BACKGROUND: Social interaction can serve as a natural reward that attenuates drug reward in rats; however, it is unknown if age or housing conditions alter the choice between social interaction and drug. METHODS: Individually- and pair-housed adolescent and adult male rats were tested using conditioned place preference (CPP) in separate experiments in which: (1) social interaction was conditioned against no social interaction; (2) amphetamine (AMPH; 1mg/kg, s.c.) was conditioned against saline; or (3) social interaction was conditioned against AMPH. RESULTS: Social interaction CPP was obtained only in individually-housed adolescents, whereas AMPH CPP was obtained in both individually-housed adolescents and adults; however, the effect of AMPH was not statistically significant in pair-housed adults. When allowed to choose concurrently between compartments paired with either social interaction or AMPH, individually-housed adolescents preferred the compartment paired with social interaction, whereas pair-housed adolescents preferred the compartment paired with AMPH. Regardless of housing condition, adults showed a similar preference for the compartments paired with either social interaction or AMPH. CONCLUSIONS: Although some caution is needed in interpreting cross-experiment comparisons, the overall results suggest that individually-housed adolescents were most sensitive to the rewarding effect of social interaction, and this hypersensitivity to social reward effectively competed with AMPH reward.
BACKGROUND: Social interaction can serve as a natural reward that attenuates drug reward in rats; however, it is unknown if age or housing conditions alter the choice between social interaction and drug. METHODS: Individually- and pair-housed adolescent and adult male rats were tested using conditioned place preference (CPP) in separate experiments in which: (1) social interaction was conditioned against no social interaction; (2) amphetamine (AMPH; 1mg/kg, s.c.) was conditioned against saline; or (3) social interaction was conditioned against AMPH. RESULTS: Social interaction CPP was obtained only in individually-housed adolescents, whereas AMPH CPP was obtained in both individually-housed adolescents and adults; however, the effect of AMPH was not statistically significant in pair-housed adults. When allowed to choose concurrently between compartments paired with either social interaction or AMPH, individually-housed adolescents preferred the compartment paired with social interaction, whereas pair-housed adolescents preferred the compartment paired with AMPH. Regardless of housing condition, adults showed a similar preference for the compartments paired with either social interaction or AMPH. CONCLUSIONS: Although some caution is needed in interpreting cross-experiment comparisons, the overall results suggest that individually-housed adolescents were most sensitive to the rewarding effect of social interaction, and this hypersensitivity to social reward effectively competed with AMPH reward.
Authors: Julie A Marusich; Mahesh Darna; A George Wilson; Emily D Denehy; Amanda Ebben; Agripina G Deaciuc; Linda P Dwoskin; Michael T Bardo; Timothy W Lefever; Jenny L Wiley; Chad J Reissig; Kia J Jackson Journal: Eur J Pharmacol Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 4.432
Authors: Deena M Walker; Margaret R Bell; Cecilia Flores; Joshua M Gulley; Jari Willing; Matthew J Paul Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Brittany L Smith; Carey E Lyons; Fernanda Guilhaume Correa; Stephen C Benoit; Brent Myers; Matia B Solomon; James P Herman Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Matthew A Weber; Eric T Graack; Jamie L Scholl; Kenneth J Renner; Gina L Forster; Michael J Watt Journal: Eur J Neurosci Date: 2018-07-10 Impact factor: 3.386