Flavor Aversion Learning Based on Running: A Review

Wheel running establishes aversion in rats to a flavored solution consumed shortly before the running. Many studies have shown that this is a case of Pavlovian conditioning, in which the flavor and running respectively act as the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US). The present article introduces some procedural variables of this running-based flavor aversion learning (FAL), including subjects, CS agents, US agents, and drive operations. This article also summarize various behavioral features of Pavlovian conditioning demonstrated in running-based FAL including the law of contiguity despite long-delay learning, extinction and spontaneous recovery, CS-preexposure effect, remote and proximal US-preexposure effects, degraded contingency effect, inhibitory learning by backward conditioning, stimulus overshadowing, associative blocking, and higher-order contextual control. Also reviewed are several hypotheses proposed for the underlying psychophysiological causes of running-based FAL (activation of mesolimbic dopamine system, gastrointestinal discomfort, motion sickness, energy expenditure, general stress, and anticipatory contrast). At the end of the article, we visit the question of most general interest about running-based FAL: why pleasurable activity of voluntary running yields aversive learning in rats.

Role of lipolysis in postoral and oral fat preferences in mice

Fatty acid receptors in the mouth and gut are implicated in the appetite for fat-rich foods. The role of lipolysis in oral- and postoral-based fat preferences of C57BL/6J mice was investigated by inhibiting lipase enzymes with orlistat. Experiment 1 showed that postoral lipolysis is required: mice learned to prefer (by 70%) a flavored solution paired with intragastric infusions of 5% soybean oil but not a flavor paired with soybean oil + orlistat (4 mg/g fat) infusions. Experiments 2–4 tested the oral attraction to oil in mice given brief choice tests that minimize postoral effects. In experiment 2, the same low orlistat dose did not reduce the strong (83–94%) preference for 2.5 or 5% soybean oil relative to fat-free vehicle in 3-min tests. Mice in experiment 3 given choice tests between two fat emulsions (2% triolein, corn oil, or soybean oil) with or without orlistat at a high dose (250 mg/g fat) preferred triolein (72%) and soybean oil (67%) without orlistat to the oil with orlistat but were indifferent to corn oil with and without orlistat. In experiment 4, mice preferred 2% triolein (62%) or soybean oil (89%) to vehicle when both choices contained orlistat (250 mg/g fat). Fatty acid receptors are thus essential for postoral but not oral-based preferences. Both triglyceride and fatty acid taste receptors may mediate oral fat preferences.

SGLT1 sugar transporter/sensor is required for post-oral glucose appetition

Recent findings suggest that the intestinal sodium-glucose transporter 1 (SGLT1) glucose transporter and sensor mediates, in part, the appetite-stimulation actions of intragastric (IG) glucose and nonmetabolizable α-methyl-d-glucopyranoside (MDG) infusions in mice. Here, we investigated the role of SGLT1 in sugar conditioning using SGLT1 knockout (KO) and C57BL/6J wild-type (WT) mice. An initial experiment revealed that both KO and WT mice maintained on a very low-carbohydrate diet display normal preferences for saccharin, which was used in the flavored conditioned stimulus (CS) solutions. In experiment 2, mice were trained to drink one flavored solution (CS+) paired with an IG MDG infusion and a different flavored solution (CS−) paired with IG water infusion. In contrast to WT mice, KO mice decreased rather than increased the intake of the CS+ during training and failed to prefer the CS+ over the CS− in a choice test. In experiment 3, the KO mice also decreased their intake of a CS+ paired with IG glucose and avoided the CS+ in a choice test, unlike WT mice, which preferred the CS+ to CS−. In experiment 4, KO mice, like WT mice preferred a glucose + saccharin solution to a saccharin solution. These findings support the involvement of SGLT1 in post-oral glucose and MDG conditioning. The results also indicate that sugar malabsorption in KO mice has inhibitory effects on sugar intake but does not block their natural preference for sweet taste.

GPR40 and GPR120 fatty acid sensors are critical for postoral but not oral mediation of fat preferences in the mouse

In addition to orosensory signals, postoral actions of fat stimulate appetite and condition flavor preferences, but the gut sensors mediating these responses are unknown. Here, we investigated the role of the fatty acid sensors GPR40 and GPR120 in postoral and oral preferences for a soybean oil emulsion (Intralipid). Mice were trained to drink a flavored solution (CS+) paired with intragastric (IG) oil infusions and another flavored solution (CS−) paired with water infusions. Knockout (KO) mice missing GPR40 or GPR120 sensors increased their CS+ intake in one-bottle tests (1 h/day) but less so than wild-type (WT) mice. The KO mice also preferred the CS+ to CS− in a two-bottle test, but the preference was attenuated in GPR40 KO mice. Double-knockout (DoKO) mice missing both GPR40 and GPR120 displayed attenuated stimulation of CS+ intake and only a marginal CS+ preference. The DoKO mice developed a more substantial CS+ preference when tested 24 h/day, although weaker than that of WT mice. The DoKO mice also consumed less of the CS+ paired with IG Intralipid, as well as less Intralipid in oral tests. However, DoKO mice, like GPR40 KO and GPR120 KO mice did not differ from WT mice in their preference for Intralipid over water at 0.001%-20% concentrations. In contrast to prior results obtained with mice missing the CD36 fatty acid sensor, these findings indicate that, together, GPR40 and GPR120 play a critical role in the postoral stimulation of appetite by fat but are not essential for oral fat preferences.

Post-oral appetite stimulation by sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs

Post-oral sugar actions enhance the intake of and preference for sugar-rich foods, a process referred to as appetition. Here, we investigated the role of intestinal sodium glucose cotransporters (SGLTs) in sugar appetition in C57BL/6J mice using sugars and nonmetabolizable sugar analogs that differ in their affinity for SGLT1 and SGLT3. In experiments 1 and 2, food-restricted mice were trained (1 h/day) to consume a flavored saccharin solution [conditioned stimulus (CS−)] paired with intragastric (IG) self-infusions of water and a different flavored solution (CS+) paired with infusions of 8 or 12% sugars (glucose, fructose, and galactose) or sugar analogs (α-methyl-d-glucopyranoside, MDG; 3-O-methyl-d-glucopyranoside, OMG). Subsequent two-bottle CS+ vs. CS− choice tests were conducted without coinfusions. Infusions of the SGLT1 ligands glucose, galactose, MDG, and OMG stimulated CS+ licking above CS− levels. However, only glucose, MDG, and galactose conditioned significant CS+ preferences, with the SGLT3 ligands (glucose, MDG) producing the strongest preferences. Fructose, which is not a ligand for SGLTs, failed to stimulate CS+ intake or preference. Experiment 3 revealed that IG infusion of MDG+phloridzin (an SGLT1/3 antagonist) blocked MDG appetition, whereas phloridzin had minimal effects on glucose-induced appetition. However, adding phloretin (a GLUT2 antagonist) to the glucose+phloridzin infusion blocked glucose appetition. Taken together, these findings suggest that humoral signals generated by intestinal SGLT1 and SGLT3, and to a lesser degree, GLUT2, mediate post-oral sugar appetition in mice. The MDG results indicate that sugar metabolism is not essential for the post-oral intake-stimulating and preference-conditioning actions of sugars in mice.

Gut T1R3 sweet taste receptors do not mediate sucrose-conditioned flavor preferences in mice

Most mammals prefer the sweet taste of sugars, which is mediated by the heterodimeric T1R2+T1R3 taste receptor. Sugar appetite is also enhanced by the post-oral reinforcing actions of the nutrient in the gut. Here, we examined the contribution of gut T1R3 (either alone or as part of the T1R3+T1R3 receptor) to post-oral sugar reinforcement using a flavor-conditioning paradigm. We trained mice to associate consumption of a flavored solution (CS+) with intragastric (IG) infusions of a sweetener, and a different flavored solution (CS-) with IG infusions of water (23 h/day); then, we measured preference in a CS+ vs. CS- choice test. In experiment 1, we predicted that if activation of gut T1R3 mediates sugar reinforcement, then IG infusions of a nutritive (sucrose) or nonnutritive (sucralose) ligand for this receptor should condition a preference for the CS+ in B6 wild-type (WT) mice. While the mice that received IG sucrose infusions developed a strong preference for the CS+, those that received IG sucralose infusions developed a weak avoidance of the CS+. In experiment 2, we used T1R3 knockout (KO) mice to examine the necessity of gut T1R2+T1R3 receptors for conditioned flavor preferences. If intact gut T1R3 (or T1R2+T1R3) receptors are necessary for flavor-sugar conditioning, then T1R3 KO mice should not develop a sugar-conditioned flavor preference. We found that T1R3 KO mice, like WT mice, acquired a strong preference for the CS+ paired with IG sucrose infusions. The KO mice were also like WT mice in avoiding a CS+ flavor paired with IG sucralose infusions These findings provide clear evidence that gut T1R3 receptors are not necessary for sugar-conditioned flavor preferences or sucralose-induced flavor avoidance in mice.

CD36 gene deletion reduces fat preference and intake but not post-oral fat conditioning in mice

Several findings suggest the existence of a “fatty” taste, and the CD36 fatty acid translocase is a candidate taste receptor. The present study compared fat preference and acceptance in CD36 knockout (KO) and wild-type (WT) mice using nutritive (triglyceride and fatty acid) and nonnutritive (Sefa Soyate oil) emulsions. In two-bottle tests (24 h/day) naive KO mice, unlike WT mice, displayed little or no preference for dilute soybean oil, linoleic acid, or Sefa Soyate emulsions. At high concentrations (2.5–20%), KO mice developed significant soybean oil preferences, although they consumed less oil than WT mice. The postoral actions of fat likely conditioned these preferences. KO mice, like WT mice, learned to prefer a flavored solution paired with intragastric soybean oil infusions. These findings support CD36 mediation of a gustatory component to fat preference but demonstrate that it is not essential for fat-conditioned flavor preferences. The finding that oil-naive KO mice failed to prefer a nonnutritive oil, assumed to provide texture rather than taste cues, requires explanation. Finally, CD36 deletion decreased fat consumption and enhanced the ability of the mice to compensate for the calories provided by their optional fat intake.

Sugar and fat conditioned flavor preferences in C57BL/6J and 129 mice: oral and postoral interactions

C57BL/6J (B6) mice consume more sugar and fat solutions than do 129 mice in 24-h preference tests. Previous studies have attributed this observation to strain differences in taste responsiveness to these nutrients. We tested the hypothesis that differences in postingestive responsiveness contribute to the strain differences. In experiment 1, B6 and 129 mice were trained to associate consumption of a flavored solution (CS+) with intragastric (IG) infusions of 16% sucrose and a different flavored solution (CS−) with IG water infusions (22 h/day). They were then retrained with new flavors paired with IG infusions of 5.6% soybean oil and water. Although both strains developed preferences for the nutrient-paired CS+ solutions, the B6 mice displayed significantly stronger preferences. The B6 mice consumed more CS+ during training, which may have contributed to their enhanced preference. In a second experiment, training intakes were equated by giving B6 and 129 mice “isosweet” CS solutions prepared with different amounts of sucrose and saccharin. The B6 and 129 mice consumed more of the sugar- or fat-paired CS+ than the water-paired CS− during training. The two strains also displayed equally strong preferences for the CS+ over CS− in choice tests, indicating that they had similar postingestive responsiveness to the sucrose and soybean oil. We propose that B6 mice consume more sugar and fat than 129 mice because their stronger orosensory response stimulates greater intake, which leads to greater stimulation of postingestive nutrient detectors and further enhancement of consumption.

Gender-Based Differences in Rats after Chronic Dietary Exposure to Genistein

Gender-based differences can be observed from pharmacokinetic, behavioral, or anatomical assessments. No single assessment tool will provide a complete answer, but the use of a variety of indices, each with known gender-related outcome differences, can reveal agent-induced gender-based alterations. In a series of initial range-finding studies in rats conducted at the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), the effects of dietary exposure to the weak estrogen, genistein, have been assessed using a number of techniques with validated gender-related outcome measures. The findings indicated that (1) the internal dose of genistein was higher in females than males after equivalent dietary exposure and this was consistent with the faster rate of genistein elimination in males; (2) in behavioral assessments, males and females in the high-dose dietary genistein group consumed more of a sodium-flavored solution; however, no genistein-related changes were observed in open field or running wheel activity, play behavior, or intake of a saccharin-flavored solution; and (3) dose-related alterations of the volume of the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the medial preoptic area were observed in genistein-exposed male rats but not females. These observations describe the utility of a variety of gender-based assessment tools and indicate that dose-related effects of developmental and chronic dietary exposure to genistein can be observed in the rodent. Additional studies, perhaps in nonhuman primates, are necessary to further predict the effect(s) of genistein on human gender-based development.