Hedonic Hot Spot in Nucleus Accumbens Shell: Where Do μ-Opioids Cause Increased Hedonic Impact of Sweetness?

By S. Peciña, Kent C. Berridge. Journal of Neuroscience, 2005

680 citations recorded by the source corpus.

μ-Opioid systems in the medial shell of the nucleus accumbens contribute to hedonic impact (“liking”) for sweetness, food, and drug rewards. But does the entire medial shell generate reward hedonic impact? Or is there a specific localized site for opioid enhancement of hedonic “liking” in the medial shell? And how does enhanced taste hedonic impact relate to opioid-stimulated increases in food intake? Here, we used a functional mapping procedure based on microinjection Fos plumes to localize opioid substrates in the medial shell of the nucleus accumbens that cause enhanced “liking” reactions to sweet pleasure and that stimulate food intake. We mapped changes in affective orofacial reactions of “liking”/“disliking” elicited by sucrose or quinine tastes after d-Ala2-N-Me-Phe4-Glycol5-enkephalin (DAMGO) microinjections in rats and compared hedonic increases to food intake stimulated at the same sites. Our maps indicate that opioid-induced increases in sucrose hedonic impact are generated by a localized cubic millimeter site in a rostrodorsal region of the medial shell. In contrast, all regions of the medial shell generated DAMGO-induced robust increases in eating behavior and food intake. Thus, our results identify a locus for opioid amplification of hedonic impact and reveal a distinction between opioid mechanisms of food intake and hedonic impact. Opioid circuits for stimulating food intake are widely distributed, whereas hedonic “liking” circuits are more tightly localized in the rostromedial shell of the nucleus accumbens.

Subfields: Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Endocrine and Autonomic Systems, Nutrition and Dietetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/365f9572ec8e139dc21751196c9ebbdead0445a5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

  1. Kent C. Berridge
  2. Morten L. Kringelbach
  3. Jaak Panksepp
  4. Terry E. Robinson
  5. Michael T. Treadway
  6. David H. Zald
  7. J. Aldridge
  8. Jason S. Wright

In Endocrine and Autonomic Systems

  1. Morten L. Kringelbach
  2. Jonathan D. Wallis
  3. Terry E. Robinson
  4. Kent C. Berridge
  5. David H. Zald
  6. Jaak Panksepp
  7. Jason S. Wright
  8. Michael T. Treadway

In Nutrition and Dietetics

  1. Kent C. Berridge
  2. Jaak Panksepp
  3. Morten L. Kringelbach
  4. Terry E. Robinson
  5. Gustavo Deco
  6. Jonathan D. Wallis
  7. J. Aldridge
  8. Peter Vuust

Citations in the corpus