For the past 25 plus years, significant effort has been put towards developing medications for the treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD)1.Although many advances have been made, AUD still remains a major public health problem, affecting over 18 million Americans, and costing over $220 billion annually2,3. Currently there are only three FDA-approved medications, disulfiram, naltrexone, and acamprosate, all of which have yielded inconsistent results in clinical trials and limited success even when combined with psychosocial intervention in the clinic settings4,5,6,7.
A primary reason for failures of current AUD therapy is linked to the heterogenous nature of AUD8. While both environmental and genetic factors contribute to the development of AUD, heritability accounts for an estimated 50 - 60% of the risk of onset9. Similar to the treatment of depression, it is widely accepted that patients suffering from AUD will need a variety of medications that are tailored to meet the needs of each patient10.
Clearly, there is an urgent need for more effective treatments that would be facilitated if the already arduous and time consuming process of drug discovery were streamlined3. To this end, the following protocol demonstrates the preclinical applicability of two rodent drinking models widely used to examine the neurobiological basis of AUD11. More specifically, the method introduced herein can assess the efficacy of candidate compounds at reducing alcohol consumption in both "moderate" and "binge drinking" scenarios utilizing the two-bottle choice (TBC) and drinking in the dark (DID) paradigms, respectively. Both paradigms examine non-operant ethanol self-administration, whereby mice ingest ethanol orally and at will, and therefore illustrate high face and construct validity as a model of human alcoholism11.
In TBC drinking, also known as free choice drinking, preference drinking, or social drinking, two bottles of solution are continuously available in the home cage. One bottle contains water, and the other contains a diluted solution of ethanol, whereby the concentration of ethanol can be varied (e.g., 5 - 30% v/v)11,12. The mice have constant access to both bottles, and therefore, can choose how much to drink from each bottle.
This model assesses the ethanol consumption of each mouse (g/kg), as well as the ethanol preference ratio (volume of ethanol consumed ÷ total volume liquid consumed). It is routinely used to compare drinking levels across different strains of mice, or after a specific genetic manipulation (e.g., gene knockout or knockdown) and results in blood ethanol concentrations (BECs) similar to what is found in humans when drinking in moderation13,14.
In the DID procedure, 3 h after the start of the dark cycle, the home cage bottle of water is exchanged with a bottle of 20% (v/v) ethanol solution for a limited access drinking session. The drinking sessions occur as a consecutive 4-day cycle, lasting 2 h on days 1 - 3 and 4 h on day 4. Days 1-3 serve as an alcohol-habituation period before the testing on day 4. Consequently, mice will reliably consume enough ethanol to attain BECs >100 mg/dL and as a result, exhibit the behavioral effects of intoxication found in humans that are binge drinking13,14,15. Water access is available at all times other than the drinking session.
There are several variations of limited access drinking. For example, in the intermittent access model, mice receive two bottles (one containing water and the other containing 20% (v/v) ethanol) only on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with a 24 h and 48 h withdrawal period on weekdays and weekends, respectively16. After several weeks of intermittent access, the mice will gradually and voluntarily escalate drinking levels, eventually attaining BECS similar to what is observed in the DID model. The DID, however, appears to be the most commonly used model to assess binge-like drinking behavior. Other models of intermittent drinking exist, but they rely on restricting access to food or vapor chamber induced increases in voluntary self-administration, which makes them less representative of voluntary human alcohol consumption16.