4.4 Article

A verification of previously identified QTLs for cocaine-induced activation using a panel of B6.A chromosome substitution strains (CSS) and A/J x C57Bl/6J F2 mice

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 207, 期 2, 页码 325-334

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-009-1656-7

关键词

Cocaine; F2; CSS; QTL; Activity; Mice

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to confirm provisional quantitative trait loci (QTL) for cocaine-induced locomotor activation, on chromosomes 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18, previously identified in the AXB/BXA recombinant inbred (RI) and AcB/BcA recombinant congenic (RC) strains of mice derived from A/J (A) and C57BL/6J (B6) progenitors. This was accomplished through a genetic analysis of cocaine-induced activity in an AxB6 F2 cross and a phenotypic survey across a panel of B6.A chromosome substitution strains (CSS) mice. Mice were tested for cocaine-induced activity, following administration of saline and cocaine (20 mg/kg), utilizing an open-field procedure. Among AxB6 F2 mice, differences in cocaine-induced activity were associated with loci on chromosome 1 (D1Mit305), 5 (D5Mit409), 16 (D16Mit131), and 18 (D18Mit189). A survey of the CSS panel confirmed cocaine QTLs on chromosomes 5 and 15, previously identified in RI or RC strains. Overall, the regions on chromosomes 5 and 18 represent verification of QTL previously identified in both the RC and RI strains. Additionally, the B6 allele for these QTL was consistently associated with greater relative cocaine activation. Collectively, chromosome 5 and 18 QTL have now been replicated in multiple independent crosses derived from the A/J and C57BL/6J progenitors. The use of an in silico analysis highlighted potential candidate genes on chromosomes 5 and 18. The present results complement the targeted gene approach currently prevalent in the study of cocaine and provide a broader empirically based focus for subsequent candidate gene studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据