The role of learning and growth hormone-releasing factor in the control of protein intake in rats /

Both learning and basic biological mechanisms have been shown to play a role in the control of protein int^e. It has previously been shown that rats can adapt their dietary selection patterns successfully in the face of changing macronutrient requirements and availability. In particular, it has been demonstrated that when access to dietary protein is restricted for a period of time, rats selectively increase their consumption of a proteincontaining diet when it becomes available. Furthermore, it has been shown that animals are able to associate various orosensory cues with a food's nutrient content. In addition to the role that learning plays in food intake, there are also various biological mechanisms that have been shown to be involved in the control of feeding behaviour. Numerous studies have documented that various hormones and neurotransmitter substances mediate food intake. One such hormone is growth hormone-releasing factor (GRF), a peptide that induces the release of growth hormone (GH) from the anterior pituitary gland. Recent research by Vaccarino and Dickson ( 1 994) suggests that GRF may stimulate food intake by acting as a neurotransmitter in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) and the adjacent medial preoptic area (MPOA). In particular, when GRF is injected directly into the SCN/MPOA, it has been shown to selectively enhance the intake of protein in both fooddeprived and sated rats. Thus, GRF may play a role in activating protein consumption generally, and when animals have a need for protein, GRF may serve to trigger proteinseeking behaviour. Although researchers have separately examined the role of learning and the central mechanisms involved in the control of protein selection, no one has yet attempted to bring together these two lines of study. Thus, the purpose of this study is to join these two parallel lines of research in order to further our understanding of mechanisms controlling protein selection. In order to ascertain the combined effects that GRF and learning have on protein intake several hypothesis were examined. One major hypothesis was that rats would successfully alter their dietary selection patterns in response to protein restriction. It was speculated that rats kept on a nutritionally complete maintenance diet (NCMD) would consume equal amount of the intermittently presented high protein conditioning diet (HPCD) and protein-free conditioning diet (PFCD). However, it was hypothesized that rats kept on a protein-free maintenance diet (PFMD) would selectively increase their intake of the HPCD. Another hypothesis was that rats would learn to associate a distinct marker flavour with the nutritional content of the diets. If an animal is able to make the association between a marker flavour and the nutrient content of the food, then it is hypothesized that they will consume more of a mixed diet (equal portion HPCD and PFCD) with the marker flavour that was previously paired with the HPCD (Mixednp-f) when kept on the PFMD. In addition, it was hypothesized that intracranial injection of GRF into the SCN/MPOA would result in a selective increase in HPCD as well as Mixednp-t consumption. Results demonstrated that rats did in fact selectively increase their consumption of the flavoured HPCD and Mixednp-f when kept on the NCMD. These findings indicate that the rats successfully learned about the nutrient content of the conditioning diets and were able to associate a distinct marker flavour with the nutrient content of the diets. However, the results failed to support previous findings that GRF increases protein intake. In contrast, the administration of GRF significantly reduced consumption of HPCD during the first hour of testing as compared to the no injection condition. In addition, no differences in the intake of the HPCD were found between the GRF and vehicle condition. Because GRF did not selectively increase HPCD consumption, it was not surprising that GRF also did not increase MixedHP-rintake. What was interesting was that administration of GRF and vehicle did not reduc^Mixednp-f consumption as it had decreased HPCD consumption.

Developmental differences in locomotor responsiveness to amphetamine in rats

The developmental remodelling of motivational systems that underlie drug dependence and addiction may account for the greater frequency and severity of drug abuse in adolescence compared to adulthood. Recent advances in animal models have begun to identify the morphological and the molecular factors that are being remodelled, but little is known about the culmination of these factors in altered sensitivity to psycho stimulant drugs, like amphetamine, in adolescence. Amphetamine induces potent locomotor activating effects in rodents through increased dopamine release in the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system, which makes locomotor activity a useful behavioural marker of age differences in amphetamine sensitivity. The aim of the thesis was to investigate the neural basis for age differences in amphetamine sensitivity with a focus on the nucleus accumbens and the medial prefrontal cortex, which initiate and regulate amphetamine-induced locomotor activity, respectively. In study 1, I found pre- and post- pubertal adolescent rats to be less active (i.e., hypoactive) than adults to a first injection of 0.5, but not of 1.5, mg/kg of intraperitonealy (i.p.) administered amphetamine. Although initially hypoactive, only adolescent rats exhibited an increase in activity to a second injection of amphetamine given 24 h later, indicating that adolescents may be more sensitive to the rapid changes in amphetamineinduced plasticity than adults. Given that the locomotor activating effects of amphetamine are initiated in the nucleus accumbens, age differences in response to direct injections of amphetamine into this brain region were investigated in study 2. In contrast to i.p. injections, adolescents were more active than adults when amphetamine was given directly into the nucleus accumbens, indicating that hypo activity may be attributed to the development of regulatory regions outside of the accumbens. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) is a key regulator of the locomotor activating effects of amphetamine that undergoes extensive remodelling in adolescence. In study 3, I found that an i.p. injection of 1.5, and not of 0.5, mg/kg of amphetamine resulted in a high expression of c-fos, a marker of neural activation, in the pre limbic mPFC only in pre-pubertal adolescent rats. This finding suggests that the ability of adolescent rats to overcome hypo activity at the 1.5 mg/kg dose may involve greater activation of the prelimbic mPFC compared to adulthood. In support of this hypothesis, I found that pharmacological inhibition of prelimbic D 1 dopamine receptors disrupted the locomotor activating effects of the 1.5 mg/kg dose of amphetamine to a greater extent in adolescent than in adult rats. In addition, the stimulation of prelimbic D 1 dopamine receptors potentiated locomotor activity at the 0.5 mg/kg dose of amphetamine only in adolescent rats, indicating that the prelimbic D1 dopamine receptors are involved in overcoming locomotor hypoactivity during adolescence. Given my finding that the locomotor activating effects of amphetamine rely on slightly different mechanisms in adolescence than in adulthood, study 4 was designed to determine whether the lasting consequences of drug use would also differ with age. A short period of pre-treatment with 0.5 mg/kg of amphetamine in adolescence, but not in adulthood, resulted in heightened sensitivity to an injection of amphetamine given 30 days after the start of the procedure, when adolescent rats had reached adulthood. The finding of an age-specific increase in amphetamine sensitivity is consistent with evidence for increased risk for addiction when drug use is initiated in adolescence compared to adulthood in people (Merline et aI., 2002), and with the hypothesis that adolescence is a sensitive period of development.

The Arabidopsis NPR1 Protein Is a Receptor for the Plant Defense Hormone Salicylic Acid

Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR) is a type of plant systemic resistance occurring against a broad spectrum of pathogens. It can be activated in response to pathogen infection in the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana and many agriculturally important crops. Upon SAR activation, the infected plant undergoes transcriptional reprogramming, marked by the induction of a battery of defense genes, including Pathogenesis-related (PR) genes. Activation of the PR-1 gene serves as a molecular marker for the deployment of SAR. The accumulation of a defense hormone, salicylic acid (SA) is crucial for the infected plant to mount SAR. Increased cellular levels of SA lead to the downstream activation of the PR-1 gene, triggered by the combined action of the Non-expressor of Pathogenesis-related Gene 1 (NPR1) protein and the TGA II-clade transcription factor (namely TGA2). Despite the importance of SA, its receptor has remained elusive for decades. In this study, we demonstrated that in Arabidopsis the NPR1 protein is a receptor for SA. SA physically binds to the C-terminal transactivation domain of NPR1. The two cysteines (Cys521 and Cys529), which are important for NPR1’s coactivator function, within this transactivation domain are critical for the binding of SA to NPR1. The interaction between SA and NPR1 requires a transition metal, copper, as a cofactor. Our results also suggested a conformational change in NPR1 upon SA binding, releasing the C-terminal transactivation domain from the N-terminal autoinhibitory BTB/POZ domain. These results advance our understanding of the plant immune function, specifically related to the molecular mechanisms underlying SAR. The discovery of NPR1 as a SA receptor enables future chemical screening for small molecules that activate plant immune responses through their interaction with NPR1 or NPR1-like proteins in commercially important plants. This will help in identifying the next generation of non-biocidal pesticides.