Next Article in Journal
Validation of a Vitamin D Specific Questionnaire to Determine Vitamin D Status in Athletes
Previous Article in Journal
Multiple Micronutrient Powder Reduces Vitamin E Deficiency in Brazilian Children: A Pragmatic, Controlled Clinical Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nutritional Contingency Reduces Alcohol Drinking by Altering Central Neurotransmitter Receptor Gene Expression in Rats

1
Laboratory of Endocrine and Neuropsychiatric Disorders, Division of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA 70125, USA
2
Department of Integrative Physiology and Neuroscience, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2019, 11(11), 2731; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112731
Submission received: 24 September 2019 / Revised: 25 October 2019 / Accepted: 6 November 2019 / Published: 11 November 2019

Abstract

:
We have previously shown that 6 weeks of intermittent high-fat diet (Int-HFD) pre-exposure significantly reduced alcohol drinking in rats, providing preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of a dietary intervention in reducing alcohol intake. However, the functional framework and underlying neurobiological mechanisms of such dietary intervention are unknown. Here, we examined the impact of Int-HFD pre-exposure duration on alcohol drinking, plasma feeding peptides, and central neurotransmitter receptors gene expression. Male Long Evans rats (n = 6–7/group) received no pre-exposure, 1 or 2 weeks pre-exposure to Int-HFD and alcohol drinking (two-bottle choice) was evaluated. We observed HFD pre-exposure-dependent decrease in alcohol drinking, with a significant decrease observed following 2 weeks of Int-HFD pre-exposure. No significant between-group differences in plasma feeding peptides (i.e., ghrelin, leptin, insulin) were detected. A PCR array revealed that the expression of several neurotransmitter receptors was significantly (p < 0.05 and ≥2-fold) altered in the striatum and ventral tegmental area compared to controls. These data suggest that pre-exposure to a palatable diet is critical to reduce alcohol drinking in rats, possibly through genetic alterations in the brain reward circuitry. Importantly, the present study is a step forward in identifying the critical framework needed to evaluate the therapeutic potential of nutritional contingency in the management of alcoholism.

1. Introduction

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is a debilitating disease afflicting ~15.1 million Americans [1] and ~3 million deaths worldwide are attributed to alcohol yearly [2]. Current FDA-approved drugs for AUD reduce alcohol consumption by producing an aversive reaction upon alcohol consumption (i.e., Disulfiram), modulating glutamatergic neurotransmission (i.e., Acamprosate), or reducing rewarding effects of alcohol by blocking opioidergic neurotransmission (i.e., Naltrexone). However, impaired emotional, physiological and metabolic status observed in patients diagnosed with AUD adversely affects treatment outcomes and ~2/3 of the patients relapse, which remains a major hurdle to the successful treatment of alcoholism [3,4,5].
Alcohol is unique among abused drugs in that it possesses calories and problematic alcohol consumption reduces nutrient intake and absorption [6]. Importantly, alcoholics have lower body weight and reduced body mass index compared to healthy controls, which signify a poor nutritional status [7,8], a condition that could contribute to AUD pathology [7,9]. Interestingly, alcoholics display an increased intake of highly palatable food during recovery [10,11]. However, it is unclear if this is an attempt to restore caloric deficits or to alleviate the negative consequences of alcohol withdrawal. In this regard, it is now clear that neuroendocrine peptides regulate both energy balance and reinforcing properties of alcohol by interacting with brain reward circuitry (reviewed in Vadnie et al., 2014). Therefore, a compromised nutritional status may further exacerbate various behavioral impairments observed in alcoholics and could substantially contribute to this chronic relapsing disorder. Improving nutritional status during abstinence may not only compensate for general malnutrition in AUD but also could serve to ameliorate some of the adverse symptoms observed in alcohol withdrawal, thereby enhancing the prospects of other behavioral and pharmacological strategies for the management of alcoholism. However, the correction of nutritional deficiencies and a balanced diet approach are often overlooked as important treatment components for AUD. Furthermore, functional components of such a dietary intervention are also unclear.
It is also important to note that the manner by which exposure to palatable diets can influence alcohol drinking behavior is poorly understood as multiple factors (e.g., macronutrient composition, exposure duration) can modulate the impact of palatable food-intake on alcohol drinking [12,13]. Therefore, it is critically important to assess the functional framework before testing such a nutritional intervention in the management of alcoholism. In this regard, a recent study from our lab indicated that six-weeks of intermittent pre-exposure to a nutritionally complete high-fat diet (HFD) attenuated alcohol drinking in rats [14,15], which has important clinical implications in the management of AUD. However, critical components (e.g., minimum effective exposure, duration of treatment, administration frequency) and underlying neurobiological mechanisms of intermittent HFD-induced reduced alcohol drinking are unknown. Therefore, the present study examined the impact of intermittent HFD pre-exposure duration on alcohol drinking, plasma feeding peptides, and central neurotransmitter receptors gene expression.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Animals

Adult male Long-Evans rats (~250 g) were obtained from Envigo RMS, Inc (Indianapolis, IN). Rats were individually housed under controlled humidity (60%–70%) and temperature (65–70 °F) on a reverse light/dark-light cycle. Food and water were available ad libitum to all rats throughout the experiment. Animals were gently handled for one week and baseline data, including body weight, food and water intake were measured before any experimental manipulation. All animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the Xavier University of Louisiana.

2.2. Diets

All the rats had ad libitum access to normal rodent standard chow (Tekland-Envigo Diets #2020X, energy density-3.1 kcal/gm, fat (16%Kcal), protein (24%Kcal) and carbohydrates (60%Kcal)). In addition to chow, the experimental group received intermittent access to HFD (Research Diets #D03082706, energy density-4.54 kcal/gm, fat (40%Kcal), protein (15%kcal), and carbohydrates (46%Kcal; 8% Kcal from sucrose)). The detailed dietary composition has been presented previously [16].

2.3. General Procedure

A total of 38 male Long Evans rats were used in the present study. Rats with no significant baseline differences in body weight, food or water intake received chow (control) or intermittent access (24 h, Tuesdays and Thursdays; Int-HFD) to a high-fat diet (see Figure 1A). A total of 6 groups (3 Int-HFD and 3 respective chow controls; n = 6–7/group) of rats were used. Since one of the main objectives of the study was to examine the minimum effective HFD exposure duration to reduce alcohol drinking, separate groups of rats received either no pre-exposure (0Wk-Int-HFD), one-week pre-exposure (1Wk-Int-HFD) or 2 weeks pre-exposure (2Wk-Int-HFD) of an intermittent HFD cycling before alcohol testing began. To account for different pre-exposure conditions in the experimental groups, each of these groups had their separate control groups which received chow, instead of HFD on Tuesdays and Thursdays, (0Wk-Int-Chow), (1Wk-Int-Chow) or (2Wk-Int-Chow), respectively. Normal rodent chow and water were always available ad libitum to all groups of rats. Following no pre-exposure or Int-HFD pre-exposure (1 or 2 weeks), rats were given 24-h access to unsweetened alcohol (20% v/v) on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays (non-HFD days). Intermittent HFD cycling continued as described above during all testing sessions unless noted otherwise (see Figure 1B). Intermittent HFD cycling was then suspended and alcohol drinking was measured for 10 additional days. Following the completion of alcohol drinking studies, Int-HFD cycling resumed for ~9–12 days before further assessments occurred. Next, blood samples were collected by tail bleeding for feeding peptide analysis. Finally, all the rats were sacrificed and the amygdala, hypothalamus, striatum and ventral tegmental area (VTA) brains regions were dissected from snap-frozen brains for a PCR array analysis. All behavioral testing, plasma and brain collection occurred 3–6 h post-Int-HFD exposure on Chow access days.

2.4. Ethanol Testing

Alcohol testing was carried out as described previously [15]. Briefly, alcohol drinking behavior was assessed by providing rats with unsweetened alcohol (20% v/v) and water using a two-bottle choice paradigm for 24 h on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Int-HFD feeding paradigm continued during ethanol testing. Water and alcohol bottle positions were alternated between alcohol testing sessions to account for conditioning effects on alcohol intake. Twenty-four-hour alcohol and water consumption were measured, along with body weight and food intake.

2.5. Feeding Peptide Analysis

MILLIPLEX Rat Metabolic Hormone Magnetic Bead Panel—Metabolism Multiplex Assay (Millipore Sigma # RMHMAG-84K, EMD Millipore Corporation, Massachusetts, USA) was used to simultaneously analyze Amylin (Active), C-Peptide 2, Ghrelin (Active), GIP (Total), GLP-1 (Active), Glucagon, IL-6, Insulin, Leptin, MCP-1, PP, PYY, TNF-α. Blood samples were collected in tubes containing EDTA (5ul; 0.5M), dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP-4) inhibitor (15 ul; 10mM), and Fisher Halt Protease Inhibitor Cocktail (5ul). Following blood collection, samples were centrifuged at 1000× g for 20 min. Plasma was transferred into a fresh tube on ice and stored at −20 ℃ until the day of further analysis. On the day of analysis, plasma samples were thawed on ice and assayed in triplicates according to the kit manufacturer’s instructions.

2.6. Central Neurotransmitter Receptors Gene Expression

After all the behavioral experiments were completed, rats were maintained on intermittent HFD cycling until they were euthanized, which occurred 3–6 h following the end of the Int-HFD exposure cycle. These testing only occurred in the group of rats receiving two-weeks pre-exposure to intermittent HFD cycling. Brains were isolated and snap-frozen and stored at −80 °C. On the day of analysis, hypothalamus, amygdala, striatum, and ventral tegmental area (VTA) were micro-dissected and neurotransmitters receptors gene expression was evaluated using RT2 Profiler PCR array. On the day of analysis, the specific brain region was placed in RNAlater (Ambion, Foster City, CA, USA). A tissue Ruptor (QIAGEN, Germantown, MD, USA), a QIAshredder (QIAGEN cat# 79654) and an RNeasy Plus mini kit (QIAGEN cat#74134) were used for total RNA extraction and isolation as per the manufacturer’s protocol. The concentration and purity of the RNA samples were determined with a Nanodrop spectrophotometer. The Purity of RNA samples (>1.9) was confirmed by the 260/280 absorbance ratio. To rule out any possibility of PCR inhibitors contamination, the PCR array has built-in positive PCR controls (PPC) monitor and reverse transcription efficiency was calculated during online data analysis by ratios between the PPC and reverse transcription control (RTC). Furthermore, the degradation and integrity were assessed by Experion Automated Electrophoresis (BioRad, Hercules, CA, USA) and all RNA samples were of high quality and passed all necessary requirements. An RT2 First Strand kit (QIAGEN cat# 330401) was used to synthesize cDNA from RNA (350 ng) for each sample following the manufacturer’s protocol. PCR amplification was conducted using MyiQ Real-Time quantitative PCR system (Bio-Rad). The baseline threshold was manually set to 100 RFU in primary data analysis for all arrays. The Rat RT2 Profiler PCR arrays (QIAGEN cat# PARN-060Z) were used to profile the expression of a total of 84 genes (Table 1). All array passed quality control tests (PCR array reproducibility, RT efficiency and genomic DNA contamination). A web-based data analysis tool (QIAGEN) was used to calculate fold change and p-values. Reference/Housekeeping genes with the least between-group variability were chosen from built-in reference genes in the PCR array. At least three reference genes (Hprt1, Ldha, Actb, B2m and Rplp1) per brain region were used for qPCR data normalization. The CT cut-off was set to 35 and measurements >35 were excluded from further analysis. Fold Change (2^ (- Delta Delta CT)) is the normalized gene expression (2^(- Delta CT)) in the Int-HFD samples divided by the normalized gene expression (2^ (- Delta CT)) in the Chow samples. Fold regulation represents fold change results in a biologically meaningful way. Fold change values greater than one indicate a positive- or an up-regulation, and the fold regulation is equal to the fold change. Fold change values less than one indicate a negative or down-regulation, and the fold regulation is the negative inverse of the fold change.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Food and fluid consumption were analyzed by a mixed-model two-way ANOVA with appropriate post-hoc (Bonferroni’s) analysis. The within-subject variable was time intervals (24 h measurements) and the between-group variable was Int-HFD pre-exposure (0, 1 or 2 weeks). A t-test compared body weight and feeding peptides data. PCR array data were analyzed, as described previously [17], using unpaired t-test as per the manufacturer-recommended Web-based RT2 Profiler PCR Array data analysis software and others using this method to evaluate gene expression. All statistical comparisons were conducted at 0.05 α level in GraphPad Prism 7.05.

3. Results

3.1. Intermittent HFD Exposure and Body Weight

Rats received either no pre-exposure or 1–2 weeks pre-exposure of intermittent HFD and tested for alcohol drinking while intermittent HFD cycling continued. No statistically significant (p > 0.05) between-group differences were observed in the body weight at the end of alcohol testing in either groups (Figure 1D–F). Similarly, no significant (p > 0.05) between-group body weight differences existed following either HFD pre-exposure or at the end of the study.

3.2. Intermittent HFD Exposure and Feeding

A mixed-model ANOVA was used to analyze caloric intake data which identified a main effect of diet (F1,10 = 23.13, p < 0.001), time (F4,40 = 63.84, p < 0.0001), and a significant diet × time interaction (F4,40 = 72.24, p < 0.0001) in the case of animals receiving one week pre-exposure to the intermittent HFD (Figure 2A). Similarly, a main effect of diet (F1,10 = 9.038, p < 0.05), time (F9,90 = 47.22, p < 0.0001) and a significant diet×time interaction (F9,90 = 58.42, p < 0.0001) was observed in the case of animals receiving two-week pre-exposure to the intermittent HFD (Figure 2B). A post hoc analysis further identified that caloric intake was significantly (p < 0.0001) elevated on Tuesdays and Thursdays, whereas it was not significantly (p > 0.05) different on Monday, Wednesday or Friday in either one or two weeks pre-exposed groups compared to the chow controls. We also analyzed overall food intake in both groups and a mixed-model ANOVA identified only a main effect of diet (F1,10 = 36.52, p < 0.001) but no time or interaction effects. These data suggest that overall, rats receiving either one- or two-weeks pre-exposure of intermittent access to HFD significantly increased their caloric intake on the HFD access days (Tuesday and Thursday) and no significant differences in chow groups and Int-HFD groups were evident between the two exposure conditions (Figure 2C).

3.3. Intermittent HFD Exposure and Alcohol Drinking

Alcohol drinking data were analyzed by a mixed-model two-way ANOVA. Alcohol drinking was not significantly different between groups during the entire testing session in the animals who did not receive intermittent HFD pre-exposure (Figure 3A) or received one-week pre-exposure (Figure 3B) to the intermittent HFD cycling. However, alcohol drinking was significantly (F1,10 = 7.686, p < 0.05) attenuated in the Int-HFD group compared to the chow controls following two-weeks pre-exposure to intermittent HFD cycling (Figure 3C). Overall, there was HFD pre-exposure dependent decrease in the alcohol drinking with a ~40% decrease observed in the case of one-week and a ~55% decrease observed following two-weeks intermittent HFD cycling as analyzed by one-way ANOVA (F3,34 = 4.309, p < 0.05). The post-hoc analysis further revealed no difference (p > 0.05), a trend (p < 0.10), and significant effect (p < 0.05) in case of no preexposure, one-week pre-exposure and two-weeks pre-exposure, respectively.
We also evaluated alcohol drinking following 0, 1- or 2-week pre-exposure with all the chow controls combined. A mixed-model ANOVA detected a similar relationship between HFD pre-exposure and alcohol drinking with no difference (p > 0.05), a trend (p < 0.10), and significant effect (p < 0.05) in the case of no pre-exposure, one-week pre-exposure and two-weeks pre-exposure, respectively. This relationship was still intact when overall alcohol drinking data in the last 7 days for all the conditions were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (Figure 3D).
We further assessed alcohol drinking data in rats receiving two weeks of pre-exposure of intermittent HFD exposure to evaluate the induction of reduced alcohol drinking effect. A mixed-model ANOVA identified a trend (p = 0.052) towards decrease during the first 7 days, whereas a significant (F1,10 = 10.19, p < 0.01) decrease in alcohol drinking was observed during the second half of the drinking sessions (Figure 4A). Overall, alcohol drinking was significantly (p < 0.05) reduced on all drinking days, including Mondays (Figure 4B). In addition, alcohol preference (Figure 4C) was also significantly (p < 0.05) attenuated during these days, whereas no between-group differences were observed in total fluid intake (Figure 4D).
We next examined the impact of suspending intermittent HFD cycling on reduced alcohol drinking behavior. A mixed-model ANOVA identified a significant interaction between time and diet (F4,40 = 6.461, p < 0.001). Furthermore, alcohol drinking in the chow controls was not significantly different across the testing days but Int-HFD group alcohol intake significantly escalated on the eighth day comparable to chow levels (Figure 4E).

3.4. Food Intake and Alcohol Drinking Sessions

In order to evaluate whether HFD withdrawal had any effect on subsequent HFD intake, a one-way repeated measure ANOVA analyzed one-week (two binge-sessions) food intake data before suspension and after HFD reintroduction. However, HFD intake was not statistically different in these sessions, suggesting that HFD withdrawal had no effect on subsequent HFD intake.
A two-way repeated measure ANOVA also analyzed average weekly food intake in the chow (Figure 5A) and Int-HFD (Figure 5B) groups before, during and after alcohol testing sessions. However, no statistically significant differences in food intake were observed among any sessions in either group.

3.5. Intermittent HFD Exposure and Feeding Peptides

A t-test compared plasma feeding peptide levels in rats displaying a reduced alcohol drinking phenotype following intermittent HFD cycling. Plasma acyl-ghrelin levels were non-significantly (p = 0.07) elevated in the Int-HFD group of rats compared to the chow controls (Figure 6A). There were no between-group differences in leptin (Figure 6B) and insulin (Figure 6C) levels. No other feeding peptides were detected.

3.6. Intermittent HFD Exposure and Central Neurotransmitter Receptors Gene Expression

A rat RT2 Profiler PCR array examined the expression of 84 neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the hypothalamus (Figure 7A), amygdala (Figure 7B), striatum (Figure 7C) and ventral tegmental area (VTA) (Figure 7D) of the group of rats that received two weeks of intermittent HFD pre-exposure and compared it with the respective chow controls. A list of genes (Table 1) along with their PCR data is presented for hypothalamus (Table 2), amygdala (Table 3), Striatum (Table 4) and VTA (Table 5). A total of six genes (Chrm5, Gabra2, Gabrb1, Gabrb3, Gabrg2 and Gria2) in Hypothalamus, two genes (Chrm1 and Grin2b) in Amygdala, thirteen genes (Adra1a, Adra1d, Adra2a, Chrm5, Chrna3, Chrna4, Chrna5, Drd5, Gabbr2, Gabra5, Hrh4, Sstr1 and Sstr2) in the Striatum, and eleven genes (Chrna3, Chrna4, Chrna5, Gabrb1, Gabrr1, Gria3, Htr1a, Htr1b, Sstr2, Tacr2 and Tacr3) in VTA were found to be significantly (p < 0.05) altered in the Int-HFD group of rats compared to the chow controls. In striatum, a ≥ two-fold statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase in three genes (Chrm5, Chrna3 and Hrh4) and a decrease in seven genes (Adra1d, Chrna4, Chrna5, Drd5, Gabbr2, Sstr1 and Sstr2) was evident (Figure 7E). In VTA, a ≥ two-fold statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase was detected in five genes (Chrna3, Chrna5, Gabrr1, Tacr2 and Tacr3) (Figure 7F).

4. Discussion

The goal of the present study was to examine the minimum effective duration of an intermittent HFD cycling required to reduce alcohol drinking and its potential neurobiological mechanisms. From this effort, we found that pre-exposure to an intermittent HFD cycling was critical to induce reduced alcohol drinking phenotype, with a significant reduction in alcohol drinking observed following two weeks of pre-exposure. Furthermore, reduced alcohol drinking behavior gradually disappeared following the suspension of intermittent HFD cycling. Moreover, plasma feeding peptides were not significantly different between the Int-HFD group of rats and the chow controls. Finally, greater (significant and ≥two-fold) between-group alterations in the neurotransmitter receptors gene expression levels were found in the striatum and VTA, whereas no such effects were observed in the amygdala and hypothalamus. Overall, these data suggest that pre-exposure and acute availability of an intermittent HFD cycling are critical parameters to reduce alcohol drinking in rats, possibly through mechanisms unlikely involved in maintaining energy homeostasis.
Our original observation of reduced alcohol intake occurred following six weeks of intermittent HFD pre-exposure and alcohol testing in that study occurred while rats were still maintained on intermittent HFD cycling [15]. It was not clear whether a shorter pre-exposure duration (<6 weeks) would be equally effective in reducing alcohol drinking and what would be the impact of suspending intermittent HFD cycling on alcohol drinking. The present study addressed these questions by demonstrating that a pre-exposure of intermittent HFD cycling is necessary to observe reduced alcohol drinking behavior with significantly reduced alcohol drinking observed following two weeks of intermittent HFD pre-exposure (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Interestingly, we observed a pre-exposure-dependent reduction in alcohol drinking with a ~40% reduction (a strong trend) following one week, a ~50% reduction (significant) following two weeks and a ~60% reduction (previous study from our lab [15]) following six weeks of intermittent HFD pre-exposure. Interestingly, the % reduction also correlated with the effect size ~0.16, ~0.44 and ~0.60 following one-week, two-weeks and six-weeks of intermittent HFD exposure, respectively. These data suggest that pre-exposure to intermittent HFD exposure is necessary to attenuate alcohol drinking and with greater pre-exposure, a greater reduction was observed. It also becomes clear that pre-exposure, but not intermittent availability or the diet itself, seems to play a role in attenuating alcohol drinking as rats receiving no intermittent HFD pre-exposure did not display reduced alcohol drinking behavior. Furthermore, alcohol drinking in the chow control group escalated over time, whereas it stayed almost the same in the case of the Int-HFD group, which suggests that intermittent HFD pre-exposure impaired acquisition of alcohol drinking behavior.
Previously, we have also observed a reduction in alcohol drinking when HFD intake was restricted to 2 h/day (which induced a binge-like HFD feeding) either three times a week or every day [14]. However, a recent study reported increased alcohol self-administration following binge-like HFD exposure [18]. The time of intermittent HFD exposure (adolescence in the case of Blanco-Gandia et al. and adult animals in our study) or testing conditions (restricted feeding in the case of Blanco-Gandia et al. and unrestricted chow presence in our study) could be responsible for these discrepancies. It is also important to note here that alcohol testing in the present and previous studies from our lab occurred on the following days of HFD exposure and HFD was never presented concurrently with alcohol on the same day [14,15], whereas animals continued to binge-eat during self-administration in Blanco-Gandia et al. [18]. Nevertheless, the present study identified a feeding paradigm that effectively reduces alcohol drinking following a short period of intermittent HFD cycling and helps to decipher some of the critical parameters needed to understand the impact of dietary manipulations on alcohol drinking behavior.
It is also important to note that reduced alcohol drinking behavior was not only observed on Wednesdays and Fridays (testing days immediately following HFD access days) but also on Mondays (three days following the last HFD access session) (Figure 4B), suggesting that caloric overload one day prior to alcohol testing is not likely to reduce alcohol drinking in the present study. Furthermore, alcohol preference was also significantly attenuated in the Int-HFD group compared to controls, whereas total fluid intake was unaffected (Figure 4C–D). When tested under similar conditions, blood alcohol concentrations did not differ between groups, indicating that alcohol metabolism or absorption were not affected following Int-HFD exposure [15].
In the previous and the present study from our lab, intermittent HFD cycling continued during the alcohol testing period (see Figure 1B). Therefore, it was equally important to evaluate the impact of the suspension of intermittent HFD cycling on alcohol drinking. Therefore, we evaluated alcohol drinking following the suspension of intermittent HFD cycling. Under these conditions, reduced alcohol drinking behavior gradually disappeared within a week following the termination of intermittent HFD cycling (Figure 4E). Although alcohol drinking increased significantly following HFD removal, it never reached the levels observed in the chow-controls. We have previously observed that the Int-HFD exposed group, under similar conditions, continued to display a non-significant but lower alcohol intake over 24 days and alcohol drinking was never escalated compared to the chow controls (unpublished observation).
To further determine the mechanisms responsible for the diet-induced reduction in alcohol drinking, we examined plasma feeding peptides and central neurotransmitters genes expression analysis in behaviorally characterized rats that displayed reduced alcohol drinking behavior. Since alcohol drinking was significantly reduced in rats receiving two-weeks intermittent HFD exposure, these measures occurred in this group of rats only.
It is becoming clear that neuroendocrine feeding peptides can interact with the brain reward circuitry to regulate the intake and reinforcing properties of both food and alcohol [19]. Therefore, we examined a panel of these gastrointestinal peptides using a multiplexing assay. While the acyl-ghrelin concentration was slightly elevated in the Int-HFD group of rats compared to the chow controls, no statistically significant between-group differences existed (Figure 6). Ghrelin, a gut-derived feeding peptide, has been positively linked to alcohol intake and is elevated in abstinent alcoholics [19,20,21]. However, in the present study, acyl-ghrelin was non-significantly elevated in the Int-HFD groups of rats which were drinking less alcohol. This increase in ghrelin is consistent with our previous study in which ghrelin was assessed under similar conditions [15], suggesting that peripheral ghrelin could be less likely to be involved in regulating alcohol drinking at least in the present paradigm. This contention is in agreement with a recent study demonstrating the importance of the central ghrelin receptor (GHSR) activity instead of peripheral ghrelin levels, as a regulator of alcohol intake [22]. However, we did not find alterations in the GHSR gene expression in the ventral striatum in the rats exposed to a similar intermittent HFD paradigm either [15].
Finally, we examined the expression of over 84 central neurotransmitters genes in the brain regions implicated in the regulation of energy balance or reinforced behavior using a PCR array. As discussed below, selective alterations in several gene expression were registered in the striatum and VTA, whereas no significant changes were observed in the amygdala and hypothalamus of rats receiving two-weeks of HFD pre-exposure.
In the striatum, alpha1 adrenergic receptors (α-1AR) are primarily located in the axon terminals and are capable of regulating multiple neurotransmissions, including dopamine [23,24,25]. Studies have shown that α-1ARs are capable of stimulating dopamine release in the striatal area and local administration of prazosin (α-1AR antagonist) reduces dopamine neurotransmission [26]. Interestingly, prazosin treatment has been shown to reduce alcohol drinking in alcohol-preferring rats [27] and facilitate abstinence in human alcoholics [28] and its effects on alcohol intake are centrally mediated. Adrenergic, alpha-1D-, receptor (Adra1d) receptor gene expression was reduced ~six-fold in the Int-HFD group of rats. Therefore, reduced dopaminergic neurotransmission, as a result of decreased α-1AR tone in the striatal region of intermittent HFD exposed rats, could explain reduced alcohol drinking. Further studies are needed to address this possibility.
Studies have reported reduced dopaminergic turnover, independent of obesity, following HFD feeding [29]. We also observed reduced expression of Dopamine receptor D5 in the striatal area. Dopamine (DA) mediates its activity via D1-like (D1 and D5) and D2-like (D2, D3, D4) receptors which are widely distributed in the CNS [30]. A recent study demonstrated that D1-like, but not D2-like receptor blockade, in the striatal region impaired alcohol-induced conditioned place preference [31] and reduced alcohol-seeking behavior by modulating the neuronal activation in response to alcohol-associated cues [32]. While the involvement of the D5 receptor in regulating alcohol drinking or reward is less clear, a study has shown that D5 receptors are present and depolarize both cholinergic and GABAergic striatal interneurons following activation by DA and thereby are capable of modulating striatal GABAergic medium spiny projection neurons activity [33]. Considering that alcohol in acute intoxicating concentrations can alter both of these inter-neuronal activities and resultant projection neurons [34], reduced D5 receptor gene expression following intermittent HFD exposure, as seen in the present case, could blunt alcohol-mediated activities within this region, a contention that needs further investigation.
Striatum not only receives inputs from histaminergic neurons from the hypothalamus but also expresses a high density of histamine receptors, including H4 receptor [35,36]. These histamine receptors are positioned to differentially modulate striatal neurotransmission by impacting various excitatory and inhibitory neurocircuits [37]. We found significantly increased H4 gene expression in the striatum of Int-HFD group of rats. However, the functional significance of these findings remains unclear as very little is known about the newly discovered H4 receptors and future studies will shed light on this.
Another receptor type that was impacted by intermittent HFD exposure in the present study was somatostatin receptor (SstR). Striatum displays high SstR density [38] and a functional linkage between the somatostatinergic and dopaminergic neurocircuitry has been registered [39]. Furthermore, SstRs stimulation has been shown to stimulate striatal DA release in rodents [40]. Therefore, reduced Sstrs expression and resultant modulations of striatal DA neurotransmission could be linked to the reduced alcohol drinking in the Int-HFD exposed group of rats which would require further investigation.
Cholinergic receptors are implicated in complex controls of striatal neurocircuitry, including dopaminergic neurotransmission [41,42,43]. Furthermore, acute alcohol administration has been shown to upregulate nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (alpha 4) within the striatum [44] and reduced striatal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (alpha 4 and 7) density has been reported in alcohol-preferring rats [45]. While chronic alcohol exposure has not been shown to alter muscarinic binding in rat striatum [46], muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (M5) have been shown to regulate DAergic neurotransmission in nucleus accumbens and alcohol drinking and seeking in rodents [47,48]. Intermittent HFD exposure in the present study regulated some of these muscarinic and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (Figure 7E). It is important to mention here that both dorsal and ventral striatum were pooled in the present study, collectively referred to as the striatum. Since different receptor types could mediate region-specific (dorsal vs. ventral) alterations in the DAergic neurotransmission and ultimately striatal output, future research is needed to site-specifically assess the alterations in these neurotransmitter receptors following intermittent HFD exposure.
Ethanol activates VTA DAergic neurons by interacting with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) and thereby releasing DA in the nucleus accumbens and this activation could be reversed by VTA nAChRs blockade [49]. While several nicotinic subunits, including α3 and α5, are present in the VTA DAergic neurons [50], it is relatively unclear which nAChRs subunits mediate ethanol induced DAergic neuronal activation (for details see [51]). In this regard, high affinity α3β4 partial agonists have been shown to reduce ethanol consumption and self-administration [52]. In VTA, we found that nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (α3 and α5) gene expression was upregulated (Figure 7F) in the Int-HFD group of rats. Therefore, it is possible that Int-HFD exposure moderately increases overall VTA dopaminergic tone, making Int-HFD exposed rats more sensitive to the intoxicating effects of alcohol and thereby reducing alcohol drinking, a contention that needs further investigation.
We also found that gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor (ρ1) gene expression was upregulated in the VTA of Int-HFD group of rats. While it is known that ethanol enhances GABA-A receptor function, this pentameric structure is extensively heterogeneous due to several subunits (α, β, γ, δ, ε, θ, π and ρ). Evidence exists that gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor (ρ1), which is encoded by the GABRR1 gene, is inhibited by ethanol [53]. Interestingly, genetic deletion of GABRR1 potentiated sedative motor effects of ethanol in mice [54] and SNPs in GABRR1 and GABRR2 genes are associated with alcohol use disorder [55]. Future studies are needed to evaluate the significance of increased GABRR1 following intermittent HFD cycling.
Finally, we also observed increased expression of Tacr2 and Tacr3 genes which encode for tachykinin receptors 2 and 3, respectively. Interestingly, stimulation of these receptors has been shown to reduce alcohol drinking, without impacting food or water intake [56] and SNPs in Tacr3 gene are linked in alcohol and cocaine dependence [57]. Based on this, it could be that intermittent HFD exposure-induced reduction in alcohol drinking is linked to increased tachykinin receptor activity but requires further experimental validation.
It is important to note here that these gene expression analyses were conducted in the brains of rats not only showing increased HFD intake but also reduced alcohol drinking compared to the chow controls. While this could be a strength of the present study, as these analyses occurred in behaviorally characterized rats, an approach successfully used in the past by our group [14,15,17,58], a potential limitation of this approach could be that contribution of HFD alone in producing these changes cannot be easily deciphered. Although brains were collected ~9–12 days after stopping alcohol drinking sessions while rats were still on intermittent HFD cycling, future studies in which rats receive identical Int-HFD treatment without alcohol exposure would be needed to precisely understand the impact of intermittent HFD exposure on these genes.
Overall, the amygdala and hypothalamus neurotransmitter receptors gene expression were least impacted following intermittent HFD exposure, which speaks against the involvement of these brain regions in reducing alcohol drinking following intermittent HFD exposure. The hypothalamus is the energy regulation center in the brain that modulates feeding behavior by integrating multiple hormonal and neuronal signals originating from complex interactions of multiple feeding regulators (e.g., insulin, leptin and ghrelin etc.). Our PCR array data in the hypothalamus are also in agreement with the plasma feeding peptide data, suggesting that homeostatic mechanisms were less likely to be engaged as a result of our intermittent HFD exposure paradigm to account for reduced alcohol drinking behavior in the Int-HFD group. Instead, greater alterations in the genetic regulation were seen in the brain reward circuitry of the intermittent HFD group compared to the chow controls. Since palatable foods are capable of activating brain reward circuitry, similarly to drugs of abuse [12,59,60,61], reduced alcohol drinking in the present study could reflect the adjustment in the brain reward circuitry following intermittent HFD exposure, a contention that requires further evaluation.
The present study warrants further investigations to evaluate the benefits of nutritional contingency in alcoholism. However, it is too early to extend clinically appropriate dietary recommendations for the treatment of alcoholism as several critical parameters of such dietary intervention are unknown. For example, it is unclear if a diet high in fat is necessary to trigger reduced alcohol drinking behavior or if a diet high in sugar would induce the same effect. While a recent study showed a reduction of alcohol withdrawal syndrome following a high fat/ketogenic diet intake [62], studies exist demonstrating that excessive consumption of palatable/sweet food could curb alcohol drinking behavior in human alcoholics [10,11] which also agrees with the Alcoholics Anonymous recommendation of eating more sweet/palatable food to reduce alcohol craving [63]. These data collectively suggest that palatable food may compete with propensity to drink alcohol as both are capable of interacting with the brain reward circuitry. It is also important to consider the negative health consequences associated with excessive consumption of palatable foods. Pertinent to this, a previous study from our lab demonstrate and even 2 h of HFD exposure every third day could reduce alcohol drinking, a paradigm which does not impact body weight or fat [14]. Furthermore, dietary exposure of such palatable diets may be restricted to the early detoxification period and could be gradually reduced to minimize the negative consequences associated with these diets. On the other hand, since alcoholics are malnourished and have lower BMIs, a micro and macro-nutrient rich diet could not only reduce alcohol drinking but also may improve nutritional status over treatment duration, contributing to treatment success.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study identified key parameters that allow intermittent HFD cycling to reduce alcohol drinking, an effect possibly mediated by alterations in the brain reward circuitry. These data have important clinical implications as an altered nutritional status has been frequently documented in patients with AUD, which could contribute to escalated alcohol consumption and behavioral impairments commonly observed in AUD [6,9,64,65,66]. In this context, it is clear that contingency management (providing a tangible reward for drug abstinence) is an effective method for the management of substance use and alcohol use disorders [67]. A very recent study reported that an alternative palatable food reward could maintain prolonged abstinence from methamphetamine [68]. It is possible that improving nutritional status during abstinence would not only compensate for general malnutrition in alcoholics but could also ameliorate some of the adverse symptoms observed in alcohol withdrawal, thereby enhancing prospects of recovery. Therefore, future studies testing if a similar feeding paradigm would be effective in reducing alcohol drinking in the models of AUD are needed to functionally assess the importance of such dietary interventions. Importantly, these data highlight some of the critical behavioral and genetic components that can be used to refine nutritional contingency in the management of AUD.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S.; Data curation, S.S.; Formal analysis, S.S.; Funding acquisition, S.S.; Investigation, S.V., C.S., E.S., K.S. and S.S.; Methodology, S.S.; Project administration, S.S.; Resources, S.S.; Software, S.S.; Supervision, S.S.; Validation, S.S.; Visualization, S.S.; Writing—original draft, S.V., K.S. and S.S.; Writing—review & editing, J.F.D. and S.S.

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number TL4GM118968 and 5RL5GM118966. This publication was also made possible by funding, in part, by NIMHD-RCMI # 5G12MD007595-10, NIGMS-BUILD # 5UL1GM118967 and NIGMS-SCORE # 1SC3GM127173-01A1 to SS. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Acknowledgments

We thank Nisha Vithlani, Victoria Barnett, Jeremy Cleveland, Zoela Leon and RCMI Cell and Molecular Biology Core services, College of Pharmacy, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA for providing technical assistance. SS thanks Dr. Nicholas Gilpin at LSUHS for several helpful discussions during this study. We thank Ms. Nannette Simoneaux and Mr. Kenneth Singleton for vivarium support.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality: Rockville, MD, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. World Health Organization Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health 2018; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  3. Sirohi, S.; Bakalkin, G.; Walker, B.M. Alcohol-induced plasticity in the dynorphin/kappa-opioid receptor system. Front. Mol. Neurosci 2012, 5, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bajaj, J.S. Alcohol, liver disease and the gut microbiota. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 16, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Menon, J.; Kandasamy, A. Relapse prevention. Indian J. Psychiatry 2018, 60, S473–S478. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Lieber, C.S. Alcohol: Its Metabolism and Interaction with Nutrients. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 2000, 20, 395–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Addolorato, G.; Capristo, E.; Greco, A.V.; Stefanini, G.F.; Gasbarrini, G. Influence of chronic alcohol abuse on body weight and energy metabolism: Is excess ethanol consumption a risk factor for obesity or malnutrition? J. Intern. Med. 1998, 244, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sarin, S.K.; Dhingra, N.; Bansal, A.; Malhotra, S.; Guptan, R.C. Dietary and nutritional abnormalities in alcoholic liver disease: A comparison with chronic alcoholics without liver disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1997, 92, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Glória, L.; Cravo, M.; Camilo, M.E.; Resende, M.; Cardoso, J.N.; Oliveira, A.G.; Leitão, C.N.; Mira, F.C. Nutritional deficiencies in chronic alcoholics: Relation to dietary intake and alcohol consumption. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 1997, 92, 485–489. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Yung, L.; Gordis, E.; Holt, J. Dietary choices and likelihood of abstinence among alcoholic patients in an outpatient clinic. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1983, 12, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stickel, A.; Rohdemann, M.; Landes, T.; Engel, K.; Banas, R.; Heinz, A.; Müller, C.A. Changes in Nutrition-Related Behaviors in Alcohol-Dependent Patients After Outpatient Detoxification: The Role of Chocolate. Subst. Use Misuse 2016, 51, 545–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Avena, N.M.; Rada, P.; Hoebel, B.G. Sugar and fat bingeing have notable differences in addictive-like behavior. J. Nutr. 2009, 139, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bocarsly, M.E.; Berner, L.A.; Hoebel, B.G.; Avena, N.M. Rats that binge eat fat-rich food do not show somatic signs or anxiety associated with opiate-like withdrawal: Implications for nutrient-specific food addiction behaviors. Physiol. Behav. 2011, 104, 865–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sirohi, S.; Van Cleef, A.; Davis, J.F. Binge-like intake of HFD attenuates alcohol intake in rats. Physiol. Behav. 2017, 178, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Sirohi, S.; Van Cleef, A.; Davis, J.F. Intermittent access to a nutritionally complete high-fat diet attenuates alcohol drinking in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2017, 153, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Davis, J.F.; Melhorn, S.J.; Shurdak, J.D.; Heiman, J.U.; Tschöp, M.H.; Clegg, D.J.; Benoit, S.C. Comparison of hydrogenated vegetable shortening and nutritionally complete high-fat diet on limited access-binge behavior in rats. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92, 924–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sirohi, S.; Skripnikova, E.; Davis, J.F. Vertical Sleeve Gastrectomy Attenuates Hedonic Feeding Without Impacting Alcohol Drinking in Rats. Obesity 2019, 27, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Blanco-Gandía, M.C.; Ledesma, J.C.; Aracil-Fernández, A.; Navarrete, F.; Montagud-Romero, S.; Aguilar, M.A.; Manzanares, J.; Miñarro, J.; Rodríguez-Arias, M. The rewarding effects of ethanol are modulated by binge eating of a high-fat diet during adolescence. Neuropharmacology 2017, 121, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Vadnie, C.A.; Park, J.H.; Abdel Gawad, N.; Ho, A.M.C.; Hinton, D.J.; Choi, D.-S. Gut-brain peptides in corticostriatal-limbic circuitry and alcohol use disorders. Front. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jerlhag, E.; Egecioglu, E.; Landgren, S.; Salomé, N.; Heilig, M.; Moechars, D.; Datta, R.; Perrissoud, D.; Dickson, S.L.; Engel, J.A. Requirement of central ghrelin signaling for alcohol reward. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 11318–11323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Leggio, L.; Ferrulli, A.; Cardone, S.; Nesci, A.; Miceli, A.; Malandrino, N.; Capristo, E.; Canestrelli, B.; Monteleone, P.; Kenna, G.A.; et al. Ghrelin system in alcohol-dependent subjects: Role of plasma ghrelin levels in alcohol drinking and craving. Addict. Biol. 2012, 17, 452–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jerlhag, E.; Ivanoff, L.; Vater, A.; Engel, J.A. Peripherally circulating ghrelin does not mediate alcohol-induced reward and alcohol intake in rodents. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2014, 38, 959–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rommelfanger, K.S.; Mitrano, D.A.; Smith, Y.; Weinshenker, D. Light and Electron Microscopic Localization of Alpha-1 Adrenergic Receptor Immunoreactivity in the Rat Striatum and Ventral Midbrain. Neuroscience 2009, 158, 1530–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rainbow, T.C.; Biegon, A. Quantitative autoradiography of [3H] prazosin binding sites in rat forebrain. Neurosci. Lett. 1983, 40, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mitrano, D.A.; Schroeder, J.P.; Smith, Y.; Cortright, J.J.; Bubula, N.; Vezina, P.; Weinshenker, D. Alpha-1 Adrenergic Receptors are Localized on Presynaptic Elements in the Nucleus Accumbens and Regulate Mesolimbic Dopamine Transmission. Neuropsychopharmacology 2012, 37, 2161–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sommermeyer, H.; Frielingsdorf, J.; Knorr, A. Effects of prazosin on the dopaminergic neurotransmission in rat brain. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 1995, 276, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rasmussen, D.D.; Alexander, L.L.; Raskind, M.A.; Froehlich, J.C. The alpha1-adrenergic receptor antagonist, prazosin, reduces alcohol drinking in alcohol-preferring (P) rats. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2009, 33, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Simpson, T.L.; Saxon, A.J.; Meredith, C.W.; Malte, C.A.; McBride, B.; Ferguson, L.C.; Gross, C.A.; Hart, K.L.; Raskind, M. A pilot trial of the alpha-1 adrenergic antagonist, prazosin, for alcohol dependence. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2009, 33, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Davis, J.F.; Tracy, A.L.; Schurdak, J.D.; Tschöp, M.H.; Lipton, J.W.; Clegg, D.J.; Benoit, S.C. Exposure to elevated levels of dietary fat attenuates psychostimulant reward and mesolimbic dopamine turnover in the rat. Behav. Neurosci. 2008, 122, 1257–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Baik, J.-H. Dopamine Signaling in reward-related behaviors. Front. Neural Circuits 2013, 7, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Young, E.A.; Dreumont, S.E.; Cunningham, C.L. Role of nucleus accumbens dopamine receptor subtypes in the learning and expression of alcohol-seeking behavior. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2014, 108, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Fanelli, R.R.; Robinson, D.L. Dopamine D1 receptor blockade impairs alcohol seeking without reducing dorsal striatal activation to cues of alcohol availability. Brain Behav. 2015, 5, e00305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Centonze, D.; Grande, C.; Usiello, A.; Gubellini, P.; Erbs, E.; Martin, A.B.; Pisani, A.; Tognazzi, N.; Bernardi, G.; Moratalla, R.; et al. Receptor subtypes involved in the presynaptic and postsynaptic actions of dopamine on striatal interneurons. J. Neurosci. 2003, 23, 6245–6254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Blomeley, C.P.; Cains, S.; Smith, R.; Bracci, E. Ethanol Affects Striatal Interneurons Directly and Projection Neurons Through a Reduction in Cholinergic Tone. Neuropsychopharmacology 2011, 36, 1033–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bolam, J.P.; Ellender, T.J. Histamine and the striatum. Neuropsychopharmacology 2016, 106, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Strakhova, M.I.; Nikkel, A.L.; Manelli, A.M.; Hsieh, G.C.; Esbenshade, T.A.; Brioni, J.D.; Bitner, R.S. Localization of histamine H4 receptors in the central nervous system of human and rat. Brain Res. 2009, 1250, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ellender, T.J.; Huerta-Ocampo, I.; Deisseroth, K.; Capogna, M.; Bolam, J.P. Differential Modulation of Excitatory and Inhibitory Striatal Synaptic Transmission by Histamine. J. Neurosci. 2011, 31, 15340–15351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Srikant, C.B.; Patel, Y.C. Somatostatin receptors: Identification and characterization in rat brain membranes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1981, 78, 3930–3934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Rodríguez-Sánchez, M.N.; Puebla, L.; López-Sañudo, S.; Rodríguez-Martín, E.; Martín-Espinosa, A.; Rodríguez-Pena, M.S.; Juarranz, M.G.; Arilla, E. Dopamine enhances somatostatin receptor-mediated inhibition of adenylate cyclase in rat striatum and hippocampus. J. Neurosci. Res. 1997, 48, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hathway, G.J.; Humphrey, P.P.A.; Kendrick, K.M. Evidence that somatostatin sst2 receptors mediate striatal dopamine release. Br. J. Pharm. 1999, 128, 1346–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Lim, S.A.O.; Kang, U.J.; McGehee, D.S. Striatal cholinergic interneuron regulation and circuit effects. Front. Synaptic Neurosci. 2014, 6, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Lester, D.B.; Rogers, T.D.; Blaha, C.D. Acetylcholine–Dopamine Interactions in the Pathophysiology and Treatment of CNS Disorders. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2010, 16, 137–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Shin, J.H.; Adrover, M.F.; Alvarez, V.A. Distinctive Modulation of Dopamine Release in the Nucleus Accumbens Shell Mediated by Dopamine and Acetylcholine Receptors. J. Neurosci. 2017, 37, 11166–11180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Tarren, J.R.; Lester, H.A.; Belmer, A.; Bartlett, S.E. Acute Ethanol Administration Upregulates Synaptic α4-Subunit of Neuronal Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors within the Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2017, 10, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tizabi, Y.; Getachew, B.; Davila-Garcia, M.; Taylor, R.E. Alcohol preference: Association with reduced striatal nicotinic receptors. Alcohol Alcohol. 2001, 36, 318–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Pietzak, E.R.; Wilce, P.A.; Shanley, B.C. The effect of chronic ethanol consumption on muscarinic receptors in rat brain. Neurochem. Int. 1988, 12, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Berizzi, A.E.; Perry, C.J.; Shackleford, D.M.; Lindsley, C.W.; Jones, C.K.; Chen, N.A.; Sexton, P.M.; Christopoulos, A.; Langmead, C.J.; Lawrence, A.J. Muscarinic M5 receptors modulate ethanol seeking in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 2018, 43, 1510–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Shin, J.H.; Adrover, M.F.; Wess, J.; Alvarez, V.A. Muscarinic regulation of dopamine and glutamate transmission in the nucleus accumbens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 8124–8129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Blomqvist, O.; Engel, J.A.; Nissbrandt, H.; Söderpalm, B. The mesolimbic dopamine-activating properties of ethanol are antagonized by mecamylamine. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 1993, 249, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Klink, R.; de Kerchove d’Exaerde, A.; Zoli, M.; Changeux, J.-P. Molecular and Physiological Diversity of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in the Midbrain Dopaminergic Nuclei. J. Neurosci. 2001, 21, 1452–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Hendrickson, L.M.; Guildford, M.J.; Tapper, A.R. Neuronal Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors: Common Molecular Substrates of Nicotine and Alcohol Dependence. Front. Psychiatry 2013, 4, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Chatterjee, S.; Steensland, P.; Simms, J.A.; Holgate, J.; Coe, J.W.; Hurst, R.S.; Shaffer, C.L.; Lowe, J.; Rollema, H.; Bartlett, S.E. Partial agonists of the α3β4* neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor reduce ethanol consumption and seeking in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 2011, 36, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Howard, R.J.; Trudell, J.R.; Harris, R.A. Seeking Structural Specificity: Direct Modulation of Pentameric Ligand-Gated Ion Channels by Alcohols and General Anesthetics. Pharm. Rev. 2014, 66, 396–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Blednov, Y.A.; Benavidez, J.M.; Black, M.; Leiter, C.R.; Osterndorff-Kahanek, E.; Johnson, D.; Borghese, C.M.; Hanrahan, J.R.; Johnston, G.A.R.; Chebib, M.; et al. GABAA Receptors Containing ρ1 Subunits Contribute to In Vivo Effects of Ethanol in Mice. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Xuei, X.; Flury-Wetherill, L.; Dick, D.; Goate, A.; Tischfield, J.; Nurnberger, J.; Schuckit, M.; Kramer, J.; Kuperman, S.; Hesselbrock, V.; et al. GABRR1 and GABRR2, encoding the GABA-A receptor subunits ρ1 and ρ2, are associated with alcohol dependence. Am. J. Med. Genet. B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2010, 153, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Ciccocioppo, R.; Panocka, I.; Pompei, P.; de Caro, G.; Massi, M. Selective agonists at NK3 tachykinin receptors inhibit alcohol intake in Sardinian alcohol-preferring rats. Brain Res. Bull. 1994, 33, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Foroud, T.; Wetherill, L.F.; Kramer, J.; Tischfield, J.A.; Nurnberger, J.I.; Schuckit, M.A.; Xuei, X.; Edenberg, H.J. The Tachykinin Receptor 3 Is Associated with Alcohol and Cocaine Dependence. Alcohol Clin. Exp. Res. 2008, 32, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Sirohi, S.; Van Cleef, A.; Davis, J.F. Patterned feeding induces neuroendocrine, behavioral and genetic changes that promote palatable food intake. Int. J. Obes. 2017, 41, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Volkow, N.D.; Wang, G.J.; Fowler, J.S.; Tomasi, D.; Baler, R. Food and drug reward: Overlapping circuits in human obesity and addiction. Curr. Top. Behav. Neurosci. 2012, 11, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Blum, K.; Thanos, P.K.; Wang, G.-J.; Febo, M.; Demetrovics, Z.; Modestino, E.J.; Braverman, E.R.; Baron, D.; Badgaiyan, R.D.; Gold, M.S. The Food and Drug Addiction Epidemic: Targeting Dopamine Homeostasis. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2018, 23, 6050–6061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Avena, N.M.; Rada, P.; Hoebel, B.G. Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2008, 32, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Dencker, D.; Molander, A.; Thomsen, M.; Schlumberger, C.; Wortwein, G.; Weikop, P.; Benveniste, H.; Volkow, N.D.; Fink-Jensen, A. Ketogenic Diet Suppresses Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in Rats. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2017, 42, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. Living Sober; Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  64. Markowitz, J.S.; McRae, A.L.; Sonne, S.C. Oral nutritional supplementation for the alcoholic patient: A brief overview. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry 2000, 12, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Koehn, V.; Burnand, B.; Niquille, M.; Paccaud, F.; Magnenat, P.; Yersin, B. Prevalence of malnutrition in alcoholic and nonalcoholic medical inpatients: A comparative anthropometric study. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 1993, 17, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lieber, C.S. Relationships between nutrition, alcohol use, and liver disease. Alcohol research & health: The J. Natl. Inst. Alcohol Abus. Alcohol. 2003, 27, 220–231. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rash, C.J.; Petry, N.M. Contingency management treatments are equally efficacious for both sexes in intensive outpatient settings. Exp. Clin. Neuropsychopharmacology 2015, 23, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Venniro, M.; Caprioli, D.; Zhang, M.; Whitaker, L.R.; Zhang, S.; Warren, B.L.; Cifani, C.; Marchant, N.J.; Yizhar, O.; Bossert, J.M.; et al. The Anterior Insular Cortex→Central Amygdala Glutamatergic Pathway Is Critical to Relapse after Contingency Management. Neuron 2017, 96, 414–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Schematics of the intermittent access to a nutritionally complete high-fat diet paradigm and body weight following testing. (A) Rats received intermittent exposure (24 h every Tuesday and Thursday) of a nutritionally complete high-fat diet (HFD) for 0, 1 or 2 weeks and (B) tested for alcohol drinking (20% v/v) on non-HFD days (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and 24-h consumption was recorded. The intermittent HFD cycling was maintained during behavioral testing, as described in the timeline (C) No between-group body weight difference existed at the end of alcohol testing sessions in animals receiving (D) no pre-exposure (n = 7/group) or (E) 1-week (n = 6/group) or (F) 2 weeks (n = 6/group) pre-exposure to intermittent HFD cycling.
Figure 1. Schematics of the intermittent access to a nutritionally complete high-fat diet paradigm and body weight following testing. (A) Rats received intermittent exposure (24 h every Tuesday and Thursday) of a nutritionally complete high-fat diet (HFD) for 0, 1 or 2 weeks and (B) tested for alcohol drinking (20% v/v) on non-HFD days (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and 24-h consumption was recorded. The intermittent HFD cycling was maintained during behavioral testing, as described in the timeline (C) No between-group body weight difference existed at the end of alcohol testing sessions in animals receiving (D) no pre-exposure (n = 7/group) or (E) 1-week (n = 6/group) or (F) 2 weeks (n = 6/group) pre-exposure to intermittent HFD cycling.
Nutrients 11 02731 g001
Figure 2. The intermittent high-fat diet (HFD) feeding paradigm and daily energy consumption. Mean (±SEM) of daily total food intake (kcal) was compared between the chow control group and the Int-HFD group during (A) 1-week and (B) 2-weeks intermittent HFD pre-exposure. Rats with intermittent HFD access significantly overconsumed calories on HFD exposure days. Rats with chow-only access maintained baseline energy consumption throughout the week. (C) Overall, energy intake was significantly elevated in Int-HFD rats on HFD access days, compared to the chow group. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 main effect of intermittent HFD exposure.
Figure 2. The intermittent high-fat diet (HFD) feeding paradigm and daily energy consumption. Mean (±SEM) of daily total food intake (kcal) was compared between the chow control group and the Int-HFD group during (A) 1-week and (B) 2-weeks intermittent HFD pre-exposure. Rats with intermittent HFD access significantly overconsumed calories on HFD exposure days. Rats with chow-only access maintained baseline energy consumption throughout the week. (C) Overall, energy intake was significantly elevated in Int-HFD rats on HFD access days, compared to the chow group. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 main effect of intermittent HFD exposure.
Nutrients 11 02731 g002
Figure 3. The intermittent HFD feeding paradigm and alcohol intake. Data compare mean (±SEM) 24 h alcohol consumption (20% v/v) for both the chow control and the Int-HFD group. Intermittent cycling on HFD was continued during the testing in all groups. (A) No significant between-group differences in alcohol drinking existed in the absence of intermittent HFD pre-exposure. (B) After 1-week of pre-exposure to intermittent HFD, a non-significant decrease in alcohol drinking was observed in the Int-HFD group compared to the chow controls. (C) Alcohol drinking was significantly attenuated in the Int-HFD group compared to the chow controls receiving 2 weeks of intermittent HFD pre-exposure. * p < 0.05, main effect of intermittent HFD exposure. (D) Mean (± SEM) overall alcohol consumption during the last 7 days of testing under combined controls condition. * p < 0.05, compared to the chow controls.
Figure 3. The intermittent HFD feeding paradigm and alcohol intake. Data compare mean (±SEM) 24 h alcohol consumption (20% v/v) for both the chow control and the Int-HFD group. Intermittent cycling on HFD was continued during the testing in all groups. (A) No significant between-group differences in alcohol drinking existed in the absence of intermittent HFD pre-exposure. (B) After 1-week of pre-exposure to intermittent HFD, a non-significant decrease in alcohol drinking was observed in the Int-HFD group compared to the chow controls. (C) Alcohol drinking was significantly attenuated in the Int-HFD group compared to the chow controls receiving 2 weeks of intermittent HFD pre-exposure. * p < 0.05, main effect of intermittent HFD exposure. (D) Mean (± SEM) overall alcohol consumption during the last 7 days of testing under combined controls condition. * p < 0.05, compared to the chow controls.
Nutrients 11 02731 g003
Figure 4. The intermittent HFD feeding paradigm—induction and regression of reduced alcohol drinking phenotype. Data represent mean (± SEM) 24 h alcohol consumption (20% v/v), alcohol preference and total fluid intake for both chow control and Int-HFD group during the last 7 days of testing. (A) Reduced alcohol drinking was statistically significant in the second half of testing sessions, including Mondays (B). * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 compared to chow controls. (C) Alcohol/water preference was also attenuated in the Int-HFD group, whereas the total fluid intake (D) was not significantly different between groups. * p < 0.05 main effect of intermittent HFD exposure. (E) Data represent mean (± SEM) 24 h alcohol intake for 10 days after the intermittent HFD cycling was suspended. While the chow controls maintained a stable alcohol intake, alcohol intake gradually increased in the Int-HFD group over the testing period. A significant increase in alcohol consumption by Int-HFD group was observed on the eighth and the 10th days, compared to the first day. *** p < 0.001 diet×time interaction.
Figure 4. The intermittent HFD feeding paradigm—induction and regression of reduced alcohol drinking phenotype. Data represent mean (± SEM) 24 h alcohol consumption (20% v/v), alcohol preference and total fluid intake for both chow control and Int-HFD group during the last 7 days of testing. (A) Reduced alcohol drinking was statistically significant in the second half of testing sessions, including Mondays (B). * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 compared to chow controls. (C) Alcohol/water preference was also attenuated in the Int-HFD group, whereas the total fluid intake (D) was not significantly different between groups. * p < 0.05 main effect of intermittent HFD exposure. (E) Data represent mean (± SEM) 24 h alcohol intake for 10 days after the intermittent HFD cycling was suspended. While the chow controls maintained a stable alcohol intake, alcohol intake gradually increased in the Int-HFD group over the testing period. A significant increase in alcohol consumption by Int-HFD group was observed on the eighth and the 10th days, compared to the first day. *** p < 0.001 diet×time interaction.
Nutrients 11 02731 g004
Figure 5. Daily energy consumption from food before, during and after ethanol testing sessions. Mean (± SEM) 24 h total food intake (kcal) is presented for chow (A) and Int-HFD (B) groups before, during and after alcohol drinking testing sessions. Caloric intake was not statistically significant under these three testing conditions in either group.
Figure 5. Daily energy consumption from food before, during and after ethanol testing sessions. Mean (± SEM) 24 h total food intake (kcal) is presented for chow (A) and Int-HFD (B) groups before, during and after alcohol drinking testing sessions. Caloric intake was not statistically significant under these three testing conditions in either group.
Nutrients 11 02731 g005
Figure 6. The intermittent HFD cycling and plasma feeding peptides. Data represent mean (± SEM) of (A) acyl-ghrelin, (B) leptin and (C) insulin concentrations in the plasma. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed. However, plasma ghrelin concentration was non-significantly elevated (p = 0.07) in the Int-HFD group compared to the chow controls.
Figure 6. The intermittent HFD cycling and plasma feeding peptides. Data represent mean (± SEM) of (A) acyl-ghrelin, (B) leptin and (C) insulin concentrations in the plasma. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed. However, plasma ghrelin concentration was non-significantly elevated (p = 0.07) in the Int-HFD group compared to the chow controls.
Nutrients 11 02731 g006
Figure 7. The intermittent HFD cycling and central neurotransmitter receptors gene expression. A scatter plot analysis of differential central neurotransmitter receptors genes expression in the hypothalamus (A), amygdala (B), striatum (C) and VTA (D). Each dot represents one gene, and the top and bottom genes outside the dotted lines represent a two-fold increase and decrease, respectively. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) ≥ two-fold changes in several neurotransmitter receptors gene expression were only observed in the striatum (E) and VTA (F). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 compared to the chow controls.
Figure 7. The intermittent HFD cycling and central neurotransmitter receptors gene expression. A scatter plot analysis of differential central neurotransmitter receptors genes expression in the hypothalamus (A), amygdala (B), striatum (C) and VTA (D). Each dot represents one gene, and the top and bottom genes outside the dotted lines represent a two-fold increase and decrease, respectively. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) ≥ two-fold changes in several neurotransmitter receptors gene expression were only observed in the striatum (E) and VTA (F). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 compared to the chow controls.
Nutrients 11 02731 g007
Table 1. A panel of genes examined using rat neurotransmitter receptors RT2 Profiler PCR array.
Table 1. A panel of genes examined using rat neurotransmitter receptors RT2 Profiler PCR array.
Adrenergic ReceptorsGenes
Alpha Adrenergic ReceptorsAdra1a, Adra1d, Adra2a
Beta Adrenergic ReceptorsAdrb2, Adrb3
Cholinergic Receptors
Muscarinic ReceptorsChrm1, Chrm4, Chrm5
Nicotinic ReceptorsChrna3, Chrna4, Chrna5, Chrna6, Chrna7, Chrne
Dopaminergic ReceptorsDrd1, Drd2, Drd5
GABAergic Receptors
GABAC ReceptorsGabrr1, Gabrr2
GABAB ReceptorsGabbr1, Gabbr2
GABAA ReceptorsGabra1, Gabra2, Gabra4, Gabra5, Gabra6, Gabrb1, Gabrb3, Gabrd, Gabre, Gabrg1, Gabrg2, Gabrg3, Gabrq
Glutamate Receptors
AMPA ReceptorsGria1, Gria2, Gria3
Kainate ReceptorsGrik1, Grik2, Grik4, Grik5
NMDA ReceptorsGrin1, Grin2a, Grin2b, Grin2c
Metabotropic ReceptorsGrm1, Grm3, Grm4, Grm5, Grm6, Grm7, Grm8
Serotonin ReceptorsHtr1a, Htr1b, Htr1d, Htr1f, Htr2a, Htr2c, Htr3a, Htr4, Htr7
Other Neurotransmitter Receptors
Vasopressin ReceptorAvpr1a, Avpr1b
Histamine ReceptorsHrh1, Hrh4
Neuropeptide Y ReceptorsNpy2r, Npy5r
Somatostatin ReceptorsSstr1, Sstr2, Sstr4
Substance P (Neurokinin) ReceptorsTacr1, Tacr2, Tacr3
Other Neurotransmitter ReceptorsBrs3, Cckbr, Cnr1, Gcgr, Grpr, Hcrtr2, Ntsr2, Oxtr, Prokr2 (Gpr73l1), Sctr, Tspo (Bzrp)
Table 2. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the hypothalamus using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
Table 2. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the hypothalamus using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
#UnigeneRefseqSymbolDescriptionFold Regulationp Value
1Rn.9991NM_017191Adra1aAdrenergic, alpha-1A-, receptor−1.00.877
2Rn.11314NM_024483Adra1dAdrenergic, alpha-1D-, receptor−1.80.236
3Rn.170171NM_012739Adra2aAdrenergic, alpha-2A-, receptor−1.00.887
4Rn.10206NM_012492Adrb2Adrenergic, beta-2-, receptor, surface−1.10.649
5Rn.32282NM_053019Avpr1aArginine vasopressin receptor 1A1.10.403
6Rn.10096NM_017205Avpr1bArginine vasopressin receptor 1B−1.30.455
7Rn.86415NM_152845Brs3Bombesin-like receptor 31.40.230
8Rn.90997NM_013165CckbrCholecystokinin B receptor1.50.341
9Rn.119395NM_080773Chrm1Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 11.90.050
10Rn.10676NM_031547Chrm4Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 41.70.005
11Rn.44293NM_017362Chrm5Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 51.20.296
12Rn.10996NM_052805Chrna3Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 3−1.10.548
13Rn.9697NM_024354Chrna4Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 4−1.20.618
14Rn.40125NM_017078Chrna5Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 5−1.60.588
15Rn.9696NM_057184Chrna6Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 6−1.40.573
16Rn.9698NM_012832Chrna7Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 71.30.283
17Rn.10301NM_017194ChrneCholinergic receptor, nicotinic, epsilon1.10.405
18Rn.89774NM_012784Cnr1Cannabinoid receptor 1 (brain)1.10.358
19Rn.24039NM_012546Drd1Dopamine receptor D1A1.60.066
20Rn.87299NM_012547Drd2Dopamine receptor D2−1.10.672
21Rn.138110NM_012768Drd5Dopamine receptor D51.10.413
22Rn.30059NM_031028Gabbr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 11.10.498
23Rn.162814NM_031802Gabbr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 2−1.10.525
24Rn.28463NM_183326Gabra1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 1−1.10.443
25Rn.48180NM_001135779Gabra2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA-A) receptor, subunit alpha 21.30.020
26Rn.81205NM_080587Gabra4Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 41.10.759
27Rn.10368NM_017295Gabra5Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 51.20.254
28Rn.29890NM_021841Gabra6Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 6−2.20.359
29Rn.207157NM_012956Gabrb1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 11.30.010
30Rn.233948NM_017065Gabrb3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 31.30.045
31Rn.10927NM_017289GabrdGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, delta−1.30.676
32Rn.54455NM_023091GabreGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, epsilon1.30.357
33Rn.10366NM_080586Gabrg1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 11.10.140
34Rn.230132NM_183327Gabrg2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 21.20.040
35Rn.10369NM_024370Gabrg3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 31.10.554
36Rn.81067NM_031733GabrqGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, theta1.40.098
37Rn.33552NM_017291Gabrr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 1−1.10.617
38Rn.48659NM_017292Gabrr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 2−1.20.325
39Rn.11225NM_172092GcgrGlucagon receptor−1.10.666
40Rn.29971NM_031608Gria1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 11.20.106
41Rn.91361NM_017261Gria2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 21.10.015
42Rn.74049NM_032990Gria3Glutamate receptor, ionotrophic, AMPA 3−1.10.721
43Rn.10449NM_017241Grik1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 11.00.702
44Rn.87696NM_019309Grik2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 21.10.082
45Rn.10049NM_012572Grik4Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 4−1.00.670
46Rn.74042NM_031508Grik5Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 51.20.059
47Rn.9840NM_017010Grin1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 11.10.254
48Rn.9710NM_012573Grin2aGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2A−1.00.888
49Rn.9711NM_012574Grin2bGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2B1.10.342
50Rn.9709NM_012575Grin2cGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2C1.00.971
51Rn.87787NM_017011Grm1Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 11.10.073
52Rn.41715NM_001105712Grm3Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 3−1.50.147
53Rn.89046NM_022666Grm4Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 4−1.10.724
54Rn.29972NM_017012Grm5Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 51.10.356
55Rn.44615NM_022920Grm6Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 6−1.10.753
56Rn.10409NM_031040Grm7Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 71.20.055
57Rn.44420NM_022202Grm8Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 8−1.10.312
58Rn.10316NM_012706GrprGastrin releasing peptide receptor1.60.136
59Rn.9893NM_013074Hcrtr2Hypocretin (orexin) receptor 21.30.159
60Rn.81032NM_017018Hrh1Histamine receptor H 11.30.272
61Rn.162272NM_131909Hrh4Histamine receptor H4−1.70.428
62Rn.44486NM_012585Htr1a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1A−1.10.723
63Rn.138109NM_022225Htr1b5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1B1.00.796
64Rn.34834NM_012852Htr1d5-Hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1D1.00.893
65Rn.44301NM_021857Htr1f5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1F−1.10.630
66Rn.10294NM_017254Htr2a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2A1.20.682
67Rn.9935NM_012765Htr2c5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2C−1.00.949
68Rn.55109NM_024394Htr3a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 3a−1.20.444
69Rn.10094NM_012853Htr45-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 41.10.051
70Rn.87132NM_022938Htr75-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 71.00.409
71Rn.64505NM_023968Npy2rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y21.70.108
72Rn.10532NM_012869Npy5rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y51.10.691
73Rn.127792NM_022695Ntsr2Neurotensin receptor 21.00.849
74Rn.6841NM_012871OxtrOxytocin receptor1.40.118
75Rn.82760NM_138978Prokr2Prokineticin receptor 21.40.234
76Rn.32256NM_031115SctrSecretin receptor−1.20.630
77Rn.42915NM_012719Sstr1Somatostatin receptor 11.20.258
78Rn.9929NM_019348Sstr2Somatostatin receptor 21.00.762
79Rn.9936NM_013036Sstr4Somatostatin receptor 41.10.417
80Rn.89609NM_012667Tacr1Tachykinin receptor 11.10.215
81Rn.202846NM_080768Tacr2Tachykinin receptor 2−1.80.333
82Rn.9702NM_017053Tacr3Tachykinin receptor 31.20.286
83Rn.1820NM_012515TspoTranslocator protein1.10.489
Table 3. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the amygdala using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
Table 3. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the amygdala using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
#UnigeneRefseqSymbolDescriptionFold Regulationp Value
1Rn.9991NM_017191Adra1aAdrenergic, alpha-1A-, receptor1.20.228
2Rn.11314NM_024483Adra1dAdrenergic, alpha-1D-, receptor1.20.889
3Rn.170171NM_012739Adra2aAdrenergic, alpha-2A-, receptor1.10.931
4Rn.10206NM_012492Adrb2Adrenergic, beta-2-, receptor, surface−1.20.208
5Rn.10100NM_013108Adrb3Adrenergic, beta-3-, receptor−1.40.182
6Rn.32282NM_053019Avpr1aArginine vasopressin receptor 1A−1.10.613
7Rn.10096NM_017205Avpr1bArginine vasopressin receptor 1B1.00.865
8Rn.86415NM_152845Brs3Bombesin-like receptor 3−1.40.597
9Rn.90997NM_013165CckbrCholecystokinin B receptor1.10.427
10Rn.119395NM_080773Chrm1Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 11.10.041
11Rn.10676NM_031547Chrm4Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 4−1.00.857
12Rn.44293NM_017362Chrm5Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 5−1.20.746
13Rn.10996NM_052805Chrna3Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 31.00.755
14Rn.9697NM_024354Chrna4Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 41.10.287
15Rn.40125NM_017078Chrna5Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 51.20.746
16Rn.9696NM_057184Chrna6Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 61.10.347
17Rn.9698NM_012832Chrna7Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 71.10.482
18Rn.10301NM_017194ChrneCholinergic receptor, nicotinic, epsilon1.10.172
19Rn.89774NM_012784Cnr1Cannabinoid receptor 1 (brain)1.20.286
20Rn.24039NM_012546Drd1Dopamine receptor D1A1.10.953
21Rn.87299NM_012547Drd2Dopamine receptor D2−1.00.852
22Rn.138110NM_012768Drd5Dopamine receptor D51.10.797
23Rn.30059NM_031028Gabbr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 11.00.662
24Rn.162814NM_031802Gabbr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 21.20.210
25Rn.28463NM_183326Gabra1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 11.10.646
26Rn.48180NM_001135779Gabra2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA-A) receptor, subunit alpha 21.10.741
27Rn.81205NM_080587Gabra4Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 4−1.00.961
28Rn.10368NM_017295Gabra5Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 51.10.460
29Rn.29890NM_021841Gabra6Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 6−1.60.377
30Rn.207157NM_012956Gabrb1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 11.20.417
31Rn.233948NM_017065Gabrb3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 31.10.090
32Rn.10927NM_017289GabrdGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, delta−1.20.440
33Rn.54455NM_023091GabreGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, epsilon1.20.619
34Rn.10366NM_080586Gabrg1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 11.00.952
35Rn.230132NM_183327Gabrg2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 21.00.631
36Rn.10369NM_024370Gabrg3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 31.20.165
37Rn.81067NM_031733GabrqGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, theta1.00.920
38Rn.33552NM_017291Gabrr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 11.10.728
39Rn.48659NM_017292Gabrr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 2−1.30.280
40Rn.11225NM_172092GcgrGlucagon receptor−1.60.581
41Rn.29971NM_031608Gria1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 11.10.426
42Rn.91361NM_017261Gria2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 21.00.587
43Rn.74049NM_032990Gria3Glutamate receptor, ionotrophic, AMPA 31.10.475
44Rn.10449NM_017241Grik1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 1−1.00.677
45Rn.87696NM_019309Grik2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 21.20.118
46Rn.10049NM_012572Grik4Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 4−1.00.882
47Rn.74042NM_031508Grik5Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 51.00.886
48Rn.9840NM_017010Grin1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 11.10.468
49Rn.9710NM_012573Grin2aGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2A1.10.372
50Rn.9711NM_012574Grin2bGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2B1.20.014
51Rn.9709NM_012575Grin2cGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2C−1.00.888
52Rn.87787NM_017011Grm1Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 11.10.280
53Rn.41715NM_001105712Grm3Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 31.10.485
54Rn.89046NM_022666Grm4Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 41.10.301
55Rn.29972NM_017012Grm5Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 51.10.164
56Rn.44615NM_022920Grm6Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 61.30.248
57Rn.10409NM_031040Grm7Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 71.20.079
58Rn.44420NM_022202Grm8Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 81.30.494
59Rn.10316NM_012706GrprGastrin releasing peptide receptor1.40.356
60Rn.9893NM_013074Hcrtr2Hypocretin (orexin) receptor 2−1.10.733
61Rn.81032NM_017018Hrh1Histamine receptor H 1−1.30.137
62Rn.162272NM_131909Hrh4Histamine receptor H4−1.20.654
63Rn.44486NM_012585Htr1a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1A1.10.575
64Rn.138109NM_022225Htr1b5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1B1.20.360
65Rn.34834NM_012852Htr1d5-Hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1D−1.00.842
66Rn.44301NM_021857Htr1f5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1F1.10.848
67Rn.10294NM_017254Htr2a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2A1.20.599
68Rn.9935NM_012765Htr2c5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2C−1.10.706
69Rn.55109NM_024394Htr3a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 3a−1.20.519
70Rn.10094NM_012853Htr45-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 41.00.903
71Rn.87132NM_022938Htr75-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 7−1.10.736
72Rn.64505NM_023968Npy2rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y2−1.00.842
73Rn.10532NM_012869Npy5rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y5−1.00.740
74Rn.127792NM_022695Ntsr2Neurotensin receptor 2−1.10.505
75Rn.6841NM_012871OxtrOxytocin receptor1.00.874
76Rn.82760NM_138978Prokr2Prokineticin receptor 21.00.828
77Rn.32256NM_031115SctrSecretin receptor−1.30.655
78Rn.42915NM_012719Sstr1Somatostatin receptor 11.10.761
79Rn.9929NM_019348Sstr2Somatostatin receptor 21.30.084
80Rn.9936NM_013036Sstr4Somatostatin receptor 41.20.436
81Rn.89609NM_012667Tacr1Tachykinin receptor 11.10.531
82Rn.202846NM_080768Tacr2Tachykinin receptor 2−1.40.297
83Rn.9702NM_017053Tacr3Tachykinin receptor 31.40.265
84Rn.1820NM_012515TspoTranslocator protein−1.10.666
Table 4. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the striatum using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
Table 4. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the striatum using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
#UnigeneRefseqSymbolDescriptionFold Regulationp Value
1Rn.9991NM_017191Adra1aAdrenergic, alpha-1A-, receptor−1.30.037
2Rn.11314NM_024483Adra1dAdrenergic, alpha-1D-, receptor−5.90.037
3Rn.170171NM_012739Adra2aAdrenergic, alpha-2A-, receptor−1.70.038
4Rn.10206NM_012492Adrb2Adrenergic, beta-2-, receptor, surface1.00.842
5Rn.10100NM_013108Adrb3Adrenergic, beta-3-, receptor−1.10.455
6Rn.32282NM_053019Avpr1aArginine vasopressin receptor 1A−1.20.467
7Rn.10096NM_017205Avpr1bArginine vasopressin receptor 1B1.80.208
8Rn.86415NM_152845Brs3Bombesin-like receptor 31.20.615
9Rn.90997NM_013165CckbrCholecystokinin B receptor−1.30.321
10Rn.119395NM_080773Chrm1Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 1−1.20.409
11Rn.10676NM_031547Chrm4Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 4−1.10.926
12Rn.44293NM_017362Chrm5Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 52.00.042
13Rn.10996NM_052805Chrna3Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 33.10.040
14Rn.9697NM_024354Chrna4Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 4−3.20.027
15Rn.40125NM_017078Chrna5Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 5−3.50.027
16Rn.9696NM_057184Chrna6Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 6−1.50.101
17Rn.9698NM_012832Chrna7Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 7−1.20.220
18Rn.10301NM_017194ChrneCholinergic receptor, nicotinic, epsilon1.70.077
19Rn.89774NM_012784Cnr1Cannabinoid receptor 1 (brain)1.10.778
20Rn.24039NM_012546Drd1Dopamine receptor D1A1.00.755
21Rn.87299NM_012547Drd2Dopamine receptor D21.10.611
22Rn.138110NM_012768Drd5Dopamine receptor D5−2.00.000
23Rn.30059NM_031028Gabbr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 1−1.00.902
24Rn.162814NM_031802Gabbr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 2−2.20.002
25Rn.28463NM_183326Gabra1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 1−1.10.872
26Rn.48180NM_001135779Gabra2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA-A) receptor, subunit alpha 21.10.340
27Rn.81205NM_080587Gabra4Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 41.20.155
28Rn.10368NM_017295Gabra5Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 5−1.70.009
29Rn.29890NM_021841Gabra6Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 63.30.434
30Rn.207157NM_012956Gabrb1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 11.10.629
31Rn.233948NM_017065Gabrb3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 3−1.00.998
32Rn.10927NM_017289GabrdGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, delta1.00.652
33Rn.54455NM_023091GabreGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, epsilon1.40.593
34Rn.10366NM_080586Gabrg1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 11.20.123
35Rn.230132NM_183327Gabrg2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 21.00.941
36Rn.10369NM_024370Gabrg3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 31.20.377
37Rn.81067NM_031733GabrqGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, theta1.00.887
38Rn.33552NM_017291Gabrr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 1−1.20.250
39Rn.48659NM_017292Gabrr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 2−1.60.278
40Rn.11225NM_172092GcgrGlucagon receptor1.00.838
41Rn.29971NM_031608Gria1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 11.00.799
42Rn.91361NM_017261Gria2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 21.00.789
43Rn.74049NM_032990Gria3Glutamate receptor, ionotrophic, AMPA 3−1.20.241
44Rn.10449NM_017241Grik1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 1−1.10.394
45Rn.87696NM_019309Grik2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 21.20.054
46Rn.10049NM_012572Grik4Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 4−1.10.307
47Rn.74042NM_031508Grik5Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 5−1.10.345
48Rn.9840NM_017010Grin1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 1−1.10.731
49Rn.9710NM_012573Grin2aGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2A−1.20.290
50Rn.9711NM_012574Grin2bGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2B−1.10.769
51Rn.9709NM_012575Grin2cGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2C1.40.314
52Rn.87787NM_017011Grm1Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 11.20.317
53Rn.41715NM_001105712Grm3Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 31.20.252
54Rn.89046NM_022666Grm4Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 41.10.290
55Rn.29972NM_017012Grm5Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 51.20.382
56Rn.44615NM_022920Grm6Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 61.10.796
57Rn.10409NM_031040Grm7Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 71.00.717
58Rn.44420NM_022202Grm8Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 8−1.50.093
59Rn.10316NM_012706GrprGastrin releasing peptide receptor1.30.359
60Rn.9893NM_013074Hcrtr2Hypocretin (orexin) receptor 21.10.650
61Rn.81032NM_017018Hrh1Histamine receptor H 1−1.20.250
62Rn.162272NM_131909Hrh4Histamine receptor H42.30.044
63Rn.44486NM_012585Htr1a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1A−1.10.674
64Rn.138109NM_022225Htr1b5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1B1.30.122
65Rn.34834NM_012852Htr1d5-Hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1D1.40.102
66Rn.44301NM_021857Htr1f5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1F1.20.076
67Rn.10294NM_017254Htr2a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2A−1.20.702
68Rn.9935NM_012765Htr2c5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2C−1.10.672
69Rn.55109NM_024394Htr3a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 3a−1.00.561
70Rn.10094NM_012853Htr45-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 41.30.196
71Rn.87132NM_022938Htr75-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 71.30.530
72Rn.64505NM_023968Npy2rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y21.30.438
73Rn.10532NM_012869Npy5rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y5−1.10.397
74Rn.127792NM_022695Ntsr2Neurotensin receptor 21.10.073
75Rn.6841NM_012871OxtrOxytocin receptor−1.10.563
76Rn.82760NM_138978Prokr2Prokineticin receptor 2−1.60.096
77Rn.32256NM_031115SctrSecretin receptor−3.10.073
78Rn.42915NM_012719Sstr1Somatostatin receptor 1−2.40.023
79Rn.9929NM_019348Sstr2Somatostatin receptor 2−2.70.002
80Rn.9936NM_013036Sstr4Somatostatin receptor 4−1.10.448
81Rn.89609NM_012667Tacr1Tachykinin receptor 11.10.727
82Rn.202846NM_080768Tacr2Tachykinin receptor 22.60.316
83Rn.9702NM_017053Tacr3Tachykinin receptor 31.10.757
84Rn.1820NM_012515TspoTranslocator protein1.20.336
Table 5. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
Table 5. Intermittent HFD exposure and rat neurotransmitter receptors gene expression in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) using the RT2 Profiler PCR Array. The bold underlined text highlights statistically significant changes compared to the chow controls.
#UnigeneRefseqSymbolDescriptionFold Regulationp Value
1Rn.9991NM_017191Adra1aAdrenergic, alpha-1A-, receptor−1.00.955
2Rn.11314NM_024483Adra1dAdrenergic, alpha-1D-, receptor−1.90.436
3Rn.170171NM_012739Adra2aAdrenergic, alpha-2A-, receptor−1.50.170
4Rn.10206NM_012492Adrb2Adrenergic, beta-2-, receptor, surface−1.20.478
5Rn.32282NM_053019Avpr1aArginine vasopressin receptor 1A1.00.745
6Rn.10096NM_017205Avpr1bArginine vasopressin receptor 1B1.20.681
7Rn.86415NM_152845Brs3Bombesin-like receptor 31.10.598
8Rn.90997NM_013165CckbrCholecystokinin B receptor−1.20.882
9Rn.119395NM_080773Chrm1Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 11.20.858
10Rn.10676NM_031547Chrm4Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 41.40.434
11Rn.44293NM_017362Chrm5Cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 53.00.082
12Rn.10996NM_052805Chrna3Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 32.10.027
13Rn.9697NM_024354Chrna4Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 4−1.20.021
14Rn.40125NM_017078Chrna5Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 510.80.037
15Rn.9696NM_057184Chrna6Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 622.20.302
16Rn.9698NM_012832Chrna7Cholinergic receptor, nicotinic, alpha 71.20.627
17Rn.10301NM_017194ChrneCholinergic receptor, nicotinic, epsilon−1.40.054
18Rn.89774NM_012784Cnr1Cannabinoid receptor 1 (brain)−1.60.289
19Rn.24039NM_012546Drd1Dopamine receptor D1A1.60.228
20Rn.87299NM_012547Drd2Dopamine receptor D23.50.248
21Rn.138110NM_012768Drd5Dopamine receptor D5−1.20.410
22Rn.30059NM_031028Gabbr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 1−1.00.272
23Rn.162814NM_031802Gabbr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) B receptor 2−1.30.191
24Rn.28463NM_183326Gabra1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 1−1.20.097
25Rn.48180NM_001135779Gabra2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA-A) receptor, subunit alpha 21.00.729
26Rn.81205NM_080587Gabra4Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 41.80.154
27Rn.10368NM_017295Gabra5Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 5−1.60.080
28Rn.29890NM_021841Gabra6Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, alpha 61.30.499
29Rn.207157NM_012956Gabrb1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 11.30.031
30Rn.233948NM_017065Gabrb3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, beta 3−1.10.118
31Rn.10927NM_017289GabrdGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, delta1.20.464
32Rn.54455NM_023091GabreGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, epsilon1.20.424
33Rn.10366NM_080586Gabrg1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 1−1.10.210
34Rn.230132NM_183327Gabrg2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 2−1.30.158
35Rn.10369NM_024370Gabrg3Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) A receptor, gamma 31.60.096
36Rn.81067NM_031733GabrqGamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, theta−1.10.938
37Rn.33552NM_017291Gabrr1Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 12.20.044
38Rn.48659NM_017292Gabrr2Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor, rho 2−1.20.978
39Rn.11225NM_172092GcgrGlucagon receptor1.40.359
40Rn.29971NM_031608Gria1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 11.40.071
41Rn.91361NM_017261Gria2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, AMPA 21.00.786
42Rn.74049NM_032990Gria3Glutamate receptor, ionotrophic, AMPA 3−1.80.025
43Rn.10449NM_017241Grik1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 1−1.30.280
44Rn.87696NM_019309Grik2Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 21.10.477
45Rn.10049NM_012572Grik4Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 4−1.20.410
46Rn.74042NM_031508Grik5Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, kainate 51.00.976
47Rn.9840NM_017010Grin1Glutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 1−1.30.095
48Rn.9710NM_012573Grin2aGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2A−1.10.359
49Rn.9711NM_012574Grin2bGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2B1.10.476
50Rn.9709NM_012575Grin2cGlutamate receptor, ionotropic, N-methyl D-aspartate 2C−1.10.193
51Rn.87787NM_017011Grm1Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 11.50.426
52Rn.41715NM_001105712Grm3Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 3−1.30.157
53Rn.89046NM_022666Grm4Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 4−1.10.186
54Rn.29972NM_017012Grm5Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 5−1.10.696
55Rn.44615NM_022920Grm6Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 61.50.240
56Rn.10409NM_031040Grm7Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 7−1.10.569
57Rn.44420NM_022202Grm8Glutamate receptor, metabotropic 8−1.80.231
58Rn.10316NM_012706GrprGastrin releasing peptide receptor1.90.326
59Rn.9893NM_013074Hcrtr2Hypocretin (orexin) receptor 2−1.60.151
60Rn.81032NM_017018Hrh1Histamine receptor H 1−1.80.113
61Rn.162272NM_131909Hrh4Histamine receptor H41.10.616
62Rn.44486NM_012585Htr1a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1A1.70.004
63Rn.138109NM_022225Htr1b5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1B1.60.032
64Rn.34834NM_012852Htr1d5-Hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1D1.30.452
65Rn.44301NM_021857Htr1f5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1F−1.50.073
66Rn.10294NM_017254Htr2a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2A1.00.761
67Rn.9935NM_012765Htr2c5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 2C−1.10.561
68Rn.55109NM_024394Htr3a5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 3a−1.60.112
69Rn.10094NM_012853Htr45-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 41.80.059
70Rn.87132NM_022938Htr75-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 7−1.20.450
71Rn.64505NM_023968Npy2rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y2−2.30.153
72Rn.10532NM_012869Npy5rNeuropeptide Y receptor Y51.00.963
73Rn.127792NM_022695Ntsr2Neurotensin receptor 21.20.069
74Rn.6841NM_012871OxtrOxytocin receptor1.40.265
75Rn.82760NM_138978Prokr2Prokineticin receptor 2−1.30.083
76Rn.32256NM_031115SctrSecretin receptor−1.90.080
77Rn.42915NM_012719Sstr1Somatostatin receptor 11.20.498
78Rn.9929NM_019348Sstr2Somatostatin receptor 21.50.046
79Rn.9936NM_013036Sstr4Somatostatin receptor 41.30.342
80Rn.89609NM_012667Tacr1Tachykinin receptor 1−1.50.325
81Rn.202846NM_080768Tacr2Tachykinin receptor 22.80.003
82Rn.9702NM_017053Tacr3Tachykinin receptor 33.20.049
83Rn.1820NM_012515TspoTranslocator protein1.50.177

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Villavasso, S.; Shaw, C.; Skripnikova, E.; Shah, K.; Davis, J.F.; Sirohi, S. Nutritional Contingency Reduces Alcohol Drinking by Altering Central Neurotransmitter Receptor Gene Expression in Rats. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112731

AMA Style

Villavasso S, Shaw C, Skripnikova E, Shah K, Davis JF, Sirohi S. Nutritional Contingency Reduces Alcohol Drinking by Altering Central Neurotransmitter Receptor Gene Expression in Rats. Nutrients. 2019; 11(11):2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112731

Chicago/Turabian Style

Villavasso, Starr, Cemilia Shaw, Elena Skripnikova, Krishna Shah, Jon F. Davis, and Sunil Sirohi. 2019. "Nutritional Contingency Reduces Alcohol Drinking by Altering Central Neurotransmitter Receptor Gene Expression in Rats" Nutrients 11, no. 11: 2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112731

APA Style

Villavasso, S., Shaw, C., Skripnikova, E., Shah, K., Davis, J. F., & Sirohi, S. (2019). Nutritional Contingency Reduces Alcohol Drinking by Altering Central Neurotransmitter Receptor Gene Expression in Rats. Nutrients, 11(11), 2731. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112731

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop