, Volume 103, Issue 4, pp 557–566

Response to selection for ethanol-induced locomotor activation: genetic analyses and selection response characterization

  • Tamara J. Phillips
  • Sue Burkhart-Kasch
  • Erik S. Terdal
  • John C. Crabbe
Original Investigations


Selectively bred FAST mice are highly susceptible, while SLOW mice are less susceptible, to the locomotor stimulant effects of ethanol. Heritability estimates indicate that approximately 15% of the variance in the FAST lines is of additive genetic origin, while low susceptibility is ostensibly nonheritable. Inbreeding has increased at the rate of 2% per generation, but fertility has been unaffected. Measurement reliability for sensitivity to this ethanol effect was high when measured in both circular (r=0.6) and square (r=0.7) open-fields. In addition, our results indicate that we have selected for differences in sensitivity to ethanol rather than for differences in habituation to the test environment. The difference in response to ethanol between FAST and SLOW mice extended to tests varying in duration, and to a range of ethanol doses. We conclude that the divergence between FAST and SLOW mice generalizes to related test parameters, and speculate that the genetic architecture underlying the locomotor stimulant response may be simpler than previously proposed.

Key words

Selective breeding FAST and SLOW mice Ethanol-stimulated activity Heritability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahlenius S, Carlsson A, Engel J, Svensson TH, Sodersten P (1973) Antagonism by alpha-methyltyrosine of the ethanol-induced stimulation and euphoria in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 14:586–591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 35:175–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Babor TF, Berglas S, Mendelson JH, Ellingboe J, Miller K (1983) Alcohol, affect, and the disinhibition of verbal behavior. Psychopharmacology 80:53–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijerot N (1980) Addiction to pleasure: a biological and social-psychological theory of addiction. In: Lettieri DJ, Sayers M, Pearson HW (eds) Theories on drug abuse: selected contemporary perspectives. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, pp 246–255Google Scholar
  5. Crabbe JC (1986) Genetic differences in locomotor activation in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 25:289–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Crabbe JC, Johnson NA, Gray DK, 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 96:440–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Crabbe JC, Kosobud A, Tam BR, Young ER, Deutsch CM (1987a) Genetic selection of mouse lines sensitive (COLD) and resistant (HOT) to acute ethanol hypothermia. Alcohol Drug Res 7:163–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Crabbe JC, Young ER, Deutsch CM, Tam BR, Kosobud A (1987b) Mice genetically selected for differences in open-field activity after ethanol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 27:577–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Crabbe JC, Deutsch CM, Tam BR, Young ER (1988) Environmental variables differentially affect ethanol-stimulated activity in selectively bred mouse lines. Psychopharmacology 95:103–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Crabbe JC, Kosobud A, Feller DJ, Phillips TJ (1989) Use of selectively bred mouse lines to study genetically correlated traits related to alcohol. In: Kuriyama K, Takada A, Ishii H (eds) Biomedical and social aspects of alcohol and alcoholism. Excerpta Medica, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 427–430Google Scholar
  11. Crabbe JC, Phillips TJ, Kosobud A, Belknap JK (1990) Estimation of genetic correlation: interpretation of experiments using selectively bred and inbred animals. Alcoholism: Clin Exp Res 14:141–151Google Scholar
  12. Dudek BC, Abbott ME (1984) A biometrical genetic analysis of ethanol response in selectively bred Long-Sleep and Short-Sleep mice. Behav Genet 14:1–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dudek BC, Phillips TJ (1990) Distinctions among sedative, disinhibitory, and ataxic properties of ethanol in inbred and selectively bred mice. Psychopharmacology 101:93–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudek BC, Abbot ME, Garg A, Phillips TJ (1984) Apomorphine effects on behavioral response to ethanol in mice selectively bred for differential sensitivity to ethanol. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 20:91–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksson K, Rusi M (1981) Finnish selection studies on alcohol-related behaviors: general outline. In: McClearn GE, Deitrich RA, Erwin VG (eds) Development of animal models as pharmacogenetic tools. US Government Printing Office, Washington, pp 87–117Google Scholar
  16. Falconer DS (1983) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 2nd edn. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman HJ, Carpenter JA, Lester D, Randall CL (1980) Effect of alpha-methyl-p-tyrosine on dose-dependent mouse strain differences in locomotor activity after ethanol. J Stud Alcohol 41:1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gora-Maslak G, McClearn GE, Crabbe JC, Phillips TJ, Belknap JK, Plomin R (1991) Use of recombinant inbred strains to identify quantitative trait loci in psychopharmacology. Psychopharmacology (in press)Google Scholar
  19. Keppel G (1973) Design and analysis: a researcher's handbook Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  20. Lister RG (1987) The effects of ethanol on exploration in DBA/2 and C57BL/6 mice. Alcohol 4:17–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McAuliffe WE, Gordon RA (1974) A test of Lindesmith's theory of addiction: the frequency of euphoria among long-term addicts. Am J Sociol 79:795–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 147–159Google Scholar
  23. Phillips TJ, Feller DJ, Crabbe JC (1989a) Selected mouse lines, alcohol and behavior. Experientia 45:805–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Phillips TJ, Limm M, Crabbe JC (1989b) Correlated behavioral responses as potential predictors of sensitivity to ethanol's rewarding effects and addiction liability. In: Kiianmaa K, Tabakoff B, Saito T (eds) Genetic aspects of alcoholism. The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies, Helsinki, pp 197–206Google Scholar
  25. Phillips TJ, Terdal ES, Crabbe JC (1990) Response to selection for sensitivity to ethanol hypothermia: genetic analyses. Behav Genet 20:473–480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Randall CL, Carpenter JA, Lester D, Friedman HJ (1975) Ethanol-induced mouse strain differences in locomotor activity. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 3:533–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Strombom U, Svensson T, Carlsson A (1977) Antagonism of ethanol's central stimulation in mice by small doses of catecholamine-receptor agonists. Psychopharmacology 51:293–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wise RA, Bozarth MA (1987) A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction. Psychol Rev 94:469–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara J. Phillips
    • 1
  • Sue Burkhart-Kasch
    • 1
  • Erik S. Terdal
    • 1
  • John C. Crabbe
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Service, VA Medical Center, and Departments of Medical Psychology and PharmacologyOregon Health Sciences UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Research Geneticist, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Research Service (151-W)PortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations