Hedonic and incentive signals for body weight control

Here we review the emerging neurobiological understanding of the role of the brain’s reward system in the regulation of body weight in health and in disease. Common obesity is characterized by the over-consumption of palatable/rewarding foods, reflecting an imbalance in the relative importance of hedonic versus homeostatic signals. The popular ‘incentive salience theory’ of food reward recognises not only a hedonic/pleasure component (‘liking’) but also an incentive motivation component (‘wanting’ or ‘reward-seeking’). Central to the neurobiology of the reward mechanism is the mesoaccumbal dopamine system that confers incentive motivation not only for natural rewards such as food but also by artificial rewards (eg. addictive drugs). Indeed, this mesoaccumbal dopamine system receives and integrates information about the incentive (rewarding) value of foods with information about metabolic status. Problematic over-eating likely reflects a changing balance in the control exerted by hypothalamic versus reward circuits and/or it could reflect an allostatic shift in the hedonic set point for food reward. Certainly, for obesity to prevail, metabolic satiety signals such as leptin and insulin fail to regain control of appetitive brain networks, including those involved in food reward. On the other hand, metabolic control could reflect increased signalling by the stomach-derived orexigenic hormone, ghrelin. We have shown that ghrelin activates the mesoaccumbal dopamine system and that central ghrelin signalling is required for reward from both chemical drugs (eg alcohol) and also from palatable food. Future therapies for problematic over-eating and obesity may include drugs that interfere with incentive motivation, such as ghrelin antagonists

Ghrelin Modulates the fMRI BOLD Response of Homeostatic and Hedonic Brain Centers Regulating Energy Balance in the Rat

The orexigenic gut-brain peptide, ghrelin and its G-protein coupled receptor, the growth hormone secretagogue receptor 1a (GHS-R1A) are pivotal regulators of hypothalamic feeding centers and reward processing neuronal circuits of the brain. These systems operate in a cooperative manner and receive a wide array of neuronal hormone/transmitter messages and metabolic signals. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was employed in the current study to map BOLD responses to ghrelin in different brain regions with special reference on homeostatic and hedonic regulatory centers of energy balance. Experimental groups involved male, ovariectomized female and ovariectomized estradiol-replaced rats. Putative modulation of ghrelin signaling by endocannabinoids was also studied. Ghrelin-evoked effects were calculated as mean of the BOLD responses 30 minutes after administration. In the male rat, ghrelin evoked a slowly decreasing BOLD response in all studied regions of interest (ROI) within the limbic system. This effect was antagonized by pretreatment with GHS-R1A antagonist JMV2959. The comparison of ghrelin effects in the presence or absence of JMV2959 in individual ROIs revealed significant changes in the prefrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens of the telencephalon, and also within hypothalamic centers like the lateral hypothalamus, ventromedial nucleus, paraventricular nucleus and suprachiasmatic nucleus. In the female rat, the ghrelin effects were almost identical to those observed in males. Ovariectomy and chronic estradiol replacement had no effect on the BOLD response. Inhibition of the endocannabinoid signaling by rimonabant significantly attenuated the response of the nucleus accumbens and septum. In summary, ghrelin can modulate hypothalamic and mesolimbic structures controlling energy balance in both sexes. The endocannabinoid signaling system contributes to the manifestation of ghrelin’s BOLD effect in a region specific manner. In females, the estradiol milieu does not influence the BOLD response to ghrelin

What’s special about the ethical challenges of studying disorders with altered brain activity?

Where there is no viable alternative, studies of neuronal activity are conducted on animals. The use of animals, particularly for invasive studies of the brain, raises a number of ethical issues. Practical or normative ethics are enforced by legislation, in relation to the dominant welfare guidelines developed in the UK and elsewhere. Guidelines have typically been devised to cover all areas of biomedical research using animals in general, and thus lack any specific focus on neuroscience studies at the level of the ethics, although details of the specific welfare recommendations are different for invasive studies of the brain. Ethically there is no necessary distinction between neuroscience and other biomedical research in that the brain is a final common path for suffering, irrespective of whether this involves any direct experience of pain. One exception arises in the case of in vitro studies, which are normally considered as an acceptable replacement for in vivo studies. However, to the extent sentience is possible, maintaining central nervous system tissue outside the body naturally raises ethical questions. Perhaps the most intractable challenge to the ethical use of animals in order to model neuronal disorder is presented by the logical impasse in the argument that the animal is similar enough to justify the validity of the experimental model, but sufficiently different in sentience and capacity for suffering, for the necessary experimental procedures to be permissible

Effects of SKF-83566 and haloperidol on performance on progressive ratio schedules maintained by sucrose and corn oil reinforcement: quantitative analysis using a new model derived from the Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement (MPR)

Rationale Mathematical models can assist the interpretation of the effects of interventions on schedule-controlled behaviour and help to differentiate between processes that may be confounded in traditional performance measures such as response rate and the breakpoint in progressive ratio (PR) schedules. Objective The effects of a D1-like dopamine receptor antagonist, 8-bromo-2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-3-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-3-benzazepin-7-ol hydrobromide (SKF-83566), and a D2-like receptor antagonist, haloperidol, on rats’ performance on PR schedules maintained by sucrose and corn oil reinforcers were assessed using a new model derived from Killeen’s (Behav Brain Sci 17:105–172, 1994) Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement. Method Separate groups of rats were trained under a PR schedule using sucrose or corn oil reinforcers. SKF-83566 (0.015 and 0.03 mg kg−1) and haloperidol (0.05 and 0.1 mg kg−1) were administered intraperitoneally (five administrations of each treatment). Running and overall response rates in successive ratios were analysed using the new model, and estimates of the model’s parameters were compared between treatments. Results Haloperidol reduced a (the parameter expressing incentive value) in the case of both reinforcers, but did not affect the parameters related to response time and post-reinforcement pausing. SKF-83566 reduced a and k (the parameter expressing sensitivity of post-reinforcement pausing to the prior inter-reinforcement interval) in the case of sucrose, but did not affect any of the parameters in the case of corn oil. Conclusions The results are consistent with the hypothesis that blockade of both D1-like and D2-like receptors reduces the incentive value of sucrose, whereas the incentive value of corn oil is more sensitive to blockade of D2-like than D1-like receptors

Hypothalamic κ-Opioid Receptor Modulates the Orexigenic Effect of Ghrelin

The opioid system is well recognized as an important regulator of appetite and energy balance. We now hypothesized that the hypothalamic opioid system might modulate the orexigenic effect of ghrelin. Using pharmacological and gene silencing approaches, we demonstrate that ghrelin utilizes a hypothalamic κ-opioid receptor (KOR) pathway to increase food intake in rats. Pharmacological blockade of KOR decreases the acute orexigenic effect of ghrelin. Inhibition of KOR expression in the hypothalamic arcuate nucleus is sufficient to blunt ghrelin-induced food intake. By contrast, the specific inhibition of KOR expression in the ventral tegmental area does not affect central ghrelin-induced feeding. This new pathway is independent of ghrelin-induced AMP-activated protein kinase activation, but modulates the levels of the transcription factors and orexigenic neuropeptides triggered by ghrelin to finally stimulate feeding. Our novel data implicate hypothalamic KOR signaling in the orexigenic action of ghrelin