Alcohol preference drinking in a mouse line selectively bred for high drinking in the dark

John Jr Crabbe, Stephanie E. Spence, Lauren L. Brown, Pamela Metten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We have selectively bred mice that reach very high blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) after drinking from a single bottle of 20% ethanol. High Drinking in the Dark (HDID-1) mice drink nearly 6. g/kg ethanol in 4. h and reach average BECs of more than 1.0. mg/mL. Previous studies suggest that DID and two-bottle preference for 10% ethanol with continuous access are influenced by many of the same genes. We therefore asked whether HDID-1 mice would differ from the HS/Npt control stock on two-bottle preference drinking. We serially offered mice access to 3-40% ethanol in tap water versus tap water. For ethanol concentrations between 3 and 20%, HDID-1 and HS/Npt controls did not differ in two-bottle preference drinking. At the highest concentrations, the HS/Npt mice drank more than the HDID-1 mice. We also tested the same mice for preference for two concentrations each of quinine, sucrose, and saccharin. Curiously, the mice showed preference ratios (volume of tastant/total fluid drunk) of about 50% for all tastants and concentrations. Thus, neither genotype showed either preference or avoidance for any tastant after high ethanol concentrations. Therefore, we compared naive groups of HDID-1 and HS/Npt mice for tastant preference. Results from this test showed that ethanol-naive mice preferred sweet fluids and avoided quinine but the genotypes did not differ. Finally, we tested HDID-1 and HS mice for an extended period for preference for 15% ethanol versus water during a 2-h access period in the dark. After several weeks, HDID-1 mice consumed significantly more than HS. We conclude that drinking in the dark shows some genetic overlap with other tests of preference drinking, but that the degree of genetic commonality depends on the model used.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)427-440
Number of pages14
JournalAlcohol
Volume45
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Alcohol Drinking
Drinking
Ethanol
alcohol
Alcohols
Bottles
Quinine
water
Water
Blood
Saccharin
Genotype
Inventory control
Fluids
Sucrose
Genes

Keywords

  • Binge drinking
  • Ethanol preference
  • High drinking in the dark (HDID) mice
  • Limited access
  • Pharmacogenetics
  • Selected mouse lines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry
  • Medicine(all)
  • Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Neurology
  • Toxicology
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

Alcohol preference drinking in a mouse line selectively bred for high drinking in the dark. / Crabbe, John Jr; Spence, Stephanie E.; Brown, Lauren L.; Metten, Pamela.

In: Alcohol, Vol. 45, No. 5, 08.2011, p. 427-440.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Crabbe, John Jr ; Spence, Stephanie E. ; Brown, Lauren L. ; Metten, Pamela. / Alcohol preference drinking in a mouse line selectively bred for high drinking in the dark. In: Alcohol. 2011 ; Vol. 45, No. 5. pp. 427-440.
@article{bb1a5df9af144389b1109c6a9678545c,
title = "Alcohol preference drinking in a mouse line selectively bred for high drinking in the dark",
abstract = "We have selectively bred mice that reach very high blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) after drinking from a single bottle of 20{\%} ethanol. High Drinking in the Dark (HDID-1) mice drink nearly 6. g/kg ethanol in 4. h and reach average BECs of more than 1.0. mg/mL. Previous studies suggest that DID and two-bottle preference for 10{\%} ethanol with continuous access are influenced by many of the same genes. We therefore asked whether HDID-1 mice would differ from the HS/Npt control stock on two-bottle preference drinking. We serially offered mice access to 3-40{\%} ethanol in tap water versus tap water. For ethanol concentrations between 3 and 20{\%}, HDID-1 and HS/Npt controls did not differ in two-bottle preference drinking. At the highest concentrations, the HS/Npt mice drank more than the HDID-1 mice. We also tested the same mice for preference for two concentrations each of quinine, sucrose, and saccharin. Curiously, the mice showed preference ratios (volume of tastant/total fluid drunk) of about 50{\%} for all tastants and concentrations. Thus, neither genotype showed either preference or avoidance for any tastant after high ethanol concentrations. Therefore, we compared naive groups of HDID-1 and HS/Npt mice for tastant preference. Results from this test showed that ethanol-naive mice preferred sweet fluids and avoided quinine but the genotypes did not differ. Finally, we tested HDID-1 and HS mice for an extended period for preference for 15{\%} ethanol versus water during a 2-h access period in the dark. After several weeks, HDID-1 mice consumed significantly more than HS. We conclude that drinking in the dark shows some genetic overlap with other tests of preference drinking, but that the degree of genetic commonality depends on the model used.",
keywords = "Binge drinking, Ethanol preference, High drinking in the dark (HDID) mice, Limited access, Pharmacogenetics, Selected mouse lines",
author = "Crabbe, {John Jr} and Spence, {Stephanie E.} and Brown, {Lauren L.} and Pamela Metten",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.alcohol.2010.12.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "427--440",
journal = "Alcohol",
issn = "0741-8329",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alcohol preference drinking in a mouse line selectively bred for high drinking in the dark

AU - Crabbe, John Jr

AU - Spence, Stephanie E.

AU - Brown, Lauren L.

AU - Metten, Pamela

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - We have selectively bred mice that reach very high blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) after drinking from a single bottle of 20% ethanol. High Drinking in the Dark (HDID-1) mice drink nearly 6. g/kg ethanol in 4. h and reach average BECs of more than 1.0. mg/mL. Previous studies suggest that DID and two-bottle preference for 10% ethanol with continuous access are influenced by many of the same genes. We therefore asked whether HDID-1 mice would differ from the HS/Npt control stock on two-bottle preference drinking. We serially offered mice access to 3-40% ethanol in tap water versus tap water. For ethanol concentrations between 3 and 20%, HDID-1 and HS/Npt controls did not differ in two-bottle preference drinking. At the highest concentrations, the HS/Npt mice drank more than the HDID-1 mice. We also tested the same mice for preference for two concentrations each of quinine, sucrose, and saccharin. Curiously, the mice showed preference ratios (volume of tastant/total fluid drunk) of about 50% for all tastants and concentrations. Thus, neither genotype showed either preference or avoidance for any tastant after high ethanol concentrations. Therefore, we compared naive groups of HDID-1 and HS/Npt mice for tastant preference. Results from this test showed that ethanol-naive mice preferred sweet fluids and avoided quinine but the genotypes did not differ. Finally, we tested HDID-1 and HS mice for an extended period for preference for 15% ethanol versus water during a 2-h access period in the dark. After several weeks, HDID-1 mice consumed significantly more than HS. We conclude that drinking in the dark shows some genetic overlap with other tests of preference drinking, but that the degree of genetic commonality depends on the model used.

AB - We have selectively bred mice that reach very high blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) after drinking from a single bottle of 20% ethanol. High Drinking in the Dark (HDID-1) mice drink nearly 6. g/kg ethanol in 4. h and reach average BECs of more than 1.0. mg/mL. Previous studies suggest that DID and two-bottle preference for 10% ethanol with continuous access are influenced by many of the same genes. We therefore asked whether HDID-1 mice would differ from the HS/Npt control stock on two-bottle preference drinking. We serially offered mice access to 3-40% ethanol in tap water versus tap water. For ethanol concentrations between 3 and 20%, HDID-1 and HS/Npt controls did not differ in two-bottle preference drinking. At the highest concentrations, the HS/Npt mice drank more than the HDID-1 mice. We also tested the same mice for preference for two concentrations each of quinine, sucrose, and saccharin. Curiously, the mice showed preference ratios (volume of tastant/total fluid drunk) of about 50% for all tastants and concentrations. Thus, neither genotype showed either preference or avoidance for any tastant after high ethanol concentrations. Therefore, we compared naive groups of HDID-1 and HS/Npt mice for tastant preference. Results from this test showed that ethanol-naive mice preferred sweet fluids and avoided quinine but the genotypes did not differ. Finally, we tested HDID-1 and HS mice for an extended period for preference for 15% ethanol versus water during a 2-h access period in the dark. After several weeks, HDID-1 mice consumed significantly more than HS. We conclude that drinking in the dark shows some genetic overlap with other tests of preference drinking, but that the degree of genetic commonality depends on the model used.

KW - Binge drinking

KW - Ethanol preference

KW - High drinking in the dark (HDID) mice

KW - Limited access

KW - Pharmacogenetics

KW - Selected mouse lines

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959560341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959560341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.alcohol.2010.12.001

DO - 10.1016/j.alcohol.2010.12.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 21194877

AN - SCOPUS:79959560341

VL - 45

SP - 427

EP - 440

JO - Alcohol

JF - Alcohol

SN - 0741-8329

IS - 5

ER -