4.5 Article

Sex differences in prenatal stress effects on cocaine pursuit in rats

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 3-9

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.10.019

关键词

Self-administration; Gestation; Dopamine; Drug addiction; Nucleus accumbens; Striatum

资金

  1. [R01DA23990]
  2. [R01DA12677]
  3. [R01DA039952]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disruption of early-life ontogeny has severe and persistent consequences for the health of the developing organism. Both clinical and preclinical findings indicate that such interference can be caused by maternal stress during the gestation period (prenatal stress [PS]). In rats, PS facilitates the rewarding and neurochemical-stimulating effects of drugs, suggesting that PS may represent a risk factor for drug abuse in humans. Very little, however, is known about its effects in females, even though sex differences in drug susceptibility have been well documented in no PS (NPS) controls. Thus, we tested for independent effects and interactions between maternal restraint stress during the last week of gestation and sex on drug use with an extended regimen of drug self administration. Male and female rats were provided daily access to a large but controlled amount of cocaine for seven weeks. Drug pursuit during the final week was used to indicate susceptibility to developing an addiction like phenotype, based on reports that drug use becomes increasingly compulsive-like after weeks of testing. Overall, females satisfied more addiction-like criteria than males, and the same was true for PS rats when compared to NPS controls. In addition, sex and PS interacted to disproportionately promote drug pursuit of females with a history of PS. These results indicate that sex differences in drug susceptibility persist with continued drug exposure, and that PS widens this difference by more severely affecting females. In all, PS may be a risk factor for drug addiction in humans, and to a greater extent in women vs. men.

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