Search

The high-drinking-in-the-dark (HDID) lines of mice were selectively bred for achieving high blood alcohol levels in the drinking-in-the-dark (DID) task and have served as a unique genetic risk model for binge-like alcohol intake. However, little is known about their willingness to consume other addictive drugs. Here, we examined (a) whether the HDID-1 and HDID-2 lines of mice would voluntarily consume midazolam, methamphetamine, morphine and nicotine in a DID test and (b) whether the HDID lines differ from their founders, heterogeneous stock/Northport (HS/NPT), in consumption levels of these drugs at the concentrations tested. Separate groups of HDID-1, HDID-2 and HS/NPT mice were given 4 days of access to each drug, using the single-bottle, limited-access DID paradigm. Male and female mice of both HDID lines consumed all four offered drugs. We observed no genotype differences in 40 μg/ml methamphetamine intake, but significant differences in nicotine, midazolam and morphine intake. Both HDID lines drank significantly more (150 μg/ml) midazolam than their founders, providing strong support for a shared genetic contribution to binge ethanol and midazolam intake. HDID-2 mice, but not HDID-1 mice, consumed more morphine (700 μg/ml) and more nicotine across a range of concentrations than HS/NPT mice. These results demonstrate that the HDID mice can be utilized for tests of voluntary drug consumption other than ethanol and highlight potentially important differences between HDID lines in risk for elevated drug intake.

We have modelled genetic risk for binge-like drinking by selectively breeding High Drinking in the Dark-1 and −2 (HDID-1 and HDID-2) mice for their propensity to reach intoxicating blood alcohol levels (BALs) after binge-like drinking in a single bottle, limited access paradigm. Interestingly, in standard two-bottle choice (2BC) tests for continuously available alcohol versus water, HDID mice show modest levels of preference. This indicates some degree of independence of the genetic contributions to risk for binge-like and sustained, continuous access drinking. We had few data where the drinking in the dark (DID) tests of binge-like drinking had been repeatedly performed, so we serially offered multiple DID tests to see whether binge-like drinking escalated. It did not. We also asked whether HDID mice would escalate their voluntary intake with prolonged exposure to alcohol 2BC. They did not. Lastly, we assessed whether an alcohol deprivation effect (ADE) developed. ADE is a temporary elevation in drinking typically observed after a period of abstinence from sustained access to alcohol choice. With repetition, these periods of ADE sometimes have led to more sustained elevations in drinking. We therefore asked whether repeated ADE episodes would elevate choice drinking in HDID mice. They did not. After nearly 500 days of alcohol access, the intake of HDID mice remained stable. We conclude that a genetically-enhanced high risk for binge-like drinking is not sufficient to yield alterations in long-term alcohol intake.