Quantitative evaluation of cue‐induced reinstatement model for evidence‐based experimental optimization

Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used model for investigating relapse of reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity in relation to clinical observations. Yet, face validity is not sufficient to evaluate an animal model, and quantitative, evidence‐based analysis is required to estimate the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Addiction biology 2019-03, Vol.24 (2), p.218-227
Hauptverfasser: Oberhofer, Julia, Noori, Hamid R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 227
container_issue 2
container_start_page 218
container_title Addiction biology
container_volume 24
creator Oberhofer, Julia
Noori, Hamid R.
description Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used model for investigating relapse of reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity in relation to clinical observations. Yet, face validity is not sufficient to evaluate an animal model, and quantitative, evidence‐based analysis is required to estimate the ultimate applicability of this paradigm. Furthermore, such analysis would allow an accurate and reproducible design of future experiments. Here, we conducted meta‐analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the impact of cue type (visual, auditory, olfactory or combinations thereof), intensity (e.g. light frequency, sound volume and odor concentration), reward type (e.g. different drugs of abuse, sucrose and food pellets) and model parameters (e.g. housing condition, age, gender and strain of animals) on reinstatement levels. We selected 184 publications for meta‐analysis based on inclusion criteria with a total number of 3889 rats. Our analysis suggested that the exact level of reinstatement depends on neither cue type, nor intensity nor on the type of reward. While all cues induced reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, it is the model parameters, in particular, the housing conditions, age and strain, that defined the final reinstatement levels. In particular, single‐housed, adolescent, Wistar or Lister Hooded rats showed significantly higher reinstatement than adult, Sparague‐Dawley rats housed in groups. Our findings suggest that model parameters (for example, single housing) evoke stress‐induced behaviors that affect reinstatement more than cue/reward factors. Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used paradigm to investigate relapse to reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity to clinical observations. However, due to large discrepancies in the design of such experiments, it is hard to evaluate its general validity. Our analysis suggests that exact levels of reinstatement neither depends on the cue type or intensity nor on the choice of reward. All cues induce reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, but model parameters particularly housing conditions, age, and strain are critical.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/adb.12588
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1977181887</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2178560338</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3398-edafa4b35bbe41a89aee1eafdaee5d18ce800ef82a47e5e1223f19259bc79a003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10b1OwzAQB3ALgfgeeAEUiQWGgM-uG3uE8ilVQkgwW058kVySuMRJoUw8As_Ik-BSYEDCy93w818-HyF7QI8hnhNj82NgQsoVsgl8qFIYUrq66IVIhwzEBtkKYUIpsEzwdbLBFOOKSrlJHu9603SuM52bYYIzU_Wx9U3iy6To8ePt3TW2L9AmLbomRIc1Nl1Se4tVUvo23nEWm2JBcxMixJcptm6hTJX4aedq9_qVuUPWSlMF3P2u2-Th8uJ-dJ2Ob69uRqfjtOBcyRStKc0g5yLPcQBGKoMIaEobq7AgC5SUYimZGWQoEBjjJSgmVF5kylDKt8nhMnfa-qceQ6drFwqsKtOg74MGlWUgQcos0oM_dOL7tomv0wwyKYaUcxnV0VIVrQ-hxVJP44CmnWugerEBHTegvzYQ7f53Yp_XaH_lz5dHcLIEz67C-f9J-vT8bBn5CTdRlGs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2178560338</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantitative evaluation of cue‐induced reinstatement model for evidence‐based experimental optimization</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Oberhofer, Julia ; Noori, Hamid R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Oberhofer, Julia ; Noori, Hamid R.</creatorcontrib><description>Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used model for investigating relapse of reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity in relation to clinical observations. Yet, face validity is not sufficient to evaluate an animal model, and quantitative, evidence‐based analysis is required to estimate the ultimate applicability of this paradigm. Furthermore, such analysis would allow an accurate and reproducible design of future experiments. Here, we conducted meta‐analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the impact of cue type (visual, auditory, olfactory or combinations thereof), intensity (e.g. light frequency, sound volume and odor concentration), reward type (e.g. different drugs of abuse, sucrose and food pellets) and model parameters (e.g. housing condition, age, gender and strain of animals) on reinstatement levels. We selected 184 publications for meta‐analysis based on inclusion criteria with a total number of 3889 rats. Our analysis suggested that the exact level of reinstatement depends on neither cue type, nor intensity nor on the type of reward. While all cues induced reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, it is the model parameters, in particular, the housing conditions, age and strain, that defined the final reinstatement levels. In particular, single‐housed, adolescent, Wistar or Lister Hooded rats showed significantly higher reinstatement than adult, Sparague‐Dawley rats housed in groups. Our findings suggest that model parameters (for example, single housing) evoke stress‐induced behaviors that affect reinstatement more than cue/reward factors. Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used paradigm to investigate relapse to reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity to clinical observations. However, due to large discrepancies in the design of such experiments, it is hard to evaluate its general validity. Our analysis suggests that exact levels of reinstatement neither depends on the cue type or intensity nor on the choice of reward. All cues induce reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, but model parameters particularly housing conditions, age, and strain are critical.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1355-6215</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1369-1600</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/adb.12588</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29239088</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Animal Experimentation ; Animals ; Conditioning, Operant - physiology ; Cues ; Drug abuse ; Drug-Seeking Behavior - physiology ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Female ; Housing ; Male ; Meta-analysis ; Odor ; rat ; Rats ; Reinforcement ; Reinstatement ; relapse ; Reward ; Sensory integration ; Substance-Related Disorders - physiopathology ; Sucrose ; Visual stimuli</subject><ispartof>Addiction biology, 2019-03, Vol.24 (2), p.218-227</ispartof><rights>2017 Society for the Study of Addiction</rights><rights>2017 Society for the Study of Addiction.</rights><rights>2019 Society for the Study of Addiction</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3398-edafa4b35bbe41a89aee1eafdaee5d18ce800ef82a47e5e1223f19259bc79a003</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2592-247X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fadb.12588$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fadb.12588$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29239088$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Oberhofer, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noori, Hamid R.</creatorcontrib><title>Quantitative evaluation of cue‐induced reinstatement model for evidence‐based experimental optimization</title><title>Addiction biology</title><addtitle>Addict Biol</addtitle><description>Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used model for investigating relapse of reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity in relation to clinical observations. Yet, face validity is not sufficient to evaluate an animal model, and quantitative, evidence‐based analysis is required to estimate the ultimate applicability of this paradigm. Furthermore, such analysis would allow an accurate and reproducible design of future experiments. Here, we conducted meta‐analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the impact of cue type (visual, auditory, olfactory or combinations thereof), intensity (e.g. light frequency, sound volume and odor concentration), reward type (e.g. different drugs of abuse, sucrose and food pellets) and model parameters (e.g. housing condition, age, gender and strain of animals) on reinstatement levels. We selected 184 publications for meta‐analysis based on inclusion criteria with a total number of 3889 rats. Our analysis suggested that the exact level of reinstatement depends on neither cue type, nor intensity nor on the type of reward. While all cues induced reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, it is the model parameters, in particular, the housing conditions, age and strain, that defined the final reinstatement levels. In particular, single‐housed, adolescent, Wistar or Lister Hooded rats showed significantly higher reinstatement than adult, Sparague‐Dawley rats housed in groups. Our findings suggest that model parameters (for example, single housing) evoke stress‐induced behaviors that affect reinstatement more than cue/reward factors. Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used paradigm to investigate relapse to reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity to clinical observations. However, due to large discrepancies in the design of such experiments, it is hard to evaluate its general validity. Our analysis suggests that exact levels of reinstatement neither depends on the cue type or intensity nor on the choice of reward. All cues induce reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, but model parameters particularly housing conditions, age, and strain are critical.</description><subject>Animal Experimentation</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Conditioning, Operant - physiology</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Drug abuse</subject><subject>Drug-Seeking Behavior - physiology</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Practice</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Housing</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Odor</subject><subject>rat</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Reinforcement</subject><subject>Reinstatement</subject><subject>relapse</subject><subject>Reward</subject><subject>Sensory integration</subject><subject>Substance-Related Disorders - physiopathology</subject><subject>Sucrose</subject><subject>Visual stimuli</subject><issn>1355-6215</issn><issn>1369-1600</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10b1OwzAQB3ALgfgeeAEUiQWGgM-uG3uE8ilVQkgwW058kVySuMRJoUw8As_Ik-BSYEDCy93w818-HyF7QI8hnhNj82NgQsoVsgl8qFIYUrq66IVIhwzEBtkKYUIpsEzwdbLBFOOKSrlJHu9603SuM52bYYIzU_Wx9U3iy6To8ePt3TW2L9AmLbomRIc1Nl1Se4tVUvo23nEWm2JBcxMixJcptm6hTJX4aedq9_qVuUPWSlMF3P2u2-Th8uJ-dJ2Ob69uRqfjtOBcyRStKc0g5yLPcQBGKoMIaEobq7AgC5SUYimZGWQoEBjjJSgmVF5kylDKt8nhMnfa-qceQ6drFwqsKtOg74MGlWUgQcos0oM_dOL7tomv0wwyKYaUcxnV0VIVrQ-hxVJP44CmnWugerEBHTegvzYQ7f53Yp_XaH_lz5dHcLIEz67C-f9J-vT8bBn5CTdRlGs</recordid><startdate>201903</startdate><enddate>201903</enddate><creator>Oberhofer, Julia</creator><creator>Noori, Hamid R.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2592-247X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201903</creationdate><title>Quantitative evaluation of cue‐induced reinstatement model for evidence‐based experimental optimization</title><author>Oberhofer, Julia ; Noori, Hamid R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3398-edafa4b35bbe41a89aee1eafdaee5d18ce800ef82a47e5e1223f19259bc79a003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Animal Experimentation</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Conditioning, Operant - physiology</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Drug abuse</topic><topic>Drug-Seeking Behavior - physiology</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Practice</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Housing</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Odor</topic><topic>rat</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Reinforcement</topic><topic>Reinstatement</topic><topic>relapse</topic><topic>Reward</topic><topic>Sensory integration</topic><topic>Substance-Related Disorders - physiopathology</topic><topic>Sucrose</topic><topic>Visual stimuli</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Oberhofer, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noori, Hamid R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Addiction biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Oberhofer, Julia</au><au>Noori, Hamid R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantitative evaluation of cue‐induced reinstatement model for evidence‐based experimental optimization</atitle><jtitle>Addiction biology</jtitle><addtitle>Addict Biol</addtitle><date>2019-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>218</spage><epage>227</epage><pages>218-227</pages><issn>1355-6215</issn><eissn>1369-1600</eissn><abstract>Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used model for investigating relapse of reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity in relation to clinical observations. Yet, face validity is not sufficient to evaluate an animal model, and quantitative, evidence‐based analysis is required to estimate the ultimate applicability of this paradigm. Furthermore, such analysis would allow an accurate and reproducible design of future experiments. Here, we conducted meta‐analysis and cluster analysis to characterize the impact of cue type (visual, auditory, olfactory or combinations thereof), intensity (e.g. light frequency, sound volume and odor concentration), reward type (e.g. different drugs of abuse, sucrose and food pellets) and model parameters (e.g. housing condition, age, gender and strain of animals) on reinstatement levels. We selected 184 publications for meta‐analysis based on inclusion criteria with a total number of 3889 rats. Our analysis suggested that the exact level of reinstatement depends on neither cue type, nor intensity nor on the type of reward. While all cues induced reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, it is the model parameters, in particular, the housing conditions, age and strain, that defined the final reinstatement levels. In particular, single‐housed, adolescent, Wistar or Lister Hooded rats showed significantly higher reinstatement than adult, Sparague‐Dawley rats housed in groups. Our findings suggest that model parameters (for example, single housing) evoke stress‐induced behaviors that affect reinstatement more than cue/reward factors. Cue‐induced reinstatement is a widely used paradigm to investigate relapse to reward‐seeking behavior with high face validity to clinical observations. However, due to large discrepancies in the design of such experiments, it is hard to evaluate its general validity. Our analysis suggests that exact levels of reinstatement neither depends on the cue type or intensity nor on the choice of reward. All cues induce reinstatement to reward‐seeking behavior, but model parameters particularly housing conditions, age, and strain are critical.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>29239088</pmid><doi>10.1111/adb.12588</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2592-247X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1355-6215
ispartof Addiction biology, 2019-03, Vol.24 (2), p.218-227
issn 1355-6215
1369-1600
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1977181887
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Animal Experimentation
Animals
Conditioning, Operant - physiology
Cues
Drug abuse
Drug-Seeking Behavior - physiology
Evidence-Based Practice
Female
Housing
Male
Meta-analysis
Odor
rat
Rats
Reinforcement
Reinstatement
relapse
Reward
Sensory integration
Substance-Related Disorders - physiopathology
Sucrose
Visual stimuli
title Quantitative evaluation of cue‐induced reinstatement model for evidence‐based experimental optimization
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T06%3A03%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantitative%20evaluation%20of%20cue%E2%80%90induced%20reinstatement%20model%20for%20evidence%E2%80%90based%20experimental%20optimization&rft.jtitle=Addiction%20biology&rft.au=Oberhofer,%20Julia&rft.date=2019-03&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=218&rft.epage=227&rft.pages=218-227&rft.issn=1355-6215&rft.eissn=1369-1600&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/adb.12588&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2178560338%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2178560338&rft_id=info:pmid/29239088&rfr_iscdi=true