novelty seeking

PHB-10418; No of Pages 8 Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physiology & Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/phb

F

a

9

H I G H L I G H T S

Universidad de Jaén, Spain Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain Texas Christian University, USA d Universidad de Jaén, Spain b

1 9 1 8 20 21 22 23 24

a r t i c l e

25 26 27 28 29

Keywords: Roman high- and low-avoidance strains Ethanol preference Sensation seeking Novelty seeking

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 February 2014 Received in revised form 13 April 2014 Accepted 2 May 2014 Available online xxxx

49 47 46 48

N C O

45

concept in research with nonhuman animals, novelty seeking, has been used to describe high levels of exploratory activity in response to novel environments and unknown objects or stimuli [6,7]. Animals that exhibit strong novelty-seeking behavior tend to self-administer and are more sensitive to the effects of such drugs of abuse as ethanol, nicotine, stimulants, and morphine, a fact suggesting that novelty seeking may indicate vulnerability to addiction [3,7–16]. The link between novelty seeking and addiction is suggested by higher dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens in situations involving both novelty and drugs of abuse, in individuals who exhibit vulnerability to addictive disorders [17–20]. Recent animal models suggest a distinction between the initial propensity to consume drugs and the transition to compulsive drug abuse,

56 57

1. Introduction

51 52

Sensation seeking [1]—a behavior tendency to search and prefer situations involving novelty, complexity, intensity and variety of stimulation, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake of such experiences—has been frequently linked to the acquisition of drug consumption and abuse in humans [2–5]. The parallel

55

P

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Q3 50

53 54

D

High- and low-avoidance Roman inbred rat strains (RHA-I, RLA-I) were selected for extreme differences in two-way active avoidance. RHA-I rats also express less anxiety than RLA-I rats. This study compared male Roman rats in ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking. Rats were first exposed in counterbalanced order to the hole-board test (forced exposure to novelty) and the Y-maze and emergence tests (free choice between novel and familiar locations). Then, rats were tested in 24-h, two-bottle preference tests with water in one bottle and ethanol (2, 4, 6, 8, or 10% in successive days). Compared to RLA-I rats, RHA-I rats showed (1) higher frequency and time in head dipping, (2) higher activity, and (3) lower frequency of rearing and grooming in the hole-board test, and (4) remained in the novel arm longer in the Y-maze test. No strain differences were observed in the emergence test. RHA-I rats exhibited higher preference for and consumed more ethanol than RLA-I rats at all concentrations. However, both strains preferred ethanol over water for 2–4% concentrations, but water over ethanol for 6–10% concentrations. Factorial analysis with all the rats pooled identified a two-factor solution, one grouping preferred ethanol concentrations (2–4%) with head dipping and grooming in the hole board, and another factor grouping the nonpreferred ethanol concentrations (6–10%) with activity in the hole board and novel-arm time in the Y-maze test. These results show that preference for ethanol is associated with different aspects of behavior measured in sensation/novelty-seeking tests. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

U

Q2

i n f o

E

RHA-I rats respond to novelty more than RLA-I rats. RHA-I rats show higher preference for ethanol than RLA-I rats. Several responses to novelty exhibit independence from each other. Two factors were identified—for low and high ethanol concentrations. Sensation/novelty seeking may help identify risk factors in ethanol preference.

T

• • • • •

R O

c

C

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

O

4 5 6 7 8

E

3

Lidia Manzo a, Ma. José Gómez a, José E. Callejas-Aguilera a, Rocío Donaire a, Marta Sabariego a, Alberto Fernández-Teruel b, Antoni Cañete b, Gloria Blázquez b, Mauricio R. Papini c, Carmen Torres d,⁎

R

2Q1

Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking

R

1

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Jaén, Jaén, 23071, Spain. Tel.: +34 953 21 22 92; fax: +34 953 21 18 81. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Torres).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003 0031-9384/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

The subjects were 48 inbred male rats (24 RHA-I, 24 RLA-I) obtained from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, when they were approximately 3.5 months old. Rats were 4 months old and weighed an average of 406 g (±5.19) for RHA and 399 g (±8.91) for RLA rats at the start of the experiment. Animals were housed individually with free access to food and water throughout the experiment, in a room kept at 22–23 °C, and subjected to a 12:12 h light cycle (lights on at 08:00 h). The experiment was conducted following the European Union directive guidelines for the use of animals in research (2010/63/EU) and the Spanish Law (RD 53/2013).

136 137

2.2. Apparatus

146

O

F

135

138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

Access to ethanol was provided in the home cage, in 24-h cycles. Home cages were 32 × 15 × 30 cm (L × H × W), made of acrylic, with a wire lid. The floor was covered with saw dust. Each cage was equipped with two glass bottles and an area to store food pellets on the wire lid. Each bottle had a stainless steel sipper tube equipped with a ball to minimize spillage (Bioscape, Castrop-Rauxel, Germany). Fluid consumption was measured by weighing the bottles before and after each 24-h cycle with a Cobos JT-300C digital scale. The different concentrations of ethanol used during the experiment were diluted (v/v) in tap water from an original concentration of 96% (Panreac, Castellar del Vallés, Spain). Animals were weighed daily with a Baxtran scale (model BS3, Girona, Spain). The apparatus for the three novelty tests were placed in a soundattenuated room under dim illumination. Numerous visual cues were placed on the walls of the testing room and were kept constant across tests. The hole-board apparatus was a white 66 × 66 × 47 cm (L × H × W) wooden box divided into 16 equal squares, containing four holes (diameter: 3.7 cm) in the floor. Partially hidden objects (small metallic toys) were located below the holes; this procedure has been reported to specifically induce novelty-seeking, rather than exploratory behavior or locomotor activity [39]. The Y-maze apparatus was similar to the one previously described by Dellu et al. [26]. The Y-maze was made of acrylic; arms were 50 × 32 × 16 cm (L × H × W). The floor was black and the walls were transparent. The floor of the maze was covered with odorsaturated sawdust. The apparatus used for the emergence test (adapted from Dellu et al. [26]) consisted of a box with two equal compartments measuring 27 × 28 × 25 cm (L × H × W). A door (9 × 9 cm) enabled the rats to pass from one compartment to the other. One of the compartments was completely enclosed by black opaque plastic sides with a lid of the same material, while the other was made of white plastic and had no lid. The white compartment was illuminated by a 60 W lamp placed 100 cm above it.

147 148

2.3. Procedure

180

The three sensation/novelty tests were conducted in the early part of the light cycle, between 09:30–13.30 h, to reduce the possible influence of diurnal variation in activity. The order of these tests was counterbalanced across rats. There were 7 days between successive tests. Dependent variables for each test were video recorded and then processed with JWatcher (http://www.jwatcher.ucla.edu) by two observers. These observers received training from a senior researcher (MJG) until all discrepancies were resolved. Then, each observer was assigned half the sessions. Both observers were blind to the strain of the animal being observed. Frequency variables were measured on a ratio scale with an absolute zero and unbounded upper limit. Time variables were measured in seconds with a manual chronometer (Extech, Madrid, Spain).

181 182

R O

89 90

2.1. Subjects

P

87 88

134

D

85 86

2. Method

T

83 84

C

81 82

E

79 80

R

77 78

R

75 76

O

74

C

72 73

N

70 71

indentifying some behavioral traits that contribute differentially to the stages characterizing addiction [3]. It has been proposed that exploratory behavior in forced/inescapable novelty tests (known as “sensationseeking,” “response-to-novelty,” or “novelty-responder” tests) is a good predictor of the proneness to take drugs [21], whereas preference for novelty in free-choice tasks (labeled “novelty-seeking” tests) correlates with compulsive drug taking and severity of addictive behavior (e.g., persistence in drug seeking, inability to stop taking drugs, enhanced relapse, reinstatement following abstinence, etc.) [22,23]. Examples of inescapable tests include exposure to a circular corridor or an open-field arena for a variable period varying between 5 min and 2 h [11,13,17,19,24, 25]. Examples of free-choice tests include several place preference procedures based on exposure to one of two or more compartments (or arms in which an object can be found and explored) for one or more trials, followed by a trial in which animals are allowed to freely explore the familiar vs. the novel environment/object [10,12,16,22,26]. The holeboard test seems to have both inescapable and free-choice components [27], although it has been frequently considered an inescapable novelty test [7,15]. Consistent with this distinction, impulsivity, a behavioral trait associated to substance-use disorders, is related to preference for novelty in free-choice tests. Rats selected on the five-choice serial reaction time task for high impulsivity showed more preference for novel objects and contexts, and were also faster to initiate exploratory behavior in novel environments, compared to low impulsivity rats [28]. This evidence suggests that novelty seeking in animals is not a unitary behavioral trait, but one that includes some behaviors that differentially predict vulnerability to addiction [3,10,27]. Selectively-bred rat strains with differential propensity for novelty seeking may provide insights on the relationship between novelty seeking and addiction [3,6,29–31]. The Roman high- and low-avoidance rat strains (RHA and RLA, respectively) stand as an example of selectively bred lines that show extreme differences in behavioral traits related to sensation/novelty seeking and addiction [32,33]. Although initially selected for their performance in two-way active avoidance, these Roman strains have shown a host of correlated behavioral traits, including anxiety/emotional reactivity [32], impulsivity [34–38], coping styles in novel/stressful environments [24,39–46], consumption of palatable tastes [41,47], and vulnerability to addiction [33,48]. This experiment was designed to test RHA-I and RLA-I rats in a battery of tests assessing ethanol preference and sensation/novelty-seeking behavior, aiming at understanding (1) whether novelty seeking (as assessed by the hole-board test) can be dissociated from sensation/novelty responses (as assessed by the emergence test and the Y-maze test), and (2) whether this distinction relates to the acquisition of drugtaking behavior. Ethanol preference (modeling the initial propensity to take drugs) was assessed by an increasing-dose series in two-bottle tests against water. Using this procedure, Manzo et al. [49] observed that both inbred RHA and inbred RLA (RHA-I, RLA-I) rats prefer ethanol over water at low concentrations (e.g., 2–4%), but switch over to water at higher ethanol concentrations (e.g., 8–10%). However, RHA-I rats showed consistently higher preference for ethanol than RLA-I rats across all concentrations (2–10%). Sensation/novelty seeking was measured in three tests: holeboard test (forced/inescapable; animals are placed in a novel environment), emergence test (free choice; animals choose to either stay in the familiar location or move out of it), and Y-maze novelty test (free choice; animals are given a choice between two familiar arms and a novel arm). Based on the evidence reviewed above, we predicted that (1) RHA-I rats would exhibit greater preference for ethanol than RLA-I rats at all concentrations, although both strains would switch from ethanol to water preference as the ethanol dose increases to 10%; (2) RHA-I rats would tend to exhibit higher sensation and novelty-seeking behaviors than RLA-I rats in all three tests; and (3) preference for ethanol would correlate with sensation-seeking behaviors in the forced/inescapable hole-board test, but not with novelty-seeking behaviors in the free-choice Y-maze novelty and emergence tests.

U

68 69

L. Manzo et al. / Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

E

2

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193

L. Manzo et al. / Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239

245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257

C

213 214

E

211 212

R

3. Results

278

F

209 210

R

207 208

N C O

205 206

U

203 204

O

All statistical computations were performed with the SPSS Statistics 21 package. Where there was a choice, two-tailed tests were used. The alpha level was equal or lesser than 0.05 for all tests. For brevity, statistical data are reported only for significant results. The approach to the factorial analysis deserves a special comment concerning the selection of variables. To test associations among behavioral measures and ethanol preference by factor analysis, we first selected variables that were nonredundant and consistent with available evidence according to the following criteria [50,51]: (1) We performed an orthogonally-rotated (varimax) factor analysis (data not shown for brevity) including all the behavioral variables to produce a simple structure; (2) A two-factor solution was obtained, from which we chose the nonredundant variables loading greater than 0.60 in any of the two factors (these seven variables were: number of head dips, head-dipping time, grooming frequency, crossings/horizontal activity, rearing time,

201 202

R O

243 244

200

258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277

3.1. Strain comparisons

279

Fig. 1 shows the results of the hole-board test for each dependent variable and strain. Independent one-way analyses indicated significant strain differences for head-dipping frequency, grooming frequency, activity, head-dipping time, and rearing time, Fs(1, 46) N 6.36, ps b 0.02. RHAI rats showed a higher frequency and time of head-dipping behavior, and also were more active than RLA-I rats, but RLA-I rats showed more grooming and spent more time rearing than RHA-I rats. The novelty test in the Y-maze yielded significant strain differences in the time spent in the novel arm, with RHA-I rats spending more time than RLA-I rats, F(1, 46) = 5.82, p b 0.03. The emergence test did not differentiate between the strains (Fig. 2). Fig. 3 shows ethanol preference (top panel) and ethanol consumption (bottom panel) as a function of ethanol concentration for both strains. Preference for ethanol over water was observed only at the lower concentrations, 2% and 4%. However, across all concentrations, RHA-I rats exhibited more preference for ethanol than RLA-I rats. A Strain × Concentration analysis indicated that RHA-I rats preferred ethanol over water significantly more than RLA-I rats, F(1, 46) = 44.46, p b 0.001, and also that preference varied significantly across concentrations, F(4, 184) = 113.36, p b 0.001. The interaction was not significant. A similar analysis for absolute ethanol consumption (ml) yielded similar results. RHA-I rats consumed significantly more ethanol than RLA-I rats, F(1, 46) = 22.02, p b 0.001, and also that preference varied significantly across concentrations, F(4, 184) = 136.98, p b 0.001. There was also a significant strain by concentration interaction, F(4, 184) = 3.54, p b 0.009. LSD pairwise tests derived from the main analysis indicated that RHA-I rats consumed more ethanol than RLA-I rats for all concentrations, Fs(1, 46) N 7.25, ps b 0.02, except the 2%, F b 1.

280

3.2. Correlations, factorial, and regression analyses

308

Pearson's correlation coefficients among the variables that discriminated between strains (see Figs. 2 and 3) are shown in Table 1 for all animals pooled. Head-dipping frequency and time in the hole board correlated positively with activity in the hole board (r = 0.58 and r = 0.45, respectively) and negatively with grooming frequency in the hole board (r = −0.46 and r = −0.49, respectively). Also, head-dipping time correlated negatively with rearing in the hole board (r = − 0.31). None of the correlations among hole-board measures and novel arm time in the Y-maze test was significant. Interestingly, novel-arm time in the Y-maze and activity in the hole board were positively associated to

309

P

2.4. Statistical analyses

198 199

and rearing frequency in the hole-board test, and novel arm time in the Y-maze test); (3) from these seven variables we selected five nonredundant measures (leaving out head dipping frequency and rearing frequency in the hole-board test, which were redundant with headdipping time and rearing time, respectively) that were consistent with previous results and which discriminated between Roman rat strains [24,39–41]. Notice that the fact that these five selected variables discriminate between rat strains is in line with what is common in human studies devoted to elaborate psychometric questionnaires for measuring sensation/novelty seeking (or other personality traits). In these cases, a usual empirical procedure is to select items that discriminate between subsamples of individuals who score high vs. low on measures of the same trait or closely related traits [52]. Finally, the five variables mentioned above were submitted to the factor analysis (oblimin rotation) jointly with ethanol preference measures. Pooled data from RHA-I and RLA-I scores followed a normal distribution for all variables, Zs b 1.21, ps N 0.10 (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test), except for 8% ethanol preference, Z = 1.55, p b 0.02. Because multiple correlation and regression analyses with or without the latter were virtually identical, we report below the results with all the variables included.

D

242

196 197

T

240 241

In the hole-board test, animals were placed in the corner located closest to the door of the experimental room and were given 6 min to explore the board. Animals were returned to their home-cages at the end of the test, while the apparatus was cleaned with a 70% alcohol solution. A single test was administered. The dependent variables were the number or crossings (moving all 4 paws over a line dividing adjacent squares), rearing time and frequency (standing on hind legs), head-dipping time and frequency (introducing the nose into a hole to the level of the eyes), and grooming time and frequency (face washing, licking, or scratching any part of the body). The Y-maze test consisted of two trials separated by a 2-min interval. In the first trial, one arm of the Y-maze (counterbalanced across rats) was closed. Rats were placed in an arm, their head pointing away from the center of the maze, and they were allowed to visit the two arms for 6 min. During the second trial, animals had free access to the three arms, and were allowed to explore the maze again for 6 min. Then they were returned to their home-cages, while the apparatus was cleaned with a 70% alcohol solution. The dependent variables were novel arm entries and time (entering an arm with its four paws), rearing time and frequency in the novel arm (standing on hind legs), and grooming time and frequency in the novel arm (face washing, licking, or scratching any part of the body). In the emergence test, rats were placed in the illuminated compartment facing the wall opposite to the door. The emergence latency was the time it took the animal from the moment it placed all four paws into the dark compartment to the moment in which all four paws were back into the illuminated compartment. If a rat did not emerge from the dark compartment within 10 min after entering it, the trial was stopped and an emergence latency of 600 s was assigned to that animal. Ethanol-preference testing started 7 days after the last noveltyseeking test administered to the animal. On the initial 4 days of the preference test, animals were exposed to the two-bottle procedure with both bottles containing tap water. The ethanol exposure procedure involved the presentation of an increasing ethanol concentration in one of the bottles and water in the other. The concentrations used were 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10%. Each concentration was presented for 2 consecutive days, except the 10% concentration, which was available during 4 consecutive days. The relative position of each bottle in the cage was exchanged daily for each animal. Bottles were weighed every day between 09:00 and 12:00 h (at about the same time for each particular animal). Fluids and food were replenished at that time daily. Cages were cleaned every 2 days. Ethanol preference was calculated for each animal as ethanol consumption minus expected ethanol consumption (expected consumption was equal to water plus ethanol consumption divided by 2). With this difference score, a positive number reflects preference for ethanol over water, a negative number reflects preference for water over ethanol, and zero implies no detectable preference for either fluid.

E

194 195

3

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307

310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318

L. Manzo et al. / Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

0

Grooming (s)

Grooming

*

4 3 2 1 0

RHA

0

15 10 5 0

25

40

RHA

RLA

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

15 10 5 0

RHA

Hole Board: Time 15

30 20 10 0

RLA

RHA

RLA

Hole Board: Freq

9 6 3

RHA

T

40

C

Activity

60 20 RLA

E

RHA

326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343

R

R

O

C

324 325

N

322 323

ethanol preference at the three highest concentrations (6–10%; 0.42 b r b 0.59), and a similar result was found between headdipping frequency and ethanol preference at the highest concentration (r = 0.34). To further analyze the associations among variables and possibly identify underlying dimensions, we performed factor analyses (direct oblimin rotation) for all rats pooled. These analyses also incorporated all the variables that discriminated between strains, including several variables in the sensation/novelty-seeking tests (Figs. 1–2) and all ethanol preference concentrations (Fig. 3). The two-factor solution analysis is shown in Table 2. The first factor was represented by same-sign relevant loadings of ethanol preference (6–10%, but not 2–4%) and headdipping frequency and activity in the hole-board test, and novel-arm time in the Y-maze test. Also consistent was the overall pattern of variable loadings observed in the second factor. The second factor was represented by same-sign loadings of ethanol preference (2–4%, but not 6–10%) and head-dipping time and frequency in the hole board. Headdipping frequency also showed a 0.40 loading in the first factor, suggesting some moderate association with ethanol preference at the three highest concentrations. At the same time, head-dipping frequency and head-dipping time showed a much clearer association (loadings −0.76 and −0.82, respectively, second factor) with 2–4% ethanol preference (−0.55 and −0.54, respectively, second factor). Finally, multiple regression analyses were computed for ethanol preference at each concentration as the dependent variables and the

U

320 321

RHA

RLA

6 4 2 0

350

RHA

RLA

Novelty Test: Time 50 40 30 20 10 0

RLA

Novelty Test: Time

RHA

RLA

Emergence Test

300 250 200 150 100 50

Fig. 1. Mean (±SEM) scores for behaviors recorded in the hole-board test for inbred RHA and RLA strains. Freq: frequency.

319

RLA

E

*

80

0

12

0

120 100

RHA

8

Novelty Test: Frequency

* Novel-arm Rear

20

25 0

1.0

D

50

Rearing (s)

Rearing

30

50

RLA

1.2

0.0

Hole Board: Freq

75

Novelty Test: Frequency

20

RLA

RHA

100

Hole Board: Time

25

5

RLA

*

125

F

Hole Board: Freq

RHA

2

Novel-arm Groom (s)

RLA

4

150

O

RHA

5

6

Latency (s)

0

10

Novel-arm Rear (s)

3

15

8

R O

6

*

20

P

9

25

Novelty Test: Time

Novelty Test: Frequency 10

Novel-arm Entries

*

12

Hole Board: Time

30

Novel-arm Groom

Hole Board: Freq Head Dipping (s)

Head Dipping

15

Novel-arm Time (s)

4

0

RHA

RLA

Fig. 2. Mean (±SEM) scores for behaviors recorded in the Y-maze and emergence tests for inbred RHA and RLA strains. Freq: frequency.

same behavioral variables used above as predictors (independent vari- 344 ables). These analyses showed that 6–10% ethanol preference values 345 were (positively) predicted by activity in the hole board and novel-arm 346 time in the Y-maze (Table 3). This confirms the associations shown by 347 the factorial analyses for the first factor (Table 2). Likewise, multiple 348 regression analyses showed that grooming frequency and rearing time, 349 both registered in the hole board, were (jointly) negative predictors of 350 4% ethanol preference, in agreement with the second factor from Table 2. 351 4. Discussion

352

This experiment was designed to test the association between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty-seeking behavior in selectively-bred RHA-I and RLA-I rats. Three predictions were made. First, as predicted, RHA-I rats exhibited greater preference for ethanol than RLA-I rats at all concentrations. Moreover, both strains switched from ethanol to water preference as the ethanol concentration increased from 2% to 10%. Strain differences in preference for ethanol matched previous results in both outbred and inbred strains [41,47,49]. It should be noted that the use of an increasing concentration procedure confounds the response to successive concentrations with prior experience with ethanol since the order of presentation was not counterbalanced. Previous research under similar conditions to those used here showed that preference for

353

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364

L. Manzo et al. / Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Ethanol Preference

Table 2 Factor analysis (direct oblimin rotation) for all rats (N = 48) among variables that discriminated strains.

10

0

RHA

Variables

RLA

Ethanol preference 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

-5 -10 -15 -20

0

2

4

6

8

10

Ethanol Consumption

Y-maze test Novel-arm time Cumulative explained variance Correlation between factors

30 RHA

20

RLA

2

4

6

8

10

Table 1 Significant correlation coefficients (df = 48) among variables that differentiated strains.

Second, we predicted that RHA-I rats would tend to exhibit higher sensation/novelty-seeking behaviors than RLA-I rats in all three tests: increased head dipping in the hole-board test, preference for the novel arm in the Y-maze test, and shortened emergence latency in the emergence test. Confirming our hypotheses [39–41], there were strain differences in head dipping and in the time spent in the novel arm of the Ymaze (i.e., RHA N RLA in both cases); however, predicted strain differences in the emergence test were not observed. Associations among the above-mentioned sensation/novelty-seeking responses were also expected, as well as associations among these behavioral responses and preference for ethanol. Actually, factor analysis showed horizontal activity in the hole board and novel-arm time in the Y-maze load with the same sign in the first factor (0.70 and 0.55, respectively), jointly with ethanol preference at the highest concentrations (6–10%; 0.78– 0.92). Importantly, the second factor showed associations (with the same sign) among head-dipping time in the hole board (− 0.65) and ethanol preference at the lowest concentrations (2–4%; − 0.66 and −0.67, respectively).

C

E

R

R

Hole board

t1:4

t1:25 t1:26

N C O

t1:3

DIPfreq DIPt GROfreq REAt ACT NOVt 2% 4% 6% 8%

r= p= r= p= r= p= r= p= r= p= r= p= r= p= r= p= r= p= r= p=

U

t1:5 t1:6 t1:7 t1:8 t1:9 t1:10 t1:11 t1:12 t1:13 t1:14 t1:15 t1:16 t1:17 t1:18 t1:19 t1:20 t1:21 t1:22 t1:23 t1:24

54.8%

E

t1:1 t1:2

371 372

T

373

and consumption of 10% ethanol was not affected by previous experience with lower concentrations [49]. Based on these results, we adopted the hypothesis that sequential effects on ethanol preference and consumption were either weak or nonexistent. It is noteworthy that whereas RHA-I rats prefer ethanol to water at low concentrations under regular environmental conditions, when these strains are subjected to a frustrating situation involving unexpected reward loss, it is the RLA-I rats that show greater preference for, and consume more 2% ethanol [53].

369 370

0.55 33.5% −0.09

D

Fig. 3. Mean (±SEM) ethanol preference (top) and consumption (bottom) as a function of ethanol concentration in inbred RHA and RLA strains. The dotted line in the top figure represents indifference between ethanol and water consumption. Ethanol is preferred to water above the dotted line, but water is preferred over ethanol below the dotted line.

367 368

0.70

P

Ethanol Concentration (%)

365 366

−0.65 0.71 0.60

Note. Values ≥0.30 (absolute value) are shown. Conceptually more relevant associations are in bold. Freq: frequency.

10 0 0

0.92 0.89 0.78

R O

Consumption (ml)

40

Factor 2 −0.67 −0.66

Hole board Head-dipping time Grooming freq Rearing time Activity

Ethanol Concentration (%) 50

Factor 1

F

5

O

Ethanol Preference

15

5

DIPt

GROfreq

0.88 0.000

−0.46 0.001 −0.49 0.000

Y-maze REAt

−0.31 0.032 0.31 0.034

ACT

Ethanol preference NOVt

2%

4%

6%

8%

0.58 0.000 0.45 0.001

10% 0.34 0.018

−0.29 0.048 −0.31 0.035 0.59 0.000 0.42 0.003

0.48 0.001 0.42 0.003

0.50 0.000

0.59 0.000

0.79 0.000

0.30 0.037 0.65 0.000 0.72 0.000

DIPfreq: head-dipping frequency, hole board. DIPt: head-dipping time, hole board. GROfreq: grooming frequency, hole board. REAt: rearing time, hole board. ACT: activity, hole board. NOVt: novel-arm time, Y-maze test.

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

t2:1 t2:2 t2:3 t2:4 t2:5 t2:6 t2:7 t2:8 t2:9 t2:10 t2:11 t2:12 t2:13 t2:14 t2:15 t2:16 t2:17 t2:18 t2:19 t2:20 t2:21 t2:22 t2:23

374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391

t3:1 t3:2 t3:3

L. Manzo et al. / Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Multiple regression analyses (backward stepwise method) for all rats (N = 48) among variables that discriminated strains.

t3:4

Dependent variable

Step

Predictor variable

Cumulative Ra

p≤

t3:5 t3:6 t3:7 t3:8 t3:9 t3:10 t3:11

4%

5

−0.24

0.039

6%

5

0.53

0.001

8%

5

0.42

0.002

10%

6

HB Grooming freq HB Rearing time HB Activity Y Novel-arm time HB Activity Y Novel-arm time HB Activity

0.50

0.001

Note. The most significant backward regression model (i.e., the last significant step in the backward stepwise regression procedure) is presented for each dependent variable for which some significant model was observed. No significant regression model was observed for the 2% ethanol preference dependent variable. HB: hole-board test. Y: Y-maze test. Freq: frequency. a Standardized coefficient.

407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438

P

D

E

T

C

405 406

E

403 404

R

401 402

R

399 400

O

397 398

C

395 396

The differences between strains observed in activity and head dipping in the hole-board test were in agreement with previous results obtained with both outbred and inbred Roman rats [24,39–42]. Notice that, as shown previously [39,54], the increased horizontal activity of RHA-I rats cannot account for their enhanced head-dipping behavior. Accordingly, the structure of the present factor analysis also indicates that head-dipping behavior (mainly loading in the second factor) is essentially independent from horizontal locomotion (activity). Multiple regression analyses constitute a complementary confirmation of what the first factor from factorial analysis shows, as activity in the hole board and novel-arm time in the Y-maze jointly predict ethanol preference at the highest concentrations. Furthermore, a higher incidence of rearing and grooming in RLA-I rats, which are also prone to anxiety, may be interpreted in terms of thigmotaxis [55] and dearousal, respectively [24]. The present experiment is the first to study the performance of Roman rat strains in three different novelty-seeking tests. As far as we know, only Pisula [45] investigated the performance of outbred RHA/ Verh and RLA/Verh rats in a situation based on a preference test between familiar vs. novel environments. Male and female rats were exposed to a chamber divided into three sections. After habituation to the chamber, a novel component was introduced in two of the chambers based on the visual and spatial rearrangements of the objects. Although the introduction of novelty increased exploratory behaviors in all the animals, this increase was significantly higher in RHA/Verh rats than in RLA/Verh rats, thus paralleling the strain differences in novelty-seeking obtained in the present study. Several studies suggest that sensation/novelty seeking in animals include dissociable components in terms of their relevance for addiction liability [3,8,27]. The locomotor response to inescapable novelty when exposure is forced [13], seems to be a good predictor of the initial proneness to take drugs (as in the ethanol-preference test used here). By contrast, novelty seeking, as measured in a free-choice situation in which the animal can choose between familiar and novel environments (or between lesser or greater novelty, as in the hole-board test) [56], would be a better predictor of some symptoms that characterize subsequent stages of the addictive disorder, such as loss of control, compulsive use, and relapse [3]. Whether or not the present results can be interpreted in terms of a distinction between components of the sensation/noveltyseeking trait, they suggest the presence of common mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking. These possible common mechanisms, however, would appear to be somewhat complex, as behavioral responses that predict consumption of relatively high vs. low ethanol concentrations are not associated with each other. For example, the initial preference for ethanol at low concentrations may be related to true novelty detection, as indicated by its association with head-dipping responses (i.e., tendency to explore unknown/novel objects), whereas continued ethanol drinking

N

393 394

U

392

R O

O

t3:12 t3:13 t3:14 t3:15 t3:16 t3:17

of ascending concentrations would be related to other components of novelty-induced behavior, like activity (i.e., horizontal locomotion toward novel contexts). The independence of activity (hole board) and novel-arm time (Y-maze) from head-dipping behavior, and the independence between ethanol preference for low (2–4%) vs. high concentrations (6–10%), found in the factor analysis, are consistent with this interpretation. These hypotheses will require additional testing. The present strain differences in activity in the hole board and the association of that behavior with ethanol preference may be interpreted as reminiscent of the increased novelty-induced locomotion and drug self-administration reported in rats selected for high response to novelty [3,11,13]. However, both outbred and inbred RHA rats showed enhanced novelty-induced activity only during the first 5–10 min of forced exposure to novelty [24,25,57], thus indicating that enhanced activity during long periods (e.g., 60 min of novelty exposure; e.g., [3,13, 14]) is not a necessary condition to predict ethanol/drug consumption. A large body of evidence suggests that the mesolimbic dopaminergic system plays a key role in mediating the rewarding effects of drugs of abuse and sensation/novelty-seeking behaviors [7,58,59]. Interestingly, Roman strains are known to differ in terms of this reward system [32,33] and these differences could underlie the results obtained in the present experiment. For example, RHA rats show higher levels of dopamine turnover in the caudate nucleus and greater response to the nonselective dopamine agonist apomorphine [25,60,61]; a greater expression of dopamine receptors D1 and D3 in the nucleus accumbens [42,62]; and higher basal levels of dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin in the nucleus accumbens and striatum [36]. Some drugs of abuse (e.g., morphine, amphetamine, cocaine, ethanol), lead to greater activation of the mesotelencephalic dopaminergic pathway in RHA than in RLA rats [33,63–67]. The RHA strain also shows behavioral sensitization in response to repeated administration of amphetamine, cocaine, and morphine [66,68,69], a crucial phenomenon for identifying vulnerability to addiction in both animals and humans [70]. Furthermore, outbred male RHA rats exhibit higher levels of sexual motivation and performance than their RLA counterparts. Dopamine agonists induced more penile erections in RLA than in RHA animals [71,72]. These behavioral and pharmacological differences seem to be related to the different coping styles and novelty seeking in these strains, and may be due, at least in part, to strain-dependent differences in the functional properties of their mesolimbic (and possibly hypothalamic) dopaminergic pathways. Other neurotransmitters relevant for addiction also diverge between Roman strains, including glutamate, GABA, opioids, and serotonin [35,42,57,65]. Similarly, anatomical and functional differences in brain structures relevant for addiction, novelty seeking, stress, and anxiety have been reported in both outbred and inbred Roman rats, including the amygdala, hippocampus, paraventricular hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex [63,73–76]. Finally, recent studies have identified some molecular pathways that play a role in complex behavioral traits [77–79], shedding light on the genetic basis of addiction. In summary, the present results show a complex picture of the relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking in Roman rats: (1) RHA-I rats display higher levels of sensation/novelty seeking and ethanol preference than RLA-I rats; (2) several sensation/ novelty-seeking responses exhibit relative independence among them, and (3) ethanol preference at low and high concentrations appears to be rather independent, as they associate with different sensation/ novelty-seeking responses. The present study provides confirmation, for the first time in rat strains not selected by sensation/noveltyseeking traits, for the hypothesis that sensation/novelty seeking is associated with preference for ethanol. These results also point to a remarkable degree of trait correlation between the mechanisms of avoidance learning (the bases for the selective breeding of Roman strains) and those involved in ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking. Roman strains continue to contribute to the unraveling of the complex gene–environment interactions that control behavior.

F

6

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504

L. Manzo et al. / Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

508 509

[29]

[30]

[31]

510

References

[32]

511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583

[1] Zuckerman M. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994. [2] Dawe S, Loxton NJ. The role of impulsivity in the development of substance use and eating disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2004;28:343–51. [3] Flagel SB, Waselus M, Clinton SM, Watson SJ. Antecedents and consequences of drug abuse in rats selectively bred for high and low response to novelty. Neuropharmacology 2014;76:425–36. [4] Jupp B, Dalley JW. Behavioral endophenotypes of drug addiction: etiological insights from neuroimaging studies. Neuropharmacology 2014;76:487–97. [5] Kreek MJ, Nielsen DA, Butelman ER, LaForge KS. Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nat Neurosci 2005;8:1450–7. [6] Ballaz SJ. Differential novelty detection in rats selectively bred for novelty seeking behavior. Neurosci Lett 2009;461:45–8. [7] Bardo MT, Donohew RL, Harrington NG. Psychobiology of novelty seeking and drug seeking behavior. Behav Brain Res 1996;77:23–43. [8] Belin D, Deroche-Gamonet V. Responses to novelty and vulnerability to cocaine administration. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2012;2:a011940. [9] Conway KP, Kane RJ, Ball SA, Poling JC, Rounsaville BJ. Personality, substance of choice, and polysubstance involvement among substance dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003;71:65–75. [10] Meyer AC, Rahman S, Charnigo RJ, Dwoskin LP, Crabbe JC, Bardo MT. Genetics of novelty seeking, amphetamine self-administration and reinstatement using inbred rats. Genes Brain Behav 2010;9:790–8. [11] Nadal R, Armario A, Janak PH. Positive relationship between activity in a novel environment and operant ethanol self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology 2002;3:333–8. [12] Pelloux Y, Costentin J, Duterte-Boucher D. Novelty preference predicts place preference conditioning to morphine and its oral consumption in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2006;84:43–50. [13] Piazza PV, Deminiere JM, Le Moal M, Simon H. Factors that predict individual vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Science 1989;245:1511–3. [14] Piazza PV, Deroche-Gamonet V. A multistep general theory of transition to addiction. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2013;229:387–413. [15] Redolat R, Pérez-Martínez A, Carrasco MC, Mesa P. Individual differences in noveltyseeking and behavioral responses to nicotine: a review of animal studies. Curr Drug Abuse Rev 2009;2:230–42. [16] Vidal-Infer A, Arenas MC, Daza-Losada M, Aguilar MA, Miñarro J, Rodríguez-Arias M. High novelty seeking predicts greater sensitivity to the conditioned rewarding effects of cocaine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2012;102:124–32. [17] Hooks MS, Jones GH, Smith AD, Neill DB, Justice Jr JB. Response to novelty predicts the locomotor and nucleus accumbens dopamine response to cocaine. Synapse 1991;9:121–8. [18] Hooks MS, Colvin AC, Juncos JL, Justice Jr JB. Individual differences in basal and cocaine-stimulated extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens using quantitative microdialysis. Brain Res 1992;587:306–12. [19] Rouge-Pont F, Piazza PV, Kharouby M, Le Moal M, Simon H. Higher and longer stress-induced increase in dopamine concentrations in the nucleus accumbens of animals predisposed to amphetamine self-administration. A microdialysis study. Brain Res 1993;602:169–74. [20] Dellu F, Piazza PV, Mayo W, Le Moal M, Simon H. Novelty-seeking in rats: biobehavioral characteristics and possible relationship with the sensation-seeking train in man. Neuropsychobiology 1996;34:136–45. [21] Belin D, Mar A, Dalley J, Robbins T, Everitt B. High impulsivity predicts the switch to compulsive cocaine-taking. Science 2008;320:1352–5. [22] Belin D, Berson N, Balado E, Piazza PV, Deroche-Gamonet V. High-noveltypreference rats are predisposed to compulsive cocaine self-administration. Neuropsychopharmacology 2011;36:569–79. [23] Flagel SB, Robinson TE, Clark JJ, Clinton SM, Watson SJ, Seeman P, et al. An animal model of genetic vulnerability to behavioral disinhibition and responsiveness to rewardrelated cues: implications for addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35:388–400. [24] Estanislau C, Díaz-Morán S, Cañete T, Blázquez G, Tobeña A, Fernández-Teruel A. Context-dependent differences in grooming behavior among the NIH heterogeneous stock and the Roman high- and low-avoidance rats. Neurosci Res 2013;77:187–201. [25] Giménez-Llort L, Cañete T, Guitart-Masip M, Fernández-Teruel A, Tobeña A. Two distinctive apomorphine-induced phenotypes in the Roman high- and low-avoidance rats. Physiol Behav 2005;86:458–66. [26] Dellu F, Mayo W, Cherkaoui J, Le Moal M, Simon H. A two-trial memory task with automated recording: study in young and aged rats. Brain Res 1992;588:132–9. [27] Bardo MT, Neisewander JL, Kelly TH. Individual differences and social influences on the neurobehavioral pharmacology and abused drugs. Pharmacol Rev 2013;65:255–90. [28] Molander A, Mar A, Norbury A, Steventon S, Moreno M, Caprioli D, et al. High impulsivity predicting vulnerability to cocaine addiction in rats: some relationship with novelty

[33]

[34] [35]

[36]

[37] [38] [39]

D

[40]

E

[41]

T

C

E

R

R

N C O

U

F

This research was supported by grants from Junta de Andalucía (HUM-642), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PSI2010-15787 and PSI2009-10532), and Fundació la MARATÓ TV3 (092630/31). L. Manzo is now at Universidad Michoacana, Mexico.

O

506 507

preference but not novelty reactivity, anxiety or stress. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2011;215:721–31. Clinton SM, Bedrosian TA, Abraham AD, Watson SJ, Akil H. Neural and environmental factors impacting maternal behavior differences in high- versus low-noveltyseeking rats. Horm Behav 2010;57:463–73. Ellenbroek BA, van der Kam EL, van der Elst MCJ, Cools AR. Individual differences in drug dependence in rats: the role of genetic factors and life events. Eur J Pharmacol 2005;526:251–8. Kabbaj M. Individual differences in vulnerability to drug abuse: the High Responders/ Low Responders model. CNS Neurol Disord 2006;5:513–20. Driscoll P, Fernandez-Teruel A, Corda M, Giorgi O, Steimer T. Some guidelines for defining personality differences in rats. In: Yong-Kyu K, editor. Handbook of behavior genetics. New York: Springer; 2009. Giorgi O, Piras G, Corda MG. The psychogenetically selected Roman high- and lowavoidance rat lines: a model to study the individual vulnerability to drug addiction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2007;31:148–63. Coppens CM, de Boer SF, Steimer T, Koolhaas JM. Correlated behavioral traits in rats of the roman selection lines. Behav Genet 2013;43:220–6. Klein A, Ultved L, Adamsen D, Santini MA, Tobeña A, Fernández-Teruel A, Flores P, Moreno M, Cardona D, Knudsen M, Aznar S, Mikkelsen JD. 5-HT2A and mGlu2 receptor binding levels are related to differences in impulsive behaviour in the Roman low- (RLA) and high (RHA) avoidance rat strains. Neuroscience 2014;263:36–45. Moreno M, Cardona D, Gomez MJ, Sanchez-Santed F, Tobeña A, FernandezTeruel A, et al. Impulsivity characterization in the roman high- and lowavoidance rat strains: behavioral and neurochemical differences. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35:1198–208. Siegel J, Sisson DF, Driscoll P. Augmenting and reducing of visual evoked potentials in Roman high- and low-avoidance rats. Physiol Behav 1993;54:707–11. Zeier H, Baettig K, Driscoll P. Acquisition of DRL-20 behavior in male and female, Roman high- and low-avoidance rats. Physiol Behav 1978;20:791–3. Escorihuela RM, Fernandez-Teruel A, Gil L, Aguilar R, Tobena A, Driscoll P. Inbred Roman high- and low-avoidance rats: differences in anxiety, novelty-seeking, and shuttlebox behaviors. Physiol Behav 1999;67:19–26. Fernández-Teruel A, Escorihuela RM, Núñez JF, Gomà M, Driscoll P, Tobeña A. Early stimulation effects on novelty-induced behavior in two psychogenetically-selected rat lines with divergent emotionality profiles. Neurosci Let 1992;137:185–8. Fernández-Teruel A, Driscoll P, Gil L, Aguilar R, Tobeña A, Escorihuela RM. Enduring effects of environmental enrichment on novelty seeking, saccharin and ethanol intake in two rat lines (RHA/Verh and RLA/Verh) differing in incentive-seeking behavior. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2002;73:225–31. Guitart-Masip M, Giménez-Llort L, Fernández-Teruel A, Canete T, Tobena A, Ögren SO, et al. Reduced ethanol response in the alcohol-preferring RHA rats and neuropeptide mRNAs in relevant structures. Eur J Neurosci 2006;23:531–40. Piras G, Giorgi O, Corda MG. Effects of antidepressants on the performance in the forced swim test of two psychogenetically selected lines of rats that differ in coping strategies to aversive conditions. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2010;211:403–14. Piras G, Piludu MA, Giorgi O, Corda MG. Effects of chronic antidepressant treatments in a putative genetic model of vulnerability (Roman low-avoidance rats) and resistance (Roman high-avoidance rats) to stress-induced depression. Psychopharm 2014;231:43–53. Pisula W. The Roman high- and low-avoidance rats respond differently to novelty in a familiarized environment. Behav Processes 2003;63:63–72. Steimer T, Driscoll P. Divergent stress responses and coping styles in psychogenetically selected Roman high- (RHA) and low- (RLA) avoidance rats: behavioural, neuroendocrine and developmental aspects. Stress 2003;6:87–100. Razafimanalina R, Mormède P, Velley L. Gustatory preference-aversion profiles for saccharin, quinine and alcohol in Roman high- and low-avoidance lines. Behav Pharmacol 1996;7:78–84. Fattore L, Piras G, Corda MG, Giorgi O. The Roman high- and low avoidance rat lines differ in the acquisition, maintenance, extinction, and reinstatement of intravenous cocaine self-administration. Neuropsychopharmacology 2009;34:1091–101. Manzo L, Gómez MJ, Callejas-Aguilera JE, Fernández-Teruel A, Papini MR, Torres C. Oral ethanol self-administration in inbred Roman high- and low-avoidance rats: gradual versus abrupt ethanol presentation. Physiol Behav 2012;108:1–5. Aguilar R, Gil L, Flint J, Gray JA, Dawson GR, Driscoll P, et al. Learned fear, emotional reactivity and fear of heights: a factor analytic map from a large F2 intercross of Roman rat strains. Brain Res Bull 2002;57:17–26. López-Aumatell R, Guitart-Masip M, Vicens-Costa E, Gimenez-Llort L, Valdar W, Johannesson M, et al. Fearfulness in a large N/Nih genetically heterogeneous rat stock: differential profiles of timidity and defensive flight in males and females. Behav Brain Res 2008;188:41–55. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M. A comparison of three structural models for personality: the big three, the big five, and the alternative five. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993;65:757–68. Manzo L, Gómez MJ, Callejas-Aguilera JE, Fernández-Teruel A, Papini M, Torres C. Antianxiety self-medication induced by incentive loss in rats. Physiol Behav 2014;123:86–92. File SE, Wardill AG. Validity of head-dipping as a measure of exploration in a modified hole-board. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1975;44:53–9. Tverdic A, Kocevski D. Does behavioral response to novelty influence paw withdrawal latencies in repeated Hargreaves test? Period Biol 2008;110:95–100. Bardo MT, Bowling SL, Robinet PM, Rowlet JK, Lacy M, Mattingly BA. Role of dopamine D1 and D2 receptors in novelty-maintained place preference. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1993;1:101–9. Guitart-Masip M, Johansson B, Fernández-Teruel A, Tobeña A, Gimenez-Llort L. Divergent effect of the selective D3 receptor agonist pd-128,907 on locomotor activity in

R O

Acknowledgments

P

505

7

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45] [46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54] [55] [56]

[57]

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

F

[61]

O

[60]

R O

[59]

[68] Corda MG, Piras G, Lecca D, Fernández-Teruel A, Driscoll P, Giorgi O. The psychogenetically selected roman rat lines differ in the susceptibility to develop amphetamine sensitization. Behav Brain Res 2005;157:147–56. [69] Piras G, Lecca D, Corda MG, Giorgi O. Repeated morphine injections induce behavioural sensitization in Roman high- but not in Roman low-avoidance rats. Neuroreport 2003;14:2433–8. [70] Everitt BJ, Wolf ME. Psychomotor stimulant addiction: a neural systems perspective. J Neurosci 2002;22:3312–20. [71] Sanna F, Corda MG, Melis MR, Piludu MA, Löber S, Hübner H, et al. Dopamine agonist-induced penile erection and yawning: a comparative study in outbred Roman high- and low-avoidance rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2013;109:59–66. [72] Sanna F, Corda MG, Melis MR, Piludu MA, Giorgi O, Argiolas A. Male Roman high and low avoidance rats show different patterns of copulatory behavior: comparison with Sprague Dawley rats. Physiol Behav 2014;127:27–36. [73] García-Falgueras A, Castillo-Ruiz MM, Put T, Tobeña A, Fernández-Teruel A. Differential hippocampal neuron density between inbred Roman high- (low anxious) and low-avoidance (high anxious) rats. Neurosci Let 2012;522:41–6. [74] Gómez MJ, Morón I, Torres C, Esteban FJ, de la Torre L, Cándido A, Maldonado A, Fernández-Teruel A, Tobeña A, Escarabajal MD. One-way avoidance acquisition and cellular density in the basolateral amygdala: strain differences in Roman highand low-avoidance rats. Neurosci Let 2009;450:317–20. [75] Lipp HP, Schwegler H, Crusio WE, Wolfer DP, Leisinger-Trigona MC, Heimrich B, et al. Using genetically-defined rodent strains for the identification of hippocampal traits relevant for two-way avoidance behavior: a non-invasive approach. Experientia 1989;45:845–59. [76] Meyza KZ, Boguszewski PM, Nikolaev E, Zagrodzka J. Diverse sensitivity of RHA/Verh and RLA/Verh rats to emotional and spatial aspects of a novel environment as a result of a distinct pattern of neuronal activation in the fear/anxiety circuit. Behav Gen 2009;39:48–61. [77] Fernández-Teruel A, Escorihuela RM, Gray JA, Aguilar R, Gil L, Giménez-Llort L, et al. A quantitative trait locus influencing anxiety in the laboratory rat. Genome Res 2002;12:618–26. [78] Sabariego M, Gómez MJ, Morón I, Torres C, Fernández-Teruel A, Tobena A, et al. Differential gene expression between inbred Roman high- (RHA-I) and low- (RLA-I) avoidance rats. Neurosci Let 2011;504:265–70. [79] Sabariego M, Morón I, Gómez MJ, Donaire R, Tobeña A, Fernández-Teruel A, et al. Incentive loss and hippocampal gene expression in inbred Roman high- (RHA-I) and Roman low- (RLA-I) avoidance rats. Behav Brain Res 2013;257:62–70.

P

[58]

Roman high- and low-avoidance rats: relationship to NGFI-A gene expression in the Calleja islands. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2008;196:39–49. Hooks MS, Juncos JL, Justice Jr JB, Meiergerd SM, Povlock SL, Schenk JO, et al. Individual locomotor response to novelty predicts selective alterations in D1 and D2 receptors and mRNAs. J Neurosci 1994;14:6144–52. Kabbaj M, Evans S, Watson SJ, Akil H. The search for the neurobiological basis of vulnerability to drug abuse: using microarrays to investigate the role of stress and individual differences. Neuropharmacology 2004;47:111–22. Driscoll P, Dedek J, Fuchs A, Gentsch C. Stereotypic, hypothermic, and central dopaminergic effects of apomorphine in Roman high-avoidance (RHA/Verh) and Roman lowavoidance (RLA/Verh) rats. Behav Genet 1985;15:591–2. Driscoll P, Dedek J, D'Angio M, Claustre Y, Scatton B. A genetically-based model for divergent stress responses: behavioral, neurochemical and hormonal aspects. Fortschritte Der Tierzuechtung Und Zuechtungsbiologie. Adv Anim Breed Gen 1990;5:97–107. Giorgi O, Orlandi M, Escorihuela RM, Driscoll P, Lecca D, Corda MG. GABAergic and dopaminergic transmission in the brain of Roman high-avoidance and Roman low-avoidance rats. Brain Res 1994;638:133–8. D'Angio M, Serrano A, Driscoll P, Scatton B. Stressful environmental stimuli increase extracellular DOPAC levels in the prefrontal cortex of hypoemotional (Roman highavoidance) but not hyperemotional (Roman low-avoidance) rats: an in vivo voltametric study. Brain Res 1988;45:237–47. Giorgi O, Corda MG, Driscoll P, Orlandi M, Valentini V, Carboni G, et al. Ethanol (ET) intake and preference in Roman high-avoidance (RHA-/Verh) and Roman low-avoidance (RLA/Verh) rats: behavioral and brain microdialysis studies. Behav Gen 1997;27:590–1. Giorgi O, Lecca D, Piras G, Driscoll P, Corda M. Dissociation between mesocortical dopamine release and fear-related behaviours in two psychogenetically selected lines of rats that differ in coping strategies to aversive conditions. Eur J Neurosci 2003;17:2716–26. Giorgi O, Piras G, Lecca D, Corda MG. Differential activation of dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens core and shell after acute or repeated amphetamine injections: a comparative study in the Roman high- and low-avoidance rat lines. Neuroscience 2005;135:987–98. Lecca D, Piras G, Driscoll P, Giorgi O, Corda MG. A differential activation of dopamine output in the shell and core of the nucleus accumbens is associated with the motor responses to addictive drugs: a brain dialysis study in Roman high- and low-avoidance rats. Neuropharmacology 2004;46:688–99.

E

670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707

L. Manzo et al. / Physiology & Behavior xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

D

8

U

N

C

O

R

R

E

C

T

746

Please cite this article as: Manzo L, et al, Relationship between ethanol preference and sensation/novelty seeking, Physiol Behav (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.003

708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745