Endogenous opioids and cannabinoids: System interactions in the regulation of appetite, grooming and scratching

Tallett, A.J.; Blundell, John; Rodgers, R.J.

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.02.009

Cited by 32 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the former, there is an extensive literature connecting the endocannabinoid system with the regulation of food intake and energy metabolism (Silvestri et al, 2011; Li et al, 2011; Di Marzo et al, 2009; Kunos et al, 2008; Nogueiras et al, 2008). Previous research has shown that systemically co-administered cannabinoid and opioid agents interact to modify feeding on both pabulum and palatable foods (Kirkham and Williams, 2001; Rowland et al, 2001; Tallett et al, 2008; Williams and Kirkham, 2002). A number of manuscripts have reported that the stimulation of cannabinoid receptors within the ventral striatum, and particularly within the nucleus accumbens shell, enhances food intake and affects the hedonic response to sapid solutions (Deshmukh and Sharma, 2012; Kirkham et al, 2002; Mahler et al, 2007; Shinohara et al, 2009; Soria-Gómez et al, 2007).…”

Section: Cortico-striatal-hypothalamic Circuits That Subserve the mentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles of motivation revealed by the diverse functions of neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical substrates underlying feeding behavior

Baldo

Pratt

Will

et al. 2013

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Circuits that participate in specific subcomponents of feeding (e.g., gustatory perception, peripheral feedback relevant to satiety and energy balance, reward coding, etc.) are found at all levels of the neural axis. Further complexity is conferred by the wide variety of feeding-modulatory neurotransmitters and neuropeptides that act within these circuits. An ongoing challenge has been to refine the understanding of the functional specificity of these neurotransmitters and circuits, and there have been exciting advances in recent years. We focus here on foundational work of Dr. Ann Kelley that identified distinguishable actions of striatal opioid peptide modulation and dopamine transmission in subcomponents of reward processing. We also discuss her work in overlaying these neuropharmacological effects upon anatomical pathways that link the telencephalon (cortex and basal ganglia) with feeding-control circuits in the hypothalamus. Using these seminal contributions as a starting point, we will discuss new findings that expand our understanding of (1) the specific, differentiable motivational processes that are governed by central dopamine and opioid transmission, (2) the manner in which other striatal neuromodulators, specifically acetylcholine, endocannabinoids and adenosine, modulate these motivational processes (including via interactions with opioid systems), and (3) the organization of the cortical-subcortical network that subserves opioid-driven feeding. The findings discussed here strengthen the view that incentive-motivational properties of food are coded by substrates and neural circuits that are distinguishable from those that mediate the acute hedonic experience of food reward. Striatal opioid transmission modulates reward processing by engaging frontotemporal circuits, possibly via a hypothalamic-thalamic axis, that ultimately impinges upon hypothalamic modules dedicated to autonomic function and motor pattern control. We will conclude by discussing implications for understanding disorders of “non-homeostatic” feeding.

show abstract

Section: Cortico-striatal-hypothalamic Circuits That Subserve the mentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles of motivation revealed by the diverse functions of neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical substrates underlying feeding behavior

Baldo

Pratt

Will

et al. 2013

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, emerging evidence suggests that these systems may interact to synergistically influence eating. For example, several laboratories have shown that systemic co-administration of CB 1 cannabinoid and mu-opioid receptor antagonists decreases feeding in the rat (Kirkham and Williams, 2001; Rowland et al, 2001; Tallett et al, 2008). Likewise, food intake elicited by peripheral injections of a CB 1 agonist is blocked by concomitant administration of a mu-opioid receptor antagonist (Williams and Kirkham, 2002), while feeding induced by systemic or hypothalamic morphine injection was attenuated by blocking CB 1 receptors either systemically or at the level of the hypothalamus (Verty et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CB1 receptors modulate the intake of a sweetened-fat diet in response to mu-opioid receptor stimulation of the nucleus accumbens

Skelly

Guy

Howlett

et al. 2010

Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated that concurrent systemic administration of CB1 cannabinoid and mu-opioid receptor agonists increases feeding in rats. However, the possible neural loci of this cooperative effect have yet to be identified. These studies tested whether the nucleus accumbens shell may be one site of the interactive effects of opioid and cannabinoid ligands on feeding. Injection of the mu-opioid agonist DAMGO (at 0, .025, .25, or 2.5 μg/0.5 μl/side) directly into the rat nucleus accumbens shell increased feeding on a sweetened fat diet, and this effect was blocked by pretreatment with either the mu-opioid antagonist naltrexone (20 μg/0.5 μl/side) or the CB1 antagonist SR141716 (0.5 μg/0.5 μl/side). Activation of nucleus accumbens shell CB1 receptors with WIN55212-2 alone (at .1 or .5 μg/0.5 μl/side) had no apparent effect on food intake. However, local injections of the low dose of DAMGO (.025 μg/0.5 μl/side) in this region along with WIN55212-2 (at .25 or .50 μg/0.5 μl/side) increased feeding above that induced by DAMGO alone. These data suggest an important modulatory role for cannabinoid receptors in the expression of feeding behaviors in response to mu-opioid receptor activation of the nucleus accumbens shell.

show abstract

“…However, there also may be substantial differences between the effects of CB1 receptor blockade and prefeeding. AM 251 and SR 141716A, at doses at or below those that reduce food intake, have been shown to produce nonmotivational effects that potentially interfere with food intake, such as nausea (McLaughlin et al, 2005a) and biting and scratching (Hodge et al, 2008; Tallett et al, 2007, 2008). Similar to the suppression of fast responding in the present study, these effects, while relevant to the therapeutic potential of CB1 blockade as an antiobesity treatment, are not likely the main cause of the anorectic effect (Chambers et al, 2006; Hodge et al, 2008; Sink et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detailed analysis of food-reinforced operant lever pressing distinguishes effects of a cannabinoid CB1 inverse agonist and dopamine D1 and D2 antagonists

McLaughlin¹,

Winston²,

Swezey³

et al. 2010

Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overt similarities exist between the effects of systemic cannabinoid CB1 inverse agonists and dopamine (DA) antagonists on appetitive behavior. The present set of studies was undertaken to apply a fine-grained analysis of food-reinforced operant lever pressing in rats in order to compare the pattern of effects produced by administration of the CB1 inverse agonist AM 251 and those induced by the DA D1 antagonist SKF 83566, and the D2 antagonist raclopride. Three groups of rats were trained on a fixed-ratio 5 (FR5) schedule and administered these compounds over a range of doses expected to suppress responding. All three drugs produced a dose-related suppression of total lever pressing. In addition to main effects of dose, regression analyses were performed to determine which of several response timing- and rate-related variables correlated most strongly with overall responding in each group. It was found that total session time spent pausing from responding was significantly better at predicting responding in the AM 251 group, while both DA antagonists produced significantly stronger regression coefficients (vs. AM 251) from fast responding measures. These results suggest that, while several similarities exist, CB1, D1, and D2 antagonists are not identical in their pattern of suppression of food-maintained lever pressing.

show abstract

Endogenous opioids and cannabinoids: System interactions in the regulation of appetite, grooming and scratching

Cited by 32 publications

References 67 publications

Principles of motivation revealed by the diverse functions of neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical substrates underlying feeding behavior

Principles of motivation revealed by the diverse functions of neuropharmacological and neuroanatomical substrates underlying feeding behavior

CB1 receptors modulate the intake of a sweetened-fat diet in response to mu-opioid receptor stimulation of the nucleus accumbens

Detailed analysis of food-reinforced operant lever pressing distinguishes effects of a cannabinoid CB1 inverse agonist and dopamine D1 and D2 antagonists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About