ArticleBehavioural pharmacology2019
Punishment and reinforcement by opioid receptor agonists in a choice procedure in rats.
Article in Behavioural pharmacology, 2019. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical abuse potential testing using behavioral economics and drug self-administration demand-curve analysis: A strategy to improve resolution of drug stratification for regulatory control.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
- Synthesis and evaluation of 3,4,5-trisubstituted triazoles as G protein-biased kappa opioid receptor agonists.European journal of medicinal chemistry · 2024Article
- Methocinnamox Reverses and Prevents Fentanyl-Induced Ventilatory Depression in Rats.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2021Article
- Effects of kappa opioid receptor agonists on fentanyl vs. food choice in male and female rats: contingent vs. non-contingent administration.Psychopharmacology · 2021Article
- Kappa opioid agonists reduce oxycodone self-administration in male rhesus monkeys.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Intravenous (i.v.) drug self-administration remains the 'gold standard' for assessing abuse potential of drugs. Failure of a drug to maintain self-administration might indicate merely the absence of positive-reinforcing effects but might also indicate presence of aversive effects. Sensitivity to aversive effects is thought to affect the initiation and maintenance of drug use as well as relapse. Choice procedures are used to study positive-reinforcing effects of drugs and to a much lesser extent to study punishing effects of drugs. Experiment 1 compared the μ-opioid receptor agonist remifentanil (0.001-0.01 mg/kg/infusion), the κ-opioid receptor agonist spiradoline (0.0056-0.056 mg/kg/infusion), and histamine (1.0 mg/kg/infusion) in rats choosing between a food pellet only and an i.v. infusion+a food pellet. To test whether a history with one punishing drug affects the punishing effects of a second drug, experiment 2 compared sensitivity with spiradoline in rats with and without a history of histamine punishment. All rats predominantly chose a pellet alone when histamine+a pellet was the alternative, and they predominantly chose remifentanil+a pellet over a pellet alone. In experiment 2, spiradoline was punishing in rats with a history of histamine punishment but not drug-naive rats. This food choice procedure is sensitive to reinforcing and punishing effects of different drugs in the same subjects, suggesting that the procedure is well-suited for studying drug mixtures (e.g. μ and κ agonists) and the impact of different physiological conditions (e.g. pain) on reinforcement and punishment.
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.