CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 159Vagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsGastrointestinal motility and disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gut Vagal Afferents Differentially Modulate Innate Anxiety and Learned Fear

Open access
Klarer, Melanie, Arnold, Myrtha, Günther, Lydia, Winter, Christine, Langhans, Wolfgang, Meyer, Urs·2014·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.0252-14.2014PMC PMC6608191
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Vagal afferents are an important neuronal component of the gut–brain axis allowing bottom-up information flow from the viscera to the CNS. In addition to its role in ingestive behavior, vagal afferent signaling has been implicated modulating mood and affect, including distinct forms of anxiety and fear. Here, we used a rat model of subdiaphragmatic vagal deafferentation (SDA), the most complete and selective vagal deafferentation method existing to date, to study the consequences of complete disconnection of abdominal vagal afferents on innate anxiety, conditioned fear, and neurochemical parameters in the limbic system. We found that compared with Sham controls, SDA rats consistently displayed reduced innate anxiety-like behavior in three procedures commonly used in preclinical rodent models of anxiety, namely the elevated plus maze test, open field test, and food neophobia test. On the other hand, SDA rats exhibited increased expression of auditory-cued fear conditioning, which specifically emerged as attenuated extinction of conditioned fear during the tone re-exposure test. The behavioral manifestations in SDA rats were associated with region-dependent changes in noradrenaline and GABA levels in key areas of the limbic system, but not with functional alterations in the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal grand stress. Our study demonstrates that innate anxiety and learned fear are both subjected to visceral modulation through abdominal vagal afferents, possibly via changing limbic neurotransmitter systems. These data add further weight to theories emphasizing an important role of afferent visceral signals in the regulation of emotional behavior.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.0252-14.2014

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Schematic illustration of afferent and efferent vagal fibers targeted by the SDA procedure. Afferent and efferent fibers are represented in red and blue colors, respectively. In the SDA procedure, the left (dorsal) subdiaphragmatic trunk of the vagus nerve is fully transected (indicated by the first scissor symbol), leading to a disconnection of both afferent and efferent fibers in the left (dorsal) trunk of the vagus nerve. The right (ventral) subdiaphragmatic trunk of the vagus nerve is left intact. In addition, a left-sided intracranial vagal rhizotomy is performed (indicated by the second scissor symbol) to selectively disconnect the remaining vagal afferents. This SDA procedure induces a complete (100%) disconnection of vagal afferents while leaving 50% of the vagal efferents functionally intact.
Figure 1 Schematic illustration of afferent and efferent vagal fibers targeted by the SDA procedure. Afferent and efferent fibers are represented in red and blue colors, respectively. In the SDA procedure, the left (dorsal) subdiaphragmatic trunk of the vagus nerve is fully transected (indicated by the first scissor symbol), leading to a disconnection of both afferent and efferent fibers in the left (dorsal) trunk of the vagus nerve. The right (ventral) subdiaphragmatic trunk of the vagus nerve is left intact. In addition, a left-sided intracranial vagal rhizotomy is performed (indicated by the second scissor symbol) to selectively disconnect the remaining vagal afferents. This SDA procedure induces a complete (100%) disconnection of vagal afferents while leaving 50% of the vagal efferents functionally intact.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 2 Body weights and functional verification of the SDA procedure. A , The line plot shows body weights before surgery (day 0; indicated by the dashed lines) and during the postsurgery recovery period (days 1-14). Note that both Sham and SDA rats similarly regained their initial presurgery body weight within 4 d after surgery. No significant group differences were detected between SDA and Sham rats. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 12; all values are means ± SEM. B , Verification of the SDA completeness in a CCK satiation test. The bar plot shows the percentage (%) reduction in CCKinduced food intake (% baseline food intake) during a 30 min test session. Note that SDA rats displayed no reduction in food intake in response to CCK administration relative to their baseline food intake, confirming the completeness of SDA. In contrast, Sham control rats displayed a 25- 40% reduction in food intake in response to CCK relative to their baseline food intake. Against these backgrounds, 1 SDA animal (with 23% reduction in food intake in response to CCK) of 12 was excluded from the final analysis and presentation of the data. *** p < 0.001; N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11. All values are means ± SEM.
Figure 2 Body weights and functional verification of the SDA procedure. A , The line plot shows body weights before surgery (day 0; indicated by the dashed lines) and during the postsurgery recovery period (days 1-14). Note that both Sham and SDA rats similarly regained their initial presurgery body weight within 4 d after surgery. No significant group differences were detected between SDA and Sham rats. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 12; all values are means ± SEM. B , Verification of the SDA completeness in a CCK satiation test. The bar plot shows the percentage (%) reduction in CCKinduced food intake (% baseline food intake) during a 30 min test session. Note that SDA rats displayed no reduction in food intake in response to CCK administration relative to their baseline food intake, confirming the completeness of SDA. In contrast, Sham control rats displayed a 25- 40% reduction in food intake in response to CCK relative to their baseline food intake. Against these backgrounds, 1 SDA animal (with 23% reduction in food intake in response to CCK) of 12 was excluded from the final analysis and presentation of the data. *** p < 0.001; N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11. All values are means ± SEM.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 3 SDA reduces innate anxiety-like behavior in the elevated plus maze test. A , The bars show the percentage open arm time, percentage open arm distance, and total distance moved (cm) in SDA and Sham control rats. B , Computer-generated exploration paths of representative Sham and SDA rats in the elevated plus maze test. CA, enclosed (protected) arms; OA, open (unprotected) arms. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05. All values are means ± SEM.
Figure 3 SDA reduces innate anxiety-like behavior in the elevated plus maze test. A , The bars show the percentage open arm time, percentage open arm distance, and total distance moved (cm) in SDA and Sham control rats. B , Computer-generated exploration paths of representative Sham and SDA rats in the elevated plus maze test. CA, enclosed (protected) arms; OA, open (unprotected) arms. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05. All values are means ± SEM.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 5 SDA reduces innate anxiety-like behavior in the food neophobia test. The graph showslatency (s, sqrt-transformed) to eat a novel food in trial (T) 1 and 2 of the food neophobia test for both SDA and Sham control rats. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001. All values are means ± SEM.
Figure 5 SDA reduces innate anxiety-like behavior in the food neophobia test. The graph showslatency (s, sqrt-transformed) to eat a novel food in trial (T) 1 and 2 of the food neophobia test for both SDA and Sham control rats. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001. All values are means ± SEM.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 6 SDAattenuates extinction of auditory-cued conditioned fear. A , The line plot shows percentage time freezing during presentation of five successive CS-US trials during the conditioning phase of pavlovian fear conditioning in SDA and Sham control rats. B , Expression of conditioned fear toward the context as measured by percentage time freezing during the context test. The line plot depicts percentage time freezing as a function of 30 s bins in SDA and Sham control rats. C , Expression of auditory-cued conditioned fear during the tone-CS test. The line plot shows percentage time freezing as a function of 30 s bins in SDA and Sham control rats. The bar plot depicts the mean percentage time freezing across all bins. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05. All values are means ± SEM.
Figure 6 SDAattenuates extinction of auditory-cued conditioned fear. A , The line plot shows percentage time freezing during presentation of five successive CS-US trials during the conditioning phase of pavlovian fear conditioning in SDA and Sham control rats. B , Expression of conditioned fear toward the context as measured by percentage time freezing during the context test. The line plot depicts percentage time freezing as a function of 30 s bins in SDA and Sham control rats. C , Expression of auditory-cued conditioned fear during the tone-CS test. The line plot shows percentage time freezing as a function of 30 s bins in SDA and Sham control rats. The bar plot depicts the mean percentage time freezing across all bins. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05. All values are means ± SEM.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 7 SDA does not affect basal and stress-induced CORT secretion. The graph shows plasmaCORTlevelsatbasalconditions(samplingtime0)aswellas20,40,80,and120minafter onset of stress exposure. Stress was applied in the form of restraint stress for 20 min (indicated by the black bar). N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11. All values are means ± SEM.
Figure 7 SDA does not affect basal and stress-induced CORT secretion. The graph shows plasmaCORTlevelsatbasalconditions(samplingtime0)aswellas20,40,80,and120minafter onset of stress exposure. Stress was applied in the form of restraint stress for 20 min (indicated by the black bar). N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11. All values are means ± SEM.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 8 SDA modulates limbic neurotransmitter levels. Basal levels of NA, 5-HT, and GABA are depicted as nM/mg protein levels for the ( A ) vPFC, ( B ) NAc, ( C ) AMY, and ( D ) HPC of SDA and Sham control rats. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05. All values are means ± SEM.
Figure 8 SDA modulates limbic neurotransmitter levels. Basal levels of NA, 5-HT, and GABA are depicted as nM/mg protein levels for the ( A ) vPFC, ( B ) NAc, ( C ) AMY, and ( D ) HPC of SDA and Sham control rats. N (Sham) = 10, N (SDA) = 11; * p < 0.05. All values are means ± SEM.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 159

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Klarer, M., Arnold, M., Günther, L., Winter, C., Langhans, W., & Meyer, U.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
2014-05-21
Volume
34
Issue
21
Pages
7067-7076
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.0252-14.2014
PMC
PMC6608191
OpenAlex
W2028119064
Cited by
159
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
  • European Commission (259679)
  • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH-25_13-2, 25_13-2)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vagus Nerve Stimulation Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
vagal afferents, gut-brain axis, learned fear, fear extinction, norepinephrine, GABA, limbic system, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, emotional behavior, food neophobia
MeSH terms
Animals, Anxiety, Conditioning, Classical, Eating, Exploratory Behavior, Extinction, Psychological, Fear, Functional Laterality, Male, Sincalide, Vagus Nerve, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Neurotransmitter Agents, Maze Learning, Gastrointestinal Tract, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review