Skip to main content
Log in

Environmental variables differentially affect ethanol-stimulated activity in selectively bred mouse lines

  • Original Investigations
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Low doses of ethanol (EtOH) stimulate activity in an open field in many strains of laboratory mice. We are selectively breeding two lines of mice to exhibit a large (FAST) response on this test, and two other lines to exhibit a small (SLOW) response (Crabbe et al. 1987). The lines initially diverged in response to EtOH, but despite continued selection pressure, the difference between each pair of FAST and SLOW lines has not increased over generations as much as expected. Our practice has been to test animals on the 1st day after saline injection, and repeat the test after EtOH injection 24 h later. Lister (1987) recently demonstrated that the order in which an animal was exposed to EtOH and saline influenced the magnitude of the response to EtOH, with animals tested initially after EtOH having greater stimulation. Middaugh et al. (1987) recently demonstrated that the magnitude of EtOH stimulation was greater under conditions of relatively bright light than under dim light. Using non-selected Swiss mice, the current experiments essentially confirmed Lister's findings. Using FAST and SLOW mice, the predictions of both groups were tested. Both hypotheses were confirmed. Additionally, these experiments demonstrated that the magnitude of the difference between FAST and SLOW mice was greater under bright light than under dim light. The line difference was also greater when tested in the EtOH-Saline order. In experiments with Swiss mice, the possible role of peritoneal irritation in the EtOH effect was eliminated, and the optimal dose and time for demonstrating the effect was determined. These experiments confirm the importance of lighting condition, order of testing, dose, and route of administration in eliciting EtOH-stimulated open field activity in mice. They demonstrate a genotype-environment interaction, since the magnitude of difference between genetically selected lines varied as a function of the testing parameters chosen. Finally, they indicate that the differences between FAST and SLOW lines in sensitivity to EtOH generalizes to several environmental conditions. We interpret this to mean that the various EtOH-induced activation traits represented by these different environmental and testing conditions are genetically correlated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlenius S, Carlsson A, Engel J, Svensson TH, Soderstern P (1973) Antagonism of alpha methyltyrosine of the ethanol-induced stimulation and euphoria in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 14:586–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlenius S, Brown R, Engel J, Svensson TH, Waldeck B (1974) Antagonism by nialamide of the ethanol-induced locomotor stimulation in mice. J Neural Transm 35:175–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckalew L, Cartwright G (1968) General and differential behavioral effects of five ethanol dosages on the albino rat. Psychol Rep 43:1151–1154

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson A, Engel J, Svensson TH (1972) Inhibition of ethanol-induced excitation in mice and rats by α-methyl-p-tyrosine. Psychopharmacologia 26:307–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger CR (1987) Neurogenetic adaptive mechanisms in alcoholism. Science 236:410–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabbe JC (1983) Sensitivity to ethanol in inbred mice: genotypic correlations among several behavioral responses. Behav Neurosci 97:280–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabbe JC (1986) Genetic differences in locomotor activation in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 25:289–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabbe JC, Johnson N, Gray D, Kosobud A, Young ER (1982) Biphasic effects of ethanol on open-field activity: sensitivity and tolerance in C57BL/6N and DBA/2N mice. J Comp Physiol Psychol 96:440–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabbe JC, McSwigan JD, Belknap JK (1985) The role of genetics in substance abuse. In: Galizio G, Maisto SA (eds) Determinants of substance abuse. Plenum, New York, pp 13–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabbe JC, Young ER, Deutsch CM, Tam BR, Kosobud A (1987) Mice genetically selected for differences in open-field activity after ethanol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 27:577–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS (1983) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 2nd edn. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye GD, Breese GR, Mailman RB, Vogel RA, Ondrusek MG, Mueller RA (1980) An evaluation of selectivity of fenmetozole (D11–524) reversal of ethanol-induced changes in central nervous system function. Psychopharmacology 69:149–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzman SG, Schneider FH (1974) Comparison of acetaldehyde and ethanol: Depression of motor activity in mice. Life Sci 14:1243–1250

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Blanc AE, Gibbins RJ, Kalant H (1975) Generalization of behaviorally augmented tolerance to ethanol, and its relation to physical dependence. Psychopharmacologia 44:241–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Liljequist S, Berggren U, Engel J (1981) The effect of catecholamine receptor antagonists on ethanol-induced locomotor stimulation. J Neural Transm 50:57–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Linakis JG, Cunningham CL (1979) Effects of concentration of ethanol injected intraperitoneally on taste aversion, body temperature and activity. Psychopharmacology 64:61–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Lister RG (1987) The effects of repeated doses of ethanol on exploration and its habituation. Psychopharmacology 92:78–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Masur J, Boerngen R (1980) The excitatory component of ethanol in mice: a chronic study. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 13:777–780

    Google Scholar 

  • Masur J, Oliveira de Souza ML, Zwicker AP (1986) The excitatory effect of ethanol: absence in rats, no tolerance and increased sensitivity in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 24:1225–1228

    Google Scholar 

  • McClearn GE, Kakihana R (1981) Selective breeding for ethanol sensitivity: short-sleep and long-sleep mice. In: McClearn GE, Deitrich RA, Erwin VG (eds) Development of animal models as pharmacogenetic tools. US Government Printing Office, Washington, pp 147–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Middaugh LD, Boggan WO, Randall CL (1987) Stimulatory effects of ethanol in C57BL/6 mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 27:421–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohorecky LA (1977) Biphasic action of ethanol. Biobehav Rev 1:231–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed TE (1977) Three hebitable responses to alcohol in a heterogeneous randomly mated mouse strain. J Stud Alcohol 38:618–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crabbe, J.C., Deutsch, C.M., Tam, B.R. et al. Environmental variables differentially affect ethanol-stimulated activity in selectively bred mouse lines. Psychopharmacology 95, 103–108 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00212776

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00212776

Key words

Navigation