ArticlePloS one2014
Carbon disulfide mediates socially-acquired nicotine self-administration.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renewal and reacquisition of substance-associated relapse.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Article
- Social and anxiety-like behaviors contribute to nicotine self-administration in adolescent outbred rats.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Social learning promotes nicotine self-administration by facilitating the extinction of conditioned aversion in isogenic strains of rats.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Socially acquired nicotine self-administration with an aversive flavor cue in adolescent female rats.Psychopharmacology · 2016Article
- Animal models of social contact and drug self-administration.Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The social environment plays a critical role in smoking initiation as well as relapse. We previously reported that rats acquired nicotine self-administration with an olfactogustatory cue only when another rat consuming the same cue was present during self-administration. Because carbon disulfide (CS2) mediates social learning of food preference in rodents, we hypothesized that socially acquired nicotine self-administration is also mediated by CS2. We tested this hypothesis by placing female adolescent Sprague-Dawley rats in operant chambers equipped with two lickometers. Licking on the active spout meeting a fixed-ratio 10 schedule triggered the concurrent delivery of an i.v. infusion (saline, or 30 µg/kg nicotine, free base) and an appetitive olfactogustatory cue containing CS2 (0-500 ppm). Rats that self-administered nicotine with the olfactogustatory cue alone licked less on the active spout than on the inactive spout. Adding CS2 to the olfactogustatory cue reversed the preference for the spouts. The group that received 500 ppm CS2 and the olfactogustatory cue obtained a significantly greater number of nicotine infusions than other groups. After extinction training, the original self-administration context reinstated nicotine-seeking behavior in all nicotine groups. In addition, in rats that received the olfactogustatory cue and 500 ppm CS2 during SA, a social environment where the nicotine-associated olfactory cue is present, induced much stronger drug-seeking behavior compared to a social environment lacking the olfactogustatory cue. These data established that CS2 is a critical signal that mediates social learning of nicotine self-administration with olfactogustatory cues in rodents. Additionally, these data showed that the social context can further enhance the drug-seeking behavior induced by the drug-taking environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.