Animal Models for Testing Drug Effects on Alcohol Consumption
Perhaps there is no area of alcohol related research so diverse in the methods used than the area of preference testing. The number and variety of paradigms for testing an animal’s preference or rejection of alcohol solutions seeming is limited only by the number of investigators in the field. This has led to an amazing variety of paradigms and interpretations. While there are now a number of accepted findings, the path to these findings would have been greatly accelerated if a standardized testing paradigm had been employed by investigators in order to make comparisons between laboratories easier. Many studies are internally consistent but the effects observed may be peculiar to the paradigm used and not generally applicable.
KeywordsPlacebo Catheter Sucrose Dopamine Cage
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Conger, J J., Sawrey, W.L., and Turrell, E.S., 1958. The role of social experience in the production of gastric ulcers in hooded rats placed in a conflict situation. J. Soc. Psych. 57, 214 – 220.Google Scholar
- D’Amour, F., and Smith, D.L., 1941. A method for testing loss of pain sensation. J. Pharmacol. Exptl. Therap. 72, 74 – 79.Google Scholar
- Eriksson, K., and Russi, M., 1981. Finnish selection studies on alcohol related behaviors: General outline, in McClearn, G.E., Deitrich, R.A. and Erwin, V.G., eds., Development of Animal Models as Pharmacogenetic Tools. Res. Monograph No. 6, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Washington, D.C. pp. 87 – 117.Google Scholar
- Lawrin, M.O., Naranjo, CA., and Sellers, E.M., 1986. Identification of new drugs for modulating ethanol consumption. Psychopharm. Bull 22, 1020 – 1025.Google Scholar
- Li, T.-K., Lumeng, L., McBride, WJ., and Waller, M.B., 1981. Indiana selection studies on alcohol related behaviors, in McClearn, G.E.Deitrich, R.A. and Erwin, V.G., eds., Development of Animal Models as Pharmacogenetic Tools. Res. Monograph No. 6, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Washington, D.C. pp. 171–191Google Scholar