Electrical stimulation of the subfornical organ induces feeding and drinking in satiated rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subfornical organ (SFO), a circumventricular structure which lacks the normal blood brain barrier has been shown to play a key role in body fluid homeostasis. A role for the SFO in sensing circulating satiety signals has been suggested by electrophysiological studies demonstrating that anorexigenic (leptin and amylin) and orexigenic (ghrelin) satiety signals influence the excitability of separate populations of SFO neurons. The present study examined whether electrical stimulation of the SFO influenced feeding in satiated rats. Male Sprague Dawley rats implanted with concentric bipolar SFO stimulating electrodes received 5 min electrical (100 or 200μA) or sham stimulation and food and water intake measured. Once animals had undergone both electrical and sham stimulation protocols the brain was removed to confirm the location of the stimulating electrode. SFO stimulation (100μA) elicited drinking in 5/6 animals tested (latency to drink: 6.2±2.6 min) but did not elicit eating. Higher stimulation intensities (200μA) elicited eating in all animals tested (food consumption: 0.6 ± 0.12g/100g body weight, n=6) with a mean latency to eat of 8.0 ± 4.0 min and elicited drinking in 5/6 animals (latency to drink: 15.2±2.6 min.) Sham SFO stimulation or stimulation (200μA) in non‐SFO sites (n=6) did not elicit feeding or drinking. The results of the present study showing that SFO stimulation induces feeding in satiated rats, lends support for a role for the SFO as an integrator of circulating peptides that regulate feeding. Supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".