These data are the first to show a decrease in neurogenesis in an adolescent rat model of an AUD. Specifically, binge alcohol exposure in adolescent rats reduced DCX+IR, a widely accepted marker of neurogenesis (;
Rao and Shetty, 2004). To further probe for mechanism of alcohol-induced inhibition of neurogenesis, a systematic assessment of the different aspects of neurogenesis was conducted. First, the decrease in DCX expression corresponded to reduced cell proliferation as evidenced by a decrease in BrdU-labeling of cells in S-phase immediately after the last dose of alcohol (). Second, newborn cell survival was impacted as shown by the significantly reduced percentage of BrdU labeled cells that remain or survive to 28 days after the last dose of alcohol (). As alcohol exposure did not alter the differentiation of newborn cells, when cell counts at 4D+28 () were combined with phenotype percentages (), a nearly 50% reduction in neurogenesis was estimated at four weeks after the last dose of alcohol. Although the loss of BrdU+ signal at D4+28 days could in theory be due to signal dilution, other groups have shown that loss of BrdU is due to cell death (
Cameron and McKay, 2001;
Dayer et al., 2003). This interpretation is also consistent with prior work in adult rats where chronic alcohol ingestion reduces new cell survival specifically (
He et al., 2005;
Herrera et al., 2003). Furthermore, alcohol significantly increased three markers of cell death, FJB, Pyknosis, and TUNEL staining, which supports inhibited cell survival as the most plausible interpretation of decreased BrdU-labeled cells. In summary, this dual impact on hippocampal integrity - alcohol induced inhibition of cell proliferation and newborn cell survival - could contribute to hippocampal volume loss observed in adolescents diagnosed with an AUD (
De Bellis et al., 2000).
Notably, the observation of cell death in the adolescent rat hippocampus following binge alcohol exposure is consistent with recent reports of morphological and inflammatory indices of neurodegeneration in adolescent rat models of AUDs and a lone report of apoptotic cell death after acute ethanol injections (
Evrard et al., 2006;
Jang et al., 2002;
Pascual et al., 2007). Although neurodegeneration has been examined with deOlmos cupric silver stain in the brains of adolescent rats exposed to binge alcohol, only regions with visually distinct silver stain were quantified (
Crews et al., 2000). Eight to ten dead cells per section, as observed here, may not be remarkably distinct at the magnification used for image analysis of silver stain. Further, the very low numbers of TUNEL+ cells compared to the FJB and Pyknotic data, suggest that the mechanisms of cell death is not likely apoptotic. FJB labeling and pyknotic nuclei are observed throughout the apoptosis-necrosis spectrum of cell death and cannot be used to differentiate the mechanism of cell death. However, TUNEL is a well-accepted marker of apoptosis (
Gavrieli et al., 1992) and the lack of TUNEL labeling is consistent with necrosis as the mechanism of cell death in binge alcohol exposure (
Obernier et al., 2002). Intriguingly, this level of cell death, i.e. a few cells per section, would not be expected to contribute significantly to volume loss. However, a sustained 50% decrease in neurogenesis could, especially if neurogenesis were decreased for several days. Alcohol induced inhibition of neurogenesis results in an estimated cell loss that is identical to that reported after chronic alcohol exposure (
Nixon and Crews, 2002;
Walker et al., 1980). Thus, these data when considered altogether strongly support that inhibition of neurogenesis - both reduced proliferation and reduced cell survival - may be a mechanism that contributes to volume loss in adolescents with an AUD.
The data presented in this study contribute to a growing body of literature that alcohol use and abuse detrimentally affects the various aspects of hippocampal neurogenesis depending on timing dose, pattern and duration of exposure (
Goodlett et al., 2005). Most reports have shown that alcohol intoxication inhibits neurogenesis in adult rats (see
Nixon, 2006 for review). Although binge alcohol inhibited NSC proliferation in adolescent rats, it was to a lesser extent than that reported for adult rats (21% in adolescents versus the fairly consistent 40–50% inhibition in adults; see Table 1 in
Nixon et al., 2006 for review). Within the context of an AUD, perhaps adolescent rats were showing a slight tolerance to alcohol inhibition of NSC proliferation. Acute alcohol administration to adolescent rats dose dependently inhibited NSC proliferation up to 78% with a 5g/kg dose (
Crews et al., 2006b) whereas only a 21% decrease was observed in NSC proliferation in adolescent rats after four days of binge alcohol. Although one might jump to speculate on the perceived mechanism of this compensatory effect, so little is known about the different effects of alcohol on adults versus adolescents, let alone the effects of alcohol on the components of neurogenesis, that this would be pure conjecture.
We explored the mechanism of alcohol inhibition of neurogenesis by systematically assessing the different components that contribute to the birth of new neurons. Several subtleties in the data reveal potential mechanisms of alcohol effects. First, alcohol inhibition of NSC proliferation in adolescent rats appears to be due to alcohol effects on cell cycle, and possibly cell cycle arrest. Proliferation is reduced by either altering the cell cycle or killing progenitor cells (
Crews et al., 2003;
Luo and Miller, 1998). Several pieces of these data suggest the former. For example, by the 4D+7 time point, DCX+IR had returned to control levels (), which suggests that NSCs are not lost permanently. This interpretation is supported further by the Ki-67 data, which was not significantly different between the control and alcohol groups. As illustrated in , Ki-67 and BrdU label different aspects of the cell cycle: Ki-67 is expressed during all active phases of the cell cycle (M G
2, S and G
1;
Scholzen and Gerdes, 2000) whereas BrdU is incorporated into cells when the DNA is singled stranded, during the S-phase. Comparison of the Ki67 and BrdU data suggests that alcohol may arrest cells in the G
1 phase. Arresting cells in G
1 or increasing the length of the cell cycle would result in decreased numbers of BrdU+ cells (S-phase) and similar numbers of Ki-67+ cells (all active phases) similar to the pattern observed. Alcohol- induced effects on cell proliferation by increasing the length of G
1 or inhibiting the progression of cells from G
1 to S-phase of the cell cycle has long been suggested as an effect of alcohol on fetal brain development (
Jacobs, 2001;
Luo and Miller, 1998;
Miller and Nowakowski, 1991). Further, other drugs of abuse impact adult neurogenesis via cell cycle alterations (
Mandyam et al., 2008).
The lack of alcohol effect on Ki-67+ cells following binge alcohol exposure in adolescents differs from that observed in binge alcohol-exposed adults, where Ki-67+ cells are reduced by 30% (
Crews et al., 2006a). This implies a developmental difference, though subtle, in the mechanism of alcohol effects on neurogenesis. For example, the reduction in Ki-67+ cells in adults (e.g.
Crews et al., 2006a) reflects that fewer cells are in the active portion of the cycle, which could be due to either loss of progenitors or cells driven to quiescence (G
0 phase). As discussed above, adolescent data suggest that alcohol is arresting or altering the cell cycle, an effect that is more similar to that observed during early development (
Luo and Miller, 1998). This is consistent with developmental differences in the amount of neurogenesis or increased numbers of proliferating cells in the adolescents versus adults (
He and Crews, 2007). Although the length of the cell cycle is similar between adults and adolescents (
Cameron and McKay, 2001), little is known about the cell cycle or the reaction of NSC to various factors during adolescence. Obviously, further studies need to be conducted on the effects of alcohol on cell cycle dynamics. Unfortunately, a well-designed comparison is hampered by the dissimilar alcohol pharmacokinetics between adults and adolescents (
Walker and Ehlers, 2009). Collectively, these data support that adolescents have a unique response to alcohol: some observations were quite similar to the adult condition (e.g. alcohol intoxication inhibits neurogenesis, cell death does not appear to be apoptotic) but other observations are more similar to development (e.g. alcohol targeting the cell cycle). Although these data do not suggest greater effects of alcohol on neurogenesis in adolescent rats than adults, these observations support that the adolescent brain reacts uniquely to alcohol and warrants independent investigation (
Crews et al., 2007;
Spear, 2000).
The integration of new neurons into the existing hippocampal circuitry is now considered crucial for hippocampal function (
Imayoshi et al., 2008), which implicates altered hippocampal neurogenesis in neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders, such as drug and alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety (
Canales, 2007;
Eisch et al., 2008;
Nixon, 2006). These results show that this process remains impaired during intoxication in a rodent model of an AUD, although a single, acute dose of alcohol (5 g/kg) appears more potent (
Crews et al., 2006b). Although several studies have shown that the adolescent hippocampus may be particularly susceptible to alcohol-induced neurodegenerative events in the long term (
Evrard et al., 2006;
Hargreaves et al., 2009;
Pascual et al., 2007), these data do not suggest an enhanced sensitivity to alcohol inhibition of neurogenesis in adolescent rats within the context of alcohol dependence. However, many aspects of how new neurons develop, become integrated in to dentate gyrus and function have not been investigated. Perhaps those cells that are born and survive though alcohol intoxication have impaired functions due to inappropriate synaptic connections or any number of altered neurotransmitter or signaling cascades. In summary, binge alcohol exposure disrupts neurogenesis by decreasing the number of proliferating cells, increasing cell death and thus reducing new cell survival in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus. Emerging theories on the contribution of neurogenesis to hippocampal function imply that alcohol dysregulation of neurogenesis likely contributes to impairments in hippocampus associated behaviors such as learning, memory, and mood, and may have implications for the development of alcohol abuse or addiction (
Canales, 2007;
Eisch and Mandyam, 2004).