Phenotypic and Genotypic Relationships Between Ethanol Tolerance and Sensitivity in Mice Selectively Bred for Initial Sensitivity to Ethanol (SS and LS) or Development of Acute Tolerance (HAFT and LAFT)
Authors: Deitrich Richard A. , Bludeau Pequita , Erwin V. Gene 
Published: April 2006

Background: Genetically based risk for development of alcoholism in humans seems to be related to initial sensitivity and/or acute tolerance to ethanol. The genetic basis for the development of tolerance has received less attention than other ethanol‐related behaviors. We have selected lines of mice, according to genetics, which are differentially sensitive to the initial hypnotic effect of ethanol (Short Sleep and Long Sleep, SS and LS) and other lines that differentially develop acute functional tolerance to ethanol (High and Low Acute Functional Tolerance, HAFT and LAFT). We review reports of the relationship between initial sensitivity and two forms of tolerance as measured using different behavioral measures and different time scales. The goal of the study was to investigate alcohol tolerance as measured by different behavioral tests conducted over different time periods and relate these variables to hypnotic sensitivity.

Methods: We investigated the phenotypic and genotypic relationships between different measures of tolerance to ethanol in the SS and LS mice. We used two measures of tolerance: (a) The time an animal can remain on a stationary dowel or roto‐rod at 5‐min intervals up to 30 minutes after a single low dose of ethanol (Acute Single Dose Tolerance, ASDT‐dowel or ASDT‐roto‐rod); and (b) The difference in blood ethanol levels taken when a mouse could repeatedly regain balance on a stationary dowel or roto‐rod after successive doses of ethanol (Acute Functional tolerance, AFT‐dowel or AFT‐roto‐rod). The time course in AFT was much longer, up to 2 hours.

We carried out the same studies on the High and Low Acute Functional Tolerance (HAFT and LAFT) mice.

Results: SS and LS mice differ in hypnotic sensitivity as measured by sleep time, and they differ in all forms of acute tolerance that were measured except in AFT‐dowel. Although there were phenotypic correlations between AFT‐dowel and ASDT‐roto‐rod in the Heterogeneous Stock (HS) of mice, provisional Quantitative Trait Loci (determined with Recombinant Inbred mice from a SS X LS cross) for the two phenotypes did not overlap, which indicated that there was little or no genetic correlation between the measures.

HAFT and LAFT mice do not differ in hypnotic sensitivity as measured by sleep time measurements nor in ataxic sensitivity as measured on the dowel. The HAFT and LAFT mice both developed tolerance when tested in the 30‐minute time frame, but the differences between the lines was largely in the rate of development of tolerance and not the amount developed. On the other hand, when tolerance was measured over 2 hr on the dowel or roto‐rod, the HAFT and LAFT animals developed different levels of tolerance.

Conclusions: We concluded that measures of tolerance depended on both the time of ethanol's action and the behavioral task used. It seemed that the measures of tolerance used in this study had different genetic bases in mice. Presumably, tolerance will also vary in humans depending on the behavioral measure, and tolerance will also have different genetic bases for the different behavioral measures in humans.