Natalie E Zlebnik1, Marilyn E Carroll. 1. Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Minnesota Medical School, Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA, zleb0002@umn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerobic exercise and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, atomoxetine (ATO), are two monotherapies that have been shown to suppress reinstatement of cocaine-seeking in an animal model of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of combining wheel running and ATO versus each treatment alone on cocaine-seeking precipitated by cocaine and cocaine-paired cues in rats with differing susceptibility to drug abuse (i.e., high vs. low impulsive). METHODS: Rats were screened for high (HiI) or low impulsivity (LoI) based on their performance on a delay-discounting task and then trained to self-administer cocaine (0.4 mg/kg/inf) for 10 days. Following 14 days of extinction, both groups were tested for reinstatement of cocaine-seeking precipitated by cocaine or cocaine-paired cues in the presence of concurrent running wheel access (W), pretreatment with ATO, or both (W+ATO). RESULTS: HiI rats acquired cocaine self-administration more quickly than LoI rats. While both individual treatments and W+ATO significantly attenuated cue-induced cocaine seeking in HiI and LoI rats, only W+ATO was effective in reducing cocaine-induced reinstatement compared with vehicle treatment. There were dose-dependent and phenotype-specific effects of ATO with HiI rats responsive to the low but not high ATO dose. Floor effects of ATO and W on cue-induced reinstatement prevented the assessment of combined treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated greater attenuation of cue- versus cocaine-induced reinstatement by ATO and W alone and recapitulate impulsivity phenotype differences in both acquisition of cocaine self-administration and receptivity to treatment.
BACKGROUND: Aerobic exercise and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication, atomoxetine (ATO), are two monotherapies that have been shown to suppress reinstatement of cocaine-seeking in an animal model of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of combining wheel running and ATO versus each treatment alone on cocaine-seeking precipitated by cocaine and cocaine-paired cues in rats with differing susceptibility to drug abuse (i.e., high vs. low impulsive). METHODS:Rats were screened for high (HiI) or low impulsivity (LoI) based on their performance on a delay-discounting task and then trained to self-administer cocaine (0.4 mg/kg/inf) for 10 days. Following 14 days of extinction, both groups were tested for reinstatement of cocaine-seeking precipitated by cocaine or cocaine-paired cues in the presence of concurrent running wheel access (W), pretreatment with ATO, or both (W+ATO). RESULTS: HiI rats acquired cocaine self-administration more quickly than LoI rats. While both individual treatments and W+ATO significantly attenuated cue-induced cocaine seeking in HiI and LoI rats, only W+ATO was effective in reducing cocaine-induced reinstatement compared with vehicle treatment. There were dose-dependent and phenotype-specific effects of ATO with HiI rats responsive to the low but not high ATO dose. Floor effects of ATO and W on cue-induced reinstatement prevented the assessment of combined treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated greater attenuation of cue- versus cocaine-induced reinstatement by ATO and W alone and recapitulate impulsivity phenotype differences in both acquisition of cocaine self-administration and receptivity to treatment.
Authors: Carol Ewing Garber; Bryan Blissmer; Michael R Deschenes; Barry A Franklin; Michael J Lamonte; I-Min Lee; David C Nieman; David P Swain Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.411
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: Nienke Broos; Lianne Schmaal; Joost Wiskerke; Lennard Kostelijk; Thomas Lam; Nicky Stoop; Lonneke Weierink; Jannemieke Ham; Eco J C de Geus; Anton N M Schoffelmeer; Wim van den Brink; Dick J Veltman; Taco J de Vries; Tommy Pattij; Anna E Goudriaan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Britahny M Baskin; Bríd Á Nic Dhonnchadha; Linda P Dwoskin; Kathleen M Kantak Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Guy A Higgins; Leo B Silenieks; Everett B Altherr; Cam MacMillan; Paul J Fletcher; Wayne E Pratt Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: John R Smethells; Natashia L Swalve; Lynn E Eberly; Marilyn E Carroll Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Kathleen M Kantak; Jamie M Gauthier; Elon Mathieson; Eudokia Knyazhanskaya; Pedro Rodriguez-Echemendia; Heng-Ye Man Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2020-08-02 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Natashia Swalve; John R Smethells; Natalie E Zlebnik; Marilyn E Carroll Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 3.533