Cargando…

Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat

We previously developed rat experimental models based on the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm in which only four 15-min episodes of dyadic social interaction with a sex- and weight-matched male Sprague Dawley (SD) rat (1) reversed CPP from cocaine to social interaction despite continuing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kummer, Kai K., Hofhansel, Lena, Barwitz, Constanze M., Schardl, Aurelia, Prast, Janine M., Salti, Ahmad, El Rawas, Rana, Zernig, Gerald
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4201146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368560
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00363
_version_ 1782340136818704384
author Kummer, Kai K.
Hofhansel, Lena
Barwitz, Constanze M.
Schardl, Aurelia
Prast, Janine M.
Salti, Ahmad
El Rawas, Rana
Zernig, Gerald
author_facet Kummer, Kai K.
Hofhansel, Lena
Barwitz, Constanze M.
Schardl, Aurelia
Prast, Janine M.
Salti, Ahmad
El Rawas, Rana
Zernig, Gerald
author_sort Kummer, Kai K.
collection PubMed
description We previously developed rat experimental models based on the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm in which only four 15-min episodes of dyadic social interaction with a sex- and weight-matched male Sprague Dawley (SD) rat (1) reversed CPP from cocaine to social interaction despite continuing cocaine training, and (2) prevented the reacquisition/re-expression of cocaine CPP. In a concurrent conditioning schedule, pairing one compartment with social interaction and the other compartment with 15 mg/kg cocaine injections, rats spent the same amount of time in both compartments and the most rewarding sensory component of the composite stimulus social interaction was touch (taction). In the present study, we validated our experimental paradigm in C57BL/6 mice to investigate if our experimental paradigm may be useful for the considerable number of genetically modified mouse models. Only 71% of the tested mice developed place preference for social interaction, whereas 85% of the rats did. Accordingly, 29% of the mice developed conditioned place aversion (CPA) to social interaction, whereas this was true for only 15% of the rats. In support of the lesser likelihood of mice to develop a preference for social interaction, the average amount of time spent in direct contact was 17% for mice vs. 79% for rats. In animals that were concurrently conditioned for social interaction vs. cocaine, the relative reward strength for cocaine was 300-fold higher in mice than in rats. Considering that human addicts regularly prefer drugs of abuse to drug-free social interaction, the present findings suggest that our experimental paradigm of concurrent CPP for cocaine vs. social interaction is of even greater translational power if performed in C57BL/6 mice, the genetic background for most transgenic rodent models, than in rats.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4201146
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42011462014-11-03 Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat Kummer, Kai K. Hofhansel, Lena Barwitz, Constanze M. Schardl, Aurelia Prast, Janine M. Salti, Ahmad El Rawas, Rana Zernig, Gerald Front Behav Neurosci Neuroscience We previously developed rat experimental models based on the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm in which only four 15-min episodes of dyadic social interaction with a sex- and weight-matched male Sprague Dawley (SD) rat (1) reversed CPP from cocaine to social interaction despite continuing cocaine training, and (2) prevented the reacquisition/re-expression of cocaine CPP. In a concurrent conditioning schedule, pairing one compartment with social interaction and the other compartment with 15 mg/kg cocaine injections, rats spent the same amount of time in both compartments and the most rewarding sensory component of the composite stimulus social interaction was touch (taction). In the present study, we validated our experimental paradigm in C57BL/6 mice to investigate if our experimental paradigm may be useful for the considerable number of genetically modified mouse models. Only 71% of the tested mice developed place preference for social interaction, whereas 85% of the rats did. Accordingly, 29% of the mice developed conditioned place aversion (CPA) to social interaction, whereas this was true for only 15% of the rats. In support of the lesser likelihood of mice to develop a preference for social interaction, the average amount of time spent in direct contact was 17% for mice vs. 79% for rats. In animals that were concurrently conditioned for social interaction vs. cocaine, the relative reward strength for cocaine was 300-fold higher in mice than in rats. Considering that human addicts regularly prefer drugs of abuse to drug-free social interaction, the present findings suggest that our experimental paradigm of concurrent CPP for cocaine vs. social interaction is of even greater translational power if performed in C57BL/6 mice, the genetic background for most transgenic rodent models, than in rats. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4201146/ /pubmed/25368560 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00363 Text en Copyright © 2014 Kummer, Hofhansel, Barwitz, Schardl, Prast, Salti, El Rawas and Zernig. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution and reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Kummer, Kai K.
Hofhansel, Lena
Barwitz, Constanze M.
Schardl, Aurelia
Prast, Janine M.
Salti, Ahmad
El Rawas, Rana
Zernig, Gerald
Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat
title Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat
title_full Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat
title_fullStr Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat
title_full_unstemmed Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat
title_short Differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat
title_sort differences in social interaction- vs. cocaine reward in mouse vs. rat
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4201146/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368560
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00363
work_keys_str_mv AT kummerkaik differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat
AT hofhansellena differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat
AT barwitzconstanzem differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat
AT schardlaurelia differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat
AT prastjaninem differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat
AT saltiahmad differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat
AT elrawasrana differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat
AT zerniggerald differencesinsocialinteractionvscocainerewardinmousevsrat