|
Figure 2. Female Ï1 (â/â) mice showed decreased ethanol conditioned taste aversion.Data represent the changes in saccharin consumption produced by injection of saline or ethanol expressed as percent of control trial (Trial 0). A. Development of CTA in males (nâ=â9â10 for saline injection for both genotypes; nâ=â20 for ethanol injection for both genotypes). Saline-Ethanol pairings for wild type mice: (F1,28â=â44.9, p<0.001, effect of treatment; F4,112â=â22.4, p<0.001, dependence on trial; F4,112â=â24.9, p<0.001, treatment x trial interaction). Saline-Ethanol pairings for Ï1 null mice: (F1,27â=â28.3, p<0.001, effect of treatment; F4,108â=â19.4, p<0.001, dependence on trial; F4,108â=â19.0, p<0.001, treatment x trial interaction). Genotype-Saline pairings: (F4,68â=â6.6, p<0.001, effect of trial; no dependence on genotype or genotype-trial interaction). Genotype-Ethanol pairings: (F4,152â=â101, p<0.001, effect of trial; no dependence on genotype or genotype-trial interaction). B. Development of CTA in females (nâ=â9â10 for saline injection for both genotypes; nâ=â12â20 for ethanol injection for both genotypes). Saline-Ethanol pairings for wild type mice: (F1,128â=â64.4, p<0.001, effect of treatment; F4,112â=â16.5, p<0.001, dependence on trial; F4,112â=â25.8, p<0.001, treatment x trial interaction). Saline-Ethanol pairings for Ï1 null mice: (F1,19â=â14.3, p<0.01, effect of treatment; F4,76â=â26.2, p<0.001, dependence on trial; F4,76â=â25.2, p<0.001, treatment x trial interaction). Genotype-Saline pairings: (F4,68â=â10.5, p<0.001, effect of trial; no dependence on genotype or genotype-trial interaction). Genotype-Ethanol pairings: (F1,30â=â12.3, p<0.001, effect of genotype, F4,120â=â80.9, p<0.001, dependence on trial and no dependence on genotype; F4,120â=â5.9, p<0.001, genotype x trial interaction). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA. Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; EtOHâ=â ethanol.
|
|
Figure 3. Ethanol-induced conditioned place preference in Ï1 (â/â) mice.Data represent the percent of time spent on different types of floor (A, B) or on the grid floor (C, D). A. Males (nâ=â13â15 per genotype; F1,52â=â14, p<0.001, main effect of floor). B. Females (nâ=â6 per genotype; F1,20â=â5.7, p<0.05, main effect of floor; F1,20â=â13.7, p<0.01, genotype x floor interaction, *p<0.05 vs. another genotype on the same type of floor). C. Males, 1st Preference test (nâ=â13â15 per genotype and treatment; F1,52â=â43, p<0.001, main effect of treatment, ***p<0.001 vs. saline group of corresponding genotype). D. 2nd Preference test (Extinction). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test. Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; EtOHâ=âethanol.
|
|
Figure 4. Lack of Ï1 increased duration of LORR by ethanol and ketamine but not pentobarbital or flurazepam.A, B, C, D â Males. E, F, G, H â Females. A, E â Ethanol (nâ=â8â10 per genotype for both sexes; t(16)â=â3.3 for males and females, **p<0.01 vs. wild type of corresponding genotype). B, F â Pentobarbital (nâ=â12â15 per genotype for both sexes). C, G â Ketamine (nâ=â10â14 per genotype for both sexes; t(25)â=â2.9 for males and t(22)â=â6.3 for females, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 vs. wild type of corresponding genotype). D, H â Flurazepam (nâ=â7â10 per genotype for both sexes). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by Student's t-test. Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; EtOHâ=âethanol; LORRâ=âloss of righting reflex.
|
|
Figure 5. Faster recovery from motor incoordinating effect of ethanol in Ï1 (â/â) mice.Data represent time (sec) on the rotarod after injection of ethanol (2.0 g/kg). A. Males (nâ=â5â7 per genotype; F1,16â=â10, p<0.01, dependence on genotype; F9, 144â=â163, p<0.001, dependence on time; F9,144â=â6.8, p<0.001, genotype x time interaction). B. Females (nâ=â6â8 per genotype; F1,12â=â30.5, p<0.001, dependence on genotype; F7,84â=â124, p<0.001, dependence on time; F7,84â=â11.6, p<0.001, genotype x time interaction). Data represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test (*p<0.05, ***p<0.001 vs. wild type genotype for each time point). Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice.
|
|
Figure 6. Ethanol reduced anxiety-related behavior equally in the elevated plus-maze in wild type and Ï1 null mice.A. Percent of time in open arms. B. Percent of entries into the open arms. C. Number of entries into the closed arms. Data from females and males were combined since there were no gender differences. Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 vs. saline group of corresponding genotype (nâ=â13â19 per group). Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; EtOHâ=âethanol.
|
|
Figure 7. Effect of ethanol on motor activity after pre-habituation.A. Males (nâ=â12â20 per genotype; F1,30â=â4.8, p<0.05 main effect of genotype; F2,60â=â13.8, p<0.001 main effect of treatment; no genotype x treatment interaction). B. Females (nâ=â13â18 per genotype; F2,56â=â18.4, p<0.001 main effect of treatment; no dependence on genotype or genotype x treatment interaction). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with repeated measures with Bonferroni post hoc test (#p<0.05 vs. response of another genotype for the same condition). Effect of ethanol within each genotype was also analyzed by one-way ANOVA with repeated measures with Dunnett's post hoc test (*p<0.05, **p<0.01 vs. saline response of corresponding genotype). Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; EtOHâ=âethanol.
|
|
Figure 8. Effect of Ï1/Ï2 antagonists on ethanol (3.4 g/kg)-induced LORR in wild type and Ï1 (â/â) mice.A. Wild type male mice. (nâ=â9â11; F2,27â=â17.9, p<0.001). B. Wild type female mice. (nâ=â9â10; F2,26â=â25, p<0.001). C. Ï1 (â/â) male mice. (nâ=â7â11; F2,25â=â113, p<0.001). D. Ï1 (â/â) female mice. (nâ=â9â10; F2,27â=â20.7, p<0.001). *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 vs. saline; ##p<0.01, ###p<0.001 (S)-ACPBPA vs. (R)-ACPBPA). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test. Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; LORRâ=âloss of righting reflex.
|
|
Figure 9. Effect of Ï1/Ï2 antagonists on ketamine (150 mg/kg)-induced LORR in wild type and Ï1 (â/â) mice.A. Wild type male mice. (nâ=â9â11; F2,12â=â77.5, p<0.001). B. Wild type female mice. (nâ=â9â10; F2,12â=â105, p<0.001). C. Ï1 (â/â) male mice. (nâ=â7â11; F2,12â=â79.3, p<0.001). D. Ï1 (â/â) female mice. (nâ=â9â10; F2,12â=â27.7, p<0.001). **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 vs. saline; ###p<0.001 (S)-ACPBPA vs. (R)-ACPBPA). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test. Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; LORRâ=âloss of righting reflex.
|
|
Figure 10. Effect of Ï1/Ï2 antagonists on recovery from ethanol (2.0 g/kg)-induced motor incoordination in wild type and Ï1 (â/â) mice.A. Wild type male mice, nâ=â6. (S)-ACPBPA (F1,10â=â43.3, p<0.001, effect of treatment; F10,100â=â107, p<0.001, effect of time; F10,100â=â17.1, p<0.001, treatment x time interaction). (R)-ACPBPA (F10,100â=â120, p<0.001, effect of time; no effect of treatment or treatment x time interaction). B. Wild type female mice, nâ=â6. (S)-ACPBPA (F1,10â=â69, p<0.001, effect of treatment; F9,90â=â196, p<0.001, effect of time; F9,90â=â24, p<0.001, treatment x time interaction). (R)-ACPBPA (F9,90â=â181, p<0.001, effect of time; no effect of treatment or treatment x time interaction). C. Ï1 (â/â) male mice, nâ=â4â6. (S)-ACPBPA (F10,80â=â67.7, p<0.001, effect of time; no effect of treatment or treatment x time interaction). (R)-ACPBPA (F1,9â=â31.5, p<0.001, effect of treatment; F10,90â=â102, p<0.001, effect of time; F10,90â=â13.4, p<0.001, treatment x time interaction). D. Ï1 (â/â) female mice, nâ=â6. (S)-ACPBPA (F8,80â=â126, p<0.001, effect of time; no effect of treatment or treatment x time interaction). (R)-ACPBPA (F1,10â=â24.1, p<0.001, effect of treatment; F8,80â=â101, p<0.001, effect of time; F8,80â=â8.1, p<0.001, treatment x time interaction). Values represent mean ± S.E.M. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with repeated measures with Bonferroni post hoc test vs. corresponding saline-injected mice. Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice.
|
|
Figure 11. GABA sensitivity and ethanol modulation of currents produced by human Ï1 or Ï2 recombinant receptors in oocytes.A. GABA concentration-response curve for Ï1 (nâ=â5) and Ï2 (nâ=â6) GABAA receptors. B. Ethanol modulation of EC50 GABA-mediated currents for Ï1 (nâ=â4â5) and Ï2 (nâ=â3â9) GABAA receptors (no significant difference, two-way ANOVA).
|
|
Figure 1. Voluntary ethanol consumption was reduced in Ï1 (â/â) male mice in 24-hour two-bottle choice paradigm.A. Ethanol consumption (g/kg/24 hours) in males. (F1,18â=â7.1, p<0.05, main effect of genotype; F4,728â=â36.2, main effect of concentration, p<0.001; no genotype x concentration interaction). B. Ethanol consumption (g/kg/24 hours) in females. (F4,68â=â56.2, p<0.001, main effect of concentration; no main effect of genotype or genotype x concentration interaction). C. Preference for ethanol in males. (F1,18â=â7.1, p<0.05, main effect of genotype; F4,72â=â7.8, p<0.001, main effect of concentration; no genotype x concentration interaction). D. Preference for ethanol in females. (F4,68â=â10.6, p<0.001, main effect of concentration; no main effect of genotype or genotype x concentration interaction). E. Total fluid intake (g/kg/24 hours) in males. (F5,90â=â29.9, p<0.001, main effect of concentration; no main effect of genotype or genotype x concentration interaction). F. Total fluid intake (g/kg/24 hours) in females. (F5,75â=â23.8, p<0.001, main effect of concentration; no main effect of genotype or genotype x concentration interaction; nâ=â9â10 for both genotypes and sexes). Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA. Ï1 (â/â)â=âÏ1 null mice; (+/+)â=âwild type mice; EtOHâ=âethanol.
|