Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30036544›Full record

ArticlePharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior2018

Effects of sex on ethanol conditioned place preference, activity and variability in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice.

Christopher L Cunningham, Chloe N Shields

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Context features influence alcohol reward and motivation.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Sex differences in the glutamate system: Implications for addiction.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2020
    Review
  14. Sex Differences in Ethanol Reward Seeking Under Conflict in Mice.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. From Systemic Inflammation to Neuroinflammation: The Case of Neurolupus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
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

2 authors.

Christopher L CunninghamDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Portland Alcohol Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA. Electronic address: cunningh@ohsu.edu.
Chloe N ShieldsDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Portland Alcohol Research Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239-3098, USA.

Funding

MODULATION OF ALCOHOL REINFORCEMENTR01AA007702 · NIAAA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI RYABININ, ANDREY E · 1988 to 2019
$4.0M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA007702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies of ethanol drinking in rodents have shown greater intake in females than in males, but the reasons behind this difference are unknown. To address one possible interpretation of the drinking difference, these studies tested the hypothesis that female and male mice differ in sensitivity to the rewarding effects of ethanol using the conditioned place preference (CPP) procedure. To increase the generalizability of the results, sex differences were examined in two inbred mouse strains known to differ in their sensitivity to ethanol reward: C57BL/6J (B6) and DBA/2J (D2). Mice were conditioned in an unbiased CPP procedure using either 1 or 2 g/kg ethanol. To detect possible differences in learning rate, they were tested once at the midpoint of conditioning and again after conditioning ended. As expected, CPP was stronger with 2 g/kg than with 1 g/kg, and D2 mice generally showed stronger CPP than B6 mice. However, there were no sex differences in the rate of CPP acquisition or in CPP magnitude, suggesting no sex difference in ethanol reward sensitivity as indexed by CPP. Nevertheless, there were sex differences in locomotor activity. B6 females were generally more active than B6 males during CPP acquisition whereas D2 females were slightly less active than D2 males during both CPP acquisition and preference testing. Unexpectedly, female mice showed more variability than males in the behavioral measures recorded in these studies, encouraging greater attention to variability in the design, analysis and interpretation of future studies of sex differences in mice.

Indexed as

Sex FactorsAnimalsConditioning, ClassicalEthanolFemaleMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred DBAEthanolActivityAlcoholInbred strains (DBA/2J, C57BL/6J)LearningRewardSexVariability

Identifiers

PMID30036544
PMCPMC6125164

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.