RATIONALE: Varenicline (VAR), a smoking cessation aid that is a partial agonist at nicotinic receptors, mimics the reinforcement-enhancing effects of nicotine. Varenicline, when accompanied by non-drug cues, is self-administered by rats, though it is unclear whether this results from varenicline acting as a primary reinforcer or a reinforcement enhancer of the cues. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to disentangle these two potential actions. METHODS: Rats were allowed to self-administer intravenous nicotine, saline, or varenicline during 1-h sessions in operant chambers equipped with two levers. Five groups had concurrent access to drug infusions and a moderately reinforcing visual stimulus (VS) for responding on separate levers. Meeting the reinforcement schedule on one lever was reinforced with VAR (0.01, 0.06, 0.1 mg/kg/infusion), nicotine (0.06 mg/kg/infusion), or saline, while meeting the same schedule on the other lever delivered the VS. Additional groups were reinforced for pressing a single "active" lever and received VAR paired with the VS, the VS with response-independent infusions of VAR, or VAR alone (0.1 mg/kg/infusion). RESULTS: Rats readily responded for VAR paired with VS on a single lever. However, when VAR was the only reinforcer contingent on a response, rats did not respond more than for saline. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that VAR does not serve as a primary reinforcer in rats at doses that increase responding for non-drug reinforcers. These data are consistent with research showing that the primary reinforcing effects of VAR are weak, at best, and that the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing actions of nicotinic drugs are pharmacologically distinct.
RATIONALE: Varenicline (VAR), a smoking cessation aid that is a partial agonist at nicotinic receptors, mimics the reinforcement-enhancing effects of nicotine. Varenicline, when accompanied by non-drug cues, is self-administered by rats, though it is unclear whether this results from varenicline acting as a primary reinforcer or a reinforcement enhancer of the cues. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to disentangle these two potential actions. METHODS:Rats were allowed to self-administer intravenous nicotine, saline, or varenicline during 1-h sessions in operant chambers equipped with two levers. Five groups had concurrent access to drug infusions and a moderately reinforcing visual stimulus (VS) for responding on separate levers. Meeting the reinforcement schedule on one lever was reinforced with VAR (0.01, 0.06, 0.1 mg/kg/infusion), nicotine (0.06 mg/kg/infusion), or saline, while meeting the same schedule on the other lever delivered the VS. Additional groups were reinforced for pressing a single "active" lever and received VAR paired with the VS, the VS with response-independent infusions of VAR, or VAR alone (0.1 mg/kg/infusion). RESULTS:Rats readily responded for VAR paired with VS on a single lever. However, when VAR was the only reinforcer contingent on a response, rats did not respond more than for saline. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that VAR does not serve as a primary reinforcer in rats at doses that increase responding for non-drug reinforcers. These data are consistent with research showing that the primary reinforcing effects of VAR are weak, at best, and that the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing actions of nicotinic drugs are pharmacologically distinct.
Authors: Nadia Chaudhri; Anthony R Caggiula; Eric C Donny; Matthew I Palmatier; Xiu Liu; Alan F Sved Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-10-21 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: M R Picciotto; M Zoli; R Rimondini; C Léna; L M Marubio; E M Pich; K Fuxe; J P Changeux Journal: Nature Date: 1998-01-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jotham W Coe; Paige R Brooks; Michael G Vetelino; Michael C Wirtz; Eric P Arnold; Jianhua Huang; Steven B Sands; Thomas I Davis; Lorraine A Lebel; Carol B Fox; Alka Shrikhande; James H Heym; Eric Schaeffer; Hans Rollema; Yi Lu; Robert S Mansbach; Leslie K Chambers; Charles C Rovetti; David W Schulz; F David Tingley; Brian T O'Neill Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2005-05-19 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Matthew I Palmatier; F Fay Evans-Martin; Alycia Hoffman; Anthony R Caggiula; Nadia Chaudhri; Eric C Donny; Xiu Liu; Sherri Booth; Maysa Gharib; Laure Craven; Alan F Sved Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Eric C Donny; Nadia Chaudhri; Anthony R Caggiula; F Fay Evans-Martin; Sheri Booth; Maysa A Gharib; Laure A Clements; Alan F Sved Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jack E Henningfield; Tracy T Smith; Bethea A Kleykamp; Reginald V Fant; Eric C Donny Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Brady M Thompson; Scott T Barrett; Y Wendy Huynh; David A Kwan; Jennifer E Murray; Rick A Bevins Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Briana Renda; Allyson K Andrade; Jude A Frie; Cassandra L Sgarbossa; Jennifer E Murray; Jibran Y Khokhar Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.492