Timothy W Lefever1, Brian F Thomas1, Alexander L Kovach1, Rodney W Snyder1, Jenny L Wiley2. 1. RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, United States. 2. RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194, United States. Electronic address: jwiley@rti.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has increased exponentially since their appearance on the U.S. market around 2007. To provide preclinical models of vaping that incorporate olfactory cues and chemosensory effects (including flavors) that play a role in human vaping behavior, the feasibility of using a modified e-cigarette device for delivery of aerosolized nicotine was examined in a nicotine discrimination procedure in mice. METHODS: Adult female and male C57BL/6 mice were trained to discriminate 0.75 mg/kg subcutaneous (s.c.) nicotine from saline. After determination of a s.c. nicotine dose-effect curve, aerosolized freebase nicotine and nicotine-containing tobacco products (i.e., non-flavored and Arctic Blast e-liquids) were evaluated. RESULTS: Nicotine (s.c.) dose-dependently substituted in mice of both sexes, although females showed less sensitivity and greater variability. By contrast, aerosolized nicotine, regardless of formulation, produced concentration-dependent increases up to maximum of 46-62% nicotine-associated responding. Brain nicotine concentrations for each sex were similar for s.c. 0.75 mg/kg nicotine and 30 mg/ml freebase nicotine. CONCLUSIONS: Mice of both sexes readily acquired s.c. nicotine discrimination, but females showed less sensitivity. Further, all three formulations of aerosolized nicotine produced increases in nicotine-like responding in mice of each sex. However, the maximum magnitude of these increases did not engender a similar degree of substitution as s.c. 0.75 mg/kg nicotine, despite similar brain concentrations of nicotine at 30 mg/ml aerosolized nicotine. Additional research is needed for determination of the reason(s); however, results here demonstrate initial feasibility for examination of the discriminative stimulus effects of vaped drugs such as nicotine.
BACKGROUND: Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has increased exponentially since their appearance on the U.S. market around 2007. To provide preclinical models of vaping that incorporate olfactory cues and chemosensory effects (including flavors) that play a role in human vaping behavior, the feasibility of using a modified e-cigarette device for delivery of aerosolized nicotine was examined in a nicotine discrimination procedure in mice. METHODS: Adult female and male C57BL/6 mice were trained to discriminate 0.75 mg/kg subcutaneous (s.c.) nicotine from saline. After determination of a s.c. nicotine dose-effect curve, aerosolized freebase nicotine and nicotine-containing tobacco products (i.e., non-flavored and Arctic Blast e-liquids) were evaluated. RESULTS:Nicotine (s.c.) dose-dependently substituted in mice of both sexes, although females showed less sensitivity and greater variability. By contrast, aerosolized nicotine, regardless of formulation, produced concentration-dependent increases up to maximum of 46-62% nicotine-associated responding. Brain nicotine concentrations for each sex were similar for s.c. 0.75 mg/kg nicotine and 30 mg/ml freebase nicotine. CONCLUSIONS:Mice of both sexes readily acquired s.c. nicotine discrimination, but females showed less sensitivity. Further, all three formulations of aerosolized nicotine produced increases in nicotine-like responding in mice of each sex. However, the maximum magnitude of these increases did not engender a similar degree of substitution as s.c. 0.75 mg/kg nicotine, despite similar brain concentrations of nicotine at 30 mg/ml aerosolized nicotine. Additional research is needed for determination of the reason(s); however, results here demonstrate initial feasibility for examination of the discriminative stimulus effects of vaped drugs such as nicotine.
Authors: Allison C Hoffman; Raydel Valdes Salgado; Carolyn Dresler; Rachel Williams Faller; Christopher Bartlett Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Nicholas I Goldenson; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Raina D Pang; Julia F McBeth; Mary Ann Pentz; Jonathan M Samet; Adam M Leventhal Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Timothy W Lefever; Julie A Marusich; Brian F Thomas; Daniel G Barrus; Nicholas C Peiper; Richard C Kevin; Jenny L Wiley Journal: Subst Abuse Date: 2017-04-07