, 2009) In DD, this was supported at the trend level

Th

, 2009). In DD, this was supported at the trend level.

The real surprises in this study were the differences between GHSR-KO and WT animals that emerged under LL. In terms of cFOS activation, they did not differ. The SCN and several other brain areas showed circadian rhythms of immunoreactivity that did not differ between groups. Where striking differences did emerge was in the differential effect of LL on the amount of running-wheel activity. In experiment 1, KO animals showed greater activity than WT mice in LL but not in DD. After 10 days in LL, KOs ran ≈ 4300 wheel revolutions per day vs. 1500 revolutions per day in WT mice. In contrast, after 10 days in DD, KO and WT mice did not differ, with KO mice running ≈ 14 000 revolutions per day compared to

WTs that ran ≈ 12 000 per day (see Fig. 1). In experiment 2, a INCB018424 purchase separate group of KO animals were more active overall, showing greater activity levels in both LD and LL (see Fig. 4). WT animals showed very little activity under LL, dropping from ≈ 10 000 wheel revolutions per day in LD down to ≈ 200 in LL. KO animals were more active but showed the same dramatic decrease in amount of activity, falling from 20 000 wheel revolutions per selleck chemicals day to ≈ 200–800 after 30 days in LL (see Fig. 9). In a separate group of animals exposed to DD this effect was reversed, with WTs showing more wheel revolutions than KOs. This difference in the amount of overall activity in KO mice between LD and LL may be accounted for, in part, by the inhibitory effects of ghrelin on spontaneous locomotor activity. High activity levels in ghrelin-KO and GHSR-KO mice have been reported previously, and this has been linked to increased energy expenditure in animals from the same strain that we used in the current study (Wortley et al., 2005; Pfluger et al., 2008). Conversely, GHSR-KO animals on a high-fat diet actually showed reduced activity compared to their WT littermates (Zigman et al., 2005), but these animals were on a different genetic background than our own, which may account for the difference in activity levels. In fact, GHSR-KO mice on

the purely C57BL/6J background failed to show Tangeritin any anticipatory activity after 2 weeks on a restricted feeling schedule (Davis et al., 2011), whereas our animals on the mixed C57BL/6J-DBA background do develop anticipatory behavior under a variety of lighting conditions, but at a slower rate than WT animals in LD (Blum et al., 2009) and DD (present study). This suggests that these strain effects may have a profound effect on circadian phenotype. This raises the question of what role ghrelin ordinarily plays in the circadian system that could account for this accentuation of activity in LL. Ghrelin receptors are expressed in thalamic and hypothalamic nuclei that are major outputs of the SCN master clock, such as the PVT, SPVZ, DMH and LH.

Related posts:

1. Flt-1 baseline level of CA1 and CA2 neurons occupied the intermed
2. This hypothesis is supported through the observation that both en
3. 2% in contrast with all the control, the MMP 9 level was decrease
4. , 2001, Goard and Dan, 2009, Haider et al , 2007, Haider and McCo
5. Although the level of exercise was the same for all the exercised