MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vaporized Cannabis Extracts Have Reinforcing Properties and Support Conditioned Drug-Seeking Behavior in Rats

2020· article· en· W2998829304 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy G. Freels, Lydia N. Baxter-Potter, Janelle M. Lugo, Nicholas C. Glodosky, Hayden R. Wright, Samantha L. Baglot, Gavin N. Petrie, Zhihao Yu, Brian H. Clowers, Carrie Cuttler, Rita A. Fuchs, Matthew N. Hill, Ryan J. McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCannabisCannabidiolSelf-administrationReinforcementTetrahydrocannabinolCannabinoidDronabinolΔ9-tetrahydrocannabinolCannabinoid receptorPharmacologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)DrugPsychologyAddictionHippocampal formationMedicinePhysiologyNeurosciencePsychiatryChemistryInternal medicineReceptorSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent trends in cannabis legalization have increased the necessity to better understand the effects of cannabis use. Animal models involving traditional cannabinoid self-administration approaches have been notoriously difficult to establish and differences in the drug used and its route of administration have limited the translational value of preclinical studies. To address this challenge in the field, we have developed a novel method of cannabis self-administration using response-contingent delivery of vaporized Δ 9 -tetrahydrocannabinol-rich (CAN THC ) or cannabidiol-rich (CAN CBD ) whole-plant cannabis extracts. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to nose-poke for discrete puffs of CAN THC , CAN CBD , or vehicle (VEH) in daily 1 h sessions. Cannabis vapor reinforcement resulted in strong discrimination between active and inactive operanda. CAN THC maintained higher response rates under fixed ratio schedules and higher break points under progressive ratio schedules compared with CAN CBD or VEH, and the number of vapor deliveries positively correlated with plasma THC concentrations. Moreover, metabolic phenotyping studies revealed alterations in locomotor activity, energy expenditure, and daily food intake that are consistent with effects in human cannabis users. Furthermore, both cannabis regimens produced ecologically relevant brain concentrations of THC and CBD and CAN THC administration decreased hippocampal CB1 receptor binding. Removal of CAN THC reinforcement (but not CAN CBD ) resulted in a robust extinction burst and an increase in cue-induced cannabis-seeking behavior relative to VEH. These data indicate that volitional exposure to THC-rich cannabis vapor has bona fide reinforcing properties and collectively support the utility of the vapor self-administration model for the preclinical assessment of volitional cannabis intake and cannabis-seeking behaviors. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The evolving legal landscape concerning recreational cannabis use has increased urgency to better understand its effects on the brain and behavior. Animal models are advantageous in this respect; however, current approaches typically used forced injections of synthetic cannabinoids or isolated cannabis constituents that may not capture the complex effects of volitional cannabis consumption. We have developed a novel model of cannabis self-administration using response-contingent delivery of vaporized cannabis extracts containing high concentrations of Δ 9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol. Our data indicate that THC-rich cannabis vapor has reinforcing properties that support stable rates of responding and conditioned drug-seeking behavior. This approach will be valuable for interrogating effects of cannabis and delineating neural mechanisms that give rise to aberrant cannabis-seeking behavior.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations118
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207