| Literature DB >> 26411762 |
David J Barker1, Steven J Simmons, Mark O West.
Abstract
The present review describes ways in which ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) have been used in studies of substance abuse. Accordingly, studies are reviewed which demonstrate roles for affective processing in response to the presentation of drug-related cues, experimenter- and self-administered drug, drug withdrawal, and during tests of relapse/reinstatement. The review focuses on data collected from studies using cocaine and amphetamine, where a large body of evidence has been collected. Data suggest that USVs capture animals' initial positive reactions to psychostimulant administration and are capable of identifying individual differences in affective responding. Moreover, USVs have been used to demonstrate that positive affect becomes sensitized to psychostimulants over acute exposure before eventually exhibiting signs of tolerance. In the drug-dependent animal, a mixture of USVs suggesting positive and negative affect is observed, illustrating mixed responses to psychostimulants. This mixture is predominantly characterized by an initial bout of positive affect followed by an opponent negative emotional state, mirroring affective responses observed in human addicts. During drug withdrawal, USVs demonstrate the presence of negative affective withdrawal symptoms. Finally, it has been shown that drug-paired cues produce a learned, positive anticipatory response during training, and that presentation of drug-paired cues following abstinence produces both positive affect and reinstatement behavior. Thus, USVs are a useful tool for obtaining an objective measurement of affective states in animal models of substance abuse and can increase the information extracted from drug administration studies. USVs enable detection of subtle differences in a behavioral response that might otherwise be missed using traditional measures.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26411762 PMCID: PMC4598431 DOI: 10.2174/1570159x13999150318113642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Neuropharmacol ISSN: 1570-159X Impact factor: 7.363
Summary table of select findings examining rat ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) in drug addiction models.
| Treatment | Independent Variable(s) | Condition/Group | USV Frequency | Effect | Comparison Group | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cocaine | Cue incentive salience | Sign-Trackers | 50-kHz | ↑* | Goal-Trackers | Meyer |
| Cocaine | “Caller group” | High USV Caller | 50-kHz1 | ↑* | Low USV Caller | Reno |
| Amphetamine | “Caller group”; exposure history | High USV Caller, 2 d | 50-kHz1 | ↑** | Low USV Caller | Taracha |
| High USV Caller, 9 d | − | |||||
| ↓* | High USV Caller, 2 d | |||||
| High USV Caller, 10 d | − | Low USV Caller | ||||
| Ethanol | Exposure history | Dependent (via chronic intermittent vapor exposure, 14 h/d) | 50-kHz | − | Non-dependent | Buck |
| Cocaine | Pre-treatment (5 d) | Cocaine (following 2 d abstinence) | 50-kHz | ↑* | Saline pre-treated (following 2 d abstinence) | Mu |
| Cocaine | Dose | Low: 0.355 mg/kg/inf | 22-kHz | ↑* | High-dose group | Barker |
| High: 0.710 mg/kg/inf | 50-kHz | ↑* | Low-dose group | |||
| Cocaine | Drug pre-treatment, i.p. | SCH 23390 | 50-kHz | ↓* | Vehicle pre-treated controls | Williams and Undieh 2010 |
| Raclopride | ↓* | |||||
| Cocaine | Drug availability | S-A Conditioning | 50-kHz | ↑ | Vehicle-treated controls | Maier |
| Extinction | − | |||||
| Cocaine | Dose (satiety level) | Sub-Satiety | 22-kHz | ↑* | Baseline USVs (respective frequencies) | Barker |
| Circa-Satiety | − | |||||
| Supra-Satiety | − | |||||
| Infusion Number | 0b | ↑* | ||||
| 1 | ↑* | |||||
| 0b | 50-kHz | ↑* | ||||
| 1 | ↑* | |||||
| 2 | ↑* | |||||
| 3 | ↑* | |||||
| 4 | ↑* | |||||
| 5 | ↑* | |||||
| 6 | ↑* | |||||
| 7 | ↑* | |||||
| 8+ | − | |||||
| Amphetamine | Dose | 0.3 μg | 50-kHz | − | Vehicle-treated controls | Burgdorf |
| 1.0 μg | ↑*** | |||||
| 3.0 μg | ↑*** | |||||
| 10.0 μg | ↑*** | |||||
| Amphetamine | Infusion site | NAcc (shell) | 50-kHz | ↑* | NAcc (core) | Thompson |
| Drug pre-treatment, local infusion, NAcc | SKF-83566 | 50-kHz | ↓ | Vehicle pre-treated controls | ||
| Raclopride | ↓* | |||||
| Amphetamine | “Caller group”; | High USV Caller, 7 d | 50-kHz | − | Low USV Caller | Taracha |
| High USV Caller, 20 d | − | |||||
| ↑* | High USV Caller, 7 d | |||||
| High USV Caller, 35 d | ↑* | Low USV Caller | ||||
| ↑*** | High USV Caller, 7 d | |||||
| Amphetamine | Drug pre-treatment, i.p./s.c. | Clonidine (α2 agonist) | 50-kHz | ↓† | Vehicle pre-treated controls | Wright |
| Prazosin (α1 antagonist) | ↓† | |||||
| Atipamezole (α2 antagonist) | − | |||||
| Propranolol (β1/β2 antagonist) | − | |||||
| Betaxolol (β1 antagonist) | − | |||||
| ICI 118,551 (β2 antagonist) | − | |||||
| Amphetamine | Drug pre-treatment, i.p. | SCH 23390 (D1 antagonist) | 50-kHz | ↓† | Vehicle pre-treated controls | Wright |
| SCH 39166 (D1/D5 antagonist) | ↓† | |||||
| Haloperidol (D2 antagonist) | ↓* | |||||
| (-)Sulpiride (D2/D3 antagonist) | − | |||||
| Raclopride (D2 antagonist) | ↓* | |||||
| Clozapine | ↓* | |||||
| Risperidone (D1/D5 antagonist) | ↓* | |||||
| Pimozide (D2 antagonist) | ↓* | |||||
| Caffeine | Dose | 3.0 mg/kg | 50-kHz | − | Vehicle-treated controls | Simola |
| 10.0 mg/kg | − | |||||
| 30.0 mg/kg | − | |||||
| 50.0 mg/kg | − | |||||
| 2.0 mg/kg (amphetamine) | ↑* | |||||
| ↑* | Caffeine groups | |||||
| Mixed drugs | Drug; dose | Amphetamine, 2.0 mg/kg | 50-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Simola |
| Methylphenidate, 2.5 mg/kg | − | |||||
| Methylphenidate, 5.0 mg/kg | − | |||||
| Methylphenidate, 10.0 mg/kg | ↑* | |||||
| MDMA (mixed doses) | − | |||||
| Morphine (mixed doses) | − | |||||
| Nicotine (mixed doses) | − | |||||
| Mixed drugs | Drug; exposure history | Amphetamine, 2.0 mg/kg, first exposure | 50-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Simola |
| MDMA, 7.5 mg/kg, first exposure | − | |||||
| Morphine, 7.5 mg/kg, first exposure | − | |||||
| Nicotine, 0.4 mg/kg, first exposure | − | |||||
| Amphetamine, 2.0 mg/kg, fifth exposure | − | First exposure, respective groups | ||||
| MDMA, 7.5 mg/kg, fifth exposure | − | |||||
| Morphine, 7.5 mg/kg, fifth exposure | ↑* | |||||
| Nicotine, 0.4 mg/kg, fifth exposure | − | |||||
| Cocaine | Post-cessation time point | 1 d | 22-kHz | − | Vehicle-treated controls | Barros and Miczek 1996 |
| 3 d | ↑ | |||||
| 7 d | − | |||||
| 28 d | − | |||||
| Cocaine | Post-cessation time point | 6 h | 22-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Mutschler and Miczek 1998a |
| 24 h (1 d) | ↑* | |||||
| 72 h (3 d) | − | |||||
| Cocaine | Administration control | Active S-A, 24 h post-binge | 22-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Mutschler and Miczek 1998b; Mutschler |
| Yoked, 24 h post-binge | ↑* | Active S-A | ||||
| Yoked, 3 d post-binge | − | Active S-A | ||||
| Cocaine | Number of binge episodes | First binge | 22-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Mutschler |
| − | Second binge, 10-d interval | |||||
| − | Third binge, 10-d interval | |||||
| − | Fourth binge, 1-d interval | |||||
| Morphine | Post-cessation time point | 6 h | 22-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Vivian and Miczek 1991 |
| 24 h (1 d) | ↑* | |||||
| 96 h (4 d) | − | |||||
| Morphine | Post-cessation time point (spontaneous) | 3 h | 22-kHz | ↓*** | Vehicle-treated controls | Kalinchev and Holtzman 2003e |
| 6 h | − | |||||
| 24 h (1 d) | − | |||||
| Naltrexone dose (precipitated) | 0.01 mg/kg, s.c. | − | ||||
| 0.10 mg/kg, s.c. | ↓*** | |||||
| 1.00 mg/kg, s.c. | ↓*** | |||||
| Heroin | Dose (6-10 h post-cessation) | 0.75 mg | 22-kHz | − | Vehicle-treated controls | Williams |
| 1.50 mg | ↑*** | |||||
| 3.00 mg | ↑*** | |||||
| Diazepam | Dose (24 h post-cessation) | 2.5 mg/kg/inj | 22-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Miczek and Vivian 1993 |
| 5.0 mg/kg/inj | ↑* | |||||
| 7.5 mg/kg/inj | ↑* | |||||
| Ethanol | Administration method | Oral (14 d, 7% ethanol†) | 22-kHz | ↑** | Vehicle-treated controls | Knapp |
| Intragastric | ↑** | |||||
| Ethanol | Drug (6-8 h post-cessation) | 7% ethanol† | 22-kHz | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Moy |
| Cocaine | Context re-exposure group (mean across 19 extinction trials) | Active S-A | 50-kHz | − | Vehicle-treated controls | Ma |
| Yoked | ↑* | |||||
| Cocaine | Abstinence period | 0 d | 50-kHz | ↑** | Vehicle-treated controls | Maier |
| 2 d | ↑** | Vehicle-treated controls | ||||
| ↑** | 0 d abstinence group | |||||
| Cocaine | Reinstatement method (following ≤14 extinction sessions); time in reinstatement session | Cue, 5 min | 50-kHz | ↑* | Last extinction trial for respective group | Browning |
| Cue, 10 min | − | |||||
| Cue, 15 min | − | |||||
| Cue, 20 min | − | |||||
| Cocaine, 5 min | ↑* | |||||
| Cocaine, 10 min | ↑* | |||||
| Cocaine, 15 min | ↑* | |||||
| Cocaine, 20 min | ↑ | |||||
| Cocaine | Context reinstatement time | 30 d | 22-kHz | ↑* | Baseline USVs | Barker |
| 50-kHz | ↑ | |||||
| 60 d | 22-kHz | − | ||||
| 50-kHz | − | |||||
| Amphetamine | Trial number (exposure time) | Trial 1 (day 1) | 50-kHz1 | ↑* | Vehicle-treated controls | Ahrens |
| Trial 2 (day 3) | ↑** | Trial 1 USVs | ||||
| Trial 3 (day 5) | ↑* | |||||
| Challenge (day 19) | ↑* | |||||
| Methamphetamine | Reinstatement method (following ≤9 extinction sessions) | Cue | 50-kHz1 | ↑ | Last extinction trial for respective group | Mahler |
p < 0.05
p < 0.01
p< 0.001
Significant dose-dependent effects were observed
Dose-titration used to achieve final doses indicated under “Condition/Group”.
In the summaries for Ahrens et al. 2009, Mahler et al. 2013, Reno et al. 2013, and Taracha et al. 2014, differences in frequency-modulated (FM) 50-kHz USVs are reported.
While the number of anticipatory USVs were not different between ethanol-dependent and non-dependent animals in Buck et al. 2014, a positive correlation was found between anticipatory USVs and subsequent operant responses in dependent animals only (p < 0.05).
"0” infusion USVs occurred prior to first infusion of cocaine and can be considered anticipatory, “1” infusion USVs occurred after first infusion of cocaine, etc
In a post-hoc sub-region analysis, Burgdorf et al. 2001 observed more 50-kHz USVs when amphetamine was locally infused into NAcc (shell) relative to NAcc (core).
In reports by Wright and colleagues (2012, 2013), multiple pharmacological compounds were used and only primary mechanisms of action are described under the “Condition/Group” column in this summary table.
Kalinchev and Holtzman (2003) used % of animals vocalizing as dependent USV measure.