RATIONALE: Adult rats often produce 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs), particularly the frequency-modulated varieties, in appetitive situations. These calls are thought by some to reflect positive affective states and the reinforcing value of drugs such as amphetamine and cocaine. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the number of unconditioned 50-kHz USVs elicited by amphetamine predicts the development and/or magnitude of drug-conditioned motivation. METHODS: In three experiments, we recorded USVs before and after injections of 1 mg/kg amphetamine (i.v. or i.p.) administered once per session. Rats were categorized as "high callers" or "low callers" according to individual differences in the number of 50-kHz USVs elicited by their first amphetamine injection. We examined the conditioned appetitive behavior and conditioned place preference (CPP) that emerged in high and low callers after repeated pairings of amphetamine with specific contexts. We also examined whether amphetamine-induced calling was affected by treatment within an unfamiliar (test chamber) versus familiar (home cage) context. RESULTS: Within an unfamiliar environment, the high callers consistently produced more amphetamine-induced 50-kHz USVs than the low callers. Compared to the low callers, high callers showed significantly greater amphetamine CPP as well as enhanced conditioned 50-kHz USVs and locomotor activity during anticipation of amphetamine. Individual differences were stable when amphetamine was administered in test chambers, but when it was administered in home cages, low callers showed an increase in 50-kHz calling that matched the high callers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that individual differences in drug-induced USVs can reveal environment-sensitive traits involved in drug-related appetitive motivation.
RATIONALE: Adult rats often produce 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs), particularly the frequency-modulated varieties, in appetitive situations. These calls are thought by some to reflect positive affective states and the reinforcing value of drugs such as amphetamine and cocaine. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the number of unconditioned 50-kHz USVs elicited by amphetamine predicts the development and/or magnitude of drug-conditioned motivation. METHODS: In three experiments, we recorded USVs before and after injections of 1 mg/kg amphetamine (i.v. or i.p.) administered once per session. Rats were categorized as "high callers" or "low callers" according to individual differences in the number of 50-kHz USVs elicited by their first amphetamine injection. We examined the conditioned appetitive behavior and conditioned place preference (CPP) that emerged in high and low callers after repeated pairings of amphetamine with specific contexts. We also examined whether amphetamine-induced calling was affected by treatment within an unfamiliar (test chamber) versus familiar (home cage) context. RESULTS: Within an unfamiliar environment, the high callers consistently produced more amphetamine-induced 50-kHz USVs than the low callers. Compared to the low callers, high callers showed significantly greater amphetamine CPP as well as enhanced conditioned 50-kHz USVs and locomotor activity during anticipation of amphetamine. Individual differences were stable when amphetamine was administered in test chambers, but when it was administered in home cages, low callers showed an increase in 50-kHz calling that matched the high callers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that individual differences in drug-induced USVs can reveal environment-sensitive traits involved in drug-related appetitive motivation.
Authors: Stefan M Brudzynski; Brittany Gibson; Michael Silkstone; Jeffrey Burgdorf; Roger A Kroes; Joseph R Moskal; Jaak Panksepp Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Nicole L Schramm-Sapyta; Marty C Cauley; Dalene K Stangl; Susan Glowacz; K Amy Stepp; Edward D Levin; Cynthia M Kuhn Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: J Burgdorf; R A Kroes; C Weiss; M M Oh; J F Disterhoft; S M Brudzynski; J Panksepp; J R Moskal Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Jenny R Browning; Douglas A Browning; Alexis O Maxwell; Yan Dong; Heiko T Jansen; Jaak Panksepp; Barbara A Sorg Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: James M Reno; Neha Thakore; Rueben Gonzales; Timothy Schallert; Richard L Bell; W Todd Maddox; Christine L Duvauchelle Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Nitish Mittal; Neha Thakore; James M Reno; Richard L Bell; W Todd Maddox; Timothy Schallert; Christine L Duvauchelle Journal: Alcohol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 2.405
Authors: Gisele de Oliveira Guaita; Debora Dalla Vecchia; Roberto Andreatini; Donita L Robinson; Rainer K W Schwarting; Claudio Da Cunha Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Ingo Willuhn; Amanda Tose; Matthew J Wanat; Andrew S Hart; Nick G Hollon; Paul E M Phillips; Rainer K W Schwarting; Markus Wöhr Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Cara L Buck; Jordan C Malavar; Olivier George; George F Koob; Leandro F Vendruscolo Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2014-06-07 Impact factor: 3.332