4.5 Article

The role of pituitary adenylyl cyclase activating polypeptide in affective signs of nicotine withdrawal

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 98, 期 8, 页码 1549-1560

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24649

关键词

anxiety-like behaviors; conditioned place preference (CPP); depression-like behaviors; nicotine; PACAP knockout mouse; withdrawal

资金

  1. Western University of Health Sciences
  2. Tobacco Related Disease Research Program [TRDRP 24RT-0023]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent evidence implicates endogenous pituitary adenylyl cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP) in the aversive effect of nicotine. In the present study, we assessed if nicotine-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) or affective signs of nicotine withdrawal would be altered in the absence of PACAP and if there were any sex-related differences in these responses. Male and female mice lacking PACAP and their wild-type controls were tested for baseline place preference on day 1, received conditioning with saline or nicotine (1 mg/kg) on alternate days for 6 days and were then tested for CPP the next day. Mice were then exposed to four additional conditioning and were tested again for nicotine-induced CPP 24 hr later. Controls were conditioned with saline in both chambers and tested similarly. All mice were then, 96 hr later, challenged with mecamylamine (3 mg/kg), and tested for anxiety-like behaviors 30 min later. Mice were then, 2 hr later, forced to swim for 15 min and then tested for depression-like behaviors 24 hr later. Our results showed that male but not female mice lacking PACAP expressed a significant CPP that was comparable to their wild-type controls. In contrast, male but not female mice lacking PACAP exhibited reduced anxiety- and depression-like behaviors compared to their wild-type controls following the mecamylamine challenge. These results suggest that endogenous PACAP is involved in affective signs of nicotine withdrawal, but there is a sex-related difference in this response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据