Effect of low dose ethanol on spontaneous motor activity in alcohol-preferring and -nonpreferring lines of rats

Waller, M.B.; Murphy, James M.; McBride, William J.; Lumeng, Lawrence; Li, T.-K.

doi:10.1016/0091-3057(86)90567-8

Cited by 203 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To what extent the above mentioned mechanism is also involved in the excitatory response to ethanol in other rat strains (Carlsson et al 1972;Mason et al 1979;Erickson and Kochhar 1985;Waller et al 1986) remains to be investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…H igh doses of ethanol are known to decrease locom otor activity in both mice and rats (Pohorecky 1977;D uncan and Baez 1981), while lower doses produce locom otor stimulation in most mouse strains (C arlssonet al 1972;Waldeck 1974;Frye and Breese 1981;Crabbe et al 1982) and some rat strains (Carlsson et a l 1972;M ason et al 1979;Erickson and K ochhar 1985;Waller et al 1986). The mechanisms responsible for this biphasic response, however, are unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of the biphasic locomotor response to ethanol in high and low responders to novelty: a study in nijmegen wistar rats

Gingras

Cools

1996

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to investigate the biphasic locom otor response to ethanol in rats. Based on the recent finding that high responders to novelty (HR) and low responders to novelty (LR), selected from an outbred Nijmegen W istar rat population, show differences in ethanol intake and preference, it was ini tially investigated to what extent H R and L R differ in their locom otor response to ethanol, A dose-response curve (0.2-2.0 g/kg, IP) was established using stan dardized activity boxes. H R showed a significant increase at 0.5 g/kg, followed by a significant decrease at doses 1.0-2.0 g/kg; LR showed only a decrease at doses 1.0-2.0 g/kg. Secondly, it was investigated to what extent stress altered the ethanol-induced increase and decrease, respectively. For that purpose, the ethanol-induced locom otor effects (0.5 and 1.0 g/kg) were analyzed in habituated and noil-habituated (stressed) H R and LR; habituation consisted of a 15-min adaptation period to the activity cages. Stress significantly enhanced the excitatory effects in H R , but had no effect on the sedative effects in H R and LR. Finally, the locom otor effects of sub-chronic treatm ent (7 days) with an excitatory (0.5 g/kg) or sedative (LO g/kg) dose were analyzed in H R and LR. The excitatory effect of 0.5 g /k g disappeared throughout the treatm ent in H R , whereas the sedative effects of 1.0 g/kg remained the same in H R and LR. It is con cluded that the mechanism underlying the ethanolinduced m otor excitation differs completely from that underlying the ethanol-induced sedation. Given the known differences in the m ake-up of the brain and endocrine system between H R and LR, these animals are suggested to be good models for studying the m ech anisms underlying the biphasic locom otor response to ethanol in rats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the biphasic locomotor response to ethanol in high and low responders to novelty: a study in nijmegen wistar rats

Gingras

Cools

1996

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The activating effects of systemic administration of ethanol have typically been shown in mice (Read et al, 1960;Frye and Breese, 1981;Crabbe et al, 1982;Masur et al, 1986;Aragon et al, 1992a;Phillips and Shen, 1996;Correa et al, 1999aCorrea et al, , 2000Correa et al, , 2001Correa et al, , 2004b. Although some studies have shown that selectively bred alcohol-preferring rats can show ethanol-induced increases in locomotion (Paivarinta and Korpi, 1993;Colombo et al, 1998;Rodd et al, 2004), in most previous studies, peripheral administration of ethanol to other strains of rats failed to stimulate locomotor activity, and generally has resulted in a suppression of motor activity (Frye and Breese, 1981;Masur et al, 1986;Waller et al, 1986;Spivak et al, 1987;Aragon et al, 1989;Gingras and Cools, 1996;Correa et al, 2003a). More recently, through the use of intraventricular administration of ethanol directly into the brain, it has been demonstrated that central administration of ethanol in rats can induce locomotor activation (Correa et al, 2003a, b) and also increased operant responding on a DRL30 schedule, which is a sign of behavioral stimulant effects (Arizzi et al, 2003).…”

Section: Effects Of Snr Infusions Of Ethanolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor Stimulant Effects of Ethanol Injected into the Substantia Nigra Pars Reticulata: Importance of Catalase-Mediated Metabolism and the Role of Acetaldehyde

Arizzi-LaFrance

Correa

Aragón

et al. 2005

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments was conducted to investigate the locomotor effects of local injections of ethanol and the ethanol metabolite, acetaldehyde, into substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr). Infusions of ethanol into SNr resulted in a dose-related increase in locomotor activity, with maximal effects at a dose of 1.4 mmol. Ethanol injected into a control site dorsal to substantia nigra failed to stimulate locomotion, and another inactive site was identified in brainstem areas posterior to substantia nigra. The locomotor effects of intranigral ethanol (1.4 mmol) were reduced by coadministration of 10 mg/kg sodium azide, a catalase inhibitor that acts to reduce the metabolism of ethanol into acetaldehyde in the brain. SNr infusions of acetaldehyde, which is the first metabolite of ethanol, also increased locomotion. Taken together, these results indicate that SNr is one of the sites at which ethanol and acetaldehyde may be acting to induce locomotor activity. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that acetaldehyde is a centrally active metabolite of ethanol, and provide further support for the idea that catalase activity is a critical step in the regulation of ethanol-induced motor activity. These studies have implications for understanding the brain mechanisms involved in mediating the ascending limb of the biphasic dose-response curve for the effect of ethanol on locomotor activity.

show abstract

“…Among these 8 genes, several are involved in protein formation, that is, ribosomal protein S2 heat shock protein 2, and zinc finger protein 386 (Kruppel-like). Some of the differences in the CPU between the iP and iNP rats may reflect differences in response to the low-dose stimulating (Rodd et al, 2004;Waller et al, 1986) and high-dose motor impairing (Lumeng et al, 1982) effects of alcohol exhibited by the parent lines.…”

Section: Within-region Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, NP rats consume less than 1 g ethanol/ kg/day and do not attain measurable blood alcohol concentrations under free-choice conditions. Compared to NP rats, P rats are more sensitive to the low-dose stimulating effects of ethanol (Rodd et al, 2004;Waller et al, 1986), less sensitive to the high-dose motor impairing effects of ethanol (Lumeng et al, 1982), and develop acute tolerance more rapidly (Waller et al, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional gene expression differences between inbred alcohol-preferring and –non-preferring rats in five brain regions

Kimpel

Strother

McClintick

et al. 2007

Alcohol

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to determine if there are innate differences in gene expression in selected CNS regions between inbred alcohol-preferring (iP) and -non-preferring (iNP) rats. Gene expression was determined in the nucleus accumbens (ACB), amygdala (AMYG), frontal cortex (FC), caudate-putamen (CPU), and hippocampus (HIPP) of alcohol-naïve adult male iP and iNP rats, using Affymetrix Rat Genome U34A microarrays (n = 6/strain). Using Linear Modeling for Microarray Analysis with a false discovery rate threshold of 0.1, there were 16 genes with differential expression in the ACB, 54 in the AMYG, 8 in the FC, 24 in the CPU, and 21 in the HIPP. When examining the main effect of strain across regions, 296 genes were differentially expressed. Although the relatively small number of genes found significant within individual regions precluded a powerful analysis for over-represented Gene Ontology categories, the much larger list resulting from the main effect of strain analysis produced 17 over-represented categories (P <.05), including axon guidance, gliogenesis, negative regulation of programmed cell death, regulation of programmed cell death, regulation of synapse structure function, and transmission of nerve impulse. Co-citation analysis and graphing of significant genes revealed a network involved in the neuropeptide Y (NPY) transmitter system. Correlation of all significant genes with those located within previously established rat alcohol QTLs revealed that of the total of 313 significant genes, 71 are located within such QTLs. The many regional and overall gene expression differences between the iP and iNP rat lines may contribute to the divergent alcohol drinking phenotypes of these rats.

show abstract

Effect of low dose ethanol on spontaneous motor activity in alcohol-preferring and -nonpreferring lines of rats

Cited by 203 publications

References 27 publications

Analysis of the biphasic locomotor response to ethanol in high and low responders to novelty: a study in nijmegen wistar rats

Analysis of the biphasic locomotor response to ethanol in high and low responders to novelty: a study in nijmegen wistar rats

Motor Stimulant Effects of Ethanol Injected into the Substantia Nigra Pars Reticulata: Importance of Catalase-Mediated Metabolism and the Role of Acetaldehyde

Functional gene expression differences between inbred alcohol-preferring and –non-preferring rats in five brain regions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About