amphetamine self-administration. Brain Res 51:22–26Google Scholar
  46. Porsolt RD, McArthur RA, Lenegre A (1993) Psychotropic screeining procedures. In: vanHaaren F (ed) Methods in behavioral pharmacology: techniques in the behavioral and neural sciences. Elsevier, New York, pp 23–51Google Scholar
  47. Rex A, Sondern U, Voigt JP, Franck S, Fink H (1996) Strain differences in fear-motivated behavior of rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 87:308–312Google Scholar
  48. Robinet PM, Rowlett JK, Bardo MT (1998) Individual differences in novelty-induced activity and the rewarding effects of novelty and amphetamine in rats. Behav Proc 44:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rouge-Pont F, Piazza PV, Kharouby M, LEMoal M, Simon H (1993) Higher and longer stress-induced increase in dopamine concentrations in the nucleus accumbens of animals predisposed to amphetamine self-administration. Brain Res 602:169–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Simar MR, Saphier D, Goeders NE (1996) Differential neuroendocrine and behavioral responses to cocaine in Lewis and Fischer rats. Neuroendocrinology 63:93–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sternberg EM, Young S, Bernardini R, Calogero AE, Chrousos GP, Gold PW, Wilder RL (1989) A central nervous system defect in biosynthesis of corticotropin-releasing hormone is associated with susceptibility to streptococcal cell wall-induced arthritis in Lewis rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:4771–4775PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Sternberg EM, Glowa JR, Smith MA, Calogero AE, Listwak SJ, Aksentijevich S, Chrousos CP, Wilder RI, Gold PW (1992) Corticotropin releasing hormone related behavioral and neuroendocrine responses to stress in Lewis and Fischer rats. Brain Res 570:54–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Stohr T, Wermeling DS, Weiner I, Feldon J (1998) Rat strain differences in open-field behavior and the locomotor stimulating and rewarding effects of amphetamine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 59:799–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Suzuki T, George FR, Meisch RA (1988) Differential establishment and maintenance of oral ethanol reinforced behavior in Lewis and Fisher 344 inbred rat strains. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 245:164–170Google Scholar
  55. Walsh RN, Cummins RA (1976) The open field test: a critical review. Psychol Bull 83:482–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Welker WI (1959) Escape, exploratory, and food-seeking responses of rats in a novel situation. J Comp Physiol Psychol 52:106–111Google Scholar
  57. Wise RA, Rompre PP (1989) Brain dopamine and reward. In: Rosenweig M, Porter L (eds) Annual review of psychology. Palo Alto, Calif., pp 191–226Google Scholar
  58. Zuckerman M (1979) Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal levels of arousal. Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mindy J. D. Miserendino
    • 1
  • Colin N. Haile
    • 2
  • Therese A. Kosten
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Sacred Heart UniversityFairfieldUSA
  2. 2.Yale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Abraham Ribicoff Research FacilitiesConnecticut Mental Health Center, Room S-305New HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations