Home Page
About SAEN
Articles and Reports
Contact Us
Events and Campaigns
Fact Sheets
Financial Information
How You Can Help
Make a Donation, Please!
Media Coverage
Newsletters
Petitions
Picture Archive
Press Releases
Resources and Links
Grass Roots Org. List
|
Stop Animal
Exploitation NOW!
S. A. E. N.
"Exposing the truth to wipe
out animal experimentation"
Government Grants Promoting Cruelty to Animals
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
GAIL D. WINGER - Primate Testing - 2006
Grant Number: 5R01AA013713-04
Project Title: Measuring and Modifying Ethanol's Reinforcing
Effects
PI Information: RESEARCH PROFESSOR GAIL D. WINGER,
[email protected]
Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): In rhesus monkeys,
the reinforcing effects of intravenously delivered ethanol lead to high
ethanol intake, high ethanol blood levels, marked intoxication, and,
under continuous access conditions, "binge" patterns of ethanol
consumption, physiological dependence, and withdrawal signs. These are
some of the characteristics of severe human alcoholism, a condition that
is likely to result, at least in part, from this pharmacologically based
reinforcing effect of ethanol. We suggest that response-contingent
delivery of i.v. ethanol is a fairly "pure" measure of these reinforcing
effects of ethanol, relatively unmodified by the aspects of taste, fluid
volume, and gastrointestinal absorption that appear to prevent
consumption by monkeys of equally large amounts of ethanol by the oral
route. We propose to use behavioral economic procedures (demand curves)
to quantify these reinforcing effects of i.v. ethanol and to compare
them with those of other intravenously delivered drugs. In further
studies, these procedures will be used to determine how the combination
of ethanol and other drugs of abuse changes the reinforcing effects of
both drugs. Because demand functions are unaltered by changes in drug
potency, but are modified by changes in drug effectiveness, the
measurements should indicate whether the various drug combinations
result in a greater reinforcing effectiveness than either drug alone, or
whether the potencies of the drugs as reinforcers are enhanced when they
are combined. Finally, this same analysis will be used to determine how
the treatment drugs of naltrexone and acamprosate modify the reinforcing
effects of intravenous ethanol, again either by decreasing its
reinforcing effectiveness or by decreasing its potency as a reinforcer.
These studies will provide information not currently available on how
ethanol compares with other drugs in terms of its reinforcing
effectiveness, information that could impact policy decisions regarding
legalization or decriminalization of other drugs of abuse. Data relevant
to the behavioral and pharmacological mechanisms underlying polydrug
abuse involving ethanol, and underlying pharmacological treatment of
alcoholism will also be obtained.
Thesaurus Terms:
ethanol, psychometrics, psychopharmacology, reinforcer, substance abuse
related behavior
acamprosate, alcoholic beverage consumption, cocaine, diazepam, drug
interaction, fentanyl, gamma hydroxybutyrate, intravenous
administration, naltrexone, self medication
Macaca mulatta, behavioral /social science research tag
Institution: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR
3003 SOUTH STATE STREET, Room 1040
ANN ARBOR, MI 481091274
Fiscal Year: 2006
Department: PHARMACOLOGY
Project Start: 01-MAY-2003
Project End: 30-APR-2008
ICD: NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM
IRG: ALTX
J Exp Anal Behav. 2006 September; 86(2): 181�195.
doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.108.05.
PMCID: PMC1592359
Copyright Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Inc.
Assessing Unit-Price Related Remifentanil Choice in
Rhesus Monkeys
Chad M Galuska, Gail Winger, and James H Woods
The subjects were 3 adult rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), 2 male
(Monkeys 3572 and 3603) and 1 female (Monkey 3600), with a history of
drug self-administration including remifentanil. Monkeys lived in the
experimental chambers and were fed 10 to 15 Purina monkey chow biscuits
twice daily (at least 1.5 hr before experimental sessions) to maintain
their body weights. Daily fresh fruit and other treats supplemented this
diet. Water was continuously available. In accordance with institutional
animal care and use requirements, environmental enrichment toys also
were provided on a regular rotating basis.
Apparatus
Monkeys were permanently housed in stainless steel cages (83.3-cm long
by 76.2-cm wide by 91.4-cm deep). The front, top, and bottom of the cage
were made of barred stainless steel, and a pan was located below the
floor to collect waste. Located on the wall to the left of the barred
front door was an intelligence panel 20 cm in length and 15.4 cm in
height, approximately 10 cm from the front and 19 cm from the bottom of
the cage. Across the top of the stimulus panel, 1.5 cm apart, were three
circular openings, 2.5 cm in diameter, covered with translucent plastic
and capable of being illuminated from behind with 5-W colored bulbs. The
two side lights could be illuminated red and the center light green.
Centered below the right and left stimulus lights were response levers
(Model 121-07, BRS-LVE) capable of being operated by 10 to 15 g
(0.10�0.15 N) of force. A 0.3-cm thick stainless steel divider, centered
between the response levers and below the stimulus lights, extended 8 cm
into the chamber. Experimental control was provided by an IBM PS/2
computer located in an adjoining room and programmed with Med-PC
(Med-Associates, Georgia, VT) software.
Each monkey wore a Teflon mesh jacket (Lomir, Quebec, Canada) connected
to a flexible stainless-steel spring tether attached to the rear of the
cage. Monkeys had been implanted previously with indwelling intravenous
catheters in an internal or external jugular, or femoral vein, under
ketamine (10 mg/kg, IM) and xylazine (2 mg/kg, IM) anesthesia. Catheters
were run subcutaneously from the site of implantation to an exit site in
the middle of the back. Tubing was then fed through the steel spring
tether and passed to the outside rear of the cage where it was connected
to a stock solution of remifentanil (either 0.4 �g/kg/ml or 1.2
�g/kg/ml) and additional infusion lines that passed through the rollers
of two infusion pumps. Different doses were arranged by manipulating the
speed of the two pumps. Operation of one pump delivered 0.15 ml solution
per s. Operation of the other delivered 0.05 ml solution per s.
Injections were always 5 s in duration. When the stock solution was 0.4
�g/kg/ml remifentanil, operation of the faster pump resulted in a
delivery of 0.3 �g/kg/inj (0.4 �g/kg/ml � 0.15 ml/s � 5 s) and operation
of the slower pump delivered 0.1 �g/kg/inj. When the stock solution was
prepared at 1.2 �g/kg/ml, doses of 0.9 and 0.3 �g/kg/inj were arranged. |
Please email: GAIL D. WINGER,
[email protected]
to protest the inhumane use of animals in this
experiment. We would also love to know about your efforts with this
cause:
[email protected]
Return to Grants
Return to University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Return to Facility Reports and Information
Return to Resources and Links
Rats, mice, birds, amphibians and other animals have
been excluded from coverage by the Animal Welfare Act. Therefore research
facility reports do not include these animals. As a result of this
situation, a blank report, or one with few animals listed, does not mean
that a facility has not performed experiments on non-reportable animals. A
blank form does mean that the facility in question has not used covered
animals (primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, pigs,
sheep, goats, etc.). Rats and mice alone are believed to comprise over 90%
of the animals used in experimentation. Therefore the majority of animals
used at research facilities are not even counted.
|