Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23063723›Full record

ArticlePhysiology & behavior2012

Disruption of cue-potentiated feeding in mice with blocked ghrelin signaling.

Angela K Walker, Imikomobong E Ibia, Jeffrey M Zigman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiology & behavior, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The critical role of gut-brain signalling in eating behaviour and obesity.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Food cue reactivity: Neurobiological and behavioral underpinnings.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angela K WalkerDepartment of Internal Medicine (Divisions of Hypothalamic Research and of Endocrinology & Metabolism), The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9077, United States.
Imikomobong E Ibia
Jeffrey M Zigman
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

Basic Science Training Program in Drug Abuse ResearchT32DA007290 · NIDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SELF, DAVID W · 1992 to 2017
$6.7M
Ghrelin and RewardR01DA024680 · NIDA · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI ZIGMAN, JEFFREY M · 2008 to 2012
$1.5M
NIDA NIH HHS 1R01DA024680NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA024680NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007290NIDA NIH HHS T32DA7290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The peptide hormone ghrelin regulates a variety of eating behaviors. Not only does it potently increase intake of freely-available food, but it also shifts food preference toward diets rich in fat, enhances operant responding for food rewards, and induces conditioned place preference for food rewards. Here, we postulated that ghrelin also enables cue-potentiated feeding, in which eating is enhanced upon presentation of a food-conditioned stimulus. To test this hypothesis, a novel cue-potentiated feeding protocol adapted for use in mice was designed and validated, and then the effects of pharmacologic ghrelin receptor (GHSR) antagonism and GHSR transcriptional blockade (as occurs in GHSR-null mice) were assessed. Sated C57BL/6J mice indeed demonstrated cue-potentiated intake of grain-based pellets specifically upon presentation of a positive conditioned stimulus (CS+) but not a negative conditioned stimulus (CS-). Treatment with a GHSR antagonist blocked potentiated feeding in sated C57BL/6J mice in response to the CS+. In contrast, while GHSR-null mice also lacked a potentiation of feeding specifically in response to the CS+, they displayed an enhanced intake of pellets in response to both the positive and negative conditioned stimuli. The pattern of immediate early gene expression within the basolateral amygdala - a brain region previously linked to cue-potentiated feeding - paralleled the observed behavior of these mice, suggesting uncharacteristic activation of the amygdala in response to negative conditioned stimuli in GHSR-null mice as compared to wild-type littermates. Thus, although the observed disruptions in cue-potentiated feeding are different depending upon whether GHSR activity or GHSR expression is blocked, a key role for GHSRs in establishing a specific positive cue-food association has now been established.

Indexed as

CuesAmygdalaAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsCarrier ProteinsConditioning, OperantCyclophilinsCytoskeletal ProteinsDiscrimination, PsychologicalEatingFeeding BehaviorFood DeprivationGene Expression RegulationGhrelinHomer Scaffolding ProteinsIndazoles3-(5-nitrofuryl)-7-(5-nitrofurfurylidene)-3,3a,4,5,6,7-hexahydro-2H-indazoleactivity regulated cytoskeletal-associated proteinCarrier ProteinsCyclophilinsCytoskeletal ProteinsGhrelinHomer Scaffolding ProteinsIndazolesNerve Tissue ProteinsNitrofuransProto-Oncogene Proteins c-fosReceptors, GhrelinRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID23063723
PMCPMC3513523
OpenAlexW2016166700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.