Conditioned place preference (CPP) continues to be one of the most popular models to study the motivational effects of drugs and non-drug treatments in experimental animals. This is obvious from a steady year-to-year increase in the number of publications reporting the use this model. Since the compilation of the preceding review in 1998, more than 1000 new studies using place conditioning have been published, and the aim of the present review is to provide an overview of these recent publications. There are a number of trends and developments that are obvious in the literature of the last decade. First, as more and more knockout and transgenic animals become available, place conditioning is increasingly used to assess the motivational effects of drugs or non-drug rewards in genetically modified animals. Second, there is a still small but growing literature on the use of place conditioning to study the motivational aspects of pain, a field of pre-clinical research that has so far received little attention, because of the lack of appropriate animal models. Third, place conditioning continues to be widely used to study tolerance and sensitization to the rewarding effects of drugs induced by pre-treatment regimens. Fourth, extinction/reinstatement procedures in place conditioning are becoming increasingly popular. This interesting approach is thought to model certain aspects of relapse to addictive behavior and has previously almost exclusively been studied in drug self-administration paradigms. It has now also become established in the place conditioning literature and provides an additional and technically easy approach to this important phenomenon. The enormous number of studies to be covered in this review prevented in-depth discussion of many methodological, pharmacological or neurobiological aspects; to a large extent, the presentation of data had to be limited to a short and condensed summary of the most relevant findings.

Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade.

This protocol describes the equipment and methods used to establish conditioned place preference (CPP) or aversion (CPA). Place conditioning is a form of Pavlovian conditioning routinely used to measure the rewarding or aversive motivational effects of objects or experiences (e.g., abused drugs). Here, we present a place conditioning procedure that has been used extensively to study the motivational effects of ethanol and other abused drugs in mice. This protocol involves three phases: (i) habituation (or a pretest), (ii) conditioning of an association between the drug and a tactile or visual stimulus and (iii) a test that offers a choice between the drug-associated cue and a neutral cue. If the drug has motivational significance, mice will spend significantly more time (CPP) or less time (CPA) in proximity to the drug-associated cue. Potential problems in the design and interpretation of place conditioning studies are discussed. A typical experiment lasts 2 weeks.

Drug-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice.

Ethanol drinking in rodents: is free-choice drinking related to the reinforcing effects of ethanol?

Many studies have used voluntary ethanol consumption by animals to assess the influence of genetic and environmental manipulations on ethanol drinking. However, the relationship between home cage ethanol consumption and more formal assessments of ethanol-reinforced behavior using operant and instrumental conditioning procedures is not always clear. The present review attempted to evaluate whether there are consistent correlations between mouse and rat home cage ethanol drinking on the one hand, and either operant oral selfadministration (OSA), conditioned taste aversion (CTA), or conditioned place preference (CPP) with ethanol on the other. We also review literature on intravenous ethanol self-administration (IVSA). To collect data, we evaluated a range of genetic manipulations that can change both genes and ethanol drinking behavior including selective breeding, transgenic and knockout models, and inbred and recombinant inbred strain panels. For a genetic model to be included in the analysis, there had to be published data resulting in differences on home cage drinking and data for at least one of the other behavioral measures. A consistent, positive correlation was observed between ethanol drinking and OSA, suggesting that instrumental behavior is closely genetically related to consummatory and ingestive behavior directed at ethanol. A negative correlation was observed between CTA and drinking, suggesting that ethanol’s aversive actions may limit oral consumption of ethanol. A more modest, positive relationship was observed between drinking and CPP, and there were not enough studies available to determine a relationship with IVSA. That some consistent outcomes were observed between widely disparate behavioral procedures and genetic populations may increase confidence in the validity of findings from these assays. These findings may also have important implications when researchers decide which phenotypes to use in measuring alcohol-reward relevant behaviors in novel animal models. 2008

INVITED REVIEW ARTICLE Ethanol drinking in rodents: is free-choice drinking related to the reinforcing effects of ethanol?

Background: Adolescent rats are less sensitive to the sedative effects of ethanol than older animals. They also seem to perceive the reinforcing properties of ethanol. However, unlike neonates or infants, ethanol-mediated appetitive behavior is yet to be clearly shown in adolescents. Appetitive ethanol reinforcement was assessed in adolescent (postnatal day 33, P33) and adult rats (P71) through second-order conditioning (SOC).



Methods:  On P32 or P70, animals were intragastrically administered ethanol (0.5 or 2.0 g/kg) paired with intra-oral pulses of sucrose (CS1, first-order conditioning phase). CS1 delivery took place either 5–20 (early pairing) or 30–45 minutes (late pairing) following ethanol administration. The time interval between CS1 exposure and ethanol administration was 240 minutes in unpaired controls. On P33 or P71, animals were presented the CS1 (second-order conditioning phase) in a distinctive chamber (CS2, second-order conditioning). Then they were tested for CS2 preference.



Results:  Early and late paired adolescents, but not adults, had greater preference for the CS2 than controls, a result indicative of ontogenetic variation in ethanol-mediated reinforcement. During the CS1-CS2 associative phase, paired adolescents given 2.0 g/kg ethanol wall-climbed more than controls. Blood and brain ethanol levels associated with the 0.5 and 2.0 g/kg doses at the onset of each conditioning phase did not differ substantially across age, with mean blood ethanol concentration of 38 and 112 mg%.



Conclusions:  These data indicate age-related differences between adolescent and adult rats in terms of sensitivity to ethanol’s motivational effects. Adolescents exhibited high sensitivity for ethanol’s appetitive effects. These animals also showed ethanol-mediated behavioral activation during the SOC phase. The SOC preparation provides a valuable conditioning model for assessing ethanol’s motivational effects across ontogeny.

Adolescent but not adult rats exhibit ethanol-mediated appetitive second-order conditioning.

Previous studies have shown that mice develop conditioned place preference (CPP) when ethanol is administered by intraperitoneal (ip) or intravenous (iv) injection. The present studies examined CPP in mice using the intragastric (ig) route of administration. Inbred mice were surgically implanted with chronic intragastric cannulae and exposed to an unbiased place conditioning procedure in which infusion of ethanol (2 or 4 g/kg) was paired with a conditioned stimulus (CS+). A different CS was paired with water. In Experiments 1-2, ethanol was infused just before exposure to CS+. Contrary to previous studies involving intraperitoneal injection, infusion of 4 g/kg ig ethanol produced a significant conditioned place aversion (CPA). However, when a 5-min delay was inserted between infusion and CS exposure (Experiments 3-4), the same dose produced CPP. These outcomes are not consistent with expectations derived from a recent study in selectively bred rats, suggesting that sensitivity to ethanol reward is enhanced by intragastric administration. However, the finding that intragastric ethanol can produce either CPP or CPA depending on dose and injection timing is consistent with previous intraperitoneal ethanol studies in mice. Although the parameters differ for each route of administration, it appears that the same underlying processes can be invoked to explain how manipulation of injection timing affects the direction of ethanol-induced place conditioning. More specifically, in both cases, CPA can be attributed to an initial, short-lived aversive effect, whereas CPP can be attributed to a delayed rewarding effect of ethanol.

Jessica M Clemans

Papers

Injection timing determines whether intragastric ethanol produces conditioned place preference or aversion in mice