Cited by 14Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Effects of nicotine on target biting and resident-intruder attack

Johnson, Susan K., Carlson, Kirsten M., Lee, Jane, Burr, Lorraine E., Wagner, George C.·2003·Life Sciences

Abstract

The effects of acute administration of nicotine on target biting (defensive) and resident-intruder (offensive) attack of male mice were assessed. In the target biting procedure confined mice received tail shock on a fixed time, 2-min schedule. Under baseline conditions, biting attack directed toward an inanimate target occurred at three distinct rates. A high target biting rate (13.5 +/- 3.8 bites/15 sec) followed shock delivery, an intermediate biting rate (9.6 +/- 4.1 bites/15 sec) occurred during the inter-shock interval, and a low biting rate (1.0 +/- 0.5 bites/15 sec) occurred during a tone stimulus which signalled the impending shock. Nicotine (administered IP, 15 min presession) reduced post-shock and inter-shock interval target biting in a dose-dependent manner (ED50 values estimated at 0.13 and 0.14 mg/kg, respectively) but exerted more variable effects on target biting during the tone. In the resident-intruder paradigm the same mice were exposed to an intruder introduced into its home cage for a 10-min test session. Under baseline conditions, residents directed 20 +/- 3.2 biting attacks toward the intruder during the session with an average latency of 89 +/- 40 sec to the first attack. Nicotine caused a dose-dependent decrease in this attack behavior (ED50 values estimated to be 0.48 and 0.49 mg/kg, respectively). These observations are interpreted to indicate that nicotine has an increased potency at reducing "defensive" aggression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0024-3205(03)00289-3

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, S. K., Carlson, K. M., Lee, J., Burr, L. E., & Wagner, G. C.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Wagner, George C.
Venue
Life Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
311-317
ISSN
0024-3205 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2026920992
Cited by
14
References
15
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Life Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r21ns043981-03)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 43981)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES 11256, ES-05022., P01ES011256, P30ES005022)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
nicotine, defensive aggression, offensive aggression, tail shock, dose-response relationship
MeSH terms
Aggression, Animals, Bites and Stings, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Electroshock, Injections, Intraperitoneal, Male, Nicotine, Stress, Physiological, Mice

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