Rachel L Schassburger1, Emily M Pitzer2, Tracy T Smith3, Laura E Rupprecht1, Edda Thiels4,5, Eric C Donny3, Alan F Sved4,6,7. 1. Center for Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, PA. 2. Department of Neuroscience, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Department of Psychology, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Center for Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. Department of Neurobiology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 6. Department of Neuroscience, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 7. Department of Psychology, Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although nearly 90% of current smokers initiated tobacco use during adolescence, little is known about reinforcement by nicotine in adolescents. Researchers are currently investigating whether a potential public health policy setting a tobacco product standard with very low nicotine levels would improve public health, and it is essential to understand whether data generated in adults translates to adolescents, particularly as it relates to the threshold dose of nicotine required to support smoking. The present study compared self-administration of low doses of nicotine between adolescent and adult rats. METHODS: Adolescent (postnatal day [P] 30) and adult (P90) male and female rats were allowed to nosepoke to receive intravenous infusions of nicotine (3-100 μg/kg/infusion) during 16 daily 1-hour sessions. RESULTS: At 10 μg/kg/infusion nicotine, adolescent rats earned significantly fewer infusions than adults. When responding for 30 μg/kg/infusion nicotine, rats of both ages earned a similar number of infusions; however, there were subtle differences in the distribution of infusions across the 1-hour session. No sex differences were apparent in either age group at any dose. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that adolescent rats are less sensitive than adults to the primary reinforcing effects of nicotine. However, at nicotine doses that support self-administration in both age groups, adolescent and adult rats do not differ in acquisition or number of infusions earned. These results suggest that reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes to a level that does not support smoking in adults may be sufficient to reduce the acquisition of smoking in adolescents. IMPLICATIONS: The results of the present studies demonstrate that adolescent rats are less sensitive than adults to the primary reinforcing effects of nicotine. These results suggest that reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes to a level that does not support smoking in adults will be sufficient to reduce the acquisition of smoking in adolescents.
INTRODUCTION: Although nearly 90% of current smokers initiated tobacco use during adolescence, little is known about reinforcement by nicotine in adolescents. Researchers are currently investigating whether a potential public health policy setting a tobacco product standard with very low nicotine levels would improve public health, and it is essential to understand whether data generated in adults translates to adolescents, particularly as it relates to the threshold dose of nicotine required to support smoking. The present study compared self-administration of low doses of nicotine between adolescent and adult rats. METHODS: Adolescent (postnatal day [P] 30) and adult (P90) male and female rats were allowed to nosepoke to receive intravenous infusions of nicotine (3-100 μg/kg/infusion) during 16 daily 1-hour sessions. RESULTS: At 10 μg/kg/infusion nicotine, adolescent rats earned significantly fewer infusions than adults. When responding for 30 μg/kg/infusion nicotine, rats of both ages earned a similar number of infusions; however, there were subtle differences in the distribution of infusions across the 1-hour session. No sex differences were apparent in either age group at any dose. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that adolescent rats are less sensitive than adults to the primary reinforcing effects of nicotine. However, at nicotine doses that support self-administration in both age groups, adolescent and adult rats do not differ in acquisition or number of infusions earned. These results suggest that reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes to a level that does not support smoking in adults may be sufficient to reduce the acquisition of smoking in adolescents. IMPLICATIONS: The results of the present studies demonstrate that adolescent rats are less sensitive than adults to the primary reinforcing effects of nicotine. These results suggest that reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes to a level that does not support smoking in adults will be sufficient to reduce the acquisition of smoking in adolescents.
Authors: E C Donny; A R Caggiula; P P Rowell; M A Gharib; V Maldovan; S Booth; M M Mielke; A Hoffman; S McCallum Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Nadia Chaudhri; Anthony R Caggiula; Eric C Donny; Sheri Booth; Maysa A Gharib; Laure A Craven; Shannon S Allen; Alan F Sved; Kenneth A Perkins Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-01-29 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Matthew T Weaver; Charles F Geier; Melissa E Levin; Anthony R Caggiula; Alan F Sved; Eric C Donny Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2012-04-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Danielle E McCarthy; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Su-Young Kim; Suzanne Colby; David Conti; Gary A Giovino; Dorothy Hatsukami; Andrew Hyland; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Raymond Niaura; Kenneth A Perkins; Benjamin A Toll Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Tracy T Smith; Laura E Rupprecht; Rachel L Denlinger-Apte; Jillian J Weeks; Rachel S Panas; Eric C Donny; Alan F Sved Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Emily R Hankosky; Sara R Westbrook; Rachel M Haake; Michela Marinelli; Joshua M Gulley Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 4.530