ABSTRACT:It is sometimes supposed that standardizing tests of mouse behavior will ensure similar results in different laboratories. We evaluated this supposition by conducting behavioral tests with identical apparatus and test protocols in independent laboratories. Eight genetic groups of mice, including equal numbers of males and females, were either bred locally or shipped from the supplier and then tested on six behaviors simultaneously in three laboratories (Albany, NY; Edmonton, AB; Portland, OR). The behaviors included locomotor activity in a small box, the elevated plus maze, accelerating rotarod, visible platform water escape, cocaine activation of locomotor activity, and ethanol preference in a twobottle test. A preliminary report of this study presented a conventional analysis of conventional measures that revealed strong effects of both genotype and laboratory as well as noteworthy interactions between genotype and laboratory. We now report a more detailed analysis of additional measures and view the data for each test in different ways. Whether mice were shipped from a supplier or bred locally had negligible effects for almost every measure in the six tests, and sex differences were also absent or very small for most behaviors, whereas genetic effects were almost always large. For locomotor activity, cocaine activation, and elevated plus maze, the analysis demonstrated the strong dependence of genetic differences in behavior on the laboratory giving the tests. For ethanol preference and water escape learning, on the other hand, the three labs obtained essentially the same results for key indicators of behavior. Thus, it is clear that the strong dependence of results on the specific laboratory is itself dependent on the task in question. Our results suggest that there may be advantages of test standardization, but laboratory environments probably can never be made sufficiently similar to guarantee identical results on a wide range of tests in a wide range of labs. Interpretations of our results by colleagues in neuroscience as well as the mass media are reviewed. Pessimistic views, prevalent in the media but relatively uncommon among neuroscientists, of mouse behavioral tests as being highly unreliable are contradicted by our data. Despite the presence of noteworthy interactions between genotype and lab environment, most of the larger differences between inbred strains were replicated across the three labs. Strain differences of moderate effects size, on the other hand, often differed markedly among labs, especially those involving three 129-derived strains. Implications for behavioral screening of targeted and induced mutations in mice are discussed.

Motor incoordination is frequently used as a behavioral index of intoxication by drugs that depress the central nervous system. Two tasks that have been used to assay incoordination in mice, the balance beam and the grid test, were evaluated to optimize aspects of apparatus and testing procedures for studying genetic differences. Mice of eight inbred strains were given one of several doses of ethanol or saline and tested for intoxication. Strains differed in sensitivity to ethanol in both tests, indicating a significant influence of genotype on ethanol sensitivity. For the balance beam, the width of the beam affected the strain sensitivity pattern, and only the widest beam worked well at all doses. For the grid test, both ethanol dose and the time after drug injection affected strains differentially. Although the behavioral sign of intoxication recorded for both tests was a foot-slip error, the correlations of strain means for ethanol sensitivity across the two tasks were generally not significant. This suggests that the genes influencing ethanol sensitivity in the two tasks are mostly different. These results make clear that a single set of task parameters is insufficient to characterize genetic influences on behavior. Several other issues affect the interpretation of data using these tests.

Mice from 8 to 21 inbred strains were tested for sensitivity to ethanol intoxication using a range of doses and three different measures: the screen test, the dowel test and a test of grip strength. Strains differed under nearly all conditions. For the dowel test, two dowel widths were employed, and mice were tested immediately or 30 min after ethanol. For the dowel and screen tests, low doses failed to affect some strains, and the highest doses failed to discriminate among mice, maximally affecting nearly all. For grip strength, a single ethanol dose was used, and mice of all strains were affected. Pharmacokinetic differences among strains were significant, but these could not account for strain differences in intoxication. For doses and test conditions in the middle range, there were only modest correlations among strain means within a test. In addition, genotypic correlations across tests were modest to quite low. These results suggest that different specific versions of a test reflect the influence of different genes, and that genetic influences on different tests were also distinct.

Drinking in the Dark (DID) is a limited access ethanol drinking phenotype in mice. High Drinking in the Dark (HDID-1) mice have been bred for 27 selected generations (S27) for elevated blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) after a 4 hr period of access to 20% ethanol. A second replicate line (HDID-2) was started later from the same founder population and is currently in S20. An initial report of response to selection in HDID-1 was published after S11. This paper reports genetic and behavioral characteristics of both lines in comparison with the HS controls. Heritability is low in both replicates (h2 = 0.09) but the lines have shown 4-5 fold increases in BEC since S0; 80% of HDID-1 and 60% of HDID-2 mice reach BECs greater than 1.0 mg/ml. Several hours after a DID test, HDID mice show mild signs of withdrawal. Although not considered during selection, intake of ethanol (g/kg) during the DID test increased by approximately 80% in HDID-1 and 60% in HDID-2. Common genetic influences were more important than environmental influences in determining the similarity between BEC and intake for HDID mice. Analysis of the partitioning of intake showed that 60% of intake is concentrated in the last 2 hr of the 4 hr session. However, this has not changed during selection. Hourly BECs during the DID test reach peak levels after 3 or 4 hr of drinking. HDID mice do not differ from HS mice in their rate of elimination of an acute dose of alcohol.