Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Alcohol. 2023 May 22;111:39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2023.05.002

FIGURE 1. Effects of 2920 and 5L0D diets on ethanol consumption before and during pregnancy and on rat dam weight gain, litter size and pup birth weight.

FIGURE 1

Data points or graph bars in Figures 1A and 1B represent the mean ± SEM grams of ethanol consumed / kg body weight of thirty-seven 2920 females (white) or eighty-four 5L0D females (black). 1A: Pre-pregnancy ethanol consumption. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant interaction between diet and drinking day (F9,1185 = 2.28, p = 0.015). The asterisks denote pre-pregnancy drinking days when 5% ethanol consumption by 2920 females was significantly less compared to 5L0D females (Holm-Sidak post-hoc tests: t values > 2.0, p < 0.045). Gestational ethanol consumption. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant main effects of diet (F1,2494 = 719, p < 0.001) and drinking day (F20,2494 = 8.79, p < 0.001). The asterisk denotes that ethanol consumption by 2920 dams was significantly less compared to 5L0D dams throughout gestation. 1B: Mean daily 5% ethanol consumption prior to and during pregnancy. “PP” denotes pre-pregnancy drinking days and “GD” denotes gestational drinking days. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant interaction between diet and gestational state (F1,238 = 6.84, p = 0.009). The single asterisk denotes that ethanol consumption by 2920 rats was significantly less both before and during pregnancy (Holm-Sidak post-hoc tests: pre-pregnancy t = 4.56, p < 0.001; gestational drinking t = 8.26, p < 0.001). Further, while ethanol consumption by 5L0D rats was not different before or during pregnancy (t = 0.59, p = 0.55), ethanol consumption by 2920 rats decreased significantly during pregnancy, denoted by the double asterisk (t = 3.53, p < 0.001). 1C: Maternal weight gain during pregnancy, expressed as a percentage increase in weight above weight at breeding. In Figures 1C – 1E, “Co” denotes the saccharin (0% ethanol) group and “Et” denotes the 5% ethanol treatment group. Data bars in Figures 1C - 1E represent the mean ± SEM percent change in weight gain (1C), litter sizes (1D) and pup birth weights (1E) of thirty-eight saccharin control 2920 dams and thirty-seven 5% ethanol 2920 dams (white bars) and eighty five saccharin control 5L0D dams and eighty-four 5% ethanol 5L0D dams (black bars). A two-way ANOVA revealed significant main effect of diet on weight gain (F1,240 = 14.4, p < 0.001), with 5L0D dams gaining significantly less weight, denoted by the asterisk, than 2920 dams. Prenatal treatment did not affect maternal weight gain (F1,240 = 0.016, p =0.899). 1D: Offspring litter size, expressed as the number of live births per litter. A two-way ANOVA revealed no significant effects of either diet (F1,240 = 0.064, p = 0.800) or prenatal treatment (F1,240 = 0.0188, p =0.891). 1E: Mean offspring birth weight, expressed in grams, based on total litter weight divided by litter size. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant main effect of diet on pup birth weight (F1,240 = 43.3, p < 0.001), with 2920 dams gaining significantly less weight, denoted by the asterisk, than 5L0D pups. Prenatal treatment did not affect pup birth weight gain (F1,240 = 0.018, p =0.892).