Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Ghrelin, the endogenous ligand for the growth hormone secretagogue (GHS) receptor (1), induces a hyperphagic response when delivered centrally (2,6). GHS receptors are located on neuropeptide Y (NPY)/agouti-related protein neurons in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (ARC) (7), and it is generally held that projections from these neurons to those in the paraventricular nucleus (PVN) and perhaps in other hypothalamic regions are an essential link in the downstream mediation of the orexigenic actions of ghrelin (8,9). Consistent with this view is evidence showing that ghrelin induces c-fos expression (5,1012) and NPY mRNA expression in ARC (10,13,14) and stimulates electrophysiological activity in NPY/agouti-related protein neurons (8,15). Central administration of either ghrelin or NPY also activates c-fos expression in the PVN (1618), an area with strong expression of NPY-Y1 and Y5 receptors (19). Functional support for the mediation of ghrelin hyperphagia by NPY systems comes from pharmacological studies in which NPY antibodies (14) or receptor antagonists (3,5,20,21) were shown to abolish ghrelin-induced feeding. The results of these studies, in which ligands were delivered to forebrain ventricles, are consistent with the view that the relevant GHS and NPY receptors are contained within the hypothalamus.
The anatomical extent of the substrates supporting the ghrelin-NPY interaction relevant to feeding control, however, remains open to question. Attribution of a hypothalamic site of action for the pharmacological studies is tenuous, given that the caudal flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) through the ventricular system carries ligands to behaviorally potent receptor populations in the caudal brainstem (CBS). Thus, with ghrelin and the NPY receptor antagonist both delivered to the third or lateral ventricles (20,21), it is possible that CBS receptors and circuits contribute to either or both the primary ghrelin effect and its reversal. GHS receptors are clearly represented in the CBS (22,23), as are the NPY receptor subtypes most commonly implicated in the control of ingestive behavior (2427). Targeted stimulation of brainstem GHS receptors (6) or NPY receptors (28,29), moreover, yields robust hyperphagic responses at low doses. Furthermore, as shown below, delivery of NPY antagonists to the fourth (hindbrain) ventricle completely reverses the hyperphagic response observed when ghrelin is administered through the same cannula. The parity of the results derived from CBS and forebrain drug administration points to a number of possible sites for ghrelin-NPY interactions, within and between different brain regions, any or all of which might be necessary for the expression of ghrelin hyperphagia.
The substrates underlying the ghrelin-NPY interactions are parsed here via the "cerebral aqueduct occlusion" method, in which a grease plug restricts the flow of injected ligands through the ventricular system. Aqueduct occlusion causes no overt effects on the animal and no changes in body weight or food intake and has provided decisive evidence about CBS versus forebrain sites of action for other drug treatments. Examples include the hypophagic effects of the cocaine- and amphetamine-related transcript (30) and the hyperphagic and glycemic effects of 5-thio-D-glucose (31), which are observed upon either forebrain or brainstem ventricle administration. In both cases, however, when the flow of CSF was blocked via aqueduct occlusion, forebrain treatment was no longer effective, indicating that the effects observed reflected stimulation of receptor populations specifically within the CBS (see also 32). By contrast, a forebrain site of action for the dipsogenic response to angiotensin II is affirmed by the persistence of the third intracerebroventricular elicited response when the aqueduct is occluded and by the ineffectiveness of fourth intracerebroventricular treatment (33).
Here, the aqueduct occlusion method is applied in a series of experiments in which ghrelin is delivered to either the third or fourth ventricles. Possible within-level mechanisms for the NPY mediation of ghrelin hyperphagia are explored in "same-ventricle" studies, in which ghrelin and NPY antagonists are delivered together to the fourth or to the third ventricle. "Cross-ventricle" studies (in which ghrelin and antagonists are delivered to opposite sides of the occluded aqueduct) explore the possibility that long projection systems are (also) required for the NPY mediation of ghrelin hyperphagia.
A full set of same-ventricle and cross-ventricle studies are performed with each of two NPY receptor antagonists. The first, 1229U91, is a well-characterized and relatively selective NPY-Y1 receptor antagonist (34) with some agonist activity at the NPY-Y4 receptor (35). The second, D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 (36), is a COOH-terminal NPY fragment with contrasting subtype selectivity; available evidence suggests that it is unlikely to bind to the Y1 receptor (37). The two antagonists were similarly effective at reversing ghrelin hyperphagia in "open-ventricle" experiments but differentially potent in aqueduct occlusion experiments, depending on site of administration. Overall, the results presented below reveal the limitations of the intrinsic hypothalamic model for the downstream mediation of ghrelin hyperphagia and compel a broader anatomical perspective for ghrelin-NPY interactions in the control of ingestive behavior.
![]() |
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Surgery.
Rats were anesthetized with a mixture of ketamine (9 mg/kg) and xylazine (1.5 mg/kg i.m.). Rats received a 22-gauge guide cannula (Plastics One, Roanoke, VA) implanted 2 mm above an injection site in the third and/or fourth ventricle (experiments 1 and 4), and for experiments 2, 3, 5, and 6, an additional 19-gauge guide cannula was implanted into the cerebral aqueduct. The third-ventricle cannula was positioned on the midline, 2.0 mm posterior to bregma and 7.7 mm below the skull surface. Fourth ventricle coordinates were on the midline, 2.5 mm anterior to the occipital suture and 5.2 mm below the skull surface. The aqueduct cannulas were angled 11° in the lateral-midline direction and guided to a position on the midline, 7 mm posterior to bregma and 5 mm below the dura. The cannulas were attached to the skull with jewelers screws and dental acrylic and closed with obturators.
Verification of cannula positions.
Ventricular cannula placements were evaluated functionally after at least 7 days of recovery from surgery through measurement of the sympathetically mediated hyperglycemic response to 210 µg of 5-thio-D-glucose in 2 µl of artificial CSF (31). Only rats that showed at least a twofold increase of plasma glucose level in response to this treatment were used in the experiments.
Drug preparation and injection.
Rat ghrelin (Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Belmont, CA) and the NPY receptor antagonists 1229U91 (Neosystems) and D-Tyr27,36, Thr32 NPY2736 (Bachem, King of Prussia, PA) were dissolved in artificial CSF and stored at 80°C. The 150-pmol ghrelin dose is known to be a moderate, supra-threshold dose for the feeding response upon forebrain ventricular delivery (5). The 5-nmol dose of 1229U91 had been shown to reverse melanin-concentrating hormone-induced hyperphagia by 86% (38); a lower dose (2 nmol) reduced NPY-induced feeding by 48% (39). The 10-µg dose of D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 was shown to reverse ghrelin-induced hyperphagia when delivered to the lateral ventricle (21).
Drugs and vehicle were delivered via a microsyringe (Hamilton, Reno, NV) with a 28-gauge injector that extended beyond the guide cannula and into the ventricle. All treatment conditions consisted of two injections: ghrelin + vehicle, NPY receptor antagonist + vehicle, vehicle + vehicle, or NPY antagonist + ghrelin, delivered in two 1-µl bolus injections separated by a 30-s pause. The injector was kept in place for an additional 30 s after the last bolus. All drug injections were delivered in the 2nd h of the light phase. On at least two occasions before experimental testing, rats were given vehicle injections to habituate them to the injection procedure. In all experiments, food intake (dish weight difference minus spillage) was measured 1.5, 3, and 24 h after injection.
Aqueduct occlusion: delivery and verification.
For experiments in which cerebral aqueduct occlusion was employed (experiments 2, 3, 5, and 6), 5 µl of a 50:50 ratio of High Vacuum grease (Dow Corning) and Dialectic Connector grease (VersaChem) mixed with 0.1 µg of fast green dye (for visualization) was injected via a 100-µl Hamilton syringe into the cerebral aqueduct 1 h before drug injections on the aqueduct occlusion test day.
Aqueduct occlusion was verified functionally by 5-thio-D-glucose injection after testing. Rats with third intracerebroventricular cannulas were included in the analysis only when the injection failed to increase plasma glucose. For histological verification, black India Ink (2 µl) was injected through the cannula just before the rats were killed. Brains were removed and postfixed in a 10% sucrose-formalin solution. Mid-sagittal sections were cut and then examined under a dissection microscope for verification of aqueduct occlusion. Only data for animals showing no ink in the opposite ventricle were included in the analysis.
Experimental design.
The study consisted of six experiments in two series of three experiments each: the first three (experiments 1, 2, and 3) used 1229U91, and the second three (experiments 4, 5, and 6) used D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736. The initial experiment in each series (experiments 1 and 4) consisted of two groups of rats, one with third intracerebroventricular cannulas (experiment 1a, n = 10; experiment 4a, n = 7) and one with fourth intracerebroventricular cannulas (experiment 1b, n = 13; experiment 4b, n = 7). All rats in each group received each of four treatment combinations (ghrelin + vehicle, NPY antagonist + vehicle, vehicle + vehicle, or NPY antagonist + ghrelin) delivered in counterbalanced order with 2 days between test sessions.
The second in each series (experiments 2 and 5) consisted of two groups of rats, one with third ventricle and cerebral aqueduct cannulas (experiment 2a, n = 12; experiment 5a, n = 14) and one with fourth ventricle and aqueduct cannulas (experiment 2b, n = 16; experiment 5b, n = 9). All rats received vehicle + vehicle as a baseline condition before insertion of the aqueduct occlusion. For the postocclusion treatment conditions, rats were divided into two subgroups receiving either ghrelin + vehicle or ghrelin + NPY antagonist.
The third in each series (experiments 3 and 6) consisted of two groups of rats, with all rats receiving three cannulas positioned, respectively, above the third and fourth ventricles and into the cerebral aqueduct. In experiment 3a, rats received ghrelin into the third ventricle and 1229U91 into the fourth ventricle (n = 6) or ghrelin into the third ventricle and vehicle into the fourth ventricle (n = 6) after aqueduct occlusion. In experiment 3b, rats received ghrelin into the fourth ventricle and 1229U91 into the third ventricle (n = 8) or ghrelin into the fourth ventricle and vehicle into the third ventricle (n = 8) after aqueduct occlusion. In experiment 6a, animals received ghrelin into the third ventricle and D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 into the fourth ventricle (n = 5) or ghrelin into the third ventricle and vehicle into the fourth ventricle (n = 4). In experiment 6b, animals received ghrelin into the fourth ventricle and D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 into the third ventricle (n = 6) or ghrelin into the fourth ventricle and vehicle (n = 7) into the third ventricle.
Data analysis.
For experiments 1 and 4, two-way (ventricle x drug condition) repeated-measures ANOVAs were used to evaluate overall treatment effects, and Tukeys honestly significant difference post hoc tests were used to evaluate pairwise intake differences among the four conditions. Separate analyses were conducted for intake measured 1.5 and 3 h after treatment. For experiments 2, 3, 5, and 6, reversal of ghrelin hyperphagia was assessed by a two-tailed independent-samples t test comparing the size of the ghrelin effect in rats receiving ghrelin alone after aqueduct occlusion (ghrelin + vehicle minus vehicle + vehicle) with the intake difference between the ghrelin + Y receptor antagonist condition and vehicle + vehicle baseline.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
Experiment 3. Ghrelin and 1229U91: cross-ventricle studies with aqueduct occlusion
Experiment 3a: ghrelin into third ventricle; 1229U91 into fourth ventricle.
Figure 3A (right) shows the reversal of the hyperphagic response to third intracerebroventricular ghrelin delivery at the 3-h time point with Y1 receptor antagonist delivery to the fourth ventricle (t(7) = 3.04, P < 0.02). For the 1.5-h time point, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.09).
|
Experiment 4. Ghrelin and D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736: open-ventricle studies.
Figure 4 shows the results for the four treatment conditions delivered to the third (experiment 4a) and fourth (experiment 4b) ventricles. The results with the present antagonist were generally consistent with those described for 1229U91 (experiment 1). The ANOVAs (for each ventricle placement and each of the two time points) indicated a significant main effect of injection condition in all cases (P < 0.001). A hyperphagic response to ghrelin was obtained in each case (vehicle + ghrelin versus vehicle + vehicle; P < 0.01). For third intracerebroventricular delivery, the antagonist reversed the hyperphagic response to ghrelin at the 1.5-h time point (P < 0.03), but at 3 h, there was no longer a significant difference between the ghrelin + D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 and ghrelin + vehicle conditions (P = 0.66). For the fourth ventricle (Fig. 4B), the trend toward reversal approached but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.07) 1.5 h after treatment. By the 3-h time point, a highly significant reversal was obtained (P = 0.008).
|
|
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Perhaps the most salient counterexamples to the intrinsic hypothalamic model were provided by studies with the NPY-Y1 receptor antagonist 1229U91. A reversal of the hyperphagic response to ghrelin by 1229U91 delivery to the third ventricle was obtained, but only when the caudal flow of CSF was not obstructed (experiment 1a). Ghrelin hyperphagia persisted with aqueduct occlusion (experiment 2a), but the response was no longer affected by administration of the antagonist. It appears, then, that activation of hindbrain Y1 receptors is critical for the expression of the response to forebrain GHS receptor stimulation. This inference was further supported by the cross-ventricle study (experiment 3a) in which the hyperphagia triggered by third intracerebroventricular ghrelin was reversed by 1229U91 delivery to the fourth ventricle. Activation of CBS Y1 receptors (19) also appears to be necessary for the ingestive response stimulated by CBS ghrelin administration. This was indicated by complete reversal of the hyperphagic response when ghrelin and 1229U91 were coadministered to the fourth ventricle in experiments both with (experiment 2b) and without (experiment 1b) aqueduct occlusion. These results, taken together, indicate that endogenous activation of Y1 receptor within the CBS is necessary for the hyperphagic response triggered by either forebrain or hindbrain ghrelin treatment. Activation of forebrain Y1 receptors is not required for ingestive response to ghrelin delivery at either placement.
Although ghrelin-NPY interactions within the hypothalamus are not sufficient to fully account for the forebrain-elicited ghrelin response, work with the second receptor antagonist D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 indicates that there is a within-hypothalamus interaction that is necessary for this response. In contrast to the result obtained with 1229U91, D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 coadministered with ghrelin to the third ventricle with aqueduct occlusion (experiment 5a) reversed the hyperphagic response. Thus, the response arising from GHS receptor stimulation within the forebrain, interestingly, appears to require the simultaneous activation of NPY receptors in both forebrain and CBS but with different subtypes of relevance in the two regions: Y1 receptors within the CBS and a different NPY receptor subtype (36), perhaps the Y5 receptor, within the forebrain (25,40).
A different set of conclusions is reached for the NPY mediation of ghrelin hyperphagia elicited from the CBS placement. First, there appears to be no requirement for activation of forebrain NPY receptors; results of the cross-ventricle studies (experiments 3b and 6b) were negative. Within the CBS, activity at both sets of NPY receptors bound by the respective antagonists is necessary for the hyperphagic response. The fourth intracerebroventricularelicited ghrelin response was reversed by Y1 receptor antagonist delivery to the CBS. This, in fact, is the common feature for response reversal for both intracerebroventricular placements, although it is not clear whether activation of the same or different subsets of CBS Y1 receptors is relevant to the responses driven by forebrain and CBS GHS receptor stimulation. For receptors bound by D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736, those relevant for the CBS-elicited response reside within the CBS proper. This was the clearest contrast between the respective responses to CBS and forebrain ghrelin delivery. This antagonist was effective when coadministered with ghrelin through the same intracerebroventricular cannula (fourth or third intracerebroventricular), but not effective when the ligands were delivered to different sides of the occluded aqueduct (experiments 6a and 6b).
Our analysis of the NPY receptors underlying ghrelin hyperphagia raises a set of questions concerning the location of the NPY neurons driven, respectively, by forebrain and CBS GHS receptor stimulation. It is possible that ARC neurons are required for all centrally elicited responses, regardless of the trigger site. The account would be straightforward for the third intracerebroventricularelicited ghrelin response. Thus, ARC projections to neurons expressing receptors bound by D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 (in, for example, PVN or lateral hypothalamus) could anchor an intrinsically hypothalamic component of the mediating circuit. Descending projections from ARC, although considered weak and not far reaching (41), may be sufficient to provide the requisite stimulation of Y1 receptors expressing neurons in the CBS. An ARC-based account of the fourth intracerebroventricularelicited response, however, would appear less parsimonious. It would require "a long-loop arrangement," given that the GHS and all relevant NPY receptors reside within the CBS. Here, ascending projections of unknown phenotype must engage ARC NPY neurons that would then, via descending projections, provide the presynaptic drive for both classes of relevant NPY Y receptor subtypes within the CBS.
Another limitation for the ARC NPY model for the mediation of ghrelin hyperphagia is the exclusion of a potential contribution from NPY neurons within the CBS (42,43), some of which, particularly those in the nucleus of the solitary tract, are of demonstrated relevance to the control of ingestive behavior (44,45). It is possible that the fourth intracerebroventricular ghrelin response is mediated by a circuit contained entirely within the CBS and also that hindbrain NPY neurons, by virtue of their local and ascending projection systems (46), contribute in some measure to the hyperphagic response to forebrain GHS receptor stimulation. A number of questions must be addressed before the mediating circuitry for centrally elicited ghrelin hyperphagia can be elucidated. Further attention should be directed toward the NPY neurons in the hindbrain, including investigation of possible GHS receptor coexpression, and of the location and neurochemical properties of behaviorally relevant projection sites elsewhere within the CBS. Functional-anatomical studies may prove particularly useful if coordinated with strategies allowing stimulation of restricted subpopulations of GHS receptors. For example, it should be possible in rats with cerebral aqueduct occlusion to ascertain whether NPY neurons in either or both CBS and ARC are activated after delivery of ghrelin to the third or fourth ventricle and to characterize the neuraxial location and phenotypes of NPY receptorexpressing neurons that are activated by these treatments.
In summary, the present results introduce a considerable degree of complexity for the NPY mediation of centrally elicited ghrelin hyperphagia, with the subtype and location of NPY receptors critical for the behavioral response differing, depending on whether the response was elicited by forebrain or hindbrain GHS receptor stimulation. The area of overlap for hyperphagia triggered in the separate locations was a requirement for activation of NPY-Y1 receptors in the CBS, whereas critical receptors bound by D-Tyr27,36, D-Thr32 NPY2736 (possibly the Y5 receptor) were always local to (or at modest distances from) the site of ghrelin delivery. The cells of origin for the endogenous ligand mediating CBS- and forebrain-elicited ghrelin hyperphagia remain to be determined, with likely candidates including NPY neurons in the ARC and those in CBS nuclei such as the nucleus of the solitary tract. Also open is the question of which NPY neurons and receptor subpopulation(s) are most relevant under physiological conditions where both forebrain and CBS receptors are likely to be stimulated simultaneously. Some of the considerations raised in the present study are likely to be relevant for analysis of various neurochemical systems implicated in food intake and body weight control, particularly when a given hormone (e.g., leptin [47]) or peptide mediator (e.g., melanocortins [48,49]) yields comparable effects when delivered selectively to different regions of the brain.
![]() |
NOTE ADDED IN PROOF |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
We thank Rebecca Stack, Gina Gubitosa, and Joanna Wapner for their technical contribution to the studies.
![]() |
FOOTNOTES |
---|
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Lucy F. Faulconbridge, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: lucyhf{at}sas.upenn.edu
Received for publication December 17, 2004 and accepted in revised form April 7, 2005
ARC, arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus; CBS, caudal brainstem; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; NPY, neuropeptide Y; PVN, paraventricular nucleus
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|