| Literature DB >> 31740575 |
Caroline E Strong1, Katherine N Wright1, Mohamed Kabbaj2.
Abstract
Clinical and preclinical studies have shown that ketamine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, has promising therapeutic value for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD). However, the maintenance of remission will ultimately require repeated infusions of ketamine, which may lead to abuse potential and may hinder its therapeutic benefits. It is therefore crucial to assess the effects of repeated treatments with ketamine on alcohol intake. Accordingly, this study aimed to examine in both sexes how individual differences in alcohol intake alter ketamine self-administration and how ketamine self-administration will alter subsequent alcohol-drinking behaviors. Male and female rats intermittently drank alcohol or water for 10 weeks and were divided into high- or low-alcohol intake groups prior to ketamine self-administration. Rats self-administered ketamine under fixed and progressive ratio schedules of reinforcement from week 4 to 7, and the incubation of ketamine craving was examined from week 8 to 10. To investigate structural plasticity in a brain region involved in reward, nucleus accumbens dendritic spine morphology was examined. Our results show that high alcohol intake in male rats attenuated ketamine self-administration, whereas in female rats high alcohol intake enhanced motivation to self-administer ketamine. Ketamine reduced alcohol intake in high-alcohol male rats but increased it in low-alcohol female rats. Incubation of ketamine craving developed in all groups except low-alcohol females. Three weeks of abstinence from ketamine was associated with increased mushroom spines in all groups except the high-alcohol male group. Overall, these data suggest that ketamine as a treatment for AUD may benefit male subjects, but not female subjects, and warrants further investigation before use as a therapeutic agent.Entities:
Keywords: addiction; alcohol; individual differences; ketamine; rats; sex differences
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31740575 PMCID: PMC6893233 DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0221-19.2019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: eNeuro ISSN: 2373-2822
Figure 1.Establishing high versus low alcohol intake in male and female rats. , Time line of experiment: rats underwent 10 weeks of intermittent access to the IA2BC20% and water paradigm, with ketamine self-administration nested from week 4 to 7 and incubation of ketamine-craving tests from week 8 to 10. Rats received bilateral HSV-GFP injections into the NAc after 10 weeks of alcohol intake and were killed 3 d later. , , Distribution of alcohol intake (in grams per kilogram) and preference (percentage) for alcohol during the third week of intake. A median split was used to determine cutoffs for high and low alcohol intake: high-alcohol intake male rats (n = 15), low-alcohol intake male rats (n = 16); high-alcohol intake female rats (n = 15), and low-alcohol intake female rats (n = 16). **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Data are represented as mean ± SEM average alcohol intake () and preference ().
Detailed statistical table
| Figure | Comparison | Type of test | Statistic | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | NA | Sucrose pellets | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: | |
| b | NA | Alcohol (g/kg), weeks 1–3 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |
| c | NA | Alcohol (%pref), weeks 1–3 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |
| d | Week 3 average alcohol intake and preference | Unpaired | Intake: | ||
| Average alcohol (g/kg) | Frequency distribution, median split | Cutoff | NA | ||
| Average alcohol (%) | Frequency distribution, median split | Cutoff | NA | ||
| e | NA | Body weight, weeks 1–3 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |
| NA | Body weight, weeks 1–10 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
| NA | Males: body weight, weeks 1–10 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
| NA | Water intake: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | Sessions 17–31: | Sessions 17-31: | |
| g | FR1 infusions, sessions 1–6 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | ||
| FR1 Infusions, sessions 10–11 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake: | |||
| High-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA sessions 10–11: | |||
| Males: FR1 Infusions, sessions 1–6 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | |||
| Males_Ket SA: high vs low and high vs water | Tukey’s | SA session 4: | Session 4: | ||
| Males: FR1 infusions, sessions 10–11 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment: | |||
| Ket SA: high-Alc vs water | Tukey’s | ||||
| Ket SA: high-Alc vs low_Alc | Tukey’s | ||||
| Females: FR1 Infusions, sessions 1–6 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment × sessions: | |||
| Females: FR1 Infusions, sessions 10–11 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment × sessions: | |||
| h | Active responses, sessions 1–6 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
| Ket SA_water: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA session 2: | |||
| Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA sessions 5–6: | |||
| Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA sessions 3–6: | |||
| Active responses, sessions 10–11 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |||
| Inactive responses, sessions 1–6 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |||
| Inactive responses, sessions 10–11 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: | |||
| Males: active responses, sessions 1–6 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | |||
| Males_Ket SA: high vs water | Tukey’s | SA sessions 5–6: | |||
| Males: active response, sessions 10–11 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment: | |||
|
| Males_Ket SA: high vs water | Tukey’s | Main effect of intake: | ||
|
| Females: active response, sessions 1–6 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| Females: active response, sessions 10–11 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| Ket SA: high-Alc vs water | Tukey’s | SA session 10: | ||
| i | PR break point | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
| Ket SA_water: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA session 7: | |||
| Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA session 9: | |||
| Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA sessions 8–9: | |||
|
| Males: break point | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| M_Ket vs Sal | Tukey’s | SA sessions 7–8: | ||
|
| Females: break point | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| F_Water: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA session 7: | ||
|
| F_Low-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA session 9: | ||
|
| F_High-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA session 8: | ||
|
| F_Ket SA: high vs water and high vs low | Tukey’s | SA session 8: | ||
| j |
| PR active responses | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: | |
|
| Ket SA_water: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA session 7: | ||
|
| Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA session 9: | ||
|
| Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA sessions 8–9: | ||
|
| Males: PR active responses | Three-way LMM ANOVA | main effect of treatment: | ||
|
| Females: active responses | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| F_low-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA session 9: | ||
|
| F_high-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA session 8: | ||
|
| F_Ket SA: high vs water and high vs low | Tukey’s | SA session 8: | ||
| k |
| PR infusions | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment × sessions: | |
|
| Ket SA_water: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA session 7: | ||
|
| Ket SA_low-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA session 9: | ||
|
| Ket SA_high-Alc: F vs M | Tukey’s | SA sessions 8–9: | ||
|
| Males: infusions | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| M_Ket vs Sal | Tukey’s | SA sessions 7–9: | ||
|
| Females: infusions | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| F_water: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA sessions 7, 9: | ||
|
| F_low-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA session 9: | ||
|
| F_high-Alc: Ket vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | SA session 8: | ||
|
| F_Ket SA: high vs water and high vs low | Tukey’s | SA session 8: | ||
| l |
| Incubation of craving, active responses | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |
|
| Males: incubation of craving, active responses | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| Males: incubation of craving, active responses | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment: | ||
|
| M_water, Ket SA: day 1 vs 21 | Tukey’s | |||
|
| M_low-Alc, Ket SA: day 1 vs 7, 1 vs 21 | Tukey’s | |||
|
| M_high-Alc, Ket SA, day 1 vs 7 | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Females: incubation of craving, active responses | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment: | ||
|
| F_water, Sal SA: day 1 vs 7, 1 vs 21 | Tukey’s | |||
|
| F_water, Ket SA: day 1 vs 21 | Tukey’s | |||
|
| F_high-Alc, Ket SA, day 1 vs 7 | Tukey’s | |||
| m |
| Alcohol (g/kg), weeks 1–10 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |
|
| Males: g/kg weeks 1–10 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| High-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | Sessions 19, 22: | ||
|
| Females: g/kg weeks 1–10 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × sessions: | ||
|
| Low-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | Sessions 19–20, 23–26: | ||
| n |
| Alcohol (%pref), weeks 1–10 | Four-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |
|
| Males: %pref weeks 1–10 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| High-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | Sessions 19–23, 25–31: | p < 0.05 | |
|
| Females: %pref weeks 1–10 | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment × sessions: | ||
|
| Low-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | Sessions 19–20, 22–26: | ||
| o |
| Total spines | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake: | |
|
| High-Alc: M vs F | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Males: total spines | Two-way LMM ANOVA | Intake: | ||
| High-Alc vs water | Tukey’s | ||||
|
| Females: total spines | Two-way LMM ANOVA | Intake: | ||
| p |
| Thin spines | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Sex: | |
|
| Males: thin spines | Two-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment: | ||
|
| Females: thin spines | Two-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment: | ||
|
| Sal SA: high-Alc vs water | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Ket SA: low-Alc vs water | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Ket SA: high-Alc vs water | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Water: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | |||
| q |
| Mushroom spines | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment: | |
|
| Males vs females: high-Alc, Ket SA | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Males vs Females: low-Alc, Ket SA | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Males: mushroom spines | Two-way LMM ANOVA | Intake × treatment: | ||
|
| Water: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Low-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | |||
|
| High-Alc: Ket SA vs Sal SA | Tukey’s | |||
|
| Females: mushroom spines | Two-way LMM ANOVA | Treatment: | ||
| r |
| Stubby spines | Three-way LMM ANOVA | Sex × intake × treatment: | |
| s |
| Total × alcohol (%pref) | Linear regression | Males: | |
|
| Thin × alcohol (%pref) | Linear regression | Males: | ||
|
| Mushroom × alcohol (%pref) | Linear regression | Males: | ||
| t |
| Total × Cum. infusions | Linear regression | Males: | |
|
| Thin × Cum. infusions | Linear regression | Males: | ||
|
| Mushroom × Cum. infusions | Linear regression | Males: | ||
Summary of analyses performed on behavioral, morphologic, and correlational data. Each comparison is indicated by lettering in the far-left column (column 1). Figure column represents each corresponding to that figure or panel for that comparison. Comparison column represents the dependent variable being measured as well as individual comparisons examined with post hoc tests. Type of test indicates the analysis performed on that particular dataset. Statistic column indicates sample size, df, and F statistic for each comparison. Statistical interactions and/or main effects observed are indicated within this column. Confidence interval (CI) set at 95% lists the corresponding p values for each statistic, and any comparison p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. NA, Not applicable; Cum., cumulative; LMM ANOVA, linear mixed-models ANOVA. %pref, percentage of preference; F, female; M, male.
Figure 2.Ketamine acquisition under the FR1 schedule of reinforcement is reduced in high-alcohol intake male rats, but not female rats. , , Number of ketamine or saline infusions under an FR1 schedule of reinforcement during 2 h sessions in male and female rats, respectively. , Infusions were significantly decreased in high-alcohol intake male rats (n = 8) in session 4 compared with low-alcohol intake rats (n = 8) and session 5 to water-intake rats (n = 11). Female rats self-administered more ketamine than males, and high-alcohol intake female rats were significantly higher than high-alcohol intake male rats for the final two FR1 sessions (SA sessions 10–11). , No intake differences were observed in saline self-administering rats of either sex. , , Number of active and inactive responses during FR1 sessions in male and female rats. Responses include the number of nose pokes rewarded and unrewarded during the 20 s timeout period. , High-alcohol intake male rats decreased active responses in session 5 compared with water-intake males and session 6 compared with low-alcohol intake males, and an overall reduction was observed during the final two FR1 sessions (SA sessions 10–11). Water-intake females (n = 11) showed a significant increase in active responses compared with males in session 2, while high-alcohol intake females (n = 7) displayed this sex difference from sessions 3 to 6 and low-alcohol (n = 8) from sessions 5 to 6. , Intake did not affect responding in the saline groups. The *, #, @, &, ^ p < 0.05 symbols represent either within- or between-sex differences (indicated in and ). Data are represented as the mean ± SEM infusions or responses for ketamine (0.5 mg/kg/infusion) or saline. Saline self-administration male and female rats with water intake (n = 11), low alcohol intake (n = 8), and high alcohol intake (n = 7). Low-alcohol intake female rats that self-administered ketamine (n = 8). **p < 0.01.
Figure 3.Motivation to self-administer ketamine is not maintained in either sex, but high-alcohol intake female rats show enhanced motivation during the second session. , , PR break-point data in rats that self-administered ketamine and saline. In the ketamine groups, water-intake females (n = 11) have significantly higher break points than males on the first session (SA session 7). High-alcohol intake females (n = 7) have significantly increased break points in SA sessions 8–9, while low-alcohol intake females (n = 8) have increased break points in SA session 9. The male groups that self-administered ketamine have increased break points compared with saline only for the first two sessions (SA sessions 8–9) before they decrease, whereas water-intake females are only significantly higher than saline in SA session 7, low-alcohol only in SA session 9, and high-alcohol in SA sessions 8 and 9. , , Number of active responses during the PR sessions for rats that self-administered ketamine or saline. Data from active responses parallel break-point data with the exception that water-intake females that self-administered ketamine did not show differences from the saline groups. , , Number of ketamine or saline infusions under a PR schedule of reinforcement. Sessions ended after failure to achieve the next ratio in a 1 h time period. Males and females self-administered significantly more ketamine infusions compared with saline across all three sessions. High-alcohol intake females took significantly higher rates of ketamine compared with low-alcohol or water-intake females. *, #, &, @, ^ p < 0.05 symbols represent either within- or between-sex differences (indicated in ). Data are represented as the mean ± SEM break point and ketamine (0.5 mg/kg/infusion) or saline infusions. Saline self-administration male and female rats with water intake (n = 11), low alcohol intake (n = 8), and high alcohol intake (n = 7). **p < 0.01.
Figure 4.Incubation of ketamine craving develops in all groups except low-alcohol intake female rats. , , Active responses during 2 h FR1 sessions 1, 7, and 21 d into the ketamine abstinence period in male and female rats. Drug-paired cues were identical, but active responses yielded no drug infusion. Female rats displayed increased levels of active responding compared with males, regardless of ketamine or saline self-administration. , In male rats, active responses within the ketamine groups (water, n = 11; low-Alc, n = 8; high-Alc, n = 8) increased over the 21 d period. In female rats, those that self-administered ketamine (water, n = 11; low-Alc, n = 7; high-Alc, n = 7) that were considered water- and high-alcohol intake rats increased responding over time; however, low-alcohol intake female rats did not. , In male rats, intake did not affect active responding in the saline groups (water, n = 11; low-Alc, n = 8; high-Alc, n = 7). Water-intake female rats that self-administered saline increased responding over time while the alcohol groups did not (water, n = 9; low-Alc, n = 8; high-Alc, n = 7). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM active responses.
Figure 5.Ketamine decreases alcohol intake in high-alcohol intake male rats while increasing it in low-alcohol intake females. , , Alcohol intake (g/kg/24 h) over a 10 week period, with self-administration of ketamine or saline occurring from week 4 to 7 (indicated by shaded rectangles). , In high-alcohol intake male rats, self-administration of ketamine (n = 8) blocks the escalation in alcohol intake observed in saline rats (n = 7). Ketamine had no effect on high-alcohol intake female rats (Sal, n = 7; Ket, n = 8). , In low-alcohol intake male rats, ketamine had no effect on alcohol intake (Sal, n = 8; Ket, n = 8). In low-alcohol intake female rats, ketamine self-administration enhanced alcohol intake compared with saline from session 19 (week 7) to 28 (week 9; Sal, n = 8; Ket, n = 8). *p < 0.05. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM alcohol preference. *, #p < 0.05; symbols represent either within- or between-sex differences (indicated on Fig. 5), ****p < 0.0001.
Figure 6.Ketamine decreases preference for alcohol in high-alcohol intake male rats while increasing it in low-alcohol intake females. , , Alcohol preference (percentage) over a 10 week period, with self-administration of ketamine or saline occurring from week 4 to 7 (indicated by shaded rectangles). , In male rats, self-administration of ketamine (n = 8) blocks the escalation in alcohol preference observed in high-alcohol intake saline (n = 7) rats. Preference was significantly attenuated from session 18 (week 6) to 31 (week 10). In high-alcohol intake female rats, ketamine had no effect on preference (Sal, n = 7; Ket, n = 8). , In low-alcohol intake male rats, ketamine had no effect on preference (Sal, n = 8; Ket, n = 8). In low-alcohol intake female rats, preference for alcohol was enhanced in rats that self-administered ketamine compared with saline from session 19 (week 7) to 28 (week 9; Sal, n = 8; Ket, n = 8). *p < 0.05. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM alcohol preference.*, #p < 0.05; symbols represent either within- or between-sex differences (indicated on Fig. 5), **p < 0.01.
Figure 7.Dendritic spine density changes in the NAc are differentially impacted depending on sex and intake. , Representative image of HSV-GFP expression in the NAc. , Representative image of dendritic spines after deconvolution and 3D reconstruction featuring examples of thin, mushroom, and stubby spine shapes. DH, Head diameter; DN, neck diameter. , High alcohol intake increases total spine density in rats of both sexes compared with water-intake control rats. , High alcohol intake in male rats shows increases in thin spine density, and ketamine reduces thin spines in male rats compared with saline. Ketamine reduces thin spine density in water-intake female rats compared with saline, and both alcohol-intake groups show rescuing of these deficits. , Water intake and low alcohol intake increase mushroom spines in ketamine self-administration male rats compared with saline self-administration male rats, but this effect was not observed in high-alcohol intake males. Ketamine increased mushroom spines in female rats compared with saline, regardless of intake. , Stubby spines are unaffected by sex, intake, or treatment. , Representative images with 3D reconstructed models of dendritic spines for each treatment and intake group. *, #, @, ^ p < 0.05 symbols represent either within- or between-group differences (indicated in and ; n = 3 and 4/group; for n = 3, 10–12 dendrites/rat; for n = 4, 8–12 dendrites/rat). **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 8.Alcohol preference is correlated with total and thin spines, while ketamine infusions are correlated with mushroom spine changes in rats of both sexes. , , Linear regression depicting positive correlations between alcohol preferences during the final week of consumption with total and thin spines, respectively. , Mushroom spines did not correlate with alcohol preference during the final week of drinking. , Total spines did not correlate with cumulative infusions during the self-administration period in either sex. , In male rats, thin spines negatively correlated with cumulative infusions during the self-administration period, but this was not observed in females. , Linear regression depicting positive correlation between mushroom spines and cumulative infusions during the self-administration sessions. R 2 and p values for each correlation are listed within their respective figure.