4.2 Article

Wheel running, voluntary ethanol consumption, and hedonic substitution

Journal

ALCOHOL
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 417-424

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2008.04.006

Keywords

alcohol or ethanol consumption; enhanced environment; wheel running; alcohol deprivation effect; hedonic substitution

Funding

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [R37 AA006399, U01 AA013520-05, AA06399-S, AA13520, R01 AA006399-22S1, F31 AA016424-01, AA16424, F31 AA016424, U01 AA013520, R01 AA006399] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few studies have examined the relationship between naturally rewarding behaviors and ethanol drinking behaviors in mice. Although natural and drug reinforcers activate similar brain circuitry, there is behavioral evidence suggesting food and drug rewards differ in perceived value. The primary goal of the present study was to investigate the relationships between naturally reinforcing stimuli and consumption of ethanol in ethanol preferring C57BL/6J mice. Mouse behaviors were observed after the following environmental manipulations: standard or enhanced environment, accessible or inaccessible wheel, and presence or absence of ethanol. Using a high-resolution volumetric drinking monitor and wheel running monitor, we evaluated whether alternating access to wheel running modified ethanol-related behaviors and whether alternating access to ethanol modified wheel running or subsequent ethanol-related behaviors. We found that ethanol consumption remains stable with alternating periods of wheel running. Wheel running increases in the absence of ethanol and decreases upon reintroduction of ethanol. Upon reintroduction of ethanol, an alcohol deprivation effect was seen. Collectively, the results support theories of hedonic substitution and suggest that female C57BL/6J mice express ethanol seeking and craving under these specific conditions. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available