The rat model of alc. seeking described by Giuliano and colleagues (this issue)-we will refer to it as the Giuliano model-is part of a welcome trend toward animal models that incorporate two cardinal features of human addiction, which are as follows: (a) the use of drugs despite an unfavorable ratio of benefits to harms and (b) the fact that only a minority of drug users become addicted.Rats in the Giuliano model were trained on a chained schedule of reinforcement, so their seeking of alc. (via a lever that made a second lever accessible) could be tested and manipulated sep. from their taking of alc. (via the second lever, which brought the opportunity to drink).The model was intended to provide a platform whereby interventions could break the seeking/taking chain at the earliest possible point.Giuliano and colleagues used an alc.-preferring strain of rats, all of which were initially given a two-bottle (alc./water) choice task to confirm and quantify their bibulosity.All were then trained to acquire the seeking/taking response chain, using a random-interval 60-s schedule for seeking-lever reinforcement and an FR1 schedule for taking-lever reinforcement.With seeking/taking established, one group of rats was assigned to an 'instrumental exposure' condition (eight 2-h sessions, in which the taking lever was presented alone, with the FR1 schedule still in effect), and a smaller group was assigned to a 'one-bottle exposure' condition (eight 4-h sessions in which the alc. solution was simply available for drinking in the home cage-which presumably resulted in greater lifetime exposure, though the difference is not reported).Both groups then underwent a 'seeking-taking punishment phase,' in which the initial training conditions were modified so that 30% of responses on the seeking lever resulted in footshock instead of access to the taking lever.Rats were heterogeneous in their responses to this intermittent punishment.Using cluster anal., Giuliano and colleagues sorted the rats into those that persisted on the seeking lever ('compulsive' rats, 34%), those that greatly reduced their seeking ('non-compulsive' rats, 30%), and those that were 'intermediate' (the other 36%).These phenotypes remained largely stable for 10 mo of testing.They were not accounted for by baseline differences on the two-bottle alc./water choice, nor by history of alc. exposure (ie, home-cage access vs only instrumental access).For 10 mo after the punishment phase, the rats underwent an array of tests.In a progressive-ratio task using the taking lever only, the 'compulsive' rats had a higher breakpoint than the 'intermediate' and 'non-compulsive' rats.In a test of reinstatement after extinction, alc.-related cues reinstated responding on the seeking lever, especially for the 'intermediate' rats.Reinstated responding on the taking lever (presented after a seeking-lever response) did not clearly differ by compulsiveness phenotype, suggesting that the differential susceptibility to reinstatement was specific to seeking.In sep. tests, seeking-lever presses were reduced by systemic administration of the mu-opioid antagonist GSK1521498.The extent of the reduction seemed to vary complexly across 'compulsive,' 'intermediate' and 'non-compulsive' rats, and as a function of their behavioral history.Giuliano and colleagues emphasize that the reduction looked especially prominent in the 'compulsive' rats.