4.6 Article

Serotonin and Dopamine Mimic Glucose-Induced Reinforcement in C. elegans: Potential Role of NSM Neurons and the Serotonin Subtype 4 Receptor

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.783359

关键词

glucose; serotonin; dopamine; reward; obesity; C; elegans

资金

  1. American Diabetes Association Clinical Scientist Predoctoral Training Award
  2. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award
  3. NIDDK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food can influence preference for specific odors through molecular mechanisms, with glucose and serotonin playing key roles in this effect. Dopamine and food withdrawal also impact this reward system in a similar way.
Food produces powerful reinforcement that can lead to overconsumption and likely contributes to the obesity epidemic. The present studies examined molecular mechanisms mediating food-induced reinforcement in the model system C. elegans. After a 1-h training session during which food (bacteria) is paired with the odorant butanone, odor preference for butanone robustly increased. Glucose mimicked this effect of bacteria. Glucose-induced odor preference was enhanced similarly by prior food withdrawal or blocking glucose metabolism in the presence of food. Food- and glucose-induced odor preference was mimicked by serotonin signaling through the serotonin type-4 (5-HT4) receptor. Dopamine (thought to act primarily through a D1-like receptor) facilitated, whereas the D2 agonist bromocriptine blocked, food- and glucose-induced odor preference. Furthermore, prior food withdrawal similarly influenced reward produced by serotonin, dopamine, or food, implying post-synaptic enhancement of sensitivity to serotonin and dopamine. These results suggest that glucose metabolism plays a key role in mediating both food-induced reinforcement and enhancement of that reinforcement by prior food withdrawal and implicate serotonergic signaling through 5-HT4 receptor in the re-enforcing properties of food.

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

4.6
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