4.2 Article

Hybrid C57BL/6J x FVB/NJ mice drink more alcohol than do C57BL/6J mice

期刊

ALCOHOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 1949-1958

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1097/01.alc.0000187605.91468.17

关键词

ethanol consumption; inbred mouse strains; epistasis

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [AA06399, AA13520, AA13519, U01 AA013519, AA07468, T32 AA007468, U01 AA013475, P50 AA010760, AA13478, U01 AA013478, U01 AA013520, R37 AA006399, U01 AA013475-02, R01 AA006399, P60 AA010760, AA10760] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: From several recent strain surveys (28 strains: Bachmanov et al., personal communication; 22 strains: Finn et al., unpublished), and from data in > 100 other published studies of 24-hr two-bottle ethanol preference, it is known that male C57BL/6 (136) mice self-administer about 10-14 g/kg/day and that female 136 mice self-administer about 12-18 g/kg/day. No strain has been found to consume more ethanol than B6. In one of our laboratories (Texas), we noted a markedly greater intake of ethanol in an F1 hybrid of B6 and FVB/NJ (FVB) mice. Methods: To confirm and extend this finding, we repeated the study at another site (Portland) using concentrations up to 30% ethanol and also tested B6xFVB F1 mice in restricted access drinking procedures that produce high levels of alcohol intake. Results: At both sites, we found that B6xFVB F1 mice self-administered high levels of ethanol during two-bottle preference tests (females averaging from 20 to 35 g/kg/day, males 7-25 g/kg/day, depending on concentration). F1 hybrids of both sexes drank significantly more 20% ethanol than both the B6 and FVB strains. Female F1 hybrids also drank more 30% ethanol. In the restricted access tests, ethanol consumption in the F1 hybrids was equivalent to that in B6 mice. Conclusions: These data show that this new genetic model has some significant advantages when compared to existing inbred strains, and could be used to explore the genetic basis of high ethanol drinking in mice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据