A L Wong1, S M McElroy1, J M Robinson1, S M Mulloy2, F K El Banna1, A C Harris3, M G LeSage4, A M Lee5. 1. Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 5. Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Electronic address: amlee@umn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of electronic cigarettes has increased over the past decade. To determine how the abuse liability of electronic cigarette liquids (e-liquids) differs from nicotine alone, and to determine the impact of flavor, we compared nicotine-containing fruit- and tobacco-flavored e-liquids, and their nicotine-free versions, to nicotine alone in mouse models of oral consumption, reward and aversion. METHODS: Adult male C57BL/6 J mice voluntarily consumed oral nicotine, equivalent nicotine concentrations of fruit- and tobacco-flavored e-liquid, and equivalent dilutions of the nicotine-free versions in 2-bottle choice tests. Conditioned place preference and place aversion were assessed with peripherally administered e-liquids or nicotine. Serum nicotine and cotinine levels were measured after subcutaneous injections of e-liquid or nicotine. RESULTS: Mice showed higher consumption and preference for the fruit-flavored e-liquid compared with nicotine alone. This increase was not due to the flavor itself as consumption of the nicotine-free fruit-flavored e-liquid was not elevated until the highest concentration tested. The increased consumption and preference were not observed with the tobacco-flavored e-liquid. The conditioned place preference, place aversion and nicotine pharmacokinetics of the fruit-flavored e-liquid were not significantly different from nicotine alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that fruit, but not tobacco flavor, increased the oral consumption of e-liquid compared with nicotine alone. Moreover, this enhancement was not due to increased consumption of the flavor itself, altered rewarding or aversive properties after peripheral administration, or altered pharmacokinetics. This flavor-specific enhancement suggests that some flavors may lead to higher nicotine intake and increased use of e-liquids compared with nicotine alone.
BACKGROUND: The use of electronic cigarettes has increased over the past decade. To determine how the abuse liability of electronic cigarette liquids (e-liquids) differs from nicotine alone, and to determine the impact of flavor, we compared nicotine-containing fruit- and tobacco-flavored e-liquids, and their nicotine-free versions, to nicotine alone in mouse models of oral consumption, reward and aversion. METHODS: Adult male C57BL/6 J mice voluntarily consumed oral nicotine, equivalent nicotine concentrations of fruit- and tobacco-flavored e-liquid, and equivalent dilutions of the nicotine-free versions in 2-bottle choice tests. Conditioned place preference and place aversion were assessed with peripherally administered e-liquids or nicotine. Serum nicotine and cotinine levels were measured after subcutaneous injections of e-liquid or nicotine. RESULTS:Mice showed higher consumption and preference for the fruit-flavored e-liquid compared with nicotine alone. This increase was not due to the flavor itself as consumption of the nicotine-free fruit-flavored e-liquid was not elevated until the highest concentration tested. The increased consumption and preference were not observed with the tobacco-flavored e-liquid. The conditioned place preference, place aversion and nicotine pharmacokinetics of the fruit-flavored e-liquid were not significantly different from nicotine alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that fruit, but not tobacco flavor, increased the oral consumption of e-liquid compared with nicotine alone. Moreover, this enhancement was not due to increased consumption of the flavor itself, altered rewarding or aversive properties after peripheral administration, or altered pharmacokinetics. This flavor-specific enhancement suggests that some flavors may lead to higher nicotine intake and increased use of e-liquids compared with nicotine alone.
Authors: Nadia Chaudhri; Anthony R Caggiula; Eric C Donny; Matthew I Palmatier; Xiu Liu; Alan F Sved Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2005-10-21 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Robert C McMillen; Mark A Gottlieb; Regina M Whitmore Shaefer; Jonathan P Winickoff; Jonathan D Klein Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Robert J Wickham; Eric J Nunes; Shannon Hughley; Phillip Silva; Sofia N Walton; Jinwoo Park; Nii A Addy Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Y Hieda; D E Keyler; J T VanDeVoort; R S Niedbala; D E Raphael; C A Ross; P R Pentel Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Kyu Y O'Rourke; Jillienne C Touchette; Elizabeth C Hartell; Elizabeth J Bade; Anna M Lee Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Andrew C Harris; Peter Muelken; John R Smethells; Katrina Yershova; Irina Stepanov; Thao Tran Olson; Kenneth J Kellar; Mark G LeSage Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Deniz Bagdas; Laura E Rupprecht; Eric J Nunes; Emma Schillinger; Judah J Immanuel; Nii A Addy Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: F K El Banna; J M Otto; S M Mulloy; W Tsai; S M McElroy; A L Wong; G Cutts; S I Vrieze; A M Lee Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Lin Li; Ron Borland; Kenneth Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong; Shannon Gravely; Danielle M Smith; Maciej L Goniewicz; Richard J O'Connor; Mary E Thompson; Ann McNeill Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Natalie L Johnson; Theresa Patten; Minghong Ma; Mariella De Biasi; Daniel W Wesson Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 5.152