1996
DOI: 10.1016/0741-8329(95)02030-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Time-dependent quantifiable withdrawal from ethanol in the rat: Effect of method of dependence induction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

12
156
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 165 publications
(168 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
12
156
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We measured the withdrawal signs (ventromedial distal limb flexion response, tail stiffness, and abnormal body posture and gait) (Macey et al, 1996;Roberto et al, 2004) at 2, 4, 6, and 8 hr after ethanol withdrawal in the ethanol-dependent group and compared them with similar measures from the naive group. Moderate behavioral signs of ethanol withdrawal were evident in all six rats tested at 2-8 hr after the termination of the ethanol treatment, a time frame corresponding to the electrophysiological recordings and microdialysis samples.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We measured the withdrawal signs (ventromedial distal limb flexion response, tail stiffness, and abnormal body posture and gait) (Macey et al, 1996;Roberto et al, 2004) at 2, 4, 6, and 8 hr after ethanol withdrawal in the ethanol-dependent group and compared them with similar measures from the naive group. Moderate behavioral signs of ethanol withdrawal were evident in all six rats tested at 2-8 hr after the termination of the ethanol treatment, a time frame corresponding to the electrophysiological recordings and microdialysis samples.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eight to 12 h after termination of ethanol vapor inhalation, withdrawal signs, including the ventromedial distal limb reflexion response, tail stiffness, and abnormal body posture were recorded using a rating scale as previously described (Macey et al, 1996). A subjective 0-to 2-point scale was used for each of these signs, with 0 representing undetectable, 1 representing moderate, and 2 representing severe withdrawal sign.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the molecular mechanisms remain to be elucidated, there is a broad consensus that acute ethanol inhibits NMDARs (Calton et al, 1998;Criswell et al, 2003;Hoffman et al, 1989;Kumari and Ticku, 2000;Loftis and Janowsky, 2003;Lovinger et al, 1989;Nie et al, 1994;Martin et al, 1995;Tabakoff and Hoffman, 1996;Tsai and Coyle, 1998;Woodward, 1999;Roberto et al, 2004b), whereas chronic ethanol treatment (CET) leads to a compensatory upregulation of these receptors resulting in increased NMDARmediated function after removal of ethanol (Gulya et al, 1991;Nagy et al, 2004). This increase in NMDARs, and especially the NR2B subunit, may contribute to the ethanol withdrawal syndrome (Kumari and Ticku, 2000;Nagy et al, 2004;Narita et al, 2000;Ripley and Little, 1995;Thomas et al, 1998) that is characterized by both behavioral and electrophysiological parameters (Macey et al, 1996).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%