IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0180907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sex-specific enhancement of palatability-driven feeding in adolescent rats

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew T Marshall
  • Angela T Liu
  • Niall P Murphy
  • Nigel T Maidment
  • Sean B Ostlund

Abstract

It has been hypothesized that brain development during adolescence perturbs reward processing in a way that may ultimately contribute to the risky decision making associated with this stage of life, particularly in young males. To investigate potential reward dysfunction during adolescence, Experiment 1 examined palatable fluid intake in rats as a function of age and sex. During a series of twice-weekly test sessions, non-food-deprived rats were given the opportunity to voluntarily consume a highly palatable sweetened condensed milk (SCM) solution. We found that adolescent male, but not female, rats exhibited a pronounced, transient increase in SCM intake (normalized by body weight) that was centered around puberty. Additionally, adult females consumed more SCM than adult males and adolescent females. Using a well-established analytical framework to parse the influences of reward palatability and satiety on the temporal structure of feeding behavior, we found that palatability-driven intake at the outset of the meal was significantly elevated in adolescent males, relative to the other groups. Furthermore, although we found that there were some group differences in the onset of satiety, they were unlikely to contribute to differences in intake. Experiment 2 confirmed that adolescent male rats exhibit elevated palatable fluid consumption, relative to adult males, even when a non-caloric saccharin solution was used as the taste stimulus, demonstrating that these results were unlikely to be related to age-related differences in metabolic need. These findings suggest that elevated palatable food intake during adolescence is sex specific and driven by a fundamental change in reward processing. As adolescent risk taking has been hypothesized as a potential result of hypersensitivity to and overvaluation of appetitive stimuli, individual differences in reward palatability may factor into individual differences in adolescent risky decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew T Marshall & Angela T Liu & Niall P Murphy & Nigel T Maidment & Sean B Ostlund, 2017. "Sex-specific enhancement of palatability-driven feeding in adolescent rats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-23, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180907
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180907
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180907&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0180907?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janine A. Clayton & Francis S. Collins, 2014. "Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies," Nature, Nature, vol. 509(7500), pages 282-283, May.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:48-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. April Schweinhart & Janine Austin Clayton, 2018. "Reversing the Trends toward Shorter Lives and Poorer Health for U.S. Women: A Call for Innovative Interdisciplinary Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Ashwin V. Kammula & Alejandro A. Schäffer & Padma Sheila Rajagopal & Razelle Kurzrock & Eytan Ruppin, 2024. "Outcome differences by sex in oncology clinical trials," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Jiang, Xuan, 2021. "Women in STEM: Ability, preference, and value," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Jiang, Xuan, 2018. "Planting the Seeds for Success: Why Women in STEM Do Not Stick in the Field," MPRA Paper 89650, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Goulas, Sofoklis & Griselda, Silvia & Megalokonomou, Rigissa, 2020. "Comparative Advantage and Gender Gap in STEM," IZA Discussion Papers 13313, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Sarah Bach & Melissa M Morrow & Kristin D Zhao & Richard E Hughes, 2015. "Sex Distribution of Study Samples Reported in American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting Abstracts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-5, March.
    7. Charlotte Douglas & Valdone Maciulyte & Jasmin Zohren & Daniel M. Snell & Shantha K. Mahadevaiah & Obah A. Ojarikre & Peter J. I. Ellis & James M. A. Turner, 2021. "CRISPR-Cas9 effectors facilitate generation of single-sex litters and sex-specific phenotypes," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Rebecca K. Rechlin & Tallinn F. L. Splinter & Travis E. Hodges & Arianne Y. Albert & Liisa A. M. Galea, 2022. "An analysis of neuroscience and psychiatry papers published from 2009 and 2019 outlines opportunities for increasing discovery of sex differences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Marek A. Motyka & Ahmed Al-Imam & Aneta Haligowska & Michał Michalak, 2022. "Helping Women Suffering from Drug Addiction: Needs, Barriers, and Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.
    10. Gillian L Currie & Helena N Angel-Scott & Lesley Colvin & Fala Cramond & Kaitlyn Hair & Laila Khandoker & Jing Liao & Malcolm Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Rosie Morland & Nicki Sherratt & Robert Stewart, 2019. "Animal models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A machine-assisted systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-34, May.
    11. Takuji Usui & Malcolm R Macleod & Sarah K McCann & Alistair M Senior & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2021. "Meta-analysis of variation suggests that embracing variability improves both replicability and generalizability in preclinical research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Lori van den Hurk & Sarah Hiltner & Sabine Oertelt-Prigione, 2022. "Operationalization and Reporting Practices in Manuscripts Addressing Gender Differences in Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Bibliographical Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Laura A. B. Wilson & Susanne R. K. Zajitschek & Malgorzata Lagisz & Jeremy Mason & Hamed Haselimashhadi & Shinichi Nakagawa, 2022. "Sex differences in allometry for phenotypic traits in mice indicate that females are not scaled males," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Noriko Itoh & Yuichiro Itoh & Cassandra E. Meyer & Timothy Takazo Suen & Diego Cortez-Delgado & Michelle Rivera Lomeli & Sophia Wendin & Sri Sanjana Somepalli & Lisa C. Golden & Allan MacKenzie-Graham, 2023. "Estrogen receptor beta in astrocytes modulates cognitive function in mid-age female mice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Lee, Katharine M.N. & Rushovich, Tamara & Gompers, Annika & Boulicault, Marion & Worthington, Steven & Lockhart, Jeffrey W. & Richardson, Sarah S., 2023. "A Gender Hypothesis of sex disparities in adverse drug events," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 339(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180907. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.