4.6 Article

Activation of GABAA and GABAB receptors in the lateral septum increases sucrose intake by differential stimulation of sucrose licking activity

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 273, 期 -, 页码 82-88

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.07.035

关键词

Lateral septum; Sucrose licking; GABA; Muscimol; Baclofen

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [327597]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [102659]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was aimed to determine how direct injections into the lateral septum (LS) of muscimol and baclofen, GABA(A) and GABA(B) receptor agonists, respectively, affect intake of 10% sucrose and sucrose licking activity in rats. The effects of muscimol and baclofen on the 1-h intake of sucrose and sucrose licking activity were tested at low (350 pmol), medium (876 pmol), and high (1752 pmol) doses. The medium and high doses of muscimol and the high dose of baclofen significantly increased 1-h sucrose intake. The total sucrose lick number was significantly increased by the medium dose of muscimol and the high dose of baclofen. An increase in sucrose licking activity induced by muscimol but not baclofen occurred in the first 15 min after injections. The medium and high doses of muscimol but not baclofen significantly decreased latency to initiate the first lick of sucrose. The total licking time calculated as the sum of the duration of all sucrose lick clusters showed a significant increase by the high dose of baclofen but not by any dose of muscimol. Therefore, the GABA(A) and GABA(B) LS mechanisms appear to be involved in stimulating sucrose intake, but this stimulation occurs by differential regulation of the sucrose licking activity. Muscimol intra-LS administration led to a short-latency rapid increase in sucrose licking. In contrast, baclofen did not decrease latency to initiate licking, but significantly increased total licking duration. (C) 2014 Elsevier 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