Skip to main content

Food for Thought

Last week I learned something wild about our brains and bodies that has to do with the way we taste food. It turns out our body knows when we are eating something nutritive or when we are just eating junk. Okay, I know you’re freaking out right now because somehow your brain is keeping track of when you eat a kale salad vs. a fried chicken thigh – like Santa making his naughty vs nice list – but that’s not quite what I mean.
What I mean is that your brain knows when the food you’re eating contains calories or not. The crazy thing is that when your fed and happy, your brain doesn’t care whether you eat energy-rich foods or not and your preferences are dominated by flavor. However, if you find yourself stranded on a desert island going on a week without food, your brain is going to know whether you climbed that tree for the juicy, sweet coconut or whether you slammed that last Sweet-N-Low packet you’ve been saving in your pocket since your plane crashed.
This is research I heard about from Dr. Greg Suh at the Skirball institute in New York. He’s been giving fasted fruit flies the choice between real sugar, D-glucose, and “fake” sugar, L-glucose, which their bodies can’t metabolize. These two molecules taste equally good to the flies on a normal day, but after a few hours without fly food they begin to strongly prefer the D-glucose, the molecule that provides them with actual energy. This seems like a reasonable survival mechanism I suppose, given that when you’re starving it is imperative that you eat things that will keep your vitals functioning.
But what do I mean your brain “knows”? It’s not going to send you an email to tell you to cool it with the Diet Coke. But the neurons that respond to energy-rich foods are connected to other parts of your body that promote feeding. In the fruit fly this means that a calorie rich food will actually stimulate the proboscis to extend and the gut muscles to activate, promoting excretion. These actions are the response to the energetic food signal, and they don’t occur if you offer the fly the useless sugar (L-glucose).  

Dr. Suh believes he’s identified the same pathway in mice, which is a step closer to suggesting that something similar underlies human interaction with food. For me the question is now, how does our brain respond to “fake” food under other conditions? When we are hungry our brains know what’s good for us so surely they can tell the difference when we’re fed too. I’ll just have to follow Dr. Suh’s work to see where it leads. Here’s a link to his lab webpage in case you want to too: https://med.nyu.edu/skirball-lab/suhlab/
Labels:

Comments

  1. troy beckerFebruary 11, 2018 at 9:08 PM

    I read recently in I Contain Multitudes that part of our neural response has coevolved with our microbes and their needs. Which really fascinates me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EmilyFebruary 12, 2018 at 10:35 AM

      Oh that is interesting...communication between gut and brain is a super hot topic right now, but I don't know much about it.
      One thing that's interesting about this work I wrote about is the time scale on which the signaling happens. It takes ~40s after presenting the caloric stimulus to see the neural response in the fruit fly. This could give hints to the signaling pathway, although I don't know enough to speculate on the mechanism myself.

      Delete
  2. EmilyFebruary 12, 2018 at 10:34 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AlphaFold2 Part 2: The ion channel challenge

Last month I wrote about the wonders and perils of the artificial intelligence program that predicts 3D protein structures, AlphaFold2. As an ion channel enthusiast , I naturally wanted to know how AlphaFold2 performs at predicting the structures of proteins embedded in cell membranes. When I search PubMed for articles that mention both "AlphaFold" and "ion channel" I only get 34 hits. This surprised me, given the hype and the general paranoia around AI replacing humanity. If we use these search results as a proxy for the state of the ion channel protein structure prediction field, I'd say the juice is still in the coconut. I wanted to know how well AF2 would do at predicting an ion channel protein structure, so I asked it to generate the structure of Kv2.1, a voltage-gated potassium ion channel that I studied during graduate school. Kv2.1 is a pretty important protein. It regulates neuron firing throughout the brain and body where it helps us learn new stuff, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Precision murder -- wait, no -- medicine

A non-zero amount of what we call ‘medicine’ could be described as just controlled cell murder.  This was my revelation after researching a new treatment for certain cardiac arrhythmias called Pulsed Electric Field Ablation, which I became interested in when my father-in-law asked me how it worked during our Christmas visit. “How can it kill the heart cells and leave the nerves and blood vessels intact?” I had no idea. I know next-to-nothing about medical treatments for cardiac patients, much less how this Pulsed Field Ablation technique could have fewer side effects than the standard-of-care ablation techniques. A quick Google search piqued my curiosity when I learned that PFA is also sometimes called “high frequency irreversible electroporation”. While less catchy, that name revealed a bit more about the mechanism of action behind PFA - electroporation - which happens to be something I actually do know something about. Electroporation refers to the formation of holes (pores) in c...
Post a Comment
Read more

iPSCs, the new model organism?

Induced pluripotent stem cells. The name doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and it certainly doesn't conjure images of mice, fruit flies, monkeys, or any of the other classic model organisms used for basic biomedical research. These so called "model organisms" are just that; animals that help scientists model the way that the most promising human therapeutics in the collective pipeline will behave in humans. And now induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs, are becoming an increasingly popular tool used for developing and testing novel drugs way before we expose any real human patients to them. The upside to using model organisms is pretty obvious -- we minimize exposure of humans to potentially unsafe molecules. The downsides are many, but one big one is that sometimes potential new drug molecules look really promising when they are given to a mouse with a human-like disease, but then that same molecule does nothing (or worse, is toxic!) when it goes into human clin...
Post a Comment
Read more