Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Targeted Deletion of the Mouse α2 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Subunit Gene (Chrna2) Potentiates Nicotine-Modulated Behaviors

Shahrdad Lotfipour, Janet S. Byun, Prescott Leach, Christie D. Fowler, Niall P. Murphy, Paul J. Kenny, Thomas J. Gould and Jim Boulter
Journal of Neuroscience 1 May 2013, 33 (18) 7728-7741; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4731-12.2013
Shahrdad Lotfipour
1Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Hatos Center for Neuropharmacology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janet S. Byun
1Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Hatos Center for Neuropharmacology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Prescott Leach
2College of Liberal Arts, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christie D. Fowler
3Department of Molecular Therapeutics, Scripps Research Institute Florida, Jupiter, Florida 33458
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Niall P. Murphy
1Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Hatos Center for Neuropharmacology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul J. Kenny
3Department of Molecular Therapeutics, Scripps Research Institute Florida, Jupiter, Florida 33458
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas J. Gould
2College of Liberal Arts, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jim Boulter
1Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Hatos Center for Neuropharmacology, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Genetic engineering of Chrna2-null mutant mice. A, The targeting construct and generation of Chrna2−/− mice are described in Materials and Methods. B, Genotyping was performed using tail biopsy DNA samples and PCR primers A216 and A213 as described. Ethidium bromide-stained PCR products were analyzed on 1% agarose gels and photographed using a BioDoc-It Imaging System (UVP). C, Total RNA was extracted from the olfactory bulbs of adult mice of the indicated Chrna2 genotype and used as template for cDNA synthesis as described in Materials and Methods. Aliquots of the resulting cDNA reactions were used as PCR templates to detect transcripts encoding Chrna2 (primers A222 and A223, 308 bp) or olfactory marker protein (Omp, 500 bp).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Chrna2 mutant mice exhibit reduced motor coordination on the accelerating rotarod. Mice were observed for their latency to fall during a 3 min test period on each of five consecutive days. Using a Dunnett's test, Chrna2−/− and Chrna2+/− mice demonstrated significant reductions versus Chrna2+/+ mice in the latency to fall over the 5 d of testing. *p < 0.05 versus Chrna2−/− mice. ++p < 0.01 versus Chrna2+/− mice (n = 10–17/group). +p < 0.05 versus Chrna2+/− mice (n = 10–17/group).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Chrna2−/− mice exhibit enhanced nicotine-induced analgesia on the hotplate assay. Mice were assessed for nicotine (1.25 mg/kg, i.p.) induced analgesia 5 min after injection. Relative to Chrna2+/+ mice, post hoc t test analysis revealed a significant enhancement of nicotine-induced analgesia on the hotplate assay in Chrna2−/− mice: **p < 0.01. A trend (p < 0.06) for reduced baseline values (before nicotine injection) was observed in Chrna2−/− versus wild-type control mice (data not shown); n = 10–11/group.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    An enhancement of nicotine-facilitated cued fear conditioning is seen in female Chrna2−/− mice. Female (A, B) and male (C, D) mice were trained on both cued and contextual fear conditioning after pretraining and testing administrations of saline or nicotine (0.09 mg/kg, i.p.). Post hoc t test comparisons demonstrate a significant enhancement of nicotine-facilitated cued fear conditioning specifically in female mice (A). **p < 0.01, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons (n = 5–12/group).

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Enhanced nicotine self-administration by Chrna2−/− mice is observed during the first 2 d of acquisition and at the highest dose of nicotine examined compared with saline responding. A, Male mice were food trained up to a fixed ratio 5 (FR5), time out 20 s (TO20 s) schedule of reinforcement. Data are presented as the mean number of food rewards earned (± SEM). B, Mice were then transitioned to 0.03 mg/infusion/kg of intravenous nicotine (acquisition period at an FR5, TO20 s schedule of reinforcement). Data are presented as the mean number of nicotine infusions earned (± SEM) with the active lever (solid line). Values for the inactive lever represent the mean number of lever presses divided by 5 for comparison purposes with the FR5 schedule of the active lever (dotted line). C, Both Chrna2+/+ and Chrna2−/− mice were then given access to a range of nicotine doses, which resulted in an inverted U-shaped dose–response curve. Data for the active lever are presented as the mean number of nicotine infusions earned (± SEM, solid line), and for the inactive lever as mean number of lever presses/5 (± SEM, dotted line). D, Post hoc comparisons demonstrate significantly enhanced nicotine self-administration during the first 2 d of nicotine self-administration. **p < 0.01, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons. ***p < 0.001, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons. E, Matched pair t test comparisons between saline- and nicotine-reinforced responses demonstrated that Chrna2−/− mice had significantly enhanced responses at the highest dose of nicotine tested (0.4 mg/kg), which was not observed in Chrna2+/+ mice. **p < 0.001, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons. F, At the highest dose of nicotine tested, Chrna2−/− mice demonstrated significant preference for the reinforced lever versus the nonreinforced lever, which was not observed in Chrna2+/+ mice. *p < 0.05, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons (n = 4–10/group).

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    When assayed in a novel environment, a significant increase in mecamylamine-precipitated withdrawal scores was observed in nicotine-treated Chrna2+/+ and Chrna2−/− mice. Mice were administered nicotine (24 mg/kg per day) using an Alzet osmotic minipump. On the 13th day of nicotine exposure, mice were placed into a novel environment, habituated for 40 min, administered mecamylamine (3 mg/kg, i.p.), and evaluated for somatic symptoms of withdrawal for an additional 20 min. A, Quantifying paw tremors, head shakes, backing, and curls, t test post hoc analysis revealed a significant enhancement of behavioral signs during nicotine withdrawal. **p < 0.01 (Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons). *p < 0.05 (Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons). Using a Dunnett's test (post hoc comparisons), Chrna2−/− versus Chrna2+/+ wild-type mice demonstrated significant enhancement of withdrawal signs after nicotine, but not saline, treatment. *p < 0.0575. B, Quantifying grooming, scratching, chewing, cage scratching, head nodding, and jumping, t test post hoc analysis revealed a significant reduction of behavioral signs during nicotine withdrawal. Using a Dunnett's test (post hoc comparisons), Chrna2−/− versus wild-type mice demonstrated significant enhancement of withdrawal signs in nicotine-, but not saline-treated, mice. *p < 0.05, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons (n = 11–20/group).

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    An increased number of head shakes/wet dog shakes is observed in Chrna2−/− during naloxone-precipitated morphine withdrawal. Male and female mice were injected twice per day with morphine on an escalating dose over 6 d (day 1–2, 10 mg/kg; day 3–4, 20 mg/kg; day 5–6, 40 mg/kg, s.c.). On the seventh day, mice were injected with a challenge dose of morphine (10 mg/kg, s.c.) followed 1 h later with naloxone (2 mg/kg, s.c.). Somatic withdrawal signs were measured for 20 min in a novel environment. t test comparisons revealed that Chrna2−/− mice had significant enhancement of naloxone-precipitated head shakes/wet dog shakes, which was not significant in Chrna2+/+ mice. t test comparisons revealed that Chrna2−/− mice had significantly greater head shakes/wet dog shakes than wild-type control mice. ***p < 0.001, Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons (n = 3–13/group).

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    SHIRPA behavioral phenotype assessment of wild-type and Chrna2 mutant micea

    Behavioral phenotypeChrna2+/+Chrna2+/−Chrna2−/−
    Body position3.9 ± 0.1 (10)4.0 ± 0.0 (10)4.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Spontaneous activity2.1 ± 0.1 (10)1.8 ± 0.1 (10)1.8 ± 0.2 (6)
    Respiration rate2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Tremor0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Transfer arousal3.5 ± 0.3 (10)2.8 ± 0.2 (10)3.2 ± 0.4 (6)
    Palpebral closure0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Piloerection0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Startle response1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Gait0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Pelvic elevation2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Tail elevation1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Touch escape2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.1 ± 0.1 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Positional passivity0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Visual placing2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Grip strength2.0 ± 0.1 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (10)2.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Body tone1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Pinna reflex1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Corneal reflex1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (10)1.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Toe pinch3.0 ± 0.0 (10)3.0 ± 0.0 (10)3.0 ± 0.0 (6)
    Wire maneuver0.5 ± 0.2 (10)0.4 ± 0.2 (10)0.2 ± 0.2 (6)
    Negative geotaxis0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.0 ± 0.0 (10)0.2 ± 0.2 (6)
    Total score28.0 ± 0.4 (10)27.1 ± 0.3 (10)27.3 ± 0.5 (6)
    • ↵a Behavioral scores were measured as described in Materials and Methods. Values are presented as mean ± SEM (n).

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Chrna2 mutant mice are indistinguishable from wild-type mice in measures of anxiety, coordination, locomotion, and sensory processinga

    Analysis columnsChrna2+/+Chrna2+/−Chrna2−/−Sex assessed
    Light dark box, % time in light31.2 ± 16.3 (7)48.1 ± 15.8 (9)26.0 ± 12.7 (7)Yes
    Elevated plus maze, % time in open arms29.8 ± 1.8 (7)30.1 ± 1.3 (9)26.4 ± 3.7 (6)Yes
    Beam mistakes (total)32.0 ± 3.1 (24)NA40.9 ± 4.5 (23)No
    Beam steps (average)19.6 ± 0.5 (24)NA20.4 ± 0.3 (23)No
    Beam time (s)21.9 ± 1.5 (24)NA22.7 ± 1.8 (23)No
    Average beam mistakes/average steps taken0.3 ± 0.0 (24)NA0.4 ± 0.0 (23)No
    Pole test, time to t-turn (s)2.2 ± 0.6 (11)NA1.4 ± 0.2 (11)No
    Pole test, time to descend (s)6.9 ± 0.7 (11)NA6.0 ± 0.3 (11)No
    Gait test, left stride length (cm)7.6 ± 0.2 (11)NA6.9 ± 0.2 (10)No
    Gait test, right stride length (cm)7.5 ± 0.3 (11)NA7.3 ± 0.3 (10)No
    Gait test, stride width (cm)4.5 ± 0.1 (11)NA4.6 ± 0.2 (10)No
    Locomotion (no injection control), mean distance traveled per min for 30 min (cm)160.8 ± 10.4 (9)NA196.1 ± 8.8 (9)No
    Locomotion (saline injection), mean distance traveled per min for 30 min (cm)120.9 ± 22.2 (6)NA136.3 ± 16.4 (10)No
    Locomotion (nicotine, 1 mg/kg), mean distance traveled per min for 30 min (cm)66.11 ± 31.8 (3)NA74.8 ± 6.04 (3)No
    Locomotion (nicotine, 3 mg/kg), mean distance traveled per min for 30 min (cm)10.9 ± 2.3 (6)NA33.2 ± 26.8 (4)No
    Nicotine tail withdrawal (% MPE)39.3 ± 6.5 (20)NA32.4 ± 4.4 (22)No
    Formalin nicotine, time licking paw every other min for 10 min (s)3.5 ± 1.4 (10)NA4.5 ± 2.8 (8)No
    Formalin saline, time licking paw every other min for 10 min (s)17.6 ± 3.8 (8)NA13.0 ± 2.6 (7)No
    Formalin nicotine, time licking paw every other min for last 50 min (s)206.3 ± 17.3 (10)NA249.1 ± 22.8 (8)No
    Formalin saline, time licking paw every other min for last 50 min (s)259.9 ± 31.9 (8)NA214.9 ± 22.5 (7)No
    Morphine-induced analgesia, tail withdrawal (% MPE)100 ± 0.0 (14)NA100 ± 0.0 (16)Yes
    Morphine-induced tolerance, tail withdrawal (% MPE)72.1 ± 7.2 (13)NA66.0 ± 6.2 (15)Yes
    • ↵a Behavioral scores were measured as described in Materials and Methods. Values are presented as mean ± SEM (n).

    • NA, Not applicable.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    α2-containing nAChRs do not influence nicotine-facilitated trace fear conditioninga

    Chrna2−/− nicotineChrna2−/− salineChrna2+/+ nicotineChrna2+/+ saline
    FemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMale
    Trace fear conditioning training
        Trace 10.00 ± 0.00 (5)0.50 ± 0.50 (4)0.00 ± 0.00 (5)0.00 ± 0.00 (4)0.00 ± 0.00 (4)0.13 ± 0.13 (8)0.00 ± 0.00 (4)0.29 ± 0.29 (7)
        Trace 20.80 ± 0.37 (5)1.00 ± 0.71 (4)1.00 ± 0.45 (5)0.00 ± 0.00 (4)1.00 ± 0.41 (4)0.5 ± 0.27 (8)1.25 ± 0.48 (4)0.71 ± 0.42 (7)
        Trace 32.20 ± 0.37 (5)2.25 ± 0.48 (4)1.20 ± 0.37 (5)2.00 ± 0.00 (4)3.00 ± 0.00 (4)1.4 ± 0.38 (8)1.75 ± 0.63 (4)1.71 ± 0.36 (7)
        Trace 42.40 ± 0.24 (5)2.00 ± 0.71 (4)2.60 ± 0.24 (5)2.25 ± 0.48 (4)2.50 ± 0.29 (4)1.9 ± 0.35 (8)2.00 ± 0.41 (4)2.86 ± 0.14 (7)
        Trace 52.60 ± 0.24 (5)2.50 ± 0.29 (4)2.40 ± 0.24 (5)2.75 ± 0.25 (4)2.25 ± 0.75 (4)1.75 ± 0.41 (8)3.0 ± 0.0 (4)2.57 ± 0.20 (7)
    Baseline, immediate, pre-CS, and CS values
        Baseline0 ± 0 (6)0 ± 0 (3)0 ± 0 (5)0 ± 0 (4)0 ± 0 (5)0.0 ± 0.0 (7)0 ± 0 (6)0.4 ± 0.4 (5)
        Immediate8.17 ± 0.98 (6)7.67 ± 2.33 (3)8.2 ± 1.07 (5)6.25 ± 1.7 (4)8 ± 0.71 (5)6.71 ± 1.01 (7)9.5 ± 0.85 (6)8.8 ± 1.02 (5)
        Pre-CS3 ± 0.73 (6)9 ± 1.53 (3)4.2 ± 1.32 (5)4 ± 2.04 (4)4.4 ± 1.44 (5)3.57 ± 0.81 (7)4.17 ± 1.19 (6)4.6 ± 1.86 (5)
        CS7.83 ± 1.6 (6)7 ± 2.65 (3)8.2 ± 1.77 (5)6.75 ± 2.29 (4)6.6 ± 1.36 (5)7 ± 0.88 (7)5.67 ± 1.5 (6)10.4 ± 1.47 (5)
    • ↵a Behavioral scores were measured as described in Materials and Methods. Values represent number of freezing episodes and are presented as mean ± SEM (n).

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Sex-dependent influence on spontaneous nicotine withdrawal-induced deficits in cued fear conditioninga

    Chrna2−/− nicotineChrna2−/− salineChrna2+/+ nicotineChrna2+/+ saline
    FemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemaleMale
    Baseline0.00 (2)0.00 ± 0.00 (9)0.00 ± 0.00 (3)0.00 ± 0.00 (5)0.00 ± 0.00 (6)0.00 ± 0.00 (5)0.00 (2)0.00 ± 0.00 (8)
    Immediate0.00 (2)0.22 ± 0.15 (9)0.33 ± 0.33 (3)0.60 ± 0.24 (5)0.17 ± 0.17 (6)0.60 ± 0.40 (5)1.00 (2)0.63 ± 0.32 (8)
    Context8.00 (2)11.00 ± 1.34 (9)9.67 ± 4.10 (3)11.00 ± 1.70 (5)8.50 ± 1.12 (6)13.40 ± 2.64 (5)10.00 (2)12.63 ± 1.63 (8)
    Pre-CS0.50 (2)0.22 ± 0.15 (9)0.00 ± 0.00 (3)0.00 ± 0.00 (5)0.00 ± 0.00 (6)0.00 ± 0.00 (5)0.00 (2)1.25 ± 0.49 (8)
    CS12.00 (2)9.67 ± 0.67* (9)10.67 ± 1.67 (3)12.40 ± 0.75 (5)12.00 ± 2.00 (6)9.80 ± 0.80 (5)12.67 (2)11.25 ± 0.65 (8)
    • ↵a Values represent number of freezing episodes and are presented as mean ± SEM (n).

    • ↵*p < 0.05 versus Chrna2−/− male saline-treated mice (uncorrected).

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Nicotine self-administration dose–response comparisonsa

    ComparisonsChrna2+/+Chrna2−/−
    Matched pair t test comparisons for reinforced responses across nicotine dose versus saline self-administering animals
        Saline reinforced responses versus nicotine dose (0.01 mg/kg/injection) reinforced responsesp = 0.0146 (NS); n = 4p = 0.0368 (NS); n = 4
        Saline reinforced responses versus nicotine dose (0.03 mg/kg/injection) reinforced responsesp = 0.0035 (NS); n = 5p = 0.0106 (NS); n = 5
        Saline reinforced responses versus nicotine dose (0.1 mg/kg/injection) reinforced responsesp = 0.0013*; n = 5p = 0.0011**; n = 5
        Saline reinforced responses versus nicotine dose (0.4 mg/kg/injection) reinforced responsesp = 0.0264 (NS); n = 5p = 0.0009**; n = 5
    Reinforced versus nonreinforced responding across dose
        Saline reinforced versus nonreinforced responsesp = 0.0143 (NS); n = 5p = 0.0409 (NS); n = 5
        Nicotine dose (0.01 mg/kg/injection) reinforced versus nonreinforced responsesp = 0.0233 (NS); n = 4p = 0.0119 (NS); n = 4
        Nicotine dose (0.03 mg/kg/injection) reinforced versus nonreinforced responsesp = 0.0099 (NS); n = 5p = 0.0073 (NS); n = 5
        Nicotine dose (0.1 mg/kg/injection) reinforced versus nonreinforced responsesp = 0.0006**; n = 5p = 0.0002***; n = 5
        Nicotine dose (0.4 mg/kg/injection) reinforced versus nonreinforced responsesp = 0.0191 (NS); n = 5p = 0.0045*; n = 5
    • ↵a Listed p values are not corrected for multiple comparisons.

    • ↵*p < 0.05,

    • ↵**p < 0.01,

    • ↵***p < 0.001 (Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons).

    • NS, Not significant.

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Interpeduncular nucleus neurotransmitter levels 2 h after nicotine withdrawala

    NeurotransmitterChrna2+/+Chrna2−/−Chrna2−/− nicotineChrna2−/− salineChrna2+/+ nicotineChrna2+/+ saline
    Serotonin0.028 ± 0.002 (15)0.032 ± 0.002 (24)————
    Norepinephrine0.020 ± 0.001 (15)0.021 ± 0.001 (24)————
    Dopamine0.008 ± 0.002 (15)0.009 ± 0.001 (24)————
    Glutamate12.79 ± 0.57 (15)14.94 ± 0.87* (24)12.89 ± 0.97 (10)17.24 ± 0.86**,*** (14)13.41 ± 1.17 (7)12.29 ± 1.09 (8)
    γ-Aminobutyric acid0.0814 ± 0.006 (14)0.0986 ± 0.006* (22)————
    • ↵a Values are represented as ng/μg protein/25 μl injection, mean ± SEM (n).

    • ↵*p < 0.05 versus wild-type mice (uncorrected).

    • ↵**p < 0.05 versus Chrna2−/− nicotine-treated mice (Bonferroni-corrected).

    • ↵***p < 0.01 versus wild-type saline-treated mice (Bonferroni-corrected).

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 33 (18)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 33, Issue 18
1 May 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Targeted Deletion of the Mouse α2 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Subunit Gene (Chrna2) Potentiates Nicotine-Modulated Behaviors
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Targeted Deletion of the Mouse α2 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Subunit Gene (Chrna2) Potentiates Nicotine-Modulated Behaviors
Shahrdad Lotfipour, Janet S. Byun, Prescott Leach, Christie D. Fowler, Niall P. Murphy, Paul J. Kenny, Thomas J. Gould, Jim Boulter
Journal of Neuroscience 1 May 2013, 33 (18) 7728-7741; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4731-12.2013

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Targeted Deletion of the Mouse α2 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Subunit Gene (Chrna2) Potentiates Nicotine-Modulated Behaviors
Shahrdad Lotfipour, Janet S. Byun, Prescott Leach, Christie D. Fowler, Niall P. Murphy, Paul J. Kenny, Thomas J. Gould, Jim Boulter
Journal of Neuroscience 1 May 2013, 33 (18) 7728-7741; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4731-12.2013
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Pupil-Linked Arousal Response Reveals Aberrant Attention Regulation among Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
  • Model Sharing in the Human Medial Temporal Lobe
  • Sensory Evidence Accumulation Using Optic Flow in a Naturalistic Navigation Task
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.