| Literature DB >> 25621284 |
Maria Razzoli1, Valentina Sanghez2, Alessandro Bartolomucci1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eating disorders are associated with physical morbidity and appear to have causal factors like stressful life events and negative affect. Binge eating disorder (BED) is characterized by eating in a discrete period of time a larger than normal amount of food, a sense of lack of control over eating, and marked distress. There are still unmet needs for the identification of mechanisms regulating excessive eating, which is in part due to the lack of appropriate animal models. We developed a naturalistic murine model of subordination stress induced hyperphagia associated with the development of obesity. Here we tested the hypotheses that the eating responses of subordinate mice recapitulate the BED and that limiting hyperphagia could prevent stress-associated metabolic changes.Entities:
Keywords: ghrelin; glucose; meal pattern analysis; obesity; pair feeding
Year: 2015 PMID: 25621284 PMCID: PMC4300527 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2014.00030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Meal-pattern analysis highlighted increased food intake in subordinate C57BL/6J mice (A) that was associated to a faster feeding rate (B) and to a shorter satiety ratio (C) than baseline and/or controls. Data represent group averages ± SEM. Control: N = 7; subordinate: N = 5. #p = 0.055, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Meal-pattern parameters that did not correspond to any significant differences between groups.
| Control | Stress | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Baseline | Stress phase | Baseline | Stress phase |
| Meal frequency (number/day) | 14.29 : 0.49 | 16.25 : 1.42 | 15.48 : 1.77 | 18.20 : 1.59 |
| Meal duration (min/day) | 23.99 : 2.18 | 21.89 : 2.29 | 30.84 : 3.28 | 23.64 : 3.42 |
| Post-meal interval (min) | 72.61 : 2.97 | 68.94 : 5.62 | 64.49 : 7.48 | 56.01 : 4.38 |
| Meal size (g/meal) | 0.22 : 0.01 | 0.22 : 0.02 | 0.22 : 0.01 | 0.26 : 0.02 |
| Total meal time (min/day) | 365.78 : 22.83 | 341.43 : 22.52 | 454.280 : 5.67 | 411.58 : 24.16 |
Data represent group averages ± SEM. Control .
Figure 2Hyperphagia was further exacerbated in subordinate CD1 mice in response to acute stress (social defeat for 10 min) in the subsequent 6 h (A) as well as to overnight fasting followed by refeeding (B). Data represent group averages ± SEM. (A) Control: N = 15; subordinate: N = 13. (B) Control: N = 15; subordinate: N = 10. *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3Meal-pattern and time-course analysis of acute stress-induced hyperphagia in C57BL/6J mice. Meal intake was increased over time in subordinate (A), while meal duration (B) was initially increased to later on diminish in correspondence with a meal frequency that remained stable over time (C). Data represent group averages ± SEM. Control: N = 7; subordinate: N = 5. #p = 0.055, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Figure 4Pair-feeding subordinate mice prevents stress-induced vulnerability to diet-induced obesity. (A) Food intake, data are presented as least square means ± SEM; the covariate is the baseline food intake, average = 22.5 kcal [F(1,49) = 22.24, p < 0.01; ad libitum fed control: N = 12; ad libitum fed subordinate: N = 28; pair fed subordinate: N = 13]; (B) body weight gain, data are presented as least square means ± SEM; the covariate is the baseline body weight, average = 41.2 g [F(1,55) = 198.37, p < 0.001; ad libitum fed control: N = 22; ad libitum fed subordinate: N = 34; pair fed subordinate: N = 13]; (C) perigonadal white adipose tissue (WAT) [ad libitum fed control: N = 12; ad libitum fed subordinate: N = 26; pair fed subordinate: N = 12]; (D) total ghrelin [ad libitum fed control: N = 5; ad libitum fed subordinate: N = 6; pair fed subordinate: N = 8]; (E) glucose [ad libitum fed control: N = 21; ad libitum fed subordinate: N = 26; pair fed subordinate: N = 9]; (F) corticosterone [ad libitum fed control: N = 17; ad libitum fed subordinate: N = 23; pair fed subordinate: N = 8]; (G,H) glucose tolerance test [ad libitum fed control: N = 16; ad libitum fed subordinate: N = 19; pair fed subordinate: N = 13]. (D–H) Data represent group averages ± SEM, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs. control. In (G), ** refer to binary comparisons between pair fed subordinate and control mice, while ++ refer to binary comparisons between ad libitum fed subordinate and control mice.
A comparison between symptoms of binge-eating disorder (DSM-V) and effects seen in subordinate mice under chronic subordination stress.
| Diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of binge-eating disorder (DSM-V) | Effect in our animal model |
|---|---|
| A. Recurrent episodes of binge eating characterized by both of the following | |
| 1. Eating, in a discrete period of time, an amount of food that is larger than normal. | 1. Increased eating rate (g of food/min). Acute stress/hunger-induced hyperphagia |
| 2. A sense of lack of control over eating during the episode. | 2. Decreased satiety ratio |
| B. The binge-eating episodes are associated with three (or more) of the following | |
| 1. Eating much more rapidly than normal | 1. Shorter meals revealed by meal pattern |
| 2. Eating until feeling uncomfortably full | 2. Not applicable or not available |
| 3. Eating large amounts of food when not feeling physically hungry | 3. Short interval between feeding bouts revealed by meal pattern analysis. High acute stress-induced feeding during the light phase |
| 4. Eating alone because of feeling embarrassed by how much one is eating | 4. Not applicable or not available |
| 5. Feeling disgusted with oneself, depressed, or very guilty after overeating | 5. Development of depression-like disorder |
| C. Marked distress regarding binge eating | C. Biomarkers of stress and acute stress-induced hyperphagia |
| D. The binge eating occurs at least once a week for 3 months | D. Recurrent episodes of binge eating during the entire stress phase |
| E. The binge eating is not associated with the recurrent use of inappropriate compensatory behavior (such as purging). | E. Not applicable or not available |