| Literature DB >> 30363801 |
Kristine Coleman1,2, Nicola D Robertson2, Adriane Maier2, Cynthia L Bethea1,3,4.
Abstract
Macaques have served as effective models of human disease, including pathological processes associated with obesity and the metabolic syndrome. This study approached several questions: (1) does a western-style diet (WSD) contribute to sedentary behavior or is sedentary behavior a consequence of obesity and (2) does estradiol (E) hormone therapy offset WSD or ameliorate sedentary behavior? We further questioned whether the timing of E administration (immediately following hysterectomy, ImE; or after a 2-year delay, DE) would impact behavior. Focal observations were taken on the animals in social housing over a period of 2.5 years before and after initiation of the WSD and hysterectomy. In addition, anxiety was assessed through the Human Intruder and Novel Object Tests. All animals gained weight, but ImE delayed the time to maximum weight achieved at 18 months. Over the course of the study, ImE-treated monkeys spent more time "alone" and less time in "close social" contact than placebo-controls. The DE-treated monkeys were not different from placebo-controls in these 2 outcomes. The placebo-control group exhibited more "self-groom" behavior, an indicator of anxiety, than did the ImE-treated group, and DE-treated animals approached levels observed in the ImE-treated animals. All animals exhibited an increase in "consume" behavior over time with no statistical difference between the groups. By the end of the protocol, the placebo-control group exhibited less activity compared to ImE + DE-treated animals combined. Animals also showed increased anxiety after starting on the WSD in the Human Intruder Test and the Novel Object Test. In summary, the data indicated that WSD per se promoted increased consummatory behavior, sedentary behavior, and anxiety-type behaviors, whereas ImE promoted activity. Thus, WSD may precipitate the behaviors observed in humans who then become obese, sedentary, anxious, and socially isolated. ImE replacement ameliorates some of these behaviors, but not all.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30363801 PMCID: PMC6181005 DOI: 10.1155/2018/1810275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obes ISSN: 2090-0708
The group, treatment, and ranks of the animals at the start and end of the study.
| Animal | Pen | Treatment | Rank | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start | End | |||
| A1 | 1 | Placebo | D | D |
| A2 | 1 | ImE | S | ∼ |
| A3 | 1 | Placebo | M | S |
| A4 | 1 | Placebo | M | M |
| B1 | 2 | ImE | D | D |
| B2 | 2 | DE | M | M |
| B3 | 2 | DE | S | S |
| B4 | 2 | Placebo | M | ∼ |
| C1 | 3 | DE | D | D |
| C2 | 3 | Placebo | M | M |
| C3 | 3 | ImE | S | S |
| C4 | 3 | ImE | M | ∼ |
| D1 | 4 | DE | M | S |
| D2 | 4 | DE | S | D |
| D3 | 4 | Placebo | D | ∼ |
| D4 | 4 | ImE | M | ∼ |
| E1 | 5 | ImE | M | M |
| E2 | 5 | DE | D | D |
| E3 | 5 | Placebo | S | S |
| F1 | 6 | DE | M | ∼ |
| F2 | 6 | ImE | S | D |
| F3 | 6 | DE | D | S |
| F4 | 6 | Placebo | M | ∼ |
| G1 | 7 | Placebo | D | ∼ |
| G2 | 7 | Placebo | S | S |
| G3 | 7 | ImE | M | D |
| H1 | 8 | ImE | S | S |
| H2 | 8 | ImE | D | D |
∼ denotes missing data, which by 30 months was largely due to attrition. D = dominant (highest ranking) monkey. M = midranking monkey(s). S = subordinate (lowest ranking) monkey. Please note that the last 4 animals (G 2-3, H1-2) were initially extras, but they were added after other animals were removed from the study.
Time points for behavioral testing (numbers in parentheses are mean ± SD).
| Time point | Description | Anxiety test performed |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline 0 (B0) | Approximately 2 (1.9 ± 0.7) months after introduction to the group; prior to introduction of WSD and ovariectomy | HIT |
| Baseline 1 (B1) | Approximately 3 (2.8 ± 0.6) months after B0; animals on high-fat diet; prior to ovohysterectomy | Focal observations |
| Year 1 | Approximately 7.5 (7.5 ± 0.8) months after B1 | HIT |
| Year 2 | 12 months after year 1 | HIT |
| Year 2.5 | Prior to end of study | HIT |
Ethogram of behaviors coded in the home cage assessments.
| Behavioral Class | Behavior | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Social behaviors (measured in percent of time) | Groom | Focal individual is picking at hair and/or skin of another individual (focal can initiate or receive behavior) |
| Proximity | Focal individual is within arms length of another individual without touching | |
| Touch | Focal is in physical contact with another individual | |
| Ventral contact | Special case of touch, in which ventral surface of both animals are in contact | |
| Positive social behavior | Combined behavior which includes groom, touch, or ventral contact | |
| Alone | Focal individual is not in any social contact with other monkeys | |
| Nonsocial behaviors (measured in percent of time) | Stereotypical behavior | Repetitive behavior with no apparent purpose, such as pacing, circling, or poking eye |
| Consume | Handling and ingesting food and/or water | |
| Locomote | Movement (e.g., walk, run) | |
| Object play | Focal individual manipulates object (e.g., toys or structures in the corral) other than food | |
| Self-groom | Focal individual grooms self | |
| Sleep | Focal individual is sitting with eyes closed, usually huddled with other individuals | |
| Stationary | Focal individual sitting quietly, not engaged in other behavior | |
| Events (measured as frequency) | Aggression | Bite, hit, slap |
| Fear grimace | Focal individual bars teeth | |
| Lipsmack | Rapid movement of lips | |
| Scratch | Common usage | |
| Threat | Open mouth threat gesture (focal can initiate or receive behavior) | |
| Yawn | Common usage | |
| Dominance-related behavior | Combined behavior which includes aggression, chase, displace, and threat |
Ethogram of behaviors coded during the Human Intruder Test.
| Behavior | Operational definition |
|---|---|
| Vigilant | Subject's gaze is not directed toward human intruder |
| Freeze | Tense body posture with no movement and no vocalization |
| Locomotion | Active behavior resulting in movement from original location (e.g., moving across cage) |
| Stationary | Focal individual sitting quietly, not engaged in other behavior |
| Stereotypical behavior | Repetitive behavior with no apparent purpose |
| Vocalizations | Includes coo and shriek |
| Yawn | Subject opens mouth very wide, baring upper teeth |
| Self-directed anxiety behavior | Subject scratches or shakes (quick action of rotating head and top of shoulders back and forth) |
Figure 1(a) The ImE-treated group exhibited higher duration of “alone” time during the protocol. In the 30-month (2.5 years) observations, there was a post hoc difference between the ImE group and the placebo or DE group (Bonferroni p < 0.05). (b) The ImE-treated group showed a decline in “close social” behavior over time that was statistically manifested at the 30-month (2.5 years) time point (Inset). “Close social” behavior was significantly less in the ImE group when compared with the combined placebo + DE groups (t test p < 0.017). (Title different by 2-way ANOVA (p < 0.05); graph different by post hoc test (p < 0.05)).
Figure 2(a) There was an increase in “consume” behavior over time in all WSD-fed animals, but treatment with E had no significant effect. Comparison of the placebo group versus a combined group of ImE + DE animals was not different by t-test. (b) Average “locomote” behavior was significantly higher in the combined ImE + DE animals compared to the placebo-control animals at the 30-month (2.5 years) time point (t-test, p < 0.033). (Title different by 2-way ANOVA (p < 0.05); graph different by post hoc test (p < 0.05)).
Figure 3(a) Self-groom was significantly higher in the placebo animals than in the ImE treated animals (p < 0.045), but this was mostly due to the final time point. However, there was no difference over time. Of note, the placebo-controls showed a marked decrease in self-grooming after DE was initiated. (b) There was no difference in “Stereotypical” behavior although the DE group approached the ImE group after 6 months of treatment. (Title different by 2-way ANOVA (p < 0.05); graph different by post hoc test (p < 0.05)).
Figure 4(a) Locomotion (normalized to B0) during the acclimation period was different across time (p < 0.041) and between treatment groups (p < 0.030). There was a significant difference between year 2 and year 2.5 (Tukey post hoc p < 0.035). (b) There was no difference between treatments or across time in freezing after normalization to B0 due to a strange human profile presented. (c)The composite “Bold Score” normalized to B0 decreased significantly in all groups by the end of year 1 (time p < 0.0001) and remained lower than B0 for the entire protocol. (Title different by 2-way ANOVA (p < 0.05); graph different by post hoc test (p < 0.05)).
Figure 5The average (±SEM) body weights as percent of baseline. Body weights increased over time in both groups and reached a similar value at 30 months. However, ImE delayed the rate of increase until 12–18 months, at which time both groups exhibited similar weights. Administration of DE had no effect on body weight. There was a significant correlation between “consume” behavior and body weight. (Title different by 2-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).