Ethanol Drinking Microstructure of a High Drinking in the Dark Selected Mouse Line
Ethanol Drinking Microstructure of a High Drinking in the Dark Selected Mouse Line
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01749.x
复制
发表时间：
2012-08-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Crabbe, John C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barkley-Levenson, Amanda M.;Crabbe, John C.
研究背景黑暗中饮酒（HDID）小鼠系是在黑暗中限制饮酒（DID）试验后产生高血乙醇（EtOH）浓度（BEC）的小鼠，是一种类似暴饮暴食的遗传动物模型。本研究在3个版本的DID测试期间检查了这些小鼠及其对照线中乙醇饮用的微观结构，以确定饮用结构差异如何与总体摄入量和BEC相关。方法HDID-1复制系和HS/Npt祖细胞系的雄性小鼠在单独的实验中进行了2天和4天版本的DID测试，并在2天2瓶选择DID测试中使用20%EtOH和水进行测试。测试在连接到连续流体摄入监测系统的家用笼中进行，并分析DID测试期间的饮用微结构。结果HDID-1小鼠在2 d DID实验第2天的饮水次数、饮水间隔时间、饮水量、乙醇摄入量和BEC值均高于HS/Npt小鼠。4天DID测试显示HDID-1小鼠比HS/Npt小鼠具有更大的体型、总EtOH摄入量和BEC。在DID测试中，HDID-1小鼠的总EtOH摄入量和BEC平均值分别为2.6至3.0 g/kg和0.4至0.5 mg/ml。2瓶选择测试显示在饮用微观结构或总消耗量方面没有基因型差异，但确实显示HDID-1小鼠比HS/Npt更偏好EtOH溶液。结论HDID-1小鼠和HS/Npt小鼠乙醇饮水结构的差异，尤其是HDID-1小鼠较大的饮水量，是导致标准DID试验中乙醇摄入量差异的主要原因。
Background The High Drinking in the Dark (HDID) selected mouse line was bred for high blood ethanol (EtOH) concentration (BEC) following the limited access drinking in the dark (DID) test and is a genetic animal model of binge-like drinking. This study examines the microstructure of EtOH drinking in these mice and their control line during 3 versions of the DID test to determine how drinking structure differences might relate to overall intake and BEC. Methods Male mice from the HDID-1 replicate line and HS/Npt progenitor stock were tested in separate experiments on 2- and 4-day versions of the DID test, and on a 2-day 2-bottle choice DID test with 20% EtOH and water. Testing took place in home cages connected to a continuous fluid intake monitoring system, and drinking during the DID test was analyzed for drinking microstructure. Results HDID-1 mice had more drinking bouts, shorter interbout interval, larger bout size, greater total EtOH intake, and higher BECs than HS/Npt mice on the second day of the 2-day DID test. The 4-day DID test showed greater bout size, total EtOH intake, and BEC in the HDID-1 mice than the HS/Npt mice. Total EtOH intake and BECs for the HDID-1 mice in the DID tests averaged 2.6 to 3.0 g/kg and 0.4 to 0.5 mg/ml, respectively. The 2-bottle choice test showed no genotype differences in drinking microstructure or total consumption but did show greater preference for the EtOH solution in HDID-1 mice than HS/Npt. Conclusions These results suggest that inherent differences in EtOH drinking structure between the HDID-1 and HS/Npt mice, especially the larger bout size in the HDID-1 mice, contribute to the difference in intake during the standard DID test.