The lack of intrinsic motivation to engage in, and adhere to, physical exercise has major health consequences. However, the neurobiological bases of exercise motivation are still unknown. This study aimed at examining whether the endocannabinoid system (ECS) is involved in this process. To do so, we developed an operant conditioning paradigm wherein mice unlocked a running wheel with nose pokes. Using pharmacological tools and conditional mutants for cannabinoid type-1 (CB1) receptors, we provide evidence that CB1 receptors located on GABAergic neurons are both necessary and sufficient to positively control running motivation. Conversely, this receptor population proved dispensable for the modulation of running duration per rewarded sequence. Although the ECS mediated the motivation for another reward, namely palatable food, such a regulation was independent from CB1 receptors on GABAergic neurons. In addition, we report that the lack of CB1 receptors on GABAergic neurons decreases the preference for running over palatable food when mice were proposed an exclusive choice between the two rewards. Beyond providing a paradigm that enables motivation processes for exercise to be dissected either singly or in concurrence, this study is the first to our knowledge to identify a neurobiological mechanism that might contribute to sedentary behavior.
Carolina Muguruza, Bastien Redon, Giulia R. Fois, Imane Hurel, Amandine Scocard, Claire Nguyen, Christopher Stevens, Edgar Soria-Gomez, Marjorie Varilh, Astrid Cannich, Justine Daniault, Arnau Busquets-Garcia, Teresa Pelliccia, Stéphanie Caillé, François Georges, Giovanni Marsicano, Francis Chaouloff
Usage data is cumulative from March 2019 through November 2019.
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.