The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 30 of the 69 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
β2-Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Availability During Acute and Prolonged Abstinence From Tobacco Smoking
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Available levels of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors containing the beta(2) subunit (beta(2)*-nAChR) are higher in recently abstinent tobacco smokers compared with participants who never smoked. Variations in beta(2)*-nAChR availability during the course of abstinence may be related to the urge to smoke, the extent of nicotine withdrawal, and successful abstinence. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in beta(2)*-nAChR availability during acute and prolonged abstinence from tobacco smoking and to determine how changes in beta(2)*-nAChR availability were related to clinical features of tobacco smoking. DESIGN: Tobacco smokers participated in up to 4 iodide 123-labeled 5-iodo-A-85380 ([(123)I]5-IA) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scans during abstinence at 1 day (n = 7) and 1 (n = 17), 2 (n = 7), 4 (n = 11), and 6 to 12 (n = 6) weeks. Age-matched nonsmokers participated in a single [(123)I]5-IA SPECT scan. All participants completed 1 magnetic resonance imaging study. SETTING: Academic imaging center. PARTICIPANTS: Tobacco smokers (n = 19) and an age-matched nonsmoker comparison group (n = 20). Main Outcome Measure The [(123)I]5-IA SPECT images were converted to distribution volume and were analyzed using regions of interest. RESULTS: Compared with nonsmokers, beta(2)*-nAChR availability in the striatum, cortex, and cerebellum of smokers was not different at 1 day of abstinence, was significantly higher at 1 week of abstinence, and was not different at 4 or at 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence. In smokers, beta(2)*-nAChR availability was significantly lower in the cortex and cerebellum at 6 to 12 weeks compared with 1 week of abstinence. In addition, cerebellar beta(2)*-nAChR availability at 4 weeks of abstinence was positively correlated with craving on the day of the SPECT scan. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that higher beta(2)*-nAChR availability persists up to 1 month of abstinence and normalizes to nonsmoker levels by 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence from tobacco smoking. These marked and persistent changes in beta(2)*-nAChR availability may contribute to difficulties with tobacco cessation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In tobacco smokers, β2*-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor availability was not different from nonsmokers at 1 day of abstinence, significantly higher at 1 week, and normalized by 6–12 weeks. Higher cerebellar receptor availability at 4 weeks was positively correlated with same-day craving.
Key findings
- Compared with nonsmokers, smokers at 1 week of abstinence had significantly higher β2*-nAChR availability in striatum (+22%), cortex (+21% to +29%), and cerebellum (+24%); at 1 day, thalamic availability was significantly lower (−26%, p=.002), and at 4 weeks only occipital cortex remained significantly higher (+18%, p=.005).
- Among smoker groups, 6–12 weeks of abstinence was associated with significantly lower availability than 1 week in parietal cortex (p=.033), frontal cortex (p=.039), anterior cingulate (p=.014), occipital cortex (p=.019), and cerebellum (p=.016).
- Cerebellar β2*-nAChR availability at 4 weeks was positively correlated with craving on the day of scan: QSU-Intent rho=0.74, p=.01; QSU-Relief rho=0.74, p=.01.
- Baseline QSU-Intent correlated negatively with 1-day abstinence availability in thalamus (rho=−0.90, p=.006) and parietal cortex (rho=−0.88, p=.008); no significant correlations were found with nicotine withdrawal (MNWS).
Methods
- Nineteen tobacco smokers (9 men, 10 women; 41.1±9.0 years) and 20 age-matched nonsmokers (9 men, 11 women; 42.4±9.8 years) underwent [123I]5-IA SPECT; smokers completed up to 4 scans grouped at 1 day (n=7), 1 week (n=17), 2 weeks (n=7), 4 weeks (n=11), and 6–12 weeks (n=6) of abstinence, plus MRI for coregistration.
- [123I]5-IA was given as a bolus-to-constant-infusion ratio of 7.0 for 8 hours; regional outcome was VT/fP, analyzed with regions of interest by two raters (inter-rater variability <12%).
- Between-group comparisons used two-sample t-tests and repeated-measures mixed-effects models with group as a fixed effect and compound symmetry covariance; post hoc tests were Bonferroni-corrected at p≤0.00625, and correlations used Spearman’s rho with significance at p≤0.01.
Limitations
- The paper states that [123I]5-IA measures β2-subunit availability, primarily α4β2, but other nAChR subunits also contribute; different β2*-subunit combinations are differentially regulated, and β3 and α7 subunits were not measured. It also states there is no appropriate reference region, so nondisplaceable [123I]5-IA uptake could not be measured.
- The paper states that subjects reported mild-to-moderate nicotine withdrawal symptoms at baseline and throughout, so withdrawal-related results require replication in a larger sample with a greater range of withdrawal symptoms.
- Evident from the text: group sizes were small and unequal, especially at 1 day (n=7) and 6–12 weeks (n=6); some smokers contributed observations to more than one abstinence group; individual changes in receptor availability were highly variable (up to 48% in cortex vs less than 5% in others); and some baseline QSU data were missing, limiting correlation analyses.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
23 Own result · 20 Own interpretation · 14 Supported · 11 No full text of the sources · 11 Own method · 5 Supported so far · 5 Partly supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“β2*-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (β2*-nAChR) availability is higher in recently abstinent smokers compared to never smokers.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
“Previously, we demonstrated in vivo higher β2-subunit containing nAChR (β2*-nAChR) availability in recently abstinent tobacco smokers compared to nonsmokers8.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Staley JK, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cosgrove KP, et al. Human tobacco smokers in early abstinence have higher levels of beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than nonsmokers. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8707–14. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0546-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Discussion concludes that recently abstinent smokers had more cortical, striatal, and cerebellar β2*-nAChR sites available for binding than nonsmokers. The Results describe the comparison group as 15 people who had never smoked a cigarette and one who had experimented with smoking 18 years earlier; the paper’s nonsmoker criterion was fewer than 100 lifetime cigarettes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boostedstates an associationn = 19- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The difference between recently abstinent smokers and never smokers in the previous study8 was of a greater magnitude, e.g., 26-36% in the cerebral cortex and 27% in the striatum, than in the current study, e.g., 21-29% in the cerebral cortex and 22% in the striatum.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Staley JK, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cosgrove KP, et al. Human tobacco smokers in early abstinence have higher levels of beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than nonsmokers. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8707–14. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0546-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
Table 2 reports a 26.1–36.0% difference in cortical regions and a 26.9% difference in the striatum between smokers and nonsmokers, matching the cited study’s rounded figures. The 21–29% and 22% figures describe the citing authors’ current study, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Smokers experience craving within 2 h of their last cigarette despite continued occupancy of the receptor by nicotine13.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, et al. Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:907–15. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.8.907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that roughly half of presmoking craving had returned 2.5 hours after one cigarette, while estimated nicotine occupancy of α4β2* receptors remained about 90%. They do not establish that craving returned within 2 hours, as the citing sentence says (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This is consistent with the preclinical literature suggesting that the β2*-subtype does not play a critical role in the physical symptoms of nicotine withdrawal33, 76.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Besson M, David V, Suarez S, et al. Genetic dissociation of two behaviors associated with nicotine addiction: beta-2 containing nicotinic receptors are involved in nicotine reinforcement but not in withdrawal syndrome. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;187:189–99. doi: 10.1007/s00213-006-0418-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Supportedcites [76] Jackson KJ, Martin BR, Changeux JP, Damaj MI. Differential role of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits in physical and affective nicotine withdrawal signs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008;325:302–12. doi: 10.1124/jpet.107.132977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Discussion states that β2-containing receptors are not involved in the physical signs of nicotine withdrawal in the mouse models studied. The Results support this: nicotine-dependent β2 knockout and wild-type mice showed somatic signs and similar withdrawal-induced hyperalgesia. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Higher β2*-nAChR availability is thought to functionally reflect higher numbers of desensitized receptors13, 14.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, et al. Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:907–15. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.8.907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (COMMENT; page unavailable) suggest that prolonged desensitization may cause receptor up-regulation in smokers, supporting a possible link between receptor numbers and desensitization. The paper does not establish that higher measured β2*-nAChR availability reflects a higher number of receptors currently desensitized; its direct finding concerns nicotine occupancy and associated desensitization. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Supportedcites [14] Picciotto MR, Addy NA, Mineur YS, Brunzell DH. It is not “either/or”: Activation and desensitization of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors both contribute to behaviors related to nicotine addiction and mood. Prog Neurobiol. 2007 doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2007.12.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
Section 1.3 (page not available) says binding measurements are likely to detect predominantly high-affinity, desensitized nAChRs, and that increased binding may reflect, in part, a larger pool of desensitized receptors. Section 1.4 identifies β2* receptors as susceptible to high-affinity desensitization, supporting the qualified interpretation in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A recent in vivo study in a small number of male smokers demonstrated a trend for a normalization of the β2-nAChR by 21 days of smoking cessation18.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] Mamede M, Ishizu K, Ueda M, et al. Temporal change in human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor after smoking cessation: 5IA SPECT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1829–35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Volunteers section reports 10 male smokers, including five assessed after 21 days of cessation. The paper describes ¹²³I-5IA as selective for α4β2 nAChRs, and the Discussion reports that receptor binding after 21 days was significantly lower than after 10 days and not significantly different from nonsmokers. This supports the claim’s cautious description of a trend toward normalization. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boostedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This may be due to the older average age (approximately 5 years) of subjects in the current study, since β2*-nAChR availability has been shown to decrease with age in nonsmokers77.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [77] Mitsis EM, Cosgrove KP, Staley JK, et al. Age-related decline in nicotinic receptor availability with [(123)I]5-IA-85380 SPECT. Neurobiol Aging. 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.12.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The cited paper studied healthy nonsmokers and found that β2-nAChR availability declined with age. The approximately five-year age difference and its proposed explanation concern the citing authors’ current study, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Dopamine release has been associated with the feeling of craving58, and both nicotine59 and cotinine60 have been shown to facilitate dopamine release, thus the prolonged partial occupancy of the receptor by nicotine or cotinine, may contribute to the feelings of craving that are reported 2 h after the last cigarette and throughout the first week of abstinence.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] Adinoff B. Neurobiologic processes in drug reward and addiction. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2004;12:305–20. doi: 10.1080/10673220490910844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Supportedcites [59] Benwell ME, Balfour DJ. The effects of acute and repeated nicotine treatment on nucleus accumbens dopamine and locomotor activity. Br J Pharmacol. 1992;105:849–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1992.tb09067.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
Citation 59 is attached to the statement that nicotine facilitates dopamine release, not to the later proposal about receptor occupancy and craving. The Discussion reports increased extracellular nucleus accumbens dopamine after subchronic nicotine treatment in rats and after acute nicotine when dopamine uptake was blocked; it also notes that acute nicotine alone did not produce a significant increase in its measurements. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] Dwoskin LP, Teng L, Buxton ST, Crooks PA. (S)-(-)-Cotinine, the major brain metabolite of nicotine, stimulates nicotinic receptors to evoke [3H]dopamine release from rat striatal slices in a calcium-dependent manner. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;288:905–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“since β2*-nAChR availability has been shown to decrease with age in nonsmokers77.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [77] Mitsis EM, Cosgrove KP, Staley JK, et al. Age-related decline in nicotinic receptor availability with [(123)I]5-IA-85380 SPECT. Neurobiol Aging. 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.12.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Abstract describes a study of 47 healthy nonsmokers aged 18–85 and reports that β2-nAChR availability was inversely correlated with age in seven of eight brain regions. The Results (section 3.3) report the same age-related decline. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This study and previous in vivo PET78 and SPECT8, 18 studies report no upregulation of thalamic β2*-nAChR availability during acute abstinence, which conflicts with postmortem2 and animal8, 79 studies.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [78] Mukhin AG, Kimes AS, Chefer SI, et al. Greater Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Density in Smokers Than in Nonsmokers: A PET Study with 2-18F-FA-85380. J Nucl Med. 2008 doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.050716. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Methods state that smokers abstained for 36–48 hours before PET scanning. The Results report no statistically significant thalamic difference between smokers and nonsmokers, and the Discussion describes little thalamic increase. Thus the paper supports the claim of no detected thalamic upregulation during acute abstinence, rather than proving there was no increase at all. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [8] Staley JK, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cosgrove KP, et al. Human tobacco smokers in early abstinence have higher levels of beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than nonsmokers. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8707–14. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0546-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Discussion (page unavailable in our copy) states that thalamic [¹²³I]5-IA uptake did not differ significantly between recently abstinent smokers and nonsmokers. This supports the claim as it relates to this paper’s SPECT study; it does not establish the findings of the separately cited PET studies. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [18] Mamede M, Ishizu K, Ueda M, et al. Temporal change in human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor after smoking cessation: 5IA SPECT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1829–35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Results report that thalamic tracer availability was not significantly higher than in nonsmokers after 10 days of cessation; the Discussion reports substantially lower measured availability after 4 hours. Thus, this SPECT study did not detect thalamic upregulation during the abstinence periods it measured, although its authors caution that residual nicotine may have masked upregulation at 4 hours. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] Breese C, Marks M, Logel J, et al. Effect of smoking history on [3H]nicotine binding in human postmortem brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997;282:7–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] Pauly JR, Marks MJ, Gross SD, Collins AC. An autoradiographic analysis of cholinergic receptors in mouse brain after chronic nicotine treatment. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1991;258:1127–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Additionally, smoking one cigarette led to greater than 88% receptor occupancy13 suggesting that smokers maintain saturation of β2*-nAChRs over the day.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, et al. Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:907–15. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.8.907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Results state that smoking a full cigarette resulted in more than 88% occupancy of α4β2* nicotinic receptors. The Conclusions state that tobacco-dependent smokers maintain saturation of these receptors throughout the day. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“both nicotine59 and cotinine60 have been shown to facilitate dopamine release”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [59] Benwell ME, Balfour DJ. The effects of acute and repeated nicotine treatment on nucleus accumbens dopamine and locomotor activity. Br J Pharmacol. 1992;105:849–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1992.tb09067.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The citation to this paper is attached to nicotine, not cotinine. The Discussion reports that acute nicotine probably increased dopamine release in the rat nucleus accumbens: when dopamine uptake was blocked with nomifensine, nicotine increased extracellular dopamine. The paper also reports a significant increase after subchronic nicotine treatment. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] Dwoskin LP, Teng L, Buxton ST, Crooks PA. (S)-(-)-Cotinine, the major brain metabolite of nicotine, stimulates nicotinic receptors to evoke [3H]dopamine release from rat striatal slices in a calcium-dependent manner. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;288:905–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Higher β2*-nAChR availability in smokers may be due to a variety of molecular changes including increased assembly of α4 and β2 subunits in the endoplasmic reticulum9, increased transport of receptors to the membrane10, decreased receptor turnover11, and/or the presence of nicotine promoting intracellular maturation of the α4β2-nAChR to a high-affinity conformation12.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] Nashmi R, Dickinson ME, McKinney S, et al. Assembly of alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors assessed with functional fluorescently labeled subunits: effects of localization, trafficking, and nicotine-induced upregulation in clonal mammalian cells and in cultured midbrain neurons. J Neurosci. 2003;23:11554–67. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-37-11554.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The citation to this paper is attached to the proposed increase in α4β2 subunit assembly in the endoplasmic reticulum, not to the other mechanisms listed. In “Increased receptor assembly in response to several factors” (page unavailable), the paper reports nicotine-associated increases in assembly primarily in the soma and proposes the ER as a site of receptor assembly. It presents the ER mechanism as a hypothesis, consistent with the citing sentence’s “may be due to” wording; it does not directly test smokers. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Supportedcites [10] Harkness PC, Millar NS. Changes in conformation and subcellular distribution of alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors revealed by chronic nicotine treatment and expression of subunit chimeras. J Neurosci. 2002;22:10172–81. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-23-10172.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
Citation 12 is attached to the proposed intracellular maturation mechanism, not to the three preceding mechanisms. The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that nicotine increases the proportion of α4 and β2 subunits folded and assembled into an agonist-binding conformation, and says nicotine could plausibly act on intracellular receptors. That supports the citing sentence’s hedged explanation, although the paper does not establish it directly in smokers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Peng X, Gerzanich V, Anand R, Whiting P, Lindstrom J. Nicotine-induced increase in neuronal nicotinic receptor results from a decrease in the rate of receptor turnover. Mol Pharmacol. 1994;46:523–530. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Consistent with our previous study8 we report significantly higher β2*-nAChR availability in smokers at one week of abstinence in the cortex, striatum and cerebellum, but not thalamus compared to nonsmokers.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Staley JK, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cosgrove KP, et al. Human tobacco smokers in early abstinence have higher levels of beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than nonsmokers. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8707–14. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0546-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Results report that smokers had abstained for an average of 6.8 days and had higher β2*-nAChR availability in the striatum and cerebellum, but not the thalamus. The Results also identify significantly higher availability in cortical regions, and the Discussion summarizes the cortical, striatal, and cerebellar finding. Page numbers are not provided in the indexed copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We previously found a negative correlation between the urge to smoke to relieve withdrawal symptoms and β2*-nAChR availability in the sensorimotor cortex at approximately 1 week of abstinence8.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [8] Staley JK, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cosgrove KP, et al. Human tobacco smokers in early abstinence have higher levels of beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than nonsmokers. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8707–14. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0546-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Results report a significant negative correlation between β2*-nAChR availability in the postcentral gyrus (somatosensory cortex, BA 43) and the urge to smoke to relieve withdrawal symptoms. The Discussion places the measurements at 4–9 days of abstinence, consistent with approximately one week. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“[123I]5-IA is a nicotinic agonist that binds with high affinity to the nicotine binding site on nAChR that contain the β2-subunit39.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [39] Mukhin A, Gundisch D, Horti A, et al. 5-Iodo-A-85380, an α4β2 subtype-selective ligand for nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Mol Pharmacol. 2000;57:642–649. doi: 10.1124/mol.57.3.642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available indexed passages are BindingDB ligand listings (no section or page given), not passages describing the paper’s receptor-binding or functional findings. Searches for 5-iodo-A-85380 agonism, β2-containing receptors, and the nicotine binding site found no passage that establishes the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“One difference is that the previous study18 had significantly lower β2*-nAChR availability in all regions at 4 hr of abstinence compared to the nonsmokers, while the current study reports lower thalamic but similar β2*-nAChR availability in the striatum, cerebellum and throughout the cortex compared to the nonsmoker group at 1 day of abstinence.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [18] Mamede M, Ishizu K, Ueda M, et al. Temporal change in human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor after smoking cessation: 5IA SPECT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1829–35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In summary, our data extend the findings of previous studies8, 18 which showed that the upregulation of the β2*-nAChR in recently abstinent tobacco smokers was temporary and could be measured with [123I]5-IA SPECT imaging.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [8] Staley JK, Krishnan-Sarin S, Cosgrove KP, et al. Human tobacco smokers in early abstinence have higher levels of beta2* nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than nonsmokers. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8707–14. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0546-06.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report higher β2*-nAChR availability in recently abstinent smokers than in nonsmokers, measured with [123I]5-IA SPECT. The study does not establish that this upregulation was temporary in human smokers; it imaged them during early abstinence rather than following receptor levels over time. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [18] Mamede M, Ishizu K, Ueda M, et al. Temporal change in human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor after smoking cessation: 5IA SPECT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1829–35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Abstract reports that [¹²³I]5-IA SPECT measured elevated receptor binding after 10 days of smoking cessation and a return to nonsmoker levels after 21 days. It also describes the tracer as highly selective for α4β2 nicotinic receptors, supporting the claim about β2*-nAChRs. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Additionally, they reported significantly lower β2*-nAChR availability at 21 days of abstinence compared to 10 days of abstinence.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] Mamede M, Ishizu K, Ueda M, et al. Temporal change in human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor after smoking cessation: 5IA SPECT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1829–35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Discussion reports that ^123I-5IA distribution volume was significantly lower after 21 days of smoking cessation than after 10 days. The paper describes this tracer as selective for α4β2 nicotinic receptors and uses its distribution volume as an index of receptor binding potential, supporting the paraphrase about β2*-nAChR availability. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Importantly, different β2*-subunit combinations appear to be differentially regulated by nicotine, with α3/α6 and α6α4β2* and α5α4β2* not upregulating or decreasing in response to nicotine38, 85-88 while α6β2 (nonα4) nAChR increase in response to nicotine88.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] Mao D, Perry DC, Yasuda RP, Wolfe BB, Kellar KJ. The alpha4beta2alpha5 nicotinic cholinergic receptor in rat brain is resistant to up-regulation by nicotine in vivo. J Neurochem. 2008;104:446–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2007.05011.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [85] Lai A, Parameswaran N, Khwaja M, et al. Long-term nicotine treatment decreases striatal alpha 6* nicotinic acetylcholine receptor sites and function in mice. Mol Pharmacol. 2005;67:1639–47. doi: 10.1124/mol.104.006429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [86] McCallum SE, Parameswaran N, Bordia T, Fan H, McIntosh JM, Quik M. Differential regulation of mesolimbic alpha 3/alpha 6 beta 2 and alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor sites and function after long-term oral nicotine to monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006;318:381–8. doi: 10.1124/jpet.106.104414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] McCallum SE, Parameswaran N, Bordia T, et al. Increases in alpha4* but not alpha3*/alpha6* nicotinic receptor sites and function in the primate striatum following chronic oral nicotine treatment. J Neurochem. 2006;96:1028–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2005.03646.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Partly supportedcites [88] Perez XA, Bordia T, McIntosh JM, Grady SR, Quik M. Long-term nicotine treatment differentially regulates striatal alpha6alpha4beta2* and alpha6(Nonalpha4)beta2* nAChR expression and function. Mol Pharmacol. 2008;74:844–53. doi: 10.1124/mol.108.048843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Discussion report that chronic nicotine decreased striatal α6α4β2* receptors and increased α6(nonα4)β2* receptors in rodents. The Introduction also reports no change in α4α5β2 receptors, but the passages found do not address the claimed α3/α6 combination. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This study is also consistent with a previous study18 demonstrating that higher β2*-nAChR availability in recently abstinent tobacco smokers compared to nonsmokers is temporary.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] Mamede M, Ishizu K, Ueda M, et al. Temporal change in human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor after smoking cessation: 5IA SPECT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1829–35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that 123I-5IA binding was significantly higher in smokers after 10 days of abstinence than in nonsmokers, but had returned to nonsmoker levels after 21 days. The paper describes the tracer as selective for α4β2 nAChRs and concludes that the upregulation is temporary. (LLM, conf=0.93)
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Specifically, compared to nonsmokers, smokers had significantly lower β2*-nAChR availability at 4 hr of abstinence, significantly higher β2*-nAChR availability at 10 days of abstinence, and similar β2*-nAChR availability at 21 days of abstinence.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] Mamede M, Ishizu K, Ueda M, et al. Temporal change in human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor after smoking cessation: 5IA SPECT study. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:1829–35. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.107.043471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
The Discussion reports significantly lower ¹²³I-5IA distribution volume in smokers than nonsmokers at 4 hours, significantly higher volume at 10 days, and no significant difference at 21 days. The paper describes ¹²³I-5IA as selective for α4β2 nicotinic receptors, supporting the claim’s description of β2*-nAChR availability. Indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no differences in total parent (kBq/mL) or fP between groups at other time points, or between groups at any time point in free parent (kBq/mL).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were significant differences in QSU-Intent (F[4,25]=7.41, p<0.015) and QSU Relief (F[4,25]=5.63, p=0.002), but not in MNWS scores (F[4,25]=0.33, p=0.857), between groups of abstinent smokers (Table 4).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were significant differences in total parent (kBq/mL) between nonsmokers and 1 day abstinent smokers and in fP between nonsmokers and 2 week abstinent smokers (Table 2).”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and, the current study indicates that on average, β2*-nAChR availability in recently abstinent tobacco smokers does not normalize until between 4-12 weeks, although, this is highly variable between individuals.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Smokers who participated in scans at different times since the last cigarette were equivalent in age, level of nicotine dependence (as assessed by the FTND at intake), cigarettes smoked per day, and years of smoking (Table 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Plasma cotinine and nicotine levels and carbon monoxide measurements were negligible in nonsmokers and in smokers were highest at 1 day of abstinence and decreased over time, confirming abstinence from smoking (Table 1).”
plainstates a causen = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Imaging with [123I]5-IA SPECT in nonhuman primate and human subjects results in a binding pattern that is consistent with the established regional distribution of β2-nAChR and is highest in the thalamus and intermediate throughout the cortex and cerebellum43, 44.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [43] Staley JK, van Dyck CH, Weinzimmer D, et al. 123I-5-IA-85380 SPECT measurement of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in human brain by the constant infusion paradigm: feasibility and reproducibility. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1466–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] Chefer S, Horti A, Lee K, et al. In vivo imaging of brain nicotinic acetylcholine receptors with 5-[123I]iodo-A-85830 using single photon emission computed tomography. Life Sci. 1998;63:355–360. doi: 10.1016/s0024-3205(98)00514-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data suggest higher β2*-nAChR availability persists up to 1 month of abstinence, and normalizes to nonsmoker levels by 6-12 weeks of abstinence from tobacco smoking.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Second, the normalization of the β2*-nAChR is prolonged, requiring up to 6-12 weeks of abstinence to fully return to nonsmoker levels.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, we believe that subjects who reported high baseline craving, likely smoked more cigarettes immediately prior to their quit day and had lower receptor availability at 1 day of abstinence.”
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“This ligand demonstrates low nonspecific binding40 and has acceptable dosimetry in human subjects with high brain uptake41, 42 and good test-retest reproducibility43.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Horti A, Koren A, Lee K, et al. Radiosynthesis and preliminary evaluation of 5-[123/125I]iodo-3-(2(S)-azetidinylmethoxy)pyridine: a radioligand for nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Nucl Med Biol. 1999;26:175–182. doi: 10.1016/s0969-8051(98)00086-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] Fujita M, Seibyl JP, Vaupel DB, et al. Whole-body biodistribution, radiation absorbed dose, and brain SPET imaging with [123i]5-i-A-85380 in healthy human subjects. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:183–90. doi: 10.1007/s00259-001-0695-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Ueda M, Iida Y, Mukai T, et al. 5-[123I]Iodo-A-85380: assessment of pharmacological safety, radiation dosimetry and SPECT imaging of brain nicotinic receptors in healthy human subjects. Annals of Nuclear Medicine. 2004;18:337–344. doi: 10.1007/BF02984473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two raters conducted the analysis. Variability between raters was <12 % across regions-of-interest. The mean of the analysis from the two raters is reported.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Consistently, we expect that [123I]5-IA is metabolized in the liver by enzymes in the cytochrome P450 family, such as CYP2A6, which acts on nicotine, and CYP2B6 and CYP2D6, which catalyze the dealkylation of aromatic ethers56, 57.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] Baldwin RM, Zoghbi SS, Staley JK, et al. Chemical fate of the nicotinic acetylcholinergic radiotracer [123I]5-IA-85380 in baboon brain and plasma. Nucl Med Biol. 2006;33:549–54. doi: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2006.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] Lewis DF. Human cytochromes P450 associated with the phase 1 metabolism of drugs and other xenobiotics: a compilation of substrates and inhibitors of the CYP1, CYP2 and CYP3 families. Curr Med Chem. 2003;10:1955–72. doi: 10.2174/0929867033456855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonsmoking status, was confirmed by plasma cotinine levels <15 ng/mL, urine cotinine levels <100 ng/mL and carbon monoxide levels <11 ppm on the day of intake and day of scan.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no differences between groups in injected dose, bolus to infusion ratio, or time of scan (data not shown).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the physical action of smoking a cigarette is likely to be critically tied to craving during abstinence.”
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“so that craving for cigarettes may elicit preparation for action or voluntary movement, goal directed actions (e.g., lighting a cigarette, bringing a cigarette up to the mouth) and/or motor imagery which are linked to the motor system66, 67.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [66] Porro CA, Francescato MP, Cettolo V, et al. Primary motor and sensory cortex activation during motor performance and motor imagery: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J Neurosci. 1996;16:7688–98. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-23-07688.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [67] Cunnington R, Windischberger C, Deecke L, Moser E. The preparation and readiness for voluntary movement: a high-field event-related fMRI study of the Bereitschafts-BOLD response. Neuroimage. 2003;20:404–12. doi: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00291-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Importantly, nicotine induced increases in nAChR, termed “upregulation”, are conferred by a specific microdomain that is in the β2-subunit 34 and thus this upregulation is confined to nAChR that contain the β2-subunit4, 19, 31, 35-38.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Sallette J, Bohler S, Benoit P, et al. An extracellular protein microdomain controls upregulation of neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors by nicotine. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:18767–18775. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M308260200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Nguyen HN, Rasmussen BA, Perry DC. Subtype-selective up-regulation by chronic nicotine of high-affinity nicotinic receptors in rat brain demonstrated by receptor autoradiography. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003;307:1090–7. doi: 10.1124/jpet.103.056408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] Flores C, Rogers S, Pabreza L, Wolfe B, Kellar K. A subtype of nicotinic cholinergic receptor in rat brain is composed of alpha 4 and beta 2 subunits and is up-regulated by chronic nicotine treatment. Mol Pharmacol. 1992;41:31–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were given structured interviews using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) to rule out any Axis I Disorder except for Nicotine Dependence.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This discrepancy may be due to differences in correlational analysis methods, e.g., voxel-based analyses in the previous study versus spearman's rho correlations with regions-of-interest in the current study.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Voxel-based analyses may be more sensitive to detecting significance in smaller brain regions.
In the paper
“As described previously43, there is no appropriate reference region for this radiotracer, so nondisplaceable [123I]5-IA uptake could not be measured.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [43] Staley JK, van Dyck CH, Weinzimmer D, et al. 123I-5-IA-85380 SPECT measurement of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in human brain by the constant infusion paradigm: feasibility and reproducibility. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:1466–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Smoking status was confirmed by plasma cotinine levels >150 ng/mL, urine cotinine levels >100 ng/mL and carbon monoxide levels >11 on the day of intake.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“VT/fP is proportional to the binding potential (BP, mL/g=Bmax/KD), which is proportional to the receptor number (Bmax) at equilibrium, given the assumptions that there is no change in affinity (KD) and that nondisplaceable (nonspecific and free) uptake does not differ between subjects or comparison groups.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] Innis RB, Cunningham VJ, Delforge J, et al. Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2007;27:1533–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There is no change in affinity (KD) of [123I]5-IA for β2*-nAChR.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Nondisplaceable (nonspecific and free) uptake of [123I]5-IA does not differ between subjects or comparison groups.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A 57Co-distributed source was measured with each experiment to control for day-to-day variation in camera sensitivity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In radiotracer imaging studies it is imperative that brain uptake is corrected for radiotracer metabolism, since differences in metabolism of the radiotracer determine how much radiotracer is available to the brain, e.g., fast metabolizers will have less radiotracer available to brain, while slow metabolizers will have more radiotracer available to brain for a given dose.”
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This highlights the impact of nicotine or another chemical in tobacco smoke on metabolism, e.g., because nicotine was still present, it may have changed the metabolism of the radiotracer, resulting in lower total parent at 1 day of abstinence.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These between group differences were evaluated using repeated measures, mixed-effects models in order to account for the observations between abstinent smoker groups that were not entirely independent, given that some abstinent smokers contribute observations to more than one group.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is consistent with the clinical course of tobacco smoking in which craving, withdrawal symptoms, and risk for relapse are prolonged.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differences in the time course changes may be due to differences in dosing regimen, chronicity of nicotine, route of administration, metabolism between species, specificity of the radioligand, or sex and/or genetic differences in nAChR subunit expression and composition of nicotinic agonist binding sites”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, nAChR subunit expression varies regionally, and differential regulation of these distinct subunit combinations that are measured by a single nicotinic agonist ligand such as [123I]5-IA will result in regional differences in the degree of upregulation in smokers and the degree of receptor normalization during abstinence.”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One limitation of this study is that [123I]5-IA measures the availability of the β2-subunit of the nAChR, primarily the α4β2-subunit, but other subunits also contribute to the regulation of the nAChR by tobacco smoking.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is interesting and likely due to high levels of residual nicotine or metabolites present in the brain at 4 hr of abstinence (versus ∼24 hours in the current study) resulting in lower β2*-nAChR availability.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The preclinical studies support a process of prolonged normalization when we consider that 1-3 weeks is substantial in the life span of a rodent.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, we are likely measuring the β2-subunit in combination with α3-6 subunits leaving the in vivo measurement of the β3-subunit and α7-subunit for the future, with further radiotracer development.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Notably, the β2-subunit has been linked primarily to the reinforcing effects of nicotine22, 83, 84 and combines with the α3-6 subunits.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Picciotto M, Zoli M, Rimondin R, et al. Acetycholine receptors containing the beta2 subunit are involved in the reinforcing properties of nicotine. Nature. 1998;391:173–177. doi: 10.1038/34413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [83] Walters CL, Brown S, Changeux JP, Martin B, Damaj MI. The beta2 but not alpha7 subunit of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is required for nicotine-conditioned place preference in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;184:339–44. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0295-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [84] Brunzell DH, Chang JR, Schneider B, Olausson P, Taylor JR, Picciotto MR. beta2-Subunit-containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are involved in nicotine-induced increases in conditioned reinforcement but not progressive ratio responding for food in C57BL/6 mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;184:328–38. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0099-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, this may be due to differences in methodology or the higher relative dose of nicotine in the postmortem and animal studies.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no change in affinity (KD) of [123I]5-IA for β2*-nAChR.
“given the assumptions that there is no change in affinity (KD)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Nondisplaceable (nonspecific and free) uptake of [123I]5-IA does not differ between subjects or comparison groups.
“and that nondisplaceable (nonspecific and free) uptake does not differ between subjects or comparison groups.”
The paper relies on this without support.
[123I]5-IA administered at a “trace” dose (<1% occupancy) does not interfere with receptor and cell function.
“Because [123I]5-IA is administered at a “trace” dose (<1% occupancy) for SPECT imaging it does not interfere with receptor and cell function.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Voxel-based analyses may be more sensitive to detecting significance in smaller brain regions.
“Voxel-based analyses may be more sensitive to detecting significance in smaller brain regions, but that was beyond the scope of the current study.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Abstinent smokers compared to nonsmokers had higher levels of β2* nAChRs, which returned to baseline between 3-12 weeks, and elevated nAChR levels correlated with urge to smoke (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Mamede et al., 2007; Staley et al., 2006).”
From The duration of nicotine withdrawal-associated deficits in contextual fear conditioning parallels changes in hippocampal high affinity nicotinic acetylcholine receptor upregulation (2012) · cites this paper as Cosgrove et al., 2009
In the citing paper
“A hallmark of chronic nicotine administration is the upregulation of nicotinic receptors in the brain (Marks et al, 1983; Schwartz and Kellar, 1983) and recent studies in humans have suggested a functional role of these receptors in relapse vulnerability (Cosgrove et al, 2009).”
From Divergent Functional Effects of Sazetidine-A and Varenicline During Nicotine Withdrawal (2013) · cites this paper as Cosgrove et al, 2009
In the citing paper
“a recent SPECT study has suggested that nicotinic receptor availability is directly related to increased relapse rate (Cosgrove et al, 2009).”
From Divergent Functional Effects of Sazetidine-A and Varenicline During Nicotine Withdrawal (2013) · cites this paper as Cosgrove et al, 2009
In the citing paper
“Abstinent smokers compared to nonsmokers had higher levels of β2* nAChRs, which returned to baseline between 3-12 weeks, and elevated nAChR levels correlated with urge to smoke (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Mamede et al., 2007; Staley et al., 2006).”
From The duration of nicotine withdrawal-associated deficits in contextual fear conditioning parallels changes in hippocampal high affinity nicotinic acetylcholine receptor upregulation (2012) · cites this paper as Cosgrove et al., 2009
In the citing paper
“Imaging studies of nicotine abuse report upregulation of the nicotinic receptor (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Mukhin et al., 2008; Staley et al., 2006; Wullner et al., 2008)”
From Imaging addiction: D2 receptors and dopamine signaling in the striatum as biomarkers for impulsivity (2014) · cites this paper as Cosgrove et al., 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Results
“Compared to 1 week abstinent smokers, 1 day abstinent smokers had significantly lower VT/fP in the thalamus (t[25]=-3.51, corrected p=0.007) and cerebellum (t[25]=-3.02, corrected p=0.023).”
§ Methods
“For these post hoc tests, p-values were Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons, and statistical significance was considered at p≤0.00625.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Results
“β2*-nAChR availability in the striatum, cortex and cerebellum of smokers was not different at one day of abstinence, significantly higher at 1week of abstinence and not different at 4 or 6-12 weeks of abstinence.”
§ Results
“In 4 week abstinent smokers as compared to nonsmokers, VT/fP was significantly higher in the occipital cortex (Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2).”
Citations
Cites
The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire
HEATHERTON, T. F., KOZLOWSKI, L. T., FRECKER, R. C., & FAGERSTROM, K. (1991) · British Journal of Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x · Cited by 10,738
Consensus Nomenclature for in vivo Imaging of Reversibly Binding Radioligands
Innis, R. B., Cunningham, V. J., Delforge, J., Fujita, M., Gjedde, A., Gunn, R. N., Holden, J., Houle, S., Huang, S.-C., Ichise, M., et al. (2007) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600493 · Cited by 1,955
Picciotto, M. R., Zoli, M., Rimondini, R., Léna, C., Marubio, L. M., Pich, E. M., Fuxe, K., & Changeux, J.-P. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/34413 · Cited by 1,320
The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges
TIFFANY, S. T., & DROBES, D. J. (1991) · British Journal of Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01732.x · Cited by 974
Activation of memory circuits during cue-elicited cocaine craving.
Grant, S., London, E. D., Newlin, D. B., Villemagne, V. L., Liu, X., Contoreggi, C., Phillips, R. L., Kimes, A. S., & Margolin, A. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.21.12040 · Cited by 936
Porro, C. A., Francescato, M. P., Cettolo, V., Diamond, M. E., Baraldi, P., Zuiani, C., Bazzocchi, M., & di Prampero, P. E. (1996) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.16-23-07688.1996 · Cited by 924
Flores, C. M., Rogers, S. W., Pabreza, L. A., Wolfe, B. B., & Kellar, K. J. (1992) · Molecular Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0026-895x(25)08832-7 · Cited by 880
Effects of abstinence from tobacco: Valid symptoms and time course
Hughes, J. (2007) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1080/14622200701188919 · Cited by 801
Cerebellum Implicated in Sensory Acquisition and Discrimination Rather Than Motor Control
Gao, J., Parsons, L. M., Bower, J. M., Xiong, J., Li, J., & Fox, P. T. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.272.5261.545 · Cited by 674
Hester, R., & Garavan, H. (2004) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3321-04.2004 · Cited by 657
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [83]Walters CL, Brown S, Changeux JP, Martin B, Damaj MI. The beta2 but not alpha7 subunit of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is required for nicotine-conditioned place preference in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;184:339–44. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0295-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
- [84]Brunzell DH, Chang JR, Schneider B, Olausson P, Taylor JR, Picciotto MR. beta2-Subunit-containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are involved in nicotine-induced increases in conditioned reinforcement but not progressive ratio responding for food in C57BL/6 mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;184:328–38. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0099-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive Effects of Nicotine: Recent Progress
Valentine, G. W., & Sofuoglu, M. (2017) · Current Neuropharmacology · doi:10.2174/1570159x15666171103152136 · Cited by 302
“The slow return of nAChRs to baseline levels may contribute to the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, including cognitive difficulties, as the delayed nAChR recovery was identified in the cortex and cerebellum, brain regions with important roles in human cognition [133, 134].”
BackgroundWhy do patients with schizophrenia smoke?
Winterer, G. (2010) · Current Opinion in Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/yco.0b013e3283366643 · Cited by 238
Smoking, quitting, and psychiatric disease: A review
Aubin, H., Rollema, H., Svensson, T. H., & Winterer, G. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.06.007 · Cited by 241
Brain Imaging of Nicotinic Receptors in Alzheimer's Disease
Wu, J., Ishikawa, M., Zhang, J., & Hashimoto, K. (2010) · International Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.4061/2010/548913 · Cited by 211
Imaging addiction: D2 receptors and dopamine signaling in the striatum as biomarkers for impulsivity
Trifilieff, P., & Martinez, D. (2014) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.06.031 · Cited by 171
“Imaging studies of nicotine abuse report upregulation of the nicotinic receptor (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Mukhin et al., 2008; Staley et al., 2006; Wullner et al., 2008) and an imaging study of opiate abusers showed upregulation of the mu receptor (Zubieta et al., 2000).”
BackgroundCognitive function during nicotine withdrawal: Implications for nicotine dependence treatment
Ashare, R. L., Falcone, M., & Lerman, C. (2014) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.034 · Cited by 170
“Further, following cessation of smoking, unbound nAChRs are present at a higher level for as long as one week, and nAChR binding availability has been associated with self-reported withdrawal and craving (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Staley et al., 2006).”
Dual role of nicotine in addiction and cognition: A review of neuroimaging studies in humans
Jasinska, A. J., Zorick, T. S., Brody, A. L., & Stein, E. A. (2013) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.02.015 · Cited by 170
“…2-FA and 5-IA, have demonstrated up-regulation of available a4b2* nAChRs in smokers compared to non-smoking participants in brain regions other than the thalamus (Brody et al., 2012; Cosgrove et al., 2009, 2012; Mamede et al., 2007; Mukhin et al., 2008; Staley et al., 2006; Wullner et al., 2008).”
Loughead, J., Ray, R., Wileyto, E. P., Ruparel, K., Sanborn, P. M., Siegel, S. J., Gur, R. C., & Lerman, C. E. (2010) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.01.016 · Cited by 123
Persistent β 2 *-Nicotinic Acetylcholinergic Receptor Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder
Saricicek, A., Esterlis, I., Maloney, K. H., Mineur, Y. S., Ruf, B. M., Muralidharan, A., Chen, J. I., Cosgrove, K. P., Kerestes, R., Ghose, S., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11101546 · Cited by 118
“Studies suggest that tobacco smokers have higher β2*-nAChR availability compared with non-smokers in non-psychiatric populations (34) which normalizes by 6–12 weeks of abstinence (44).”
BackgroundSelf-citationUp-regulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in menthol cigarette smokers
Brody, A. L., Mukhin, A. G., Charite, J. L., Ta, K., Farahi, J. B., Sugar, C. A., Mamoun, M. S., Vellios, E. E., Archie, M. M., Kozman, M., et al. (2012) · The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1017/s1461145712001022 · Cited by 106
Hillmer, A. T., Esterlis, I., Gallezot, J., Bois, F., Zheng, M.-Q., Nabulsi, N., Lin, S., Papke, R. L., Huang, Y. H., Sabri, O., et al. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.026 · Cited by 100
“For example, differences in 5-[123I]IA-85380 parent fraction and fP were reported between nonsmokers and abstinent smokers (Cosgrove et al., 2009), and betweenmen andwomen (Cosgrove et al., 2007).”
InfluentialSelf-citationInside-out neuropharmacology of nicotinic drugs
Henderson, B. J., & Lester, H. A. (2015) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2015.01.022 · Cited by 109
“Upregulation of AChRs in humans has been detected by comparing [3H]nicotine binding to postmortem brains of smokers and non-smokers and in vivo by fMRI or PET imaging (Benwell et al., 1988; Breese et al., 1997; Brody et al., 2013, 2008, 2011, 2006; Cosgrove et al., 2009; Jasinska et al., 2014; Mamede et al., 2007; Per…”
Cosgrove, K. (2012) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.1465 · Cited by 109
Self-citationWithdrawal: Expanding a Key Addiction Construct
Piper, M. E. (2015) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv048 · Cited by 99
Parikh, V., Kutlu, M. G., & Gould, T. J. (2016) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.01.020 · Cited by 97
“…underlying dependence involves desensitization and long-lasting upregulation of α4β2 nAChRs, which may contribute to heightened nicotine reward sensitivity and increase relapse vulnerability (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Hilario et al., 2012; Kenny and Markou, 2006; Picciotto et al., 2008).”
BackgroundEffects of Menthol on Nicotine Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacology and Dependence in Mice
AlSharari, S. D., King, J. R., Nordman, J. C., Muldoon, P. P., Jackson, A. B., Zhu, A. Z. X., Tyndale, R. F., Kabbani, N., & Damaj, M. I. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137070 · Cited by 90
Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain
Brody, A. L. (2011) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.51 · Cited by 87
Epigenetic dysregulation of protocadherins in human disease
Hajj, N. E., Dittrich, M. T., & Haaf, T. (2017) · Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology · doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.07.007 · Cited by 80
Ovarian Hormones and Drug Abuse
Maria, M. M. M., Flanagan, J. C., & Brady, K. T. (2014) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-014-0511-7 · Cited by 89
Turner, J. R., Castellano, L. M., & Blendy, J. A. (2011) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq206 · Cited by 78
Pharmacological chaperoning of nAChRs: A therapeutic target for Parkinson's disease
Srinivasan, R., Henderson, B. J., Lester, H. A., & Richards, C. I. (2014) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2014.02.005 · Cited by 66
Ditre, J. W., Zale, E. L., LaRowe, L. R., Kosiba, J. D., & Vita, M. J. D. (2018) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000353 · Cited by 73
“This is consistent with previous findings that both central and peripheral nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) mediate the effects of nicotine deprivation on somatic symptoms of nicotine withdrawal (e.g., Cosgrove et al., 2009).”
Bacher, I. (2011) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.82 · Cited by 72
Parvaz, M. A., Rabin, R. A., Adams, F., & Goldstein, R. Z. (2022) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109319 · Cited by 77
Brody, A. L., Hubert, R., Enoki, R., Garcia, L. Y., Mamoun, M. S., Okita, K., London, E. D., Nurmi, E. L., Seaman, L. C., & Mandelkern, M. A. (2017) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2017.48 · Cited by 67
“Of note, the fact that study results were global (rather than regional) is also consistent with prior research demonstrating widespread effects of smoking on brain receptors (Brody et al, 2006a, 2009a, 2011, 2013; Cosgrove et al, 2009; Staley et al, 2006).”
BackgroundResultXie, P., Kranzler, H. R., Krauthammer, M. O., Cosgrove, K., Oslin, D. W., Anton, R. F., Farrer, L. A., Picciotto, M. R., Krystal, J. H., Zhao, H., et al. (2011) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.04.017 · Cited by 62
Self-citationBaldassarri, S. R., Hillmer, A. T., Anderson, J. M., Jatlow, P. I., Nabulsi, N., Labaree, D. C., Cosgrove, K., O’Malley, S. S., Eissenberg, T., Krishnan‐Sarin, S., et al. (2017) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx091 · Cited by 58
Self-citationAddiction‐related neuroadaptations following chronic nicotine exposure
Wills, L., & Kenny, P. J. (2021) · Journal of Neurochemistry · doi:10.1111/jnc.15356 · Cited by 61
Lower β2*-Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Availability in Smokers With Schizophrenia
D’Souza, D. C., Esterlis, I., Carbuto, M., Krasenics, M., Seibyl, J. P., Bois, F., Pittman, B. P., Ranganathan, M., Cosgrove, K., & Staley, J. K. (2011) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020189 · Cited by 62
Self-citationCraving among long-abstinent smokers: An Internet survey
Hughes, J. R. (2010) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq009 · Cited by 58
“…syndrome (Satel, Kosten, Schuckit, & Fischman, 1993; Schuckit, Kosten, & Fischman, 1994); however, in smokers, nicotine receptors appear to return to their normal state in 6–12 weeks of abstinence (Cosgrove et al., 2009) and prolonged nicotine withdrawal does not appear to exist (Hughes, 1994).”
BackgroundNicotinic Receptor Contributions to Smoking: Insights from Human Studies and Animal Models
Brunzell, D. H., Stafford, A. M., & Dixon, C. I. (2015) · Current Addiction Reports · doi:10.1007/s40429-015-0042-2 · Cited by 58
Gould, T. J., Portugal, G. S., André, J. M., Tadman, M. P., Marks, M. J., Kenney, J. W., Yildirim, E., & Adoff, M. (2012) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.01.003 · Cited by 56
“Abstinent smokers compared to nonsmokers had higher levels of b2* nAChRs, which returned to baseline between 3e12 weeks, and elevated nAChR levels correlated with urge to smoke (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Mamede et al., 2007; Staley et al., 2006).”
The nicotinic cholinergic system function in the human brain
Nees, F. (2014) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.10.021 · Cited by 57
Esterlis, I., Ranganathan, M., Bois, F., Pittman, B. P., Picciotto, M. R., Shearer, L., Anticevic, A., Carlson, J., Niciu, M. J., Cosgrove, K., et al. (2013) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.11.001 · Cited by 53
Self-citationEsterlis, I., Hannestad, J. O., Perkins, E., Bois, F., D’Souza, D. C., Tyndale, R. F., Seibyl, J. P., Hatsukami, D., Cosgrove, K., & O’Malley, S. S. (2013) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12060793 · Cited by 55
Self-citationAnderson, S. M., & Brunzell, D. H. (2015) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.13090 · Cited by 51
“It is not known whether β2*nAChR expression correlates with anxiety-disorder diagnosis, but smokers, compared with nonsmokers, show significant elevations in high-affinity β2*nAChR binding (Benwell et al., 1988; Breese et al., 1997; Cosgrove et al., 2009) and are more anxious overall than non-smokers (Tsuda et al.”
BackgroundReward Sensitization: Effects of Repeated Nicotine Exposure and Withdrawal in Mice
Hilário, M. R. F., Turner, J. R., & Blendy, J. A. (2012) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2012.130 · Cited by 48
“Similarly, imaging studies in humans proposed a functional role of these up-regulated nAChRs in relapse vulnerability (Cosgrove et al, 2009).”
BackgroundResultA cognitive phenotype for a polymorphism in the nicotinic receptor gene CHRNA4
Greenwood, P. M., Parasuraman, R., & Espeseth, T. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.010 · Cited by 50
Effects of Smoking Cessation on Presynaptic Dopamine Function of Addicted Male Smokers
Rademacher, L., Prinz, S., Winz, O., Henkel, K., Dietrich, C., Schmaljohann, J., Shali, S. M., Schabram, I., Stoppe, C., Cumming, P. D., et al. (2015) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.11.009 · Cited by 43
“The data rather suggest that K is lower than in nonsmokers as a consequence of chronic smoking and normalizes through prolonged abstinence, in analogy to the previously reported changes in D1 receptors (9), metabotropic glutamate receptors (40), and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, which were found to normalize to n…”
BackgroundResultPathophysiology of nAChRs: Limbic circuits and related disorders
Mineur, Y. S., Soares, A. R., Etherington, I. M., Abdulla, Z. I., & Picciotto, M. R. (2023) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106745 · Cited by 42
The therapeutic potential of exercise for neuropsychiatric diseases: A review
Swenson, S., Blum, K., McLaughlin, T., Gold, M. S., & Thanos, P. K. (2020) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jns.2020.116763 · Cited by 42
Chronic Nicotine Exposure Alters the Neurophysiology of Habenulo-Interpeduncular Circuitry
Arvin, M. C., Jin, X.-T., Yan, Y., Wang, Y., Ramsey, M. D., Kim, V. J., Beckley, N. A., Henry, B. A., & Drenan, R. M. (2019) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2816-18.2019 · Cited by 42
“Human brain-imaging studies have confirmed that smoking leads to the upregulation of high-affinity nAChRs, which is sustained for 3– 4 weeks following the discontinuation of nicotine exposure (Mamede et al., 2007; Mukhin et al., 2008; Cosgrove et al., 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialBrain Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Availability and Response to Smoking Cessation Treatment
Brody, A. L., Mukhin, A. G., Mamoun, M. S., Luu, T., Neary, M. K., Liang, L., Shieh, J., Sugar, C. A., Rose, J. E., & Mandelkern, M. A. (2014) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.138 · Cited by 44
Imaging Receptor Changes in Human Drug Abusers
Cosgrove, K. (2009) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2009_24 · Cited by 41
“5-HT transporter availability has been reported to be lower (Heinz et al. 1998; Szabo et al. 2004) and similar ( Brown et al. 2007 ) in recent and long-term”
InfluentialSelf-citationProgress and challenges in the study of α6-containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors
Letchworth, S. R., & Whiteaker, P. (2011) · Biochemical Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2011.06.022 · Cited by 40
Tobacco smoking and dopaminergic function in humans: a meta-analysis of molecular imaging studies
Ashok, A. H., Mizuno, Y., & Howes, O. D. (2019) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-019-05196-1 · Cited by 36
“…imaging studies have shown that occupancy of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is associated with the subjective hedonic response of smoking (Brody et al. 2009a, 2011, 2006a, 2014, 2013; Cosgrove et al. 2009a; Cosgrove et al. 2012; Dubroff et al. 2015; Lotfipour et al. 2012; Staley et al. 2006).”
BackgroundInfluentialNicotine: Pharmacology, Toxicity and Therapeutic use
Fagerström, K. O. (2014) · The Journal of Smoking Cessation · doi:10.1017/jsc.2014.27 · Cited by 39
“This readaptation differ for individuals but some data for the important nAChR subtype beta 2 subunit suggest that it normalizes to nonsmoker levels by 6–12 weeks of abstinence from tobacco smoking (Cosgrove et al., 2009).”
BackgroundCosgrove, K., Esterlis, I., McKee, S. A., Bois, F., Alagille, D., Tamagnan, G. D., Seibyl, J. P., Krishnan‐Sarin, S., & Staley, J. K. (2010) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq040 · Cited by 37
Self-citationKnott, V., Millar, A., McIntosh, J. F., Shah, D. K., Fisher, D. J., Blais, C. M., Ilivitsky, V., & Horn, E. (2011) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.06.012 · Cited by 37
Esterlis, I., Cosgrove, K., Batis, J. C., Bois, F., Stiklus, S. M., Perkins, E., Seibyl, J. P., Carson, R. E., & Staley, J. K. (2010) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.072447 · Cited by 36
“Changes in ligand binding to the high-affinity state of b2*-nAChRs have been demonstrated in tobacco smoking (1,2) and psychiatric and neurocognitive disorders including schizophrenia (3,4) and Alzheimer disease (5,6).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBrody, A. L., Gehlbach, D. L., Garcia, L. Y., Enoki, R., Hoh, C. K., Vera, D. R., Kotta, K. K., London, E. D., Okita, K., Nurmi, E. L., et al. (2018) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-018-5077-3 · Cited by 32
“…effect found here is consistent with prior research demonstrating global effects of smoking on other molecules (such as nAChRs) that are located throughout the brain (Brody et al. 2006a; Brody et al. 2009a; Brody et al. 2011; Brody et al. 2013; Cosgrove et al. 2009; Staley et al. 2006).”
Treatment for Tobacco Dependence: Effect on Brain Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Density
Brody, A. L., Mukhin, A. G., Shulenberger, S., Mamoun, M. S., Kozman, M., Phuong, J., Neary, M. K., Luu, T., & Mandelkern, M. A. (2013) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2013.53 · Cited by 33
“In follow-up scanning, nAChR upregulation in smokers was found to normalize to levels of non-smokers when participants were given contingency management to maintain abstinence for roughly 3 (Mamede et al, 2007) to 12 (Cosgrove et al, 2009) weeks.”
BackgroundJackson, A. B., Bağdaş, D., Muldoon, P. P., Lichtman, A. H., Carroll, F. I., Greenwald, M. K., Miles, M. F., & Damaj, M. I. (2017) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.03.005 · Cited by 33
Fasoli, F., Moretti, M., Zoli, M., Pistillo, F., Crespi, A., Clementi, F., McClure‐Begley, T. D., Marks, M. J., & Gotti, C. (2016) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.04.048 · Cited by 34
Jones, S. K., Wolf, B. J., Froeliger, B., Wallace, K., Carpenter, M. J., & Alberg, A. J. (2021) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntab175 · Cited by 31
Decreased Nicotinic Receptor Availability in Smokers with Slow Rates of Nicotine Metabolism
Dubroff, J. G., Doot, R. K., Falcone, M., Schnoll, R. A., Ray, R., Tyndale, R. F., Brody, A. L., Hou, C., Schmitz, A. M. T., & Lerman, C. E. (2015) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.155002 · Cited by 31
“SPECT molecular imaging studies of the nAChR a4b2* subtype have also shown that nAChR availability in smokers peaks after 1 wk of abstinence (22,24), suggesting the persistent occupation of nAChRs by nicotine.”
BackgroundDivergent Functional Effects of Sazetidine-A and Varenicline During Nicotine Withdrawal
Turner, J. R., Wilkinson, D. S., Poole, R. L., Gould, T. J., Carlson, G. C., & Blendy, J. A. (2013) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2013.105 · Cited by 29
Imaging Tobacco Smoking with PET and SPECT
Cosgrove, K., Esterlis, I., Sandiego, C. M., Petrulli, J. R., & Morris, E. D. (2015) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13482-6_1 · Cited by 32
“This study (Cosgrove et al. 2009) and others (Brody et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationBoggs, D. L., Carlson, J., Cortes-Briones, J., Krystal, J. H., & D’Souza, D. C. (2014) · Current Pharmaceutical Design · doi:10.2174/1381612819666131216121019 · Cited by 26
“In the presence of an agonist such as nicotine the α4β2 concentrations increase or undergo upregulation [29, 30].”
BackgroundNicotine administration in healthy non-smokers reduces appetite but does not alter plasma ghrelin
Pilhatsch, M., Scheuing, H., Kroemer, N. B., et al. (2014) · Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experimental · doi:10.1002/hup.2405 · Cited by 22
“In regular smokers, nicotine receptors are usually occupied unless smoking is discontinued for at least 24 h (Cosgrove et al., 2009).”
BackgroundCole, R. D., Poole, R. L., Guzman, D. M., Gould, T. J., & Parikh, V. (2014) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3754-4 · Cited by 25
“Previous animal and human research indicates that chronic nicotine-induced neuroadaptations underlying dependence involves desensitization and long-lasting upregulation of α4β2 nAChRs contributing to heightened nicotine reward sensitivity and increase relapse vulnerability (Kenny and Markou 2006; Cosgrove et al. 2009;…”
Hussmann, G. P., DeDominicis, K. E., Turner, J. R., Yasuda, R. P., Klehm, J., Forcelli, P. A., Xiao, Y., Richardson, J. R., Sahibzada, N., Wolfe, B. B., et al. (2014) · Journal of Neurochemistry · doi:10.1111/jnc.12653 · Cited by 23
“, 1999), as well as in brain imaging studies of current smokers (Staley et al., 2006; Wüllner et al., 2008; Cosgrove et al., 2009).”
Selegiline Transdermal System (STS) as an Aid for Smoking Cessation
Kahn, R., Gorgon, L., Jones, K. M., McSherry, F., Glover, E. D., Anthenelli, R. M., Jackson, T., Williams, J. M., Murtaugh, C., Montoya, I. D., et al. (2011) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr143 · Cited by 23
Zuo, Y., Rabinovich, N. E., & Gilbert, D. G. (2016) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4509-1 · Cited by 23
“…risk for relapse could reflect a combination of smoking-and abstinence-related long-lasting neuropharmacological and biological processes (e.g., Cosgrove et al. 2009; Gilbert et al. 1999; Gilbert et al. 2003; Koob et al. 2014), environmental events (e.g., stressors or conditioned stimuli;…”
Fischer, S., Hiller, A., Smits, R., Hoepping, A., Funke, U., Wenzel, B., Cumming, P. D., Sabri, O., Steinbach, J., & Brust, P. (2013) · Applied Radiation and Isotopes · doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2013.01.002 · Cited by 22
McCaul, M. E., Wand, G. S., Kuwabara, H., Dannals, R. F., Wong, D. F., & Xu, X. (2019) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntz080 · Cited by 24
Bidirectional Associations among Nicotine and Tobacco Smoke, NeuroHIV, and Antiretroviral Therapy
Ghura, S., Gross, R., Jordan‐Sciutto, K. L., Dubroff, J. G., Schnoll, R. A., Collman, R. G., & Ashare, R. L. (2019) · Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/s11481-019-09897-4 · Cited by 21
“One study found that, during nicotine withdrawal, nAChR availability, measured via SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography) imaging, peaked one week following initiation of abstinence (Cosgrove et al. 2009).”
BackgroundBrody, A. L., Hubert, R., Mamoun, M. S., Enoki, R., Garcia, L. Y., Abraham, P., Young, P., & Mandelkern, M. A. (2016) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4367-x · Cited by 21
“Recent studies using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (Cosgrove et al. 2009; Mamede et al. 2007; Staley et al. 2006) and positron emission tomography (PET) (Brody et al. 2013; Mukhin et al. 2008; Wullner et al. 2008) have consistently demonstrated significant upregulation of these receptors in smoker…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEffects of nicotine deprivation on current pain intensity among daily cigarette smokers.
LaRowe, L. R., Kosiba, J. D., Zale, E. L., & Ditre, J. W. (2018) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/pha0000218 · Cited by 21
“There is also some evidence that greater nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) availability during periods of smoking abstinence may be positively associated with greater experimental pain reactivity (Cosgrove et al., 2009, 2010).”
Govind, A. P., Vallejo, Y. F., Stolz, J. R., Yan, J.-Z., Swanson, G. T., & Green, W. N. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.25651 · Cited by 17
“Recent studies using PET imaging in humans found that reversal of a4b2R upregulation was correlated with less smoking relapse (Brody et al., 2013; Staley et al., 2006; Cosgrove et al., 2009).”
BackgroundHillmer, A., Wooten, D. W., Slesarev, M. S., Ahlers, E. O., Barnhart, T., Schneider, M., Mukherjee, J., & Christian, B. (2013) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2013.136 · Cited by 16
Nicotine Addiction: Mechanisms and Consequences
Rosenthal, D. G., Weitzman, M. L., & Benowitz, N. L. (2011) · International Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.2753/imh0020-7411400102 · Cited by 18
“The amount of nicotine inhaled by a typical smoker results in almost full saturation (desensitization) of α4β2 nAChRs [28, 39, 40].”
BackgroundHillmer, A. T., Tudorascu, D., Wooten, D. W., et al. (2014) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.01.027 · Cited by 17
Scientific Evidence for the Addictiveness of Tobacco and Smoking Cessation in Tobacco Litigation
Roh, S. (2017) · Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.3961/jpmph.16.088 · Cited by 17
Lee, H., Jeon, Y., Yoo, C., Seon, H., Park, J., Hwang, M., Baek, K., & Chung, D. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29547-3 · Cited by 15
“95e−03), smoked for more years (t(46) = 13.”
BackgroundSimmons, S. J., & Gould, T. J. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/jcpt.12171 · Cited by 18
“Related studies using iodide 123-labelled 5iodo-A-85380 ([(123)I]5-IA; herein referred to as 5IA) SPECT imaging provided evidence that smokers have increased levels of a4b2* nAChRs in thalamic, striatal and cortical brain regions at 1 week but not 24 h into withdrawal relative to non-smokers.(26,79) Notably,”
MethodJensen, K. P., Smith, A. H., Herman, A. I., Farrer, L. A., Kranzler, H. R., Sofuoglu, M., & Gelernter, J. E. (2016) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/mp.2016.43 · Cited by 15
Abreu‐Villaça, Y., Correa‐Santos, M., Dutra-Tavares, A. C., Paes‐Branco, D., Nunes‐Freitas, A. L., Manhães, A. C., Filgueiras, C. C., & Ribeiro‐Carvalho, A. (2016) · International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2016.06.002 · Cited by 15
Nicotinic modulation of salience network connectivity and centrality in schizophrenia
Smucny, J., Wylie, K. P., Kronberg, E., Legget, K. T., & Tregellas, J. R. (2017) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.01.018 · Cited by 15
“Importantly, increased nicotinic receptor expression levels (tied to smoking) have been shown to normalize by 6 weeks in former smokers (Cosgrove et al., 2009).”
BackgroundGilbert, D. G., Rabinovich, N. E., Gilbert-Matuskowitz, E. A., Klein, K. P., & Pergadia, M. L. (2019) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/pha0000278 · Cited by 17
An audit of assessment and outcome of intervention at a quit smoking clinic in a homeless hostel
Power, J., Mallat, C., Bonevski, B., & Nielssen, O. B. (2015) · Australasian Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/1039856215593396 · Cited by 15
Semenova, S., Jin, X., McClure‐Begley, T. D., Tadman, M. P., Marks, M. J., & Markou, A. (2018) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2018.06.002 · Cited by 13
“Chronic cigarette smoking in humans leads to nAChR upregulation of high affinity α4β2* nicotine binding sites in the brain (Benwell et al., 1988; Breese et al., 1997; Cosgrove et al., 2009; Gentry and Lukas, 2002; Perry et al., 1999; Staley et al., 2006).”
BackgroundSPECT imaging of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in nonsmoking heavy alcohol drinking individuals
Esterlis, I., Cosgrove, K., Petrakis, I. L., McKee, S. A., Bois, F., Krantzler, E., Stiklus, S. M., Perry, E. B., Tamagnan, G. D., Seibyl, J. P., et al. (2010) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.006 · Cited by 14
Self-citationEvaluation of (‐)‐[18 F]F lubatine‐specific binding: Implications for reference region approaches
Bhatt, S., Hillmer, A. T., Nabulsi, N., Matuskey, D., Lim, K., Lin, S.-F., Esterlis, I., Carson, R. E., Huang, Y. H., & Cosgrove, K. (2017) · Synapse · doi:10.1002/syn.22016 · Cited by 12
“…of a4b2-containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (a4b2*-nAChRs) with positron emission tomography (PET) has important clinical applications for studying addiction and other neuropsychiatric disorders (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Esterlis et al., 2014; Hannestad et al., 2013; Saricicek et al., 2012).”
Self-citationBetthauser, T., Hillmer, A., Lao, P., Ehlerding, E. B., Mukherjee, J., Stone, C., & Christian, B. (2017) · Nuclear Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2017.08.001 · Cited by 13
“Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of α4β2 nAChRs with 2-[18F]FA-85380 [2] and the single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) counterpart 5-[123I]IA-85380 [3] has yielded important findings in areas such as Alzheimer’s disease [4] and tobacco addiction [5].”
BackgroundEsterlis, I., Hillmer, A. T., Bois, F., Pittman, B. P., McGovern, E. M., O’Malley, S. S., Picciotto, M. R., Yang, B., Gelernter, J. E., & Cosgrove, K. (2016) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntw081 · Cited by 14
Self-citationDuncan, P. M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781139025515.013 · Cited by 12
Keyworth, H. L., Georgiou, P., Zanos, P., Rueda, A. V. L., Chen, Y., Kitchen, I., Camarini, R., Cropley, M., & Bailey, A. (2017) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.14068 · Cited by 12
“Up-regulation of α4β2* nAChR following prolonged exposure to nicotine has been consistently shown in cigarette smokers (Breese et al., 1997; Cosgrove et al., 2009) and animal models of nicotine administration (e.”
BackgroundA Control Theory Model of Smoking
Bobashev, G., Holloway, J. W., Solano, E., & Gutkin, B. S. (2017) · doi:10.3768/rtipress.2017.op.0040.1706 · Cited by 11
“Following results in peer-reviewed literature (Cosgrove et al., 2009; Ward et al., 2001) that abstaining from smoking for a period longer than a month (90 days is recommended) is critical for long-term abstinence, we restricted access to cigarettes for more than 30 days but allowed for relapse.”
Poole, R. L., Connor, D. A., & Gould, T. J. (2014) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/bne0000003 · Cited by 11
Translational Research in Nicotine DependencePreprint
Turner, J. R., Gold, A. B., Schnoll, R. A., & Blendy, J. A. (2013) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a012153 · Cited by 11
Lotfipour, S., Mandelkern, M. A., & Brody, A. L. (2011) · Current Medical Imaging Formerly Current Medical Imaging Reviews · doi:10.2174/157340511795445676 · Cited by 9
“The nAChR density returns to normal after a prolonged abstinence of weeks to months [60, 61].”
BackgroundThanos, P. K. (2012) · Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy · doi:10.4172/2155-6105.s6-007 · Cited by 10
Smoking and Neuroimaging: A Review
Hedy Kober, A., & DeLeone, C. M. (2011) · Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports · doi:10.1007/s12170-011-0201-5 · Cited by 9
Effects of ceftriaxone on conditioned nicotine reward in rats
Philogene-Khalid, H. L., Simmons, S. J., Muschamp, J. W., & Rawls, S. M. (2017) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/fbp.0000000000000314 · Cited by 9
“Desensitization and upregulation of β2 subunit-containing nAChRs is evident following chronic nicotine use (Fenster et al., 1997, 1999; Cosgrove et al., 2009), and upregulation of β2 subunit-containing nAChRs persists throughout and underlies symptoms of nicotine withdrawal (for review, see Simmons…”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Scientific Basis for the Regulation of Flavors in Tobacco Products
Bold, K. W., Kong, G., & O’Malley, S. S. (2024) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080921-075624 · Cited by 8
Self-citationLuckhaus, C., Henning, U., Ferrea, S., Musso, F., Mobascher, A., & Winterer, G. (2011) · Journal of Neural Transmission · doi:10.1007/s00702-011-0743-1 · Cited by 8
“At baseline culture condition, [(3)H]-nicotine binding on B-lymphoblasts was not statistically different between healthy smokers and never-smokers, which on first sight is not in line with earlier post-mortem, neuroimaging and peripheral leucocyte findings (Breese et al. 2000; Cormier et al. 2004; Staley et al. 2006;…”
ResultSimmons, S. J., Gentile, T. A., Mo, L., Tran, F. H., Ma, S., & Muschamp, J. W. (2016) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2016.07.053 · Cited by 7
Smoking Cessation in Men and Women
Potter, A. (2014) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14081032 · Cited by 7
“There is evidence that female smokers exhibit less nicotinic receptor up-regulation in the striatum than male smokers (10, 11).”
BackgroundTranslational Research in Nicotine AddictionPreprint
Fisher, M. L., Pauly, J. R., Froeliger, B., & Turner, J. R. (2020) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a039776 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Cosgrove, K. P., Batis, J., Bois, F., Maciejewski, P. K., Esterlis, I., Kloczynski, T., Stiklus, S., Krishnan-Sarin, S., O’Malley, S., Perry, E., Tamagnan, G., Seibyl, J. P., & Staley, J. K.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Institute for Neurodegenerative Disorders (US)
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2009-06-01
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 666
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2796827
- OpenAlex
- W2170069078
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 10.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Public Health Service (T32-14276)
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (P50AA015632)
- National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH014276)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (K02DA021863, R01DA015577, K01DA020651, P50DA013334)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K25NS044316)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
- Keywords
- receptor availability, nicotine withdrawal, cigarette craving, cerebellum, striatum, cortex, nicotine dependence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Azetidines, Brain, Brain Mapping, Dominance, Cerebral, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Iodine Radioisotopes, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Nicotine, Receptors, Nicotinic, Smoking, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Tobacco Use Disorder, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon, Smoking Cessation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review