Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Construction and implementation of a home-cage drinking monitor. A, Circuit wiring diagram of electronic components; 3 V power is supplied to the photo-interrupters, which are connected to a ground pin. Each photo-interrupter is also attached to a digital output pin (shown as D9 and D10). B, 3D rendering of the 3D printed housing for the drinking monitor; views of the front tube assembly (left) and rear battery casing (right) are shown. C, D, Photo of the assembled device (C) and the assembled device operating in the home cage (D). E, Example data as written to the SD card.
- Figure 2.
Functional validation of liquid consumption with the home-cage drinking monitor. A, Schematic of the experimental setup. B, Histogram depicting the distribution of R 2 values of the correlation between measurements (counts or duration) registered on the individual sipper devices with the volume of liquid consumed from the same device, as measured via time-lapse video. C, D, Across all 11 mice tested, sipper counts and durations of interactions with the sipper device weakly correlated with the amount of water consumed by visual quantification with time-lapse video. E, Circadian rhythms in lick duration and volume of liquid consumed were evident over the 5 d of recording.
- Figure 3.
Two-bottle choice task with the home-cage drinking monitor. A, Experimental schematic; mice had free access to two liquids in the drinking monitor device: water or chocolate milk. B–D, All mice exhibited a clear preference for chocolate milk over water. Mice exhibited a longer total duration of sipper interactions (B), an increased duration of sipper interaction bouts (C), and an increased number of sipper approaches (D) for chocolate milk over water. **p < 0.01.
- Figure 4.
Integration of the drinking monitor with in vivo fiber photometry. A, Schematic of the experiment; photo-interrupter beam breaks registered on digital Arduino pins triggered a TTL pulse to an in vivo fiber photometry system. B, Representative raw trace of gCamp signal recorded in the DMS (top) and concomitant sipper interaction bouts (bottom). C, Normalized gCamp traces were averaged across trials for all mice and were aligned to the onset of the lick bout. Black line, Mean; red, SEM. D, The duration of sipper interactions is aligned to the onset of the lick bout; the mean probability of a sipper interaction is indicated in black, and SEM is depicted in blue. Both C and D are aligned to the onset of lick bout.
Tables
Component Number Cost / unit Total cost Source of materials Adafruit Feather M0 Adalogger 1 $19.95 $19.95 https://www.adafruit.com/product/2796 Lithium Ion Battery Pack - 3.7V 6600mAh 1 $29.50 $29.50 https://www.adafruit.com/product/353 Adafruit FeatherWing OLED – 128x32 OLED 1 $14.95 14.95 https://www.adafruit.com/product/2900 Short Headers Kit for Feather -12-pin + 16-pin Female Headers 1 $1.50 $1.50 https://www.adafruit.com/product/2940 1k Resistor 2 $0.20 $0.40 https://www.sparkfun.com/products/14492 Photo Interrupter -GP1A57HRJ00F 2 $2.50 $5.00 https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9299 SparkFun Photo Interrupter Breakout Board -GP1A57HRJ00F 2 $1.50 $3.00 https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9322 MicroSD card 1 $6.00 $6.00 https://www.amazon.com/Kingston-microSDHC-Class-Memory-SDC4/dp/B00200K1TS/ JST cables 2 $1.50 $3.00 https://vetco.net/products/jst-ph-connector-male-female-pair-pre-wired-3-pin Plastic valves 2 $0.50 $1.00 https://labproductsinc.com/product/hydropac-alternative-watering-system/ 15 ml conical tubes 2 All materials required for construction of the sipper device are itemized, sourcing and cost are provided.
In this issue
