Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Enteral Feeding: Brain-Visceral Interactions in the Processing of Nutrients

Written By

María Angeles Zafra Palma, Javier Mahía, María J. Simón, Filomena Molina and Amadeo Puerto

Submitted: 30 August 2018 Reviewed: 30 November 2018 Published: 24 January 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.82824

From the Edited Volume

Feed Your Mind - How Does Nutrition Modulate Brain Function throughout Life?

Edited by Clémentine Bosch-Bouju, Sophie Layé and Véronique Pallet

Chapter metrics overview

1,206 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Enteral nutrition is often mandatory, especially for patients in vegetative or minimally conscious state. However, its application is nonviable in certain cases due to various adverse effects. Some of these are explained by absence of the cephalic phase of digestion, during which exocrine, endocrine, and motor physiological responses prepare the digestive system to receive, digest, transform, and utilize ingested nutrients. These responses result from the stimulation by nutrients of cephalic sensory systems, mainly in the oropharyngeal cavity, and can also be elicited by food-related thoughts or expectations. The digestive system appears able to rapidly assess the suitability of food and transmit this information to the brain. The vagus nerve and its brainstem relays in the caudal nucleus of the solitary tract (NST) and parabrachial complex appear to participate in the anatomic pathway responsible for this rapid processing. Thus, blockade of the vagus nerve, NST, or external lateral parabrachial region (LPBe) interrupts expression of conditioned taste preferences induced by administration of “predigested” food, while LPBe activation by electric stimulation generates similar preferences to those observed after cephalic food administration. This review may help design enteral diets better adapted to digestive physiology and develop pharmacological interventions against adverse effects of enteral nutrition.

Keywords

  • enteral nutrition
  • cephalic phase
  • rapid processing of nutrients
  • vagus nerve
  • gelatinous subnucleus
  • external lateral parabrachial subnucleus

1. Introduction

Clinical nutrition refers to practices for supplying nutrients to individuals when oral administration is inadvisable, insufficient, or impossible [1]. These are essential to maintain the function of vital organs and systems, minimizing the effects of food deprivation and avoiding nutritional deficiencies [2]. In general, these techniques are divided between enteral nutrition, in which liquid diet is directly administered into the gastric or intestinal cavity, and parenteral nutrition, in which nutritional solutions are delivered intravenously (Figure 1; [3]).

Figure 1.

Enteral (nasogastric, nasoduodenal, nasojejunal, gastrostomy, jejunostomy) and parenteral nutrition.

Advertisement

2. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition

Most clinical nutrition specialists report that enteral nutrition has multiple advantages over parental nutrition and should be selected whenever the gastrointestinal tract can be used [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Parenteral nutrition is more expensive [6, 7, 9] and is usually more invasive in comparison to enteral nutrition, exposing patients to greater risks [10]. Notably, there are important clinical reasons for preferring the enteral administration route because of the association of parenteral nutrition with severe complications, including thromboembolism, severe metabolic fluctuations, hyper- or hypoglycemia, hyperlipidemia, blood electrolyte abnormalities, infectious complications [2, 7, 11, 12], and, more controversially [13], a greater risk of “bacterial translocation” [12, 14, 15, 16, 17].

Bacterial translocation takes place when bacteria usually confined to the digestive tract penetrate the intestinal mucosa and invade the lymphatic system, blood system, and numerous internal organs [16, 17, 18]. This event has been described as one of the main causes of septicemia and as a risk factor for the onset and progression of multiple organ failure, characterized by the uncontrolled systemic inflammation of internal organs [14, 16, 18, 19, 20]. The main factors proposed as possible triggers for bacterial translocation include intestinal mucosal barrier break (increased mucosa permeability), intestinal microflora alteration (bacterial overgrowth), and immune system impairment [5, 17, 18, 21]. These changes are associated with parenteral but not enteral nutrition [21, 22, 23, 24].

Under normal conditions, the gastrointestinal mucosa acts as an effective barrier against the migration of microorganisms into the systemic circulation [16, 21, 25]. The integrity of this barrier is determined by the renewal of epithelial cells that compose it and by the number and type of bacteria that it contains [20, 25, 26]. A key stimulus for mucosal cell proliferation and the maintenance of bacterial homeostasis appears to be the presence and availability of nutrients in the intestinal lumen [4, 5, 6, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27]. The food itself and the hormones released in its presence exert trophic effects on mucosa throughout the gastrointestinal system, from the stomach, small intestine, and colon to the gallbladder and pancreas [5, 24, 25, 26]. Both stimuli preserve the intestinal flora [5, 6, 20, 21, 22], which in turn critically modulate the immune response by producing the enzymes needed to release immunostimulant nutrients and by activating the secretion of cytokine-like molecules known as bacteriocins [23, 25, 28].

Hence, mucosa atrophy is favored when the gastrointestinal system is not used, as in patients receiving parenteral nutrition. This increases the risk of septic complications [12, 20, 25] and compromises intestinal immunocompetence, because the expression and induction of specific immune responses critically depend on the local microenvironment [20, 25, 28]. These problems are less frequently encountered in patients receiving enteral nutrition [9, 12, 20, 21].

For these reasons, enteral (rather than parenteral) nutrition is recommended in a wide range of clinical situations, including organ transplantation [11], cancer [29], pancreatitis [3, 30], Crohn’s disease [31], intestinal resection or inflammation [5], critical disease [3, 6, 7, 9], and the postoperative period [3, 8, 11, 23]. It is also preferred for premature or low-birth-weight infants [12, 32], for the elderly, for neurological patients [29, 33, 34, 35], for patients with anorexia nervosa [29], and for those with AIDS [36]. Nevertheless, enteral nutrition is not free of drawbacks, as discussed below [1, 22].

Advertisement

3. Problems associated with enteral nutrition

There is a consensus among health-care professionals that the nutritional status of patients is lower in those receiving enteral nutrition than in those fed orally. Enteral feeding has been associated with several disorders, although it is sometimes difficult to establish whether they are caused by the disease, the specific diet, or by the food administration route [1].

However, regardless of their disease, patients on enteral nutrition often show a series of “secondary” symptoms that can be described as gastrointestinal tract reactions to diet administration, including: pain, discomfort, gastric residual volume, delayed gastric emptying, abdominal bloating and cramps, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea [1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 20, 22, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39], metabolic disorders [1, 12], and, when the enteral nutrition is longer term, ulcers and major weight loss [33, 34]. In addition, some patients are unable to tolerate enteral nutrition [9, 22], especially pediatric patients [38, 39].

The causes of these problems have not been fully elucidated, although some psychobiological studies, mainly in animals, have suggested that they may in part result from the entry of food into the digestive tract in “nonphysiological” conditions [40, 41]. The absence of oral stimulation means that the digestive system is not prepared to receive the food (with the appropriate endocrine and exocrine secretions or motor activity changes, etc.), hampering the optimal digestion, absorption, and utilization of the nutrients (see below).

Advertisement

4. Animal models of enteral nutrition: intragastric feeding

In experimental studies, enteral nutrition is known as intragastric or intraintestinal feeding and also appears to be accompanied by numerous disorders that affect the digestion, absorption, and metabolism of nutrients. In these feeding modalities, meals are directly delivered to the gastric cavity (intragastric feeding) or lower segments of the digestive tube, such as the duodenum or jejune (intraintestinal feeding), generally using a permanently implanted catheter. A physiological variable or function is then studied and compared with results obtained for oral feeding or for sham feeding, in which the food is orally ingested but extracted via a cannula before reaching the stomach.

One of the first authors to document alterations in animals caused by intragastric feeding was the Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov [42], whose studies masterfully demonstrated the marked importance of the passage of food through oropharyngeal systems for its subsequent digestion [43, 44]. This oropharyngeal stimulation, designated “psychic reflex” by Pavlov, is now known as the cephalic phase of digestion, which comprises a set of autonomic and endocrinal responses to stimulation by the food of sensory perceptive systems in the head and particularly in the oropharyngeal cavity. Nevertheless, although these cephalic responses are preferentially initiated by contact with the food, they can also be effectively elicited just by seeing or anticipating it or by thoughts or any learned cues associated with it [40, 42, 44].

The digestive events triggered by cephalic stimulation are mediated by vagal parasympathetic efferents except for salivary secretions, which are partly controlled by sympathetic and nonvagal parasympathetic fibers. These vagal efferents, which are distributed throughout the digestive tube and associated digestive organs (liver, pancreas, and gallbladder), largely originate in the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus (DMV), which is localized in the caudal medulla oblongata close to the floor of the fourth ventricle and is closely related to the nucleus of the solitary tract, the main structure receiving visceral signals from the digestive system [40, 41, 42, 43, 44].

DMV activity is directly or indirectly modulated by centers at upper levels of the nervous system that are responsible for the changes in digestive function that take place during the cephalic phase of digestion. This descending control of the DMV has been reported for such structures as the insular cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, central nucleus of the amygdala, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, tegmental ventral area, and nucleus accumbens. Many of these signals reach the DMV through relays in hypothalamic regions (posterior hypothalamus and paraventricular nucleus) and brainstem regions (e.g., periaqueductal gray matter or parabrachial nucleus) [40, 44, 45, 46, 47].

Pavlov reported that when food was directly introduced into the stomach, the secretion of gastric juices was delayed and scant, with weak digestive power, contrasting with the rapid and abundant cascade of gastric secretions observed when the same nutrients passed through the oropharyngeal cavity after their real or sham intake. He concluded that the low gastric juice secretion in enteral nutrition delays and considerably prolongs digestion [42].

The absence of oropharyngeal stimulation also indirectly delays other digestive secretions. It was reported by Pavlov that intragastrically administered food is not accompanied by salivary secretions, whose arrival in the stomach cavity stimulates the release of gastric juices [42]. It has also been demonstrated that the digestion of carbohydrates and fats that starts in the mouth through the action of salivary amylase and lipase continues in the stomach [48, 49, 50]. Hence, the absence of saliva delays gastric secretion and hampers the digestion of some nutrients. There is also an indirect effect on the release of pancreatic juices, whose secretion is determined by the level of hydrochloric acid in the stomach [42].

Absence of the cephalic phase impacts on digestion-related substances throughout the digestive system, from the mouth or stomach (e.g., salivary enzymes, hydrochloric acid, gastrin, pepsinogen, immunoglobulins, etc.), as mentioned above, to the small intestine (bicarbonate or digestive enzymes), liver, or pancreas (numerous hormones) (for review, see references [40, 44]). Many secretions triggered by cephalic stimulation are also specific and adapted to the nature of the food [42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56]. In other words, food components appear to be identified before they reach the stomach, allowing the digestive system to be specifically prepared for their transformation and utilization [40, 57].

Removal of the cephalic phase affects not only endocrine and exocrine secretions but also gastrointestinal motor activity, with an anticipatory increase in cephalic stimulation [58, 59, 60, 61]. The intragastric feeding of experimental animals has also been found to markedly accelerate the outflow of gastric contents into the duodenum [62, 63, 64], which might be responsible for the discomfort experienced by patients with “dumping syndrome” [62]. This syndrome is observed in humans who have undergone abdominal vagotomy and is characterized by the rapid emptying of gastric contents into the duodenum, producing nausea and epigastric pain [65]. In this regard, the intraintestinal administration of nutrients (fats) was found to significantly damage the intestinal mucosa [63, 66].

Disorders induced by the absence of oropharyngeal stimulation extend to postabsorptive stages [54, 57, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70]. In human studies, glucose intolerance (increased blood levels) and reduced blood glucagon levels were observed after intragastric glucose administration, but not when this was accompanied by oral sensory stimulation through modified sham feeding [71]. It has also been demonstrated that lipolysis is slower with intragastric versus oral feeding, leading to higher plasma levels of fatty acids [62].

Responses that are affected by the absence of cephalic stimulation can be observed in other levels of the digestive system and beyond, including postprandial thermogenesis, anticipatory rise in heart rate, increased respiratory rate in response to eating, and changes in the transport and intestinal absorption of nutrients and in bile flow and secretin release, among others [49, 72, 73, 74, 75].

Taken together, published studies confirm that the cephalic phase not only optimizes food digestion but also intervenes in processes related to nutrient absorption and metabolism. Many of these effects may be secondary to the release of gastrointestinal hormones, whose secretion is stimulated by the anticipation and presence of food in the oropharyngeal cavity [76, 77, 78, 79].

Advertisement

5. Is intragastric feeding stressful?

According to the above-reported studies, intragastric or intraintestinal feeding means that the digestive system is not prepared to receive, digest, process, or even appropriately utilize the administered nutrients. They would arrive in the system under nonphysiological, negative conditions, which may in part account for the digestive problems that can often make enteral nutrition nonviable.

Taste learning is one of the behavioral procedures used by scientists to determine whether individuals perceive the food reaching the digestive system as positive or negative. In these learning tasks, two nonnutritional flavored solutions of water are offered, with the intragastric/intraintestinal administration of a nutritional stimulus being associated with one solution and of an innocuous, nonnutritional stimulus (e.g., physiological saline) with the other. The preference of animals is determined after multiple sessions pairing the taste and visceral stimuli [80, 81, 82, 83].

Studies using this technique have demonstrated that the direct administration of complex food into the gastric cavity is a powerful way to establish flavor-conditioned aversions [66, 80, 84, 85, 86]. Thus, when rats were subjected to a discriminative flavor learning task using whole milk as visceral stimulus, they preferred the flavor associated with physiological saline and strongly rejected the flavor associated with the food, even after a 22-h food deprivation period [80, 84, 85, 86]. Similar results were observed with intraintestinal feeding, finding that association of the intraduodenal administration of fats or glucose with the oral intake of saccharose or water produced a strong rejection of both in subsequent presentations [66, 80, 81, 86, 87, 88].

Results obtained with the enteral administration of natural food markedly contrast with those obtained for the intragastric administration of food subjected to cephalic processing (aspirated from the stomachs of donor subjects shortly after its oral consumption). Unlike observations with natural food, the animals developed a strong preference for the taste stimulus associated with the administration of “predigested” food and rejected the stimulus associated with physiological saline [80, 81, 86, 87, 88]. Hence, enterally administered foods are experienced as rewarding/positive when they have undergone oropharyngeal processing, and assistance of the cephalic phase appears to adapt enteral diets more closely to digestive physiology. According to these data, the digestive system also seems perfectly prepared for the rapid assessment of the suitability of foods and for the transmission of this information to the central nervous system.

Results of research in animals have prompted numerous clinical studies. Although enteral nutrition was not a routine clinical practice until the 1960s, food had long been administered via gastric catheters, with the first case being published in 1564 by Matthew Cornax, a Viennese professor and physician. The first reports on gastric function and disorders in individuals fed via gastric catheters were presented by Coronel William Beaumont (1833) and the French physician Charles Richet (1879), who described the appearance of reddish blemishes and spots, scabs, and fragments of gastric mucosa, as well as delays in digestion and gastric emptying [89].

One of the most famous studies in this field was published by Wolf and Wolff and known as “Tom’s case.” In 1895, at the age of 9 years, Tom underwent gastronomy after accidentally eating boiling food and was only able to consume food via gastric catheter for the next 65 years. Tom was studied by various authors during this time, and one of the main findings was that digestion was not optimal when the food was deposited directly in the stomach and the intake was wholly unsatisfactory, leading to his malnourishment. However, when he was allowed to taste and chew the food before intragastric administration, at his own request, he gained weight and developed a good appetite [90]. Other similar reports in the literature include the case of a 24-year-old woman presented during the Annual Meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in 1950 [91] and of a patient with a 29-year history of complete esophageal obstruction and large permanent gastrostomy [92], who both acquired the habit of tasting and partially chewing food before intragastric administration. Although we have been unable to trace more recent studies of this type, other results obtained in humans have highlighted the importance of cephalic stimulation in nutrition. For instance, oral stimulation with monosodium glutamate (flavor enhancer that improves taste/palatability and augments salivary flow) increased the appetite and weight of elderly patients with problems of taste sensitivity, appetite loss, and weight loss, improving their overall health [93, 94]. Similar findings were reported in neonates with established enteral feeding, whose discomfort was reduced by oral stimulation with glucose [95], and in restrained eaters, whose food intake was increased by the sensory experience of tasting fat [96].

In summary, these data indicate that the signals produced by food in the oropharyngeal cavity trigger a cascade of exocrine, endocrine, and motor reactions that prepare the digestive system for the reception, digestion, absorption, and metabolism of the food ingested, allowing feeding to be perceived as a satisfactory or rewarding event. When these signals are missing, a series of noxious consequences can hamper the adequate development of these processes, making the feeding experience negative or “stressful” [40, 41, 44, 62].

It is therefore possible that some of the noxious effects of enteral nutrition can be palliated by administering diets that imitate “cephalic” food in some way. This possibility is currently under investigation in our laboratory.

Advertisement

6. Transmission pathways of rewarding visceral information to the central nervous system

In general, two distinct procedures can be used to establish flavor learning, designated by our group as concurrent and sequential flavor learning. Two nonnutritional flavored stimuli with their respective intragastric administrations are simultaneously offered during a short time period (usually 7 min) in concurrent learning, whereas the stimuli are presented in alternating sessions in sequential learning (Figure 2). A key difference between these procedures is that animals must detect and process visceral stimuli very quickly to establish an association in concurrent learning, whereas this can be established in a more delayed fashion in sequential learning [82, 93, 88].

Figure 2.

Experimental procedure followed in concurrent (A) and sequential (B) flavor learning. In the former, two flavored stimuli are presented at the same time; when the animal voluntarily consumes one of these stimuli, it is simultaneously and intragastrically administered with the associated visceral stimulus (e.g., predigested nutrients through an intragastric cannula); when the animal consumes the other stimulus, it is simultaneously and intragastrically administered with the other visceral product (e.g., physiological saline) through a second cannula. The same procedure is followed in sequential learning (B) except that each of the flavored stimuli and their respective intragastric administrations are presented in alternate sessions.

Using these procedures, and with the aim of being able to palliate the negative effects of enteral nutrition in the future, our group has studied the rapid pathway for processing information related to nutritional stimuli present in the gastrointestinal tract (concurrent learning), especially in the case of suitable or rewarding (“cephalic”) foods [81, 87, 88].

Information from the gastrointestinal tract reaches the brain via complementary humoral and neural pathways [97]. However, given the aforementioned time constraints of concurrent taste, participation of the humoral pathway in this task appears unlikely, and the neural pathway would be responsible for the transmission of information under these learning conditions [87].

Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies have demonstrated that the gastrointestinal tract receives both vagal and spinal nerve fibers [97], and either may have carried nutritional information to the brain in our studies. However, numerous physiological and behavioral investigations have indicated that spinal visceral afferents are less important in nutrition [98] and appear more related to nociceptive processes [99]. For this reason, we have focused on the vagal system in our experiments on the neural substrates involved in transmitting rewarding visceral information to the central nervous system.

Vagal afferents are distributed throughout the digestive system (Figure 3) and receive detailed information on the specific nature of the nutrients present in the gastrointestinal lumen via interoceptors (chemo-, osmo-, thermo-, and mechanoreceptors) [97, 100, 101]. This takes place directly, through the free diffusion of luminal chemicals across epithelial cells, and also indirectly via paracrine messengers released by enteroendocrine cells, which act as sensory transducers (“taste” cells) that detect the physical and chemical nature of luminal contents [100, 102, 103, 104]. Vagal afferents with nutritional information ascend toward the brain in parallel with autonomic motor fibers, forming bundles on both sides of the esophagus and ending in the nodose ganglion, from which central vagal branches extend toward their first brain relay: the nucleus of the solitary tract (NST) [105, 106].

Figure 3.

Anatomical pathways and nuclei involved in the rapid detection and processing of nutritional rewarding visceral information (SolG: gelatinous subnucleus of nucleus of solitary tract; LPBe: external lateral parabrachial subnucleus).

In rats, the NTS is a small-sized bilateral structure that ends in a single midline nucleus caudal to the area postrema (AP), one of the main circumventricular organs of the brain (Y-shaped in horizontal plane). Three regions have been differentiated in the anteroposterior dimension of the NTS: a rostral region that extends from the rostral pole of the nucleus to the point where the medial division contacts the fourth ventricle border; an intermediate band that extends from this last point to the caudal end of the AP; and a caudal division wholly occupied by the commissural subnucleus [105, 106, 107]. Most of the subnuclei of the NTS are found in its intermediate region, especially in the medial division (localized medially to the solitary tract, a bundle of fibers that crosses the entire anteroposterior extent of the nucleus) [107].

The NTS is the first relay for a wide range of special and general visceral afferent sensory fibers (oropharyngeal, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and respiratory), which are relatively segregated in subnuclei distributed throughout its rostrocaudal dimension. Those originating in the gastrointestinal system largely terminate in subnuclei in the medial division of the intermediate-caudal NTS [105, 106].

Our group has investigated the participation of vagal afferents in the rapid transmission of rewarding nutritional information to the brain using capsaicin (8-methyl N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide), the pungent component in red pepper of the genus Capsicum (family Solanaceae). When topically applied, capsaicin causes the initial excitation of thinly myelinated Aδ- and unmyelinated C afferent fibers (enhancing the release and inhibiting the reuptake of substance P and other neuroactive peptides from terminals), producing a transient hyperalgesia. This is followed by a refractory period with reduced sensitivity, explaining its clinical application to treat different types of pain. After prolonged or repeated exposure, capsaicin produces a permanent degeneration of these fibers and a persistent desensitization. Therefore, perineural application of this substance provides an important neuropharmacological tool for determining the specific role of an afferent pathway [108].

We applied capsaicin around the esophagus, selectively lesioning unmyelinated afferents and weakly myelinated fibers [108], which are both largely present in the vagus nerve [109, 110]. We found that information transmission mediated by capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferents is essential in concurrent taste discrimination tasks [87]. Thus, neurochemical interruption of this pathway hampers the establishment of taste preferences induced by the intragastric administration of “cephalic” foods, which is achieved without difficulty by neurologically intact animals.

However, capsaicin-sensitive afferents are not indispensable for the induction of taste preferences using sequential tasks. In this case, both capsaicin-treated and neurologically intact animals effectively learn the task and show clear preferences for taste stimuli associated with the intragastric administration of predigested nutrients. These results support the idea that information is unlikely to be transmitted to the brain via spinal or humoral mechanisms in concurrent tasks, because capsaicin-treated animals could be expected to learn the task if this was the case, and they did not [87]. Because each flavor is presented with its respective intragastric administration on alternate days in the sequential modality, long time periods are available for the detection and processing of the visceral stimuli. Hence, neurologically intact animals could use both neural pathways (likely while the food is present in the gastrointestinal tract) and humoral pathways (after the absorption of nutrients), whereas capsaicin-treated animals could only use the humoral (and/or spinal) pathway, although this would be sufficient to develop the corresponding taste preference behaviors.

Anatomical, physiological, and immunohistochemical studies have demonstrated that vagal afferents from the upper gastrointestinal tract project toward the intermediate-caudal region of the NST (Figure 3), a gateway for visceral signal processing [111]. Thus, various subnuclei of the intermediate-caudal region of the NST (NSTic) show c-fos activity after normal food intake [112], after intragastric or intraduodenal nutrient administration [113, 114, 115], and in situations of gastric [116] and intestinal [117] distension, among others. In many of these cases, NSTic activation is abolished by the chemical or surgical lesioning of vagal afferents [114, 118].

Given the time constraints implicit in the concurrent procedure, the digestive segments most likely to be involved in this learning modality (i.e., responsible for initial detection of the visceral stimulus) would be proximal ones (preferentially the stomach and duodenum). Sensory visceral information is known to be organized topographically in the NSTic with relative anatomical segregation [105, 106]. For instance, a high density of gastric vagal afferents is concentrated in the lateral portion of the dorsomedial NST in a cell cluster known as the gelatinous nucleus [105, 106, 107, 111, 119], whereas afferents from the duodenum and other segments of the small intestine are distributed in different areas of the dorsomedial nucleus, especially in more caudal and medial areas of the intermediate region [105, 106, 117].

Our group recently demonstrated that the gelatinous subnucleus (SolG) participates in the learning of concurrent taste preferences induced by intragastrically administered “cephalic” foods [88]. It therefore appears that the gelatinous nucleus (SolG), alongside capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferents, may participate in the neural pathway that rapidly processes rewarding nutritional information from the upper gastrointestinal tract. This subnucleus almost exclusively concentrates gastric vagal afferents [106, 113, 117, 119] and is a receptor of fine vagal afferents [120], that is, the type of fibers lesioned by capsaicin [108]. In addition, capsaicin-induced damage of small ganglion cells was found to produce axonal degeneration in the SolG, among other regions [121].

The NSTic in turn relays visceral information from the gut to the lateral division of the pontine parabrachial complex (Figure 3), especially to its lateral external subnucleus.

The parabrachial complex is a grouping of subnuclei that surround the superior cerebellar peduncle along its course through the dorsolateral pons. In rats, the subnuclei localized dorsally to the peduncle constitute its lateral division (LPB) and those localized ventrally the medial division [122]. The external subnucleus (LPBe), localized at the most lateral border and throughout the rostrocaudal dimension of the LPB, concentrates information from both the stomach and duodenum, receiving a large number of the afferents projected from the dorsomedial NTS, including the SolG[107, 122, 123].

These anatomical connections allow modification of LPBe activity by electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve and by the intragastric administration of various nutrients [114, 124, 125]. Moreover, the intragastric application of nutrients induces c-fos expression in intermediate-caudal and dorsomedial NST subnuclei and in the LPBe, among other regions [114, 115]. This dual activation has also been observed after the administration of substances that positively or negatively affect food intake, including pharmacological agents (such as methyl palmoxirate, 2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol, or dexfenfluramine) and various hormones (e.g., cholecystokinin, bombesin, or secretin) [126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131]. These effects of neuronal activation and/or intake can also be abolished or attenuated by truncal vagotomy or perivagal capsaicin treatment [114, 126, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134].

Our laboratory has also addressed the possibility of the LPBe nucleus being part of the rapid processing pathway of rewarding information related to nutrients present in the upper gastrointestinal tract in our laboratory. Unlike neurologically intact animals, LPBe-lesioned animals proved unable to develop taste preferences induced by the intragastric administration of “cephalic or predigested” foods in concurrent taste learning tasks, but both groups were able to learn taste preferences in sequential taste learning tasks [81].

We have also used other procedures to explore the involvement of the LPBe in rewarding processes, including the induction of taste and place preferences by electrical stimulation of this subnucleus [135]. In addition, large lesions of the LPB, including the external subnucleus, appear to reverse aversive effects of the intragastric administration of natural, nonpredigested nutrients, avoiding rejection of the associated taste stimulus and appearing to induce a flavor preference (versus water) in late trials of the task [85].

Considered together, these data suggest that the rapid processing of visceral information on rewarding nutrition (in upper gastrointestinal segments) is mediated by a neural pathway that originates peripherally in the vagus nerve and includes NSTic regions (e.g., SolG) and the LPBe [81, 87, 88]. In fact, this visceral vagal-NSTic-LPBe information pathway also appears to participate in other physiological processes requiring the rapid transmission of nutritional information. We recently showed that both the vagus nerve [136] and SolG [137] or LPBe [138] are essential in circumstances that require the immediate adjustment of food intake, extracting part of ingested food immediately after ending a meal and finding that approximately the same amount was reingested by neurologically intact animals but a much smaller amount by lesioned animals.

The vagus nerve-NSTic-LPBe pathway also proved essential for the rapid transmission of nonnutritional visceral information. We found that the vagus nerve [83] and NSTic [139] or LPBe [140] are necessary for concurrent taste aversion learning but not for sequential TAL.

According to the studies presented in this chapter, organisms have at least two complementary neurobiological systems for the detection and processing of nutritional rewarding visceral information: one that depends on the vagus nerve, NSTic, and LPBe, and another that is independent of this pathway. The former appears to participate when rapid information processing is needed and the latter when there are no time constraints.

Advertisement

7. Conclusions

Research into the biological mechanisms underlying nutritional behavior is exhilarating, both for the simple pleasure of unraveling these complex phenomena and for its potential importance in numerous clinical fields, including artificial nutrition. As shown in our review, enteral nutrition for any reason and of any type is frequently associated with adverse effects whose causes have yet to be fully elucidated. Studies by our group suggest that at least some of these negative effects may result from the absence of the cephalic phase of digestion. Further investigations of the physiology of this nutritional process are needed to support the design of enteral diets better adapted to digestive physiology and the development of pharmacological strategies that counteract its noxious effects.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Richard and Layla Davies for their assistance with the English version of this chapter and to Alejandro Navarro for creating Figures.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. 1. Meguid MM, Campos AC. Nutritional management of patients with gastrointestinal fistulas. The Surgical Clinic of North America. 1996;76(5):1035-1080. DOI: 10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70497-7
  2. 2. Irving SY, Simone SD, Hicks FW, Verger JT. Nutrition for the critically ill child: Enteral and parenteral support. AACN Nurses Clinical Issues. 2000;11:541-558. DOI: 10.1097/00044067-200011000-00007
  3. 3. Seres DS, Valcarcel M, Guillaume A. Advantages of enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology. 2013;6(2):157-167. DOI: 10.1177/1756283X12467564
  4. 4. Heymsfield SB, Bethel RA, Ansley JD, Nixon DW, Rudman D. Enteral hyperalimentation: An alternative to central venous hyperalimentation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1979;90(1):63-71. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-90-1-63
  5. 5. Jenkins AP, Thompson RP. Enteral nutrition and the small intestine. Gut. 1994;35(12):1765-1769. DOI: 10.1136/gut.35.12.1765
  6. 6. Jolliet P, Pichard C, Biolo G, Chioléro R, Grimble G, Leverve X, et al. Enteral nutrition in intensive care patients: A practical approach. Clinical Nutrition. 1999;18(1):47-56. DOI: 10.1054/clnu.1998.0001
  7. 7. Gramlich L, Kichian K, Pinilla J, Rodych NJ, Dhaliwal R, Heyland DK. Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature. Nutrition. 2004;20(10):843-848. DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2004.06.003
  8. 8. Bengmark S. Clinical nutrition. In: Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A, editors. The Cephalic/Neural Phase in Nutrition. Kerala: Research Signpost; 2009. pp. 93-116
  9. 9. Huang J, Yang L, Zhuang Y, Qi H, Chen X, Lv K. Current status and influencing factors of barriers to enteral feeding of critically ill patients: A multicenter study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2018. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14667
  10. 10. van de Ven CJ. Nasogastric enteral feeding in hyperemesis gravidarum. The Lancet. 1997;349(9050):445-446. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61177-4
  11. 11. Wicks C, Somasundaram S, Bjarnason I, Menzies IS, Routley D, Potter D, et al. Comparison of enteral feeding and total parenteral nutrition after liver transplantation. The Lancet. 1994;344(8926):837-840. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)92824-X
  12. 12. Finck C. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in the critically ill. Nutrition. 2000;16(5):393-394. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(00)00235-5
  13. 13. MacFie J. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition: The significance of bacterial translocation and gut-barrier function. Nutrition. 2000;16(7-8):606-611. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(00)00249-5
  14. 14. Alverdy JC, Aoys E, Moss GS. Total parenteral nutrition promotes bacterial translocation from the gut. Surgery. 1988;104(2):185-190
  15. 15. Qiu JG, Delany HM, Teh EL, Freundlich L, Gliedman ML, Steinberg JJ, et al. Contrasting effects of identical nutrients given parenterally or enterally after 70% hepatectomy: Bacterial translocation. Nutrition. 1997;13(5):431-437. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(97)91281-8
  16. 16. Anastasilakis CD, Ioannidis O, Gkiomisi AI, Botsios D. Artificial nutrition and intestinal mucosal barrier functionality. Digestion. 2013;88(3):193-208. DOI: 10.1159/000353603
  17. 17. Cahova M, Bratova M, Wohl P. Parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease: The role of the gut microbiota. Nutrients. 2017;9(9):E987. DOI: 10.3390/nu9090987
  18. 18. Balzan S, de Almeida Quadros C, de Cleva R, Zilberstein B, Cecconello I. Bacterial translocation: Overview of mechanisms and clinical impact. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2007;22(4):464-471. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.04933.x
  19. 19. Marshall JC, Christou NV, Horn R, Meakins JL. The microbiology of multiple organ failure. The proximal gastrointestinal tract as an occult reservoir of pathogens. Archives of Surgery. 1988;123(3). DOI: 309-315. DOI:10.1001/archsurg.1988.01400270043006
  20. 20. Moore FA, Feliciano DV, Andrassy RJ, McArdle AH, Booth FV, Morgenstein-Wagner TB, et al. Early enteral feeding, compared with parenteral, reduces postoperative septic complications. The results of a meta-analysis. Annals of Surgery. 1992;216(2):172-183
  21. 21. Lara TM, Jacobs DO. Effect of critical illness and nutritional support on mucosal mass and function. Clinical Nutrition. 1998;17(3):99-105. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5614(98)80002-2
  22. 22. Dive A. Enteral nutrition in the critically ill: Is the gut working properly? Nutrition. 1999;15(5):404-405. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(99)00027-1
  23. 23. Sigalet DL, Mackenzie SL, Hameed SM. Enteral nutrition and mucosal immunity: Implications for feeding strategies in surgery and trauma. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2004;47(2):109-116
  24. 24. Barrett M, Demehri FR, Teitelbaum DH. Intestine, immunity, and parenteral nutrition in an era of preferred enteral feeding. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. 2015;18(5):496-500. DOI: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000208
  25. 25. McClave SA, Heyland DK. The physiologic response and associated clinical benefits from provision of early enteral nutrition. Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 2009;24(3):305-315. DOI: 10.1177/0884533609335176
  26. 26. Johnson LR. Regulation of gastrointestinal mucosal growth. Physiological Reviews. 1988;68(2):456-502. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.1988.68.2.456
  27. 27. Shanahan F, van Sinderen D, O’Toole PW, Stanton C. Feeding the microbiota: Transducer of nutrient signals for the host. Gut. 2017;66(9):1709-1717. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-313872
  28. 28. Bengmark S. Immunonutrition - concluding remarks. Nutrition. 1999;15(1):57-61. DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(98)00122-1
  29. 29. Bozzetti F. Quality of life and enteral nutrition. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. 2008;11(5):661-665. DOI: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e32830a7099
  30. 30. Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Meta-analysis of parenteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. BMJ. 2004;328(7453):1407. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38118.593900.55
  31. 31. Fernández-Bañares F, Cabré E, González-Huix F, Gassull MA. Enteral nutrition as primary therapy in Crohn’s disease. Gut. 1994;35(Suppl 1):S55-S59. DOI: 10.1136/gut.35.1_Suppl.S55
  32. 32. Li N, Wang W, Wu G, Wang J. Nutritional support for low birth weight infants: Insights from animal studies. The British Journal of Nutrition. 2017;117(10):1390-1402. DOI: 10.1017/S000711451700126X
  33. 33. Ciocon JO, Silverstone FA, Graver LM, Foley CJ. Tube feedings in elderly patients. Indications, benefits, and complications. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1988;148(2):429-433. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.1988.00380020173022
  34. 34. Henderson CT, Trumbore LS, Mobarhan S, Benya R, Miles TP. Prolonged tube feeding in long-term care: Nutritional status and clinical outcomes. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 1992;11(3):309-325. DOI: 10.1080/07315724.1992.10718232
  35. 35. Punchik B, Komissarov E, Zeldez V, Freud T, Samson T, Press Y. Doctors’ knowledge and attitudes regarding enteral feeding and eating problems in advanced dementia. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra. 2018;8(2):268-276. DOI: 10.1159/000489489
  36. 36. Henderson RA, Saavedra JM, Perman JA, Hutton N, Livingston RA, Yolken RH. Effect of enteral tube feeding on growth of children with symptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infection. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 1994;18(4):429-434
  37. 37. Bastow MD. Complications of enteral nutrition. Gut. 1986;27(Suppl 1):51-55. DOI: 10.1136/gut.27.Suppl_1.51
  38. 38. Pahsini K, Marinschek S, Khan Z, Dunitz-Scheer M, Scheer PJ. unintended adverse effects of enteral nutrition support: parental perspective. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2016;62(1):169-173. DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000919
  39. 39. Tume LN, Valla FV. A review of feeding intolerance in critically ill children. European Journal of Pediatrics. 2018;177(11):1675-1683. DOI: 10.1007/s00431-018-3229-4
  40. 40. Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A. The neural/cephalic phase reflexes in the physiology of nutrition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2006;30(7):1032-1044. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.03.005
  41. 41. Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A. Rewarding effects of cephalic nutrients and the vagal-brain axis. In: Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A, editors. The Cephalic/Neural Phase in Nutrition. Kerala: Research Signpost; 2009. pp. 117-147
  42. 42. Pavlov I. The Work of the Digestive Glands. London: Charles Griffin & Co; 1910
  43. 43. Wood JD. The first Nobel prize for integrated systems physiology: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, 1904. Physiology (Bethesda, Md.). 2004;19:326-330. DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2004
  44. 44. Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A. The cephalic/neural phase of digestion: Historical perspective. In: Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A, editors. The Cephalic/Neural Phase in Nutrition. Kerala: Research Signpost; 2009. pp. 1-32
  45. 45. Oades RD, Halliday GM. Ventral tegmental (A10) system: Neurobiology. 1. Anatomy and connectivity. Brain Research. 1987;434(2):117-165. DOI: 10.1016/0165-0173(87)90011-7
  46. 46. Love JA, Yi E, Smith TG. Autonomic pathways regulating pancreatic exocrine secretion. Autonomic Neuroscience. 2007;133(1):19-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.autneu.2006.10.001
  47. 47. Li CS, Lu DP, Cho YK. Descending projections from the nucleus accumbens shell excite activity of taste-responsive neurons in the nucleus of the solitary tract in the hamster. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2015;113(10):3778-3786. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00362.2014
  48. 48. Carey MC, Small DM, Bliss CM. Lipid digestion and absorption. Annual Review of Physiology. 1983;45:651-677. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ph.45.030183.003251
  49. 49. Giduck SA, Threatte RM, Kare MR. Cephalic reflexes: Their role in digestion and possible roles in absorption and metabolism. The Journal of Nutrition. 1987;117(7):1191-1196. DOI: 10.1093/jn/117.7.1191
  50. 50. Kulkarni BV, Mattes RD. Lingual lipase activity in the orosensory detection of fat by humans. American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2014;306(12):R879-R885. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00352.2013
  51. 51. Kemmer T, Malfertheiner P. Influence of atropine on taste-stimulated parotid secretion. Research in Experimental Medicine (Berlin). 1985;185(6):495-502. DOI: 10.1007/BF01851855
  52. 52. Konturek SJ, Konturek JW. Cephalic phase of pancreatic secretion. Appetite. 2000;34(2):197-205. DOI: 10.1006/appe.1999.0281
  53. 53. Hiraoka T, Fukuwatari T, Imaizumi M, Fushiki T. Effects of oral stimulation with fats on the cephalic phase of pancreatic enzyme secretion in esophagostomized rats. Physiology & Behavior. 2003;79(4-5):713-717. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9384(03)00201-4
  54. 54. Mattes RD. Oral fatty acid signaling and intestinal lipid processing: Support and supposition. Physiology & Behavior. 2011;105(1):27-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.02.016
  55. 55. Kokrashvili Z, Yee KK, Ilegems E, Iwatsuki K, Li Y, Mosinger B, et al. Endocrine taste cells. The British Journal of Nutrition. 2014;111(Suppl 1):S23-S29. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114513002262
  56. 56. Zhu Y, Hsu WH, Hollis JH. Modified sham feeding of foods with different macronutrient compositions differentially influences cephalic change of insulin, ghrelin, and NMR-based metabolomic profiles. Physiology & Behavior. 2014;135:135-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.06.009
  57. 57. Robertson MD. Food perception and postprandial lipid metabolism. Physiology & Behavior. 2006;89(1):4-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.01.030
  58. 58. Stern RM, Crawford HE, Stewart WR, Vasey MW, Koch KL. Sham feeding. Cephalic-vagal influences on gastric myoelectric activity. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 1989;34(4):521-527. DOI: 10.1007/BF01536327
  59. 59. Katschinski M, Dahmen G, Reinshagen M, Beglinger C, Koop H, Nustede R, et al. Cephalic stimulation of gastrointestinal secretory and motor responses in humans. Gastroenterology. 1992;103(2):383-391. DOI: 10.1016/0016-5085(92)90825-J
  60. 60. Chen JD, Pan J, Orr WC. Role of sham feeding in postprandial changes of gastric myoelectrical activity. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 1996;41(9):1706-1712. DOI: 10.1007/BF02088734
  61. 61. Waluga M, Jonderko K, Domosławska E, Matwiejszyn A, Dzielicki M, Krusiec-Świdergoł B, et al. Effects of taste stimulation on gastric myoelectrical activity and autonomic balance. Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology. 2018;24(2):100-108. DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_419_17
  62. 62. Molina F, Thiel T, Deutsch JA, Puerto A. Comparison between some digestive processes after eating and gastric loading in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior. 1977;7(4):347-350. DOI: 10.1016/0091-3057(77)90230-1
  63. 63. Friedman MI, Ramirez I, Tordoff MG. Gastric emptying of ingested fat emulsion in rats: Implications for studies of fat-induced satiety. The American Journal of Physiology. 1996;270(3 Pt 2):R688-R692. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1996.270.3.R688
  64. 64. Morey S, Shafat A, Clegg ME. Oral versus intubated feeding and the effect on glycaemic and insulinaemic responses, gastric emptying and satiety. Appetite. 2016;96:598-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.11.002
  65. 65. Snowdon CT. Gastrointestinal sensory and motor control of food intake. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 1970;71(1):68-76. DOI: 10.1037/h0028964
  66. 66. Ramirez I, Tordoff MG, Friedman MI. Satiety from fat? Adverse effects of intestinal infusion of sodium oleate. The American Journal of Physiology. 1997;273(5 Pt 2):R1779-R1785. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1997.273.5.R1779
  67. 67. Proietto J, Rohner-Jeanrenaud F, Ionescu E, Jeanrenaud B. Role of the oropharynx in regulation of glycemia. Diabetes. 1987;36(7):791-795. DOI: 10.2337/diab.36.7.791
  68. 68. Storlien LH, Bruce DG. Mind over metabolism: The cephalic phase in relation to non-insulin-dependent diabetes and obesity. Biological Psychology. 1989;28(1):3-23. DOI: 10.1016/0301-0511(89)90108-7
  69. 69. Mennella I, Ferracane R, Zucco F, Fogliano V, Vitaglione P. Food liking enhances the plasma response of 2-arachidonoylglycerol and of pancreatic polypeptide upon modified sham feeding in humans. The Journal of Nutrition. 2015;145(9):2169-2175. DOI: 10.3945/jn.114.207704
  70. 70. Brede S, Sputh A, Hartmann AC, Hallschmid M, Lehnert H, Klement J. Visual food cues decrease postprandial glucose concentrations in lean and obese men without affecting food intake and related endocrine parameters. Appetite. 2017;117:255-262. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.07.001
  71. 71. Teff KL, Engelman K. Oral sensory stimulation improves glucose tolerance in humans: Effects on insulin, C-peptide, and glucagon. The American Journal of Physiology. 1996;270(6 Pt 2):R1371-R1379. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1996.270.6.R1371
  72. 72. McGregor IS, Lee AM. Changes in respiratory quotient elicited in rats by a conditioned stimulus predicting food. Physiology & Behavior. 1998;63(2):227-232. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00429-0
  73. 73. Kamath MV, Spaziani R, Ullal S, Tougas G, Guzman JC, Morillo C, et al. The effect of sham feeding on neurocardiac regulation in healthy human volunteers. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology. 2007;21(11):721-726. DOI: 10.1155/2007/891374
  74. 74. Deighton K, Duckworth L, Matu J, Suter M, Fletcher C, Stead S, et al. Mouth rinsing with a sweet solution increases energy expenditure and decreases appetite during 60 min of self-regulated walking exercise. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2016;41(12):1255-1261. DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2016-0344
  75. 75. Eguchi K, Kashima H, Yokota A, Miura K, Yamaoka Endo M, Hirano H, et al. Acute effect of oral sensation of sweetness on celiac artery blood flow and gastric myoelectrical activity in humans. Autonomic Neuroscience: Basic and Clinical. 2016;197:41-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.autneu.2016.03.002
  76. 76. Drazen DL, Vahl TP, D’Alessio DA, Seeley RJ, Woods SC. Effects of a fixed meal pattern on ghrelin secretion: Evidence for a learned response independent of nutrient status. Endocrinology. 2006;147(1):23-30. DOI: 10.1210/en.2005-0973
  77. 77. Monteleone P, Serritella C, Scognamiglio P, Maj M. Enhanced ghrelin secretion in the cephalic phase of food ingestion in women with bulimia nervosa. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010;35(2):284-828. DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.07.001
  78. 78. Madhu V, Shirali A, Pawaskar PN, Madi D, Chowta N, Ramapuram JT. Mastication frequency and postprandial blood sugar levels in normoglycaemic and dysglycaemic individuals: A cross- sectional comparative study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2016;10(7):OC06-OOC8. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18855.8082
  79. 79. Glendinning JI, Lubitz GS, Shelling S. Taste of glucose elicits cephalic-phase insulin release in mice. Physiology & Behavior. 2018;192:200-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.04.002
  80. 80. Puerto A, Deutsch JA, Molina F, Roll PL. Rapid discrimination of rewarding nutrient by the upper gastrointestinal tract. Science. 1976;192(4238):485-487. DOI: 10.1126/science.1257784
  81. 81. Zafra MA, Simón MJ, Molina F, Puerto A. The role of the external lateral parabrachial subnucleus in flavor preferences induced by predigested food administered intragastrically. Brain Research. 2002;950(1-2):155-164. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(02)03032-9
  82. 82. Mediavilla C, Mahía J, Bernal A, Puerto A. The D2/D3-receptor antagonist tiapride impairs concurrent but not sequential taste aversion learning. Brain Research Bulletin. 2012;87(2-3):346-349. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2011.10.022
  83. 83. Zafra MA, Prados M, Molina F, Puerto A. Capsaicin-sensitive afferent vagal fibers are involved in concurrent taste aversion learning. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 2006;86(3):349-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2006.07.004
  84. 84. Deutsch JA, Molina F, Puerto A. Conditioned taste aversion caused by palatable nontoxic nutrients. Behavioral Biology. 1976;16(2):161-174. DOI: 10.1016/S0091-6773(76)91268-2
  85. 85. Zafra MA, Simón MJ, Molina F, Puerto A. Lesions of the lateral parabrachial area block the aversive component and induced-flavor preference for the delayed intragastric administration of nutrients in rats: Effects on subsequent food and water intake. Nutritional Neuroscience. 2005;8(5-6):297-307. DOI: 10.1080/10284150600576655
  86. 86. Zafra MA, Simón MJ, Molina F, Puerto A. Effects of intragastric administration of predigested nutrients on food intake, body weight and taste acceptability: Potential relevance of the cephalic/neural phase of digestion. Nutritional Neuroscience. 2007;10(1-2):97-103. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(02)03032-9
  87. 87. Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A. Learned flavor preferences induced by intragastric administration of rewarding nutrients: role of capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferent fibers. American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2007;293(2):R635-R641. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00136.2007
  88. 88. Zafra MA, Agüera AD, Molina F, Puerto A. Relevance of the nucleus of the solitary tract, gelatinous part, in learned preferences induced by intragastric nutrient administration. Appetite. 2017;118:90-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.004
  89. 89. Wolf S. The psyche and the stomach. A historical vignette. Gastroenterology. 1981;80(3):605-614
  90. 90. Wolf S, Wolff HG. Human Gastric Function. An Experimental Study of a Man and his Stomach. London: Oxford University Press; 1947. 262 p
  91. 91. Janowitz HD, Hollander F, Orringer D, Levy MH, Winkelstein A, Kaufman R, et al. A quantitative study of the gastric secretory response to sham feeding in a human subject. Gastroenterology. 1950;16(1):104-116
  92. 92. Parker JG, Werther JL, Hollander F. Gastric cation secretion in a patient with complete esophageal obstruction and permanent gastrotomy. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 1963;8(4):319-329. DOI: 10.1007/BF02237704
  93. 93. Yamamoto S, Tomoe M, Toyama K, Kawai M, Uneyama H. Can dietary supplementation of monosodium glutamate improve the health of the elderly? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2009;90(3):844S-849S. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27462X
  94. 94. Sasano T, Satoh-Kuriwada S, Shoji N, Iikubo M, Kawai M, Uneyama H, et al. Important role of umami taste sensitivity in oral and overall health. Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2014;20(16):2750-2754. DOI: 10.2174/13816128113199990577
  95. 95. Potana NT, Dongara AR, Nimbalkar SM, Patel DV, Nimbalkar AS, Phatak A. Oral sucrose for pain in neonates during echocardiography: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatriatrics. 2015;52(6):493-497
  96. 96. Crystal SR, Teff KL. Tasting fats: Cephalic phase hormonal responses and food intake in restrained and unrestrained eaters. Physiology and Behavior. 2006;89(2):213-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.06.013
  97. 97. Sengupta JN, Gebhart GF. In: Johnson LR, editor. Physiology of the gastrointestinal tractGastrointestinal Afferent Fibers and Sensation. New York: Raven Press; 1994. pp. 483-519
  98. 98. Novin D. The integration of visceral information in the control of feeding. Journal of the Autonomic Nervous System. 1983;9(1):233-246. DOI: 10.1016/0165-1838(83)90144-3
  99. 99. Grundy D. Sensory signals from the gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2005;41(Suppl 1):S7-S9. DOI: 10.1097/01.scs.0000180286.58988.cf
  100. 100. Zhu JX, Zhu XY, Owyang C, Li Y. Intestinal serotonin acts as a paracrine substance to mediate vagal signal transmission evoked by luminal factors in the rat. The Journal of Physiology. 2001;530(Pt 3:431-442. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0431k.x
  101. 101. Powley TL, Spaulding RA, Haglof SA. Vagal afferent innervation of the proximal gastrointestinal tract mucosa: Chemoreceptor and mechanoreceptor architecture. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 2011;519(4):644-660. DOI: 10.1002/cne.22541
  102. 102. Dockray GJ. Enteroendocrine cell signaling via the vagus nerve. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. 2013;13:954-958. DOI: 10.1016/j.coph.2013.09.007
  103. 103. Janssen S, Depoortere I. Nutrient sensing in the gut: New roads to therapeutics? Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2013;24(2):92-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.tem.2012.11.006
  104. 104. De Lartigue G, Diepenbroek C. Novel developments in vagal afferent nutrient sensing and its role in energy homeostasis. Current Opinion in Pharmacology. 2016;31:38-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.coph.2016.08.007
  105. 105. Altschuler SM, Bao XM, Bieger D, Hopkins DA, Miselis RR. Viscerotopic representation of the upper alimentary tract in the rat: Sensory ganglia and nuclei of the solitary and spinal trigeminal tracts. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 1989;283(2):248-268. DOI: 10.1002/cne.902830207
  106. 106. Barraco R, el-Ridi M, Ergene E, Parizon M, Bradley D. An atlas of the rat subpostremal nucleus tractus solitarius. Brain Research Bulletin. 1992;29(6):703-765. DOI: 10.1016/0361-9230(92)90143-L
  107. 107. Herbert H, Moga MM, Saper CB. Connections of the parabrachial nucleus with the nucleus of the solitary tract and the medullary reticular formation in the rat. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 1990;293(4):540-580. DOI: 10.1002/cne.902930404
  108. 108. Holzer P. Capsaicin: Cellular targets, mechanisms of action, and selectivity for thin sensory neurons. Pharmacological Reviews. 1991;43(2):143-201
  109. 109. Prechtl JC, Powley TP. The fiber composition of the abdominal vagus of the rat. Anatomy and Embryology. 1990;181:101-115. DOI: 10.1007/BF00198950
  110. 110. Berthoud HR, Neuhuber WL. Distribution and morphology of vagal afferents supplying the digestive system. In: Taché Y, Wiggate DL, Burks TF, editors. Innervation of the Gut: Pathophysiological Implications. Boca Raton: CRC; 1994. pp. 43-66
  111. 111. Shapiro RE, Miselis RR. The central neural connections of the area postrema of the rat. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 1985;234(3):344-364. DOI: 10.1002/cne.902340306
  112. 112. Fraser KA, Davison JS. Meal-induced c-fos expression in brain stem is not dependent on cholecystokinin release. The American Journal of Physiology. 1993;265(1Pt 2):R235-R239. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1993.265.1.R235
  113. 113. Zittel TT, De Giorgio R, Sternini C, Raybould HE. Fos protein expression in the nucleus of the solitary tract in response to intestinal nutrients in awake rats. Brain Research. 1994;663(2):266-270. DOI: 10.1016/0006-8993(94)91272-6
  114. 114. Yamamoto T, Sawa K. c-Fos-like immunoreactivity in the brainstem following gastric loads of various chemical solutions in rats. Brain Research. 2000;866(1-2):135-143. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)02241-1
  115. 115. Emond M, Schwartz GJ, Moran TH. Meal-related stimuli differentially induce c-Fos activation in the nucleus of the solitary tract. American journal of physiology regulatory integrative and comparative. Physiology. 2001;280(5):R1315-RR121. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.2001.280.5.R1315
  116. 116. Olson BR, Freilino M, Hoffman GE, Stricker EM, Sved AF, Verbalis JG. c-Fos expression in rat brain and brainstem nuclei in response to treatments that alter food intake and gastric motility. Molecular and Cellular Neurosciences. 1993;4(1):93-106. DOI: 10.1006/mcne.1993.1011
  117. 117. Zhang X, Fogel R, Renehan WE. Physiology and morphology of neurons in the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus and the nucleus of the solitary tract that are sensitive to distension of the small intestine. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 1992;323(3):432-448. DOI: 10.1002/cne.903230310
  118. 118. van de Wall EH, Duffy P, Ritter RC. CCK enhances response to gastric distension by acting on capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferents. American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2005;289(3):R695-R703. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00809.2004
  119. 119. Young RL, Cooper NJ, Blackshaw LA. Chemical coding and central projections of gastric vagal afferent neurons. Neurogastroenterology and Motility. 2008;20(6):708-718. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2007.01071.x
  120. 120. Torrealba F, Calderón F. Central projections of coarse and fine vagal axons of the cat. Brain Research. 1990;510(2):351-354. DOI: 10.1016/0006-8993(90)91390-3
  121. 121. Jancsó G, Király E. Distribution of chemosensitive primary sensory afferents in the central nervous system of the rat. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 1980;190(4):781-792. DOI: 10.1002/cne.901900409
  122. 122. Fulwiler CE, Saper CB. Subnuclear organization of the efferent connections of the parabrachial nucleus in the rat. Brain Research Reviews. 1984;7(3):229-259. DOI: 10.1016/0165-0173(84)90012-2
  123. 123. Acuña-Goycolea C, Fuentealba P, Torrealba F. Anatomical substrate for separate processing of ascending and descending visceral information in the nucleus of the solitary tract of the rat. Brain Research. 2000;883(2):229-232. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)02845-6
  124. 124. Gieroba ZJ, Blessing WW. Fos-containing neurons in medulla and pons after unilateral stimulation of the afferent abdominal vagus in conscious rabbits. Neuroscience. 1994;59(4):851-858. DOI: 10.1016/0306-4522(94)90289-5
  125. 125. Wang L, Cardin S, Martínez V, Taché Y, Lloyd KC. Duodenal loading with glucose induces fos expression in rat brain: Selective blockade by devazepide. The American Journal of Physiology. 1999;277(3 Pt 2):R667-R674. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1999.277.3.R667.
  126. 126. Li BH, Rowland NE. Effects of vagotomy on cholecystokinin- and dexfenfluramine-induced Fos-like immunoreactivity in the rat brain. Brain Research Bulletin. 1995;37(6):589-593. DOI: 10.1016/0361-9230(95)00045-G
  127. 127. Li BH, Rowland NE. Peripherally and centrally administered bombesin induce Fos-like immunoreactivity in different brain regions in rats. Regulatory Peptides. 1996;62(2-3):167-172. DOI: 10.1016/0167-0115(96)00029-8
  128. 128. Horn CC, Friedman MI. 2,5-Anhydro-D-mannitol induces Fos-like immunoreactivity in hindbrain and forebrain: Relationship to eating behavior. Brain Research. 1998;779(1-2):17-25. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(97)01073-1
  129. 129. Horn CC, Friedman MI. Methyl palmoxirate increases eating behavior and brain Fos-like immunoreactivity in rats. Brain Research. 1998;781(1-2):8-14. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(97)01143-8
  130. 130. Horn CC, Tordoff MG, Friedman MI. Role of vagal afferent innervation in feeding and brain Fos expression produced by metabolic inhibitors. Brain Research. 2001;919(2):198-206. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(01)02963-8
  131. 131. Yang H, Wang L, Wu SV, Tay J, Goulet M, Boismenu R, et al. Peripheral secretin-induced Fos expression in the rat brain is largely vagal dependent. Neuroscience. 2004;128(1):131-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.06.027
  132. 132. Smith GP, Jerome C, Cushin BJ, Eterno R, Simansky KJ. Abdominal vagotomy blocks the satiety effect of cholecystokinin in the rat. Science. 1981;213(4511):1036-1037. DOI: 10.1126/science.7268408
  133. 133. Ladenheim EE, Ritter RC. Capsaicin attenuates bombesin-induced suppression of food intake. The American Journal of Physiology. 1991;260(2 Pt 2):R263-R266. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1991.260.2.R263
  134. 134. Ritter S, Dinh TT, Friedman MI. Induction of Fos-like immunoreactivity (Fos-li) and stimulation of feeding by 2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol (2,5-AM) require the vagus nerve. Brain Research. 1994;646(1):53-64. DOI: 10.1016/0006-8993(94)90057-4
  135. 135. Simon MJ, Garcia R, Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A. Learned preferences induced by electrical stimulation of a food-related area of the parabrachial complex: Effects of naloxone. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 2007;87(3):332-342. DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2006.09.009
  136. 136. Zafra MA, Molina F, Puerto A. Chemical afferent vagal axotomy blocks re-intake after partial withdrawal of gastric food contents. Nutritional Neuroscience. 2017;20(10):587-597. DOI: 10.1080/1028415X.2016.1208970
  137. 137. Zafra MA, Agüera AD, Molina F, Puerto A. Disruption of re-intake after partial withdrawal of gastric food contents in rats lesioned in the gelatinous part of the nucleus of the solitary tract. Appetite. 2017;113:231-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.040
  138. 138. Zafra MA, Agüera AD, Simón MJ, Molina F, Puerto A. Satiation and re-intake after partial withdrawal of gastric food contents: A dissociation effect in external lateral parabrachial lesioned rats. Brain Research Bulletin. 2016;127:126-133. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2016.09.006
  139. 139. Mediavilla C, Bernal A, Mahía J, Puerto A. Nucleus of the solitary tract and flavor aversion learning: Relevance in concurrent but not sequential behavioral test. Behavioural Brain Research. 2011;223(2):287-292. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.04.044
  140. 140. Mediavilla C, Molina F, Puerto A. The role of the lateral parabrachial nuclei in concurrent and sequential taste aversion learning in rats. Experimental Brain Research. 2000;134(4):497-505. DOI: 10.1007/s002210000497

Written By

María Angeles Zafra Palma, Javier Mahía, María J. Simón, Filomena Molina and Amadeo Puerto

Submitted: 30 August 2018 Reviewed: 30 November 2018 Published: 24 January 2019