Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21194877›Full record

ArticleAlcohol (Fayetteville, N.Y.)2011

Alcohol preference drinking in a mouse line selectively bred for high drinking in the dark.

John C Crabbe, Stephanie E Spence, Lauren L Brown, Pamela Metten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alcohol (Fayetteville, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Animal Models of Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Rodents.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Intermittent Ethanol Access Increases Sensitivity to Social Defeat Stress.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. High-Intensity Drinking in Adult Australian Twins.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

John C CrabbePortland Alcohol Research Center, Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health & Science University and VA Medical Center, USA. crabbe@ohsu.edu
Stephanie E Spence
Lauren L Brown
Pamela Metten

Funding

Translational measures of risk for excessive alcohol consumptionP60AA010760 · NIAAA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Suzanne S. Fei · 2006 to 2026
$34.5M
Selective Breeding for Drinking in the Circadian DarkU01AA013519 · NIAAA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Angela Renee Ozburn · 2001 to 2026
$10.9M
THERMAL AND METABOLIC DYSFUNCTION DURING WITHDRAWALP50AA010760 · NIAAA · OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI CRABBE, JOHN C. · 1996 to 2005
$10.7M
Mouse Genetic Models for Alcohol ResearchR24AA020245 · NIAAA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI PHILLIPS, TAMARA J. · 2011 to 2020
$2.3M
NIAAA NIH HHS AA10760NIAAA NIH HHS AA1351NIAAA NIH HHS P50 AA010760NIAAA NIH HHS P60 AA010760NIAAA NIH HHS R24 AA020245NIAAA NIH HHS U01 AA013519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have selectively bred mice that reach very high blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) after drinking from a single bottle of 20% ethanol. High Drinking in the Dark (HDID-1) mice drink nearly 6g/kg ethanol in 4h and reach average BECs of more than 1.0mg/mL. Previous studies suggest that DID and two-bottle preference for 10% ethanol with continuous access are influenced by many of the same genes. We therefore asked whether HDID-1 mice would differ from the HS/Npt control stock on two-bottle preference drinking. We serially offered mice access to 3-40% ethanol in tap water versus tap water. For ethanol concentrations between 3 and 20%, HDID-1 and HS/Npt controls did not differ in two-bottle preference drinking. At the highest concentrations, the HS/Npt mice drank more than the HDID-1 mice. We also tested the same mice for preference for two concentrations each of quinine, sucrose, and saccharin. Curiously, the mice showed preference ratios (volume of tastant/total fluid drunk) of about 50% for all tastants and concentrations. Thus, neither genotype showed either preference or avoidance for any tastant after high ethanol concentrations. Therefore, we compared naive groups of HDID-1 and HS/Npt mice for tastant preference. Results from this test showed that ethanol-naive mice preferred sweet fluids and avoided quinine but the genotypes did not differ. Finally, we tested HDID-1 and HS mice for an extended period for preference for 15% ethanol versus water during a 2-h access period in the dark. After several weeks, HDID-1 mice consumed significantly more than HS. We conclude that drinking in the dark shows some genetic overlap with other tests of preference drinking, but that the degree of genetic commonality depends on the model used.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBreedingChoice BehaviorDarknessDisease Models, AnimalDrinkingEthanolFemaleMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLQuinineSaccharinSucroseEthanolQuinineSaccharinSucrose

Identifiers

PMID21194877
PMCPMC3395368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.