4.3 Article

Conditioned preference for sweet stimuli in OLETF rat: effects of food deprivation

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00339.2006

关键词

food intake; CCK-1 receptor; hyperphagia; diet-induced obesity; palatability

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK065709-04, R01 DK065709, DK065709] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rat, an outbred strain of LongEvans Tokushima Otsuka rat (LETO) that lacks CCK-1 receptor expression, is hyperphagic and develops obesity and type-2 diabetes. The present study sought to assess how OLETF rats alter intake, preference, and conditioned preference of palatable solutions after acute food deprivation. Our results show that after 24 It chow restriction, LETO rats increase both sucrose intake and two-bottle sucrose preference relative to their free-fed baseline, whereas OLETF rats do not increase sucrose intake (0.3 M or 1.0 M sucrose) or preference (1.0 M vs. 0.3 M sucrose) when they are food deprived. In contrast, OLETF rats exhibit a higher conditioned flavor preference when sucrose is used as unconditioned stimulus (US) relative to LETO rats, whether overnight food restricted (81% vs. 71 % for OLETF and LETO rats, respectively) or free fed (82% vs. 54% for OLETF and LETO rats, respectively) during the test. When a noncaloric saccharin solution is used as US, OLETF rats show a higher preference for the saccharin-associated flavor relative to LETO rats when nondeprived (76% vs. 58% for OLETF and LETO rats, respectively); however, neither strain shows differential conditioned flavor preference for saccharin in the deprivation state during the test. These findings suggest that OLETF rats fail to integrate postabsorpfive and orosensory effects of sucrose in a conditioning setting to influence intake. Thus, it appears that OLETF rats form preferences for sucrose based largely on orosensory and hedonic properties o I e solution, rather than caloric value.

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

4.3
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