Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Apr;203(2):343-53.
doi: 10.1007/s00213-008-1322-5. Epub 2008 Sep 21.

A within-subject assessment of the discriminative stimulus and reinforcing effects of self-administered cocaine in rhesus monkeys

Affiliations

A within-subject assessment of the discriminative stimulus and reinforcing effects of self-administered cocaine in rhesus monkeys

Jennifer L Martelle et al. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009 Apr.

Abstract

Rationale: Drug discrimination (DD) and drug self-administration (SA) are frequently used preclinical assays. All preclinical studies with cocaine have examined the discriminative stimulus (S(D)) and reinforcing (S(R)) effects in separate groups of subjects.

Objective: The objective of the study is to train drug-naïve rhesus macaques to discriminate self-administered cocaine from saline and to assess S(D) and S(R) effects using a within-subjects design.

Materials and methods: Adult male rhesus monkeys (n = 4) were trained to self-administer cocaine (0.1 mg/kg per injection) under a progressive-ratio (PR) reinforcement schedule. Next, they were trained to discriminate self-administered cocaine (0.45 or 0.56 mg/kg) or saline under a fixed-ratio (FR) 50 schedule of food presentation. The final schedule combined DD and SA into a multiple [chained FR 50 SA (cocaine or saline), food-reinforced DD] and PR SA schedule.

Results: Each subject acquired SA under a PR schedule with significant differences in breakpoint between saline and cocaine evident by session 5. Self-administered cocaine was established as an S(D), such that 80% of responding before delivery of the first reinforcer and 90% of all responding occurred on the injection-appropriate lever. In all monkeys, there was at least one cocaine dose that did not engender cocaine-appropriate responding during DD (i.e., <20% cocaine-appropriate responding) yet functioned as a reinforcer during PR SA, suggesting that cocaine-like S(D) effects are not necessary for cocaine reinforcement.

Conclusions: This within-subject model may provide new information related to the behavioral mechanisms of action leading to the high abuse potential of cocaine; such information may lead to novel pharmacological treatment strategies for addiction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of final parameters for multiple chained schedule of cocaine discrimination and self-administration. Link 1 consisted of an FR 50 schedule of self-administration that terminated in a single 10-s injection followed by a TO. The injection from Link 1 served as the discriminative stimulus for Link 2 which was a two-lever, food-reinforced drug discrimination task that lasted until 50 reinforcers were delivered or for 15 min and was followed by a 30-min TO. The second component of the multiple schedule consisted of self-administration under a PR schedule of reinforcement. Each injection was followed by a 15-min TO
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Acquisition of cocaine self-administration under a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. a Group (n=4) mean (±SEM) number of injections self-administered during the first 20 sessions under a PR schedule of reinforcement. b Individual mean (±SD) number of injections and breakpoints for the last 5 days of a 30-day access period to PR self-administration. Asterisks indicate significant (p<0.05) difference from saline. During acquisition, the cocaine dose was 0.1 mg/kg per injection
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Discrimination of self-administered cocaine. The effect of varying doses of cocaine on cocaine discrimination (closed squares) and response rates (open squares). Each point is the mean (±SD) of at least two determinations in each monkey. Arrows below the abscissa indicate the training dose of cocaine
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The discriminative stimulus and reinforcing effects of self-administered cocaine assessed under a multiple chained DD, PR SA schedule of reinforcement. The effect of various cocaine doses (abscissa; S, saline) on the percent cocaine-appropriate responding (closed squares, left ordinate) during cocaine discrimination and number of injections (open squares, right ordinate) self-administered under a PR schedule of reinforcement. Each point is the mean (±SD) of at lease two determinations in each monkey. Asterisks indicate significant (p<0.05) difference from saline. Pound sign indicates single determination. Arrows below the abscissa indicate the training dose of cocaine used in DD link of the chained schedule of reinforcement. For R-1524, the 0.15 mg/kg cocaine dose was studied under the PR schedule during training, but not after DD performance had been established. All other points reflect data from the combined schedule
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Cocaine self-administration as a function of discriminative stimulus generalization. Individual mean (±SD) number of injections (ordinate) of cocaine (0.015–0.56 mg/kg) self-administered under a PR schedule graphed as a function of the percent cocaine-appropriate responding (abscissa) engendered by those same doses of cocaine

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ator NA. Relation between discriminative and reinforcing effects of midazolam, pentobarbital, chlordiazepoxide, zolpidem, and imidazenil in baboons. Psychopharmacology. 2002;163:477–487. - PubMed
    1. Bigelow GE, Preston KL. Drug discrimination: methods for drug characterization and classification. NIDA Res Monogr. 1989;92:101–122. - PubMed
    1. Brady JV, Lukas SE. Testing drugs for physical dependence potential and abuse liability. NIDA Res Monogr. 1984:52. - PubMed
    1. Carroll ME. PCP and hallucinogens. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse. 1990;9:167–190. - PubMed
    1. Colpaert FC. Drug discrimination in neurobiology. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1999;64:337–345. - PubMed

Publication types