Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responding for conditioned reinforcement in C57BL/6 and CD-1 mice, and Sprague-Dawley rats: Effects of methylphenidate and amphetamine

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rationale

Characterization of responding for conditioned reinforcement in mice is important to implement genetic tools in examining the neurobiological mechanisms underlying reward-related learning and incentive motivation.

Methods

Inbred C57BL/6 mice, outbred CD-1 mice, and outbred Sprague–Dawley rats underwent Pavlovian conditioning in which a conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired with saccharin. Subsequently, subjects were allowed to respond for that CS in tests of responding for conditioned reinforcement. Experiments measured the effects of methylphenidate (MPH) and amphetamine (AMPH) on lever pressing for conditioned reinforcement in mice and rats. We further examined the stability of responding for conditioned reinforcement in mice after repeated testing and the extinction of this behaviour following omission of the reinforcer. We also determined whether the CS exhibited reinforcing properties if it was not paired with saccharin.

Results

C57BL/6 and CD-1 mice learned to respond for a conditioned reinforcer similarly to rats, and the behaviour was stable over time. MPH increased responding in CD-1 mice and rats, but not in C57BL/6 mice. AMPH only increased responding in rats. Responding was reduced following omission of the conditioned reinforcer, and responding was only established when the CS was paired with saccharin.

Conclusions

These experiments characterize a conditioned reinforcement test which produces stable responding in two different mouse backgrounds. These findings also show that dopaminergic psychomotor stimulants can differently affect rats and mice in tests of responding for conditioned reinforcement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beninger RJ, Hanson DR, Phillips AG (1980) The effects of pipradrol on the acquisition of responding with conditioned reinforcement: a role for sensory preconditioning. Psychopharmacol 69:235–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brunzell DH, Chang JR, Schneider B et al (2006) beta2-Subunit-containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are involved in nicotine-induced increases in conditioned reinforcement but not progressive ratio responding for food in C57BL/6 mice. Psychopharmacol 184:328–338. doi:10.1007/s00213-005-0099-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burton CL, Nobrega JN, Fletcher PJ (2010) The effects of adolescent methylphenidate self-administration on responding for a conditioned reward, amphetamine-induced locomotor activity, and neuronal activation. Psychopharmacol 208:455–468. doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1745-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crombag HS, Galarce EM, Holland PC (2008a) Pavlovian influences on goal-directed behavior in mice: the role of cue-reinforcer relations. Learn Mem 15:299–303. doi:10.1101/lm.762508

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crombag HS, Sutton JM, Takamiya K et al (2008b) A necessary role for GluR1 serine 831 phosphorylation in appetitive incentive learning. Behav Brain Res 191:178–183. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.03.026

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Economidou D, Dalley JW, Everitt BJ (2011) Selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibition by atomoxetine prevents cue-induced heroin and cocaine seeking. Biol Psychiatry 69:266–274. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.09.040

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher PJ (1995) Effects of d-fenfluramine and metergoline on responding for conditioned reward and the response potentiating effect of nucleus accumbens d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacol 118:155–163

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher PJ, Higgins GA (1997) Differential effects of ondansetron and alpha-flupenthixol on responding for conditioned reward. Psychopharmacol 134:64–72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guy EG, Fletcher PJ (2013) Nicotine-induced enhancement of responding for conditioned reinforcement in rats: role of prior nicotine exposure and α4β2 nicotinic receptors. Psychopharmacol 225:429–440. doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2832-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Han DD, Gu HH (2006) Comparison of the monoamine transporters from human and mouse in their sensitivities to psychostimulant drugs. BMC Pharmacol 6:6. doi:10.1186/1471-2210-6-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley AE, Delfs JM (1991) Dopamine and conditioned reinforcement. I. Differential effects of amphetamine microinjections into striatal subregions. Psychopharmacol 103:187–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Loos M, Staal J, Schoffelmeer ANM et al (2010) Inhibitory control and response latency differences between C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice in a Go/No-Go and 5-choice serial reaction time task and strain-specific responsivity to amphetamine. Behav Brain Res 214:216–224. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mead AN, Stephens DN (2003a) Selective disruption of stimulus-reward learning in glutamate receptor gria1 knock-out mice. J Neurosci 23:1041–1048

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mead AN, Stephens DN (2003b) Involvement of AMPA receptor GluR2 subunits in stimulus-reward learning: evidence from glutamate receptor gria2 knock-out mice. J Neurosci 23:9500–9507

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mead AN, Crombag HS, Rocha BA (2004) Sensitization of psychomotor stimulation and conditioned reward in mice: differential modulation by contextual learning. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:249–258. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor EC, Crombag HS, Mead AN, Stephens DN (2010) The mGluR5 antagonist MTEP dissociates the acquisition of predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-paired stimuli in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 35:1807–1817. doi:10.1038/npp.2010.48

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen CM, Winder DG (2009) Operant sensation seeking engages similar neural substrates to operant drug seeking in C57 mice. Neuropsychopharmacology 34:1685–1694. doi:10.1038/npp.2008.226

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins TW (1975) The potentiation of conditioned reinforcement by psychomotor stimulant drugs. A Test of Hill’s Hypothesis. Psychopharmacologia 45:103–114. doi:10.1007/BF00426218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins TW (2002) The 5-choice serial reaction time task: behavioural pharmacology and functional neurochemistry. Psychopharmacol 163:362–380. doi:10.1007/s00213-002-1154-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Rev 18:247–291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson ESJ, Eagle DM, Mar AC et al (2008) Similar effects of the selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor atomoxetine on three distinct forms of impulsivity in the rat. Neuropsychopharmacology 33:1028–1037. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman RB, Baumann MH (2003) Monoamine transporters and psychostimulant drugs. Eur J Pharmacol 479:23–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salahpour A, Ramsey AJ, Medvedev IO et al (2008) Increased amphetamine-induced hyperactivity and reward in mice overexpressing the dopamine transporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:4405–4410. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707646105

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz W (1998) Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J Neurophysiol 80:1–27

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz W, Apicella P, Ljungberg T (1993) Responses of monkey dopamine neurons to reward and conditioned stimuli during successive steps of learning a delayed response task. J Neurosci 13:900–913

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart J (1960) Reinforcing effects of light as a function of intensity and reinforcement schedule. J Comp Physiol Psychol 53:187–193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton MA, Beninger RJ (1999) Psychopharmacology of conditioned reward: evidence for a rewarding signal at D1-like dopamine receptors. Psychopharmacol 144:95–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JR, Robbins TW (1984) Enhanced behavioural control by conditioned reinforcers following microinjections of d-amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens. Psychopharmacol 84:405–412

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JR, Robbins TW (1986) 6-Hydroxydopamine lesions of the nucleus accumbens, but not of the caudate nucleus, attenuate enhanced responding with reward-related stimuli produced by intra-accumbens d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacol 90:390–397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Volkow ND, Wang G-J, Telang F et al (2006) Cocaine cues and dopamine in dorsal striatum: mechanism of craving in cocaine addiction. J Neurosci 26:6583–6588. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1544-06.2006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolterink G, Phillips G, Cador M et al (1993) Relative roles of ventral striatal D1 and D2 dopamine receptors in responding with conditioned reinforcement. Psychopharmacol 110:355–364

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Young JW, Jentsch JD, Bussey TJ et al (2013) Consideration of species differences in developing novel molecules as cognition enhancers. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37:2181–2193. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.10.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Doctoral award from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to JDCB and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grant to PJF. The authors would like to thank Daniel Fisher for his assistance, Dr. Elizabeth G. Guy and Dr. Fiona D. Zeeb for their valuable input, and Dr. Junchul Kim and Dr. Suzanne Erb for their helpful comments on some of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3, Canada

    J. D. Caleb Browne & Paul J. Fletcher

  2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Paul J. Fletcher

  3. Section of Biopsychology, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 1R8, Canada

    Ashlie D. Soko & Paul J. Fletcher

Authors
  1. J. D. Caleb Browne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashlie D. Soko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul J. Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. D. Caleb Browne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Browne, J.D.C., Soko, A.D. & Fletcher, P.J. Responding for conditioned reinforcement in C57BL/6 and CD-1 mice, and Sprague-Dawley rats: Effects of methylphenidate and amphetamine. Psychopharmacology 231, 4503–4516 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3602-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3602-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation