Summary

코카인 유발 행동 과민성 및 마우스의 조건 장소 선호도 평가

Published: February 18, 2016
doi:

Summary

This protocol is intended to enable researchers to conduct experiments designed to test these aspects of addiction using the conditioned place preference and locomotor behavioral sensitization assays.

Abstract

It is thought that rewarding experiences with drugs create strong contextual associations and encourage repeated intake. In turn, repeated exposures to drugs of abuse make lasting alterations in the brain function of vulnerable individuals, and these persistent alterations likely serve to maintain the maladaptive drug seeking and taking behaviors characteristic of addiction/dependence2. In rodents, reward experience and contextual associations are frequently measured using the conditioned place preference assay, or CPP, wherein preference for a previously drug-paired context is measured. Behavioral sensitization, on the other hand, is an increase in a drug-induced behavior that develops progressively over repeated exposures. Since sensitized behaviors can often be measured after several months of drug abstinence, depending on the dose and length of initial exposure, they are considered observable correlates of lasting drug-induced plasticity. Researchers have found these assays useful in determining the neurobiological substrates mediating aspects of addiction as well as assessing the potential of different interventions in disrupting these behaviors. This manuscript describes basic, effective protocols for mouse CPP and locomotor behavioral sensitization to cocaine.

Introduction

Research aimed at understanding drug addiction using animal models must take a variety of approaches to address each of the assorted components that obstruct treatment success, including reward/reinforcement/motivation and withdrawal and relapse, as well as the general persistence that further complicates these issues in addiction. Since rewarding experiences associated with taking a drug of abuse are thought to motivate subsequent use, studies focusing on drug-context associations may be particularly useful for understanding brain mechanisms that contribute to drug taking and seeking. One such assay, conditioned place preference (CPP) is a high-throughput method for comparing group differences in reward sensitivity. The traditional interpretation of the task involves classical, or Pavlovian, conditioning, where a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), and after multiple pairings, the CS elicits the same behavior as the UCS (however, see39,40). Theoretically, animals learn to associate an interoceptive state (reward or aversion) with contextual cues. The relative aversive or appetitive intensity of the interoceptive state is then assessed by then determining the animal’s preference for the contextual cues. The use of place conditioning to measure drug-reward associations dates back to at least 1957, to a study using morphine on rats in a Y-maze3,4. Over the past several decades, variations on this method have been widely used to study place preference and aversion in rodents to various stimuli, and it remains particularly useful in the study of associations induced by drugs of abuse. In drug-addiction research, the assay has been used to assess the rewarding properties of a number of drugs and the contribution of different brain systems and proteins to drug reward (for reviews, see5-7,44). While there are superior methods of assessing factors that contribute to drug addiction, namely drug self-administration, CPP is a simple and much more accessible approach to measuring reward function.

Most current protocols for conditioned place preference and aversion (CPA) use an apparatus that allows rodents to have access to two distinct chambers, either via a doorway or smaller connecting chamber. Distinctions between the two chambers are often based, at a minimum, on visual and tactile cues, including wall color and floor texture, but sometimes include other elements, such as olfactory cues. “Biased” designs typically attempt to reverse a pre-existing, innate preference for one chamber over the other, such as the one that rodents generally show for a black chamber over white. “Unbiased” designs aim to create a preference to one of two chambers that were initially equally appealing by randomly counterbalancing assignment to either chamber within a group. A “balanced” design is used when animals show small preferences, but do not, as a group, favor the same chamber. Goals of this latter design are to produce 1) pre-test preference scores for the (eventual) cocaine-paired chamber that are not significantly different between experimental groups and 2) negligible preference for the cocaine-paired chamber at pre-test, either positive or negative8. The balanced design is ideal for use with the described chambers, which utilize contradicting biases for wall color (black over white) and flooring (wire over bar), resulting in a roughly equal distribution of small preferences for both the black and white sides in different animals. Balancing calculations are described in further detail below.

During conditioning, animals are exposed to a drug and quickly placed into one of these two environments for a limited time period. Exposure is typically via intraperitoneal (i.p.) or sometimes subcutaneous (s.c.) injection, although paradigms for intravenous (i.v.) self-administration9, and intracranial infusions38 in a place preference apparatus have also been developed. These pairings are complemented by non-drug (vehicle) pairings of the same length conducted in the opposite chamber, which can take place on the same day as drug pairings or on separate days. In general, when allowed to explore the apparatus after conditioning, animals will spend more time where they received a rewarding drug (i.e., one that humans and animals will voluntarily self-administer), while they will avoid a place where they were given a drug that induced illness (e.g., lithium chloride). Several studies have been dedicated to optimizing the conditions for place preference to different drugs of abuse (for review, see7). Cocaine doses (i.p.) for mice generally range from 1 to 20 mg/kg, with doses less than 5 mg/kg often used to parse high sensitivity in one group. Two or more drug pairings are typically required for adult mice10, and the length of these pairings is an important consideration. Very low doses of cocaine require an immediate and brief conditioning, likely because this method captures the most rewarding period of the exposure. Delayed or very long conditioning periods can result in no preference, or may even induce aversion11,12. Here is presented a basic method for obtaining conditioned place preference to cocaine in adult mice.

While the CPP assay is an ideal method for assessing reward-related learning and memory of drug-context associations, behavioral sensitization is arguably easier to perform and allows the assessment of changes that develop over repeated treatment. Also known as reverse-tolerance, behaviors undergoing sensitization are incrementally enhanced over repeated exposures to a particular drug of abuse, especially psychostimulants, and cross-sensitization is known to occur between some, but not all, of these drugs. One of the first assessments of cocaine-induced locomotor sensitization, in particular, in rodents was published in 197613. A number of labs have shown that sensitized locomotion is detectable long after drug cessation, depending on the original length, location and dose of exposure14-17, and the current protocol has been used to detect sensitization as long as 10 months following seven days (30 mg/kg) of cocaine treatment in mice18. The test can be performed using either photobeam or video-tracking technologies, in apparatuses of differing sizes and shapes, making it simple for many labs to perform. The robust nature, simplicity and persistence of locomotor sensitization makes its assessment an ideal part of examining basic mechanisms of long-lasting changes in drug-induced behavior.

As is expanded upon in the discussion, an important consideration when performing the locomotor sensitization assay is whether drug is given in the home- or test-cage environment. To take advantage of the robust sensitization that occurs when drug administration occurs outside of the home cage, this protocol employs this method. However, it has been observed that when animals are not adequately habituated to a new environment before drug exposure, a novelty-induced ceiling effect occurs on Day 1, which can partially or fully mask the progressive nature of sensitization. It is likely that this represents synergistic locomotor-activating effects of the drug together with novelty, and while the mechanisms underlying such effects may be interesting, the method described is designed to reduce the role of novelty and allow the effects of the drug to be measured more independently. While it is expected this method will be useful in the assessment of other locomotor-sensitizing drugs, it has primarily evaluated its effectiveness with cocaine in C57BL/6 mice.

Protocol

모든 실험 절차는 맥린 병원 기관 동물 관리 및 사용위원회에 의해 승인되었습니다. 참고 : 다음 프로토콜은 다른 성공적인 프로토콜 (예를 들어, 라이트 – 대 어두운 상 시험, 연속 대 간헐적 투여 등)과 다른 많은 세부있는 CPP와 전위의 민감성에 하나의 접근 방법을 설명합니다. 초보자는 손에서 실험 질문 (들)을 기반으로 문헌에서 변화 적응, 이러한 프로토콜로 시작하거나 가이드로 사용…

Representative Results

CPP 분석의 대표적인 결과는 대략 세의 구주를 야생형 C57BL / 6N 마우스를 사용하여 그림 6에 표시됩니다. 연구 설계 시험 (전후)의 내 – 과목 변수로, 2 × 3 혼합 요인이었고,이 치료 (생리 식염수와 코카인 5, 10 ㎎ / ㎏)의 변수를 사이에-과목. RM ANOVA 두 시험에서 관찰 유의 한 주 효과 대신에 해석 된 테스트 및 치료 (F 2,20 = 3.68, P <0.05) 사이에 유의 한 상호 작용을 보여 주?…

Discussion

이 프로토콜은 약물 유발 행동 가소성의 양상을 평가하기 위해 평균 랩에 의해 사용될 수있는 각각의 조건화 된 장소 선호도 전위의 증감에 대한 방법을 설명한다. 대부분의 행동 테스트와 마찬가지로, 기본 프로토콜 이외의 추가 가치 고려 사항이 있습니다. 우선, 이들 기술들 각각은 두 단계, 유도 식을 갖는 것으로 생각할 수있다. "유도"행동을 위해 컨디셔닝 동안 발생 CPP의 개발을 포?…

Divulgazioni

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

저자는 행동 테스트에 대한 도움말은 카렌 디 에츠와 샤리 번바움 행동 설계 고려 사항에 이전 입력 및 로렌 PECA 감사합니다. 저자는 또한 시몬스 재단 (CWC에 시몬스 재단 자폐증 연구 이니셔티브 부여), NIDA (DA008277, DA027664 및 DA030590 CWC, RDP에 LNS에 F32DA027265 및 F32DA036319에), FRAXA 연구 재단과 엘레과 마일의 관대 한 지원을 인정 해안 원정대 프로그램 (LNS에 교제 지원), 그리고 존 Kaneb 원정대 프로그램 (MT에 교제 지원).

Materials

Cocaine Hydrochloride USP Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals 0406-1520 Purchase and use (Schedule II controlled substance) for research purposes requires compliance and licensure according to state and federal law. 
Conditioned Place Preference,  Three Compartment Apparatus with Manual Doors and Lights for Mouse Med-Associates Inc. MED-CPP-MS & MED-CPP-3013 Our laboratory has used these boxes; however, many alternative boxes are available & acceptable.
PAS-Home Cage Activity Monitoring Photobeam Arrays San Diego Instruments 2325-0223 & 7500-0221 Our lab houses these arrays inside of custom built chambers, as described in the text.  There are alternatives available.
Disposable Sani-Cloth disenfecting wipes PDI 13872

Riferimenti

  1. Kasanetz, F., et al. Transition to addiction is associated with a persistent impairment in synaptic plasticity. Science. 328 (5986), 1709-1712 (2010).
  2. Beach, H. D. Morphine addiction in rats. Can J Psychol. 11 (2), 104-112 (1957).
  3. van der Kooy, D., Bozarth, M. A. Chapter 13, Place Conditioning: A simple and effective method for assessing the motivational properties of drugs. Methods of Assessing the Reinforcing Properties of Abused Drugs. , 229-240 (2012).
  4. Carlezon, W. A. Place conditioning to study drug reward and aversion. Methods Mol Med. 84, 243-249 (2003).
  5. Prus, A. J., James, J. R., Rosecrans, J. A., Buccafusco, J. J. Chapter 4, Conditioned Place Preference. Methods of Behavior Analysis in Neuroscience. , (2009).
  6. Tzschentke, T. M. Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addict Biol. 12 (3-4), 227-462 (2007).
  7. Aguilar, M. A., Rodrìguez-Arias, M., Miñarro, J. Neurobiological mechanisms of the reinstatement of drug-conditioned place preference. Brain Res Rev. 59 (2), 253-277 (2009).
  8. Feduccia, A. A., Duvauchelle, C. L. Novel apparatus and method for drug reinforcement. JoVE. (42), (2010).
  9. Brabant, C., Quertemont, E., Tirelli, E. Influence of the dose and the number of drug-context pairings on the magnitude and the long-lasting retention of cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in C57BL/6J mice. Psychopharmacology. 180 (1), 33-40 (2005).
  10. Pliakas, A. M., Carlson, R. R., Neve, R. L., Konradi, C., Nestler, E. J., Carlezon, W. A. Altered responsiveness to cocaine and increased immobility in the forced swim test associated with elevated cAMP response element-binding protein expression in nucleus accumbens. J Neurosci. 21 (18), 7397-7403 (2001).
  11. Knackstedt, L. A., Samimi, M. M., Ettenberg, A. Evidence for opponent-process actions of intravenous cocaine and cocaethylene. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 72 (4), 931-936 (2002).
  12. Post, R. M., Rose, H. Increasing effects of repetitive cocaine administration in the rat. Nature. 260 (5553), 731-732 (1976).
  13. Marin, M. T., Cruz, F. C., Planeta, C. S. Cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization in adolescent rats endures until adulthood: lack of association with GluR1 and NR1 glutamate receptor subunits and tyrosine hydroxylase. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 91 (1), 109-114 (2008).
  14. Henry, D. J., White, F. J. The persistence of behavioral sensitization to cocaine parallels enhanced inhibition of nucleus accumbens neurons. J Neurosci. 15 (9), 6287-6299 (1995).
  15. Hope, B. T., Simmons, D. E., Mitchell, T. B., Kreuter, J. D., Mattson, B. J. Cocaine-induced locomotor activity and Fos expression in nucleus accumbens are sensitized for 6 after repeated cocaine administration outside the home cage. Eur J Neurosci. 24 (3), 867-875 (2006).
  16. Shuster, L., Yu, G., Bates, A. Sensitization to cocaine stimulation in mice. Psychopharmacology. 52 (2), 185-190 (1977).
  17. Smith, L. N., Jedynak, J. P., Fontenot, M. R., Hale, C. R., Dietz, K. C., Taniguchi, M., Thomas, F. S., Zirlin, B. C., Birnbaum, S. G., Huber, K. M., Thomas, M. J., Cowan, C. W. Fragile X mental retardation protein regulates synaptic and behavioral plasticity to repeated cocaine administration. Neuron. 82 (3), 645-658 (2014).
  18. Mueller, D., Stewart, J. Cocaine-induced conditioned place preference: reinstatement by priming injections of cocaine after extinction. Behav Brain Res. 115 (1), 39-47 (2000).
  19. Sakoori, K., Murphy, N. P. Maintenance of conditioned place preferences and aversion in C57BL6 mice: effects of repeated and drug state testing. Behav Brain Res. 160 (1), 34-43 (2005).
  20. Bardo, M. T., Neisewander, J. L., Miller, J. S. Repeated testing attenuates conditioned place preference with cocaine. Psychopharmacologia. 89 (2), 239-243 (1986).
  21. Itzhak, Y., Martin, J. L. Cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in mice: induction, extinction and reinstatement by related psychostimulants. Neuropsychopharmacology. 26 (1), 130-134 (2002).
  22. Kreibich, A. S., Blendy, J. A. cAMP response element-binding protein is required for stress but not cocaine-induced reinstatement. J Neurosci. 24 (30), 6686-6692 (2004).
  23. Briand, L. A., Blendy, J. A. Not all stress is equal: CREB is not necessary for restraint stress reinstatement of cocaine-conditioned reward. Behav Brain Res. 246, 63-68 (2013).
  24. Redila, V. A., Chavkin, C. Stress-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking is mediated by the kappa opioid system. Psychopharmacology. 200 (1), 59-70 (2008).
  25. Do Couto, R. i. b. e. i. r. o., Aguilar, B., A, M., Manzanedo, C., Rodriguez-Arias, M., Armario, A., Minarro, J. Social stress is as effective as physical stress in reinstating morphine-induced place preference in mice. Psychopharmacology. 185 (4), 459-470 (2006).
  26. Post, R. M., Lockfeld, A., Squillace, K. M., Contel, N. R. Drug-environment interaction: context dependency of cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization. Life sciences. 28 (7), 755-760 (1981).
  27. Badiani, A., Browman, K. E., Robinson, T. E. Influence of novel versus home environments on sensitization to the psychomotor stimulant effects of cocaine and amphetamine. Brain Res. 674 (2), 291-298 (1995).
  28. Li, Y., Acerbo, M. J., Robinson, T. E. The induction of behavioural sensitization is associated with cocaine-induced structural plasticity in the core (but not shell) of the nucleus accumbens. Eur J Neurosci. 20 (6), 1647-1654 (2004).
  29. Partridge, B., Schenk, S. Context-independent sensitization to the locomotor-activating effects of cocaine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 63 (4), 543-548 (1999).
  30. Le Foll, B., Diaz, J., Sokoloff, P. Increased dopamine D3 receptor expression accompanying behavioral sensitization to nicotine in rats. Synapse. 47 (3), 176-183 (2003).
  31. Heidbreder, C. A., Babovic-Vuksanovic, D., Shoaib, M., Shippenberg, T. S. Development of behavioral sensitization to cocaine: influence of kappa opioid receptor agonists. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 275 (1), 150-163 (1995).
  32. Tirelli, E., Michel, A., Brabant, C. Cocaine-conditioned activity persists for a longer time than cocaine-sensitized activity in mice: implications for the theories using Pavlovian excitatory conditioning to explain the context-specificity of sensitization. Behav Brain Res. 165 (1), 18-25 (2005).
  33. Anagnostaras, S. G., Schallert, T., Robinson, T. E. Memory processes governing amphetamine-induced psychomotor sensitization. Neuropsychopharmacology. 26 (6), 703-715 (2002).
  34. Spangler, R., Zhou, Y., Schlussman, S. D., Ho, A., Kreek, M. J. Behavioral stereotypies induced by ‘binge’ cocaine administration are independent of drug-induced increases in corticosterone levels. Behav Brain Res. 86 (2), 201-204 (1997).
  35. Kelley, A. E. Measurement of rodent stereotyped behavior. Curr Protoc Neurosci. Chapter 8, Unit 8.8 (2001).
  36. Taniguchi, M., Carreira, M. B., Smith, L. N., Zirlin, B. C., Neve, R. L., Cowan, C. W. Histone deacetylase 5 limits cocaine reward through cAMP-induced nuclear import. Neuron. 73 (1), 108-120 (2012).
  37. Zangen, A., Solinas, M., Ikemoto, S., Goldberg, S. R., Wise, R. A. Two brain sites for cannabinoid reward. J Neurosci. 26 (18), 4901-4907 (2006).
  38. Huston, J. P., de Souza Silva, M. A., Topic, B., Müller, C. P. What’s conditioned in conditioned place preference. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 34 (3), 162-166 (2013).
  39. Schechter, M. D., Calcagnetti, D. J. Trends in place preference conditioning with a cross-indexed bibliography; 1957-1991. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 17, 21-41 (1993).
  40. Bevins, R. A., Cunningham, C. L., Anderson, M. Chapter 9, Place Conditioning: A Methodological Analysis. Tasks and Techiniques: A sampling of methodologies for the investigation of animal learning, behavior, and cognition. , 99-110 (2006).
  41. Hitchcock, L. N., Cunningham, C. L., Lattal, K. M. Cue configuration effects in the acquisition of a cocaine-induced place preference. Behav Neurosci. 128 (2), 217-227 (2014).
  42. Liu, Z. -. H., Chuang, D. M., Smith, C. B. Lithium amerliorates phenotypic deficits in a mouse model of fragile X syndrome. Int J Neuropscyhopharmacol. 14 (5), 618-630 (2011).
  43. Bardo, M. T., Rowlett, J. K., Harris, M. J. Conditioned place preference using opiate and stimulant drugs: A meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 19 (1), 39-51 (1995).

Play Video

Citazione di questo articolo
Smith, L. N., Penrod, R. D., Taniguchi, M., Cowan, C. W. Assessment of Cocaine-induced Behavioral Sensitization and Conditioned Place Preference in Mice. J. Vis. Exp. (108), e53107, doi:10.3791/53107 (2016).

View Video