Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20495676›Full record

ArticleACS chemical neuroscience2010

Cannabinoid conditioned reward and aversion: behavioral and neural processes.

Jennifer E Murray, Rick A Bevins

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS chemical neuroscience, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Highway to hell or magic smoke? The dose-dependence of ΔLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. ΔCannabis and cannabinoid research · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cannabinoid disruption of learning mechanisms involved in reward processing.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2018
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Synthetic Pot: Not Your Grandfather's Marijuana.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2017
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Cannabinoid modulation of noradrenergic circuits: implications for psychiatric disorders.Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2012
    Review
  17. Do initial responses to drugs predict future use or abuse?Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2012
    Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jennifer E MurrayDepartment of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln NE, USA.
Rick A Bevins
University of Nebraska–Lincoln · US

Funding

Acquired Appetitive Properties of NicotineR01DA018114 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN · PI BEVINS, RICK A · 2004 to 2010
$1.4M
Altering nicotine reward through conditioningR21DA023951 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN · PI BEVINS, RICK A · 2008 to 2009
$339k
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA018114NIDA NIH HHS R21 DA023951
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discovery that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC) is the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana prompted research that helped elucidate the endogenous cannabinoid system of the brain. Δ(9)-THC and other cannabinoid ligands with agonist action (CP 55,940, HU210, and WIN 55,212-2) increase firing of dopamine neurons and increase synaptic dopamine in brain regions associated with reward and drug addiction. Such changes in cellular processes have prompted investigators to examine the conditioned rewarding effects of the cannabinoid ligands using the place conditioning task with rats and mice. As reviewed here, these cannabinoid ligands can condition place preferences (evidence for rewarding effects) and place aversions (evidence for aversive qualities). Notably, the procedural details used in these place conditioning studies have varied across laboratories. Such variation includes differences in apparatus type, existence of procedural biases, dose, number of conditioning trials, injection-to-placement intervals, and pre-training drug exposure. Some differences in outcome across studies can be explained by these procedural variables. For example, low doses of Δ(9)-THC appear to have conditioned rewarding effects, whereas higher doses have aversive effects that either mask these rewarding effects or condition a place aversion. Throughout this review we highlight key areas that need further research.

Identifiers

PMID20495676
PMCPMC2873219
OpenAlexW2068280374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.