Opioidergic and dopaminergic modulation of cost/benefit decision-making in Long Evans Rats

Abstract

Eating disorders are associated with impaired decision-making and dysfunctional reward-related neurochemistry. The present study examined the potential contributions of dopamine and opioid signaling to these processes using two different decision-making tasks. In one task, Long Evans Rats chose between working for a preferred food (high-carbohydrate banana-flavored sucrose pellets) by lever pressing on a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement vs. obtaining less preferred laboratory chow that was concurrently available. In a second (effort-free) task, rats chose between the same two reinforcers when they were both available freely. Rats were trained in these tasks before receiving haloperidol (0.00, 0.05, 0.10 mg/kg, intraperitoneally (i.p.)) or naloxone (0.0, 1.5, 3.0 mg/kg, i.p.). In the first task, haloperidol decreased breakpoint, lever presses, number of reinforcers earned, and increased chow intake, whereas naloxone decreased breakpoint and number of reinforcers earned but had no effect on chow consumption. In the effort-free task, haloperidol reduced intakes of both foods without affecting preference, whereas naloxone selectively reduced the consumption of banana-pellets. The present findings support converging evidence suggesting that DA signaling affects processes more closely related to appetitive motivation, leaving other components of motivation unchanged. By contrast, opioid signaling appears to mediate aspects of hedonic feeding by selectively altering intakes of highly palatable foods. For preferred foods, both appetitive and consummatory aspects of food intake were altered by opioid receptor antagonism. Our findings argue against a general suppression of appetite by either compound, as appetite manipulations have been shown to unselectively alter intakes of both types of food regardless of the task employed.