The discriminative stimulus effects of neuropeptide Y

Behavioral plasticity: Role of neuropeptides in shaping feeding responses

Behavioral plasticity refers to changes occurring due to external influences on an organism, including adaptation, learning, memory and enduring influences from early life experience. There are 2 types of behavioral plasticity: "developmental", which refers to gene/environment interactions affecting a phenotype, and "activational" which refers to innate physiology and can involve structural physiological changes of the body. In this review, we focus on feeding behavior, and studies involving neuropeptides that influence behavioral plasticity - primarily opioids, orexin, neuropeptide Y, and oxytocin. In each section of the review, we include examples of behavioral plasticity as it relates to actions of these neuropeptides. It can be concluded from this review that eating behavior is influenced by a number of external factors, including time of day, type of food available, energy balance state, and stressors. The reviewed work underscores that environmental factors play a critical role in feeding behavior and energy balance, but changes in eating behavior also result from a multitude of non-environmental factors, such that there can be no single mechanism or variable that can explain ingestive behavior.

Learned and cognitive controls of food intake

While much has been elucidated about the hypothalamic controls of energy balance, the epidemic of obesity continues to escalate. Recent work has suggested that extra-hypothalamic central nervous system structures may play a previously un-appreciated role in the control of ingestive behavior and body weight regulation. Because animals can and do learn about food and food-related stimuli, as well as the consequences of eating, we and others have sought to understand the cognitive process that underlies that learning. Additionally, we have begun to investigate the neuro-anatomical bases for complex learning about food and food cues. Here we review some evidence for learning about food as well as evidence that the hippocampus may play a critical role in the brain's ability to regulate body weight through such learning processes.

Communication and internal states: What is their relationship?

Common folks “have” emotions and talk to others; and sometimes they make “their” emotions the topic of such talk. The emotions seem to be “theirs,” since they can be conceived of as private states (or events); and they can be topicalized, because we seem to be able to attribute or lend a conventionalized public form (such as a linguistic label or name) to some inner (and therefore nonpublic) state or event. This is the way much of our folk-talk and folk-thinking about emotions, the expression thereof, the role of language in these expressions, and communication in general are organized. However, as we have shown (Bamberg & Lindenberger 1984), such talk serves the purpose of communicating effectively and reaching mutual understanding.

Species and individual differences in communication based on private states

The way people come to report private stimulation (e.g., feeling states) arising within their own bodies is not well understood. Although the Darwinian assumption of biological continuity has been the basis of extensive animal modeling for many human biological and behavioral phenomena, few have attempted to model human communication based on private stimulation. This target article discusses such an animal model using concepts and methods derived from the study of discriminative stimulus effects of drugs and recent research on interanimal communication. We discuss how humans acquire the capacity to identify and report private stimulation and we analyze intra- and interspecies differences in neurochemical mechanisms for transducing interoceptive stimuli, enzymatic and other metabolic factors, learning ability, and discrimination learning histories and their relation to psychiatric and developmental disabilities.

Behavioral controls of food intake

Recent conceptualizations of food intake have divided ingestive behavior into multiple distinct phases. Here, we present a temporally and operationally defined classification of ingestive behaviors. Importantly, various physiological signals including hypothalamic peptides are thought to impact these distinct behavioral phases of ingestion differently. In this review, we summarize a number of behavioral assays designed to delineate the effects of hormone and peptide signals that influence food intake on these ingestive mechanisms. Finally, we discuss two issues that we have encountered in our laboratory which may obstruct the interpretation of results from these types of studies. First, the influence of previous experience with foods used in these behavioral tests and second, the importance of the nutrient composition of the selected test foods. The important conclusion discussed here is that the behavioral analysis of ingestion is accompanied by theoretical constructs and artificial divisions of biological realities and the appreciation of this fact can only increase the opportunities of contemporary behavioral scientists to make significant and novel observations of ingestive behaviors.

Intraparaventricular neuropeptide Y and ghrelin induce learned behaviors that report food deprivation in rats

Rats were trained to discriminate between 2 and 22-h food deprivation in a choice paradigm. During tests, 20 min of food consumption eliminated internal stimuli associated with 22-h food deprivation. In other tests, rats food-restricted for 2 h were given neuropeptide Y or ghrelin by administration into the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus. Both neurochemicals induced effects similar to those following 22-h food restriction (increased behavior appropriate for 22-h deprivation). These findings suggest that internal stimuli produced by 22-h food deprivation are altered by food consumption and mimicked by feeding-inducing neurochemicals administered into a brain area associated with feeding regulation. Thus, hunger discrimination is a useful model to examine neurochemical and dietary factors that alter internal states associated with eating.

Intake inhibition by NPY and CCK-8: A challenge of the notion of NPY as an “Orexigen”

We tested the hypothesis that neuropeptide Y (NPY) interacts with cholecystokinin octapeptide (CCK-8) in inhibition of intake of an intraorally infused solution of sucrose, a test of consummatory ingestive behavior. Both intracerebroventricular infusion of NPY (10 microg) and intraperitoneal injection of CCK-8 (0.5 micro/kg) reduced the intake of a 1M solution of sucrose infused intraorally at a rate of 0.5 ml/min in ovariectomized female rats, but the two peptides did not interact in inhibiting intraoral intake. By contrast, NPY increased intake if the sucrose solution was ingested from a bottle, a test demanding both appetitive and consummatory ingestive responses. CCK-8 inhibited intake in this test and its inhibitory effect was increased by simultaneous treatment with NPY. The activity in the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS), a brainstem relay mediating inhibition of intake, judged by the expression of c-fos-like immunoreactivity, was significantly increased after treatment with CCK-8 or NPY to approximately the same extent. Combined treatment with NPY and CCK-8 did not increase the c-fos-like immunoreactivity in the NTS above treatment with NPY or CCK-8 alone. These results strengthen the hypothesis that NPY, like CCK-8, is an inhibitor of consummatory ingestive behavior and suggest that this inhibition is mediated via the NTS.

Our journey with neuropeptide Y: effects on ingestive behaviors and energy expenditure

Clark and colleagues first described the robust orexigenic effects of neuropeptide Y (NPY) in 1984. Our group as well as Stanley et al. confirmed these effects in the same year. During the next 20 years, we investigated the effects of NPY on diet preferences, opioid-related feeding, distributed neural feeding networks, energy metabolism, motivation and discriminative stimulus effects. These data together with data from other laboratories indicate that NPY increases feeding, even when rats work for food; that NPY decreases energy expenditure, particularly by altering thermogenesis; and that NPY's effects on energy metabolism are mediated by a widely distributed neural network involving other neuroregulators known to be involved in energy regulation.

Appetite suppression based on selective inhibition of NPY receptors

AIM

The aim of this review is to critically assess available evidence that blockade of the actions of NPY at one of the five NPY receptor subtypes represents an attractive new drug discovery target for the development of an appetite suppressant drug.

RESULTS

Blockade of the central actions of NPY using anti-NPY antibodies, antisense oligodeoxynucleotides against NPY and NPY receptor antagonists results in a decrease in food intake in energy-deprived animals. These results appear to show that endogenous NPY plays a role in the control of appetite. The fact that NPY receptors exist as at least five different subtypes raises the possibility that the actions of endogenous NPY on food intake can be adequately dissociated from other effects of the peptide. Current drug discovery has produced a number of highly selective NPY receptor antagonists which have been used to establish the NPY Y(1) receptor subtype as the most critical in regulating short-term food intake. However, additional studies are now needed to more clearly define the relative contribution of NPY acting through the NPY Y2 and NPY Y5 receptors in the complex sequence of physiological and behavioral events that underlie the long-term control of appetite.

CONCLUSIONS

Blockade of the NPY receptor may produce appetite-suppressing drugs. However, it is too early to state with certainty whether a single subtype selective drug used alone or a combination of NPY receptor selective antagonists used in combination will be necessary to adequately influence appetite regulation.

Peptide YY: a key mediator of orexigenic behavior

Peptide YY (PYY) is the most potent orexigenic peptide or substance known. However, neither the underlying physiology of this hyperphagia nor PYY's natural role in brain are well understood. Thus, this review details the neuroanatomical sites, the neurochemical and systemic interactions, the food-related properties and the motivational factors that characterize hyperphagia elicited by central PYY. Emphasis also is given to evidence that central PYY has properties functionally distinct from neuropeptide Y. Finally, future research directions are outlined that aim at accelerating our understanding of the roles that brain PYY and PYY-preferring receptors occupy in normal and abnormal feeding behavior.

The effects of NPY and 5-TG on responding to cues for fats and carbohydrates

Previous research has shown that glucoprivic and lipoprivic metabolic challenges selectively augment the performance of appetitive responses conditioned to carbohydrate- and fat-associated cues, respectively. The present experiment investigated whether intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) infusion of neuropeptide Y (NPY) has a similar selective effect on appetitive behavior. We trained rats to associate two different conditioned stimuli (CSs) with two different macronutrient (peanut oil and sucrose pellets) unconditioned stimuli (USs). After training, the rats were food sated and responding to each CS was then tested in extinction. In one test session, the effects of NPY were compared to isotonic saline. A second test compared the effects of these two treatments with i.c.v. infusion of the glucose antimetabolite 5-thio-d-glucose (5-TG). Replicating our earlier result, 5-TG selectively promoted conditioned responding to the CS for sucrose pellets. In contrast, the capacity of NPY to promote appetitive behavior did not depend on the macronutrient that was signaled by the CS. These results suggest that NPY and 5-TG promote appetitive behavior via different mechanisms.

NPY and food intake: discrepancies in the model

The evidence that NPY is an endogenous neurotransmitter that modulates both sides of the energy equation is clear and compelling. While agreeing with this (and indeed contributing to the growing literature supporting the concept), we have found that the interpretation of the increased food intake stimulated by intraventricular (i.v.t.) NPY is more complex than first appears. We discuss evidence suggesting that NPY additionally (and presumably at other receptor populations in the brain) causes sensations that produce aversion or illness. Specifically, the i.v.t. administration of NPY at doses that stimulate eating also cause the formation of a conditioned taste aversion and the animal engages in a form of pica behavior (kaolin consumption). It also suppresses an otherwise robust increase of sodium consumption. We discuss evidence suggesting that whereas NPY activates feeding behavior by stimulating the complex sequence of behaviors beginning with the seeking and finding of food and ending with food ingestion, NPY does not stimulate increased eating in the absence of the anticipatory preliminary behaviors. Finally, we briefly review evidence suggesting that whatever sensation is aroused by i.v.t. NPY, it is not necessarily the same sensation that is aroused when animals are food-deprived. Hence, one must be cautious in interpreting NPY as solely an orexigen.

The effect of hypothalamic peptide YY on hippocampal acetylcholine release in vivo: implications for limbic function in binge-eating behavior

Central injection of peptide YY (PYY) in sated rats produces the most powerful stimulating effect of food intake known to date. The neural mechanisms by which PYY regulates appetite are not clear but may be important because abnormal levels of PYY have been implicated in the neurobiology of bulimia nervosa. Interactions between brain acetylcholine (ACh) and PYY had not been studied. Therefore, the present experiments were designed to explore the in vivo release of ACh from the hippocampus (HPC) of rats in response to hypothalamic infusion of PYY. Hippocampal ACh release was found to increase 400% in response to 10 microg PYY. In a separate experiment, blockade of the same area of the HPC with bilateral intracerebral injections of 3.5 microg scopolamine did not affect intake stimulated by intrahypothalamic injection of 4 microg PYY. Furthermore, a third experiment showed, for the first time, that PYY (2.5-10.0 microg) can elicit robust feeding when infused directly into the HPC. The significance of these findings to the activation of limbic functions such as memory, reinforcement, and obsessional processes that accompany human binge-eating syndromes is discussed.

Why do we eat? A neural systems approach

Neuroregulators found at various brain sites are involved in controlling food intake, a behavior that occurs for many reasons. Different neuroregulators may affect different stimuli that impact eating behavior. For example, neuropeptide Y may initiate feeding for energy needs, opioid peptides may provide the rewarding aspects of eating, and corticotropin releasing factor may affect stress-induced eating. We know that the neural networks regulating feeding also impact other components of energy balance. Neuropeptide Y not only increases eating, it also decreases energy expenditure in brown fat and increases enzymatic activity associated with fat storage in white fat, resulting in a more obese animal. What the sites of action are of these neuroregulators and how they interact with regulators at other sites are of utmost importance. Different regions of the brain, together with the periphery, communicate via signals acting in coordinated fashion, which leads to the final outcome: eating less or more and expending less or more energy.

Neuropeptide Y attenuates satiety: evidence from a detailed analysis of patterns ingestion

Centrally injected neuropeptide Y (NPY) is a potent stimulant of ingestive behavior capable of augmenting both food and fluid intake in fully satiated animals. To gain further insight into NPY's mechanism of action, we recorded patterns of licking behavior in rats drinking sweetened condensed milk solutions immediately after lateral ventricular injection of NPY (10 micrograms) or vehicle. In a separate study, we examined licking patterns after 23 h food deprivation (FD) that produced approximately the same total intake as NPY. Consistent with previous reports, we found NPY stimulated intake by increasing total ingestion time and total volume consumed during a 1-h test. Although NPY increased the number of bouts of licking and shortened pauses between bouts, it also decreased mean bout size, bout duration and within-bout lick rate (local rate). It had no significant effect on start latency or lick efficiency (licks/ml). Further analyses revealed that NPY attenuated satiety (reduced slope of lick-rate functions with session time) but had no significant effect on the beginning lick rate, a measure related to orosensory excitation. In contrast to NPY, FD increased both the beginning lick rate and individual bout size without changing either the mean number of bouts or the pause between bouts. In general, NPY stimulated an intermittent pattern of licking and delayed satiation whereas FD increased the initial rate of licking and the size of individual bouts without changing the basic licking pattern. The increase in initial lick rate suggests that FD, unlike NPY, enhances orosensory stimulation. These data compliment previous results showing that NPY increases the motivation to eat.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[Leu31,Pro34]neuropeptide Y (NPY), but not NPY 20-36, produces discriminative stimulus effects similar to NPY and induces food intake

Rats were trained to discriminate between an intracerebroventricular injection of 1.15 nmol of Neuropeptide Y (NPY) and a sham injection. Rats rapidly learned to press the appropriate lever during training. NPY's discriminative stimulus effects were compared to those of saline, and 1.15-3.45 nmol [Leu31,Pro34]NPY, a Y1 receptor agonist and NPY 20-36, Y2 receptor agonist. [Leu31,Pro34]NPY resulted in NPY-appropriate responding, whereas saline and NPY 20-36 did not. [Leu31,Pro34]NPY also increased food intake, but NPY 20-36 did not. This suggests that NPY's discriminative stimulus and orexigenic effects involve the Y1, but not the Y2, receptor.

Neuropeptide Y-containing interneurons in the hippocampus receive synaptic input from median raphe and GABAergic septal afferents

Neuropeptide Y has been extensively studied in the central nervous system due to a possible involvement of neuropeptide Y-containing neurons in cognitive functions. In the hippocampus neuropeptide Y is present in a subpopulation of nonpyramidal cells, which control the firing of hippocampal output neurons. In the present study we examined whether septohippocampal and raphe-hippocampal afferents--known to have a powerful effect on hippocampal electrical activity patterns--innervate neuropeptide Y-containing neurons in the hippocampal formation of the rat. Using a combination of pre- and postembedding immunostaining and tracing with Phaseolus vulgaris leucoagglutinin (PHAL) we showed that GABAergic afferents arising from the medial septal area extensively innervate neuropeptide Y-containing neurons. Afferents of median raphe origin, most of which are thought to be serotonergic, were also found to make multiple synaptic contacts with these cells. Thus, the neuropeptide Y-containing subpopulation of interneurons--which innervate distal dendrites of principal cells--are also among those through which different subcortical nuclei modulate information processing in the hippocampal formation.