Paul J. Meyer

Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues

If reward-associated cues acquire the properties of incentive stimuli they can come to powerfully control behavior, and potentially promote maladaptive behavior. Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties: they are attractive, they are themselves desired, and they can spur instrumental actions. We have found, however, that there is considerable individual variation in the extent to which animals attribute Pavlovian incentive motivational properties (“incentive salience”) to reward cues. The purpose of this paper was to develop criteria for identifying and classifying individuals based on their propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. To do this, we conducted a meta-analysis of a large sample of rats (N = 1,878) subjected to a classic Pavlovian conditioning procedure. We then used the propensity of animals to approach a cue predictive of reward (one index of the extent to which the cue was attributed with incentive salience), to characterize two behavioral phenotypes in this population: animals that approached the cue (“sign-trackers”) vs. others that approached the location of reward delivery (“goal-trackers”). This variation in Pavlovian approach behavior predicted other behavioral indices of the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. Thus, the procedures reported here should be useful for making comparisons across studies and for assessing individual variation in incentive salience attribution in small samples of the population, or even for classifying single animals.

Cholinergic control over attention in rats prone to attribute incentive salience to reward cues

Some rats [sign-trackers (STs)] are especially prone to attribute incentive salience to reward cues, relative to others [goal-trackers (GTs)]. Thus, reward cues are more likely to promote maladaptive reward-seeking behavior in STs than GTs. Here, we asked whether STs and GTs differ on another trait that can contribute to poor restraint over behavior evoked by reward cues. We report that, relative to GTs, STs have poor control over attentional performance, due in part to insufficient cholinergic stimulation of cortical circuitry. We found that, relative to GTs, STs showed poor performance on a sustained attention task (SAT). Furthermore, their performance fluctuated rapidly between periods of good to near-chance performance. This finding was reproduced using a separate cohort of rats. As demonstrated earlier, performance on the SAT was associated with increases in extracellular levels of cortical acetylcholine (ACh); however, SAT performance-associated increases in ACh levels were significantly attenuated in STs relative to GTs. Consistent with the view that the modulatory effects of ACh involve stimulation of α4β2* nicotinic ACh receptors (nAChRs), systemic administration of the partial nAChR agonist ABT-089 improved SAT performance in STs and abolished the difference between SAT-associated ACh levels in STs and GTs. Neither the nonselective nAChR agonist nicotine nor the psychostimulant amphetamine improved SAT performance. These findings suggest that individuals who have a propensity to attribute high-incentive salience to reward cues also exhibit relatively poor attentional control. A combination of these traits may render individuals especially vulnerable to disorders, such as obesity and addiction.

Variation in the form of Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior among outbred male Sprague-Dawley rats from different vendors and colonies: sign-tracking vs. goal-tracking.

Even when trained under exactly the same conditions outbred male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats vary in the form of the Pavlovian conditioned approach response (CR) they acquire. The form of the CR (i.e. sign-tracking vs. goal-tracking) predicts to what degree individuals attribute incentive salience to cues associated with food or drugs. However, we have noticed variation in the incidence of these two phenotypes in rats obtained from different vendors. In this study, we quantified sign- and goal-tracking behavior in a reasonably large sample of SD rats obtained from two vendors (Harlan or Charles River), as well as from individual colonies operated by both vendors. Our sample of rats acquired from Harlan had, on average, more sign-trackers than goal-trackers, and vice versa for our sample of rats acquired from Charles River. Furthermore, there were significant differences among colonies of the same vendor. Although it is impossible to rule out environmental variables, SD rats at different vendors and barriers may have reduced phenotypic heterogeneity as a result of genetic variables, such as random genetic drift or population bottlenecks. Consistent with this hypothesis, we identified marked population structure among colonies from Harlan. Therefore, despite sharing the same name, investigators should be aware that important genetic and phenotypic differences exist among SD rats from different vendors or even from different colonies of the same vendor. If used judiciously this can be an asset to experimental design, but it can also be a pitfall for those unaware of the issue.

Bivalent effects of MK-801 on ethanol-induced sensitization do not parallel its effects on ethanol-induced tolerance.

The relationship between the effects of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist MK-801 on acute responses to ethanol and its ability to block ethanol sensitization and tolerance was examined in DBA/2J mice. Cross-sensitization between these drugs was also studied. Repeated administration of 0.1 mg/kg MK-801 with ethanol potentiated, whereas 0.25 mg/kg attenuated, sensitization to ethanols locomotor stimulant effects; rearing was similarly affected. There was evidence for cross-sensitization between ethanol and 0.25 mg/kg MK-801. MK-801 potentiated ethanols ataxic effects in the grid test, but had no effect on tolerance to this effect. MK-801s effects on ethanol sensitization appeared to be related to its own behavioral effects, rather than NMDA receptor blockade per se. Further, these studies demonstrate dissociation between ethanol sensitization and tolerance.

The Form of a Conditioned Stimulus Can Influence the Degree to Which It Acquires Incentive Motivational Properties

There is considerable individual variation in the extent to which food- and drug-associated cues (conditioned stimuli, CSs) acquire incentive salience, as indicated by whether they elicit approach towards them, and/or act as conditioned reinforcers. Here we asked whether this variation is influenced by properties of the CS itself. In rats, we assessed both the attractiveness and conditioned reinforcing properties of two CSs: a manipulable lever CS versus an auditory (tone) CS. There was considerable individual variation in the extent to which a lever CS acquired incentive motivational properties, as indicated by whether it became attractive (evoked a sign-tracking or goal-tracking conditioned response) or acted as a conditioned reinforcer. However, with a tone CS all rats learned a goal-tracking response, and the tone CS was an equally effective conditioned reinforcer in sign-trackers and goal-trackers. Even when presented in compound (a lever-tone CS), the two elements of the compound differentially acquired motivational properties. In contrast, amphetamine and stress potentiated the conditioned reinforcing properties of both visual and auditory CSs similarly in rats that primarily sign-tracked or goal-tracked. We conclude that variation in the to the ability of CSs to acquire incentive salience, and thus their ability to act as incentive stimuli capable of motivating behavior, is determined in part by properties of the CS itself.

Ethanol- and cocaine-induced locomotion are genetically related to increases in accumbal dopamine

Neuroanatomical research suggests that interactions between dopamine and glutamate within the mesolimbic dopamine system are involved in both drug‐induced locomotor stimulation and addiction. Therefore, genetically determined differences in the locomotor responses to ethanol and cocaine may be related to differences in the effects of these drugs on this system. To test this, we measured drug‐induced changes in dopamine and glutamate within the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), a major target of mesolimbic dopamine neurons, using in vivo microdialysis in selectively bred FAST and SLOW mouse lines, which were bred for extreme sensitivity (FAST) and insensitivity (SLOW) to the locomotor stimulant effects of ethanol. These mice also show a genetically correlated difference in stimulant response to cocaine (FAST > SLOW). Single injections of ethanol (2 g/kg) or cocaine (40 mg/kg) resulted in larger increases in dopamine within the NAcc in FAST compared with SLOW mice. There was no effect of either drug on NAcc glutamate levels. These experiments indicate that response of the mesolimbic dopamine system is genetically correlated with sensitivity to ethanol‐ and cocaine‐induced locomotion. Because increased sensitivity to the stimulating effects of ethanol appears to be associated with greater risk for alcohol abuse, genetically determined differences in the mesolimbic dopamine response to ethanol may represent a critical underlying mechanism for increased genetic risk for alcoholism.

Behavioral sensitization to ethanol is modulated by environmental conditions, but is not associated with cross-sensitization to allopregnanolone or pentobarbital in DBA/2J mice

RATIONALE The ability of ethanol to facilitate GABA(A) receptor-mediated transmission may result in GABA(A) receptor alterations during repeated ethanol administration, and lead to dynamic behavioral changes, including sensitization to the locomotor stimulant effect of ethanol. Since alterations in GABA(A) receptors are likely to alter sensitivity to GABAergic drugs such as 3alpha-hydroxy-5alpha-pregnan-20-one (allopregnanolone) and pentobarbital, we determined whether enhanced sensitivity to ethanol was associated with enhanced sensitivity (cross-sensitization) to these drugs. Two procedures that produced differences in the magnitude of expression of ethanol-induced locomotor sensitization were used. METHODS After habituation to testing procedures for 2 days, female DBA/2J mice were injected with ethanol or saline for 12 days. On the following day, locomotion was recorded after a challenge injection of ethanol (2 g/kg), allopregnanolone (10 or 17 mg/kg), or pentobarbital (10 or 20 mg/kg). Due to evidence that exposure to the test chambers influenced sensitization, in some experiments, mice were exposed to the test apparatus on the day prior to challenge. RESULTS Exposure to the test apparatus prior to drug challenge attenuated the expression of ethanol sensitization, compared with mice without this pre-exposure. Cross-sensitization was not observed to either allopregnanolone or pentobarbital under any condition; however, some groups of repeated ethanol-treated mice displayed tolerance to the initial stimulant effects of allopregnanolone and pentobarbital. CONCLUSIONS These studies indicate that behavioral sensitization to ethanol is not associated with cross-sensitization to pentobarbital or allopregnanolone, and that the expression of ethanol sensitization is influenced by the relative novelty of the test chamber. In addition, these results do not support a mechanism in which alterations in the neurosteroid or barbiturate modulatory sites of the GABA(A) receptor are responsible for the expression of sensitization to the locomotor stimulant effects of ethanol.

Analgesic tolerance to microinjection of the μ-opioid agonist DAMGO into the ventrolateral periaqueductal gray

Repeated administration of the relatively low-efficacy micro-opioid receptor agonist morphine induces tolerance to its antinociceptive effects. High-efficacy agonists such as D-Ala2NMePhe4,Gly-ol5 (DAMGO) have been shown to be less effective at producing tolerance, suggesting that different neural mechanisms underlie tolerance to these agonists. However, the correlation between agonist efficacy and tolerance development has not been examined within the ventrolateral periaqueductal gray (vPAG), a brain area known to be crucial for the development of morphine tolerance. The current studies examined whether tolerance to DAMGO occurs within the vPAG, and whether repeated treatment with DAMGO into the vPAG alters the development of morphine tolerance. The results showed that repeated vPAG microinjections of DAMGO induced robust tolerance and cross-tolerance to morphine. Further, co-administration of a low dose of DAMGO with morphine potentiated morphine tolerance. These findings indicate that similar mechanisms underlie tolerance to morphine and DAMGO within the vPAG.

Sensitivity to Ketamine, Alone or in Combination With Ethanol, Is Altered in Mice Selectively Bred for Sensitivity to Ethanol's Locomotor Effects

BACKGROUND Sensitivity to erthanols locomotor activating and reinforcing effects may be influenced by some common neural mechanisms. Mice selectively bred in replicate for increased (FAST-1 and FAST-2) and decreased (SLOW-1 and SLOW-2) sensitivity to ethanols locomotor stimulant effects are useful for investigating the neural substrates of ethanols effects. Previous studies have suggested that differences in N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors may underlie differences in ethanol-induced locomotion in these mice. This study examined the responses of FAST and SLOW mice to ketamine, a fast-acting NMDA antagonist. In addition, reverse-selected lines (r-FAST-1, r-FAST-2, r-SLOW-1, and r-SLOW-2) were tested as a means of verifying correlations detected in the forward-selected lines. Two initial studies characterized ketamine-induced locomotion in DBA/2J (D2) mice, an inbred strain chosen for its high sensitivity to ethanol-induced locomotion. METHODS After a 2- to 3-day period of habituation to test procedures, mice were given intraperitoneal injections of ketamine alone (0, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 60 mg/kg) or in combination with 1 or 2 g/kg ethanol. Locomotor activity was measured for 20 to 30 min in automated activity monitors. RESULTS When administered alone, ketamine dose-dependently stimulated the locomotor activity of D2 mice and also reduced the amount of ethanol-induced stimulation. Ketamine stimulated locomotion more in FAST mice than in SLOW mice. Reverse selection abolished these differences, because r-FAST and r-SLOW mice did not differ in their responses to ketamine. Ketamine potentiated ethanols locomotor effects within FAST mice and potentiated ethanols locomotor depressant effect within one replicate of SLOW mice. CONCLUSIONS We propose that sensitivities to ethanol- and ketamine-induced locomotion are genetically correlated and that the combined effects of ethanol and ketamine in FAST mice reflect a leftward shift in ethanols biphasic dose-response curve.

Role of Corticotropin-Releasing Factor and Corticosterone in Behavioral Sensitization to Ethanol

Neuroadaptations underlying sensitization to drugs of abuse seem to influence compulsive drug pursuit and relapse associated with addiction. Our previous data support a role for the corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) type-1 receptor (CRF1) in ethanol (EtOH)-induced psychomotor sensitization. CRF1 is endogenously activated by CRF and urocortin-1. Because genetic deletion of urocortin-1 did not affect EtOH sensitization, we hypothesized that CRF is the important ligand underlying EtOH sensitization. To test this hypothesis, we used heterozygous and homozygous knockout (KO) mice, which lack one or both copies of the gene coding for CRF, and their respective wild-type controls. EtOH sensitization was normal in heterozygous, but absent in homozygous, CRF KO mice. Corticosterone (CORT) levels were drastically reduced only in CRF KO mice. Because CRF/CRF1 initiate EtOH-induced activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, we investigated CORT effects on EtOH sensitization. The CORT synthesis inhibitor metyrapone prevented the acquisition, but not the expression, of EtOH sensitization. Exogenous CORT administration sensitized the locomotor response to a subsequent EtOH challenge; we observed, however, that the exogenous CORT levels necessary to induce sensitization to EtOH were significantly higher than those produced by EtOH treatment. Therefore, participation of CORT seems to be necessary, but not sufficient, to explain the role of CRF/CRF1 in the acquisition of sensitization to EtOH. Extra-hypothalamic CRF/CRF1 mechanisms are suggested to be involved in the expression of EtOH sensitization. The present results are consistent with current theories proposing a key role for CRF and CRF1 in drug-induced neuroplasticity, dependence, and addictive behavior.