CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 221

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal models of addiction

Spanagel, Rainer·2017·Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience
DOI 10.31887/dcns.2017.19.3/rspanagelPMC PMC5741108
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.31887/dcns.2017.19.3/rspanagel

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental timeline for measuring incubation of drug-seeking behavior (craving) in rats. Behavioral training and testing is according to Grimm et al.38 Cocaine-self-administration training consists of 16 daily (day 2 to day 1 8) 6-hour sessions during which nose poking at the active hole under a fixed ratio 1 (FR1) of response is reinforced by 0.5 mg/kg/infusion of cocaine. Cocaine availability is signaled by illumination of the blue light. Each earned infusion is coupled to the presentation of two discrete cues (light and tone). During forced abstinence (30 days), rats remain in the home cage. Cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking is tested at withdrawal days 1 and 30 during a 2-hour session in the operant chamber. The first hour consists of extinction of nose-poking behavior, in which active nose poking is neither rewarded nor paired with the discrete light/tone cues. The second hour comprises cue-induced reinstatement and starts with turning on the blue light and one noncontingent presentation of the light/tone cues followed by contingent presentations of the light/tone cues in the absence of cocaine delivery. CSA, cocaine self-administration; D, day; WD, withdrawal day.
Figure 1 Experimental timeline for measuring incubation of drug-seeking behavior (craving) in rats. Behavioral training and testing is according to Grimm et al.38 Cocaine-self-administration training consists of 16 daily (day 2 to day 1 8) 6-hour sessions during which nose poking at the active hole under a fixed ratio 1 (FR1) of response is reinforced by 0.5 mg/kg/infusion of cocaine. Cocaine availability is signaled by illumination of the blue light. Each earned infusion is coupled to the presentation of two discrete cues (light and tone). During forced abstinence (30 days), rats remain in the home cage. Cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking is tested at withdrawal days 1 and 30 during a 2-hour session in the operant chamber. The first hour consists of extinction of nose-poking behavior, in which active nose poking is neither rewarded nor paired with the discrete light/tone cues. The second hour comprises cue-induced reinstatement and starts with turning on the blue light and one noncontingent presentation of the light/tone cues followed by contingent presentations of the light/tone cues in the absence of cocaine delivery. CSA, cocaine self-administration; D, day; WD, withdrawal day.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Behavioral characterization of 0crit and 3crit rats in the multisymptomatic model of cocaine addiction. 3crit rats show higher responding than 0crit rats in each criteria. (A) Persistence of cocaine seeking expressed by the sum of active nose pokes during no-drug periods in a session. (B) Motivation for cocaine intake expressed as the break point during a progressive ratio session. (C) Resistance to punishment when cocaine seeking and cocaine taking are paired with a footshock. (D) 0crit and 3crit rats do not differ in number of selfadministered cocaine injections. Data are shown as mean ± SEM; ****P<0.0001 with respect to 0crit. CSA, cocaine self-administration; SEM standard error of the mean.
Figure 2 Behavioral characterization of 0crit and 3crit rats in the multisymptomatic model of cocaine addiction. 3crit rats show higher responding than 0crit rats in each criteria. (A) Persistence of cocaine seeking expressed by the sum of active nose pokes during no-drug periods in a session. (B) Motivation for cocaine intake expressed as the break point during a progressive ratio session. (C) Resistance to punishment when cocaine seeking and cocaine taking are paired with a footshock. (D) 0crit and 3crit rats do not differ in number of selfadministered cocaine injections. Data are shown as mean ± SEM; ****P<0.0001 with respect to 0crit. CSA, cocaine self-administration; SEM standard error of the mean.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Hyman SE., 2013, Cerebrum., 2013, 5
  2. 10.1126/science.278.5335.63 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00024.x · DOI
  4. 10.1073/pnas.0801628105 · DOI
  5. Carrigan MA., 2015, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA., 112, 458, 10.1073/pnas.1404167111 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2006.00012.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1038/bjp.2008.30 · DOI
  8. Herz A., 1997, Psychopharmacology., 129, 99, 10.1007/s002130050169 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.10.020 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/S0741-8329(01)00149-5 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.coph.2004.09.004 · DOI
  12. Spanagel R., 1999, Alcohol Alcohol., 34, 231, 10.1093/alcalc/34.2.231 · DOI
  13. Quintanilla ME., 2006, AddictBiol., 11, 310
  14. Sommer W., 2006, Addict Biol., 11, 289, 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2006.00037.x · DOI
  15. Crabbe JC., 2010, Behav Genet., 40, 737, 10.1007/s10519-010-9371-z · DOI
  16. 10.1111/adb.12187 · DOI
  17. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4062-12.2013 · DOI
  18. Hirth N., 2016, Proc Natl Acad Sci US A., 113, 3024, 10.1073/pnas.1506012113 · DOI
  19. Sommer WH., 2008, Biol Psychiatry., 63, 139, 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.01.010 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1038/npp.2014.306 · DOI
  21. Vengeliene V., 2013, Alcohol Clin Exp Res., 37, E322, 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01874.x · DOI
  22. Villarín Pildaín L., 2013, In Silico Pharmacol., 1, 13, 10.1186/2193-9616-1-13 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/adb.12325 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/npp.2015.143 · DOI
  25. Spealman RD., 1978, Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol., 18, 313, 10.1146/annurev.pa.18.040178.001525 · DOI
  26. Schindler CW., 2002, Psychopharmacology (Berl)., 163, 327, 10.1007/s00213-002-1157-4 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s002130000566 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.12.019 · DOI · Paper page
  29. de Wit H., 1981, Psychopharmacology., 75, 134, 10.1007/BF00432175 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1007/s00213-013-3120-y · DOI · Paper page
  31. Tzschentke TM., 2007, Addict Biol., 12, 227, 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00070.x · DOI · Paper page
  32. Engblom D., 2008, Neuron., 59, 497, 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.07.010 · DOI
  33. Grimm JW., 2001, Nature., 412, 141, 10.1038/35084134 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/bs.pbr.2015.08.004 · DOI
  35. 10.1001/archpsyc.1986.01800020013003 · DOI
  36. Li X., 2015, Addict Biol., 20, 872, 10.1111/adb.12205 · DOI
  37. Bedi G., 2011, Biol Psychiatry., 69, 708, 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.014 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/adb.12140 · DOI
  39. Parvaz MA., 2016, JAMA Psychiatry., 73, 1127, 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.2181 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/nn.3533 · DOI
  41. 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00361-2 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.06.013 · DOI
  43. Cuthbert BN., 2013, Med., 11, 1
  44. 10.3758/BF03330642 · DOI
  45. Hölter SM., 1997, Alcohol Clin Exp Res., 21, 862, 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1997.tb03850.x · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.alcohol.2014.03.002 · DOI
  47. Wolffgramm J., 1995, Behav Brain Res., 70, 77, 10.1016/0166-4328(95)00131-C · DOI · Paper page
  48. Spanagel R., 1996, Eur J Pharmacol., 305, 39, 10.1016/0014-2999(96)00174-4 · DOI
  49. 10.1081/CBI-200036886 · DOI
  50. 10.1152/physrev.00013.2008 · DOI
  51. Hölter SM., 1999, Psychopharmacology., 145, 360, 10.1007/s002130051069 · DOI
  52. 10.1038/sj.npp.1300657 · DOI
  53. 10.1136/bmj.g1888 · DOI
  54. 10.1126/science.1099020 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1126/science.1098975 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Deroche-Gamonet V., 2014, Neuropharmacology., 76, 437, 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.07.014 · DOI
  57. Belin-Rauscent A., 2016, Biol Psychiatry., 79, 39, 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.01.004 · DOI
  58. 10.1126/science.1187801 · DOI
  59. 10.1038/mp.2012.59 · DOI
  60. CannellaN.Cosa-LinanA.BüchlerE.Falfan-MelgozaC.Weber-FahrW.SpanagelR.In vivo structural imaging in rats reveals neuroanatomical correlates of behavioral sub-dimensions of cocaine addiction. Addict Biol. 2017 Feb 23. Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1111/adb.1 2500. · DOI
  61. Cannella N., 2013, Neuropsychopharmacology., 38, 2048, 10.1038/npp.2013.106 · DOI
  62. 10.1007/s00213-017-4576-y · DOI
  63. Spanagel R., 2013, In Silico Pharmacol., 1, 18, 10.1186/2193-9616-1-18 · DOI
  64. Shao Y., 2014, NatProtoc., 9, 2493
  65. Ellenbroek B., 2016, Dis Model Mech., 9, 1079, 10.1242/dmm.026120 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Hermann D., 2012, Biol Psychiatry., 71, 1015, 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.07.034 · DOI
  67. 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2010.00285.x · DOI
  68. Negus SS., 2014, Pharmacol Rev., 66, 869, 10.1124/pr.112.007419 · DOI
  69. 10.1038/30001 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Spanagel, R.
Affiliations
Institute of Psychopharmacology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim/Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
Venue
Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-09-30
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
247-258
ISSN
1958-5969
DOI
10.31887/dcns.2017.19.3/rspanagel
PMC
PMC5741108
Cited by
221
References
9
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ (vor)

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