Strain differences in response to escapable and inescapable novel environments and their ability to predict amphetamine-induced locomotor activity
- 44 Downloads
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.
We examined responses to novel inescapable and escapable environments and to novel objects in these strains.
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.
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.
These data suggest that responses to different novelty situations are strain-dependent.
KeywordsLewis inbred rats Fischer 344 inbred rats Genetics Risk factors Drug abuse Stress Novelty
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hall CS (1936) Emotional behavior in the rat. III. The relationship between emotionality and ambulatory activity. J Comp Physiol Psychol 22:345–352Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Kosten TA, Ball SA, Rounsaville BJ (1994a) A sibling study of sensation seeking and opiate addiction. J Nerv Mental Dis 182:284–289Google Scholar
- Montgomery KC (1955) The relation between fear induced by novel stimulation and exploratory behavior. J Comp Physiol Psychol 48:254–260Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Welker WI (1959) Escape, exploratory, and food-seeking responses of rats in a novel situation. J Comp Physiol Psychol 52:106–111Google Scholar
- 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
- Zuckerman M (1979) Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal levels of arousal. Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar