Avoidance of potentially harmful food cannot be socially transmitted between rats

Liang JING1,2, Qin-Xin ZHOU1,*, Lin XU1,*

?

Avoidance of potentially harmful food cannot be socially transmitted between rats

Liang JING, Qin-Xin ZHOU, Lin XU

1. Key Laboratory of Animal Models and Human Disease Mechanisms, and Laboratory of Learning and Memory, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming China 2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

The social transmission of food preferences (STFP) is a behavioural task of olfactory memory, in which an observer rat learns safe food odours from a demonstrator rat, and shows preference for this odour in a subsequent choice test. However, previous studies have failed to detect the transmission of information about food of potential danger and food aversion using STFP test. In this study, we tested how demonstrators’ health affects the exchange of odour information and whether observers can learn danger information from an unhealthy demonstrator. As expected, the observer rat formed an odour preference after interacting with a demonstrator rat that had just eaten food containing a new odour, however, odour preference rather than aversion was also formed after interacting with a demonstrator rat injected with LiCl (used to induce gastric malaise). Furthermore, anaesthetized demonstrator rats and half-anaesthetized demonstrator rats, which showed obvious motor deficits suggesting an unhealthy state, also socially transmitted food preferences to observers. These results suggest that the social transmission of food preferences task is independent of a demonstrators’ health, and that information about dangerous foods cannot be transmitted using this behavioural task.

Diet selection; Rats; Social learning; Social transmission of food preference; Food aversion

Diet selection is vital for animal survival, especially when they are faced with novel foods (Birch, 1999). Information regarding food safety can be transmitted between individual rats and used for diet selection, as evidenced by behavioural tests such as the social transmission of food preference (STFP) test (Birch, 1999; Galef, 1982, 2003; Posadas-Andrews & Roper, 1983). In the STFP test, an observer rat interacts with a demon-strator rat that has recently eaten food with a novel odour, and learns this odour from the demonstrator rat’s breath. When the observer rat is subsequently presented with a choice between the food containing the learned odour or a novel odour it prefers the former (Galef & Whiskin, 2000). This phenomenon suggests a mechanism by which a rat learns safety information about novel food from conspecifics and uses this information when mak-ing dietary decisions.

Information about unsafe foods can also be theore-tically transmitted via the STFP test. For example, a demonstrator rat in an unhealthy state may indicate the risk of food recently consumed and an observer may learn food aversion rather than preference from the unhealthy demonstrator. This pattern has been found in red-winged blackbirds () (Mason & Reidinger, 1982; Mason et al, 1984) but remains unpro-ven in laboratory rats. In the STFP task, a demonst-rator rat made ill by lithium chloride (LiCl) injection or unconscious following anaesthetic administ-ration still induces a food preference in observers only and not a food aversion (Galef & Dalrymple, 1978; Galef, 1982; Galef et al, 1983, 1985).

One explanation for this test failing to commu-nicate a social transmission of food preference (STFA) may be because the rat cannot detect the health condition of its poisoned or anaesthetized littermate. Here, we explore this behavioural paradigm further and in addition to LiCl-treated and anaesthetized demonstrator rats, we test half-anaesthetized demonstrator rats showing clear motor deficits and suggesting a severe health condition in a STFP experimental protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animals

Male Sprague-Dawley rats (=126) weighing 250–300 g were obtained from the animal housing centre, Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan, China. Animals were group-housed in ventilated cages with free access to water and food in a 12-h light/dark cycle and a temp-er-ature-regulated environment at the Kunming Institute of Zoology (Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan, China). All experimental protocols were approved by the animal ethics committee of the Kunming Institute of Zoology.

Drugs

LiCl (Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China) or pentob-arbital sodium (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) was dissolved in saline. Powdered dill or cinnamon (Fu-ch-s Foodstuffs, Anqiu, Shangdong, China) were adulte-rated to plain chow 1% by weight.

Social transmission of food preference (STFP) task

The STFP task was performed as previously desc-ribed (Galef & Whiskin, 2003). Before the task, demon-stratorrats were habituated to eating plain or cinnamon chow for three days, after which demonstrator rats and observer rats were food-deprived for 24 h. During the task, rats underwent a classic three-step procedure. In the first step, the demonstrator rat was allowed 30 min access to plain or cinnamon chow. In the second step, the demonstrator rat was introduced to the observer rat to interact freely for 15 min, during which sniffing was observed. In the third step (15 min after second step) the observer rat was presented with a choice of two foods in its home cage: dill chow and cinnamon chow, both pre-weighed. After 20 min, remaining food was collected and weighed and the amount of each food eaten was calcu-lated as food consumption.

Data analysis and Statistics

All values are reported as mean±. A two-tailed unpaired Student’s-test or a one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc analysis with least significant difference (LSD) was used for comparisons. The significance level was set at<0.05.

RESULTS

Formation of a food preference via social learning

We examined the basal food consumption level, whe-r-ein after 24 h of food deprivation, rats were prese-nted with plain chow for 20 min (Figure 1A, plain chow,=9, 4.93±0.34 g), or presented with dill chow and cinn-a-mon chow to test innate odour preferences (Figure 1A, dill,=9, 0.82±0.33 g, cinnamon,=9, 0.58±0.24 g). Rats exhibited an innate avoidance to food with a novel odour, consumed much less novel food than familiar food (Figure 1A, plain vs. dill, P<0.001, plain vs. Cinn-amon,<0.001), and showed no difference between dilland cinnamon (=0.608). In subsequent experiments, we used cinnamon chow as the odour presented by the demonstrator rats.

Figure 1 Social transmission of food preference in rats

A: Food consumption level (plain, black bar) and food preference between dill and cinnamon (dill, cinnamon blank and grey bars) after 24 h of food deprivation. B, C: The food preference of observer rats after interaction with demonstrator rats fed plain chow (B) or cinnamon chow (C); N.S.: not significant; **:<0.01; ***:<0.001.

We tested the formation of learned odour prefere-nces using a STFP paradigm. After interaction with a demonstrator rat fed with plain chow, the observer rat exhibited food avoidance towards novel food and showed no preference between dill chow and cinnamon chow (Figure 1B,=9, dill, 1.56±0.6 g, cinnamon, 1.11±0.65 g, dill. cinnamon,=0.57). Meanwhile, after interaction with a demonstrator rat fed with cinnamon, the observer rat showed a preference towards cinnamon chow (Figure 1C,=9, dill, 0.35±0.13 g, cinnamon, 3.76±0.57 g, dill. cinnamon,=0.001). These results suggest that food odour can be socially transmitted and used to guide later food choices.

Observer rats learn a food preference after interaction with a demonstrator rat poisoned by LiCl

In theory, the odour presented by an unhealthy demonstrator rat may indicate an odour associated withpotentially dangerous food, which is essential for diet selection. Therefore, we tested whether the health condition of the demonstrator rat influences STFP results.

LiCl can induce gut malaise, and intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of LiCl can serve as an unconditional stimulus in the conditioned taste aversion (CTA) learning paradigm (Bures et al, 1998; Nachman & Ashe, 1973). After feeding on plain chow or cinnamon chow, the demonstrator rat was injected with LiCl solution (127 mg/kg) (Thiele et al, 1997) and allowed to interact with an observer rat before the food preferences of the observer rat was tested. No preference was detected (Figure 2A,=9, dill, 0.9±0.3g, cinnamon, 0.48±0.18 g, dill. cinnamon,=0.20). However, after interaction with a LiCl-injected demonstrator rat fed with cinnamon chow, a preference to cinnamon rather than aversion was detected (Figure 2B,=9, dill, 1.36±0.49 g, cinnamon, 4.34±0.0.58 g, dill. cinnamon,=0.013). Consistent with previous findings, the LiCl-poisoned demonstrator rat and healthy animals transmitted food preferences identically.

Figure 2 Socially learned food preferences from LiCl-poisoned demonstrator rats

A: After interaction with a LiCl-poisoned demonstrator rat fed plain chow, the observer rat showed no preference between dill and cinnamon chow; B: After interaction with a LiCl-poisoned demonstrator rat fed cinnamon chow, observer rats showed a food preference for cinnamon chow; N.S: not significant; *:<0.05.

Food preferences, and not aversions, were socially learned from anaesthetized demonstrator rats

It is possible that the observer rat was unaware of the discomfort felt by the LiCl-injected demonstrator rat, so we used anaesthetized demonstrator rats to induce motor deficits that may more clearly indicate an unhealthy state and food danger.

We anaesthetized the demonstrator rat by injecting pentobarbital sodium (80 mg/kg, i.p.) before interactions. During the interaction session, the demonstrator rat remained inactive and was only able to be sniffed by the observer rat. After interacting with the anaesthetized demonstrator rat fed plain chow, no food preference in the observer rat was detected (Figure 3A,=9, dill, 0.65±0.19 g, cinnamon, 0.65±0.31 g, dill. cinnamon,=0.993), and after interaction with an anaesthetized demonstrator rat fed cinnamon chow a preference for cinnamon was formed (Figure 3B,=9, dill, 0.83±0.33 g, cinnamon, 3.53±0.53 g, dill. cinnamon,=0.003).

Next, we half-anaesthetized demonstrator rats by injecting pentobarbital sodium (45 mg/kg, i.p.) before interactions. During the interaction session the half-anaesthetized demonstrator rat showed motor control deficits including staggering, which may also indicate an unhealthy state. We found that after interaction with a half-anaesthetized demonstrator rat fed cinnamon chow but not plain chow, a food preference for cinnamon was formed by the observer rat (plain chow, Figure 3C,=9, dill, 0.42±0.12 g, cinnamon, 0.29±0.12 g, dill. Cinna-mon,=0.510; cinnamon chow, Figure 3D,=9, dill, 0.33±0.14 g, cinnamon, 4.17±0.83 g, dill. cinnamon,=0.002).

Figure 3 Food preferences learned from anaesthetized or half-anaesthetized demonstrator rats

After interaction with an anaesthetized (A) or half-anaesthetized (C) demonstrator rat fed with plain chow, the observer rat showed no preference for dill or cinnamon chow. After interaction with an anaesthetized (B) or half-anaesthetized (D) demonstrator rat fed cinnamon chow, observers showed a food preference for cinnamon chow. N.S. not significant, **< 0.01.

Total food consumption is an indicator of a STFP and confirms that STFP is independent of the health of the demonstrator

We compared the total food consumption (dill chow+cinnamon chow) of observer rats in each expe-riment, and compared this to basal food consumption levels (Figure 4, plain, 4.93±0.34 g; also see Figure 1A). When rats were first confronted with unfamiliar food, they showed an innate avoidance to that food and ate less than the basal food consumption level (Figure 4, novel, 1.4±0.42 g, plain. novel,<0.001;). We also found that when the observer rat had no food preference (follo-wing interaction with a demonstrator rat fed plain chow), total food consumption was significantly lower than the basal level, indicating an unchanged innate avoidance to food with a novel odour (Figure 4, plain demonstrator shown in blank bars, healthy, 2.68±0.6 g,=0.003; LiCl, 1.38±0.39 g,<0.001; anaesthetized, 1.29±0.45 g,<0.001; half-anaesthetized, 0.71±0.16 g,<0.001; all compared with plain chow). In contrast, when a food preference exists, regardless of the demonstrator rat’s health condition, total food consumption reached the basal food consumption level (Figure 4, cinnamon demo-nstrator shown in grey bars, healthy, 4.11±0.55 g,=0.26; LiCl, 5.7±0.53 g,=0.29; anaesthetized, 4.36±0.61 g,=0.43; half-anaesthetized, 4.51±0.82 g,=0.56; all comp-ared with plain chow). Thus, total food consumption can serve as an indicator of food preference formation in the STFP task, and using this indicator we found that socially transmitted food preferences are independent of the health condition of the demonstrator.

Figure 4 Total food consumption is an indicator of social transmission of food preferences

Total food consumption (dill chow + cinnamon chow) was compared with basal food consumption (plain chow). When rats were presented with novel food (novel chow) they ate less than the basal level. In rats that had interacted with a demonstrator fed plain chow, a food preference was not detected, and total food consumption was less than the basal level. In rats that had interacted with a demonstrator fed cinnamon chow, a food prefer-ence was socially transmitted, and total food consum-ption reached the basal level. *:<0.05; **:<0.01; ***:<0.001.

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated that a half-anesthetized rat showing obvious motor deficits (suggesting a severe health condition) cannot transmit information about pote-n-tially harmful food. On the contrary, observer rats for-med a food preference rather than aversion after interac-tion with these ‘unhealthy’ rats. We also found that total food consumption can be used as an indicator of form-ation of STFP. Using this indicator, we confirmed that a socially learned food preference is independent of the demonstrator’s health, and food aversion is not transm-itted under this paradigm.

One possible explanation is that the observer rat is unable to detect the unhealthy state of the demonstrator rat, the discomfort caused by LiCl, or anaesthetic induced movement deficit or immobility. However, studies indic-ate that rodents can perceive the discomfort felt by cons-pecifics, such as in trapped situations, abdominal writh-ing, formalin induced pain and food shock (Ben-Ami Bartal et al, 2011; Jeon et al, 2010; Langford et al, 2006). Rats also respond differently to healthy littermates and poisoned littermates (Coombes et al, 1980). Therefore, rather than being unaware of the healthy state of the littermate, rats appear to lack the capacity to use this information to detect potential danger in novel food. Carbon disulphide in rat breathe can induce STFP, and pairing of carbon disulphide with novel odour is sufficient for rats to develop a food preference (Galef et al, 1988). Thus, successful transmi-sion of food preference may solely depend on this semiochemical in rat breath.

Another explanation for a lack of learned food aversion in this test is provided by Bennett Galef (Galef, 1985). According to his theory, socially induced diet avoi-d-ance in rats tends to be learned indirectly rather than directly. Rats have an innate tendency to avoid eat-ing food with novel odour (Figure 1A, Figure 4) (Rozin, 1976), and show conditioned taste aversion when experi-encing gastrointestinal discomfort after eating novel food (Bures et al, 1998). Therefore, there is little chance for a rat in the natural environment to demonstrate odour following a harmful diet and the odours that can be socially learned by an individual rat are mostly related to safe food (Galef & Clark, 1976). Furthermore, rats can deposit residual olfactory cues in areas they feed and this cue can serve as a safety marker to guide other foraging rats (Galef & Heiber, 1976). Therefore, a lack of STFA may not severely impact the survival of an individual rat.

Ultimately, both explanations are far from satisfa-ctory, and a better strategy is for rats to learn danger information directly from unhealthy littermates so as to avoid potentially harmful unfamiliar food. Alongside with previous findings, our results suggest that rats can learn from others which food to eat but not which to avoid.

Ben-Ami Bartal I, Decety J, Mason P. 2011. Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats.334(6061): 1427-1430.

Birch LL. 1999. Development of food preferences.19(1): 41-62.

Bures J, Bermúdez-Rattoni F, Yamamoto T. 1998.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coombes S, Revusky S, Tong Lett B. 1980. Long-delay taste aversion learning in an unpoisoned rat: Exposure to a poisoned rat as the unconditioned stimulus.11(2): 256-266.

Galef BG Jr. 1982. Studies of social learning in Norway rats: a brief review.15(4): 279-295.

Galef BG Jr. 1985. Direct and indirect behavioral pathways to the social transmission of food avoidance.443: 203-215.

Galef BG Jr. 2003. Social learning of food preferences in rodents: rapid appetitive learning. Current protocols in neuroscience / editorial board, Jacqueline N. Crawley... [et al. ], Chapter 8: Unit 8. 5D.

Galef BG Jr, Clark MM. 1976. Non-nurturent functions of mother-young interaction in the agouti ().17(2): 255-262.

Galef BG Jr, Heiber L. 1976. Role of residual olfactory cues in the determination of feeding site selection and exploration patterns of domestic rats.90(8): 727-739.

Galef BG Jr, Dalrymple AJ. 1978. Active transmission of poison avoidance among rats?24(2): 265-271.

Galef BG, Jr, Mason JR, Preti G, Bean NJ. 1988. Carbon disulfide: a semiochemical mediating socially-induced diet choice in rats., 42(2): 119-124.

Galef BG Jr, Whiskin EE. 2000. Social influences on the amount of food eaten by Norway rats.34(3): 327-332.

Galef BG Jr, Whiskin EE. 2003. Socially transmitted food preferences can be used to study long-term memory in rats.31(2): 160-164.

Galef BG Jr, Wigmore SW, Kennett DJ. 1983. A failure to find socially mediated taste aversion learning in Norway rats (R. norvegicus).97(4): 358-363.

Galef BG Jr, Kennett DJ, Stein M. 1985. Demonstrator influence on observer diet preference: Effects of simple exposure and the presence of a demonstrator.13(1): 25-30.

Jeon D, Kim S, Chetana M, Jo D, Ruley HE, Lin SY, Rabah D, Kinet JP, Shin HS. 2010. Observational fear learning involves affective pain system and Cav1. 2 Ca2channels in ACC.13(4): 482-488.

Langford DJ, Crager SE, Shehzad Z, Smith SB, Sotocinal SG, Leve-nstadt JS, Chanda ML, Levitin DJ, Mogil JS. 2006. Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice.312(5782): 1967-1970.

Mason JR, Reidinger RF. 1982. Observational learning of food aversions in red-winged blackbirds ().99(3): 548-554.

Mason JR, Arzt AH, Reidinger RF. 1984. Comparative assessment of food preferences and aversions acquired by blackbirdsobservational learning.101(4): 796-803.

Nachman M, Ashe JH. 1973. Learned taste aversions in rats as a function of dosage, concentration, and route of administration of LiCl.10(1): 73-78.

Posadas-Andrews A, Roper TJ. 1983. Social transmission of food-preferences in adult rats.31(1): 265-271.

Rozin P. 1976. The selection of foods by rats, humans, and other animals.6: 21-76.

Thiele TE, Van Dijk G, Campfield LA, Smith FJ, Burn P, Woods SC, Bernstein IL, Seeley RJ. 1997. Central infusion of GLP-1, but not leptin, produces conditioned taste aversions in rats.272(2 Pt 2): R726-R730.

08 October 2013; Accepted: 10 November 2013

This study was supported by the 973 Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2013CB835103); the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Science (XDB02020200) and the National Science Foundation of China (31100775).

, E-mails: lxu@vip.163.com; qixin_zhou@126.com