PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Handb Exp Pharmacol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2687081
NIHMSID: NIHMS110043

Effects of nicotine in experimental animals and humans: an update on addictive properties

Abstract

Tobacco use through cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the developed world. Nicotine, a psychoactive component of tobacco, appears to play a major role in tobacco dependence, but reinforcing effects of nicotine have often been difficult to demonstrate directly in controlled studies with laboratory animals or human subjects. Here we update our earlier review published in Psychopharmacology (Berl) in 2006 on findings obtained with various procedures developed to study dependence-related behavioral effects of nicotine in experimental animals and humans. Results obtained with drug self-administration, conditioned place preference, subjective reports of nicotine effects and nicotine discrimination indicate that nicotine can function as an effective reinforcer of drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior both in experimental animals and humans under appropriate conditions. Interruption of chronic nicotine exposure produces ratings of drug withdrawal and withdrawal symptoms that may contribute to relapse. Difficulties encountered in demonstrating reinforcing effects of nicotine under some conditions, relative to other drugs of abuse, may be due to weaker primary reinforcing effects of nicotine, to aversive effects produced by nicotine, or to a more critical contribution of environmental stimuli to the maintenance of drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior with nicotine than with other drugs of abuse. Several recent reports suggest that other chemical substances inhaled along with nicotine in tobacco smoke may play a role in sustaining smoking behavior. However, conflicting results have been obtained with mice and rats and these findings have not yet been validated in non-human primates or human subjects. Taken together, these findings suggest that nicotine acts as a typical drug of abuse in experimental animals and humans under appropriate situations.

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco smoking is presently estimated to cause 20% of all deaths in developed countries. As with other types of drug dependence, tobacco dependence is described as a chronic, relapsing disorder in which compulsive drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior persist despite negative consequences and the motivation to quit. The high addictive effects of tobacco are exemplified by the great difficulty in quitting smoking. Although most smokers want to stop, only a small percent succeed. It is now becoming clear that continued tobacco use induces adaptive changes in the central nervous system that lead to drug dependence (American Psychiatric Association 2000). Nicotine, the major psychoactive component of tobacco, is thought to play a critical role in tobacco dependence through its actions as a reinforcer of drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior (Fiore et al. 2000; Henningfield and Goldberg 1983; Stolerman and Shoaib 1991). Nevertheless, tobacco smoke contains several hundred other chemical substances, some of which have psychoactive effects or may enhance the psychoactive effects of nicotine, and these other substances may contribute to the reinforcing effects of tobacco smoking (Fowler et al. 1996). Indeed, reinforcing effects of nicotine have often been difficult to demonstrate directly in past controlled studies with both laboratory animals and humans as experimental subjects. As a result, there has been some controversy in the literature about the validity of previous findings that nicotine can produce reinforcing effects in experimental animals or human subjects (Dar and Frenk 2002; 2004; Robinson and Pritchard 1992).

A variety of laboratory animal models are available to study the cardinal features of drug dependence (Deroche-Gamonet et al. 2004; Everitt and Robbins 2000; Goldberg 1975; Goldberg et al. 1981; Goldberg et al. 1975; Goldberg et al. 1979; Katz and Goldberg 1988; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005; Markou et al. 1993; Schindler et al. 2002; Schuster and Woods 1968; Spealman and Goldberg 1978; Vanderschuren and Everitt 2004). The effects of nicotine have been evaluated using animals models for studying the reinforcing effects of drug injections (intravenous drug self-administration and conditioned place preference (CPP) procedures), the subjective responses to administered drugs (drug discrimination), the withdrawal states, including behavioral disturbances, that are associated with abrupt termination of chronic drug exposure (smoking cessation or administration of selective antagonists after chronic exposure) and relapse phenomena (reinstatement of extinguished drug-seeking behavior induced by stress, drug-associated cues or drug priming). Most of these experimental studies have used rodents (rats and mice) as subjects, but results are available from studies using other animal species (monkeys and dogs) and human volunteers as subjects. We will first summarize the main experimental procedures used to assess these effects of nicotine and then review the preclinical and clinical findings obtained with nicotine using these procedures. Since previous review articles already provide detailed comparisons of the effects of nicotine in animals and humans (Henningfield and Goldberg 1983; Le Foll and Goldberg 2006; Rose and Corrigall 1997; Stolerman 1999), we focus here on the most recent important findings obtained with nicotine in animals and humans.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES FOR STUDYING NICOTINE’S EFFECTS

Intravenous drug self-administration: natural rewards, such as water or food, and drugs of abuse may serve as positive reinforcers under appropriate conditions. For example, to assess the reinforcing effects of food, a food-deprived animal can be placed in a sound-attenuating chamber containing stimulus lights, response levers, and a device for dispensing food pellets. Lever-pressing responses will occur with increasing frequency when they result in delivery of food pellets, which, therefore, serve as positive reinforcers under these conditions. With intravenous drug self-administration procedures, a catheter implanted in a jugular vein allows the animal to intravenously self-administer a small amount of drug by pressing a lever. The administration of drug constitutes the event that positively reinforces the lever-pressing behavior and reward is inferred if the frequency of responding subsequently increases (thus, defining reinforcement). With these behavioral procedures, stimuli such as a light or tone are often associated with delivery of the reinforcer. It has been argued that in many instances these stimuli are not neutral, but themselves have the potential to produce weak reinforcing effects and there is accumulating evidence that nicotine exposure can increase their motivational value (i.e., they may become more effective reinforcers (Chaudhri et al. 2005). These stimuli, or ‘cues’, can also progressively gain motivational value by Pavlovian-conditioning and associative learning processes. In either case, environmental stimuli can acquire the ability to facilitate the maintenance of drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior and also reinstate drug-seeking behavior that has been extinguished (Arroyo et al. 1999; de Wit and Stewart 1981; Goldberg 1975; Goldberg et al. 1975; Goldberg et al. 1981; Goldberg et al. 1983; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005; Meil and See 1996; Self and Nestler 1988; Stewart 1983), and may become critical determinants of reinforcement of drug-taking behavior by nicotine administration.

Various schedules of reinforcement have been employed to study drug self-administration behavior. Two of the most commonly used are fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules of intravenous drug injection. Under a fixed-ratio schedule of intravenous drug injection, the subject must make a fixed number of responses (lever press or pull or nose-poke) in order to obtain each injection of drug (e.g., 1 lever press for a fixed-ratio 1, i.e. FR1, schedule). In contrast, under a progressive-ratio schedule of intravenous drug injection, the number of responses the subject must make to obtain successive drug injections (the ratio value) increases progressively until the subject fails to make the required number of responses (Hodos 1961). The highest ratio reached before responding ceases (the “breaking point”) is thought to reflect the reinforcing effectiveness of the drug (Donny et al. 1999; Le Foll et al. 2007). Intravenous self-administration studies have repeatedly shown that most drugs considered to be addictive in humans can serve as positive reinforcers for laboratory rats and monkeys, whereas non-addictive drugs have given negative results in the great majority of cases (Balster 1992; Katz and Goldberg 1988). Once an animal has learned to intravenously self-administer a drug, the influences of drug priming, stressors or presentation of drug-associated stimuli on drug self-administration behavior or relapse to extinguished drug-seeking behavior provide useful measures for studying the behavioral aspects of drug dependence (see Shalev et al. 2002) for a review). Interestingly, nicotine self-administration has also been studied under second-order schedules of reinforcement in non-human primates (see Everitt and Robbins 2000; Schindler et al. 2002) for reviews on those schedules). In this paradigm, animals first learn to self-administer the drug intravenously. Each drug infusion is made contingent upon a response on a lever and is paired with a light stimulus which becomes the conditioned stimulus (C.S.). During acquisition of the behavior, the number of lever responses required to produce the C.S. is progressively increased, as well as the number of C.S. presentations that have to be produced before the C.S. is paired with a drug infusion. The C.S. progressively gains motivational salience and, as a conditioned reinforcer, maintains and controls drug-seeking behavior (Goldberg and Gardner 1981; Goldberg et al. 1981).

Drug-induced conditioned place preferences: another experimental animal model for exploring the reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse is the conditioned place preference (CPP) procedure. A distinctive environment (e.g., one compartment of a two- or three-compartment apparatus) is paired repeatedly with administration of a drug, and a different environment is repeatedly associated with administration of vehicle. CPP occurs when repeated administration of a drug in this particular environment results in the ability of that environment to elicit approach behavior and increased time contact (place preference) in the absence of the previously administered drug. It has been argued that CPP, like drug self-administration and a number of related phenomena, is an example of dopamine-mediated incentive learning and that the approach behavior and increased time spent by animals in a drug-paired environment can be considered a measure of drug-seeking behavior and reinforcing effects of drugs (Bardo and Bevins 2000; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005). CPP has been demonstrated for most drugs of abuse, as well as for natural reinforcers such as food. The acquisition of a drug-induced CPP is likely to be correlated with other reinforcing effects of abused drugs, whereas its expression reflects the influence on behavior of environmental stimuli previously associated with a drug’s effects.

Drug discrimination: humans exposed to psychoactive drugs report characteristic subjective effects, and drug-discrimination procedures in rats and monkeys are extensively used as animal models of these subjective reports of drug effects in humans. The ability to perceive and identify the characteristic interoceptive effects of abused drugs is thought to play a critical role in drug-seeking, encouraging the development of this behavior and directing it towards one substance rather than another, on the basis of relative potencies and subjective effects (Colpaert 1999; Stolerman and Shoaib 1991). These interoceptive subjective effects of drugs are most frequently assessed in humans through the use of subject-rating scales and correlated changes in behavior are frequently assessed using performance-assessment tasks. In animals, the interoceptive effects of drugs can serve as discriminative stimuli to indicate how to obtain a reinforcer such as a food pellet or how to avoid an electric shock (Solinas et al. 2006). For example, animals can be trained under a discrete-trial schedule of food-pellet delivery or stimulus-shock termination to respond on one lever after an injection of a training dose of nicotine and on the other lever after an injection of vehicle. Once animals learn to reliably make this discrimination, the discriminative effects of different drugs or different nicotine doses can be compared and the modulation of subjective effects of nicotine by various pharmacological treatments can be measured (Le Foll and Goldberg 2004; Le Foll et al. 2005). This procedure works well with nicotine in rats (Rosecrans 1979; Stolerman 1989) (Fig. 2A), mice (Shoaib et al. 2002; Stolerman et al. 1999) and squirrel monkeys (Takada et al. 1988) and has also been used in human subjects by using nasal sprays containing either nicotine or placebo (Perkins et al. 1996).

Figure 2
Reinforcing effects of nicotine in rats (A, B), non human-primates (C, D) and humans (E, F)

Measurement of withdrawal disturbances: Abrupt cessation of exposure to most drugs of abuse leads to withdrawal signs and symptoms in humans (American Psychiatric Association 2000) and these can be measured in humans by reports by subjects using standardized rating scales and by reports of trained observers (Hughes et al. 1991). Animal models have been developed to evaluate the physical signs, as well as the behavioral consequences of inferred emotional disturbances following cessation of exposure to drugs of abuse. In these procedures, the animals are frequently implanted chronically with minipumps which deliver the drug continuously and cessation is produced either by the removal of the pump or by injection of specific antagonist (Malin et al. 1992; Watkins et al. 2000).

EFFECTS OF NICOTINE IN EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS AND HUMANS

Reinforcing effects of nicotine in experimental animals

Intravenous self-administration of a psychoactive drug is generally considered to be the most direct measure of a drug’s reinforcing effects. Although intravenous drug self-administration procedures generally work well with psychostimulants and opioids over a relatively wide range of conditions, the conditions under which nicotine maintains nicotine self-administration behavior appear to be more limited. There have been criticisms in the past of the experimental conditions that were used by some investigators to study the reinforcing properties of nicotine in experimental animals. Among the confounding factors cited, we can mention here the omission of controls for general activation, insufficient consideration of secondary reinforcement processes, the use of food-deprived animals or the exclusion of animals. Our recent analysis of previous published studies performed with the intravenous nicotine self-administration paradigm in non-human primates also revealed that most of these studies do not support the conclusion that nicotine, by itself and in the absence of setting conditions, can function as an effective reinforcing agent (Le Foll et al. 2007). Specific conditions, such as automatic nicotine infusions, previous self-administration of other drugs or food, or food-deprivation, were often employed to demonstrate that nicotine could maintain significant self-administration behavior in non-human primates (Le Foll et al. 2007). In addition, these studies with nicotine self-administration in non-human primates often used experimental conditions, such as very slow injection speeds or pre-training on other drugs of abuse that may not have been optimum for demonstrating reinforcing effects of nicotine. A clear demonstration of the reinforcing effects of nicotine in non-human primates has recently been reported (Le Foll et al. 2007). This study was performed with experimentally-naive squirrel monkeys that had no history of exposure to other drugs of abuse, no history of drug self-administration and had not been previously trained to respond for food. Due to the growing literature obtained in rodents suggesting that nicotine may act by increasing the motivational value of environmental stimuli associated with its effects, brief light stimuli were associated with each completion of the FR response requirement on both active and inactive levers. During the first week of acquisition, no preference was noted for responding on the active versus the inactive lever (percentage choice on the active lever was 49.6 ± 9.3 %, as expected by chance) (Fig. 1B). However, over repeated sessions the monkeys developed a strong preference for responding on the active lever compared to the inactive lever (P<0.01) and responding on the inactive lever dropped to negligible levels (Fig. 1B). This shift of responding toward the nicotine-associated lever clearly demonstrates an active choice by the monkeys towards responding that leads to nicotine delivery.

Figure 1
Active choice of intravenous nicotine in experimentally naive squirrel monkeys

Once responding was initiated, nicotine clearly maintained self-administration behavior at high levels in squirrel monkeys (Fig. 2), compared to saline vehicle. The reinforcing effects of nicotine appear to be particularly pronounced in squirrel monkeys (Le Foll et al. 2007) allowing persistent maintenance of nicotine self-administration behavior under fixed-interval (Spealman et al. 1981), second-order (Goldberg et al. 1981), fixed-ratio (Le Foll et al. 2007; Sannerud et al. 1994) and progressive-ratio (Le Foll et al. 2007) schedules of intravenous drug injection. In the second-order and progressive-ratio experiments, the monkeys pressed up to 600 times on a lever to obtain a single injection of nicotine (Goldberg et al. 1981; Le Foll et al. 2007) demonstrating the high motivational value of nicotine that had developed in those experienced animals. In contrast, rates of responding maintained by intravenous nicotine injections in rhesus monkeys and baboons have usually been quite low (Ator and Griffiths 1983; Deneau and Inoki 1967; Goldberg et al. 1981; Slifer and Balster 1985; Wakasa et al. 1995). These results suggest that there may be species differences, although other interpretations are possible since the experimental conditions were not strictly comparable (see (Le Foll et al. 2007) for a summary). Similar differences between species have also been reported in rodents. The rate of responding maintained by nicotine is higher in rats (Corrigall and Coen 1989; DeNoble and Mele 2005; Donny et al. 1995) than in mice (Martellotta et al. 1995; Paterson et al. 2003; Rasmussen and Swedberg 1998; Stolerman et al. 1999) (Fig 2A), although this might be related to the greater number of experiments that have been conducted with rats and, thus, the better information about appropriate experimental conditions that is available. Moreover, findings have not been consistent across or within studies with rats (Brower et al. 2002; Shoaib et al. 1997), where strain differences are likely (Brower et al. 2002; Shoaib et al. 1997). It should be noted that several laboratories are now reporting significant and consistent nicotine self-administration behavior in rats, findings that likely reflect the reliability of the results that could be obtained across laboratories when nicotine is used in specific conditions.

Intravenous nicotine self-administration is usually studied under conditions where availability of injections is restricted by timeout periods ranging from several seconds to several minutes between injections and with daily sessions of short duration (Corrigall and Coen 1989) or under conditions of prolonged access to nicotine (O’Dell et al. 2007; O’Dell and Koob 2007; Valentine et al. 1997). In contrast to cocaine, where intake progressively increases after prolonged access to the drug (Ahmed and Koob 1998; Paterson and Markou 2003), no escalation in intake has been found after prolonged access to nicotine (Paterson and Markou 2004), even after periods of time ranging up to two years in recent squirrel monkey experiments (Le Foll et al. 2007). Several studies suggest that rates of responding maintained by nicotine may be less than rates of responding maintained by cocaine when the amount of work required to obtain injections is increased in animals using progressive-ratio schedules (Goldberg and Henningfield 1988; Rasmussen and Swedberg 1998; Risner and Goldberg 1983) or that speed of acquisition of self-administration behavior may be slower than that with other drugs of abuse (Shoaib et al. 1997). However, some investigators have reported similar rates of responding for nicotine and other drugs of abuse in rodents (Paterson et al. 2004; Paterson and Markou 2003) and squirrel monkeys (Le Foll et al. 2007; Sannerud et al. 1994; Spealman and Goldberg 1982). Nevertheless, existing studies that have directly compared the reinforcing effects of nicotine to those of cocaine using progressive-ratio or choice schedules in the same animals, clearly suggest that the reinforcing effects of nicotine are weaker under progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement (Manzardo et al. 2002; Risner and Goldberg 1983) and that animals tend to prefer cocaine over nicotine, when given the access to both drugs during the same session (Manzardo et al. 2002).

The ability of nicotine to induce CPP has also been frequently studied (Fig. 2). In the CPP procedure, animals are tested in a drug-free state to determine whether they prefer an environment previously associated with the effects of nicotine as compared to an environment previously associated with effects of saline vehicle. Thus, this procedure relies on the capacity of stimuli associated with nicotine’s effects to elicit approach responses and increased time spent in the environment associated with nicotine’s effects and is used as a measure of reinforcing effects. Nicotine has been shown to induce CPP across a large range of doses in some experiments (Fig. 2B), but the magnitude of the effect is generally small and affected by environmental stimuli or previous handling history (Forget et al. 2005; Grabus et al. 2006; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005), suggesting that the reinforcing effects of nicotine may be weaker that those of other drugs of abuse. Nicotine also produced aversive effects at high dose is some, but not all, studies (Grabus et al. 2006; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005). It should be noted that nicotine lowers intracranial self-stimulation reward thresholds, as assessed by intracranial self-stimulation paradigm, an effect that indicates rewarding effects of nicotine in rodents (Huston-Lyons and Kornetsky 1992).

Experimental variables such as nicotine dose, handling history or environmental cues influence the reinforcing effects of nicotine both in the intravenous self-administration and the CPP procedures (Donny et al. 1998; Grabus et al. 2006; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005). It appears, for example, that adolescent rats, food-deprived animals and rats previously exposed to nicotine are more likely to acquire intravenous nicotine self-administration behavior or to develop nicotine-induced CPP, compared to rats that are not food-deprived or not previously exposed to nicotine (Adriani et al. 2003; Belluzzi et al. 2004; Corrigall and Coen 1989; Shoaib et al. 1997; Shoaib et al. 1994; Vastola et al. 2002). However, the most important variable appears to be environmental stimuli that are repeatedly associated with nicotine injection or marginally reinforcing stimuli whose effects are facilitated by nicotine exposure.

An extensive literature suggests that Pavlovian associative conditioning processes are implicated in the acquisition of motivational value by initially neutral stimuli that are repeatedly paired with the effects of drugs of abuse. In an early paper with monkeys published in 1981, it was first suggested that environmental stimuli associated with nicotine administration are critical for the maintenance of nicotine-seeking behavior (Goldberg et al. 1981). During these experiments, a light stimulus was repeatedly paired with nicotine delivery. Although responding ultimately depended on injections of nicotine, the brief light stimulus associated with injections played an important role in the maintenance of persistent responding, since rates of responding were about twice as high when the brief light was presented as when it was absent (Goldberg et al. 1981).

The critical role played by environmental stimuli in the reinforcing effects of nicotine has recently been demonstrated in rodents (see (Caggiula et al. 2002; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005) for detailed analysis). In those experiments, discontinuing presentation of environmental stimuli associated with intravenous nicotine injection decreased self-administration behavior almost as effectively as the removal of nicotine itself, indicating their critical role in sustaining drug-taking behavior (Caggiula et al. 2002; Caggiula et al. 2001; Donny et al. 2003). Moreover, in some experiments with rats (Cohen et al. 2005) and squirrel monkeys (Le Foll et al. 2007), the responding maintained by nicotine-associated light stimuli was equal to the responding maintained by nicotine itself. In addition, the contingent presentation of environmental light stimuli was able to maintain responding for prolonged period of time in rats (Cohen et al. 2005) and squirrel monkeys (Le Foll et al. 2007), demonstrating their persistent nature and their high motivational value. Finally, the use of behavioral procedures which do not have environmental stimuli directly paired with nicotine delivery has been reported to result in very low levels of drug-taking behavior in experiments with drug-naive mice (Paterson et al. 2003) and rats (Donny et al. 2003).

Nicotine, like other psychostimulant drugs (Hill 1970), also produces unconditioned effects that increase the ability of non-drug environmental stimuli to serve as reinforcers, independently of any direct temporal association between nicotine administration and stimulus presentation (Caggiula et al. 2002; Chaudhri et al. 2006; 2007; Olausson et al. 2003; 2004; Palmatier et al. 2007; Palmatier et al. 2007). As an example, in some experiments, noncontingent nicotine, whether delivered as discrete injections based on a pattern of self-administered nicotine or as a continuous infusion, increased response rates maintained by the visual stimulus. There were no significant differences in responding by animals that received contingent compared with noncontingent nicotine when a visual stimulus was available. Interestingly, operant behavior was equally attenuated and reinstated by the removal and subsequent replacement of contingent and noncontingent nicotine. Although nicotine supported self-administration in the absence of response-contingent, nicotine-paired stimuli; however, response rates were drastically reduced compared with nicotine self-administration with the visual stimulus (Donny et al. 2003). These experiments suggest that nicotine influences operant behavior in two ways: by acting as a primary reinforcer when it is contingent upon behavior, and by directly potentiating the reinforcing properties of other stimuli through a nonassociative mechanism. It is still unclear whether both processes occur concurrently in smokers, magnifying the role of associated environmental stimuli in nicotine self-administration and tobacco dependence, or whether one process predominates. Interestingly, these conditioning processes may also occur with sensorimotor stimuli of tobacco smoke (Rose et al. 2003; Rose et al. 2000) and this could explain the reduction in subjective reports of tobacco craving, desire to smoke, and tobacco withdrawal that are produced by placebo cigarettes in smokers (Butschky et al. 1995; Robinson et al. 2000).

Reinforcing effects of nicotine in humans

Critical variables determining whether or not nicotine functions effectively as a reinforcer of drug-seeking and drug-taking behavior in the laboratory are becoming clear. In human subjects studied under controlled laboratory conditions, reliable evidence that nicotine, by itself, can serve as an effective reinforcer of drug-taking behavior has until recently been primarily indirect. For example, cigarette smoke intake varies as a function of various manipulations affecting nicotine exposure, and pure nicotine medications (nicotine replacement therapy through patch, gum, nasal spray or inhaler) can be used as temporary or long term substitutes to facilitate smoking cessation (Fiore 2000; Le Foll and George in press). However, the persistent use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) provides only indirect evidence for reinforcing effects of nicotine in humans, since NRT use may be maintained by the knowledge of the subjects that it helps smoking cessation outcome. Nevertheless, in this situation, smokers will self-administer nicotine spray more than placebo over several days after quitting smoking (Perkins 2004). However, the reinforcing effects of nicotine gum in smokers are highly dependent on instructions given to them, suggesting that either pharmacological effects are not the only factors involved in the maintenance of use of NRT (Hughes 1989) or that instructions may affect the ability of the subject to derive the pharmacological effects from the gum.

An analysis of laboratory experiments evaluating self-administration of nicotine by intravenous injection or by nasal spray in human cigarette smokers concluded that clear differences between voluntary responding for nicotine injections and saline injections had not yet been demonstrated (Dar and Frenk 2004), although these conclusions have been disputed (Perkins 2004) and recent studies now clearly indicate that human smokers will self-administer nicotine intravenously (Harvey et al. 2004; Sofuoglu et al. 2007). In a recent study conducted with male cigarette smokers who had been smoking an average of 1.5 pack of cigarettes/day for an average of 13.4 years, nicotine was shown to act as an effective reinforcer of intravenous self-administration behavior (Harvey et al. 2004) (Fig. 2E–F). Before each session, a catheter was inserted in a forearm vein for delivery of nicotine or saline. During experimental sessions, subjects sat in a chair in a test room facing a test panel with two levers and a stimulus light over each lever. When the subject pulled either lever, there was an audible click and a response was recorded. Pulling one lever repeatedly produced intravenous injections of nicotine while pulling the other lever produced injections of saline. Note that each delivery of nicotine was associated with the presentation of a stimulus light. The number of lever-pull responses required to produce an injection varied between sessions from 10 to as high as 1600. As the response requirement increased, response rates on the nicotine lever increased substantially, while rates on the saline lever remained low (Fig. 2FD). The number of injections per session was markedly and significantly greater for nicotine than saline (Fig. 2E) and varied as a decreasing function of the dose of nicotine (Harvey et al. 2004). In these experiments, subjects adjusted their responding to increasing response requirements in a way that maintained relatively constant levels of nicotine injections per session. In another recent study, several doses of nicotine were preferred over placebo in a pure nicotine intravenous self-administration study in male and female cigarette smokers (Sofuoglu et al. 2007). The findings from these two studies clearly demonstrate that nicotine, by itself, in the absence of other constituents of tobacco smoke, can serve as an effective reinforcer of intravenous drug-taking behavior in human cigarette smokers.

The earlier difficulties in obtaining reliable intravenous nicotine self-administration and nicotine-induced conditioned place preferences across species and laboratories suggest that the reinforcing effects of nicotine, by itself, may be lower than the reinforcing effects of other drugs of abuse under many experimental conditions. These findings contrast with the apparently high reinforcing effects of tobacco smoke in human smokers. These discrepancies could be explained in part by different reinforcing effects of nicotine between species or by the influence of non-nicotine stimuli associated with smoking. An additional possibility is that the reinforcing properties of nicotine in tobacco smoke may be enhanced by other constituents of tobacco smoke. Recently, it has been shown that behavioral sensitization to nicotine, which has been implicated in drug dependence (Robinson and Berridge 1993; 2001), becomes long-lasting when nicotine is administered after treatment with a monoamine-oxidase inhibitor (Villegier et al. 2003), and tobacco smoke is known to contain many compounds, some of which are monoamine-oxidase inhibitors (Fowler et al. 1996; Fowler et al. 1996). Moreover, recent results obtained in rats suggest that treatment with MAO inhibitors may potentiate the reinforcing effects of intravenously self-administered nicotine (Guillem et al. 2005; 2006; Villegier et al. 2006). However, conflicting results have been obtained in mice (Agatsuma et al. 2006) and the results obtained in rats were obtained with a degree of MAO inhibition that is much higher than that observed in the brains of smokers (Fowler et al. 1996; Fowler et al. 1996). Further studies are needed in non-human primates and human subjects to validate those findings.

Another substance that is inhaled in cigarette smoke along with nicotine is acetaldehyde. Potentiation of the effects of nicotine by acetaldehyde has also been demonstrated in rodents (Belluzzi et al. 2004), although it is unclear how this substance diffuses into the brain of smokers and how it interacts in vivo with brain reward circuitry. Further experiments are needed to clarify the role of these constituents of tobacco smoke in the reinforcing effects of tobacco.

Subjective effects of nicotine in humans and discriminative and aversive effects in animals

Discriminative-stimulus effects of nicotine in experimental animals

The discriminative-stimulus effects of nicotine, which are extensively used as an animal correlate of subjective reports of nicotine effects in humans, are mainly mediated by neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR), since discrimination of nicotine can be blocked by mecamylamine, a nicotinic receptor antagonist that penetrates the blood-brain barrier, but not by the nicotinic receptor antagonist hexamethonium, which does not readily enter the brain (Kumar et al. 1987; Pratt et al. 1983; Stolerman 1999; Stolerman et al. 1984). These discriminative effects are mainly mediated by high affinity nicotinic receptors (Shoaib et al. 2002; Stolerman et al. 1997). Nevertheless, a dopaminergic component may also be involved (Corrigall and Coen 1994; Desai et al. 2003; Gasior et al. 1999; Le Foll et al. 2005). The areas of the brain that appear to be most strongly implicated in the mediation of nicotine’s discriminative stimulus effects are the prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum, but the hippocampus may also be involved (Ando et al. 1993; Miyata et al. 1999; 2002; Rosecrans and Meltzer 1981). It should be noted that the discriminative-stimulus effects of nicotine may not be related to the properties of nicotine that lead to nicotine self-administration and dependence, as suggested for other psychostimulant drugs (Spealman et al. 1999).

Aversive effects of nicotine in experimental animals

It has long been known that nicotine can produce both reinforcing and aversive effects, sometimes at the same dose, depending on the experimental conditions and the subject’s history (Goldberg et al. 1983; Henningfield and Goldberg 1983). In agreement, the same dose of nicotine may produce either positive or aversive motivational effects in rats using the place conditioning procedure (Laviolette and Van Der Kooy 2003; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005). Similarly, squirrel monkeys will learn to repeatedly press a lever in order to obtain intravenous injections of nicotine (Fig. 3B) (Goldberg et al. 1981). However, ongoing lever-press responding for food is completely suppressed (punished) when lever presses produce intravenous injections of the same dose of nicotine that can maintain self-administration behavior under other conditions (Fig. 3B) (Goldberg and Spealman 1983). Further, monkeys will learn to press a lever to avoid programmed injections of nicotine (Spealman 1983). Aversive effects of nicotine have also been demonstrated in rats using the conditioned taste aversion procedure with systemic nicotine injections (Reavill et al. 1986; Shoaib and Stolerman 1995; Stolerman 1988) and with intracranial infusions of nicotine (Laviolette and Van Der Kooy 2003; Shoaib and Stolerman 1995).

Figure 3
Subjective and discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine in experimental animals (A, B) and humans (C, D)

Discriminative-stimulus and aversive effects of nicotine in humans

Humans subjects can be trained to discriminate the effects of inhaled nicotine administered by nasal spray (Perkins et al. 1997) (Fig 3C). Interestingly, subjects reported both positive and negative effects following intravenous nicotine self-administration, although the positive effects were more pronounced (Fig. 2E) (Harvey et al. 2004). A recent review of the literature on subjective effects of nicotine in human subjects indicated that, across various delivery forms, nicotine increased ratings of positive effects in smokers, such as high, liking, and euphoria (Kalman 2002). Studies involving intravenous nicotine administration have reported similar positive effects, but have also shown that nicotine can elicit concurrent reports of negative effects, such as tension, jitteriness, and dysphoria (Garrett and Griffiths 2001; Henningfield et al. 1985; Jones et al. 1999; Soria et al. 1996). It is likely that subjective effects and reinforcing effects of drugs of abuse can be dissociated and that drugs of abuse may function as highly effective reinforcers even when they produce measurable reports of negative effects (Ettenberg and Geist 1991). Also, drugs of abuse may continue to function as highly effective reinforcers when dose is reduced to the point that reports of positive effects are absent (Lamb et al. 1991; Panlilio et al. 2005). Interestingly, it appears that discrimination procedures in animals and humans often provide similar results (Fig. 3). As an example, recent findings indicate that ethanol does not produce nicotine-like effects in rats (Le Foll and Goldberg 2005), as shown in humans (Perkins et al. 2005).

Nicotine withdrawal signs in experimental animals

A wide range of behavioral signs (e.g., teeth chattering, chewing, gasping, writhing, head shakes, body shakes, tremors) have been noted upon cessation of chronic nicotine exposure in experimental animals (Epping-Jordan et al. 1998; Isola et al. 1999; Malin et al. 1992; Paterson and Markou 2004; Suzuki et al. 1996). Generally, rats or mice are chronically implanted with minipumps which deliver nicotine continuously and withdrawal signs are seen after either removal of the pump or injection of a nicotinic antagonist (Malin et al. 1992; Watkins et al. 2000). To monitor physical signs of withdrawal, the number of occurrences of each sign is counted and the subject’s overall withdrawal score is the number of signs cumulated across all categories (Malin et al. 1992). These behavioral withdrawal signs have been termed “somatic abstinence signs” or “somatic behavioral signs”.

The physical signs of nicotine withdrawal often are accompanied by behavioral disturbances, such as higher electrical thresholds for intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS), suggesting hypoactivity of brain reward pathways (Epping-Jordan et al. 1998). Interestingly, with mild nicotine withdrawal, indications of emotional disturbance are more likely to appear than are the behavioral somatic signs listed above. Nicotine withdrawal is also associated with avoidance behavior. Rats will avoid a compartment associated with mecamylamine-precipitated nicotine abstinence using a conditioned place preference procedure (Suzuki et al. 1996). Nicotine also has antidepressant-like effects in the forced-swim test (Tizabi et al. 1999; Tizabi et al. 2000) in Flinders-sensitive rats, a strain of rat that has been proposed as an animal model of depression (Overstreet 1995; Overstreet et al. 1995). The available evidence suggests that different underlying neurochemical deficits mediate somatic and affective components of nicotine withdrawal (see (Kenny and Markou 2001) for a review).

Nicotine-withdrawal signs and symptoms in humans

Tobacco withdrawal induces a wide range of signs and symptoms in human smokers (Hughes et al. 1991; Hughes and Hatsukami 1986). For tobacco users trying to quit, symptoms of withdrawal from nicotine are unpleasant and stressful, but temporary. Since nicotine replacement therapy strongly decreases the intensity of withdrawal symptoms (Hughes et al. 1984; West et al. 1984), it is assumed that the decrease in nicotine levels is responsible for the tobacco withdrawal symptoms in humans. Reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes can also result in a withdrawal syndrome (West et al. 1984), as well as ceasing the use of nicotine gum (Hughes et al. 1986; West and Russell 1985). Signs and symptoms of nicotine withdrawal include any or all of the following: headache, nausea, constipation or diarrhea, falling heart rate and blood pressure, fatigue, drowsiness and insomnia, irritability, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, depression, increased hunger and caloric intake, increased pleasantness of the taste of sweets, and tobacco cravings. Most withdrawal signs and symptoms peak 48 hours after quitting tobacco smoking and are completely gone in six months (Le Foll et al. 2005). Slowing of heart rate and weight gain are distinguishing features of tobacco withdrawal, compared to other drugs of abuse (Hughes et al. 1994).

Interestingly, cessation of tobacco use increases the risk of depression (Glassman et al. 1990) and this vulnerability persists for several months (Glassman et al. 2001). However, it is unclear if this effect reflects an increased risk of depression or a relapse to depression. There is some evidence that nicotine itself may possess antidepressant properties in humans (Salin-Pascual and Drucker-Colin 1998; Salin-Pascual et al. 1996) (see Picciotto et al. 2002 for a review), but these results have not yet been validated in placebo-controlled clinical trials (Thorsteinsson et al. 2001). Also, tobacco smoke contains chemical substances other than nicotine that may have antidepressant effects, possibly through the prolonged inhibition of monoamine oxidase A and B in the brain (Berlin and Anthenelli 2001; Fowler et al. 1996; Fowler et al. 1996; Meyer et al. 2006). The increased risk of depression following smoking cessation may be related to factors other than nicotine. Nevertheless, withdrawal symptoms that occur following smoking cessation may contribute to difficulties in quitting smoking.

Relapse models: influence of stress, drug priming and presentation of cues

‘Relapse’ in experimental animals

The animal model most frequently used to study relapse phenomena is reinstatement of extinguished drug self-administration behavior (see (Epstein and Preston 2003; Katz and Higgins 2003; Shaham et al. 2003) for reviews and discussions on the limitations of the reinstatement model in animals to study relapse in humans). Only limited research has been conducted with nicotine, as compared to other drugs of abuse. Various factors thought to trigger relapse in humans appear able to reinstate nicotine-seeking in laboratory animals. Studies in rats have shown that non-contingent administration of nicotine during extinction of nicotine self-administration behavior reinstates responding previously reinforced by nicotine (Andreoli et al. 2003; Chiamulera et al. 1996; Dravolina et al. 2007; Lindblom et al. 2002; Shaham et al. 1997) (and Le Foll et al., unpublished studies). However, the effect of nicotine priming is weak in some studies as compared to other drugs of abuse (Erb et al. 1996; Shaham et al. 1996) and effects are not found consistently (Lesage et al. 2004). Exposure to drug-paired stimuli also appears effective in reinstating extinguished nicotine-seeking behavior (Dravolina et al. 2007; Lesage et al. 2004; Liu et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2007) and in facilitating the reacquisition of nicotine self-administration behavior after a period of extinction (Caggiula et al. 2001). However, some investigators have found no effect of exposure to nicotine-paired stimuli on nicotine-seeking behavior (Andreoli et al. 2003). Exposure to stressors is also able to reinstate extinguished nicotine-seeking behavior (Buczek et al. 1999). Although all of these experiments are not entirely consistent (see above), it appears that extinguished nicotine-seeking behavior generally can be reinstated by all factors that are effective in reinstating extinguished cocaine- or heroin-seeking behavior.

The existing treatments available to treat human smokers (Fiore et al. 2000; Le Foll and George in press) have only recently been evaluated in animal models of nicotine dependence. The major findings are listed in Table 1. This Table also reports the results obtained with drugs that have been tested both in animals and humans (for more extensive reviews see (Cryan et al. 2003; George and O’Malley 2004). It appears that nicotine replacement therapy (LeSage et al. 2003; LeSage et al. 2002) and bupropion (Bruijnzeel and Markou 2003; Rauhut et al. 2003; Shoaib et al. 2003) are able to affect nicotine self-administration behavior, but the results have not been consistent across studies with bupropion (perhaps due to the role of bupropion metabolites in the therapeutic efficacy of this drug). Nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion also are effective in attenuating nicotine withdrawal signs and symptoms. These drugs have not been evaluated in animal models of nicotine relapse. Varenicline (a nicotinic receptor partial agonist) is also an efficacious agent to treat tobacco dependence (Gonzales et al. 2006; Jorenby et al. 2006; Nides et al. 2006; Oncken et al. 2006; Tonstad et al. 2006) and it produces some effects on nicotine discrimination and on nicotine self-administration (Rollema et al. 2007). Recent evidence suggests that innovative approaches such as the blockade of cannabinoid CB1 receptors (Cohen et al. 2005; Forget et al. 2005; Le Foll and Goldberg 2004; 2005) or blockade of dopamine D3 receptors (Andreoli et al. 2003; Le Foll et al. 2005; Le Foll et al. 2003; Le Foll et al. 2005), which are over-expressed in the brain of nicotine-treated animals (Le Foll et al. 2003; Le Foll et al. 2003), decreases the influence of nicotine-associated stimuli or nicotine priming on nicotine-seeking behavior (Le Foll and Goldberg 2005; Le Foll et al. 2007).

Table 1
Summary of effects of different drugs that have been tested both in experimental animals and human smokers.

Relapse in humans

Tobacco-seeking, craving and relapse in humans are well known to be triggered by environmental stimuli, or ‘cues’, that have acquired motivational salience through repeated associations with self-administered nicotine (O’Brien 2003; Shiffman et al. 2000; Shiffman et al. 1986), but may also be triggered by withdrawal symptoms and tobacco smoking in abstinent subjects. Nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline, the three medications currently available for smoking cessation, are effective in increasing smoking cessation rates (i.e. decreased relapse rates) and are partly effective in reducing reports of craving for cigarettes in abstinent smokers (Jorenby 2002). Nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion and varenicline may act by attenuating tobacco withdrawal symptoms (Coe et al. 2005; Shiffman et al. 2000; Shiffman et al. 2000) (Table 1). Varenicline, the newest medication approved for the treatment of smokers (Cahill et al. 2007) is a nicotinic receptor partial agonist (Cahill et al. 2007). Through its intrinsic partial activation of α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, it may counteract withdrawal symptoms during smoking cessation attempts. Additionally, by competitively binding to α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, it may shield the smoker from nicotine-induced dopaminergic activation in the event that they smoke. Thus, varenicline may disrupt the reinforcing effects of tobacco and reduce nicotine withdrawal symptoms. Although this medication is efficacious in preventing smoking relapse (Tonstad et al. 2006), its effects on reactivity to associated with nicotine or tobacco smoking have not yet been assessed. Continuous nicotine replacement therapy by skin patches seems relatively ineffective in attenuating reports of craving produced by smoking-associated stimuli (cues) in smokers (Tiffany et al. 2000; Waters et al. 2004). Interestingly, nicotine gum has recently been shown to be efficacious in reducing cue-induced craving for cigarettes (Shiffman et al. 2003). These different effects of nicotine patches and gum may be due either to the tolerance that occurrs with continuous exposure to nicotine through skin patches or to the failure to specifically evaluate effects of the skin patches in the subgroup of subjects displaying a high degree of cue-reactivity. Recent imaging studies suggest that reports of craving and brain activation induced by environmental stimuli (‘cues’) associated with tobacco smoking, are related to limbic brain areas (Brody et al. 2002; Due et al. 2002) and are reduced by bupropion (Brody et al. 2004). Rimonabant also seems effective in preventing relapse to tobacco use in abstinent smokers (Anthenelli and Despres 2004) (Table 1). Although Rimonabant appears to decrease the reactivity to nicotine-associated stimuli in animals, parallel experiments have not yet been conducted in humans.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, nicotine functions as an effective reinforcer of drug-seeking and drug-taking in both humans and experimental animals. In intravenous drug self-administration studies, nicotine can serve as a prototypical drug of abuse under certain conditions, maintaining very high levels of operant responding that are clearly distinguishable from responding maintained by saline placebo in both experimental animals and human smokers. Nicotine is also able to induce significant CPP in rodents. Thus, reinforcing effects of nicotine have now been clearly demonstrated across procedures and across different experimental species. These procedures have revealed that nicotinic acetylcholine receptors containing the α4 and the β2 subunits (Picciotto et al. 1998; Tapper et al. 2004), but also cannabinoid, glutamate and γ-aminobutyric acid receptors are involved in nicotine dependence processes (Le Foll and Goldberg 2005; Liechti et al. 2007; Paterson et al. 2004) (see also chapters from Dr Balfour and Collins et al.). Analysis of the discriminative effects of nicotine in experimental animals and reports of subjective effects of nicotine in humans reveal a complex global effect with both positive and negative components. Both the positive and negative effects of nicotine are affected by environmental conditions and the context of the experiments, factors that may explain the difficulties in obtaining reliable results with nicotine in the past.

As with other drugs of abuse, cessation of nicotine exposure induces a withdrawal syndrome that is associated with both physical and emotional signs and symptoms. Nicotine usage may be continued by some subjects to prevent or relieve these withdrawal symptoms and, perhaps, also to prevent depression that may occur following smoking cessation. As with other drugs of abuse, nicotine priming and exposure to nicotine-associated stimuli or stressors produce reinstatement or relapse, both in experimental animals and humans. Medications that are effective in humans for increasing smoking cessation rates generally appear effective in reducing intravenous nicotine self-administration, nicotine withdrawal signs and the effects on behavior of presentating nicotine-associated environmental stimuli, demonstrating again a strong analogy between responding of experimental animals and humans. All of these findings indicate that nicotine can act like a typical drug of abuse both in animals and humans. In addition, innovative pharmacological treatment approaches, such as the use of dopamine D3 antagonists (Le Foll et al. 2005; Le Foll et al. 2000; Pak et al. 2006) or cannabinoid CB1 antagonists (Cohen et al. 2005; Forget et al. 2005; Le Foll and Goldberg 2005), are under development and show promise of being able to selectively block relapse phenomenon.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this review was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of NIDA, NIH, DHHS, and by a new investigator grant awarded to BLF from the Tobacco Use in Special Population Training program of CIHR.

References

  • Adriani W, Spijker S, Deroche-Gamonet V, Laviola G, Le Moal M, Smit AB, Piazza PV. Evidence for enhanced neurobehavioral vulnerability to nicotine during periadolescence in rats. J Neurosci. 2003;23:4712–6. [PubMed]
  • Agatsuma S, Lee M, Zhu H, Chen K, Shih JC, Seif I, Hiroi N. Monoamine oxidase A knockout mice exhibit impaired nicotine preference but normal responses to novel stimuli. Hum Mol Genet. 2006;15:2721–31. [PubMed]
  • Ahmed SH, Koob GF. Transition from moderate to excessive drug intake: change in hedonic set point. Science. 1998;282:298–300. [PubMed]
  • American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
  • Ando K, Miyata H, Hironaka N, Tsuda T, Yanagita T. The discriminative effects of nicotine and their central sites in rats. Yakubutsu Seishin Kodo. 1993;13:129–36. [PubMed]
  • Andreoli M, Tessari M, Pilla M, Valerio E, Hagan JJ, Heidbreder CA. Selective antagonism at dopamine D3 receptors prevents nicotine-triggered relapse to nicotine-seeking behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28:1272–80. [PubMed]
  • Anthenelli RM, Despres JP. Effects of Rimonabant in the reduction of major cardiovascular risk factors. Results from the STRATUS-US trial (smoking cessation in smokers motivated to quit) American College of Cardiology 53rd Annual Scientific Session; New Orleans, LA, USA. 2004.
  • Arroyo M, Markou A, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. Acquisition, maintenance and reinstatement of intravenous cocaine self-administration under a second-order schedule of reinforcement in rats: effects of conditioned cues and continuous acces to cocaine. Psychopharmacology. 1999;140:331–44. [PubMed]
  • Ator NA, Griffiths RR. Nicotine self-administration in baboons. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1983;19:993–1003. [PubMed]
  • Balster RL. Preclinical methods for the development of pharmacotherapies of cocaine abuse. In: Harris LS, editor. Problems of Drug Dependence. National Institute on drug Abuse; Rockville: 1992. pp. 160–164. [PubMed]
  • Bardo MT, Bevins RA. Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2000;153:31–43. [PubMed]
  • Belluzzi JD, Lee AG, Oliff HS, Leslie FM. Age-dependent effects of nicotine on locomotor activity and conditioned place preference in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;174:389–95. [PubMed]
  • Belluzzi JD, Wang R, Leslie FM. Acetaldehyde Enhances Acquisition of Nicotine Self-Administration in Adolescent Rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 2004 [PubMed]
  • Berlin I, Anthenelli RM. Monoamine oxidases and tobacco smoking. IntJ Neuropsychopharmacol. 2001;4:33–42. [PubMed]
  • Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, Lee G, Smith E, Sadeghi M, Saxena S, Jarvik ME, London ED. Attenuation of cue-induced cigarette craving and anterior cingulate cortex activation in bupropion-treated smokers: a preliminary study. Psychiatry Res. 2004;130:269–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Childress AR, Lee GS, Bota RG, Ho ML, Saxena S, Baxter LR, Jr, Madsen D, Jarvik ME. Brain metabolic changes during cigarette craving. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002;59:1162–72. [PubMed]
  • Brower VG, Fu Y, Matta SG, Sharp BM. Rat strain differences in nicotine self-administration using an unlimited access paradigm. Brain Res. 2002;930:12–20. [PubMed]
  • Bruijnzeel AW, Markou A. Characterization of the effects of bupropion on the reinforcing properties of nicotine and food in rats. Synapse. 2003;50:20–8. [PubMed]
  • Buczek Y, Le AD, Stewart J, Shaham Y. Stress reinstates nicotine seeking but not sucrose solution seeking in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999;144:183–8. [PubMed]
  • Butschky MF, Bailey D, Henningfield JE, Pickworth WB. Smoking without nicotine delivery decreases withdrawal in 12-hour abstinent smokers. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1995;50:91–6. [PubMed]
  • Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Chaudhri N, Perkins KA, Evans-Martin FF, Sved AF. Importance of nonpharmacological factors in nicotine self-administration. Physiol Behav. 2002;77:683–7. [PubMed]
  • Caggiula AR, Donny EC, White AR, Chaudhri N, Booth S, Gharib MA, Hoffman A, Perkins KA, Sved AF. Cue dependency of nicotine self-administration and smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2001;70:515–30. [PubMed]
  • Cahill K, Stead LF, Lancaster T. Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007:CD006103. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006103.pub2. Art. No. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Chance WT, Murfin D, Krynock GM, Rosecrans JA. A description of the nicotine stimulus and tests of its generalization to amphetamine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1977;55:19–26. [PubMed]
  • Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Booth S, Gharib M, Craven L, Palmatier MI, Liu X, Sved AF. Operant responding for conditioned and unconditioned reinforcers in rats is differentially enhanced by the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects of nicotine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;189:27–36. [PubMed]
  • Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Booth S, Gharib M, Craven L, Palmatier MI, Liu X, Sved AF. Self-administered and noncontingent nicotine enhance reinforced operant responding in rats: impact of nicotine dose and reinforcement schedule. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2007;190:353–62. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Palmatier MI, Liu X, Sved AF. Complex interactions between nicotine and nonpharmacological stimuli reveal multiple roles for nicotine in reinforcement. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005 in press. [PubMed]
  • Chiamulera C, Borgo C, Falchetto S, Valerio E, Tessari M. Nicotine reinstatement of nicotine self-administration after long-term extinction. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1996;127:102–7. [PubMed]
  • Coe JW, Brooks PR, Vetelino MG, Wirtz MC, Arnold EP, Huang J, Sands SB, Davis TI, Lebel LA, Fox CB, Shrikhande A, Heym JH, Schaeffer E, Rollema H, Lu Y, Mansbach RS, Chambers LK, Rovetti CC, Schulz DW, Tingley FD, 3rd, O’Neill BT. Varenicline: an alpha4beta2 nicotinic receptor partial agonist for smoking cessation. J Med Chem. 2005;48:3474–7. [PubMed]
  • Cohen C, Perrault G, Griebel G, Soubrie P. Nicotine-Associated Cues Maintain Nicotine-Seeking Behavior in Rats Several Weeks after Nicotine Withdrawal: Reversal by the Cannabinoid (CB(1)) Receptor Antagonist, Rimonabant (SR141716) Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:145–155. [PubMed]
  • Cohen C, Perrault G, Voltz C, Steinberg R, Soubrie P. SR141716, a central cannabinoid (CB(1)) receptor antagonist, blocks the motivational and dopamine-releasing effects of nicotine in rats. Behav Pharmacol. 2002;13:451–63. [PubMed]
  • Colpaert FC. Drug discrimination in neurobiology. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1999;64:337–45. [PubMed]
  • Corrigall WA, Coen KM. Nicotine maintains robust self-administration in rats on a limited-access schedule. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1989;99:473–8. [PubMed]
  • Corrigall WA, Coen KM. Dopamine mechanisms play at best a small role in the nicotine discriminative stimulus. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1994;48:817–20. [PubMed]
  • Cryan JF, Bruijnzeel AW, Skjei KL, Markou A. Bupropion enhances brain reward function and reverses the affective and somatic aspects of nicotine withdrawal in the rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;168:347–58. [PubMed]
  • Cryan JF, Gasparini F, van Heeke G, Markou A. Non-nicotinic neuropharmacological strategies for nicotine dependence: beyond bupropion. Drug Discov Today. 2003;8:1025–34. [PubMed]
  • Dar R, Frenk H. Nicotine self-administration in animals: a reevaluation. Addict Res Theory. 2002;10:545–579.
  • Dar R, Frenk H. Do smokers self-administer pure nicotine? A review of the evidence. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;173:18–26. [PubMed]
  • de Wit H, Stewart J. Reinstatement of cocaine-reinforced responding in the rat. Psychopharmacol. 1981;75:134–143. [PubMed]
  • Deneau GA, Inoki R. Nicotine self-administration in monkeys. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1967;142:277–279.
  • DeNoble VJ, Mele PC. Intravenous nicotine self-administration in rats: effects of mecamylamine, hexamethonium and naloxone. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005 in press. [PubMed]
  • Deroche-Gamonet V, Belin D, Piazza PV. Evidence for addiction-like behavior in the rat. Science. 2004;305:1014–7. [PubMed]
  • Desai RI, Barber DJ, Terry P. Dopaminergic and cholinergic involvement in the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine and cocaine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;167:335–43. [PubMed]
  • Donny EC, Caggiula AR, Knopf S, Brown C. Nicotine self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1995;122:390–94. [PubMed]
  • Donny EC, Caggiula AR, Mielke MM, Booth S, Gharib MA, Hoffman A, Maldovan V, Shupenko C, McCallum SE. Nicotine self-administration in rats on a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999;147:135–42. [PubMed]
  • Donny EC, Caggiula AR, Mielke MM, Jacobs KS, Rose C, Sved AF. Acquisition of nicotine self-administration in rats: the effects of dose, feeding schedule, and drug contingency. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1998;136:83–90. [PubMed]
  • Donny EC, Chaudhri N, Caggiula AR, Evans-Martin FF, Booth S, Gharib MA, Clements LA, Sved AF. Operant responding for a visual reinforcer in rats is enhanced by noncontingent nicotine: implications for nicotine self-administration and reinforcement. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;169:68–76. [PubMed]
  • Dravolina OA, Zakharova ES, Shekunova EV, Zvartau EE, Danysz W, Bespalov AY. mGlu1 receptor blockade attenuates cue- and nicotine-induced reinstatement of extinguished nicotine self-administration behavior in rats. Neuropharmacology. 2007;52:263–9. [PubMed]
  • Due DL, Huettel SA, Hall WG, Rubin DC. Activation in mesolimbic and visuospatial neural circuits elicited by smoking cues: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:954–60. [PubMed]
  • Epping-Jordan MP, Watkins SS, Koob GF, Markou A. Dramatic decreases in brain reward function during nicotine withdrawal. Nature. 1998;393:76–9. [PubMed]
  • Epstein DH, Preston KL. The reinstatement model and relapse prevention: a clinical perspective. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;168:31–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Erb S, Shaham Y, Stewart J. Stress reinstates cocaine-seeking behavior after prolonged extinction and a drug-free period. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1996;128:408–12. [PubMed]
  • Ettenberg A, Geist TD. Animal model for investigating the anxiogenic effects of self-administered cocaine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1991;103:455–61. [PubMed]
  • Everitt BJ, Robbins TW. Second-order schedules of drug reinforcement in rats and monkeys: measurement of reinforcing efficacy and drug-seeking behaviour. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2000;153:17–30. [PubMed]
  • Fiore MC. US public health service clinical practice guideline: treating tobacco use and dependence. Respir Care. 2000;45:1200–62. [PubMed]
  • Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, Dorfman SF, Goldstein MG, Gritz ER. Clinical practice guideline. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. Public Health Service; 2000. Treating tobacco use and dependence.
  • Forget B, Barthelemy S, Saurini F, Hamon M, Thiebot MH. Differential involvement of the endocannabinoid system in short- and long-term expression of incentive learning supported by nicotine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;189:59–69. [PubMed]
  • Forget B, Hamon M, Thiebot MH. Cannabinoid CB1 receptors are involved in motivational effects of nicotine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005;181:722–34. [PubMed]
  • Fowler JS, Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Pappas N, Logan J, MacGregor R, Alexoff D, Shea C, Schlyer D, Wolf AP, Warner D, Zezulkova I, Cilento R. Inhibition of monoamine oxidase B in the brains of smokers. Nature. 1996;379:733–6. [PubMed]
  • Fowler JS, Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Pappas N, Logan J, Shea C, Alexoff D, MacGregor RR, Schlyer DJ, Zezulkova I, Wolf AP. Brain monoamine oxidase A inhibition in cigarette smokers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93:14065–9. [PubMed]
  • Garrett BE, Griffiths RR. Intravenous nicotine and caffeine: subjective and physiological effects in cocaine abusers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;296:486–94. [PubMed]
  • Gasior M, Shoaib M, Yasar S, Jaszyna M, Goldberg SR. Acquisition of nicotine discrimination and discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine in rats chronically exposed to caffeine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;288:1053–73. [PubMed]
  • George TP, O’Malley SS. Current pharmacological treatments for nicotine dependence. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2004;25:42–8. [PubMed]
  • Glassman AH, Covey LS, Stetner F, Rivelli S. Smoking cessation and the course of major depression: a follow-up study. Lancet. 2001;357:1929–32. [PubMed]
  • Glassman AH, Helzer JE, Covey LS, Cottler LB, Stetner F, Tipp JE, Johnson J. Smoking, smoking cessation, and major depression. Jama. 1990;264:1546–9. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR. Stimuli associated with drug injections as events that control behavior. Pharmacol Rev. 1975;27:325–340. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Gardner ML. Second-order schedules: extended sequences of behavior controlled by brief environmental stimuli associated with drug self-administration. NIDA Res Monogr. 1981;37:241–70. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Henningfield JE. Reinforcing effects of nicotine in humans and experimental animals responding under intermittent schedules of i.v. drug injection. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1988;30:227–34. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Kelleher RT, Goldberg DM. Fixed-ratio responding under second-order schedules of food presentation or cocaine injection. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1981;218:271–281. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Kelleher RT, Morse WH. Second-order schedules of drug injection. Fed Proc. 1975;34:1771–1776. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Spealman RD. Suppression of behavior by intravenous injections of nicotine or by electric shocks in squirrel monkeys: effects of chlordiazepoxide and mecamylamine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1983;224:334–40. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Spealman RD, Goldberg DM. Persistent behavior at high rates maintained by intravenous self-administration of nicotine. Science. 1981;214:573–5. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Spealman RD, Kelleher RT. Enhancement of drug-seeking behavior by environmental stimuli associated with cocaine or morphine injections. Neuropharmacology. 1979;18:1015–1017. [PubMed]
  • Goldberg SR, Spealman RD, Risner ME, Henningfield JE. Control of behavior by intravenous nicotine injections in laboratory animals. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1983;19:1011–20. [PubMed]
  • Gonzales D, Rennard SI, Nides M, Oncken C, Azoulay S, Billing CB, Watsky EJ, Gong J, Williams KE, Reeves KR. Varenicline, an alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2006;296:47–55. [PubMed]
  • Grabus SD, Martin BR, Brown SE, Damaj MI. Nicotine place preference in the mouse: influences of prior handling, dose and strain and attenuation by nicotinic receptor antagonists. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;184:456–63. [PubMed]
  • Guillem K, Vouillac C, Azar MR, Parsons LH, Koob GF, Cador M, Stinus L. Monoamine oxidase inhibition dramatically increases the motivation to self-administer nicotine in rats. J Neurosci. 2005;25:8593–600. [PubMed]
  • Guillem K, Vouillac C, Azar MR, Parsons LH, Koob GF, Cador M, Stinus L. Monoamine oxidase A rather than monoamine oxidase B inhibition increases nicotine reinforcement in rats. Eur J Neurosci. 2006;24:3532–40. [PubMed]
  • Harvey DM, Yasar S, Heishman SJ, Panlilio LV, Henningfield JE, Goldberg SR. Nicotine serves as an effective reinforcer of intravenous drug-taking behavior in human cigarette smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;175:134–142. [PubMed]
  • Henningfield JE, Goldberg SR. Control of behavior by intravenous nicotine injections in human subjects. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1983;19:1021–6. [PubMed]
  • Henningfield JE, Goldberg SR. Nicotine as a reinforcer in human subjects and laboratory animals. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1983;19:989–92. [PubMed]
  • Henningfield JE, Miyasato K, Jasinski DR. Abuse liability and pharmacodynamic characteristics of intravenous and inhaled nicotine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1985;234:1–12. [PubMed]
  • Hill RT. Facilitation of conditioned reinforcement as a mechanism of psychomotor stimulation. In: Garattimi ECaS., editor. Amphetamines and related compounds. Raven; New York: 1970. pp. 781–795.
  • Hodos W. Progressive Ratio as a Measure of Reward Strength. Science. 1961;134:943–944. [PubMed]
  • Huestis MA, Gorelick DA, Heishman SJ, Preston KL, Nelson RA, Moolchan ET, Frank RA. Blockade of effects of smoked marijuana by the CB1-selective cannabinoid receptor antagonist SR141716. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:322–8. [PubMed]
  • Hughes JR. Environmental determinants of the reinforcing effects of nicotine in humans. J Subst Abuse. 1989;1:319–29. [PubMed]
  • Hughes JR, Gust SW, Skoog K, Keenan RM, Fenwick JW. Symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. A replication and extension. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;48:52–9. [PubMed]
  • Hughes JR, Hatsukami D. Signs and symptoms of tobacco withdrawal. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986;43:289–94. [PubMed]
  • Hughes JR, Hatsukami DK, Pickens RW, Krahn D, Malin S, Luknic A. Effect of nicotine on the tobacco withdrawal syndrome. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1984;83:82–7. [PubMed]
  • Hughes JR, Hatsukami DK, Skoog KP. Physical dependence on nicotine in gum. A placebo substitution trial. Jama. 1986;255:3277–9. [PubMed]
  • Hughes JR, Higgins ST, Bickel WK. Nicotine withdrawal versus other drug withdrawal syndromes: similarities and dissimilarities. Addiction. 1994;89:1461–70. [PubMed]
  • Hurt RD, Sachs DP, Glover ED, Offord KP, Johnston JA, Dale LC, Khayrallah MA, Schroeder DR, Glover PN, Sullivan CR, Croghan IT, Sullivan PM. A comparison of sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1195–202. [PubMed]
  • Huston-Lyons D, Kornetsky C. Effects of nicotine on the threshold for rewarding brain stimulation in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1992;41:755–9. [PubMed]
  • Isola R, Vogelsberg V, Wemlinger TA, Neff NH, Hadjiconstantinou M. Nicotine abstinence in the mouse. Brain Res. 1999;850:189–96. [PubMed]
  • Jones HE, Garrett BE, Griffiths RR. Subjective and physiological effects of intravenous nicotine and cocaine in cigarette smoking cocaine abusers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;288:188–97. [PubMed]
  • Jorenby D. Clinical efficacy of bupropion in the management of smoking cessation. Drugs. 2002;62(Suppl 2):25–35. [PubMed]
  • Jorenby DE, Hays JT, Rigotti NA, Azoulay S, Watsky EJ, Williams KE, Billing CB, Gong J, Reeves KR. Efficacy of varenicline, an alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, vs placebo or sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2006;296:56–63. [PubMed]
  • Jorenby DE, Leischow SJ, Nides MA, Rennard SI, Johnston JA, Hughes AR, Smith SS, Muramoto ML, Daughton DM, Doan K, Fiore MC, Baker TB. A controlled trial of sustained-release bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:685–91. [PubMed]
  • Kalman D. The subjective effects of nicotine: methodological issues, a review of experimental studies, and recommendations for future research. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4:25–70. [PubMed]
  • Katz JL, Goldberg SR. Preclinical assessment of abuse liability of drugs. Agents Actions. 1988;23:18–26. [PubMed]
  • Katz JL, Higgins ST. The validity of the reinstatement model of craving and relapse to drug use. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;168:21–30. [PubMed]
  • Kenny PJ, Markou A. Neurobiology of the nicotine withdrawal syndrome. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2001;70:531–49. [PubMed]
  • Kumar R, Reavill C, Stolerman IP. Nicotine cue in rats: effects of central administration of ganglion-blocking drugs. Br J Pharmacol. 1987;90:239–46. [PubMed]
  • Lamb RJ, Preston KL, Schindler CW, Meisch RA, Davis F, Katz JL, Henningfield JE, Goldberg SR. The reinforcing and subjective effects of morphine in post-addicts: a dose-response study. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1991;259:1165–73. [PubMed]
  • Laviolette SR, Van Der Kooy D. Blockade of mesolimbic dopamine transmission dramatically increases sensitivity to the rewarding effects of nicotine in the ventral tegmental area. Mol Psychiatry. 2003;8:50–9. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Diaz J, Sokoloff P. Increased dopamine D3 receptor expression accompanying behavioural sensitization to nicotine in rats. Synapse. 2003;47:176–83. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, George TP. Treatment of tobacco dependence: integrating recent progress into practice. CMAJ (in press) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR. Rimonabant, a CB1 antagonist, blocks nicotine-conditioned place preferences. Neuroreport. 2004;15:2139–2143. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR. Cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonists as promising new medications for drug dependence. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005;312:875–883. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR. Control of the reinforcing effects of nicotine by associated environmental stimuli in animals and humans. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2005;26:287–93. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR. Ethanol does not affect discriminative-stimulus effects of nicotine in rats. Eur J Pharmacol. 2005;519:96–102. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR. Nicotine induces conditioned place preferences over a large range of doses in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005;178:481–492. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR. Nicotine as a typical drug of abuse in experimental animals and humans. Psychopharmacology(Berl) 2006;184:367–381. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR, Sokoloff P. Dopamine D3 receptor and drug dependence: effect on reward or beyond? Neuropharmacology. 2005;49:525–541. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Goldberg SR, Sokoloff P. Dopamine D3 receptor ligands for the treatment of tobacco dependence. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2007;16:45–57. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Melihan-Cheinin P, Rostoker G, Lagrue G. for the working group of AFSSAPS. Smoking cessation guidelines: evidence-based recommendations of the French Health Products Safety Agency. Eur Psychiatry. 2005;20:431–441. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Schwartz J-C, Sokoloff P. Dopamine D3 receptor agents as potential new medications for drug addiction. Eur Psychiatry. 2000;15:140–6. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Schwartz J-C, Sokoloff P. Disruption of nicotine conditioning by dopamine D3 receptor ligands. Molecular Psychiatry. 2003;8:225–30. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Sokoloff P, Stark H, Goldberg SR. Dopamine D3 ligands block nicotine-induced conditioned place preferences through a mechanism that does not involve discriminative-stimulus or antidepressant-like effects. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:720–730. [PubMed]
  • Le Foll B, Wertheim C, Goldberg SR. High reinforcing efficacy of nicotine in non-human primates. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e230. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lesage MG, Burroughs D, Dufek M, Keyler DE, Pentel PR. Reinstatement of nicotine self-administration in rats by presentation of nicotine-paired stimuli, but not nicotine priming. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2004;79:507–13. [PubMed]
  • LeSage MG, Keyler DE, Collins G, Pentel PR. Effects of continuous nicotine infusion on nicotine self-administration in rats: relationship between continuously infused and self-administered nicotine doses and serum concentrations. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;170:278–86. [PubMed]
  • LeSage MG, Keyler DE, Shoeman D, Raphael D, Collins G, Pentel PR. Continuous nicotine infusion reduces nicotine self-administration in rats with 23-h/day access to nicotine. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2002;72:279–89. [PubMed]
  • Liechti ME, Lhuillier L, Kaupmann K, Markou A. Metabotropic glutamate 2/3 receptors in the ventral tegmental area and the nucleus accumbens shell are involved in behaviors relating to nicotine dependence. J Neurosci. 2007;27:9077–85. [PubMed]
  • Lindblom N, de Villiers SH, Kalayanov G, Gordon S, Johansson AM, Svensson TH. Active immunization against nicotine prevents reinstatement of nicotine-seeking behavior in rats. Respiration. 2002;69:254–60. [PubMed]
  • Liu X, Caggiula AR, Yee SK, Nobuta H, Poland RE, Pechnick RN. Reinstatement of nicotine-seeking behavior by drug-associated stimuli after extinction in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;184:417–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Liu X, Caggiula AR, Yee SK, Nobuta H, Sved AF, Pechnick RN, Poland RE. Mecamylamine attenuates cue-induced reinstatement of nicotine-seeking behavior in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32:710–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Malin DH, Lake JR, Newlin-Maultsby P, Roberts LK, Lanier JG, Carter VA, Cunningham JS, Wilson OB. Rodent model of nicotine abstinence syndrome. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1992;43:779–84. [PubMed]
  • Manzardo AM, Stein L, Belluzzi JD. Rats prefer cocaine over nicotine in a two-lever self-administration choice test. Brain Res. 2002;924:10–9. [PubMed]
  • Markou A, Weiss F, Gold LH, Caine B, Schulteis G, Koob GF. Animal models of drug craving. Psychopharmacology. 1993;112:163–182. [PubMed]
  • Martellotta MC, Kuzmin A, Zvartau E, Cossu G, Gessa GL, Fratta W. Isradipine inhibits nicotine intravenous self-administration in drug-naive mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1995;52:271–4. [PubMed]
  • Meil WM, See RE. Conditioned cue recovery of responding following prolonged withdrawal from self-administered cocaine in rats: an animal model of relapse. Behav Pharmacol. 1996;7:754–763. [PubMed]
  • Meyer JH, Ginovart N, Boovariwala A, Sagrati S, Hussey D, Garcia A, Young T, Praschak-Rieder N, Wilson AA, Houle S. Elevated monoamine oxidase a levels in the brain: an explanation for the monoamine imbalance of major depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1209–16. [PubMed]
  • Miyata H, Ando K, Yanagita T. Medial prefrontal cortex is involved in the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999;145:234–6. [PubMed]
  • Miyata H, Ando K, Yanagita T. Brain regions mediating the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine in rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002;965:354–63. [PubMed]
  • Nides M, Oncken C, Gonzales D, Rennard S, Watsky EJ, Anziano R, Reeves KR. Smoking Cessation With Varenicline, a Selective {alpha}4beta2 Nicotinic Receptor Partial Agonist: Results From a 7-Week, Randomized, Placebo- and Bupropion-Controlled Trial With 1-Year Follow-up. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1561–8. [PubMed]
  • O’Brien CP. Research advances in the understanding and treatment of addiction. Am J Addict. 2003;12(Suppl 2):S36–47. [PubMed]
  • O’Dell LE, Chen SA, Smith RT, Specio SE, Balster RL, Paterson NE, Markou A, Zorrilla EP, Koob GF. Extended access to nicotine self-administration leads to dependence: Circadian measures, withdrawal measures, and extinction behavior in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;320:180–93. [PubMed]
  • O’Dell LE, Koob GF. ‘Nicotine deprivation effect’ in rats with intermittent 23-hour access to intravenous nicotine self-administration. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007;86:346–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Olausson P, Jentsch JD, Taylor JR. Repeated nicotine exposure enhances reward-related learning in the rat. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28:1264–71. [PubMed]
  • Olausson P, Jentsch JD, Taylor JR. Nicotine enhances responding with conditioned reinforcement. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;171:173–8. [PubMed]
  • Oncken C, Gonzales D, Nides M, Rennard S, Watsky E, Billing CB, Anziano R, Reeves K. Efficacy and safety of the novel selective nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist, varenicline, for smoking cessation. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1571–7. [PubMed]
  • Overstreet DH. Differential effects of nicotine in inbred and selectively bred rodents. Behav Genet. 1995;25:179–85. [PubMed]
  • Overstreet DH, Pucilowski O, Rezvani AH, Janowsky DS. Administration of antidepressants, diazepam and psychomotor stimulants further confirms the utility of Flinders Sensitive Line rats as an animal model of depression. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1995;121:27–37. [PubMed]
  • Pak AC, Ashby CR, Heidbreder CA, Pilla M, Gilbert J, Xi ZX, Gardner EL. The selective dopamine D3 receptor antagonist SB-277011A reduces nicotine-enhanced brain reward and nicotine-paired environmental cue functions. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2006;9:585–602. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Palmatier MI, Liu X, Caggiula AR, Donny EC, Sved AF. The role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the primary reinforcing and reinforcement-enhancing effects of nicotine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32:1098–108. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Palmatier MI, Matteson GL, Black JJ, Liu X, Caggiula AR, Craven L, Donny EC, Sved AF. The reinforcement enhancing effects of nicotine depend on the incentive value of non-drug reinforcers and increase with repeated drug injections. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;89:52–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Panlilio LV, Yasar S, Nemeth-Coslett R, Katz JL, Henningfield JE, Solinas M, Heishman SJ, Schindler CW, Goldberg SR. Human cocaine-seeking behavior and its control by drug-associated stimuli in the laboratory. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:433–43. [PubMed]
  • Paterson NE, Froestl W, Markou A. The GABA(B) receptor agonists baclofen and CGP44532 decreased nicotine self-administration in the rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;172:179–86. [PubMed]
  • Paterson NE, Markou A. Increased motivation for self-administered cocaine after escalated cocaine intake. Neuroreport. 2003;14:2229–32. [PubMed]
  • Paterson NE, Markou A. Prolonged nicotine dependence associated with extended access to nicotine self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;173:64–72. [PubMed]
  • Paterson NE, Semenova S, Gasparini F, Markou A. The mGluR5 antagonist MPEP decreased nicotine self-administration in rats and mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;167:257–64. [PubMed]
  • Perkins KA. Response to Dar and Frenk (2004), “Do smokers self-administer pure nicotine? A review of the evidence” Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;175:256–8. author reply 259–61. [PubMed]
  • Perkins KA, Fonte C, Blakesley-Ball R, Stolinski A, Wilson AS. The influence of alcohol pre-treatment on the discriminative stimulus, subjective, and relative reinforcing effects of nicotine. Behav Pharmacol. 2005;16:521–9. [PubMed]
  • Perkins KA, Fonte C, Meeker J, White W, Wilson A. The discriminative stimulus and reinforcing effects of nicotine in humans following nicotine pretreatment. Behav Pharmacol. 2001;12:35–44. [PubMed]
  • Perkins KA, Grobe JE, Weiss D, Fonte C, Caggiula A. Nicotine preference in smokers as a function of smoking abstinence. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1996;55:257–63. [PubMed]
  • Perkins KA, Sanders M, D’Amico D, Wilson A. Nicotine discrimination and self-administration in humans as a function of smoking status. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997;131:361–70. [PubMed]
  • Perkins KA, Sanders M, Fonte C, Wilson AS, White W, Stiller R, McNamara D. Effects of central and peripheral nicotinic blockade on human nicotine discrimination. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999;142:158–64. [PubMed]
  • Picciotto MR, Brunzell DH, Caldarone BJ. Effect of nicotine and nicotinic receptors on anxiety and depression. Neuroreport. 2002;13:1097–106. [PubMed]
  • Picciotto MR, Zoli M, Rimondini R, Lena C, Marubio LM, Pich EM, Fuxe K, Changeux JP. Acetylcholine receptors containing the beta2 subunit are involved in the reinforcing properties of nicotine. Nature. 1998;391:173–7. [PubMed]
  • Pomerleau CS, Pomerleau OF, Majchrzak MJ. Mecamylamine pretreatment increases subsequent nicotine self-administration as indicated by changes in plasma nicotine level. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1987;91:391–3. [PubMed]
  • Pratt JA, Stolerman IP, Garcha HS, Giardini V, Feyerabend C. Discriminative stimulus properties of nicotine: further evidence for mediation at a cholinergic receptor. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1983;81:54–60. [PubMed]
  • Rasmussen T, Swedberg MD. Reinforcing effects of nicotinic compounds: intravenous self-administration in drug-naive mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1998;60:567–73. [PubMed]
  • Rauhut AS, Neugebauer N, Dwoskin LP, Bardo MT. Effect of bupropion on nicotine self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;169:1–9. [PubMed]
  • Reavill C, Stolerman IP, Kumar R, Garcha HS. Chlorisondamine blocks acquisition of the conditioned taste aversion produced by (−)-nicotine. Neuropharmacology. 1986;25:1067–9. [PubMed]
  • Risner ME, Goldberg SR. A comparison of nicotine and cocaine self-administration in the dog: fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules of intravenous drug infusion. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1983;224:319–26. [PubMed]
  • Robinson JH, Pritchard WS. The role of nicotine in tobacco use. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1992;108:397–407. [PubMed]
  • Robinson ML, Houtsmuller EJ, Moolchan ET, Pickworth WB. Placebo cigarettes in smoking research. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2000;8:326–32. [PubMed]
  • Robinson SE, James JR, Lapp LN, Vann RE, Gross DF, Philibin SD, Rosecrans JA. Evidence of cellular nicotinic receptor desensitization in rats exhibiting nicotine-induced acute tolerance. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005:1–8. [PubMed]
  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Research Reviews. 1993;18:247–291. [PubMed]
  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC. Incentive-sensitization and addiction. Addiction. 2001;96:103–14. [PubMed]
  • Rollema H, Chambers LK, Coe JW, Glowa J, Hurst RS, Lebel LA, Lu Y, Mansbach RS, Mather RJ, Rovetti CC, Sands SB, Schaeffer E, Schulz DW, Tingley FD, 3rd, Williams KE. Pharmacological profile of the alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial agonist varenicline, an effective smoking cessation aid. Neuropharmacology. 2007;52:985–94. [PubMed]
  • Rose JE, Behm FM, Westman EC. Acute effects of nicotine and mecamylamine on tobacco withdrawal symptoms, cigarette reward and ad lib smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2001;68:187–97. [PubMed]
  • Rose JE, Behm FM, Westman EC, Bates JE. Mecamylamine acutely increases human intravenous nicotine self-administration. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2003;76:307–13. [PubMed]
  • Rose JE, Behm FM, Westman EC, Bates JE, Salley A. Pharmacologic and sensorimotor components of satiation in cigarette smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2003;76:243–50. [PubMed]
  • Rose JE, Behm FM, Westman EC, Johnson M. Dissociating nicotine and nonnicotine components of cigarette smoking. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2000;67:71–81. [PubMed]
  • Rose JE, Corrigall WA. Nicotine self-administration in animals and humans: similarities and differences. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997;130:28–40. [PubMed]
  • Rose JE, Sampson A, Levin ED, Henningfield JE. Mecamylamine increases nicotine preference and attenuates nicotine discrimination. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1989;32:933–8. [PubMed]
  • Rosecrans JA. Nicotine as a discriminative stimulus to behavior: its characterization and relevance to smoking behavior. NIDA Res Monogr. 1979:58–69. [PubMed]
  • Rosecrans JA, Meltzer LT. Central sites and mechanisms of action of nicotine. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1981;5:497–501. [PubMed]
  • Salin-Pascual RJ, Drucker-Colin R. A novel effect of nicotine on mood and sleep in major depression. Neuroreport. 1998;9:57–60. [PubMed]
  • Salin-Pascual RJ, Rosas M, Jimenez-Genchi A, Rivera-Meza BL, Delgado-Parra V. Antidepressant effect of transdermal nicotine patches in nonsmoking patients with major depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 1996;57:387–9. [PubMed]
  • Sannerud CA, Prada J, Goldberg DM, Goldberg SR. The effects of sertraline on nicotine self-administration and food-maintained responding in squirrel monkeys. Eur J Pharmacol. 1994;271:461–9. [PubMed]
  • Schindler CW, Panlilio LV, Goldberg SR. Second-order schedules of drug self-administration in animals. Psychopharmacology(Berl) 2002;163:327–44. [PubMed]
  • Schuster CR, Woods JH. The conditioned reinforcing effects of stimuli associated with morphine reinforcement. Int J Addict. 1968;3:223–230.
  • Self DW, Nestler EJ. Relapse to drug-seeking: neural and molecular mechanisms. Drug Alcohol Dep. 1988;51:49–60. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Adamson LK, Grocki S, Corrigall WA. Reinstatement and spontaneous recovery of nicotine seeking in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997;130:396–403. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Rajabi H, Stewart J. Relapse to heroin-seeking in rats under opioid maintenance: the effects of stress, heroin priming, and withdrawal. J Neurosci. 1996;16:1957–63. [PubMed]
  • Shaham Y, Shalev U, Lu L, De Wit H, Stewart J. The reinstatement model of drug relapse: history, methodology and major findings. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;168:3–20. [PubMed]
  • Shalev U, Grimm JW, Shaham Y. Neurobiology of relapse to heroin and cocaine seeking: a review. Pharmacol Rev. 2002;54:1–42. [PubMed]
  • Shiffman S, Johnston JA, Khayrallah M, Elash CA, Gwaltney CJ, Paty JA, Gnys M, Evoniuk G, DeVeaugh-Geiss J. The effect of bupropion on nicotine craving and withdrawal. Psychopharmacology(Berl) 2000;148:33–40. [PubMed]
  • Shiffman S, Khayrallah M, Nowak R. Efficacy of the nicotine patch for relief of craving and withdrawal 7–10 weeks after cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2000;2:371–8. [PubMed]
  • Shiffman S, Shadel WG, Niaura R, Khayrallah MA, Jorenby DE, Ryan CF, Ferguson CL. Efficacy of acute administration of nicotine gum in relief of cue-provoked cigarette craving. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;166:343–50. [PubMed]
  • Shiffman S, Shumaker SA, Abrams DB, Cohen S, Garvey A, Grunberg NE, Swan GE. Models of smoking relapse. Health Psychol. 1986;5(Suppl):13–27. [PubMed]
  • Shoaib M, Gommans J, Morley A, Stolerman IP, Grailhe R, Changeux JP. The role of nicotinic receptor beta-2 subunits in nicotine discrimination and conditioned taste aversion. Neuropharmacology. 2002;42:530–9. [PubMed]
  • Shoaib M, Schindler CW, Goldberg SR. Nicotine self-administration in rats: strain and nicotine pre-exposure effects on acquisition. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997;129:35–43. [PubMed]
  • Shoaib M, Sidhpura N, Shafait S. Investigating the actions of bupropion on dependence-related effects of nicotine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;165:405–12. [PubMed]
  • Shoaib M, Stolerman IP. Conditioned taste aversions in rats after intracerebral administration of nicotine. Behav Pharmacol. 1995;6:375–385. [PubMed]
  • Shoaib M, Stolerman IP, Kumar RC. Nicotine-induced place preferences following prior nicotine exposure in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1994;113:445–52. [PubMed]
  • Silagy C, Mant D, Fowler G, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000:CD000146. [PubMed]
  • Silagy C, Mant D, Fowler G, Lancaster T. Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000:CD000146. [update of: 20257584] FIX ABSTRACT. [PubMed]
  • Slifer BL, Balster RL. Intravenous self-administration of nicotine: with and without schedule-induction. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1985;22:61–9. [PubMed]
  • Sofuoglu M, Yoo S, Hill KP, Mooney M. Self-Administration of Intravenous Nicotine in Male and Female Cigarette Smokers. Neuropsychopharmacology 2007 [PubMed]
  • Solinas M, Panlilio LV, Justinova Z, Yasar S, Goldberg SR. Using drug-discrimination techniques to study the abuse-related effects of psychoactive drugs in rats. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:1194–206. [PubMed]
  • Soria R, Stapleton JM, Gilson SF, Sampson-Cone A, Henningfield JE, London ED. Subjective and cardiovascular effects of intravenous nicotine in smokers and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1996;128:221–6. [PubMed]
  • Spealman RD. Maintenance of behavior by postponement of scheduled injections of nicotine in squirrel monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1983;227:154–9. [PubMed]
  • Spealman RD, Barrett-Larimore RL, Rowlett JK, Platt DM, Khroyan TV. Pharmacological and environmental determinants of relapse to cocaine-seeking behavior. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1999;64:327–36. [PubMed]
  • Spealman RD, Goldberg SR. Drug self-administration by laboratory animals: Control by schedules of reinforcement. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 1978;18:313–339. [PubMed]
  • Spealman RD, Goldberg SR. Maintenance of schedule-controlled behavior by intravenous injections of nicotine in squirrel monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1982;223:402–8. [PubMed]
  • Spealman RD, Goldberg SR, Gardner ML. Behavioral effects of nicotine: schedule-controlled responding by squirrel monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1981;216:484–91. [PubMed]
  • Stewart J. Conditioned and unconditioned drug effects in relapse to opiate and stimulant drug-administration. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1983;7:591–597. [PubMed]
  • Stolerman IP. Characterization of central nicotinic receptors by studies on the nicotine cue and conditioned taste aversion in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1988;30:235–42. [PubMed]
  • Stolerman IP. Discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine in rats trained under different schedules of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1989;97:131–8. [PubMed]
  • Stolerman IP. Inter-species consistency in the behavioural pharmacology of nicotine dependence. Behav Pharmacol. 1999;10:559–80. [PubMed]
  • Stolerman IP, Chandler CJ, Garcha HS, Newton JM. Selective antagonism of behavioural effects of nicotine by dihydro-beta-erythroidine in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997;129:390–7. [PubMed]
  • Stolerman IP, Garcha HS, Pratt JA, Kumar R. Role of training dose in discrimination of nicotine and related compounds by rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1984;84:413–9. [PubMed]
  • Stolerman IP, Naylor C, Elmer GI, Goldberg SR. Discrimination and self-administration of nicotine by inbred strains of mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999;141:297–306. [PubMed]
  • Stolerman IP, Shoaib M. The neurobiology of tobacco addiction. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1991;12:467–473. [PubMed]
  • Suzuki T, Ise Y, Tsuda M, Maeda J, Misawa M. Mecamylamine-precipitated nicotine-withdrawal aversion in rats. Eur J Pharmacol. 1996;314:281–4. [PubMed]
  • Takada K, Hagen TJ, Cook JM, Goldberg SR, Katz JL. Discriminative stimulus effects of intravenous nicotine in squirrel monkeys. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1988;30:243–7. [PubMed]
  • Tapper AR, McKinney SL, Nashmi R, Schwarz J, Deshpande P, Labarca C, Whiteaker P, Marks MJ, Collins AC, Lester HA. Nicotine activation of alpha4* receptors: sufficient for reward, tolerance, and sensitization. Science. 2004;306:1029–32. [PubMed]
  • Tashkin D, Kanner R, Bailey W, Buist S, Anderson P, Nides M, Gonzales D, Dozier G, Patel MK, Jamerson B. Smoking cessation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:1571–5. [PubMed]
  • Thorsteinsson HS, Gillin JC, Patten CA, Golshan S, Sutton LD, Drummond S, Clark CP, Kelsoe J, Rapaport M. The effects of transdermal nicotine therapy for smoking cessation on depressive symptoms in patients with major depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;24:350–8. [PubMed]
  • Tiffany ST, Cox LS, Elash CA. Effects of transdermal nicotine patches on abstinence-induced and cue-elicited craving in cigarette smokers. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:233–40. [PubMed]
  • Tizabi Y, Overstreet DH, Rezvani AH, Louis VA, Clark E, Jr, Janowsky DS, Kling MA. Antidepressant effects of nicotine in an animal model of depression. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999;142:193–9. [PubMed]
  • Tizabi Y, Rezvani AH, Russell LT, Tyler KY, Overstreet DH. Depressive characteristics of FSL rats: involvement of central nicotinic receptors. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2000;66:73–7. [PubMed]
  • Tonstad S, Tonnesen P, Hajek P, Williams KE, Billing CB, Reeves KR. Effect of maintenance therapy with varenicline on smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2006;296:64–71. [PubMed]
  • Valentine JD, Hokanson JS, Matta SG, Sharp BM. Self-administration in rats allowed unlimited access to nicotine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997;133:300–4. [PubMed]
  • Vanderschuren LJ, Everitt BJ. Drug seeking becomes compulsive after prolonged cocaine self-administration. Science. 2004;305:1017–9. [PubMed]
  • Vastola BJ, Douglas LA, Varlinskaya EI, Spear LP. Nicotine-induced conditioned place preference in adolescent and adult rats. Physiol Behav. 2002;77:107–14. [PubMed]
  • Villegier AS, Blanc G, Glowinski J, Tassin JP. Transient behavioral sensitization to nicotine becomes long-lasting with monoamine oxidases inhibitors. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2003;76:267–74. [PubMed]
  • Villegier AS, Salomon L, Granon S, Changeux JP, Belluzzi JD, Leslie FM, Tassin JP. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors allow locomotor and rewarding responses to nicotine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:1704–13. [PubMed]
  • Wakasa Y, Takada K, Yanagita T. Reinforcing effect as a function of infusion speed in intravenous self-administration of nicotine in rhesus monkeys. Nihon Shinkei Seishin Yakurigaku Zasshi. 1995;15:53–9. [PubMed]
  • Waters AJ, Shiffman S, Sayette MA, Paty JA, Gwaltney CJ, Balabanis MH. Cue-provoked craving and nicotine replacement therapy in smoking cessation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:1136–43. [PubMed]
  • Watkins SS, Koob GF, Markou A. Neural mechanisms underlying nicotine addiction: acute positive reinforcement and withdrawal. Nicotine Tob Res. 2000;2:19–37. [PubMed]
  • West RJ, Jarvis MJ, Russell MA, Carruthers ME, Feyerabend C. Effect of nicotine replacement on the cigarette withdrawal syndrome. Br J Addict. 1984;79:215–9. [PubMed]
  • West RJ, Russell MA. Effects of withdrawal from long-term nicotine gum use. Psychol Med. 1985;15:891–3. [PubMed]
  • West RJ, Russell MA, Jarvis MJ, Feyerabend C. Does switching to an ultra-low nicotine cigarette induce nicotine withdrawal effects? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1984;84:120–3. [PubMed]
  • Wiley JL, Lavecchia KL, Martin BR, Damaj MI. Nicotine-like discriminative stimulus effects of bupropion in rats. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002;10:129–35. [PubMed]
  • Young R, Glennon RA. Nicotine and bupropion share a similar discriminative stimulus effect. Eur J Pharmacol. 2002;443:113–8. [PubMed]