High and low alcohol preference (HAP and LAP, respectively) mice were created by 10 generations of bidirectional selection for differences in two-bottle choice alcohol consumption. The progenitors used for selection were HS/lbg mice, which are a genetically defined, out-bred stock. During selection, mice had 24-h, daily access to 10% alcohol (v/v) and water ad libitum for 30 days and were selected based on the alcohol (g/kg) consumed per day over the entire period. Food was available ad libitum. At S10, line means for alcohol consumption differed greatly, with consumption of over 12 g/kg per day in the HAP mice and less than 2 g/kg per day in the LAP mice. Realized heritability for bidirectional selection was approximately 0.2. Female mice consumed more alcohol than male mice. There were no differences between lines in alcohol elimination rate, nor were there line differences in intake of salt or quinine solutions. However, consumption of saccharin solutions was greater in HAP mice than LAP mice, consistent with previous findings of a genetic correlation between sweet preference and alcohol drinking. Because the mouse genome is relatively well characterized, these selected lines should prove a useful tool for assessment of the genetic basis of, and phenotypes that correlate with, alcohol drinking.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Crabbe, J. C., and Li, T.-K. (1995). Genetic strategies in preclinical substance abuse research. In Bloom, F. E., and Kupfer, D. J. (eds.), Psychopharmacology: The Fourth Generation of Progress, Raven Press, New York, pp. 799–811.Google Scholar
- Crabbe, J. C., Kosobud, A., Young, E. R., Tam, B. R., and McSwigan, J. D. (1985). Bidirectional selection for susceptibility to ethanol withdrawal seizures in Mus musculus. Behav. Genet. 15:521–536.Google Scholar
- Cunningham, C. L., Dickinson, S. D., and Okorn, D. M. (1995). Naloxone facilitates extinction but does not affect acquisition or expression of ethanol-induced conditioned place preference. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 3:330–343.Google Scholar
- Falconer, D. S., and Mackay, T. F. C. (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Addison, Wesley Longman, Essex.Google Scholar
- Kampov-Polevoy, A. B., Kasheffskaya, O. P., Overstreet, D. H., Rezvani, A. H., Viglinskaya, I. V., Badistoy, B. A., Seredenin, S. B., Halikas, J. A., and Sinclair, J. D. (1996). Pain sensitivity and saccharin intake in alcohol-preferring and-nonpreferring rat strains. Physiol. Behav. 59:683–688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lumeng, L., Waller, M. B., McBride, W. J., and Li, T-K. (1995). Genetic influences on alcohol preference in animals. In Begleiter, H., and Kissin, B. (eds.), The Genetics of Alcoholism, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 165–220.Google Scholar
- McClearn, G. E., and Rodgers, D. A. (1959). Differences in alcohol preference among inbred strains of mice. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 20:691–695.Google Scholar
- McClearn, G. E., Wilson, J. R., and Meredith, W. (1970). The use of isogenic and heterogenic mouse stocks in behavioral research. In Lindsey, G., and Thiessen, D. D. (eds.), Contributions to Behavior-Genetic Analysis: The Mouse as a Prototype, Appleton-Century-Krofts, New York, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
- Phillips, T. J., and Crabbe, J. C. (1991). Behavioral studies of genetic differences in alcohol action. In Crabbe, J. C., and Harris, R. A. (eds.), The Genetic Basis of Alcohol and Drug Actions, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 25–104.Google Scholar
- Pohorecky, L. A. (1977). Biphasic action of ethanol. Biobehav. Rev. 1:231–240.Google Scholar
- von Wartburg, J.-P. (1989). Pharmacokinetics of alcohol. In Crow, K. E., and Batt, R. D. (eds.), Human Metabolism of Alcohol, Vol. J. Pharmacokinetics. Medicolegal Aspects, and General Interest, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp.9–22.Google Scholar