RATIONALE: Operant self-administration (SA) is an important model of motivation to consume ethanol (EtOH), but low rates of voluntary consumption in rats are thought to necessitate water deprivation and saccharin/sucrose fading for acquisition of responding. OBJECTIVES: Here, we sought to devise an effective model of SA that does not use water deprivation or saccharin/sucrose fading. METHODS: First, we tested if Wistar rats would acquire and maintain SA behavior of 20 % EtOH under two conditions, water deprivation (WD) and non-water deprivation (NWD). Second, we tested the efficacy of our SA procedure by confirming a prior study which found that the NK1 antagonist L822429 specifically blocked stress-induced reinstatement of EtOH seeking but not SA. Finally, we assessed the effect of naltrexone, an FDA-approved medication for alcohol dependence that has been shown to suppress EtOH SA in rodents. RESULTS: Lever presses (LPs) and rewards were consistent with previous reports that utilized WD and saccharin/sucrose fading. Similar to previous findings, we found that L822429 blocked stress-induced reinstatement but not baseline SA of 20 % EtOH. Moreover, naltrexone dose-dependently decreased alcohol intake and motivation to consume alcohol for rats that are self-administering 20 % EtOH. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a method for voluntary oral EtOH SA in rats that is convenient for experimenters and eliminates the potential confound of sweeteners in EtOH-operant SA studies. Unlike models that use intermittent access to 20 % EtOH, this method does not induce escalation, and based on pharmacological experiments, it appears to be driven by the positive reinforcing effects of EtOH.
RATIONALE: Operant self-administration (SA) is an important model of motivation to consume ethanol (EtOH), but low rates of voluntary consumption in rats are thought to necessitate water deprivation and saccharin/sucrose fading for acquisition of responding. OBJECTIVES: Here, we sought to devise an effective model of SA that does not use water deprivation or saccharin/sucrose fading. METHODS: First, we tested if Wistar rats would acquire and maintain SA behavior of 20 % EtOH under two conditions, water deprivation (WD) and non-water deprivation (NWD). Second, we tested the efficacy of our SA procedure by confirming a prior study which found that the NK1 antagonist L822429 specifically blocked stress-induced reinstatement of EtOH seeking but not SA. Finally, we assessed the effect of naltrexone, an FDA-approved medication for alcohol dependence that has been shown to suppress EtOH SA in rodents. RESULTS: Lever presses (LPs) and rewards were consistent with previous reports that utilized WD and saccharin/sucrose fading. Similar to previous findings, we found that L822429 blocked stress-induced reinstatement but not baseline SA of 20 % EtOH. Moreover, naltrexone dose-dependently decreased alcohol intake and motivation to consume alcohol for rats that are self-administering 20 % EtOH. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a method for voluntary oral EtOH SA in rats that is convenient for experimenters and eliminates the potential confound of sweeteners in EtOH-operant SA studies. Unlike models that use intermittent access to 20 % EtOH, this method does not induce escalation, and based on pharmacological experiments, it appears to be driven by the positive reinforcing effects of EtOH.
Authors: Jesse R Schank; Jenica D Tapocik; Estelle Barbier; Ruslan Damadzic; Robert L Eskay; Hui Sun; Kelly E Rowe; Courtney E King; Mengdi Yao; Meghan E Flanigan; Matthew G Solomon; Camilla Karlsson; Kejun Cheng; Kenner C Rice; Markus Heilig Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-02-16 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Jesse R Schank; Charles L Pickens; Kelly E Rowe; Kejun Cheng; Annika Thorsell; Kenner C Rice; Yavin Shaham; Markus Heilig Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Rudolph Spangler; Knut M Wittkowski; Noel L Goddard; Nicole M Avena; Bartley G Hoebel; Sarah F Leibowitz Journal: Brain Res Mol Brain Res Date: 2004-05-19
Authors: Chiara Giuliano; Charles R Goodlett; Daina Economidou; Maria P García-Pardo; David Belin; Trevor W Robbins; Edward T Bullmore; Barry J Everitt Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: E Domi; E Barbier; E Augier; G Augier; D Gehlert; R Barchiesi; A Thorsell; L Holm; M Heilig Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Eric Augier; Russell S Dulman; Ruslan Damadzic; Andrew Pilling; J Paul Hamilton; Markus Heilig Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Eric Augier; Russell S Dulman; Caroline Rauffenbart; Gaëlle Augier; Alan J Cross; Markus Heilig Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Alexandra M Stafford; Shawn M Anderson; Keith L Shelton; Darlene H Brunzell Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 4.530