Funded by the U.S. Public Health Service grant AA017072 and by funds provided by the State of California for medical research on alcohol and substance abuse through the University of California at San Francisco.
Responses to ethanol in C57BL/6 versus C57BL/6 × 129 hybrid mice
Article first published online: 6 JAN 2012
© 2012 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Brain and Behavior
Volume 2, Issue 1, pages 22–31, January 2012
How to Cite
Lim, J. P., Zou, M. E., Janak, P. H. and Messing, R. O. (2012), Responses to ethanol in C57BL/6 versus C57BL/6 × 129 hybrid mice. Brain and Behavior, 2: 22–31. doi: 10.1002/brb3.29
- Issue published online: 30 JAN 2012
- Article first published online: 6 JAN 2012
- Received: 20 August 2011; Revised: 08 November 2011; Accepted: 27 November 2011
- conditioned place preference;
- ethanol preference;
- gene targeting;
- loss of righting
Although genetic background alters responses to ethanol, there has not yet been a methodical quantification of differences in ethanol-related behaviors between inbred and hybrid mice commonly used in gene-targeting studies. Here, we compared C57BL/6NTac × 129S6/SvEvTac F1 hybrid mice (B6129S6) with C57BL/6NTac inbred mice (B6NT), and C57BL/6J × 129X1/SvJ (B6129X1) and C57BL/6J × 129S4/SvJae F1 hybrids (B6129S4) with C57BL/6J mice (B6J), in five commonly used tests: continuous access two-bottle choice drinking, intermittent limited-access binge drinking, ethanol clearance, ethanol-induced loss of the righting reflex, and conditioned place preference (CPP) for ethanol. We found that inbred B6J and B6NT mice showed greater ethanol preference and consumption than their respective hybrids when ethanol was continuously available. Within the intermittent limited-access drinking procedure, though all lines showed similar intake over eight drinking sessions, the average of all sessions showed that B6NT mice drank significantly more ethanol than B6129S6 mice. In addition, B6J mice consumed more ethanol than B6129X1 mice, although they drank less than B6129S4 mice. No differences in ethanol LORR duration were observed between inbred and hybrid mice. Although ethanol clearance was similar among B6J mice and their respective hybrids, B6NT mice cleared ethanol more rapidly than B6129S6 mice. All lines developed CPP for ethanol. Our findings indicate that it may not be necessary to backcross hybrids to an inbred B6 background to study many ethanol-related behaviors in gene-targeted mice.