Connect with us

Science

What Nearly Brainless Rodents Know About Weight Loss and Hunger

Published

on

What Nearly Brainless Rodents Know About Weight Loss and Hunger

Do we really have free will when it comes to eating? It’s a vexing question that is at the heart of why so many people find it so difficult to stick to a diet.

To get answers, one neuroscientist, Harvey J. Grill of the University of Pennsylvania, turned to rats and asked what would happen if he removed all of their brains except their brainstems. The brainstem controls basic functions like heart rate and breathing. But the animals could not smell, could not see, could not remember.

Would they know when they had consumed enough calories?

To find out, Dr. Grill dripped liquid food into their mouths.

“When they reached a stopping point, they allowed the food to drain out of their mouths,” he said.

Advertisement

Those studies, initiated decades ago, were a starting point for a body of research that has continually surprised scientists and driven home that how full animals feel has nothing to do with consciousness. The work has gained more relevance as scientists puzzle out how exactly the new drugs that cause weight loss, commonly called GLP-1s and including Ozempic, affect the brain’s eating-control systems.

The story that is emerging does not explain why some people get obese and others do not. Instead, it offers clues about what makes us start eating, and when we stop.

While most of the studies were in rodents, it defies belief to think that humans are somehow different, said Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at Rockefeller University in New York. Humans, he said, are subject to billions of years of evolution leading to elaborate neural pathways that control when to eat and when to stop eating.

As they have probed how eating is controlled, researchers learned that the brain is steadily getting signals that hint at how calorically dense a food is. There’s a certain amount of calories that the body needs, and these signals make sure the body gets them.

The process begins before a lab animal takes a single bite. Just the sight of food spurs neurons to anticipate whether a lot of calories will be packed into that food. The neurons respond more strongly to a food like peanut butter — loaded with calories — than to a low-calorie one like mouse chow.

Advertisement

The next control point occurs when the animal tastes the food: Neurons calculate the caloric density again from signals sent from the mouth to the brainstem.

Finally, when the food makes its way to the gut, a new set of signals to the brain lets the neurons again ascertain the caloric content.

And it is actually the calorie content that the gut assesses, as Zachary Knight, a neuroscientist at the University of California San Francisco, learned.

He saw this when he directly infused three types of food into the stomachs of mice. One infusion was of fatty food, another of carbohydrates and the third of protein. Each infusion had the same number of calories.

In each case, the message to the brain was the same: The neurons were signaling the amount of energy, in the form of calories, and not the source of the calories.

Advertisement

When the brain determines enough calories were consumed, neurons send a signal to stop eating.

Dr. Knight said these discoveries surprised him. He’d always thought that the signal to stop eating would be “a communication between the gut and the brain,” he said. There would be a sensation of having a full stomach and a deliberate decision to stop eating.

Using that reasoning, some dieters try to drink a big glass of water before a meal, or fill up on low-calorie foods, like celery.

But those tricks have not worked for most people because they don’t account for how the brain controls eating. In fact, Dr. Knight found that mice do not even send satiety signals to the brain when all they are getting is water.

It is true that people can decide to eat even when they are sated, or can decide not to eat when they are trying to lose weight. And, Dr. Grill said, in an intact brain — not just a brainstem — other areas of the brain also exert control.

Advertisement

But, Dr. Friedman said, in the end the brain’s controls typically override a person’s conscious decisions about whether they feel a need to eat. He said, by analogy, you can hold your breath — but only for so long. And you can suppress a cough — but only up to a point.

Scott Sternson, a neuroscientist with the University of California in San Diego and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, agreed.

“There is a very large proportion of appetite control that is automatic,” said Dr. Sternson, who is also a co-founder of a startup company, Penguin Bio, that is developing obesity treatments. People can decide to eat or not at a given moment. But, he added, maintaining that sort of control uses a lot of mental resources.

“Eventually, attention goes to other things and the automatic process will wind up dominating,” he said.

As they probed the brain’s eating-control systems, researchers were continually surprised.

Advertisement

They learned, for example, about the brain’s rapid response to just the sight of food.

Neuroscientists had found in mice a few thousand neurons in the hypothalamus, deep in the brain, that responded to hunger. But how are they regulated? They knew from previous studies that fasting turned these hunger neurons on and that the neurons were less active when an animal was well fed.

Their theory was that the neurons were responding to the body’s fat stores. When fat stores were low — as happens when an animal fasts, for example — levels of leptin, a hormone released from fat, also are low. That would turn the hunger neurons on. As an animal eats, its fat stores are replenished, leptin levels go up, and the neurons, it was assumed, would quiet down.

The whole system was thought to respond only slowly to the state of energy storage in the body.

But then three groups of researchers, independently led by Dr. Knight, Dr. Sternson and Mark Andermann of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, examined the moment-to-moment activity of the hunger neurons.

Advertisement

They began with hungry mice. Their hunger neurons were firing rapidly, a sign the animals needed food.

The surprise happened when the investigators showed the animals food.

“Even before the first bite of food, the activity of those neurons shut off,” Dr. Knight said. “The neurons were making a prediction. The mouse looks at food. The mouse predicts how many calories it will eat.”

The more calorie-rich the food, the more neurons turn off.

“All three labs were shocked,” said Dr. Bradford B. Lowell, who worked with Dr. Andermann at Beth Israel Deaconess. “It was very unexpected.”

Advertisement

Dr. Lowell then asked what might happen if he deliberately turned off the hunger neurons even though the mice hadn’t had much to eat. Researchers can do this with genetic manipulations that mark neurons so they can turn them on and off with either a drug or with a blue light.

These mice would not eat for hours, even with food right in front of them.

Dr. Lowell and Dr. Sternson independently did the opposite experiment, turning the neurons on in mice that had just had a huge meal, the mouse equivalent of a Thanksgiving dinner. The animals were reclining, feeling stuffed.

But, said Dr. Andermann, who repeated the experiment, when they turned the hunger neurons on, “The mouse gets up and eats another 10 to 15 percent of its body weight.” He added, “The neurons are saying, ‘Just focus on food.’”

Researchers continue to be amazed by what they are finding — layers of controls in the brain that ensure eating is rigorously regulated. And hints of new ways to develop drugs to control eating.

Advertisement

One line of evidence was discovered by Amber Alhadeff, a neuroscientist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center and the University of Pennsylvania. She recently found two separate groups of neurons in the brainstem that respond to the GLP-1 obesity drugs.

One group of neurons signaled that the animals have had enough to eat. The other group caused the rodent equivalent of nausea. The current obesity drugs hit both groups of neurons, she reports, which may be a factor in the side effects many feel. She proposes that it might be possible to develop drugs that hit the satiety neurons but not the nausea ones.

Alexander Nectow, of Columbia University, has another surprise discovery. He identified a group of neurons in the brainstem that regulate how big a meal is desired, tracking each bite of food. “We don’t know how they do it,” he said.

“I’ve been studying this brainstem region for a decade and a half,” Dr. Nectow said, “but when we went and used all of our fancy tools, we found this population of neurons we had never studied.”

He’s now asking if the neurons could be targets for a class of weight loss drugs that could upstage the GLP-1s.

Advertisement

“That would be really amazing,” Dr. Nectow said.

Science

China Launches Reusable Rocket in Race With SpaceX

Published

on

Video released by Chinese state media shows a state-owned aerospace company launching a rocket and recovering part of it on Friday. The successful launch of a reusable rocket was a major step for China toward challenging SpaceX’s satellite internet dominance.

Continue Reading

Science

Nobel Prize winner leaving UC Berkeley for new role in China

Published

on

Nobel Prize winner leaving UC Berkeley for new role in China

Nobel Prize recipient Omar Yaghi is leaving his role at UC Berkeley to lead the development of a new artificial intelligence institute at Tsinghua University in Beijing, the Chinese university announced.

Yaghi will head the AI Chemistry and Materials Research Institute at Tsinghua, where he was appointed an honorary professor in 2022. Known as AIMATRY (AI × Materials × Chemistry), the new center will focus on material design and synthesis through artificial intelligence, according to a statement from the university.

In 2025, Yaghi shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Susumu Kitagawa of Kyoto University and Richard Robson of the University of Melbourne for their development of metal-organic frameworks, a type of super-porous material in which metal ions and carbon-based molecules combine to form crystals with exceptionally large surface areas.

The material has the potential to combat climate change by capturing and storing carbon or other pollutants, and by extracting water from the atmosphere in water-scarce areas. Upon awarding the prize, a member of the Nobel committee likened the technology’s ability to store enormous amounts of stuff in seemingly compact spaces to Hermione Granger’s enchanted handbag in the Harry Potter series.

Yaghi’s Irvine-based company, Atoco, has said it will start taking orders later this year for its technology that harvests water from the air.

Advertisement

A representative for Yaghi said he was not yet available to respond to questions.

China is one of several countries that has been actively recruiting scientists from the U.S., where the Trump administration has slashed science funding, suspended research grants, fired science advisors and tightened immigration restrictions.

“For many, many years, our funding was very competitive; if you worked hard and you were doing good research, you would get funding,” Yaghi said of the U.S. in an interview with Scientific American earlier this year. “The current state is not so encouraging because of the cutting back on grants and support of science by the very agencies that many university researchers rely on.”

Yaghi was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugees, and immigrated to the U.S. when he was 15 to study.

“We’ve learned over and over in human civilization that scholars can move across borders,” Yaghi told the New York Times last year. “This is how knowledge spread and how vast regions of the world lifted themselves out of poverty.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Trump administration seeks to limit federal funding that doesn’t ‘advance’ presidential policies

Published

on

Trump administration seeks to limit federal funding that doesn’t ‘advance’ presidential policies

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

Advertisement

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

Advertisement

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

Advertisement

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

Advertisement

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending