» Articles » PMID: 22487465

Congenic Dissection of a Major QTL for Methamphetamine Sensitivity Implicates Epistasis

Overview
Date 2012 Apr 11
PMID 22487465
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We previously used the C57BL/6J (B6) × A/J mouse chromosome substitution strain (CSS) panel to identify a major quantitative trait locus (QTL) on chromosome 11 influencing methamphetamine (MA)-induced locomotor activity. We then made an F(2) cross between CSS-11 and B6 and narrowed the locus (Bayes credible interval: 79-109 Mb) which was inherited dominantly and accounted for 14% of the phenotypic variance in the CSS panel. In the present study, we created congenic and subcongenic lines possessing heterozygous portions of this QTL to narrow the interval. We identified one line (84-96 Mb) that recapitulated the QTL, thus narrowing the region to 12 Mb. This interval also produced a small decrease in locomotor activity following prior saline treatment. When we generated subcongenic lines spanning the entire 12-Mb region, the phenotypic difference in MA sensitivity abruptly disappeared, suggesting an epistatic mechanism. We also evaluated the rewarding properties of MA (2 mg/kg, i.p.) in the 84- to 96-Mb congenic line using the conditioned place preference (CPP) test. We replicated the locomotor difference in the MA-paired CPP chamber yet observed no effect of genotype on MA-CPP, supporting the specificity of this QTL for MA-induced locomotor activity under these conditions. Lastly, to aid in prioritizing candidate genes responsible for this QTL, we used the Affymetrix GeneChip(®) Mouse Gene 1.0ST Array to identify genes containing expression QTLs (eQTL) in the striatum of drug-naÏve, congenic mice. These findings highlight the difficulty of using congenic lines to fine map QTLs and illustrate how epistasis may thwart such efforts.

Citing Articles

A quantitative trait variant in Gabra2 underlies increased methamphetamine stimulant sensitivity.

Goldberg L, Yao E, Kelliher J, Reed E, Wu Cox J, Parks C Genes Brain Behav. 2021; 20(8):e12774.

PMID: 34677900 PMC: 9083095. DOI: 10.1111/gbb.12774.


Systems genetic analysis of binge-like eating in a C57BL/6J x DBA/2J-F2 cross.

Yao E, Babbs R, Kelliher J, Luttik K, Borrelli K, Damaj M Genes Brain Behav. 2021; :e12751.

PMID: 33978997 PMC: 9361732. DOI: 10.1111/gbb.12751.


Discovery of early life stress interacting and sex-specific quantitative trait loci impacting cocaine responsiveness.

Bagley J, Szumlinski K, Kippin T Br J Pharmacol. 2019; 176(21):4159-4172.

PMID: 30874305 PMC: 6877791. DOI: 10.1111/bph.14661.


Cdh13 and AdipoQ gene knockout alter instrumental and Pavlovian drug conditioning.

King C, Militello L, Hart A, St Pierre C, Leung E, Versaggi C Genes Brain Behav. 2017; 16(7):686-698.

PMID: 28387990 PMC: 5595635. DOI: 10.1111/gbb.12382.


Cytoplasmic FMR1-Interacting Protein 2 Is a Major Genetic Factor Underlying Binge Eating.

Kirkpatrick S, Goldberg L, Yazdani N, Babbs R, Wu J, Reed E Biol Psychiatry. 2016; 81(9):757-769.

PMID: 27914629 PMC: 5386810. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.10.021.


References
1.
Nadeau J, Singer J, Matin A, Lander E . Analysing complex genetic traits with chromosome substitution strains. Nat Genet. 2000; 24(3):221-5. DOI: 10.1038/73427. View

2.
Johnson W, Li C, Rabinovic A . Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics. 2006; 8(1):118-27. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxj037. View

3.
Phillips T, Kamens H, Wheeler J . Behavioral genetic contributions to the study of addiction-related amphetamine effects. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008; 32(4):707-59. PMC: 2360482. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.10.008. View

4.
Di Chiara G, Imperato A . Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988; 85(14):5274-8. PMC: 281732. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.85.14.5274. View

5.
Tu-Sekine B, Raben D . Regulation and roles of neuronal diacylglycerol kinases: a lipid perspective. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2011; 46(5):353-64. DOI: 10.3109/10409238.2011.577761. View