4.5 Article

Salt intake by normotensive and spontaneously hypertensive rats: two-bottle and lick rate analyses

Journal

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 78, Issue 4-5, Pages 689-696

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00062-3

Keywords

sodium; taste; visceral feedback; preference

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P20 RR 15640] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 50586] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) overconsume NaCl compared to the normotensive Wistar Kyoto rat (WKY) rat. In the present experiment, two-bottle preference for NaCl (0.01, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 3.0 M) and lick rate analyses were used to identify the possible mechanisms that underlie the intake of NaCl by male SHR. Two-bottle preference and absolute NaCl intake by SHR were greater than that of WKY rats. When NaCl intake was calculated on the basis of body weight, SHR consumed more NaCl per 100 g body weight than did WKY Also, during the one-bottle test, SHR consumed more 0.1 and 0.3 M NaCl per 100 g body weight than did WKY The increased intake of NaCl by SHR was most evident for 0.3 M NaCl. Intake is determined by the initial rate of licking and the decline in lick rate over time. Nonlinear regression analysis of lick rate showed that the initial lick rates (licks/min) were similar for male WKY and SHR. Lick rate declined more rapidly when WKY rats drank 0.3 M than when they drank 0.1 M NaCl, a result consistent with the role of negative feedback in controlling the decay in lick rate. This concentration-dependent change in lick rate was not seen in SHR. Also, SHR lick rate for 0.1 and 0.3 M NaCl decelerated more slowly than that of WKY rats. The increased intake of hypertonic NaCl by SHR was due to a decrease in the decline in lick rate, suggesting that SHR are less responsive to ingestion-contingent negative feedback. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available