ArticlePsychopharmacology2016
Influence of experimental history on nicotine self-administration in squirrel monkeys.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxycodone self-administration and drug-primed responding in male and female squirrel monkeys: Effects of alternative reinforcer availability.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2025Article
- Reinforcing and adverse observable effects of nicotine and minor tobacco alkaloids in squirrel monkeys.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2024Article
- Involvement of Nicotinic Receptor Subtypes in the Behavioral Effects of Nicotinic Drugs in Squirrel Monkeys.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2018Article
- Interactions between nicotine and drugs of abuse: a review of preclinical findings.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2017Review
- Attenuated nicotine-like effects of varenicline but not other nicotinic ACh receptor agonists in monkeys receiving nicotine daily.British journal of pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleMethods for establishing robust long-term self-administration of intravenous (i.v.) nicotine, the primary psychoactive agent in tobacco, are not well-established in laboratory animals.
objectiveHere, we examine the use of a fading procedure to establish robust and consistent i.v. nicotine self-administration under second-order schedule conditions in squirrel monkeys.
methodsFirst, self-administration behavior was developed in two groups of male squirrel monkeys using a second-order fixed-interval 5-min schedule with fixed-ratio 5 units (FI 5-min (FR5: S)). Comparable performances were maintained by i.v. cocaine (0.032 mg/kg/injection (inj); group A, n = 3) and the combination of food delivery (20-30 % condensed milk) and 0.01 mg/kg/inj i.v. nicotine (group B, n = 3). Subsequently, the concentration of condensed milk was gradually reduced to zero in the second group and self-administration behavior was maintained by i.v. nicotine alone. Next, self-administration of a range of doses of i.v. nicotine (0.001-0.032 mg/kg/inj) and, in additional experiments, the minor tobacco alkaloid anatabine (0.01-0.18 mg/kg/inj) was studied in both groups.
resultsResults show that nicotine and anatabine had reinforcing effects in both groups. However, optimal doses of nicotine and anatabine maintained significantly higher rates of i.v. self-administration behavior in subjects trained with the fading procedure than in subjects provided with a history of cocaine-maintained responding.
conclusionThese results illustrate conditions under which robust i.v. nicotine self-administration can be established in squirrel monkeys and the influence of prior experimental history in the expression of reinforcing effects of nicotine and anatabine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27040402What 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.