4.8 Article

Inhibitory Interplay between Orexin Neurons and Eating

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 18, 页码 2486-2491

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.07.013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Francis Crick Institute - Cancer Research UK
  2. UK Medical Research Council
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. MRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In humans and rodents, loss of brain orexin/hypocretin (OH) neurons causes pathological sleepiness [1-4], whereas OH hyperactivity is associated with stress and anxiety [5-10]. OH cell control is thus of considerable interest. OH cells are activated by fasting [11, 12] and proposed to stimulate eating [13]. However, OH cells are also activated by diverse feeding-unrelated stressors [14-17] and stimulate locomotion and fight-or-flight responses [18-20]. Such OH-mediated behaviors presumably preclude concurrent eating, and loss of OH cells produces obesity, suggesting that OH cells facilitate net energy expenditure rather than energy intake [2, 21-23]. The relationship between OH cells and eating, therefore, remains unclear. Here we investigated this issue at the level of natural physiological activity of OH cells. First, we monitored eating-associated dynamics of OH cells using fiber photometry in free-feeding mice. OH cell activity decreased within milliseconds after eating onset, and remained in a down state during eating. This OH inactivation occurred with foods of diverse tastes and textures, as well as with calorie-free food, in both fed and fasted mice, suggesting that it is driven by the act of eating itself. Second, we probed the implications of natural OH cell signals for eating and weight in a new conditional OH cell-knockout model. Complete OH cell inactivation in adult brain induced a hitherto unrecognized overeating phenotype and caused overweight that was preventable by mild dieting. These results support an inhibitory interplay between OH signals and eating, and demonstrate that OH cell activity is rapidly controllable, across nutritional states, by voluntary action.

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

4.8
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