Cited by 169Smoking Behavior and CessationNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Enhanced vulnerability to the rewarding effects of nicotine during the adolescent period of development

Open access
TORRES, O, TEJEDA, H, NATIVIDAD, L, ODELL, L·2008·Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

Abstract

This study compared the rewarding and aversive effects of nicotine in adolescent, adult, and adult rats preexposed to nicotine during adolescence. Prior to conditioning, the rats were tested for their initial preference for either of 2 distinct compartments. Adolescent and adult rats then received various nicotine doses in their initially non-preferred side on one day and saline in the other side on alternate days. This 2-day procedure was repeated over 8 consecutive days. Following conditioning, rats were re-tested for their preference. Another cohort of adolescent and adult rats were conditioned with various doses of D-amphetamine. Nicotine produced CPP in an inverted U-shaped manner in both age groups. However, adolescents displayed a larger upward shift in CPP that was significant across a wider dose range relative to adults. There were no developmental differences to CPP produced by D-amphetamine. In a final study, adolescents were prepared with pumps that delivered nicotine for 14 days. These rats were conditioned later as adults using the same procedures used previously. Pre-exposure to nicotine during adolescence diminished the aversive effects produced by the highest nicotine dose in naive adults. Taken together, these studies provide a basis for enhanced vulnerability to nicotine during adolescence.

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.pbb.2008.05.009

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • The acute nicotine effect was much larger in adults than in adolescents, which does not explain the increased sensitivity of adolescents to nicotine.

    “In addition, the acute nicotine effect was much larger in adults than in adolescents, thereby not explaining the increased sensitivity of adolescents for nicotine (25, 45).”

    From Adolescent nicotine exposure transiently increases high-affinity nicotinic receptors and modulates inhibitory synaptic transmission in rat medial prefrontal cortex (2012) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Results (section 3; page unavailable) report an approximately twofold larger nicotine-induced preference response in adolescent than adult rats, the opposite of the claimed age comparison. The Introduction (section 1; page unavailable) also reports that a single nicotine injection produced conditioned place preference in adolescents but not adults. The paper does not conclude that a larger acute effect in adults fails to explain adolescent sensitivity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Adolescent nicotine exposure increases later nicotine reward and reduces nicotine aversion in adult animals.

    “Adolescent nicotine treatment increases subsequent nicotine reward and decreases aversion in adults”

    From Unique, long-term effects of nicotine on adolescent brain. (2020) · cites this paper as Torres et al., 2008

    The Discussion reports that adult rats exposed to nicotine during adolescence did not show the aversion seen at the highest dose in naïve adults. But it also says those rats did not show increased nicotine reward: their dose-response curve was relatively flat, and adolescent exposure did not facilitate conditioned place preference in adulthood. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Adolescent rodents are more sensitive than adults to the acute rewarding effects of nicotine, as shown by conditioned place preference, with some studies demonstrating reward after a single pairing of drug and context.

    “Adolescent rodents are more sensitive than adults to the acute rewarding effects of nicotine, as shown by conditioned place preference [133–138], with some studies demonstrating reward after a single pairing of drug and context [139,140].”

    From Nicotine on the developing brain. (2023) · cites this paper as [136]

  • Adolescent rats are often less sensitive than adults to aversive properties of both non-drug and drug stimuli, with drug effects emerging at higher doses of the same drugs that at lower doses they find more reinforcing than adults.

    “For instance, adolescent rats are often less sensitive than adults to aversive properties of both non-drug and drug stimuli, with the latter emerging at higher doses of the same drugs that, at lower doses, they conversely find more reinforcing than adults (cocaine, amphetamine, nicotine and alcohol)(38; 60; 61).”

    From Adolescent Neurodevelopment (2013) · cites this paper as [60]

  • Adolescent rats are less sensitive than adult rats to the aversive effects of various drugs in conditioned taste aversion.

    “Adolescent rats, for instance, have often been found to be less sensitive than their adult counterparts to the aversive effects of a variety of drugs when indexed via conditioned taste aversions (CTA)”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
TORRES, O., TEJEDA, H., NATIVIDAD, L., & ODELL, L.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at El Paso (US)
Corresponding author
ODELL, L
Venue
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-10
Volume
90
Issue
4
Pages
658-663
ISSN
0091-3057 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101673955
Cited by
169
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (F31DA021133, R01DA021274, R25DA033613)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R25GM055036)
  • National Center for Research Resources (G12RR008124)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
nicotine, adolescent development, nicotine reward, conditioned place preference, developmental vulnerability, amphetamine, nicotine self-administration
MeSH terms
Aging, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Conditioning, Operant, Dextroamphetamine, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Environment, Male, Nicotine, Reward, Rats, Wistar, Nicotinic 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