BACKGROUND: A previous study indicated that selectively bred alcohol-preferring (P) rats self-administered ethanol (EtOH) directly into the posterior ventral tegmental area at lower concentrations than Wistar rats. The present study was undertaken to determine involvement of the nucleus accumbens (Acb) with EtOH reinforcement, and a relationship between genetic selection for high alcohol preference and sensitivity of the Acb to the reinforcing effects of EtOH. METHODS: Adult P and Wistar rats were assigned to groups that self-infused 0 to 300 mg% EtOH into the Acb shell (AcbSh) or Acb Core (AcbC). Rats were placed into 2-lever (active and inactive) operant chambers and given EtOH for the first 4 sessions (acquisition), artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) for sessions 5 and 6 (extinction), and EtOH again in session 7 (reinstatement). Responding on the active lever produced a 100-nl injection of the infusate. RESULTS: Alcohol-preferring rats self-infused 75 to 300 mg% EtOH, whereas Wistar rats reliably self-infused 100 and 300 mg% EtOH into the AcbSh. Both P and Wistar rats reduced responding on the active lever when aCSF was substituted for EtOH, and reinstated responding in session 7 when EtOH was restored. EtOH was not self-infused into the AcbC by P or Wistar rats. CONCLUSIONS: The present results indicate that the AcbSh, but not AcbC, is a neuroanatomical structure that mediates the reinforcing actions of EtOH. The data also suggest that, compared to Wistar rats, the AcbSh of P rats is more sensitive to the reinforcing effects of EtOH.
BACKGROUND: A previous study indicated that selectively bred alcohol-preferring (P) rats self-administered ethanol (EtOH) directly into the posterior ventral tegmental area at lower concentrations than Wistar rats. The present study was undertaken to determine involvement of the nucleus accumbens (Acb) with EtOH reinforcement, and a relationship between genetic selection for high alcohol preference and sensitivity of the Acb to the reinforcing effects of EtOH. METHODS: Adult P and Wistar rats were assigned to groups that self-infused 0 to 300 mg% EtOH into the Acb shell (AcbSh) or Acb Core (AcbC). Rats were placed into 2-lever (active and inactive) operant chambers and given EtOH for the first 4 sessions (acquisition), artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) for sessions 5 and 6 (extinction), and EtOH again in session 7 (reinstatement). Responding on the active lever produced a 100-nl injection of the infusate. RESULTS:Alcohol-preferring rats self-infused 75 to 300 mg% EtOH, whereas Wistar rats reliably self-infused 100 and 300 mg% EtOH into the AcbSh. Both P and Wistar rats reduced responding on the active lever when aCSF was substituted for EtOH, and reinstated responding in session 7 when EtOH was restored. EtOH was not self-infused into the AcbC by P or Wistar rats. CONCLUSIONS: The present results indicate that the AcbSh, but not AcbC, is a neuroanatomical structure that mediates the reinforcing actions of EtOH. The data also suggest that, compared to Wistar rats, the AcbSh of P rats is more sensitive to the reinforcing effects of EtOH.
Authors: John H Krystal; Julie Staley; Graeme Mason; Ismene L Petrakis; Joan Kaufman; R Adron Harris; Joel Gelernter; Jaakko Lappalainen Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-09
Authors: Zachary A Rodd; Victoria E Gryszowka; Jamie E Toalston; Scott M Oster; Dong Ji; Richard L Bell; William J McBride Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2007-02-26 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Zachary A Rodd; Scott M Oster; Zheng-Ming Ding; Jamie E Toalston; Gerald Deehan; Richard L Bell; Ting-Kai Li; William J McBride Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Zachary A Rodd; Mark W Kimpel; Howard J Edenberg; Richard L Bell; Wendy N Strother; Jeanette N McClintick; Lucinda G Carr; Tiebing Liang; William J McBride Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Yan Zhou; Giancarlo Colombo; Keiichi Niikura; Mauro A M Carai; Teresa Femenía; Maria S García-Gutiérrez; Jorge Manzanares; Ann Ho; Gian Luigi Gessa; Mary Jeanne Kreek Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Sheketha R Hauser; Simon N Katner; Robert A Waeiss; William A Truitt; Richard L Bell; William J McBride; Zachary A Rodd Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Zheng-Ming Ding; Scott M Oster; Sheketha R Hauser; Jamie E Toalston; Richard L Bell; William J McBride; Zachary A Rodd Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Simon N Katner; Scott M Oster; Zheng-Ming Ding; Gerald A Deehan; Jamie E Toalston; Sheketha R Hauser; William J McBride; Zachary A Rodd Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Sheketha R Hauser; Amy L Bracken; Gerald A Deehan; Jamie E Toalston; Zheng-Ming Ding; William A Truitt; Richard L Bell; William J McBride; Zachary A Rodd Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Zheng-Ming Ding; Zachary A Rodd; Eric A Engleman; Jason A Bailey; Debomoy K Lahiri; William J McBride Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Jessica A Wilden; Kurt Y Qing; Sheketha R Hauser; William J McBride; Pedro P Irazoqui; Zachary A Rodd Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Zheng-Ming Ding; Cynthia M Ingraham; Sheketha R Hauser; Amy W Lasek; Richard L Bell; William J McBride Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 3.455