Spanish 
Chinese 
Russian 
German 
French 
Japanese 
Portuguese 
Hindi Research Article
Possible False Negative Results in Conditioned Place Preference Induced by Low-dose Morphine in Mice
Shigeru Watanabe1,2*1Division of Cognitive and Behavioral Studies, Research Centre for Human Cognition, Keio University, Mita 2-15-45, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan
2Global Research Centre on Logic and Sensibility, Keio University, Japan
- *Corresponding Author:
- Dr. Shigeru Watanabe
Division of Cognitive and Behavioral Studies
Research Centre for Human Cognition, Keio University
Mita 2-15-45, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Tel: +81-3-5443-3896
Fax: +81-3-5443-3897
E-mail: swat@flet.keio.ac.jp
Received June 26, 2013; Accepted July 24, 2013; Published August 02, 2013
Citation: Watanabe S (2013) Possible False Negative Results in Conditioned Place Preference Induced by Low-dose Morphine in Mice. J Addict Res Ther S4:013. doi:10.4172/2155-6105.S4-013
Copyright: © 2013 Watanabe S, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Conditioned Place Preference (CPP) is an easy-to-run experiment that is widely used to detect the reinforcing property of drugs. Most CPP experiments have employed post-training tests without drug injection. Here, a post-training test with drug injection was employed. C57/BL6 mice received CPP training with 0.3 mg/Kg or 3.0 mg/Kg morphine and were then tested three times: without morphine, with 0.3 mg/Kg morphine, and with 3.0 mg/Kg morphine. The mice trained with 0.3 mg/Kg did not show a significant increase in staying time at the drug-associated compartment in the drug-free test, but a significant increase was found in tests with the drug. The mice trained with 3.0 mg/Kg morphine showed conditioned preference in all tests and displayed enhancement of the conditioned preference in tests with the drug. The animals experienced environmental cues under the influence of the drug during the CPP training but were exposed to cues without the drug in the drug-free test. Thus negative results obtained in the post-training drug-free test may have been caused by differences in the stimuli the animals experienced.
