Glutamatergic regulation of ghrelin-induced activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system

Recently, we demonstrated that the central ghrelin signalling system, involving the ghrelin receptor (GHS-R1A), is important for alcohol reinforcement. Ghrelin targets a key mesolimbic circuit involved in natural as well as drug-induced reinforcement, that includes a dopamine projection from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to the nucleus accumbens. The aim of the present study was to determine whether it is possible to suppress ghrelin's effects on this mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway can be suppressed, by interrupting afferent inputs to the VTA dopaminergic cells, as shown previously for cholinergic afferents. Thus, the effects of pharmacological suppression of glutamatergic, orexin A and opioid neurotransmitter systems on ghrelin-induced activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system were investigated. We found in the present study that ghrelin-induced locomotor stimulation was attenuated by VTA administration of the N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor antagonist (AP5) but not by VTA administration of an orexin A receptor antagonist (SB334867) or by peripheral administration of an opioid receptor antagonist (naltrexone). Intra-VTA administration of AP5 also suppressed the ghrelin-induced dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens. Finally the effects of peripheral ghrelin on locomotor stimulation and accumbal dopamine release were blocked by intra-VTA administration of a GHS-R1A antagonist (BIM28163), indicating that GHS-R1A signalling within the VTA is required for the ghrelin-induced activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system. Given the clinical knowledge that hyperghrelinemia is associated with addictive behaviours (such as compulsive overeating and alcohol use disorder) our finding highlights a potential therapeutic strategy involving glutamatergic control of ghrelin action at the level of the mesolimbic dopamine system

Role of ghrelin in food reward: impact of ghrelin on sucrose self-administration and mesolimbic dopamine and acetylcholine receptor gene expression

The decision to eat is strongly influenced by non-homeostatic factors such as food palatability. Indeed, the rewarding and motivational value of food can override homeostatic signals, leading to increased consumption and hence, obesity. Ghrelin, a gut-derived orexigenic hormone, has a prominent role in homeostatic feeding. Recently, however, it has emerged as a potent modulator of the mesolimbic dopaminergic reward pathway, suggesting a role for ghrelin in food reward. Here, we sought to determine whether ghrelin and its receptors are important for reinforcing motivation for natural sugar reward by examining the role of ghrelin receptor (GHS-R1A) stimulation and blockade for sucrose progressive ratio operant conditioning, a procedure used to measure motivational drive to obtain a reward. Peripherally and centrally administered ghrelin significantly increased operant responding and therefore, incentive motivation for sucrose. Utilizing the GHS-R1A antagonist JMV2959, we demonstrated that blockade of GHS-R1A signaling significantly decreased operant responding for sucrose. We further investigated ghrelin's effects on key mesolimbic reward nodes, the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus accumbens (NAcc), by evaluating the effects of chronic central ghrelin treatment on the expression of genes encoding major reward neurotransmitter receptors, namely dopamine and acetylcholine. Ghrelin treatment was associated with an increased dopamine receptor D5 and acetylcholine receptor nAChRβ2 gene expression in the VTA and decreased expression of D1, D3, D5 and nAChRα3 in the NAcc. Our data indicate that ghrelin plays an important role in motivation and reinforcement for sucrose and impacts on the expression of dopamine and acetylcholine encoding genes in the mesolimbic reward circuitry. These findings suggest that ghrelin antagonists have therapeutic potential for the treatment of obesity and to suppress the overconsumption of sweet food

Quantitative analysis of performance on a progressive-ratio schedule: effects of reinforcer type, food deprivation and acute treatment with Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Rats’ performance on a progressive-ratio schedule maintained by sucrose (0.6 M, 50 μl) and corn oil (100%, 25 μl) reinforcers was assessed using a model derived from Killeen’s (1994) theory of scheduled-controlled behaviour, ‘Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement’. When the rats were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding body weights, the parameter expressing incentive value, a, was greater for the corn oil than for the sucrose reinforcer; the response-time parameter, δ, did not differ between the reinforcer types, but a parameter derived from the linear waiting principle (Tₒ), indicated that the minimum post-reinforcement pause was longer for corn oil than for sucrose. When the rats were maintained under free-feeding conditions, a was reduced, indicating a reduction of incentive value, but δ was unaltered. Under the food-deprived condition, the CB1 cannabinoid receptor agonist Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC: 0.3, 1 and 3 mg kg-1) increased the value of sucrose; none of the other parameters was affected by THC. The results provide new information about the sensitivity of the model’s parameters to deprivation and reinforcer quality, and suggest that THC selectively enhances the incentive value of sucrose

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

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

This work was supported by grants from the NIH (DP2DK105570-01 and 2P30DK046200 to MLA, DK21397 to HJG, K01DK098319 to KMH, K01MH091222 to LH, DK093848 to RJS, R01DK082590 to LS, R01DK097550 to JT, RO1 DK 076037 to MOT, R01DA024680 and R01MH085298 to JMZ, R01AG019230 and R01AG029740 to RGS) The Wellcome Trust (MK), Science Foundation Ireland (12/YI/B2480 to CWL), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (MHT), the Deutsches Zentrum für Diabetesforschung (MHT), the Helmholtz Alliance ICEMED e Imaging and Curing Environmental Metabolic Diseases, through the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association (MHT), and the Helmholtz cross-program topic “Metabolic Dysfunction” (MHT). Allan Geliebter was sponsored by NIH grants R01DK80153; R01DK074046; R03DK068603; P30DK26687

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