Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31721780›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Long-term exposure to daily ethanol injections in DBA/2J and Swiss mice: Lessons for the interpretation of ethanol sensitization.

Vincent Didone, Théo van Ingelgom, Ezio Tirelli, Etienne Quertemont

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vincent DidonePsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit (PsyNCog), Animal models of cognition, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Théo van IngelgomPsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit (PsyNCog), Animal models of cognition, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Ezio TirelliPsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit (PsyNCog), Animal models of cognition, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Etienne QuertemontPsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit (PsyNCog), Animal models of cognition, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9859-0779
University of Liège · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most mice ethanol sensitization studies focused on neurobiology at the expense of its behavioral characterization. Furthermore, relatively short ethanol exposures (10 to 20 injections) were used in these studies. The first aim of the present study is to better characterize the development and expression of ethanol sensitization after an extended exposure of 45 daily injections. In some previous studies, mice were classified as "respondent" and "resistant" to ethanol sensitization. The second aim of the present study is to test the long-term reliability of such categorizations and the consequences of their use on the interpretation of the ethanol sensitization results. Swiss and DBA/2J female mice received 45 consecutive daily ethanol administrations (respectively 2.5 and 2.0 g/kg) and their locomotor activity was daily recorded to test the development of ethanol sensitization. At the end of the procedure, a challenge test assessed the inter-group ethanol sensitization.The results of the present study show that ethanol sensitization continues to develop beyond 20 days to reach maximal levels after about 25 injections in DBA/2J mice and 40 injections in Swiss mice, although the core phase of the development of ethanol sensitization occurred in both strains during the first 20 days. Remarkably, ethanol sensitization after such a long daily ethanol treatment resulted in both an upward shift of the magnitude of ethanol stimulant effects and a prolongation of these effects in time (up to 30 minutes). Mice classified as "resistant to ethanol sensitization" according to previous studies developed very significant levels of ethanol sensitization when tested after 45 ethanol injections and are best described as showing a delayed development of ethanol sensitization. Furthermore, mice classified as respondent or resistant to ethanol sensitization also differ in their acute response to ethanol, such that it is difficult to ascertain whether these classifications are specifically related to the sensitization process.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AnimalConditioning, PsychologicalEthanolFemaleInjections, IntraperitonealMiceMice, Inbred DBAMotor ActivityReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsEthanol

Identifiers

PMID31721780
PMCPMC6853325
OpenAlexW2986477185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.