An Animal Model of Genetic Vulnerability to Behavioral Disinhibition and Responsiveness to Reward-Related Cues: Implications for Addiction methods
Show snapshot details
On this page
This experiment, in seven questions
Jump straight to the part of the recipe you need. Data and provenance labels stay close to the action they support.
Shopping and prep list
What do I need before I start?
Biological model pending
Subject model for the experiment.
- Use
- confirm full cohort details in the source paper
Before you run
What should be confirmed before execution?
First confirmation
Species or subject information is missing.
Confirm before execution
Protocol does not list structured equipment.
Confirm before execution
This page shows passages quoted from the paper. Equipment, materials, times, and temperatures are hidden until the page is rebuilt from the full paper and checked by a reviewer. Check the paper before using this method.
Confirm before execution
Open the source paper before finalizing run-specific details.
Procurement checkpoint
Use source-stated vendors where present. Treat mapped products as sourcing options unless the page marks an exact source match.
Open quote workflowStep-by-step procedure
What do I do, in order?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 260 male Sprague-Dawley rats from our selective breeding colony ( ) were used. Procedures were approved by the University Committee on the Use and Care of Animals. Unless otherwise indicated, rats were pair-housed and kept on a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle (lights on 0600 hours) with controlled temperature and humidity. Food and water were available ad libitum.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Each generation of rats was screened for locomotor activity around 60 days of age (see; ). Novelty-induced locomotor data were also obtained for bHRs and bLRs from the S17 generation using an automated behavioral analysis system (CleverSys, Reston, VA; ).
General Statistics
Linear mixed-effects models ( ) were used to analyze the behavioral data. The covariance structure was explored and modeled appropriately for each dependent variable and when significant main effects or interactions were detected, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were carried out. Independent t -tests were used to examine phenotypic differences in acquisition of behavior for the delay-discounting task and for the neurobiological data.
Impulsive behavior
DRL: The same rats used for the delay-discounting task were also used for the DRL task (adapted from. Test chambers were arranged such that there was just one lever located to either the right or left (counterbalanced) of the food cup and the lever remained extended for the duration of the sessions. Each 45 min session began with illumination of the house light and lever presentation. Rats were initially tested on a DRL-5-s schedule, in which a lever press resulted in illumination of the lever and pellet delivery only if at least 5 s had elapsed since the previous press. Following 5 days of training at DRL-5-s, the schedule was changed to DRL-10-s for 5 days, then to DRL-20-s for 5 days, and the last 5 days at DRL-30-s. The total number of lever presses and the total number of reinforcers (ie, successful lever presses) were recorded.
Response to quinpirole
Rats from the S17 generation received three doses of quinpirole (counterbalanced; 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 mg/kg, i.p.) or three injections of vehicle (0.9% NaCL, i.p.). Behavior was videotaped during habituation and the post-injection period, and Clever Sys (Reston, VA) Drug Scan software was used to analyze video-recorded behavior (; ).
Cocaine US
shows the effect of pairing presentation of a lever-CS with an intravenous injection of cocaine (US) in bHR ( n =8) and bLR ( n =8) rats. With training, bHR rats developed a sign-tracking CR to the cocaine-paired CS, whereas bLR rats did not. It is important to note that with a drug US there is no measurable goal-tracking response-that is, there is no specific location associated with delivery of the cocaine. Moreover, when cocaine is used as the US, animals rarely contact the lever-CS (as they do with a food US). Instead, the sign-tracking CR consists of orientation to the lever followed by approach and exploration (often sniffing) in the immediate vicinity of the lever, similar to that described when rewarding electrical brain stimulation is used as the US (see; ). Thus, CS-directed approach behavior is illustrated in as the probability that a rat approached the lever during...
Response to Quinpirole
The behavioral response to quinpirole, a direct agonist at D2/D3 dopamine receptors ( ), was assessed in bHR ( n =10-12/group) and bLR ( n =12/group) rats. Initial analysis of the time course of the behavioral effects indicated that the peak response fell between 25 and 55 min following injection, and therefore statistical analyses were conducted using data from this 30-min period. The effect of a saline injection was assessed in an independent group of animals and therefore these data were not included in the dose-effect analyses. However, independent t -tests were performed to determine whether the response at a specific dose significantly differed from that of the saline controls.
Response to Quinpirole
illustrates the dose-response functions for locomotor distance and the frequency of head movements following quinpirole administration. There was a significant effect of phenotype for quinpirole-induced locomotor activity (F (1,23) =9.99; P =0.01) and this effect was most pronounced at the lowest dose examined ( ). bHR rats exhibited a large increase in locomotor activity in response to 0.1 mg/kg of quinpirole relative to bLR rats and it was only at this lowest dose that bHR rats significantly differed from bHR saline control rats ( P =0.005). bLRs did not differ significantly from their saline control counterparts at any dose, but there was a trend level effect at 0.3 mg/kg ( P =0.09). There was also a trend for a phenotype × dose interaction (F (2,39) =2.67, P =0.08), but no overall effect of dose. These results were likely affected by the large amount of vari...
Measurement outputs
What raw and processed outputs should exist?
Analysis plan
How should the outputs become interpretable results?
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
inferred from protocolPreprocessing / cleaning
Review raw outputs for quality, remove unusable captures, and organize the data into a comparison-ready table or image set.
inferred from protocolScoring or quantification
Quantify the primary endpoint described in the methods before moving into any statistical comparison.
inferred from protocolStatistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
inferred from protocolReporting output
Report representative outputs alongside the summary comparison used to support the conclusion.
inferred from protocolSource and audit
What supports the facts on this page?
Evidence quotes (8)
A total of 260 male Sprague-Dawley rats from our selective breeding colony ( ) were used. Procedures were approved by the University Committee on the Use and Care of Animals. Unless otherwise indicated, rats were pair-housed and kept on a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle (lights on 0600 hours) with controlled temperature and humidity. Food and water were available ad libitum.
Each generation of rats was screened for locomotor activity around 60 days of age (see; ). Novelty-induced locomotor data were also obtained for bHRs and bLRs from the S17 generation using an automated behavioral analysis system (CleverSys, Reston, VA; ).
Linear mixed-effects models ( ) were used to analyze the behavioral data. The covariance structure was explored and modeled appropriately for each dependent variable and when significant main effects or interactions were detected, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were carried out. Independent t -tests were used to examine phenotypic differences in acquisition of behavior for the delay-discounting task and for the neurobiological data.
DRL: The same rats used for the delay-discounting task were also used for the DRL task (adapted from. Test chambers were arranged such that there was just one lever located to either the right or left (counterbalanced) of the food cup and the lever remained extended for the duration of the sessions. Each 45 min session began with illumination of the house light and lever presentation. Rats were initially tested on a DRL-5-s schedule, in which a lever press resulted in illumination of the lever and pellet delivery only if at least 5 s had elapsed since the previous press. Following 5 days of training at DRL-5-s, the schedule was changed to DRL-10-s for 5 days, then to DRL-20-s for 5 days, and the last 5 days at DRL-30-s. The total number of lever presses and the total number of reinforcers (ie, successful lever presses) were recorded.
Rats from the S17 generation received three doses of quinpirole (counterbalanced; 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 mg/kg, i.p.) or three injections of vehicle (0.9% NaCL, i.p.). Behavior was videotaped during habituation and the post-injection period, and Clever Sys (Reston, VA) Drug Scan software was used to analyze video-recorded behavior (; ).
shows the effect of pairing presentation of a lever-CS with an intravenous injection of cocaine (US) in bHR ( n =8) and bLR ( n =8) rats. With training, bHR rats developed a sign-tracking CR to the cocaine-paired CS, whereas bLR rats did not. It is important to note that with a drug US there is no measurable goal-tracking response-that is, there is no specific location associated with delivery of the cocaine. Moreover, when cocaine is used as the US, animals rarely contact the lever-CS (as they do with a food US). Instead, the sign-tracking CR consists of orientation to the lever followed by approach and exploration (often sniffing) in the immediate vicinity of the lever, similar to that described when rewarding electrical brain stimulation is used as the US (see; ). Thus, CS-directed approach behavior is illustrated in as the probability that a rat approached the lever during the CS period in a given trial block (, the number of approaches the rat made toward the lever ( ) and the latency with which the rat approached the lever ( ). For detailed statistics on these measures, see Supplementary Table 2. Relative to bLRs, with training bHRs increased their probability of a...
The behavioral response to quinpirole, a direct agonist at D2/D3 dopamine receptors ( ), was assessed in bHR ( n =10-12/group) and bLR ( n =12/group) rats. Initial analysis of the time course of the behavioral effects indicated that the peak response fell between 25 and 55 min following injection, and therefore statistical analyses were conducted using data from this 30-min period. The effect of a saline injection was assessed in an independent group of animals and therefore these data were not included in the dose-effect analyses. However, independent t -tests were performed to determine whether the response at a specific dose significantly differed from that of the saline controls.
illustrates the dose-response functions for locomotor distance and the frequency of head movements following quinpirole administration. There was a significant effect of phenotype for quinpirole-induced locomotor activity (F (1,23) =9.99; P =0.01) and this effect was most pronounced at the lowest dose examined ( ). bHR rats exhibited a large increase in locomotor activity in response to 0.1 mg/kg of quinpirole relative to bLR rats and it was only at this lowest dose that bHR rats significantly differed from bHR saline control rats ( P =0.005). bLRs did not differ significantly from their saline control counterparts at any dose, but there was a trend level effect at 0.3 mg/kg ( P =0.09). There was also a trend for a phenotype × dose interaction (F (2,39) =2.67, P =0.08), but no overall effect of dose. These results were likely affected by the large amount of variance for the bHRs at 0.3 mg/kg, which was largely due to one animal that showed an unusually large locomotor response. Nevertheless, these data show that bHRs are more sensitive to a low dose of quinpirole than bLRs.
Machine-readable layer
[
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "HowTo",
"name": "An Animal Model of Genetic Vulnerability to Behavioral Disinhibition and Responsiveness to Reward-Related Cues: Implications for Addiction methods",
"description": "Protocol for An Animal Model of Genetic Vulnerability to Behavioral Disinhibition and Responsiveness to Reward-Related Cues: Implications for Addiction methods",
"step": [
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 1,
"name": "MATERIALS AND METHODS",
"text": "A total of 260 male Sprague-Dawley rats from our selective breeding colony ( ) were used. Procedures were approved by the University Committee on the Use and Care of Animals. Unless otherwise indicated, rats were pair-housed and kept on a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle (lights on 0600 hours) with controlled temperature and humidity. Food and water were available ad libitum."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 2,
"name": "MATERIALS AND METHODS",
"text": "Each generation of rats was screened for locomotor activity around 60 days of age (see; ). Novelty-induced locomotor data were also obtained for bHRs and bLRs from the S17 generation using an automated behavioral analysis system (CleverSys, Reston, VA; )."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 3,
"name": "General Statistics",
"text": "Linear mixed-effects models ( ) were used to analyze the behavioral data. The covariance structure was explored and modeled appropriately for each dependent variable and when significant main effects or interactions were detected, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were carried out. Independent t -tests were used to examine phenotypic differences in acquisition of behavior for the delay-discounting task and for the neurobiological data."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 4,
"name": "Impulsive behavior",
"text": "DRL: The same rats used for the delay-discounting task were also used for the DRL task (adapted from. Test chambers were arranged such that there was just one lever located to either the right or left (counterbalanced) of the food cup and the lever remained extended for the duration of the sessions. Each 45 min session began with illumination of the house light and lever presentation. Rats were initially tested on a DRL-5-s schedule, in which a lever press resulted in illumination of the lever and pellet delivery only if at least 5 s had elapsed since the previous press. Following 5 days of training at DRL-5-s, the schedule was changed to DRL-10-s for 5 days, then to DRL-20-s for 5 days, and the last 5 days at DRL-30-s. The total number of lever presses and the total number of reinforcers (ie, successful lever presses) were recorded."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 5,
"name": "Response to quinpirole",
"text": "Rats from the S17 generation received three doses of quinpirole (counterbalanced; 0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 mg/kg, i.p.) or three injections of vehicle (0.9% NaCL, i.p.). Behavior was videotaped during habituation and the post-injection period, and Clever Sys (Reston, VA) Drug Scan software was used to analyze video-recorded behavior (; )."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 6,
"name": "Cocaine US",
"text": "shows the effect of pairing presentation of a lever-CS with an intravenous injection of cocaine (US) in bHR ( n =8) and bLR ( n =8) rats. With training, bHR rats developed a sign-tracking CR to the cocaine-paired CS, whereas bLR rats did not. It is important to note that with a drug US there is no measurable goal-tracking response-that is, there is no specific location associated with delivery of the cocaine. Moreover, when cocaine is used as the US, animals rarely contact the lever-CS (as they do with a food US). Instead, the sign-tracking CR consists of orientation to the lever followed by approach and exploration (often sniffing) in the immediate vicinity of the lever, similar to that described when rewarding electrical brain stimulation is used as the US (see; ). Thus, CS-directed approach behavior is illustrated in as the probability that a rat approached the lever during..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 7,
"name": "Response to Quinpirole",
"text": "The behavioral response to quinpirole, a direct agonist at D2/D3 dopamine receptors ( ), was assessed in bHR ( n =10-12/group) and bLR ( n =12/group) rats. Initial analysis of the time course of the behavioral effects indicated that the peak response fell between 25 and 55 min following injection, and therefore statistical analyses were conducted using data from this 30-min period. The effect of a saline injection was assessed in an independent group of animals and therefore these data were not included in the dose-effect analyses. However, independent t -tests were performed to determine whether the response at a specific dose significantly differed from that of the saline controls."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 8,
"name": "Response to Quinpirole",
"text": "illustrates the dose-response functions for locomotor distance and the frequency of head movements following quinpirole administration. There was a significant effect of phenotype for quinpirole-induced locomotor activity (F (1,23) =9.99; P =0.01) and this effect was most pronounced at the lowest dose examined ( ). bHR rats exhibited a large increase in locomotor activity in response to 0.1 mg/kg of quinpirole relative to bLR rats and it was only at this lowest dose that bHR rats significantly differed from bHR saline control rats ( P =0.005). bLRs did not differ significantly from their saline control counterparts at any dose, but there was a trend level effect at 0.3 mg/kg ( P =0.09). There was also a trend for a phenotype × dose interaction (F (2,39) =2.67, P =0.08), but no overall effect of dose. These results were likely affected by the large amount of vari..."
}
],
"tool": [],
"supply": [],
"isBasedOn": {
"@type": "ScholarlyArticle",
"headline": "An Animal Model of Genetic Vulnerability to Behavioral Disinhibition and Responsiveness to Reward-Related Cues: Implications for Addiction",
"datePublished": "2010",
"author": [
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Shelly B Flagel"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Terry E Robinson"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Jeremy J Clark"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Sarah M Clinton"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Stanley J Watson"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Phillip Seeman"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Paul E M Phillips"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Huda Akil"
}
],
"identifier": "10.1038/npp.2009.142"
}
},
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "BreadcrumbList",
"itemListElement": [
{
"@type": "ListItem",
"position": 1,
"name": "Experiments",
"item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments"
},
{
"@type": "ListItem",
"position": 2,
"name": "An Animal Model of Genetic Vulnerability to Behavioral Disinhibition and Responsiveness to Reward-Related Cues: Implications for Addiction methods",
"item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments/an-animal-model-of-genetic-vulnerability-to-behavioral-disinhibition-and-responsiveness-to-reward-related-cues-implications-for-addiction-methods-shelly-b-flagel-pmc2794950/an-animal-model-of-genetic-vulnerability-to-behavioral-disinhibition-and-responsiveness-to-reward-re-mlph2tei"
}
]
}
]