Cited by 153Smoking Behavior and CessationNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Granular insular cortex inactivation as a novel therapeutic strategy for nicotine addiction

Open access
Forget, Benoit, Pushparaj, Abhiram, Le Foll, Bernard·2010·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Nicotine is the principal component of tobacco smoke, resulting in addiction, and recent evidence suggests that damage to the insular cortex (insula) disrupts tobacco addiction in human smokers. However, the effect of an inactivation of this structure in an animal model of nicotine addiction has yet to be evaluated. Methods To study this question, we investigated the effects of reversible inactivation of the granular insula by local injection of a gamma-aminobutyric acid agonists mixture (baclofen/muscimol) on nicotine self-administration (SA) under fixed and progressive ratio and on reinstatement of nicotine seeking induced by nicotine priming or nicotine-associated cues in rats. We also evaluated the effects of granular insula inactivation on food SA and relapse as a control. Results The inactivation of the granular insula decreased nicotine SA under both fixed and progressive ratios without affecting the SA of food under the same schedules of reinforcement. This inactivation also prevented the reinstatement, after extinction, of nicotine seeking induced by nicotine-associated cues or nicotine priming without modifying the reinstatement of food seeking. Conclusions Our study indicates that the integrity of the granular insula is necessary for exhibiting motivation to take nicotine and to relapse to nicotine seeking but not for consuming food pellets or to relapse for food seeking. Indeed, it might be interesting to study the effect of methods that are able to modulate the activity of the insula--such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or deep brain stimulation--on tobacco addiction and relapse in humans.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.01.029

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • aAgIC or pGIC chemical inactivation attenuates nicotine taking under various ratio schedules of reinforcement.

    “Our own laboratory demonstrated that aAgIC or pGIC chemical inactivation attenuates nicotine taking, under various ratio schedules of reinforcement”

    From The Insula: A Brain Stimulation Target for the Treatment of Addiction (2019) · cites this paper as Forget et al., 2010

  • aAgIC or pGIC inactivation demonstrated no effect on food taking in rats under a moderately restricted diet.

    “These methods of inactivation demonstrated no effect on food taking in rats under a moderately restricted diet.”

    From The Insula: A Brain Stimulation Target for the Treatment of Addiction (2019) · cites this paper as Forget et al., 2010

  • aAgIC or pGIC inactivation attenuates nicotine seeking.

    “Our own laboratory demonstrated that aAgIC or pGIC inactivation attenuates nicotine seeking”

    From The Insula: A Brain Stimulation Target for the Treatment of Addiction (2019) · cites this paper as Forget et al., 2010

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forget, B., Pushparaj, A., & Le Foll, B.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
265-271
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2035027501
Cited by
153
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
nicotine dependence, insula, neural inactivation, nicotine self-administration, relapse, food self-administration, motivation
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Association Learning, Baclofen, Behavior, Animal, Cerebral Cortex, Conditioning, Classical, Disease Models, Animal, Drug Combinations, Extinction, Psychological, Male, Microinjections, Motivation, Muscimol, Nicotine, Reinforcement Schedule, Self Administration, Tobacco Use Disorder, Behavior, Addictive, Nicotinic Agonists, GABA Agonists, Rats

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.

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