Andrew C Harris1, Peter Muelken2, John R Smethells3, Katrina Yershova4, Irina Stepanov4, Thao Tran Olson5, Kenneth J Kellar5, Mark G LeSage6. 1. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: harr0547@umn.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animal models are needed to inform FDA regulation of electronic cigarettes (ECs) because they avoid limitations associated with human studies. We previously reported that an EC refill liquid produced less aversive/anhedonic effects at a high nicotine dose than nicotine alone as measured by elevations in intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) thresholds, which may reflect the presence of behaviorally active non-nicotine constituents (e.g., propylene glycol) in the EC liquids. The primary objective of this study was to assess the generality of our prior ICSS findings to two additional EC liquids. We also compared effects of "nicotine-free" varieties of these EC liquids on ICSS, as well as binding affinity and/or functional activity of nicotine alone, nicotine-containing EC liquids, and "nicotine-free" EC liquids at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Nicotine alone and nicotine dose-equivalent concentrations of both nicotine-containing EC liquids produced similar lowering of ICSS thresholds at low to moderate nicotine doses, indicating similar reinforcement-enhancing effects. At high nicotine doses, nicotine alone elevated ICSS thresholds (a measure of anhedonia-like behavior) while the EC liquids did not. Nicotine-containing EC liquids did not differ from nicotine alone in terms of binding affinity or functional activity at nAChRs. "Nicotine-free" EC liquids did not affect ICSS, but bound with low affinity at some (e.g., α4ß2) nAChRs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that non-nicotine constituents in these EC liquids do not contribute to their reinforcement-enhancing effects. However, they may attenuate nicotine's acute aversive/anhedonic and/or toxic effects, which may moderate the abuse liability and/or toxicity of ECs.
BACKGROUND: Animal models are needed to inform FDA regulation of electronic cigarettes (ECs) because they avoid limitations associated with human studies. We previously reported that an EC refill liquid produced less aversive/anhedonic effects at a high nicotine dose than nicotine alone as measured by elevations in intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) thresholds, which may reflect the presence of behaviorally active non-nicotine constituents (e.g., propylene glycol) in the EC liquids. The primary objective of this study was to assess the generality of our prior ICSS findings to two additional EC liquids. We also compared effects of "nicotine-free" varieties of these EC liquids on ICSS, as well as binding affinity and/or functional activity of nicotine alone, nicotine-containing EC liquids, and "nicotine-free" EC liquids at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). METHODS AND RESULTS:Nicotine alone and nicotine dose-equivalent concentrations of both nicotine-containing EC liquids produced similar lowering of ICSS thresholds at low to moderate nicotine doses, indicating similar reinforcement-enhancing effects. At high nicotine doses, nicotine alone elevated ICSS thresholds (a measure of anhedonia-like behavior) while the EC liquids did not. Nicotine-containing EC liquids did not differ from nicotine alone in terms of binding affinity or functional activity at nAChRs. "Nicotine-free" EC liquids did not affect ICSS, but bound with low affinity at some (e.g., α4ß2) nAChRs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that non-nicotine constituents in these EC liquids do not contribute to their reinforcement-enhancing effects. However, they may attenuate nicotine's acute aversive/anhedonic and/or toxic effects, which may moderate the abuse liability and/or toxicity of ECs.
Authors: Joseph G Lisko; Hang Tran; Stephen B Stanfill; Benjamin C Blount; Clifford H Watson Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Laura Tally; Peter Muelken; Andrew Banal; Clare E Schmidt; Qing Cao; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Matthew R Costello; Daisy D Reynaga; Celina Y Mojica; Nurulain T Zaveri; James D Belluzzi; Frances M Leslie Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: A L Wong; S M McElroy; J M Robinson; S M Mulloy; F K El Banna; A C Harris; M G LeSage; A M Lee Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-04-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Cristina Miliano; E Reilly Scott; Laura B Murdaugh; Emma R Gnatowski; Christine L Faunce; Megan S Anderson; Malissa M Reyes; Ann M Gregus; Matthew W Buczynski Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; Yayi Swain; Mary Palumbo; Vipin Jain; Maciej L Goniewicz; Irina Stepanov; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; Aleksandra Alcheva; Irina Stepanov; Mark G LeSage Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 5.152
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; Zach Haave; Yayi Swain; John R Smethells; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 4.492