Incubation of ethanol reinstatement depends on test conditions and how ethanol consumption is reduced

Effects of an ethanol-paired conditioned stimulus on responding for ethanol suppressed by a conditioned-taste-aversion

Ethanol-Paired Conditioned Stimuli (CS) can increase ethanol-responding either in extinction or occurring at low rates late in a session. To examine the generality of CS-induced increases in ethanol-responding, we examined whether a CS could increase responding suppressed by Conditioned-Taste-Aversion (CTA), which presumably suppresses responding by changing ethanol's valence from positive to negative. Rats were trained to respond for ethanol under a Random Interval (RI) schedule. We then removed the lever and paired Random-Time ethanol deliveries with illumination of a stimulus light (i.e., CS) for 10 sessions. Results were compared with a Truly Random Control group, in which the light and ethanol deliveries occurred independently. In a subsequent experiment, rats were treated similarly, except the light served as a discriminative stimulus, as the lever was extended and ethanol deliveries were available under a RI during light presentations. After this training, the lever was returned and rats again responded for ethanol. Subsequently, sessions were followed by LiCl administration. When responding reached low levels, LiCl administration stopped and the light was occasionally illuminated during the session. Responding during the light presentation was compared to responding during the period preceding light presentation. Responding partially recovered across 10 sessions and was greater during light presentations than in the period before it in all three groups. Increases were not reliably different between the groups, indicating that explanations for these increases such as CS-induced increases in motivation or approach toward the light are unlikely to be correct. The most likely explanation for these light-induced increases is that during sessions in which the light had been presented previously, LiCl had never been presented and thus, the light had come to signal that ethanol was safe to drink.

Shifts in stimulus control over opioid use with increasing periods of recovery

BACKGROUND

Periods of engaging in an alternative behavior diminishes behavioral control by stimuli occasioning alcohol use. This increase in relapse resistance with increasing recovery suggests that changing stimulus control over substance use may be a mechanism responsible for decreased relapse rates with longer recovery. However, the generality of this phenomenon to other drugs of abuse, including opioid self-administration, remains unclear. This study tests the generality of these findings with etonitazene to determine whether the shift in attention represents a behavioral process that generalizes from conditions we previously reported.

METHODS

Five adult male Lewis rats were trained to respond on levers under two stimulus conditions; high-cost food (food FR150 and etonitazene FR5) and low-cost food (both food and etonitazene FR 5). Next, only the high-cost food stimulus (occasioning etonitazene responding) was presented for 20 sessions (Use Phase) followed by 9 sessions in which only the low-cost food stimulus (occasioning food responding) was presented (Recovery Phase). During the Recovery Phase, testing occurred during the first component of sessions 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 when rats were re-exposed to the high-cost food stimulus. The number of food responses prior to completing the etonitazene response requirement during this stimulus exposure was the primary measure.

RESULTS

Food responses during stimulus re-exposure increased significantly as a function of recovery sessions completed with a slope [95 % CI] of 2.49 responses/recovery session [0.16, 4.81]. The average number of etonitazene deliveries per use session was 32 ± 6.6 or an average daily dose of 48.8 ± 10.1 μg/kg. During Recovery Phase, etonitazene deliveries decreased to 2.4 ± 1 or 3.6 ± 1.5 μg/kg.

CONCLUSION

The decrease in stimulus control observed for ethanol self-administration appears to generalize to opioid self-administration, indicating this change in stimulus control may play a general role in recovery.

Intermittent-access operant alcohol self-administration promotes binge-like drinking and drinking despite negative consequences in male and female heterogeneous stock rats

The study of Alcohol Use Disorders (AUD) in preclinical models is hampered by difficulty in training rodents to voluntarily consume high levels of alcohol. The intermittency of alcohol access/exposure is well known to modulate alcohol consumption (e.g., alcohol deprivation effect, intermittent-access two-bottle-choice) and recently, intermittent access operant self-administration procedures have been used to produce more intense and binge-like self-administration of intravenous psychostimulant and opioid drugs. In the present study, we sought to systematically manipulate the intermittency of operant self-administered alcohol access to determine the feasibility of promoting more intensified, binge-like alcohol consumption. To this end, 24 male and 23 female NIH Heterogeneous Stock rats were trained to self-administer 10% w/v ethanol, before being split into three different-access groups. Short Access (ShA) rats continued receiving 30-min training sessions, Long Access (LgA) rats received 16-h sessions, and Intermittent Access (IntA) rats received 16-h sessions, wherein the hourly alcohol-access periods were shortened over sessions, down to 2 min. IntA rats demonstrated an increasingly binge-like pattern of alcohol drinking in response to restriction of alcohol access, while ShA and LgA rats maintained stable intake. All groups were tested on orthogonal measures of alcohol-seeking and quinine-punished alcohol drinking. The IntA rats displayed the most punishment-resistant drinking. In a separate experiment, we replicated our main finding, that intermittent access promotes a more binge-like pattern of alcohol self-administration using 8 male and 8 female Wistar rats. In conclusion, intermittent access to self-administered alcohol promotes more intensified self-administration. This approach may be useful in developing preclinical models of binge-like alcohol consumption in AUD.

Conditioned Stimulus Form Does Not Explain Failures to See Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer With Ethanol-Paired Conditioned Stimuli

BACKGROUND

Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer (PIT) examines the effects of associative learning upon instrumental responding. Previous studies examining PIT with ethanol (EtOH)-maintained responding showed increases in responding following presentation of an EtOH-paired conditioned stimulus (CS). Recently, we conducted 2 studies examining PIT with an EtOH-paired CS. One of these found increases in responding, while the other did not. This less robust demonstration of PIT may have resulted from the form of the CS used, as we used a 120-second light stimulus as a CS, while the previous studies used either a 120-second auditory stimulus or a 10-second light stimulus. This study examined whether using conditions similar to our earlier study, but with either a 120-second auditory or a 10-second light stimulus as a CS, resulted in more robust PIT. We also examined the reliability of our previous failure to observe PIT.

METHODS

Three experiments were conducted examining whether PIT was obtained using (i) a 120-second light stimulus, (ii) a 10-second light stimulus, or (iii) a 120-second auditory stimulus as CSs.

RESULTS

We found PIT was not obtained using (i) a 120-second light stimulus as a CS, (ii) a 10-second light stimulus as a CS, or (iii) a 120-second auditory stimulus as a CS.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that CS form does not account for our earlier failure to see PIT. Rather, factors like rat strain or how EtOH drinking is induced may account for when PIT is or is not observed.

Determinants of choice, and vulnerability and recovery in addiction

Addiction may be viewed as choice governed by competing contingencies. One factor impacting choice, particularly as it relates to addiction, is sensitivity to delayed rewards. Discounting of delayed rewards influences addiction vulnerability because of competition between relatively immediate gains of drug use, e.g. intoxication, versus relatively remote gains of abstinence, e.g. family stability. Factors modifying delay sensitivity can be modeled in the laboratory. For instance, increased delay sensitivity can be similarly observed in adolescent humans and non-human animals. Similarly, genetic factors influence delay sensitivity in humans and animals. Recovery from addiction may also be viewed as choice behavior. Thus, reinforcing alternative behavior facilitates recovery because reinforcing alternative behavior decreases the frequency of using drugs. How reinforcing alternative behavior influences recovery can also be modeled in the laboratory. For instance, relapse risk decreases as abstinence duration increases, and this decreasing risk can be modeled in animals using choice procedures. In summary, addiction in many respects can be conceptualized as a problem of choice. Animal models of choice disorders stand to increase our understanding of the core processes that establish and maintain addiction and serve as a proving ground for development of novel treatments.