4.5 Article

Inhibition in the lateral septum increases sucrose intake and decreases anorectic effects of stress

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 420-433

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ejn.12798

关键词

baclofen; GAD; neuronal firing rate; rat; sucrose licking

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sucrose-overeating rats with decreased anorectic response to stress showed lower stress-induced activation of c-fos expression in the lateral septum (LS). The present study tested a hypothesis that neuronal inhibition in the LS is important for the development and maintenance of the sucrose-overeating phenotype. Sucrose overeating was developed with weekly episodes of food restriction (21h per day, 4days per week) followed by 1-h access to sucrose. The anorectic effects of stress on 1-h sucrose intake were estimated using weekly foot shock stress sessions. The development of the sucrose-overeating phenotype was accompanied by a decrease in the anorectic effects of stress and by an increase in LS mRNA expression of a -aminobutyric acid (GABA) synthesising enzyme, glutamic acid decarboxylase 67 in stressed rats. Direct recordings of neuronal firing in the LS in rats submitted to repeated weekly cycles of food restriction, sucrose refeeding and stress showed that the development of sucrose overeating increased the percentage of LS neurons inhibited during anticipation and at the start of clusters (CS) of sucrose licking. In addition, the CS-excited LS neurons showed a decrease in responsiveness to sucrose during the development of sucrose overeating. Direct injection of baclofen, an agonist of the GABA(B) receptor, into the LS decreased the anorectic effects of stress and increased sucrose intake. These results suggest that an increase in inhibitory effects in the LS is important for the development of sucrose overeating and the decreased anorectic effects of stress.

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

4.5
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