The effects of morphine withdrawal and conditioned withdrawal on memory consolidation and c‐Fos expression in the central amygdala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study tested the hypothesis that drug withdrawal contributes to the addiction cycle in part because of an action on memory consolidation. Hence, four experiments in male Sprague-Dawley rats compared the effects of precipitated morphine withdrawal and conditioned morphine withdrawal on the consolidation of object memory and on activation of c-Fos in the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA). It was found that immediate, but not 6 h delayed, post sample administration of 3 mg/kg of naltrexone significantly enhanced object memory in rats maintained, or previously maintained, on 10 mg/kg/day of morphine via osmotic minipumps. To establish whether conditioned withdrawal could also alter object memory, a contextual conditioning procedure was employed whereby morphine-maintained (10 mg/kg/day) animals received naltrexone (3 mg/kg) in a distinctive context (CS+) and vehicle in a separate context (CS-) for 10 days. During conditioning in the CS+, naltrexone suppressed locomotor activity, caused a rapid body weight loss and increased frequency of wet dog shakes. Interestingly, confinement to this CS+ immediately, but not 6 h, after the sample phase, also enhanced object memory. Finally, posttraining naltrexone and exposure to the CS+ both induced significant expression of c-Fos in the CeA. Therefore, this study reports for the first time that both acute precipitated withdrawal and conditioned withdrawal can facilitate memory consolidation, possibly through a common neural pathway that involves the central amygdala.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".