Cited by 280Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesRegulation of Appetite and Obesity

Reward without dopamine

Open access
Cannon, Claire Matson, Palmiter, Richard D.·2003·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Dopamine (DA) is believed to play a fundamental role in reward processes. Virtually all drugs of abuse activate dopaminergic systems, as do “natural” rewards such as sexual interaction and food. Sweet-tasting solutions, for example, are a well characterized natural reward. In the present experiments, we used mice that cannot make DA (DD mice) to test the hypothesis that DA is necessary for reward. Sucrose preference, assessed with a computerized “lickometer,” was used to determine whether DD mice respond preferentially for rewarding stimuli. DD mice preferentially chose sucrose over water, and also preferred the noncaloric sweetener saccharin. Furthermore, the rate of licking, bout size, and length were greater in DD mice drinking sweets than in controls. These data refute the necessity of DA for the reward processes manifested by sucrose preference. However, DD mice initiated licking less frequently than control mice and had fewer total licks. We suggest that DD mice have a deficit of goal-directed behavior that is not specific to reward processes. Lastly, juvenile DD mice demonstrate robust sucrose preference before experience with food in the presence of DA. Thus, DA is not required for mice to learn to consume sweet solutions preferentially. We conclude that DA is not required to find the sweet tastes of sucrose or saccharin rewarding.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.23-34-10827.2003

Cites

40 of 40 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?

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
Cannon, C. M., & Palmiter, R. D.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2003-11-26
Volume
23
Issue
34
Pages
10827-10831
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2165743581
Cited by
280
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 24
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5 T32 NS 07332)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (T32NS007332, 5 T32 NS 07332)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
Keywords
dopamine, reward, sucrose preference, saccharin preference, natural reward, goal-directed behavior, licking behavior, sweet taste, juvenile mice, drugs of abuse
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Amphetamine, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Dopamine, Feeding Behavior, Food Preferences, Motor Activity, Reward, Saccharin, Sucrose, Mice, Knockout, Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors, 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