AJP - Regu Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 286: R31-R37, 2004. First published August 21, 2003; doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00282.2003
0363-6119/04 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
286/1/R31    most recent
00282.2003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (63)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hajnal, A.
Right arrow Articles by Norgren, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hajnal, A.
Right arrow Articles by Norgren, R.

APPETITE, OBESITY AND METABOLISM

Oral sucrose stimulation increases accumbens dopamine in the rat

Andras Hajnal,1 Gerard P. Smith,2 and Ralph Norgren1

1Department of Neural and Behavioral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania 17033; and 2Bourne Behavioral Research Laboratory, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, White Plains, New York 10605

Submitted 22 May 2003 ; accepted in final form 20 August 2003


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Although taste can influence meal size and body weight, the neural substrate for these effects remains obscure. Dopamine, particularly in the nucleus accumbens, has been implicated in both natural and nonnatural rewards. To isolate the orosensory effects of taste from possible postingestive consequences, we investigated the quantitative relationship between sham feeding of sucrose and extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens with microdialysis in rats. Sucrose intake linearly increased as a function of concentration (0.03 M, 18.07 ± 2.41 ml; 0.1 M, 30.92 ± 2.60 ml; 0.3 M, 43.28 ± 2.88 ml). Sham feeding also stimulated accumbens dopamine overflow as a function of sucrose solution concentration (0.03 M, 120.76 ± 2.6%; 0.1 M, 140.28 ± 7.8%; 0.3 M, 146.27 ± 5.05%). A second experiment used the same protocol but clamped the amount of sucrose ingested and revealed a similar, concentration-dependent dopamine activation in the nucleus accumbens. This is the first demonstration of a quantitative relationship between the concentration-dependent rewarding effect of orosensory stimulation by sucrose during eating and the overflow of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. This finding provides new and strong support for accumbens dopamine in the rewarding effect of sucrose.

orosensory positive feedback; control of food intake; motivation

ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS has been made in understanding the neural code for the sensory properties of gustatory stimuli, much less is known about the neural basis for the hedonic qualities elicited by the same chemicals. For taste and behavioral studies, sucrose is commonly used as an exemplar of a palatable tastant because it is innately preferred by both humans and rodents (28, 33, 44, 59). In brief exposure tests, preference increases as a monotonic function of concentration (19, 67). Sham-feeding studies in rats demonstrate that the orosensory stimulating effect of sucrose is sufficient to initiate and maintain ingestion also in a concentration-dependent manner (25, 44, 63, 74). Human nutrition studies also reveal a strong effect of sweet tastants on regulation of hunger and satiety (15, 18, 26, 37, 42, 43).

Considerable evidence implicates the mesencephalic dopamine (DA) system in motivational and reward processes (9, 21, 35, 40, 53, 75). Although its exact role remains controversial (10, 21, 35, 40), in the rat both natural and nonnatural (i.e., drug of abuse) rewards activate DA neurons in the ventral tegmental area (VTA; A10) that project to the ventral striatum, predominantly to the medial shell of the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) (11, 70). The evidence for the involvement of DA systems in sucrose reward derives from studies that demonstrate a suppression of both real and sham feeding by systemically applied DA antagonists (22, 25, 34, 56, 57, 66). Conversely, manipulations that increase DA levels also enhance preference for and real intake of sucrose (12, 29, 62, 69). Sham-feeding studies also have investigated the potency of sugar solutions to alter forebrain DA systems (65, 73), but none has directly assessed extracellular DA in the NAcc.

Microdialysis experiments demonstrated that intraorally applied saccharin causes an increase in extracellular levels of NAcc DA in naive rats (Ref. 41; A. Hajnal, unpublished data). In a previous experiment (29), we used chronic microdialysis to demonstrate that a single sucrose concentration (0.3 M) increased NAcc DA in experienced real-feeding rats. These results eliminated the problems associated with in vitro neurochemistry but left open the specific contribution of pre- and postabsorptive components of the ingested sucrose. Therefore, in the present experiments, a gastric fistula preparation was used to assess the role of orosensory factors alone in NAcc DA activation. In the first experiment, ad libitum-fed rats were given unrestricted access to different concentrations of sucrose solutions during daily 20-min sham feeding and microdialysis sessions. After the main effect was proven, we repeated the study in an additional group of rats with a similar protocol but clamped the intake of sucrose to control for the differential ingestion normally driven as a function of concentration.

Results from subsets of these data have appeared as abstracts (31, 32).


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Subjects and surgeries. Nineteen adult male Sprague-Dawley rats (275-325 g, Charles River, Wilmington, MA) were housed individually on a 12:12-h light-dark schedule (lights on 7 AM) and kept on a standard laboratory diet [Rodent Diet (W)8604; Harlan Teklad, Madison, WI]. For implantation of microdialysis cannulas, the subjects were anesthetized with pentobarbital sodium (50 mg/kg ip) after a pretreatment with atropine sulfate (0.15 mg/kg ip). The rats were implanted stereotaxically with bilateral, 21-gauge stainless steel guide cannulas positioned above the posterior medial NAcc (A 1.0 mm, L 1.0 mm from the bregma, and V 4.0 from the surface of the skull; Ref. 48).

After 1-wk recovery, the rats were deprived of food for 18 h and anesthetized as before to implant stainless steel gastric cannulas. Cannula design and implantation surgery are described in detail elsewhere (64). The rats recovered for at least 14 days before the start of sham-feeding training.

All the procedures used in this experiment were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine and comply with the American Physiological Society's "Guiding Principles for Research Involving Animals and Human Beings."

Training and tests for sham feeding with sucrose. The rats were maintained on regular lab chow ad libitum, except for 1 h before and 1 h after the training and test sessions. A mild overnight water deprivation (8 PM-10 AM) served to initiate licking during training and, later on, to maintain the behavior when 0.03 M sucrose was presented. Experience with real feeding reduces intake for three to five tests during subsequent sham feeding (20, 74). Therefore, the rats in the present experiments were naive to the postingestive effects of sucrose; they never ingested sucrose with a closed gastric fistula.

Because of the limits of the microdialysis probes, each rat had only three test days. Thus, to collect data for each concentration from each rat, only three concentrations of sucrose were used (0.03, 0.1, and 0.3 M). These concentrations represent the dynamic range in the behavioral concentration-response function for sucrose in sham-feeding rats (20). For the same reason (i.e., the failure of the microdialysis probes after 3 days) and because a previous study failed to show DA responses to water (29), water as a stimulus was omitted from this study.

Throughout training, the different concentrations of sucrose were presented randomly to minimize contrast effects (24, 27) or other expectancies (58). The rats were trained to sham feed each sucrose solution at least three times before the microdialysis tests were initiated. Training continued until the rats initiated sham feeding reliably and 20-min intakes were stable across test days. Thus training lasted for 9-12 days before the tests in the microdialysis chambers.

Experiment 2 was designed to vary concentration while fixing the volume of intake to control for the difference in the amount of movement required to ingest volumes that ranged from ~18 ml (0.03 M) to ~43 ml (0.3 M). The same training protocol was used in experiment 2 with the following modifications. 1) Before random presentation of the three sucrose concentrations, the rats (n = 5) sham fed the lowest concentration of sucrose (0.03 M) for 3 days to establish a baseline intake for clamping volume. 2) From day 4 on through the remaining training and the microdialysis tests, the rats received the same volume of the two concentrations of sucrose. This volume was 75% of the average intake of 0.03 M sucrose by each rat on the last 2 days of the baseline period. This criterion was used because pilot studies in a separate set of rats (n = 5) revealed that, at the concentrations to be used at testing, rats would not necessarily consume 100% of the 0.03 M sucrose volume but they did ingest 75% consistently.

Microdialysis and HPLC. Microdialysis probes were constructed with silica glass tubing (37-µm ID; Polymicro Technologies, Miami Lakes, FL) inside a 26-gauge stainless steel tube with a tip of cellulose tubing (20-kDa cutoff, 0.2-mm OD x 2-mm length; Spectrum, Ranch Dominguez, CA). They were perfused through a microdialysis swivel (375/D/22QE; Instech Laboratories, Plymouth Meeting, PA) with artificial cerebrospinal fluid [aCSF; in mM: 145 NaCl, 2.7 KCl, 1.2 CaCl2, 1.0 MgCl2, and 2.0 Na2HPO4 in HPLC-grade water (Fisher Scientific International, Pittsburgh, PA) adjusted to pH 7.4] at a rate of 1.0 µl/min with microsyringe pumps (model A99; Razel Scientific Instruments, Stamford, CT). The outlet branch of the probe led to a 400-µl vial clipped to a flexible cable 15 cm above the head of the rat. To reduce the oxidation of DA, the vials were prefilled with 5 µl of aCSF solution containing 0.1 M HCl and 100 µM EDTA. Microdialysis was conducted in three sessions on each animal, one session per day. At least 12 h before the first test day, the bilateral microdialysis probes were inserted. They extended 4.0 mm beyond the guide shafts to reach the target area and were left implanted for all three test days.

DA and the monoamine metabolite 3,4-dihydroxyphenyl-acetic acid (DOPAC) were analyzed by reverse-phase HPLC with coulometric detection. Samples (15 µl) were injected with an autosampler (ESA 540, Chelmsford, MA) to a 15-cm column with 3-mm bore and 3-µm C-18 packing (ESA MD-150). The mobile phase contained 60 mM sodium phosphate, 100 µM EDTA, 1.24 mM heptanesulfonic acid (Sigma), and 6% (vol/vol) methanol at pH 3.6. Once separated, the compounds were measured with a Coulochem II system (ESA; analytic cell: model 5014B, electrode 1 -175 mV, electrode 2 +175 mV; guard cell: model 5020, +300 mV). For our system, the detection limit for DA is ~2.0 fmol/15 µl standard sample. In brain microdialysates, DOPAC levels typically are >100-fold higher than DA, so detection limits are not an issue.

Histology. Histology was performed to verify placement of the microdialysis probes. The rats received an overdose of pentobarbital sodium (150 mg/kg ip) and, once deeply anesthetized, were perfused transcardially with 0.9% saline solution followed by 10% formalin. Blocks of the brains that included the NAcc were frozen and serially sectioned at 50 µm. The sections were mounted on microscope slides, stained with cresyl violet, and examined with a light microscope. Of the 38 probes implanted in experiments 1 and 2, six failed to impinge on the target, the posterior shell of NAcc as defined in the Paxinos and Watson atlas (48). Data from these six cases were discarded.

Statistical analyses. Although both hemispheres were sampled, as it happened, data were analyzed from only one probe in each rat. The selection was made on the basis of the probe placement, the stability of the baseline samples, and the number of days (up to 3) that the probe remained functional. On this basis, the final statistical analyses included data for samples from 10 right and 9 left probes. DA data obtained from the left and right hemispheres did not differ statistically [sample 4: F(1,55) = 0.829, P < 0.37; n = 19].

Basal recovery of DA and DOPAC varied considerably between subjects. For this reason, peak overflow of both molecules [area under the peaks analyzed on a personal computer with a Chromatographic Data System (ESA501)] was converted to a percentage of the mean values of three 20-min baseline samples taken during the hour before the sham-feeding tests with the sucrose solutions. These percentage data for DA and DOPAC were analyzed by separate two-way ANOVAs (sample x concentration) with repeated measures on the time factor, i.e., 20-min samples, followed by post hoc Newman-Keuls tests when justified (i.e., between samples across concentrations and their respective baseline). In addition, Wilks' lambda test was used to test for the effects of a combination of dependent variables. Covariance and linear regression analyses were used for assessment of dose-response curves and interactions. The 20-min fluid intakes were analyzed with one-way ANOVAs for the concentration effect and two-way ANOVAs for interactions between concentration x day of presentation. Statistical analysis was carried out with Statistica 6.0 software (Tulsa, OK), and differences were considered significant when P < 0.05.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Sham-fed intake of sucrose. During the first set of microdialysis tests, there was a significant effect of sucrose concentration on sham feeding [0.03 M, 18.07 ± 2.41 ml; 0.1 M, 30.92 ± 2.60; 0.3 M, 43.28 ± 2.88 ml; F(2,39) = 22.88, P < 0.0001; Fig. 1] but no effect from the order of presentation [concentration x day of presentation: Wilks' lambda = 0.91, F(8,76) = 0.46, P = 0.87]. With one exception, the individual concentration-response functions were positive, near linear, and highly correlated [r = 0.69, F(1,43) = 38.96, P < 0.0001; Fig. 2].



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Intake of sham-fed sucrose in daily 20-min sessions at different concentrations. Values are means (±SE) and include data from the microdialysis sessions. Asterisks depict intake of individual rats (in ml; n = 14). Flags indicate overlapping data points. Intake in the microdialysis cages and in the training cages did not differ statistically. For more details and statistics, seeRESULTS.

 


View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Individual dose-response curves in sham-feeding sessions with different concentrations of sucrose. The volumes ingested in the 20-min sham-feeding sessions during microdialysis were normalized to the intake of the lowest concentration. Thin lines represent intakes from individual rats identified by log names (GF1-16). [Data from 2 rats (GF7, 12) were excluded from the analysis and from this article because of either misplacement or malfunction of the probes.] Thick line represents the mean (n = 14).

 

In experiment 2, all rats established stable sham-fed intake of 0.03 M sucrose (19.80 ± 1.98 ml) with 3 days of training. To fix the volume ingested while varying the concentration, during microdialysis each rat was given 75% of its training volume when it was tested with 0.03 M and 0.3 M sucrose. All rats consumed all of this volume of both concentrations within 20 min.

DA and DOPAC changes in response to sham-fed sucrose. The basal amount of DA and DOPAC (mean ± SE) in the dialysate was 34.8 ± 12.4 fmol/15 µl and 0.41 ± 0.1 pmol/15 µl, respectively.

In experiment 1, extracellular DA in the NAcc increased in response to sham-fed sucrose across all concentrations (0.03 M, 120.76 ± 2.6%; 0.1 M, 140.28 ± 7.8%; 0.3 M, 146.27 ± 5.05%; sample 4 in Fig. 3, top). The concentration effect was statistically significant [sample 4: F(2,39) = 6.5725, P < 0.01], as was its positive linear correlation [r = 0.407, F(1,55) = 10.901, P < 0.002]. Post hoc tests revealed that whereas the effect of the lowest concentration (0.03 M) on DA overflow was significantly different from that of the higher concentrations (0.1 and 0.3 M; P = 0.008 and P = 0.003, respectively), there was no statistical difference between the effect of 0.1 M and 0.3 M (P = 0.432).



View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Extracellular levels of dopamine (DA; top) and 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC; bottom) in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) in response to sham licking of sucrose in experiment 1. Values are expressed as % of mean baseline (±SE; n = 14) before, during, and after 20 min of unrestricted sucrose access (sucrose). Different concentrations were presented on consecutive days in the same ad libitum-fed rats, in a counterbalanced fashion. Statistical symbols indicate results of post hoc tests with significant differences from the baseline (sample 3: *P < 0.01, #P < 0.05). For further analyses see RESULTS.

 

Sham feeding all three concentrations of sucrose also increased DOPAC (Fig. 3, bottom). The increase began during sucrose ingestion and lasted for at least 80 min when sampling ceased. There was a dose effect [F(2,280) = 6.6160, P < 0.02; Fig. 3, bottom], which was a result of the strongest sucrose concentration differing from the lower concentrations that were statistically identical (post hoc tests: samples 5 and 6, P < 0.02 and P < 0.04, respectively).

In experiment 2, sham feeding of equal volumes of weak and strong sucrose increased extracellular DA significantly over baseline and the increase was greater for 0.3 M than for 0.03 M [F(1,71) = 28.66, P < 0.02; sample 4: 156.05 ± 11.78% vs. 126.47 ± 2.83%; post hoc test, P < 0.03; Fig. 4, top]. The correlation between sucrose concentration and the DA response was statistically significant [r = 0.639, F(1,8) = 5.546, P < 0.05; Fig. 5]. Comparison for DOPAC also yielded a statistically significant concentration effect [F(1,71) = 13.79, P < 0.05; Fig. 4, bottom] carried by differences at 20 min after the sham-feeding session (post hoc test: sample 5, P < 0.02).



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Extracellular levels of DA (top) and DOPAC (bottom) in the NAcc in response to sham licking of sucrose in experiment 2. Values are expressed as % of mean baseline (±SE; n = 5) before, during, and after 20-min sham feeding of the same volume of 0.03 M or 0.3 M sucrose. Statistical symbols indicate results of post hoc tests with significant differences from the baseline (sample 3: *P < 0.01, #P < 0.05). For further analyses see RESULTS.

 


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Correlation between DA release in the NAcc and concentration of sucrose in experiments 1 and 2. Symbols depict individual data of peak DA release expressed as % of the baseline (identical to sample 4 in Figs. 3, top, and 4) across different concentrations of oral sucrose (0.03, 0.1, and 0.3 M in experiment 1 and 0.03 and 0.3 M in experiment 2). Open circles: data from experiment 1, in which rats with open gastric fistula had unlimited access to sucrose. Half-filled triangles: data from experiment 2, in which rats sham fed a restricted amount of sucrose. Dashed line: regression line for experiment 1. Solid line: regression line for experiment 2. Numbers are the log numbers of individual rats in experiment 2. For further explanation and statistics, see RESULTS.

 

Histology. The tips of all probes that provided data were located in the caudomedial NAcc (A 10.0-10.6 according to Ref. 48) medial to the anterior commissure (L 0.8-1.8). The area from which samples were collected was reconstructed from individual probe placements and is depicted in Fig. 6. The actual tracks of probe tips were often curved because of the flexibility of the membrane and gliosis in the surrounding brain tissue. This feature and the extensive overlap of the probe sites made a more precise analysis of individual sampling sites impractical. Overall, the sampled brain region corresponded to the midposterior aspect of the medial shell and medial core of the NAcc.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Schematic frontal sections of the rat brain's left hemisphere showing microdialysis sites in the NAcc. Gray bars depict reconstructed extent of the active membrane of the microdialysis probes (0.2 mm x 2 mm) as identified in the histological analysis. Black fields represent the areas of overlap and, in turn, indicate the most often sampled brain area. The number on each section is the distance in millimeters anterior from the bregma according to Paxinos and Watson (48). Scale bar, 1 mm.

 


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Our present data reinforce previous findings showing that rats sham feed sugar solutions in a concentration-dependent manner (25, 44, 74). This observation underscores the role of orosensory factors in the preference of sucrose ("sweet reward") without the confounding metabolic effects of ingested food. The fundamental finding of our study was to demonstrate a concentration-dependent increase in extracellular DA levels in the NAcc. Moreover, the second experiment in which the intake volume was fixed substantially controlled for motor activity. Although this finding (i.e., dose-response function of accumbens DA to a rewarding stimulus) is unique, several prior studies do support the observation. Previous behavioral data showed a differential reinforcing effect of concentration when small volumes of sucrose were consumed during operant conditioning and other tasks (1, 72). Conversely, the reinforcing efficacy of sucrose concentration on progressive ratio performance was dose-dependently suppressed by the DA D2/D3 receptor antagonist raclopride (16). In contrast to our experiment, however, the small volumes used in these studies minimized but did not eliminate postingestive feedback of sucrose. Further support comes from pharmacological data in sham-feeding studies that revealed a dose-dependent inhibition of sucrose intake by D1 and D2 DA receptor antagonists (34, 57, 76).

The effects of the systemic antagonists and the reward produced by sucrose are consistent with a dose-dependent release of DA rather than with its tonic effect. Our prior study (29) using intra-accumbens reverse microdialysis of DA receptor antagonists revealed no tonic effect by D1 receptors on real sucrose intake. When basal DA levels and sucrose intake were increased with nomifensine, however, the same blockade did dampen ingestion (29). Strong support for the importance of phasic DA release comes from a recent in vivo voltametry study demonstrating the specificity of DA transients in the accumbens during cocaine administration (50).

Nonetheless, tonic DA levels remain relevant because they regulate the phasic release of DA. Indeed, parallel experiments in our laboratory (7, 8) revealed that experience with restricted sucrose access may result in presynaptic neuroadaptation in the NAcc, including upregulation of the DA membrane transporter and downregulation of the D2/D3 autoreceptors, both factors that determine DA tone as well as the effectiveness of phasic DA release. A further experiment illustrated the effects by showing that experience with scheduled sucrose feeding resulted in augmented extracellular metabolite levels in response to a subsequent chow (30). Because the rats in the present experiment also had experience with the sucrose protocol before the microdialysis sessions, the sustained high DOPAC levels after the tests may also reflect altered tonic regulation. Follow-up studies that control for contextual variables and feeding conditions are needed to clarify the specificity and relevance of this finding.

How does oral sucrose affect accumbens DA? In fact, the mesoaccumbens DA system has many potential connections with the gustatory system. Palatable foods, including sucrose, activate VTA neurons (47). Conversely, VTA lesions selectively reduce consumption of preferred sucrose solution (61). The nucleus of the solitary tract (NST), the first central relay of the gustatory system (45), possesses neural connections with the VTA (36, 39). The NAcc also receives afferent projections from the caudal NST (77) and communicates back to the NST (13, 68) via a circuit that includes the parabrachial nucleus (PBN) (71). The PBN, the second central gustatory relay, projects to the gustatory cortex via the gustatory thalamus and also projects heavily to limbic structures including the central nucleus of the amygdala, the lateral hypothalamus, and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (45), all of which send axons to the NAcc shell (38) and are connected also to the VTA (46, 51). The cortical gustatory area can also reach NAcc via substantial connections to the central nucleus of the amygdala, the lateral hypothalamus, and the prefrontal cortex (45, 60). In summary, the anatomy suggests many avenues through which gustatory neural activity in both the hindbrain and forebrain could influence DA release in the terminal fields. Thus some of these neural substrates are very likely to be involved in behavioral activation by sucrose sham feeding.

Increases in NAcc DA, however, also occur in conjunction with motor activity, reward learning, and the relative salience of the stimulus driven by the deprivation state (3, 10, 14, 17, 40, 49, 53-55). To control for these factors, we first used rats that received water instead of sucrose. In contrast to the present experiment, overnight water deprivation failed to induce intake comparable to that of the weakest concentration of sucrose. For this reason, and also because of the limited number of microdialysis sessions possible in a given rat, water was omitted as a control from the present study. Nonetheless, in prior experiments using deprived rats with extensive training in 20-min licking sessions, real water intake (i.e., nongastric fistula) failed to influence NAcc DA release (29, 30). This observation suggests a dissociation of mechanisms that are responsible for incentive salience induced by need state and those that are driven by the orosensory rewarding effects of sucrose (9).

As mentioned above, in a prior experiment that did include water training in addition to sucrose, the control fluid produced no detectable DA responses (29). In the present experiment, we specifically presented the three different concentrations of sucrose randomly during training to mitigate the chances of habituation or Pavlovian conditioning confounding the test results (2-6, 21). Finally, the fact that the DA responses were concentration dependent further reduces the probability that a conditioned response could account for a large proportion of the phenomenon. Another observation was made contrary to previous studies, in which a single preexposure to a complex food stimulus reduced the DA response from the NAcc shell during the second trial (3, 4, 6). Because of the extensive training given to our rats, if any habituation took place, it presumably was complete before our test trials. Thus the responses that we measured after the training trials probably reflected the direct sensory events. Another possible explanation for the lack of habituation is anatomic. Although DA responses assayed in the NAcc shell show evidence of habituation, under similar circumstances those produced in the NAcc core do not (2). Our probe placements were such that, on balance, we probably measured some DA release from both subdivisions.

Interestingly, the magnitude of the DA peaks in response to sham licking the most preferred 0.3 M sucrose solution in the present experiment was significantly lower (i.e., 50-65%) than that of the DA responses to real feeding of the same concentration of sucrose in our previous experiments (29, 30). This difference may reflect a contribution of postabsorptive factors. Specifically, insulin has been proposed to influence DA function in the mesoaccumbens system (23, 52). Even in the sham-feeding rat, an effect of preabsorptive insulin release on the NAcc DA cannot be excluded.

In conclusion, the results demonstrate a significant, monotonic relationship between the intensity of orosensory stimulation provided by different concentrations of sucrose and the overflow of DA from the nucleus accumbens. This relationship was caused by the oral concentration of sucrose because postingestive effects were excluded by the use of sham feeding. This relationship was not caused by the amount of ingestive movements because it occurred when the volume ingested was fixed. This is the first demonstration of such a quantitative relationship with a natural food reward. It provides strong and additional support for the importance of mesolimbic DA mechanisms in the motivating and rewarding effects of sweet taste.


   GRANTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
REFERENCES
 
This research was supported by National Institute of Deafness and Other Communications Disorders Grants DC-04751 and DC-00240.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
The authors thank W. D. Umbarger and N. Acharya for assistance with the microdialysis and HPLC and K. Matyas and N. Horvath for histology.


   FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: A. Hajnal, Dept. of Neural and Behavioral Sciences H181, Coll. of Medicine, Pennsylvania State Univ., Hershey, PA 17033 (E-mail: ahajnal{at}psu.edu).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement"in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Barr AM and Phillips AG. Chronic mild stress has no effect on responding by rats for sucrose under a progressive ratio schedule. Physiol Behav 64: 591-597, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Bassareo V, De Luca MA, and Di Chiara G. Differential expression of motivational stimulus properties by dopamine in nucleus accumbens shell versus core and prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci 22: 4709-4719, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Bassareo V, De Luca MA, Aresu M, Aste A, Ariu T, and Di Chiara G. Differential adaptive properties of accumbens shell dopamine responses to ethanol as a drug and as a motivational stimulus. Eur J Neurosci 17: 1465-1472, 2003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Bassareo V and Di Chiara G. Differential influence of associative and nonassociative learning mechanisms on the responsiveness of prefrontal and accumbal dopamine transmission to food stimuli in rats fed ad libitum. J Neurosci 17: 851-861, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Bassareo V and Di Chiara G. Differential responsiveness of dopamine transmission to food-stimuli in nucleus accumbens shell/core compartments. Neuroscience 89: 637-641, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Bassareo V and Di Chiara G. Modulation of feeding-induced activation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission by appetitive stimuli and its relation to motivational state. Eur J Neurosci 11: 4389-4397, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Bello NT, Lucas LR, and Hajnal A. Repeated sucrose access influences dopamine D2 receptor density in the striatum. Neuroreport 13: 1575-1578, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. Bello NT, Sweigart KL, Lakoski JM, Norgren R, and Hajnal A. Restricted feeding with scheduled sucrose access results in an upregulation of the rat dopamine transporter. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 284: R1260-R1268, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Berridge KC. Food reward: brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 20: 1-25, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Berridge KC and Robinson TE. What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Res Brain Res Rev 28: 309-369, 1998.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Bjorklund A, and Lindvall O. Dopamine-containing systems in the CNS. In: Handbook of Chemical Neuroanatomy: Classical Transmitters in the CNS. New York: Elsevier Science, 1984, vol. 2, part I, chapt. 3, p. 55-122.
  12. Brennan K, Roberts DC, Anisman H, and Merali Z. Individual differences in sucrose consumption in the rat: motivational and neurochemical correlates of hedonia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 157: 269-276, 2001.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Brog JS, Salyapongse A, Deutch AY, and Zahm DS. The patterns of afferent innervation of the core and shell in the "accumbens" part of the rat ventral striatum: immunohistochemical detection of retrogradely transported fluoro-gold. J Comp Neurol 338: 255-278, 1993.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Cador M, Taylor JR, and Robbins TW. Potentiation of the effects of reward-related stimuli by dopaminergic-dependent mechanisms in the nucleus accumbens. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 104: 377-385, 1991.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Caltabiano ML and Shellshear J. Palatability versus healthiness as determinants of food preferences in young adults: a comparison of nomothetic and idiographic analytic approaches. Aust NZ J Public Health 22: 547-551, 1998.[Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Cheeta S, Brooks S, and Willner P. Effects of reinforcer sweetness and the D2/D3 antagonist raclopride on progressive ratio operant performance. Behav Pharmacol 6: 127-132, 1995.[Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Church WH, Justice JB Jr., and Neill DB. Detecting behaviorally relevant changes in extracellular dopamine with microdialysis. Brain Res 412: 397-399, 1987.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Cross AT, Babicz D, and Cushman LF. Snacking patterns among 1,800 adults and children. J Am Diet Assoc 94: 1398-1403, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Davis JD. The effectiveness of some sugars in stimulating licking behavior in the rat. Physiol Behav 11: 39-45, 1973.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Davis JD and Smith GP. Learning to sham feed: behavioral adjustments to loss of physiological postingestional stimuli. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 259: R1228-R1235, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Di Chiara G. A motivational learning hypothesis of the role of mesolimbic dopamine in compulsive drug use. J Psychopharmacol (Oxf) 12: 54-67, 1998.
  22. Duong A and Weingarten HP. Dopamine antagonists act on central, but not peripheral, receptors to inhibit sham and real feeding. Physiol Behav 54: 449-454, 1993.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Figlewicz DP, Szot P, Chavez M, Woods SC, and Veith RC. Intraventricular insulin increases dopamine transporter mRNA in rat VTA/substantia nigra. Brain Res 644: 331-334, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Flaherty CF, Turovsky J, and Krauss KL. Relative hedonic value modulates anticipatory contrast. Physiol Behav 55: 1047-1054, 1994.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Geary N and Smith GP. Pimozide decreases the positive reinforcing effect of sham fed sucrose in the rat. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 22: 787-790, 1985.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, and Snyder D. Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. J Am Diet Assoc 98: 1118-1126, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Grigson PS, Spector AC, and Norgren R. Microstructural analysis of successive negative contrast in free-feeding and deprived rats. Physiol Behav 54: 909-916, 1993.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Grill HJ and Norgren R. The taste reactivity test. I. Mimetic responses to gustatory stimuli in neurologically normal rats. Brain Res 143: 263-279, 1978.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Hajnal A and Norgren R. Accumbens dopamine mechanisms in sucrose intake. Brain Res 904: 76-84, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Hajnal A and Norgren R. Repeated access to sucrose augments dopamine turnover in the nucleus accumbens. Neuroreport 13: 2213-2216, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Hajnal A, Smith GP, and Norgren R. Sham-feeding of sucrose increases accumbens dopamine in concentration-dependent manner: a microdialysis study in behaving rats. SSIB annual meeting 2001 (Abstract). Appetite 37: 141-142, 2001.
  32. Hajnal A, Smith GP, and Norgren R. Sham-feeding of sucrose increases dopamine and decreases norepinephrine in the nucleus accumbens of the rat. SSIB annual meeting 2003 (Abstract). Appetite 40: 336, 2003.
  33. Hall WG and Bryan TE. The ontogeny of feeding in rats: IV. Taste development as measured by intake and behavioral responses to oral infusions of sucrose and quinine. J Comp Physiol Psychol 95: 240-251, 1981.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Hsiao S and Smith GP. Raclopride reduces sucrose preference in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 50: 121-125, 1995.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Ikemoto S and Panksepp J. The role of nucleus accumbens dopamine in motivated behavior: a unifying interpretation with special reference to reward-seeking. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 31: 6-41, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Ito H and Seki M. Ascending projections from the area postrema and the nucleus of the solitary tract of Suncus murinus: anterograde tracing study using Phaseolus vulgaris leucoagglutinin. Okajimas Folia Anat Jpn 75: 9-31, 1998.[Medline]
  37. Kant AK. Consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods by adult Americans: nutritional and health implications. The third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. Am J Clin Nutr 72: 929-936, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Kirouac GJ and Ciriello J. Cardiovascular afferent inputs to ventral tegmental area. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 272: R1998-R2003, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Kirouac GJ and Ganguly PK. Topographical organization in the nucleus accumbens of afferents from the basolateral amygdala and efferents to the lateral hypothalamus. Neuroscience 67: 625-630, 1995.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  40. Koob GF. Hedonic valence, dopamine and motivation. Mol Psychiatry 1: 186-189, 1996.[Web of Science][Medline]
  41. Mark GP, Blander DS, and Hoebel BG. A conditioned stimulus decreases extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens after the development of a learned taste aversion. Brain Res 551: 308-310, 1991.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  42. McCrory MA, Fuss PJ, Saltzman E, and Roberts SB. Dietary determinants of energy intake and weight regulation in healthy adults. J Nutr 130: 276S-279S, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. McCrory MA, Suen VM, and Roberts SB. Biobehavioral influences on energy intake and adult weight gain. J Nutr 132: 3830S-3834S, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Nissenbaum JW and Sclafani A. Sham-feeding response of rats to Polycose and sucrose. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 11: 215-222, 1987.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  45. Norgren R. Gustatory system. In: The Rat Nervous System, edited by Paxinos G. New York: Academic, 1995, p. 751-771.
  46. Oades RD and Halliday GM. Ventral tegmental (A10) system: neurobiology. 1. Anatomy and connectivity. Brain Res 434: 117-165, 1987.[Medline]
  47. Park TH and Carr KD. Neuroanatomical patterns of fos-like immunoreactivity induced by a palatable meal and meal-paired environment in saline- and naltrexone-treated rats. Brain Res 805: 169-180, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  48. Paxinos G and Watson C. The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates (compact 3rd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Academic, 1997.
  49. Phillips AG, Atkinson LJ, Blackburn JR, and Blaha CD. Increased extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens of the rat elicited by a conditional stimulus for food: an electrochemical study. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 71: 387-393, 1993.[Web of Science][Medline]
  50. Phillips PE, Stuber GD, Heien ML, Wightman RM, and Carelli RM. Subsecond dopamine release promotes cocaine seeking. Nature 422: 614-618, 2003.[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. Phillipson OT. Afferent projections to the ventral tegmental area of Tsai and interfascicular nucleus: a horseradish peroxidase study in the rat. J Comp Neurol 187: 117-143, 1979.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  52. Potter GM, Moshirfar A, and Castonguay TW. Insulin affects dopamine overflow in the nucleus accumbens and the striatum. Physiol Behav 65: 811-816, 1999.[CrossRef][Medline]
  53. Robbins TW and Everitt BJ. Neurobehavioural mechanisms of reward and motivation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 6: 228-236, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  54. Salamone JD, Correa M, Mingote S, and Weber SM. Nucleus accumbens dopamine and the regulation of effort in food-seeking behavior: implications for studies of natural motivation, psychiatry, and drug abuse. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 305: 1-8, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Salamone JD, Cousins MS, McCullough LD, Carriero DL, and Berkowitz RJ. Nucleus accumbens dopamine release increases during instrumental lever pressing for food but not free food consumption. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 49: 25-31, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  56. Schneider LH. Orosensory self-stimulation by sucrose involves brain dopaminergic mechanisms. Ann NY Acad Sci 575: 307-319, 1989.[Web of Science][Medline]
  57. Schneider LH, Davis JD, Watson CA, and Smith GP. Similar effect of raclopride and reduced sucrose concentration on the microstructure of sucrose sham feeding. Eur J Pharmacol 186: 61-70, 1990.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  58. Schultz W. Dopamine neurons and their role in reward mechanisms. Curr Opin Neurobiol 7: 191-197, 1997.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  59. Sclafani A. Carbohydrate taste, appetite, and obesity: an overview. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 11: 131-153, 1987.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  60. Shi CJ and Cassell MD. Cortical, thalamic, and amygdaloid connections of the anterior and posterior insular cortices. J Comp Neurol 399: 440-468, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  61. Shimura T, Kamada Y, and Yamamoto T. Ventral tegmental lesions reduce overconsumption of normally preferred taste fluid in rats. Behav Brain Res 134: 123-130, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  62. Sills TL and Vaccarino FJ. Individual differences in sugar consumption following systemic or intraaccumbens administration of low doses of amphetamine in nondeprived rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 54: 665-670, 1996.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  63. Smith GP. Dopamine and food reward. In: Progress in Psychobiology and Physiological Psychology, edited by Morrison A and Fluharty S. New York: Academic, 1995, vol. 15, p. 83-144.
  64. Smith GP. Sham feeding in rats with chronic, reversible gastric fistulas. In: Current Protocols in Neuroscience. New York: Wiley, 1999, chapt. 8, unit 8.6D, p. 1-6.
  65. Smith GP, Bourbonais KA, Jerome C, and Simansky KJ. Sham feeding of sucrose increases the ratio of 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid to dopamine in the hypothalamus. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 26: 585-591, 1987.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  66. Smith GP and Schneider LH. Relationships between mesolimbic dopamine function and eating behavior. Ann NY Acad Sci 537: 254-261, 1988.[Web of Science][Medline]
  67. Spector AC, Travers SP, and Norgren R. Taste receptors on the anterior tongue and nasoincisor ducts of rats contribute synergistically to behavioral responses to sucrose. Behav Neurosci 107: 694-702, 1993.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  68. Stratford TR and Kelley AE. Evidence of a functional relationship between the nucleus accumbens shell and lateral hypothalamus subserving the control of feeding behavior. J Neurosci 19: 11040-11048, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  69. Szczypka MS, Kwok K, Brot MD, Marck BT, Matsumoto AM, Donahue BA, and Palmiter RD. Dopamine production in the caudate putamen restores feeding in dopamine-deficient mice. Neuron 30: 819-828, 2001.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  70. Takada M and Hattori T. Organization of ventral tegmental area cells projecting to the occipital cortex and forebrain in the rat. Brain Res 418: 27-33, 1987.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  71. Usuda I, Tanaka K, and Chiba T. Efferent projections of the nucleus accumbens in the rat with special reference to subdivision of the nucleus: biotinylated dextran amine study. Brain Res 797: 73-93, 1998.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  72. Vigorito M, Kruse CB, and Carretta JC. Differential sensitivity of operant behaviors to changes in the concentration of a sucrose reinforcer: effects of pimozide. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 47: 515-522, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  73. Weatherford SC, Greenberg D, Melville LD, Jerome C, Gibbs J, and Smith GP. Failure to detect increases in brain dopamine metabolism in rats sham feeding sucrose and corn oil. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 39: 1025-1028, 1991.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  74. Weingarten HP and Kulikovsky OT. Taste-to-postingestive consequence conditioning: is the rise in sham feeding with repeated experience a learning phenomenon? Physiol Behav 45: 471-476, 1989.[CrossRef][Medline]
  75. Wise RA. Brain reward circuitry: insights from unsensed incentives. Neuron 36: 229-240, 2002.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  76. Yu WZ, Silva RM, Sclafani A, Delamater AR, and Bodnar RJ. Role of D1 and D2 dopamine receptors in the acquisition and expression of flavor-preference conditioning in sham-feeding rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 67: 537-544, 2000.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  77. Zagon A, Totterdell S, and Jones RS. Direct projections from the ventrolateral medulla oblongata to the limbic forebrain: anterograde and retrograde tract-tracing studies in the rat. J Comp Neurol 340: 445-468, 1994.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
S. S. Mungarndee, R. F. Lundy Jr., and R. Norgren
Expression of Fos during sham sucrose intake in rats with central gustatory lesions
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, September 1, 2008; 295(3): R751 - R763.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
A. E. Sahr, D. K. Sindelar, J. T. Alexander-Chacko, B. J. Eastwood, C. H. Mitch, and M. A. Statnick
Activation of mesolimbic dopamine neurons during novel and daily limited access to palatable food is blocked by the opioid antagonist LY255582
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, August 1, 2008; 295(2): R463 - R471.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
B. C. De Jonghe, A. Hajnal, and M. Covasa
Conditioned preference for sweet stimuli in OLETF rat: effects of food deprivation
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, May 1, 2007; 292(5): R1819 - R1827.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
R. A. Wise
The parsing of food reward.
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, November 1, 2006; 291(5): R1234 - R1235.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
N.-C. Liang, A. Hajnal, and R. Norgren
Sham feeding corn oil increases accumbens dopamine in the rat
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, November 1, 2006; 291(5): R1236 - R1239.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
R. A Wise
Role of brain dopamine in food reward and reinforcement
Phil Trans R Soc B, July 29, 2006; 361(1471): 1149 - 1158.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
A. Hajnal, M. Covasa, and N. T. Bello
Altered taste sensitivity in obese, prediabetic OLETF rats lacking CCK-1 receptors
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, December 1, 2005; 289(6): R1675 - R1686.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
W. A. Cupples
Physiological regulation of food intake
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, June 1, 2005; 288(6): R1438 - R1443.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
B. C. De Jonghe, A. Hajnal, and M. Covasa
Increased oral and decreased intestinal sensitivity to sucrose in obese, prediabetic CCK-A receptor-deficient OLETF rats
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, January 1, 2005; 288(1): R292 - R300.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
C. H. Lemon, S. M. Brasser, and D. V. Smith
Alcohol Activates a Sucrose-Responsive Gustatory Neural Pathway
J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2004; 92(1): 536 - 544.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
R. A. Wise
Dopamine and food reward: back to the elements
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, January 1, 2004; 286(1): R13 - R13.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
286/1/R31    most recent
00282.2003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (63)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hajnal, A.
Right arrow Articles by Norgren, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hajnal, A.
Right arrow Articles by Norgren, R.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2004 by the American Physiological Society.