Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Two-bottle choice intermittent ethanol consumption and preference. A, Box plots of ethanol drinking (in g/kg/24 h) from 1-d (N = 14 mice), one-week (N = 14 mice), four-week (N = 15 mice), and seven-week (N = 14 mice) groups. B, Box plots of ethanol preference from 1-d, one-week, four-week, and seven-week drinking groups calculated from the amount of ethanol consumed as a percentage of the total amount of fluid (ethanol + water) consumed each drinking day.
- Figure 2.
Intermittent ethanol access transiently and bidirectionally alters evoked current-induced spiking in deep-layer ACC neurons. Representative traces and number (mean ± SEM) of spikes from ACC neurons plotted against a series of 10-pA step current injections following (A) 1 d (N = 5–7 mice/group and 16–19 cells/group), (B) one week (N = 5 mice/group and 16–17 cells/group), (C) four weeks (N = 5–6 mice/group and 11–17 cells/group), and (D) seven weeks (N = 5–6 mice/group and 12–16 cells/group) of ethanol drinking. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM plotted against a series of current injections; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
- Figure 3.
Ethanol drinking does not affect sIPSC properties in ACC pyramidal neurons. A, Representative traces of sIPSCs recorded from deep-layer pyramidal neurons in the ACC from water and ethanol drinking mice across time. The (B) amplitude, (C) frequency, and (D) interevent interval following 1 d, one week, four weeks, and seven weeks were unaffected by ethanol drinking. White circles or diamonds represent individual values for water and ethanol drinking mice, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM; N = 4–5 mice/group and 6–12 cells/group.
- Figure 4.
Intermittent access drinking does not affect sEPSC properties in deep-layer ACC pyramidal neurons. A, Representative traces of sEPSCs recorded in ACC neurons from water and ethanol drinking mice across seven weeks of intermittent access to ethanol. The (B) amplitude, (C) frequency, and (D) interevent interval following a history of drinking for 1 d, one week, four weeks, and seven weeks. White circles or diamonds represent individual values for water or ethanol drinking mice, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM, N = 4–6 mice/group and 8–12 cells/group.
- Figure 5.
IAA enhances current-induced spiking in lOFC neurons. A, Representative traces and averaged number of evoked APs showing no difference in spiking between 1-d IAA and 1-d water drinkers (N = 8 mice/group and 31–37 cells/group). B–D, Increased evoked spiking in one-week (N = 8 mice/group and 36–40 cells/group), four-week (N = 7 mice/group and 32–33 cells/group), and seven-week (N = 8 mice/group and 38–39 cells/group) ethanol drinking groups as compared with their water drinking counterparts. Number (mean ± SEM) of spikes from lOFC neurons plotted against a series of current injections; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs water drinking controls.
- Figure 6.
Bath application of ethanol decreases current-induced spiking of lOFC neurons in all water and ethanol drinking groups, except in mice drinking ethanol for four weeks. Representative traces showing the effects of acute ethanol (66 mm) as compared with control baseline under each drinking condition. A, Ethanol significantly reduced AP spiking of lOFC neurons in all water drinking groups in a concentration-dependent manner (N = 5 mice/group and 16–20 cells/group). B, Likewise, significant decreases in spike firing by increasing concentrations of ethanol were observed in 1-d, one-week, and seven-week drinking mice (N = 5 mice/group and 16–20 cells/group). In four-week ethanol drinking mice (N = 5 mice/group and 16 cells/group), however, acute ethanol did not affect lOFC neuron firing. Asterisks shown for 66 mm ethanol versus baseline only: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 7.
Intermittent access drinking does not affect sIPSC properties in deep-layer lOFC pyramidal neurons. A, Representative traces of sIPSCs recorded in lOFC neurons from water and ethanol drinking mice across seven weeks of intermittent access to ethanol. The (B) amplitude, (C) frequency, and (D) interevent interval following a history of 1 d (N = 4 mice/group and 8–9 cells/group), one week (N = 4 mice/group and 10–12 cells/group), four weeks (N = 4 mice/group and 11 cells/group), or seven weeks (N = 4 mice/group and 10–11 cells/group) of ethanol drinking. White circles or diamonds represent individual values for water or ethanol drinking mice, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM.
- Figure 8.
Excessive ethanol drinking does not affect sEPSC properties in lOFC pyramidal neurons. A, Representative traces of sEPSCs recorded from deep-layer pyramidal neurons in the lOFC from water and ethanol drinking mice across time. The (B) amplitude, (C) frequency, and (D) interevent interval following a history of ethanol intake for 1 d (N = 4 mice/group and 8–9 cells/group), one week (N = 4 mice/group and 11–12 cells/group), four weeks (N = 4 mice/group and 11 cells/group), or seven weeks (N = 4 mice/group and 11 cells/group) were unaffected. White circles or diamonds represent individual values for water and ethanol drinking mice, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM.
Tables
- Table 1.
Electrophysiological properties of ACC and lOFC deep-layer pyramidal neurons from water-drinking and ethanol-drinking mice
Drinking length Condition RMP(mV) AP threshold(mV) AP amplitude(mV) AP width(ms) AP rise(ms) AHP amplitude(mV) ACC 1 d Water –69.73 ± 2.18 –42.19 ± 0.90 62.25 ± 3.1 2.38 ± 0.14 0.40 ± 0.01 13.15 ± 0.77 EtOH –66.39 ± 1.82 –42.06 ± 0.94 70.41 ± 4.5 2.23 ± 0.10 0.43 ± 0.02 14.25 ± 0.81 1 week Water –69.99 ± 2.03 –41.15 ± 1.16 63.02 ± 1.8 2.20 ± 0.10 0.39 ± 0.02 15.14 ± 0.77 EtOH –66.46 ± 1.96 –39.50 ± 1.39 63.29 ± 2.1 1.97 ± 0.06 0.38 ± 0.01 13.79 ± 1.08 4 weeks Water –70.89 ± 1.81 –44.74 ± 1.43 60.80 ± 2.4 1.71 ± 0.16 0.35 ± 0.01 13.62 ± 1.03 EtOH –69.04 ± 2.36 –44.19 ± 1.15 57.80 ± 2.7 1.94 ± 0.13 0.38 ± 0.02 13.07 ± 0.87 7 weeks Water –68.70 ± 1.31 –45.68 ± 1.86 60.12 ± 2.9 2.07 ± 0.09 0.39 ± 0.02 12.29 ± 1.18 EtOH –70.88 ± 2.10 –44.74 ± 1.14 59.01 ± 1.9 2.33 ± 0.17 0.42 ± 0.03 13.12 ± 1.04 lOFC 1 d Water –68.98 ± 0.8 –38.32 ± 1.41 63.48 ± 2.07 1.82 ± 0.07 0.37 ± 0.01 16.14 ± 0.63 EtOH –69.47 ± 0.57 –41.89 ± 1.19 63.89 ± 1.94 1.81 ± 0.08 0.38 ± 0.01 15.19 ± 0.42 1 week Water –69.71 ± 0.67 –37.76 ± 1.32 64.40 ± 2.11 1.76 ± 0.04 0.36 ± 0.01 15.92 ± 0.56 EtOH –68.44 ± 0.64 –37.99 ± 1.49 61.49 ± 1.96 1.92 ± 0.07 0.38 ± 0.01 15.73 ± 0.67 4 weeks Water –69.97 ± 0.68 –37.50 ± 1.61 63.25 ± 2.15 1.98 ± 0.10 0.39 ± 0.01 16.04 ± 0.59 EtOH –67.87 ± 0.41* –43.80 ± 1.38* 65.25 ± 2.13 1.73 ± 0.08 0.37 ± 0.01 13.99 ± 0.69* 7 weeks Water –70.07 ± 0.54 –40.29 ± 1.20 60.43 ± 2.07 1.71 ± 0.06 0.37 ± 0.01 15.17 ± 0.43 EtOH –69.10 ± 0.47 –41.18 ± 1.47 65.16 ± 2.29 1.81 ± 0.05 0.37 ± 0.01 15.01 ± 0.67 Values are mean ± SEM. Two-tailed unpaired t test was used to compare differences in electrophysiological properties between water control and ethanol drinking mice. Asterisk in bold font = p < 0.05 vs water drinking controls.
In this issue
