ABSTRACT:It is sometimes supposed that standardizing tests of mouse behavior will ensure similar results in different laboratories. We evaluated this supposition by conducting behavioral tests with identical apparatus and test protocols in independent laboratories. Eight genetic groups of mice, including equal numbers of males and females, were either bred locally or shipped from the supplier and then tested on six behaviors simultaneously in three laboratories (Albany, NY; Edmonton, AB; Portland, OR). The behaviors included locomotor activity in a small box, the elevated plus maze, accelerating rotarod, visible platform water escape, cocaine activation of locomotor activity, and ethanol preference in a twobottle test. A preliminary report of this study presented a conventional analysis of conventional measures that revealed strong effects of both genotype and laboratory as well as noteworthy interactions between genotype and laboratory. We now report a more detailed analysis of additional measures and view the data for each test in different ways. Whether mice were shipped from a supplier or bred locally had negligible effects for almost every measure in the six tests, and sex differences were also absent or very small for most behaviors, whereas genetic effects were almost always large. For locomotor activity, cocaine activation, and elevated plus maze, the analysis demonstrated the strong dependence of genetic differences in behavior on the laboratory giving the tests. For ethanol preference and water escape learning, on the other hand, the three labs obtained essentially the same results for key indicators of behavior. Thus, it is clear that the strong dependence of results on the specific laboratory is itself dependent on the task in question. Our results suggest that there may be advantages of test standardization, but laboratory environments probably can never be made sufficiently similar to guarantee identical results on a wide range of tests in a wide range of labs. Interpretations of our results by colleagues in neuroscience as well as the mass media are reviewed. Pessimistic views, prevalent in the media but relatively uncommon among neuroscientists, of mouse behavioral tests as being highly unreliable are contradicted by our data. Despite the presence of noteworthy interactions between genotype and lab environment, most of the larger differences between inbred strains were replicated across the three labs. Strain differences of moderate effects size, on the other hand, often differed markedly among labs, especially those involving three 129-derived strains. Implications for behavioral screening of targeted and induced mutations in mice are discussed.

No abstract

GABA receptor systems have long been implicated in alcoholism, and GABAergic drugs have demonstrated efficacy in altering alcohol intake in some rodent models. The present study was designed to assess the effects of baclofen, muscimol, and gaboxadol (THIP) in a variation on a new mouse model of binge-like ethanol intake. Three hours into their dark cycle, male and female C57BL/6J mice were given access to a 20% unsweetened ethanol solution for 2 h each day, for four days. On day five, mice received varying doses of baclofen, muscimol or THIP and were allowed access to 20% ethanol for 60 min. Baclofen dose-dependently increased binge-like ethanol intake, while both muscimol and THIP reduced ethanol intake. Subsequent studies testing the effect of baclofen, muscimol and THIP on water intake using the same procedure revealed that whereas baclofen had no significant effect, muscimol and THIP both reduced the measure. These results add to the growing literature suggesting a role for GABA receptor systems in the modulation of ethanol intake. However, whereas the role of GABA(B) receptor systems seems selective in the modulation of binge-like ethanol intake, the role for GABA(A) receptor systems appears to also extend to general fluid intake.

Endocannabinoid signaling plays the important role in regulation of ethanol intake. Fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) is a key membrane protein for metabolism of endocannabinoids, including anandamide, and blockade of FAAH increases the level of anandamide in the brain. To determine if FAAH regulates ethanol consumption, we studied mutant mice with deletion of the FAAH gene. Null mutant mice showed higher preference for alcohol and voluntarily consumed more alcohol than wild-type littermates. There was no significant difference in consumption of sweet or bitter solutions. To determine the specificity of FAAH for ethanol intake, we studied additional ethanol-related behaviors. There were no differences between null mutant and wild-type mice in severity of ethanol-induced acute withdrawal, conditioned taste aversion to alcohol, conditioned place preference, or sensitivity to hypnotic effect of ethanol. However, null mutant mice showed shorter duration of loss of righting reflex induced by low doses of ethanol (3.2 and 3.4 g/kg) and faster recovery from motor incoordination induced by ethanol. All three behavioral phenotypes (increased preference for ethanol, decreased sensitivity to ethanol-induced sedation, and faster recovery from ethanol-induced motor incoordination) seen in mutant mice were reproduced in wild-type mice by injection of a specific inhibitor of FAAH activityFURB597. These data suggest that increased endocannabinoid signaling increased ethanol consumption owing to decreased acute ethanol intoxication.

Background-Alcohol use is common during the adolescent period, a time at which a number of crucial neurobiological, hormonal, and behavioral changes occur (Spear, 2000). In order to more fully understand the complex interaction between alcohol use and these age-typical neurobiological changes, animal models must be utilized. Rodents experience a developmental period similar to that of adolescence. Although rat models have shown striking adolescent-specific differences in sensitivity to ethanol, little work has been done in mice despite the fact that the C57BL/6J (B6) and DBA2/J (D2) mice have been shown to markedly differ in ethanol preference drinking and exhibit widely different sensitivities to ethanol.