ALCOHOL INTAKE AFTER SEROTONIN TRANSPORTER INACTIVATION IN MICE

Sabah Kelaï, Franck Aïssi1, Klaus Peter Lesch2, Charles Cohen-Salmon1, Michel Hamon and Laurence Lanfumey*

INSERM U288, Neuropsychopharmacologie Moléculaire, Cellulaire et Fonctionnelle, Faculté de Médecine Pitié-Salpêtrière, 91 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75634 Paris Cedex 13,
1 CNRS UMR-7593, Personnalité et conduites adaptatives, IFR (70) des Neurosciences, CHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013 Paris, France and
2 Department of Psychiatry, University of Würzburg, Füchsleinstrasse 15, 97080 Würzburg, Germany

Received 28 February 2003; in revised form 3 April 2003; accepted 3 April 2003


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Knock-out mice lacking the serotonin transporter [5-hydroxytryptamine transporter (5-HTT)] were used to assess the influence of 5-HT re-uptake on ethanol consumption. Under a free-choice paradigm, alcohol intake was lower in mutant than in wild-type mice, and pharmacological blockade of 5-HTT by fluoxetine reduced alcohol intake in wild-type mice only. These data confirm the inhibitory effect of 5-HTT inactivation on ethanol intake.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Central serotoninergic neurotransmission has been implicated in the aetiology of alcohol dependence (Heinz et al., 2001Go), and there is a large body of evidence in favour of the existence of an inverse relationship between brain serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)] tone and alcohol consumption: low brain 5-HT levels correlate with high ethanol intake (Murphy et al., 1982Go; Higley et al., 1996Go), and drugs that increase extracellular 5-HT levels either by preventing 5-HT re-uptake, such as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (Borg et al., 1985Go; Naranjo et al., 1990Go; LeMarquand et al., 1994Go; Maurel et al., 1999Go), or by stimulating 5-HT release, such as dex-fenfluramine (Higgins et al., 1992Go), attenuate ethanol intake in animal models of alcoholism.

In addition, the gene coding for the 5-HT transporter (5-HTT) has been considered as a candidate gene in numerous studies of alcohol dependence (Gorwood et al., 2000Go; Heinz et al., 2000Go; Preuss et al., 2000Go, 2001Go; Thompson et al., 2000Go), and treatment with SSRIs (i.e. zimeldine, citalopram, fluoxetine and fluvoxamine) was reported to decrease the desire to drink alcohol in alcohol-dependent subjects (Lejoyeux, 1996Go). However, not all studies have confirmed that this effect persists throughout treatment (Gorelick and Paredes, 1992Go), and the usefulness of SSRIs to help alcoholic subjects to reduce their alcohol intake is still a matter of debate (Naranjo and Knoke, 2001Go). Because knock-out mice with targeted disruption of the 5-HTT gene can be considered as a model of whole-life treatment with SSRI (Bengel et al., 1998Go), they offer a relevant opportunity to assess whether or not long-term inactivation of 5-HT re-uptake yields a sustained decrease in alcohol intake. Using a free-choice procedure, we thus compared the spontaneous ethanol consumption in these mutants (5-HTT–/–) and paired wild-type (5-HTT+/+) mice, and investigated their respective response to chronic treatment with fluoxetine.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Animals
Experiments were performed using homozygous 5-HTT–/– and wild-type 5-HTT+/+ littermates born from heterozygous mutants at the seventh generation of backcrossing with C57Bl/6J mice. Genotyping was performed as described by Bengel et al.(1998)Go. After weaning and sexing, males and females were housed separately in groups of six to eight animals per cage and maintained under standard laboratory conditions (22 ± 1°C, 60% relative humidity, 12 h–12 h light– dark cycle, food and water ad libitum).

Procedures involving animals and their care were conducted in conformity with the institutional guidelines that are in compliance with national and international laws and policies (Council directive no. 87-848, 19 October 1987, Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Forêt, Service Vétérinaire de la Santé et de la Protection Animale; permissions No. 75-116 to M.H. and No. 6269 to L.L.).

Alcohol self-administration procedure
Male mice were used at 3 months of age when body weight in each genotype equally ranged between 28 and 30 g. Mice were then housed singly in standard laboratory cages (Macrolon type 2 cages, 22 x 16 x 14 cm). Two tubes (20 ml) were placed on each cage, one containing tap water and the other filled with water supplemented with varying concentrations of ethanol. Mice had continuous free access to the drinking tips of both tubes. The position of the tubes was changed every 2 days in order to avoid possible bias due to place preference. Tubes were filled with freshly prepared liquids every 2 days. Food was provided ad libitum.

Homozygous mutants and wild-type mice were exposed to a progressively increasing concentration of ethanol (0 to 20% ethanol in water within 24 days) under the free-choice procedure described by Crabbe et al.(1996)Go. During the first 4 days, both tubes were filled with tap water. Then, mice were offered 3% ethanol (v/v) versus water for 4 days, and 6% ethanol versus water for the following 4 days. For the next step, the ethanol concentration was raised to 10% for 6 days, then to 15% for another 6 days, and finally to 20% for 16–24 days (stabilization period).

Fluoxetine treatment
Fluoxetine [10 mg/kg/day intraperitoneally (i.p.)] or saline (5 ml/kg/day i.p.) was injected daily at 18:00 h for 10 days under the 20% ethanol/water conditions.

Ethanol and total fluid intake
Fluid intake and body weight were determined every 2 days between 17:00 and 18:00 h. The number of grams of ethanol consumed and volumes of total liquid intake/kg body weight/24 h were determined for each mouse.

Statistical analyses
Data were analysed by a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and unpaired t-test, with Welch’s corrections when necessary. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Spontaneous alcohol consumption in 5-HTT–/– versus 5-HTT+/+ mice
In both mutant and wild-type mice, daily ethanol consumption increased in parallel with the concentration of ethanol available to the animals (Fig. 1AGo), but 5-HTT–/– mutants drank less ethanol than wild-type mice at all concentrations, except 3 and 6% (post hoc analysis); this difference reached statistical significance only for the higher concentrations of ethanol (15 and 20%). During the stabilization period (the last 16 days) under the 20% alcohol regimen, the mean spontaneous daily alcohol consumption was also markedly lower in 5-HTT–/– mutants (~4.0 g/kg/day) than in wild-type mice (~9.0 g/kg/day). Indeed, for the whole alcohol self-administration procedure (40 days), total alcohol consumption was 55% lower (P < 0.001) in 5-HTT–/– mutants (126.8 ± 13.0 g/kg, mean ± SEM, n = 8) than in paired 5-HT+/+ mice (281.9 ± 15.0 g/kg, mean ± SEM, n = 8) (Fig. 1BGo).



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Comparison of ethanol consumption by 5-HTT–/– mutant and 5-HTT+/+ wild-type mice. (A) Mean ± SEM of ethanol consumption (g/kg/day) is shown as a function of increasing ethanol concentration available to the animals during the alcohol self-administration procedure. Post hoc analysis revealed that 5-HTT–/– mutant mice drank significantly less ethanol than wild-type mice at the 15 and 20% ethanol concentrations. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. (B) Total alcohol consumption in 5-HTT+/+ and 5-HTT–/– mice during the 40-day alcohol self-administration procedure. Each bar represents the mean ± SEM of independent determinations in eight animals per group. ***P < 0.001.

 
Effects of fluoxetine on ethanol consumption in 5-HTT–/– versus 5-HTT+/+ mice
In another series of experiments, other groups of 5-HTT–/– and 5-HTT+/+ mice underwent a fluoxetine treatment (10 mg/kg/day) for 10 days during the alcohol self-administration procedure. This treatment produced a sustained decrease in alcohol consumption in 5-HTT+/+ mice (–38%), but was ineffective in 5-HTT–/– mutants (Fig. 2Go). Thus, under fluoxetine treatment, ethanol consumption did not significantly differ in 5-HTT+/+ (7.6 ± 1.1 g/kg/day, mean ± SEM, n = 8) and 5-HTT–/– mice (5.3 ± 2.6 g/kg/day, mean ± SEM, n = 8) by as soon as the third treatment day (Fig. 2Go). In contrast, saline administration for 10 days affected alcohol intake in neither 5-HTT+/+ nor 5-HTT–/– mice (data not shown).



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Effect of fluoxetine on alcohol consumption in 5-HTT+/+ and 5-HTT–/– mice. Fluoxetine treatment (10 mg/kg/day for 10 days, horizontal bar) decreased ethanol consumption (mean ± SEM) in 5-HTT+/+ wild-type mice, but was ineffective in 5-HTT–/– mutant mice. Ethanol consumption under fluoxetine in 5-HTT+/+ mice did not significantly differ from that in 5-HTT–/– mice by as soon as the third treatment day. *P < 0.05 as compared with ethanol intake during the 6 days just prior to starting fluoxetine treatment; §P < 0.05, §§P < 0.01, as compared with wild-type mice.

 
Total fluid intake
The mean daily intake of total liquid (water plus ethanol) was in the same range in 5-HTT–/– (81.3–99.2 ml/kg) and 5-HTT+/+ (92.4–111.6 ml/kg) mice, and did not vary significantly at the various stages of the progressive alcohol self-administration procedure. In addition, chronic fluoxetine treatment did not significantly affect daily total fluid intake in both mutant (+2.3 ± 5.0% in fluoxetine-versus saline-treated mice, P > 0.05) and wild-type (–5.7 ± 4.8% in fluoxetine-versus saline-treated mice, P > 0.05) animals that had free access to 20% ethanol and water.

Body weight
As compared with values just before treatment (28.52 ± 0.11 and 28.63 ± 0.18 g in 5-HTT+/+ and 5-HTT–/– mice, respectively, means ± SEM, n = 16 in each group), a slight decrease in body weight was noted in both wild-type (–1.4 ± 0.2%) and knock-out (–1.3 ± 0.9%) mice at the end of the 10-day treatment with fluoxetine (10 mg/kg/day). In contrast, body weight increased slightly in both wild-type (+1.8 ± 0.8%) and knock-out (+1.6 ± 0.7%) mice that had received saline for 10 days.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
The present data show that inactivation of the 5-HTT by either a pharmacological or a genetic approach markedly reduced alcohol consumption in C57BL/6J mice.

Several 5-HT re-uptake inhibitors, including the long-acting fluoxetine, have been found to decrease alcohol intake in dependent alcoholic patients (Naranjo et al., 1990Go, 1994Go; Lejoyeux, 1996Go), as well as in animal models of ethanol intake (Haraguchi et al., 1990Go; Higgins et al., 1992Go; Maurel et al., 1999Go). However, although in rat models the SSRI-induced reduction in ethanol intake has been established by several studies (see Maurel et al., 1999Go), the long-term efficiency and usefulness of SSRIs in the treatment of alcohol dependence in human subjects continues to be a matter of debate (Gorelick and Paredes, 1992Go; Naranjo and Knoke, 2001Go). It has notably been emphasized that although all SSRIs reduce alcohol consumption, the degree of this effect varies markedly from one SSRI to another, and is not directly related to the potency of these drugs to inhibit 5-HT re-uptake. This led to the assumption that SSRI-induced reduction in alcohol intake may not be caused solely by 5-HT re-uptake inhibition, but may also involve additional effects that are highly variable among these drugs. This could be especially true for fluoxetine, because this compound, which has been shown to exert higher anti-alcohol effects than other SSRIs (Maurel et al., 1999Go), is the least selective of these drugs with regard to 5-HT re-uptake inhibition, and is also a rather potent 5-HT2C receptor antagonist (Sanchez and Hyttel, 1999Go).

In order to explore further the effect of SSRIs on ethanol intake in C57BL/6J mice, which are well characterized as alcohol-appetant (preferring) mice (Yoshimoto and Komura, 1989Go), we used genetically paired mutants with targeted disruption of the gene encoding the 5-HTT, responsible for 5-HT re-uptake (Bengel et al., 1998Go). Indeed, homozygous 5-HTT–/– mice, which can be considered as a model of whole-life treatment with SSRI, have been shown to exhibit adaptive changes in 5-HT neurotransmission similar to those observed after chronic treatment with these drugs (Fabre et al., 2000Go; Mannoury la Cour et al., 2001Go). Using a free-choice procedure of progressive alcohol self-administration, we observed that the spontaneous alcohol intake was markedly lower in 5-HTT–/– mutants than in wild-type mice. In agreement with previous observations in rats (Haraguchi et al., 1990Go; Maurel et al., 1999Go), chronic treatment with fluoxetine was found to decrease significantly alcohol consumption in wild-type mice. However, this treatment did not affect alcohol consumption in 5-HTT–/– mutants, as expected from an action of fluoxetine through the blockade of 5-HT re-uptake. Accordingly, it can be assumed that the inhibitory effect of fluoxetine on alcohol intake is really caused by 5-HTT blockade and does not involve secondary effects of the drug at other molecular targets.

Interestingly, total fluid intake (water plus ethanol solution) was not significantly different in 5-HTT–/– mutants and paired wild-type mice, and was also unaffected by fluoxetine treatment, indicating that the reduction in alcohol consumption caused by 5-HTT inactivation was not the consequence of a general decrease in drinking behaviour. However, a slight decrease in body weight was noted in fluoxetine-treated mice, as expected from a limited reduction in food intake by this drug (Heisler et al., 1999Go). Interestingly, this effect was observed not only in wild-type mice, but also in 5-HTT–/– mutants, suggesting that it might involve actions of fluoxetine at a target(s) other than the 5-HTT. Accordingly, 5-HT re-uptake appears to be a relevant target for treatments aimed at selectively reducing alcohol intake in dependent alcoholic subjects.

In conclusion, the present findings showed that inactivation of 5-HT re-uptake leads to a sustained decrease in alcohol intake in 5-HTT–/– mutant mice, and that the inhibitory effect of fluoxetine on alcohol intake is the consequence of its direct interaction with the transporter responsible for 5-HT re-uptake in wild-type mice.


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
This research was supported by grants from INSERM, ATC 2002 INSERM, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation (unrestricted biomedical research grant) and IREB (contract No. 2000/14). We are grateful to E.Lilly Corp (Indianapolis, IN, USA), for the generous gift of fluoxetine. S.K. was recipient of a MILDT fellowship during the course of this work.


    FOOTNOTES
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 FOOTNOTES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Bengel, D., Murphy, D. L., Andrews, A. M., Wichems, C. H., Feltner, D., Heils, A., Mossner, R., Westphal, H. and Lesch, K. P. (1998) Altered brain serotonin homeostasis and locomotor insensitivity to 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (‘ecstasy’) in serotonin transporter-deficient mice. Molecular Pharmacology 53, 649–655.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Borg, S., Kvande, H., Liljeberg, P., Mossberg, D. and Valverius, P. (1985) 5-Hydroxyindoleacetic acid in cerebrospinal fluid in alcoholic patients under different clinical conditions. Alcohol 2, 415–418.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Crabbe, J. C., Phillips, T. J., Feller, D. J., Hen, R., Wenger, C. D., Lessov, C. N. and Schafer, G. L. (1996) Elevated alcohol consumption in null mutant mice lacking 5-HT1B serotonin receptors. Nature Genetics 14, 98–101.[ISI][Medline]

Fabre, V., Beaufour, C., Evrard, A., Rioux, A., Hanoun, N., Lesch, K. P., Murphy, D. L., Lanfumey, L., Hamon, M. and Martres, M. P. (2000) Altered expression and functions of serotonin 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors in knock-out mice lacking the 5-HT transporter. European Journal of Neuroscience 12, 2299–2310.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Gorelick, D. A. and Paredes, A. (1992) Effect of fluoxetine on alcohol consumption in male alcoholics. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 16, 261–265.[ISI][Medline]

Gorwood, P., Batel, P., Ades, J., Hamon, M. and Boni, C. (2000) Serotonin transporter gene polymorphisms, alcoholism, and suicidal behavior. Biological Psychiatry 48, 259–264.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Haraguchi, M., Samson, H. H. and Tolliver, G. A. (1990) Reduction of oral ethanol self-administration in the rat by the 5-HT uptake blocker fluoxetine. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 35, 259–262.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Heinz, A., Jones, D. W., Mazzanti, C., Goldman, D., Ragan, P., Hommer, D., Linnoila, M. and Weinberger, D. R. (2000) A relationship between serotonin transporter genotype and in vivo protein expression and alcohol neurotoxicity. Biological Psychiatry 47, 643–649.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Heinz, A., Mann, K., Weinberger, D. R. and Goldman, D. (2001) Serotonergic dysfunction, negative mood states, and response to alcohol. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 25, 487–495.[ISI][Medline]

Heisler, L. K., Kanarek, R. B. and Homoleski, B. (1999) Reduction of fat and protein intakes but not carbohydrate intake following acute and chronic fluoxetine in female rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 63, 377–385.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Higgins, G. A., Tomkins, D. M., Fletcher, P. J. and Sellers, E. M. (1992) Effect of drugs influencing 5-HT function on ethanol drinking and feeding behaviour in rats: studies using a drinkometer system. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Reviews 16, 535–552.[ISI]

Higley, J. D., Suomi, S. J. and Linnoila, M. (1996) A nonhuman primate model of type II excessive alcohol consumption? Part 1. Low cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid concentrations and diminished social competence correlate with excessive alcohol consumption. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 20, 629–642.[ISI][Medline]

Lejoyeux, M. (1996) Use of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of alcoholism. Alcohol and Alcoholism 31, (Suppl. 1), 69–75.[Abstract]

LeMarquand, D., Pihl, R. O. and Benkelfat, C. (1994) Serotonin and alcohol intake, abuse, and dependence: findings of animal studies. Biological Psychiatry 36, 395–421.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Mannoury la Cour, C., Boni, C., Hanoun, N., Lesch, K. P., Hamon, M. and Lanfumey, L. (2001) Functional consequences of 5-HT transporter gene disruption on 5-HT(1A) receptor-mediated regulation of dorsal raphe and hippocampal cell activity. Journal of Neuroscience 21, 2178–2185.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Maurel, S., De Vry, J. and Schreiber, R. (1999) Comparison of the effects of the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram and fluvoxamine in alcohol-preferring cAA rats. Alcohol 17, 195–201.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Murphy, J. M., McBride, W. J., Lumeng, L. and Li, T.-K. (1982) Regional brain levels of monoamines in alcohol-preferring and -nonpreferring lines of rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 16, 145–149.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Naranjo, C. A. and Knoke, D. M. (2001) The role of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in reducing alcohol consumption. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 62, 18–25.

Naranjo, C. A., Kadlec, K. E., Sanhueza, P., Woodley-Remus, D. and Sellers, E. M. (1990) Fluoxetine differentially alters alcohol intake and other consummatory behaviors in problem drinkers. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 47, 490–498.[ISI][Medline]

Naranjo, C. A., Poulos, C. X., Bremner, K. E. and Lanctot, K. L. (1994) Fluoxetine attenuates alcohol intake and desire to drink. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 9, 163–172.[ISI][Medline]

Preuss, U. W., Soyka, M., Bahlmann, M., Wenzel, K., Behrens, S., de Jonge, S., Kruger, M. and Bondy, B. (2000) Serotonin transporter gene regulatory region polymorphism (5-HTTLPR), [3H]paroxetine binding in healthy control subjects and alcohol-dependent patients and their relationships to impulsivity. Psychiatry Research 96, 51–61.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Preuss, U. W., Koller, G., Soyka, M. and Bondy, B. (2001) Association between suicide attempts and 5-HTTLPR-S-allele in alcohol-dependent and control subjects: further evidence from a German alcohol-dependent inpatient sample. Biological Psychiatry 50, 636–639.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Sanchez, C. and Hyttel, J. (1999) Comparison of the effects of antidepressants and their metabolites on reuptake of biogenic amines and on receptor binding. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 19, 467–489.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Thompson, M. D., Gonzalez, N., Nguyen, T., Comings, D. E., George, S. R. and O’Dowd, B. F. (2000) Serotonin transporter gene polymorphisms in alcohol dependence. Alcohol 22, 61–67.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Yoshimoto, K. and Komura, S. (1989) Genetic differences in the effects of voluntary ethanol consumption on brain monoamine levels in inbred strains of mice, C57BL/6J, C3H/He and DBA/2Cr. Alcohol and Alcoholism 24, 225–229.[ISI][Medline]





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Kelaï, S.
Articles by Lanfumey, L.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Kelaï, S.
Articles by Lanfumey, L.