4.6 Article

Taste responsiveness and diet preference in autoimmune MRL mice

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 140, 期 1-2, 页码 119-130

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4328(02)00276-0

关键词

autoimmunity; inflammation; lupus; affective behaviour; taste responsiveness; food intake; cytokines; interleukin; TNF-alpha; MRL mice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the most profound behavioural deficits in lupus-prone MRL-1pr mice is blunted responsiveness to sweet solutions. Given the systemic nature of autoimmune/inflammatory disease, it was not clear whether impaired taste sensitivity or motivated response to palatable food underlie this deficit. The present study compares response rates of MRL-1pr mice (which develop disease early), congenic MRL +/+ mice (which develop disease later in life) and non-autoimmune Swiss Webster (SW) mice to different tastes and diets. Healthy SW mice showed the highest responsiveness to palatable stimulation throughout the study. Conversely, the preference for palatable solutions progressively declined in MRL-1pr mice as the disease developed. No differences between the two MRL substrains were seen in responsiveness to quinine or saline, suggesting that blunted responsiveness to palatable solutions cannot be accounted for by reduced taste sensory function (hypogeusia). In addition, changes in response rates to palatable solutions were associated with systemic upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines. With a new cohort of mice fed on carbohydrate-rich and fat-rich diets, we also examined whether reduced sucrose intake in MRL-1pr mice can be accounted for by a reduced craving for carbohydrates. Contrary to this expectation, diseased MRL-1pr mice preferred carbohydrate-rich food while consuming a food mass comparable to controls. These results further support the hypothesis that the onset of lupus-like disease alters motivated behaviour, independent of changes in neurologic function and food metabolism. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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