RATIONALE: Various dimensions of impulsivity have been linked to substance abuse and dependence, both as consequences of, and as predisposing factors to addiction. With respect to the latter, they may be quantitative indicators of liability for substance use disorders (SUD) and aid in determining underlying genetic influences. We have previously determined that inhibitory control over impulsive responding, as measured by a reversal learning task, is heritable and under substantial genetic control, however their role as explaining variables for aspects of SUD have not been well explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test for an association between genetically determined differences in inhibitory control and addiction-related phenotypes, such that phenotypes of poor inhibitory control would predict propensity for elevated operant drug-seeking and -taking behaviors. METHODS: Mice from BxD strains with either good reversal learning (GRL) or poor reversal learning (PRL) ability were tested for intravenous cocaine self-administration under FR1, FR2, and FR5 reinforcement schedules. Additionally, locomotor responses to experimenter-delivered cocaine were assessed. RESULTS: Compared to GRL strains, PRL strains acquired self-administration behavior more rapidly and administered cocaine at greater rates under all schedules of reinforcement, without any differences in discrimination index. In addition, PRL mice also exhibited increased responding during time-out periods. PRL strains also showed larger locomotor responses to 10 or 20 mg/kg injections of cocaine. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrate that heritable strain differences in inhibitory control do influence drug self-administration, thus suggest that genetically driven impulsivity of this type may predispose susceptibility to drug abuse and addiction.
RATIONALE: Various dimensions of impulsivity have been linked to substance abuse and dependence, both as consequences of, and as predisposing factors to addiction. With respect to the latter, they may be quantitative indicators of liability for substance use disorders (SUD) and aid in determining underlying genetic influences. We have previously determined that inhibitory control over impulsive responding, as measured by a reversal learning task, is heritable and under substantial genetic control, however their role as explaining variables for aspects of SUD have not been well explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test for an association between genetically determined differences in inhibitory control and addiction-related phenotypes, such that phenotypes of poor inhibitory control would predict propensity for elevated operant drug-seeking and -taking behaviors. METHODS:Mice from BxD strains with either good reversal learning (GRL) or poor reversal learning (PRL) ability were tested for intravenous cocaine self-administration under FR1, FR2, and FR5 reinforcement schedules. Additionally, locomotor responses to experimenter-delivered cocaine were assessed. RESULTS: Compared to GRL strains, PRL strains acquired self-administration behavior more rapidly and administered cocaine at greater rates under all schedules of reinforcement, without any differences in discrimination index. In addition, PRL mice also exhibited increased responding during time-out periods. PRL strains also showed larger locomotor responses to 10 or 20 mg/kg injections of cocaine. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrate that heritable strain differences in inhibitory control do influence drug self-administration, thus suggest that genetically driven impulsivity of this type may predispose susceptibility to drug abuse and addiction.
Authors: Catharine A Winstanley; Ryan K Bachtell; David E H Theobald; Samuel Laali; Thomas A Green; Arvind Kumar; Sumana Chakravarty; David W Self; Eric J Nestler Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Marina A Bornovalova; Stacey B Daughters; Gustavo Daniel Hernandez; Jerry B Richards; C W Lejuez Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Jennifer L Perry; Erin B Larson; Jonathan P German; Gregory J Madden; Marilyn E Carroll Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2004-08-27 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Douglas G Howe; Judith A Blake; Yvonne M Bradford; Carol J Bult; Brian R Calvi; Stacia R Engel; James A Kadin; Thomas C Kaufman; Ranjana Kishore; Stanley J F Laulederkind; Suzanna E Lewis; Sierra A T Moxon; Joel E Richardson; Cynthia Smith Journal: Lab Anim (NY) Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 12.625
Authors: R Christopher Pierce; Bruno Fant; Sarah E Swinford-Jackson; Elizabeth A Heller; Wade H Berrettini; Mathieu E Wimmer Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: J David Jentsch; James R Ashenhurst; M Catalina Cervantes; Stephanie M Groman; Alexander S James; Zachary T Pennington Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Alex S James; Jane Y Chen; Carlos Cepeda; Nitish Mittal; James David Jentsch; Michael S Levine; Christopher J Evans; Wendy Walwyn Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Stephanie M Groman; Nathaniel J Smith; J Ryan Petrullli; Bart Massi; Lihui Chen; Jim Ropchan; Yiyun Huang; Daeyeol Lee; Evan D Morris; Jane R Taylor Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 6.167