Expression Of Ethanol Sensitization Research Articles

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

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.

Differential effects of context on psychomotor sensitization to ethanol and cocaine

Repeated drug injections lead to sensitization of their stimulant effects in mice, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as drug psychomotor sensitization. Previous studies showed that sensitization to cocaine is context dependent as its expression is reduced in an environment that was not paired with cocaine administration. In contrast, the effects of the test context on ethanol sensitization remain unclear. In the present study, female OF1 mice were repeatedly injected with 1.5 g/kg ethanol to test for both the effects of context novelty/familiarity and association on ethanol sensitization. A first group of mice was extensively pre-exposed to the test context before ethanol sensitization and ethanol injections were paired with the test context (familiar and paired group). A second group was not pre-exposed to the test context, but ethanol injections were paired with the test context (nonfamiliar and paired group). Finally, a third group of mice was not pre-exposed to the test context and ethanol was repeatedly injected in the home cage (unpaired group). Control groups were similarly exposed to the test context, but were injected with saline. In a second experiment, cocaine was used as a positive control. The same behavioral procedure was used, except that mice were injected with 10 mg/kg cocaine instead of ethanol. The results show a differential involvement of the test context in the sensitization to ethanol and cocaine. Cocaine sensitization is strongly context dependent and is not expressed in the unpaired group. In contrast, the expression of ethanol sensitization is independent of the context in which it was administered, but is strongly affected by the relative novelty/familiarity of the environment. Extensive pre-exposure to the test context prevented the expression of ethanol sensitization. One possible explanation is that expression of ethanol sensitization requires an arousing environment.

Effects of high-frequency stimulation of the nucleus accumbens on the development and expression of ethanol sensitization in mice

The behavioural effects of high-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) are often similar to the effects of lesions, with the advantage of being reversible. The present study examined the effects of HFS of the nucleus accumbens (NAc), an area that has been shown to be important for sensitization to several psychostimulants, on the development and expression of EtOH sensitization. Male DBA/2 mice received five biweekly injections of EtOH (2.2 g/kg, intraperitoneally) or saline (SAL) immediately before assessments of locomotor activity (LMA). For some of the mice, each EtOH or SAL injection was preceded by 2 h of bilateral NAc HFS, whereas the remaining mice received no stimulation. Seven days after the last injection, LMA was again measured after the mice received a challenge dose of EtOH (1.8 g/kg, intraperitoneally) or SAL, either preceded or not preceded by 2 h of HFS. Mice receiving NAc HFS before EtOH injections during the sensitization period showed progressive increases in LMA that were not different from the LMA scores of EtOH-injected mice which had received no HFS. However, when the latter group was subsequently challenged after receiving HFS, a strong suppression of LMA was observed, in comparison with their own previous LMA scores (-72%) and compared with EtOH-sensitized groups challenged in the absence of HFS (-70%). A separate cohort of mice that were surgically implanted but not stimulated showed a robust EtOH sensitization response that did not differ from that of EtOH-treated mice without electrodes, demonstrating that HFS behavioural effects were not merely a result of the presence of electrodes in the NAc. These results suggest that NAc HFS may have different effects at different stages of the EtOH sensitization process, specifically suppressing expression, but not the development of EtOH sensitization. This pattern of distinct effects of NAc manipulations on different aspects of sensitization is similar to what has been reported for other drugs of abuse, suggesting a commonality of mechanisms. Our findings also suggest that the sensitization may provide a useful paradigm for the investigation of mechanisms of clinical effectiveness of HFS in humans.

Morphine attenuates the expression of sensitization to ethanol, but opioid antagonists do not

Behavioral sensitization to ethanol is characterized by an increased locomotor activity after repeated exposure. A great variability exists among species and strains in the development of sensitization. There is a growing amount of evidence to indicate that the opioid system is involved in alcoholism; it is possible, therefore, that this system also modulates the sensitization to ethanol. In this study we evaluated the role of the opioid system in determining the variability of the sensitized response to ethanol. Mice received repeated administrations of ethanol (2.2 g/kg) or saline every other day for 10 days. According to their locomotor response on the last day of treatment, ethanol-treated animals were classified into two groups: sensitized or non-sensitized mice. After the treatment, mice were submitted to four challenges 48 h apart. In experiments 1 and 2, mice were challenged, respectively, with i.p. administration of opioid antagonists (naloxone or naltrexone) or an opioid agonist (morphine), followed immediately by 2.2 g/kg ethanol. In experiment 3, animals received morphine by i.c.v., followed by 2.2 g/kg of ethanol (i.p.). Pretreatment with opioid antagonists (naloxone or naltrexone) did not block the expression of ethanol sensitization; however pretreatment with morphine attenuated the increased locomotor activity after ethanol administration in sensitized mice. In experiment 4, after the ethanol or saline treatment, mice brains were processed and brain mu opioid binding was assessed by autoradiography using [3H]D-Ala2,N-mePhe4, Gly-ol5-enkephalin ([3H]DAMGO). No differences were seen between any of the groups of mice, so the agonist effect is not likely to be mediated by differences in binding to mu opioid receptors.

Parametric analysis of the development and expression of ethanol-induced behavioral sensitization in female Swiss mice: effects of dose, injection schedule, and test context

Repeated administrations of ethanol induce a progressive and enduring increase in its locomotor stimulant effects, a phenomenon termed behavioral sensitization that has not been systematically characterized. The aim of the present studies was to characterize the development and expression of ethanol sensitization in female Swiss mice by examining (1) the doses of ethanol that induce behavioral sensitization, (2) the doses of acute ethanol challenges that are necessary to express behavioral sensitization, (3) the effects of the intervals between administrations, and (4) the context dependency of ethanol sensitization. Mice were i.p. injected for 8 days with various ethanol doses, and locomotion was recorded for 5 min. Two days after the last sensitization session, ethanol sensitization was tested in 30-min test sessions. Mice repeatedly injected with 2.5 g/kg ethanol showed a progressive (200-300%) increase in locomotor activity. In response to a 2.5 g/kg ethanol challenge, the mice repeatedly treated with doses above 1.5 g/kg showed a significant sensitization. Following the induction of sensitization with the maximally effective sensitizing dose (2.5 g/kg), mice showed greater activation after challenges with 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 g/kg ethanol. The intervals (24, 48, or 96 h) between ethanol injections did not affect the induction or expression of sensitization. Finally, sensitization to 2.5 g/kg ethanol was expressed regardless of the context in which it was induced. Female Swiss mice develop a robust context-independent sensitization after repeated ethanol injections at all doses above 1.5 g/kg, including highly sedative doses such as 4 g/kg.