RATIONALE: There is growing clinical evidence for a strong relationship between drug addiction and impulsivity. However, it is not fully clear whether impulsivity is a pre-existing trait or a consequence of drug abuse. Recent observations in the animal models show that pre-existing levels of impulsivity predict cocaine and nicotine seeking. Whether such relationships also exist with respect to non-stimulant drugs is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: We studied the relationship between impulsive choice and vulnerability to heroin taking and seeking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats were selected in the delayed reward task based on individual differences in impulsive choice. Subsequently, heroin intravenous self-administration behaviour was analysed, including acquisition of heroin intake, motivation, extinction and drug- and cue-induced reinstatement. Throughout the entire experiment, changes in impulsive choice were monitored weekly. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: High impulsivity did not predict measures of heroin taking. Moreover, high impulsive rats did not differ from low impulsive rats in extinction rates or heroin- and cue-induced reinstatement. However, both groups became more impulsive as heroin self-administration continued. During abstinence, impulsivity levels returned towards baseline (pre-heroin) levels. Our results indicate that, in contrast to psychostimulants, impulsive choice does not predict vulnerability to heroin seeking and taking. CONCLUSION: These data implicate that different neural mechanisms may underlie the vulnerability to opiate and psychostimulant dependence. Moreover, our data suggest that elevated impulsivity levels as observed in heroin-dependent subjects are a consequence of heroin intake rather than a pre-existing vulnerability trait.
RATIONALE: There is growing clinical evidence for a strong relationship between drug addiction and impulsivity. However, it is not fully clear whether impulsivity is a pre-existing trait or a consequence of drug abuse. Recent observations in the animal models show that pre-existing levels of impulsivity predict cocaine and nicotine seeking. Whether such relationships also exist with respect to non-stimulant drugs is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: We studied the relationship between impulsive choice and vulnerability to heroin taking and seeking. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Rats were selected in the delayed reward task based on individual differences in impulsive choice. Subsequently, heroin intravenous self-administration behaviour was analysed, including acquisition of heroin intake, motivation, extinction and drug- and cue-induced reinstatement. Throughout the entire experiment, changes in impulsive choice were monitored weekly. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: High impulsivity did not predict measures of heroin taking. Moreover, high impulsive rats did not differ from low impulsive rats in extinction rates or heroin- and cue-induced reinstatement. However, both groups became more impulsive as heroin self-administration continued. During abstinence, impulsivity levels returned towards baseline (pre-heroin) levels. Our results indicate that, in contrast to psychostimulants, impulsive choice does not predict vulnerability to heroin seeking and taking. CONCLUSION: These data implicate that different neural mechanisms may underlie the vulnerability to opiate and psychostimulant dependence. Moreover, our data suggest that elevated impulsivity levels as observed in heroin-dependent subjects are a consequence of heroin intake rather than a pre-existing vulnerability trait.
Authors: Michel C Van den Oever; Natalia A Goriounova; Ka Wan Li; Roel C Van der Schors; Rob Binnekade; Anton N M Schoffelmeer; Huibert D Mansvelder; August B Smit; Sabine Spijker; Taco J De Vries Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: James MacKillop; Michael T Amlung; Lauren R Few; Lara A Ray; Lawrence H Sweet; Marcus R Munafò Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Marcel M van Gaalen; Reinout van Koten; Anton N M Schoffelmeer; Louk J M J Vanderschuren Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-08-25 Impact factor: 13.382