Muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic receptor antagonists differentially mediate acquisition of fructose-conditioned flavor preference and quinine-conditioned flavor avoidance in rats.

Rats display both conditioned flavor preference (CFP) for fructose, and conditioned flavor avoidance (CFA) following sweet adulteration with quinine. Previous pharmacological analyses revealed that fructose-CFP expression was significantly reduced by dopamine (DA) D1 or D2 antagonists, but not NMDA or opioid antagonists. Fructose-CFP acquisition was significantly reduced by DA D1, DA D2 or NMDA antagonists, but not opioid antagonists. Quinine-CFA acquisition was significantly enhanced and prolonged by DA D1, NMDA or opioid, but not DA D2 antagonists. Cholinergic interneurons and projections interact with DA systems in the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area. Further, both muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic receptor signaling have been implicated in sweet intake and development of food-related preferences. Therefore, the present study examined whether systemic administration of muscarinic (scopolamine: SCOP) or nicotinic (mecamylamine: MEC) cholinergic receptor antagonists mediated fructose-CFP expression, fructose-CFP acquisition and quinine-CFA acquisition. For fructose-CFP expression, rats were trained over 10 sessions with a CS+ flavor in 8% fructose and 0.2% saccharin and a CS- flavor in 0.2% saccharin. Two-bottle choice tests with CS+ and CS- flavors mixed in 0.2% saccharin occurred following vehicle, SCOP (0.1-10mg/kg) and MEC (1-8mg/kg). For fructose-CFP acquisition, six groups of rats received vehicle, SCOP (1 or 2.5mg/kg), MEC (4 or 6mg/kg) or a limited intake vehicle control 0.5h prior to 10 CS+ and CS- training sessions followed by six 2-bottle CS+ and CS- choice tests in 0.2% saccharin. For quinine-CFA acquisition, five groups of rats received vehicle, SCOP (1 or 2.5mg/kg) or MEC (4 or 6mg/kg) 0.5h prior to 8 one-bottle CS- (8% fructose+0.2% saccharin: FS) and CS+ (fructose+saccharin+quinine (0.030%: FSQ) training sessions followed by six 2-bottle CS- and CS+ choice tests in fructose-saccharin solutions. Fructose-CFP expression was significantly reduced by SCOP (2.5-10mg/kg: 65-68%) and MEC (4-8mg/kg: 67-73%) relative to vehicle (89-90%), that occurred only when antagonist doses reduced total saccharin intake but in which CS+ intake was still significantly higher than CS- intake. Fructose-CFP acquisition was eliminated by SCOP at doses of 1 (40-54%) and 2.5 (45-58%)mg/kg, and was accompanied by a failure to observe CS+ and CS- intake differences during testing relative to vehicle (85-92%) and limited control (74-88%) conditions. In contrast, MEC failed to alter fructose-CFP acquisition. Quinine-CFA acquisition was significantly enhanced and prolonged by MEC at 4 (18-24%) and 6 (11-13%) mg/kg relative to vehicle (34-48%). In contrast, SCOP failed to alter quinine-CFA acquisition. These data implicate the cholinergic receptor system in mediating acquisition (learning) of sugar-induced preferences and quinine-induced aversions with muscarinic receptor signaling controlling the former and nicotinic receptor signaling controlling the latter.

Pleasure and pain: teaching neuroscientific principles of hedonism in a large general education undergraduate course.

In a large (250 registrants) general education lecture course, neuroscience principles were taught by two professors as co-instructors, starting with simple brain anatomy, chemistry, and function, proceeding to basic brain circuits of pleasure and pain, and progressing with fellow expert professors covering relevant philosophical, artistic, marketing, and anthropological issues. With this as a base, the course wove between fields of high relevance to psychology and neuroscience, such as food addiction and preferences, drug seeking and craving, analgesic pain-inhibitory systems activated by opiates and stress, neuroeconomics, unconscious decision-making, empathy, and modern neuroscientific techniques (functional magnetic resonance imaging and event-related potentials) presented by the co-instructors and other Psychology professors. With no formal assigned textbook, all lectures were PowerPoint-based, containing links to supplemental public-domain material. PowerPoints were available on Blackboard several days before the lecture. All lectures were also video-recorded and posted that evening. The course had a Facebook page for after-class conversation and one of the co-instructors communicated directly with students on Twitter in real time during lecture to provide momentary clarification and comment. In addition to graduate student Teaching Assistants (TAs), to allow for small group discussion, ten undergraduate students who performed well in a previous class were selected to serve as discussion leaders. The Discussion Leaders met four times at strategic points over the semester with groups of 20-25 current students, and received one credit of Independent Study, thus creating a course within a course. The course grade was based on weighted scores from two multiple-choice exams and a five-page writing assignment in which each student reviewed three unique, but brief original peer-review research articles (one page each) combined with expository writing on the first and last pages. A draft of the first page, collected early in the term, was returned to each student by graduate TAs to provide individual feedback on scientific writing. Overall the course has run three times at ful or near enrollment capacity despite being held at an 8:00 AM time slot. Student-generated teaching evaluations place it well within the normal range, while this format importantly contributes to budget efficiency permitting the teaching of more required small-format courses (e.g., freshman writing). The demographics of the course have changed to one in which the vast majority of the students are now outside the disciplines of neuroscience or psychology and are taking the course to fulfill a General Education requirement. This pattern allows the wide dissemination of basic neuroscientific knowledge to a general college audience.

Dopamine receptor signaling in the medial orbital frontal cortex and the acquisition and expression of fructose-conditioned flavor preferences in rats.

Systemic dopamine (DA) D1 (SCH23390: SCH) and D2 (raclopride: RAC) antagonists blocked fructose-conditioned flavor preference (CFP) acquisition and expression. Fructose-CFP acquisition was eliminated by medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) SCH and mPFC or amygdala (AMY) RAC. Fructose-CFP expression was reduced following SCH or RAC in AMY or nucleus accumbens (NAc). The present study examined fructose-CFP acquisition and expression following SCH and RAC in the medial orbital frontal cortex (MOFC), another ventral tegmental area DA target. For fructose-CFP acquisition, five groups of rats received vehicle, SCH (24 or 48 nmol) or RAC (24 or 48 nmol) in the MOFC 0.5h prior to 8 training sessions with one flavor (CS+/Fs) mixed in 8% fructose and 0.2% saccharin, and another flavor (CS-/s) mixed in 0.2% saccharin. In six 2-bottle choice tests in 0.2% saccharin, similar fructose-CFP preferences occurred in groups trained with vehicle (76-77%), SCH24 (69-78%), SCH48 (70-74%) and RAC48 (85-92%). RAC24-trained rats displayed significant CS+ preferences during the first (79%) and third (71%), but not second (58%) test pair. For fructose-CFP expression, rats similarly trained with CS+/Fs and CS- solutions received 2-bottle choice tests following MOFC injections of SCH or RAC (12-48 nmol). CS+ preference expression was significantly reduced by RAC (48 nmol: 58%), but not SCH relative to vehicle (78%). A control group receiving RAC in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex displayed fructose-CFP expression similar to vehicle. These data demonstrate differential frontal cortical DA mediation of fructose-CFP with mPFC D1 and D2 signaling exclusively mediating acquisition, and MOFC D2 signaling primarily mediating expression.