Enteroendocrine cell types that drive food reward and aversion

  1. Ling Bai
  2. Nilla Sivakumar
  3. Shenliang Yu
  4. Sheyda Mesgarzadeh
  5. Tom Ding
  6. Truong Ly
  7. Timothy V Corpuz
  8. James CR Grove
  9. Brooke C Jarvie
  10. Zachary A Knight  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, San Francisco, United States

Abstract

Animals must learn through experience which foods are nutritious and should be consumed, and which are toxic and should be avoided. Enteroendocrine cells (EECs) are the principal chemosensors in the GI tract, but investigation of their role in behavior has been limited by the difficulty of selectively targeting these cells in vivo. Here we describe an intersectional genetic approach for manipulating EEC subtypes in behaving mice. We show that multiple EEC subtypes inhibit food intake but have different effects on learning. Conditioned flavor preference is driven by release of cholecystokinin whereas conditioned taste aversion is mediated by serotonin and substance P. These positive and negative valence signals are transmitted by vagal and spinal afferents, respectively. These findings establish a cellular basis for how chemosensing in the gut drives learning about food.

Data availability

Source data is included in the manuscript. RNA-seq data is available from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GSE203200). Villin-Flp mice have been deposited at Jackson laboratory.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ling Bai

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Nilla Sivakumar

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Shenliang Yu

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sheyda Mesgarzadeh

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0138-5566
  5. Tom Ding

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Truong Ly

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Timothy V Corpuz

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. James CR Grove

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Brooke C Jarvie

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Zachary A Knight

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    zachary.knight@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7621-1478

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01-DK106399)

  • Zachary A Knight

National Institutes of Health (RF1-NS116626)

  • Zachary A Knight

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Investigator)

  • Zachary A Knight

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental protocols were approved by the University of California, San Francisco IACUC (protocol #AN179674) following the National Institutes of Health guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Copyright

© 2022, Bai et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,989
    views
  • 1,259
    downloads
  • 27
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ling Bai
  2. Nilla Sivakumar
  3. Shenliang Yu
  4. Sheyda Mesgarzadeh
  5. Tom Ding
  6. Truong Ly
  7. Timothy V Corpuz
  8. James CR Grove
  9. Brooke C Jarvie
  10. Zachary A Knight
(2022)
Enteroendocrine cell types that drive food reward and aversion
eLife 11:e74964.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74964

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74964

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kristin Nordin, Robin Pedersen ... Alireza Salami
    Research Article

    The hippocampus is a complex structure critically involved in numerous behavior-regulating systems. In young adults, multiple overlapping spatial modes along its longitudinal and transverse axes describe the organization of its functional integration with neocortex, extending the traditional framework emphasizing functional differences between sharply segregated hippocampal subregions. Yet, it remains unknown whether these modes (i.e. gradients) persist across the adult human lifespan, and relate to memory and molecular markers associated with brain function and cognition. In two independent samples, we demonstrate that the principal anteroposterior and second-order, mid-to-anterior/posterior hippocampal modes of neocortical functional connectivity, representing distinct dimensions of macroscale cortical organization, manifest across the adult lifespan. Specifically, individual differences in topography of the second-order gradient predicted episodic memory and mirrored dopamine D1 receptor distribution, capturing shared functional and molecular organization. Older age was associated with less distinct transitions along gradients (i.e. increased functional homogeneity). Importantly, a youth-like gradient profile predicted preserved episodic memory – emphasizing age-related gradient dedifferentiation as a marker of cognitive decline. Our results underscore a critical role of mapping multidimensional hippocampal organization in understanding the neural circuits that support memory across the adult lifespan.

    1. Neuroscience
    Francesca S Wong, Alina B Thomas ... Nathan M Holmes
    Research Advance

    Wong et al., 2019 used a sensory preconditioning protocol to examine how sensory and fear memories are integrated in the rat medial temporal lobe. In this protocol, rats integrate a sound-light (sensory) memory that forms in stage 1 with a light-shock (fear) memory that forms in stage 2 to generate fear responses (freezing) across test presentations of the sound in stage 3. Here, we advance this research by showing that (1) how/when rats integrate the sound-light and light-shock memories (online in stage 2 or at test in stage 3) changes with the number of sound-light pairings in stage 1; and (2) regardless of how/when it occurs, the integration requires communication between two regions of the medial temporal lobe: the perirhinal cortex and basolateral amygdala complex. Thus, ‘event familiarity’ determines how/when sensory and fear memories are integrated but not the circuitry by which the integration occurs: this remains the same.