43: Filter-feeding and Roaming

I’m revisiting feeding, because it’s central to the vertebrate brain’s organization, redoing essay 23: feeding, essay 27: feeding state machine, essay 36: R.pb as tunicate brain, and essay 38: food zone. For this essay, I’m leaning harder into the proto-vertebrate as a filter feeder [Mallat 2021], similar to the chordate amphioxus [Chung J et al 2023]. Proto-vertebrate filter feeding is essentially breathing, and vertebrate breathing itself developed from filter feeding [Li S and Wang F 2021]. This filter feeding circuitry is distinct from the jawed vertebrate searching for small morsels of food and quickly eating them, which is a more action-oriented process.

I’m focusing again on the transition between locomotion and feeding, but this time using the DLR (diencephalic locomotor region) and introducing opioids as a feeding signal. To keep the system manageable, I’m disabling the seek system, such as chemotaxis, and only using a simple random walk roaming search. The whole system can then be reduced to switching between a roaming search phase and a resting, filter-feeding stage.

Filter-feeding state machine

Consider a simple proto-vertebrate filter-feeder, similar to amphioxus [Chung J et al 2023] or an ascidian that continued locomotion through adulthood. Unlike ascidians that lose locomotion [Osugi et al 2017], the proto-vertebrate would alternate filter feeding in a location with moving to a new location. The animal might move because the filter feeding didn’t produce any nutrients or because of a noxious environment or to avoid a predator.

Because the proto-vertebrate is no simple, it might use the same system as ascidians to choose a filter feeding place: either finding odor, taste, and touch that indicates a good place to stop, or timing out and settling for the current place if it hasn’t found an ideal place.

Minimal filter feeding behavior, switching between a locomotor search phase and a sedentary filter feeding stage. The labelled neuropeptides are suggestions for managing the state transitions. A2a.s (adenosine Gs receptor), DA (dopamine), DOR.i (δ-opioid Gi receptor), MOR.i (μ-opioid Gi receptor), npy (neuropeptide Y), tac1.q (tachykinin 1 Gq receptor).

The above state diagram shows a minimal behavior for a simple filter feeder. The search for food can time out with A2a.s (adenosine receptor), or it can halt earlier if a food zone is found with DOR.i (δ-opioid Gi inhibiting receptor for enkephalin). Filter feeding ends continues as long as the feeding produces food, signaled by MOR.i (μ-opioid Gi receptor). The animal leaves the feeding place and filter feeding ends if the environment is hazardous with tac1.q (tachykinin 1 Gq receptor for substance P) or when filter feeding doesn’t produce food, and the animal remains hungry, signaled by NPY (neuropeptide Y). Similarly, if the search state has a promising seek target, DA (dopamine) extends the search.

Expanding the filter feeding state machine

The filter feeding state can be the main state, such as tunicate ascidians committing to sessile filter feeding as adults. Since adult ascidians are sessile, filter feeding is the only state. The proto-vertebrate may have similarly spent almost all of its time filter feeding or resting, only moving when necessary to avoid environment hazards, or predators, or if the filter feeding is unsuccessful.

Simple filter feeding behavior.

I’ve distinguished the avoiding path from the give-up path because they have very different internal logic. Avoidance is driven by external senses, but giving up is internal, comparing expected food intake with the actual eating results. Because an initial sampling phase does not yet generate nutrients, the system must sustain the sampling phase even without feeding back, but it must also timeout eventually if the feeding place is unsuccessful.

Opioids as suppressing search

The opioid peptides and receptors are a vertebrate novelty. Neither amphioxus nor tunicates show either the opioids or their receptors, and invertebrates also lack these [Dreborg et al 2008], [Huang et al 2022]. The four opioid peptides and receptors (pomc with MOR, penk with DOR, pdyn with KOR, pnoc with NOR) exist in all vertebrates and likely divided from a single opioid paired with a single receptor [Larhammar et al 2015], [Stevens 2009] during the two whole genome duplication events between tunicates and vertebrates [Dreborg et al 2008].

In mammals the MOR.i receptor exists across the entire brain [Le Merrer et al 2009] and is broadcast in ventricle CSF (cortical spinal fluid) [Veening et al 2012] and the bloodstream through the pituitary [Veening et al 2012]. However, the matching opioid β-endorphin is only produced in three places, H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate nucleus), H.pit (pituitary gland), R.nst (nucleus of the solitary tract in hindbrain). Before the genome duplication events, the proto-vertebrate likely had only a single opioid and paired receptor. The timing for β-endorphin is seconds to minutes in CSF and 30 minutes or more for peripheral [Veening et al 2012].

For the purposes of filter feeding, I think it’s reasonable to treat proto-vertebrate MOR as mainly through CSF with a relatively long time of minutes to an hour. Because the proto-vertebrate brain would have been smaller, many or most of brain areas would be adjacent to the CSF [Vígh et al 2004] and might use MOR as a broadcast peptide.

Many locomotor regions are inhibited by eating and often have MOR.i receptors. H.sum (supramammillary nucleus) is associated with movement, exploration, and avoidance and is suppressed while eating. Subsets of H.l.g (lateral hypothalamus gaba neurons) sensitive to leptin (a fat-sensing satiation peptide) is suppressed while eating [Petzold et al 2023]. H.l.ox (lateral hypothalamus orexin area) is associated with arousal and seeking and is suppressed while eating. H.arc AgRP (arcuate with AgRP peptide) is active before feeding, associated with hunter, and suppressed at contact with food [Altafi et al 2024]. V.lc (locus coerulus – noradrenaline source) is suppressed during mammal licking [Fan W et al 2024]. S.v (ventral striatum) is inhibited while eating and inhibiting S.v increases eating. H.l may be a central node in the transition between seeking and eating [Kongstorp et al 2025]. Food presentation suppresses R.pb CGRP (parabrachial nucleus CGRP alarm peptide) [Carter et al 2013].

Roaming drive from H.arc AgRP/NPY

A voluntary search for food needs to be driven by some specific process. While hunger is a driving force, the circadian rhythm seems to be the primary driver, modulated by hunger [Sayar-Atasoy et al 2023]. In the mammal hypothalamus, H.scn (suprachiasmatic nucleus) is the main circadian driver, with H.dm (dorsomedial hypothalamic nucleus) and H.l orexin as other important nodes. For the hunger circuit, circadian drives the hunger circuits in H.arc and H.pv (paraventricular hypothalamus). These circadian and hunger systems drive roaming circuits in H.l and eating circuits in R.pb.

Circadian and hunger circuit driving food search and eating. Nuclei above are loosely grouped into circadian, hunger, roaming food search, and eating circuits. H.arc.agrp (arcuate hypothalamus), H.dm (dorsomedial hypothalamus), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.scn (suprachiasmatic nucleus), H.pv (paraventricular hypothalamus), R1.a (anterior hindbrain), R.pb.l (lateral parabrachial nucleus), R.nst (nucleus of the solitary tract).

The above diagram shows major nodes in the circadian, hunger, roaming food search, and eating circuits. The H.l subarea corresponds to the DLR, driving R1.a (anterior hindbrain) roaming. R.pb.l (lateral parabrachial nucleus) is a key hindbrain nucleus for managing feeding and alarm. R1.a essentially implements the roaming random walk search for food. R.nst is a key hindbrain eating nucleus.

Roaming and DLR

Roaming needs locomotor circuitry because it’s a locomotor action. The DLR (diencephalon motor region) and MLR (midbrain locomotor region) are locomotor areas above the hindbrain that exist in all vertebrates, including the lamprey [Ménard and Grillner 2008], [Robertson et al 2014]. Although the MLR is well-studied, less is known about the DLR. MLR is strongly driven by OT (optic tectum) [Kim LH et al 2017], and basal ganglia, and may be part of an olfactory seek path in lamprey that does not use DLR [Derjean et al 2018]. In mammals, DLR appears be be in H.l.p (posterior H.l), directly driving R1.a (anterior hindbrain, pontine oralis area) [Ji C et al 2024] with a possible corresponding locomotor region for zebrafish in H.v (ventral hypothalamus) [Farrell et al 2021]. The following diagram shows potential related areas and connectivity with H.l.p as DLR.

Possible connectivity with posterior lateral hypothalamus as the DLR. DLR (diencephalon motor region), H.l.p (posterior lateral hypothalamus), H.sum (supramammillary nucleus), Po.l (lateral preoptic area), P.ms (median septum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain, locomotor).

Exploration is associated with several highly interconnected regions, including H.sum (supramammillary nucleus) [Farrell et al 2021], P.ms (median septum) [Köhler and Srebro 1980], [Kuhn et al 2024], [Mocellin and Mikulovic 2021], Po.l (lateral preoptic area) [Subramanian et al 2018], and H.l [Altafi et al 2024]. I’m interpreting exploration as roaming food search, but “exploration” is often used in distinct and specialized contexts, such as information gathering. These exploration areas are also associated with RTPA (real-time place avoidance), such as the H.sum projections to Po.l [Escobedo et al 2023]. P.ms projections to Hb.l are RTPA, but P.ms projections to Po.l are locomotive without avoidance [Zhang GW et al 2018]. Although it’s possible that Po.l is strictly an avoidance node, which would not help this essay’s need for roaming, it’s also possible that sub-circuits within Po.l, P.ms, and H.sum are dedicated to avoidance, while others are used for roaming. For example, one study shows H.sum to Po.l as strictly avoidance [Escobedo et al 2023], while another shows H.sum tac1 (substance P) as correlated with all voluntary locomotion, not only avoidance [Farrell et al 2021].

P.ms may be particularly important for roaming as an integrator of spatial information and food drive [Tsanov 2022]. For the DLR, H.sum, H.pv and Poa stimulation all produce locomotion, but these areas require P.ms [Fuhrman et al 2015]. Some of these studies suggest that P.msdb.glu to Vta produces locomotion, which would be more to the seek circuit than for roaming. P.ms.glu activity sustains for several seconds after the stimulation ends, likely from intrinsic neuron mechanisms, because blocking internal neurotransmission does not curtail the sustained activity [Korvasová et al 2021].

Timing issues with giving up

As discussed in essay 38, a circuit for giving up on a feeding place conflicts with the circuit for starting feeding, because both have a shared threshold for giving up. The animal gives up on a feeding place if it isn’t receiving nutrients, but when it starts eating, it also doesn’t receive any nutrients. In particularly, filter feeding has a long delay between starting to feed and nutrients in the gut, as opposed to relatively quick feeding for mammals. The MOR.i receptor might manage successful feeding, but β-endorphin might be released only after minutes. To solve this dilemma, some mechanisms is necessary to spend enough time sampling the new place before giving up one it.

Bridging sustain with startup enthusiasm for a give-up time.
Illustration of the need for starting enthusiasm before long-term sustained gut nutrients are available.

The above graph shows the difficulty. The horizontal dotted line represents the threshold for giving up. When feeding starts, the received nutrients are below the threshold at zero. A naive implementation would immediately give up. Successful feeding has a delay (1 minute here) before its signal for MOR.i is available. To give the potential feeding place a chance, the animal either needs to be actively stopped with a starting enthusiasm period, or stopped for resting. Because filter-feeding and resting are essentially identical for the proto-vertebrate, a resting stop could be sufficient without needing a starting enthusiasm system.

Taste and dopamine is a possible intermediate to give time for MOR to kick in. If the animal tastes food in the filter-feeding branchial arches before the food is digested, that early signal could trigger dopamine to extend a food-zone waiting period and allow filter feeding to continue. This temporary dopamine signal might habituate relatively quickly to avoid perseveration. In mammals, Vta dopamine extends eating rich food [Zhu Z et al 2025].

Food-zone stopping

Essay 38 covered the H.l support for food zone from [Jennings et al 2015]. The core of the food zone is food odor. The ascidian larva has a simple odor and tactile circuit in the ascidian palps that help decide where the larva should settle. The genetic transcription factors for ascidian palps are similar to the vertebrate forebrain, specifically foxg1, which marks the vertebrate forebrain [Cao C et al 2019]. Looking at the vertebrate circuit, the path from Ob (olfactory bulb) to S.ot (olfactory tubercle) to Pv (ventral pallidum) to H.l can serve the food zone function.

Potential food-zone circuit for stopping in a likely filter-feeding spot. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Ob (olfactory bulb), Pv (ventral pallidum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain), S.ot (olfactory tubercle).

From [Bernat et al 2024], the S.ot to P.v to H.l path is the main S.ot path through P.v. Let’s consider this as the food-zone stop circuit. When the animal senses a food odor, the S.ot to H.l circuit will activate, detecting a food zone, which drives the animal to stop roaming and settle for feeding.

Importantly, S.o has the same adenosine timeout capability as the rest of the striatum, with A2a. (adenosine Gs receptor) and penk (enkephalin) marking the timeout indirect path. Enkephaline is the opioid ligand for DOR.i, but it also activates MOR.i, which is expressed in Pv [Neuhofer and Kalivas 2023], [Le Merrer et al 2009] and increases eating. This A2a.i and DOR.i circuit is the transition marker for the state machine above.

A dopamine taste signal might extend the food zone timeout [Zhu Z et al 2025]. The S.ot adenosine timeout neuron has a D2.i (dopamine Gi inhibitory) receptor, which inhibits the timeout without suppressing it entirely, essentially extending it.

Roaming timeout as filter-feeding sample

Anther possibly simpler sampling strategy is to use resting as a sampling phase. The roaming action itself could time out after a few minutes, resting for another few minutes before starting roaming again. In rodents the locomotion bouts are fairly short. Obviously, rodents are not filter feeders, but a proto-vertebrate filter-feeder could use a similar roaming-resting rhythm to periodically sample potential feeding zones without needing any odor place-detection circuit.

Roaming with timeout. H.l is the main roaming circuit. The S.sh and Pv loop is a timeout circuit to curtail roaming time. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Pv (ventral pallidum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain), S.sh (ventral striatum shell).

The above circuit shows roaming driven by H.l with a timeout circuit suing S.sh (ventral striatum shell) and Pv. As in the odor timeout, roaming uses an A2a.s circuit as a timeout, with a time of a few minutes. Because filter feeding and resting are essentially equivalent, this resting phase can find a feeding spot without explicitly detecting a food zone.

Simulation

The simulation roughly follows the circuits outlines above, centered on H.l as a roaming driver. The main change from previous essays is in HypMove which represents H.l. This essay simplifies H.l, because H.l has almost no internal connections [Burdakov et al 2020], mantling that HypMove needs to essentially implement a single neural layer. It can combine the main circadian driver with hunger and suppressive elements like FoodZone or a morphine suppressor from HypEat, where the animal shouldn’t move if it’s successfully filter feeding. H.l has strong MOR.i, which can inhibit the driving hunger signal. H.l uses a timeout with a S.msh model in RoamTimeout to timeout the roaming. This timeout produces a periodic rest time while the timeout recovers, which then defaults to filter feeding.

Block diagram of the major feeding modules of the simulation. HypMove is the central node. It combines information from several sources to produce a roam-drive signal to HindMove.

The above diagram shows the roaming sub circuit, focused on HypMove. FoodZone is equivalent to S.ot in this simulation, while in mammals the food zone likely includes S.ls (lateral septum), S.v (ventral striatum), and P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis). HypEat is equivalent to the morphine and satiation circuits, which includes H.arc and H.pv, but also includes broadcast feeding receptors like leptin and glucose receptors that are on H.l neurons directly without needing separate interoception neurons.

HypMove roaming drives HindMove, the R1.a model. As in the DLR H.l to R1.a connection, this connection is slow (~1s) and weak in HindMove and can be overridden by essentially anything else in the hindbrain.

Filter feeding is likewise weak and not driven by upstream modules outside of the hindbrain. This passive eating without higher control is unlike mammal eating. HindEat is not driven by hypothalamus or forebrain inputs. If the animal has stopped moving, the hindbrain will start filter feeding after a short time (~1s). If the filter feeding is successful, gut nutrients will trigger MOR release in HypEat, which will continue to suppress roaming.

Screenshot showing the animal paused while filter feeding.

The above screenshot shows the animal stopped in a food zone (the teal stars), eating and receiving gut nutrient feedback, which drives MOR to suppress roaming.

References

Altafi, M., Chen, C., Korotkova, T. and Ponomarenko, A., 2024. Sequential activation of lateral hypothalamic neuronal populations during feeding and their assembly by gamma oscillations. Journal of Neuroscience, 44(43).

Bernat, N., Campbell, R.R., Nam, H., Basu, M., Odesser, T., Elyasaf, G., Engeln, M., Chandra, R., Golden, S., Ament, S. and Lobo, M.K., 2024. Multimodal interrogation of ventral pallidum projections reveals projection-specific signatures and effects on cocaine reward. Journal of Neuroscience, 44(18).

Cao C, Lemaire LA, Wang W, Yoon PH, Choi YA, Parsons LR, Matese JC, Wang W, Levine M, Chen K. Comprehensive single-cell transcriptome lineages of a proto-vertebrate. Nature. 2019 Jul;571(7765):349-354. 

Carter ME, Soden ME, Zweifel LS, Palmiter RD. Genetic identification of a neural circuit that suppresses appetite. Nature. 2013 Nov 7;503(7474):111-4. 

Chung J, Newman-Smith E, Kourakis MJ, Miao Y, Borba C, Medina J, Laurent T, Gallean B, Faure E, Smith WC. A single oscillating proto-hypothalamic neuron gates taxis behavior in the primitive chordate Ciona. Curr Biol. 2023 Aug 21;33(16):3360-3370.e4. 

Derjean D, Moussaddy A, Atallah E, St-Pierre M, Auclair F, Chang S, Ren X, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. A novel neural substrate for the transformation of olfactory inputs into motor output. PLoS Biol. 2010 Dec 21;8(12):e1000567. 

Dreborg, S., Sundström, G., Larsson, T.A. and Larhammar, D., 2008. Evolution of vertebrate opioid receptors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(40), pp.15487-15492.

Escobedo Abraham, Holloway Salli-Ann, Votoupal Megan, Cone Aaron L, Skelton Hannah E, Legaria Alex A., Ndiokho Imeh, Floyd Tasheia, Kravitz Alexxai V., Bruchas Michael R., Norris Aaron J. (2023) Glutamatergic Supramammillary Nucleus Neurons Respond to Threatening Stressors and Promote Active Coping eLife 12:RP90972

Fan, W., Engborg, C.B. and Sciolino, N.R., 2024. Locus Ceruleus Dynamics Are Suppressed during Licking and Enhanced Postlicking Independent of Taste Novelty. Eneuro, 11(4).

Farrell JS, Lovett-Barron M, Klein PM, Sparks FT, Gschwind T, Ortiz AL, Ahanonu B, Bradbury S, Terada S, Oijala M, Hwaun E, Dudok B, Szabo G, Schnitzer MJ, Deisseroth K, Losonczy A, Soltesz I. Supramammillary regulation of locomotion and hippocampal activity. Science. 2021 Dec 17;374(6574):1492-1496. 

Fuhrmann, F., Justus, D., Sosulina, L., Kaneko, H., Beutel, T., Friedrichs, D., Schoch, S., Schwarz, M.K., Fuhrmann, M. and Remy, S., 2015. Locomotion, theta oscillations, and the speed-correlated firing of hippocampal neurons are controlled by a medial septal glutamatergic circuit. Neuron, 86(5), pp.1253-1264.

Huang, A.Y., Taylor, A.M., Ghogha, A., Pribadi, M., Wang, Q., Kim, T.S., Cahill, C.M., Coppola, G. and Evans, C.J., 2022. Genetic and functional analysis of a Pacific hagfish opioid system. Journal of neuroscience research, 100(1), pp.19-34.

Jennings JH, Ung RL, Resendez SL, Stamatakis AM, Taylor JG, Huang J, Veleta K, Kantak PA, Aita M, Shilling-Scrivo K, Ramakrishnan C, Deisseroth K, Otte S, Stuber GD. Visualizing hypothalamic network dynamics for appetitive and consummatory behaviors. Cell. 2015 Jan 29;160(3):516-27.

Ji, C., Zhang, Y., Lin, Z., Zhao, Z., Jiao, Z., Zheng, Z., Shi, X., Wang, X., Li, Z., Yu, S. and Qu, Y., 2024. Activation of hypothalamic-pontine-spinal pathway promotes locomotor initiation and functional recovery after spinal cord injury in mice. bioRxiv, pp.2024-11.

Kim LH, Sharma S, Sharples SA, Mayr KA, Kwok CHT, Whelan PJ. Integration of Descending Command Systems for the Generation of Context-Specific Locomotor Behaviors. Front Neurosci. 2017 Oct 18;11:581. 

Kongstorp, M., Karnani, M.M. and McCutcheon, J.E., 2025. Does the lateral hypothalamus govern the transition between appetitive and consummatory feeding?. Neuropharmacology, p.110438.

Korvasová, K., Ludwig, F., Kaneko, H., Sosulina, L., Tetzlaff, T., Remy, S. and Mikulovic, S., 2021. Locomotion induced by medial septal glutamatergic neurons is linked to intrinsically generated persistent firing. bioRxiv, pp.2021-04.

Köhler, C. and Srebro, B., 1980. Effects of lateral and medial septal lesions on exploratory behavior in the albino rat. Brain Research, 182(2), pp.423-440.

Kuhn, F., Mocellin, P., Pupe, S., Wang, L., Lemire, A.L., Sosulina, L., Barnstedt, O., Spruston, N., Cembrowski, M.S. and Remy, S., 2024. Neuronal heterogeneity in the medial septum and diagonal band of Broca: classes and continua. bioRxiv, pp.2024-08.

Larhammar, D., Bergqvist, C. and Sundström, G., 2015. Ancestral vertebrate complexity of the opioid system. Vitamins & Hormones, 97, pp.95-122.

Le Merrer J, Becker JA, Befort K, Kieffer BL. Reward processing by the opioid system in the brain. Physiol Rev. 2009 Oct;89(4):1379-412.

Li S, Wang F. Vertebrate Evolution Conserves Hindbrain Circuits despite Diverse Feeding and Breathing Modes. eNeuro. 2021 Apr 28;8(2):ENEURO.0435-20.2021.

Mallatt, J., 2008. The origin of the vertebrate jaw: neoclassical ideas versus newer, development-based ideas. Zoological science, 25(10), pp.990-998.

Ménard A, Grillner S. Diencephalic locomotor region in the lamprey–afferents and efferent control. J Neurophysiol. 2008 Sep;100(3):1343-53. 

Mocellin P, Mikulovic S. The Role of the Medial Septum-Associated Networks in Controlling Locomotion and Motivation to Move. Front Neural Circuits. 2021 Jul 22;15:699798.

Neuhofer, D. and Kalivas, P., 2023. Differential modulation of GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons in the ventral pallidum by GABA and neuropeptides. Eneuro, 10(7).

Petzold A, van den Munkhof HE, Figge-Schlensok R, Korotkova T. Complementary lateral hypothalamic populations resist hunger pressure to balance nutritional and social needs. Cell Metab. 2023 Mar 7;35(3):456-471.e6. 

Robertson B, Kardamakis A, Capantini L, Pérez-Fernández J, Suryanarayana SM, Wallén P, Stephenson-Jones M, Grillner S. The lamprey blueprint of the mammalian nervous system. Prog Brain Res. 2014;212:337-49.

Stevens, C.W., 2009. The evolution of vertebrate opioid receptors. Frontiers in bioscience: a journal and virtual library, 14, p.1247.

Subramanian, S., Reichard, R.A., Stevenson, H.S., Schwartz, Z.M., Parsley, K.P. and Zahm, D.S., 2018. Lateral preoptic and ventral pallidal roles in locomotion and other movements. Brain Structure and Function, 223, pp.2907-2924.

Tsanov, M., 2022. Basal forebrain impairment: understanding the mnemonic function of the septal region translates in therapeutic advances. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 16, p.916499.

Veening JG, Gerrits PO, Barendregt HP. Volume transmission of beta-endorphin via the cerebrospinal fluid; a review. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2012 Aug 10;9(1):16. 

Vígh B, Manzano e Silva MJ, Frank CL, Vincze C, Czirok SJ, Szabó A, Lukáts A, Szél A. The system of cerebrospinal fluid-contacting neurons. Its supposed role in the nonsynaptic signal transmission of the brain. Histol Histopathol. 2004 Apr;19(2):607-28. 

Zhang GW, Shen L, Zhong W, Xiong Y, Zhang LI, Tao HW. Transforming Sensory Cues into Aversive Emotion via Septal-Habenular Pathway. Neuron. 2018 Sep 5;99(5):1016-1028.e5. 

Zhu Z, Gong R, Rodriguez V, Quach KT, Chen X, Sternson SM. Hedonic eating is controlled by dopamine neurons that oppose GLP-1R satiety. Science. 2025 Mar 28;387(6741):eadt0773. 

Essay 27: Feeding state issues

The feeding essay introduced a number of issues both uncovered by the simulation and problems with the neuroscience. The simulation emphasized issues with the timing of the dwell state, where dwelling at the wrong time can inhibit search. Another issue as a bug was getting stuck switching states where roaming didn’t restart. The biggest neuroscience problem is a possible/likely massive misinterpretation of H.pstn (presubthalamic nucleus).

Dwell timing

The initial trigger for a dwell state varies between species [Dorfman et al 2020]. The simulation quickly showed why. In the current simulation, since food is a single item in the center of an odor plume, dwell could either trigger on entering the odor plume or after eating food.

Simulation where the animal dwells when entering the odor plume.

As the screenshot shows, the dwell search is counterproductive because it’s too far from the food. When dwell triggers from eating, like ladybugs eating aphids [Dorfman et al 2020], the area restricted search is more effective.

Getting stuck in a state

One programming bug happened after the animal ate, leaving the eating state, but it didn’t start the roaming state, instead remaining stuck. The roaming state didn’t recover after the eating state.

Which raises a question about a state machine model, which I’m already skeptical about as a good model of the mind. In programming, state machines can be useful because the states and transitions are enumerable, which makes them testable, because humans are good at working through lists and cases. But evolution can’t work through a list of cases, and neural circuits are not well suited to complicated mutually-exclusive state transitions.

For example, imagine a neural state machine, and consider when evolution adds a new state or a new state transition? In theory, it needs to update all the circuits for the other states to consider the new cases for the new state and new transition. Since state machines are combinatorial, each new state or transition increases complexity based on the current complexity of the state machine. Adding a state or transition to a 2-state machine is relatively simple, but adding a state or transition to a 10-state machine is much more complicated. In programming, you can work through all the new combinations and handle each case, but evolution would require new mutations for each case. It’s not impossible but becomes less likely as complexity arises.

H.pstn as misinterpreted in the essay

Essay 27 used a hypothetical H.pstn (presubthalamic nucleus) as the eating analog to H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), where each can pause actions to manage state transitions. That model treated H.pstn and H.stn as parallel modules laterally inhibiting each other. But H.pstn research has mostly found H.pstn as an inhibitory module, pausing eating for external threads or for sickness or bitterness, not as a driving force [Barbier et al 2020].

But it’s possible that H.pstn research may be preliminary, and other regions had also found negative, aversive functions to areas that later were found to have mixed function, including H.stn itself [Watson et al 2021]. Early research had assigned negative “fear”, freezing, or stopping behavior to entire regions like H.stn, M.pag.vl (periaqueductal gray, ventral-lateral), and S.a (central amygdala), but later research found a more varied behavior. These areas only appeared to be negative because a small sub-area implemented avoidance or freezing [La-Vu et al 2020]. So, it’s possible that H.pstn might have non-avoidant function, but it seems more likely that H.pstn is not an exact parallel to H.stn for eating.

H.stn is topographically ordered by motor areas and includes mouth and facial motor areas. If H.stn does perform a sustain and transition function, it might sustain and transition many/most motor areas, without a specific carve-out for feeding.

Eating-triggered dwell vs reward

A behaviorist might describe the essay, as saying that dwell is triggered by reward. I’ve been deliberately avoiding using the term reward for eating, for several reasons including those given by [Salamone and Correa 2012]. Two reasons are that the essays don’t yet have reinforcement and the meaning of “reward” is highly tied to reinforcement. A second is that reward implicitly assumes a common currency for valence, but the implementation of a common currency requires circuitry to create that currency.

Another reason raised by this essay is that eating-triggered behavior does not necessarily follow the behaviorist reward model, and specifically this essay’s eating-dependent behavior isn’t associative learning.

Suppose I use “reward-triggered dwell” instead of “eating-triggered dwell.” First, the term would be incorrect because the simulation doesn’t have an erased-source common currency “reward”. It specifically triggers from eating. Second, “reward” implies that there’s either a hedonic component (“liking”), which the simulation doesn’t have, or a motivational component, which is more complicated, because the “dwell” state is motivational.

References

Barbier, Marie, et al. A basal ganglia-like cortical–amygdalar–hypothalamic network mediates feeding behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.27 (2020): 15967-15976.

Dorfman A, Hills TT, Scharf I. A guide to area-restricted search: a foundational foraging behaviour. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2022 Dec;97(6):2076-2089.

La-Vu MQ, Sethi E, Maesta-Pereira S, Schuette PJ, Tobias BC, Reis FMCV, Wang W, Torossian A, Bishop A, Leonard SJ, Lin L, Cahill CM, Adhikari A. Sparse genetically defined neurons refine the canonical role of periaqueductal gray columnar organization. Elife. 2022 Jun 8;11:e77115.

Salamone JD, Correa M. The mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine. Neuron. 2012 Nov 8;76(3):470-85.

Watson GDR, Hughes RN, Petter EA, Fallon IP, Kim N, Severino FPU, Yin HH. Thalamic projections to the subthalamic nucleus contribute to movement initiation and rescue of parkinsonian symptoms. Sci Adv. 2021 Feb 5

Essay 27: Feeding State Machine

Essay 27 returns to feeding, which essay 23 had an earlier sketch of. While the animal in earlier essays could eat while moving, like snails and worms, this essay will add the requirement of stopping before eating, which requires extra control mechanisms to manage the state transition.

A filter feeder like amphioxus, a non-vertebrate chordate that may hint at pre-vertebrate feeding, might move to find a better feeding zone, but then settles down as a static filter feeder. Tunicates, which are more closely related to vertebrates settle down permanently as adults and dissolve their brain as no longer needed. Because I want to keep the essay simple, I’m imaging something more like licking, which is more studied in rodents, as opposed to a more alien filter feeding. The main problem for the essay to introduce locomotion and eating as distinct actions.

As a contrast to further explore the idea of states and state transitions, the essays also explores the transition between roaming and dwelling: global wide-ranging search vs area restricted search. Roaming and dwelling are more amorphous motivational states as opposed to the strict motor division between moving and eating.

Feeding states

Below is a more detailed diagram of the foraging and feeding states, revolving around the core foraging task. The animal passively roams until is finds an odor cue for a food target, which starts a seek to the target. If it finds food, the animal sops and eats.

In this model, the roam state and dwell state can be separate from seeking a target, depending on the animal’s environmental niche. A seek can start in a roam state or a dwell state, and seek cues may or may not initiate dwell state. For example, dwell state might only start when the animal eats nutritious food, indicating that food is nearby.

Feeding state diagram for the essay. ach (acetylcholine neurotransmitter) agrp (hunger peptide), ARS (area restricted search), cgrp (alarm/bitter taste peptide), da (dopamine), glp-1 (satiety/sickness peptide), ox (orexin wakefulness/action peptide), set (somatostatin peptide), V.dr (dorsal raphe), 5HT (serotonin)

The diagram includes important failure states. If seeking fails, the animal gives up and leaves the area, and must ignore the last cue to avoid perseveration. If the taste is bitter or toxic, the animal rejects the food. For now, I’m postponing longer failure states like the food lacking nutritional value or causing food poisoning.

To avoid perseveration, seeking the failed cue forever, the avoid state moves the animal away from the failed cue and ignores seek cues. A more sophisticated brain could remember the failed cue for a short time, but the current essays lack short term memory.

Eating here means specifically licking or filter feeding. I’m being precise here because the simulation requires it, and more vague neuroscience terms like “reward” are often unclear about exactly what it’s relation to actual eating are.

The connection between the dwell state and serotonin is from [Flavell et al 2013], [Ji et al 2021] which founds serotonin marking the dwell state in the flatworm C. elegans, and [Marques et al 2020] finding serotonin for a zebrafish dwell (“exploit”) state.

Roaming and dwelling

Food search phases have multiple strategies, broadly divided into roaming and dwelling. Roaming is a broader, more general search without a specific area or target. Dwelling or ARS (area restricted search) is slower, with tighter turning, where the current area is believed to be more likely to have food. [Horstick et al 2017] describes dwell as four properties: reduction in travel distance, increased change in orientation, increased path complexity, and a directional bias.

For this essay, dwelling is a motivational drive not a motor command, meaning it can overlap with other motivations and doesn’t provide a strict action state requirement. For example, dwell isn’t required to seek a target, which can occur in the roaming state, for example in C. elegans [Ji et al 2021].

In the C. elegans the dwell state is associated with serotonin and the roam state with PDF (pigment dispensing factor) [Flavell et al 2013]. In zebrafish the dwell state is associated with V.dr (dorsal raphe) serotonin [Marques et al 2020], the roam state is associated with SST (somatostatin peptide) [Horstick et al 2017]. While arousal isn’t quite the same as well, [Lovett-Barron et al 2017] found SST as a low-arousal marker, while CART, ACh (acetylcholine), NE (norepinephrine), serotonin, dopamine and NPY (neuropeptide Y) as signs of high arousal.

Triggers for the dwell state depend on the animal’s species [Dorfman et al 2020]. In C. elegans, which feeds on bacteria, nutritional feedback extends the dwell state [Ben Arous et al 2009]. In some animals a food cue triggers dwell, while in others only eating nutritious food triggers dwell. In zebrafish lack of a food cue causes H.c (caudal hypothalamus) activation decay [Wee et al 2019].

Reflexive eating

This essay models reflexive eating as a hindbrain system controlled by B.pb (parabrachial nucleus) with downstream motor and sensory in B.nts (nuclei tractus solitarius), M.mdd (reticular medulla), and B.3g (trigeminal – orofacial sensorimotor). The simulation isn’t as detailed, treating the hindbrain eating as a single low-level module.

Hindbrain modules involved in reflexive eating. B.3g (trigeminal), B.mdd (reticular medulla), B.nts (nucleus tractus solitarius), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus).

This innate circuit can with without input from higher areas [Watts et al 2022]. For example if rodents lack any dopamine, they won’t move or eat and will starve even if food is near them. However, if food or water is placed at their lips, which activates the innate circuit, the rodents will eat [Rossi et al 2016].

The B.pb area also processes sweet, bitter or salt, and can reject food without requiring higher areas. The higher areas modulate B.pb behavior, such as suppressing B.pb’s innate rejection of sour when drinking lemonade.

Because the B.pb innate eating and the MLR (midbrain locomotor region) are independent, some system much coordinate switching between moving and eating.

The illusion of state machine atomicity

The feeding state diagram suggests a simple atomic transition from seeking food to eating the food, but this transition needs management from some neural circuits. For example, when braking during driving, drivers need to pay attention to the stopping distance. Braking stops a car, but the state transition isn’t a simple atomic transition. For this essay’s eating task, some neural circuit must keep track of the animal’s stopping after seeking and only allow eating when locomotion has stopped.

State transition from seeking to eating, emphasizing the stopping state. H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus).

H.stn (subthalamic nucleus) is involved with stopping, waiting, and switching tasks [Isoda and Hikosaka 2008]. Since H.stn also receives motor efference copies via T.pf (thalamus parafascicular nucleus) and Ppt (peduncular pontine nucleus), H.stn is in a good position to manage the stopping transition and can prevent eating until the locomotion has ended. The diagrams shows H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus) as a parallel area for gaiting eating, following [Barbier et al 2021].

H.stn and H.pstn state transition circuit

H.stn and H.pstn are well-placed to fulfill the transitions between seeking and eating. To flesh this idea out, here’s a simplified model of the seal to eat state transition circuit.

The main action paths are horizontal: moving is from H.stn to MLR to B.rs (reticulospinal motor neurons) and eating is from H.pstn to B.nts to orofacial licking motor neurons. The rest of the circuit manages the transition between the two states.

State transition circuit for move state to eat state. B.nts (nucleus tractus solidarus), fb (feedback), H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), T.cl (centrolateral thalamus), T.pf (parafascicular thalamus).

Control over the transition comes from S.nr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), which inhibits eating when the animal is moving, and inhibits moving while the animal is eating. To know when the animal has stopped moving, H.stn receives motor efferent copies from T.cl and T.pf (centrolateral and parafascicular thalamus, aka intralaminar). As a note, T.cl contains cerebellum output, so H.stn may receive fine-grained motor timing feedback. H.pstn receives parallel eating efferent copies from B.pb and B.nts to know when the animal has stopped eating.

This circuit has the same structure as a lateral inhibition decision circuit, but the function is about handling timing and transition, not deciding between competing options.

Note: [Shah et al 2022] suggest H.pstn is more specific to suppressing feeding for aversive situations like food poisoning or a predator threat, but not the motor control as described here.

A note on this model: the actual neural circuit isn’t as clean, parallel and logical, because evolution isn’t an intelligent designer. Furthermore, this brain region is part of the neuropeptide core, where neuropeptide broadcast-like signaling can be more important than point-to-point circuit diagrams. Specifically, the disinhibition of B.pb eating is more likely peptides from the hypothalamus, not S.nr tonic inhibition.

H.l food zone

Studies on H.l (lateral hypothalamus) show two interesting results relevant here [Jennings et al 2015]:

  • Two distinct GABA neuron populations gate eating and seeking.
  • Two distinct neuron populations are active in a food zone or outside a food zone.

The food zone neurons partially explain how H.l decides between seeking and eating. How does this animal knows when it’s reached the food? In C. elegans there are dopamine chemosensory neurons that sense when the animal passes over food bacteria, and signals the animal to slow [Sawin et al 2000]. Dopamine chemosensory neurons also signal for the animal to turn more when leaving food (dwell-like state) [Hills et al 2004]. For this essay, using B.pb and B.nts to sense nearby food seems like a reasonable simplification because the simulation animal is aquatic and aquatic taste is a chemosensory system, similar to a close-range olfaction.

Food zone modulation of seeking and eating. fz (food zone), H.l (lateral hypothalamus).

The essay uses a signal when the animal is in a food zone or not in a food zone. The food zone signal inhibits eating or seeking actions when the animal is in a non-appropriate place. The essay uses a signal from B.pb as mentioned above.

In mammals H.l receives input from more sophisticated location systems than a bare chemosensory signal, such as E.sub.d (dorsal subiculum of hippocampus), S.ls (lateral septum, which processes hippocampal output), A.bl (basolateral amygdala, highly connected to hippocampus), S.msh (medial shell striatum receiving large hippocampus input) as well as the bare B.pb as for the simulation. All these areas incorporate more complicated environmental context. When the essays start investigating environmental context, I’ll need to revisit the H.l food zone with more sophisticated input.

H.sum as driving seek

Fleshing out the drivers of the seek circuit, consider H.sum (supramammillary nucleus, aka retromammillary) and its role in exploring (roaming and seeking). [Ferrell et al 2021] study a subset of H.sum neurons that express tac1 peptide (tachykinin, aka substance-P or neurokinin). These H.sum neurons correlate highly with movement velocity, a second before the action. Since they precede action, they’re upstream in the locomotive path.

H.sum is also involved in wakefulness [Liang et al 2023], [Plaisier et al 2020], motivation [Kesner et al 2021], and specifically food motivation [Le May et al 2019], and is modulated by hunger peptides like GLP-1 [Vogel et al 2016], [López-Ferreras et al 2018].

H.sum also participates in threat avoidance [Escobedo et al 2023], but that circuit is through Poa (preoptic area) and is outside this essay, although it would be interesting if any of the downstream circuitry is shared. H.sum is also well know for its role in hippocampal theta oscillations, novelty [Chen et al 2020], temporal and spatial memory [Cui et al 2013], and social memory, although those are outside the scope of this essay.

The diagram below shows a possible explore-related path of mammalian H.sum via the tac1 neurons.

Exploration locomotion driven through H.sum. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.sum (supramammillary nuleus), Hb.l (lateral habenula), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), M.pag (periaqueductal gray), P.ms (medial septum), V.dr (dorsal raphe – serotonin), Vta (ventral tegmental area – dopamine)

It may be important that H.sum and Vta (ventral tegmental area) are both neighbors and H.sum includes dopamine neurons and those dopamine neurons are sometimes considered an extension of the Vta [Yetnikoff et al 2014].

The following diagram gives an extremely rough idea of the adjacency of these areas. In a smaller primitive pre-vertebrate, these might not only be neighbors but mingled earlier functionality. The diagram includes H.zi (zona incerta) because it’s a neighbor, and also because H.zi is a food-seeking area [Ye et al 2023], but I’m postponing consideration of H.zi to a future essay.

Neighbors of the lateral habenula and supramammillary nucleus. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), H.sum (supramammillary nucleus), H.zi (zona incerta), MLR (midbrain locomotive region), Ppt (Pedunculopontine pontine nucleus), Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta – dopamine), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), Vta (ventral tegmental nucleus – dopamine), ZLI (zona limitans intrathalamica).

In addition, the rostral part of Vta nearest H.sum is part of p3 in the prosomeric embryonic model, which is a source of hypothalamic cells [Kim et al 2022]. For pre-vertebrates in this essay, then, there might not be a distinct between H.sum and Vta / posterior tuberculum, particularly since the essays are currently focusing on downstream connections, not upstream dopamine to a future striatum. Zebrafish downstream dopamine circuits directly modulate locomotor movement [Ryczko et al 2020], [Reinig et al 2017]. I think it’s reasonable to simplify this circuit for now and consider H.sum as directly projecting to MLR.

State transition circuit for seek to eat

Putting these ideas together yields something like the diagram below. Like the earlier simplified diagram, horizontal paths drive core seeking and eating behavior, and other circuits manage the state transition. Seeking uses the top path from H.l to H.sum to MLR to B.rs, which produces the final locomotion. Eating uses the bottom path from H.l to H.pstn to B.nts, which controls reflexive eating.

State management circuit for seek to eat transition. B.nts (nucleus tracts solitarius), fb (feedback), fz (food zone), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), H.sum (supramammillary nucleus), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), T.cl (centrolateral thalamus), T.pf (parafascicular thalamus).

The left contains motivational drivers. The food zone and non food zone systems restrict seeking and eating, only allowing seeking and eating in appropriate locations.

In the center H.stn and its parallel H.stn enforce a smooth transition between seeking and eating, using motor efferent copies to pause transition until active motor stops. The smooth transition creates the illusion of an atomic state transition.

As a diagram note, I’ve used red for the H.l inhibitory neurons that gate seek and eat because they’re playing the same role as Snr neurons. Technically they should be blue, if following normal essay conventions.

Modulation of eating

The eating and feeding modulation systems are complicated and overlapping, which is too detailed for this essay, but two part are interesting. First, B.pb tonically inhibits eating with the CGRP peptide to B.nts. To enable eating, H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate) disinhibits B.nts eating by sending AgRP (a hunger peptide) to B.pb [Campos et al 2016].

Modulation of reflexive eating. AgRP (a hunger peptide), B.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), CGRP (an anti-eating peptide), H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate).

Although the essays have used the disinhibition pattern before, the pattern has generally ben GABA disinhibition, while this feeding disinhibition uses peptide signaling. As mentioned above, there are many feeding-related peptides that inhibit, excite, and modulate the feeding system without using connection based synapses.

As a parallel, a drinking modulation path goes through the basal ganglia Snr and OT (optic tectum) [Rossi et al 2016]. This path though the basal ganglia and OT coordinates anticipatory licking, while the earlier B.nts path is reflexive eating.

Control of anticipatory licking. B.mdd (medulla licking motor), OT.dl (deep, lateral optic tectum), Snr.l (lateral substantia nigra pars reticulata)

Another drinking path involves S.a (central/striatal amygdala), midbrain, and hindbrain circuits [Zheng et al 2022]. M.dp (deep mesencephalic nucleus) extends licking but doesn’t initiate it. So M.dp might extend eating after tasting. Similarly B.plc extends eating [Gong et al 2020]. S.a sst (somatostatin peptide) neurons promote eating and drinking [Kim et al 2017].

Sustained eating with an amygdala circuit. B.mdd (medulla motor eating), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), M.dp (deep mesencephalic nucleus), S.a.sst (set-expressing neurons of the central amygdala).

Another path for tasting and eating runs through S.v (ventral striatum). [Sandoval-Rodríguez et al 2023] founds S.v directly controlling feeding using hindbrain taste input to extend eating, and using hindbrain GLP-1 (anti-eating peptide) to inhibit eating. Unlike most striatum circuits, these striatum neurons project directly to the hindbrain motor areas.

Ventral striatum taste exciting and food inhibition circuit with the hindbrain. B.ap (area postrema – nutrient sensing), B.mdd (medulla motor), B.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), Sv (ventral striatum / nucleus accumbens).

Because this essay is already complicated enough, this simulation isn’t covering all of these details. For simplicity, the simulation will use a simple continuation circuit inspired by the central amygdala and postpone other control circuits for later exploration.

Simplified eating continuation circuit with the central amygdala. B.mdd (medulla motor), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), Sa.sst (central amygdala, sst projecting neurons)

The important point for now is that eating modulation uses multiple paths, some controlled through synaptic circuits and others through broadcast motivational peptides. The system is not one or the other, but a messy combination. To model this messiness, the simulation needs to handle both systems.

References

Barbier M, Risold PY. Understanding the Significance of the Hypothalamic Nature of the Subthalamic Nucleus. eNeuro. 2021 Oct 4.

Ben Arous J, Laffont S, Chatenay D. Molecular and sensory basis of a food related two-state behavior in C. elegans. PLoS One. 2009 Oct 23;4(10):e7584. 

Campos CA, Bowen AJ, Schwartz MW, Palmiter RD. Parabrachial CGRP Neurons Control Meal Termination. Cell Metab. 2016 May 10;23(5):811-20.

Chen S, He L, Huang AJY, Boehringer R, Robert V, Wintzer ME, Polygalov D, Weitemier AZ, Tao Y, Gu M, Middleton SJ, Namiki K, Hama H, Therreau L, Chevaleyre V, Hioki H, Miyawaki A, Piskorowski RA, McHugh TJ. A hypothalamic novelty signal modulates hippocampal memory. Nature. 2020

Cui Z, Gerfen CR, Young WS 3rd. Hypothalamic and other connections with dorsal CA2 area of the mouse hippocampus. J Comp Neurol. 2013 Jun 1;521(8):1844-66. 

Dorfman A, Hills TT, Scharf I. A guide to area-restricted search: a foundational foraging behaviour. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2022 Dec;97(6):2076-2089. 

Escobedo Abraham, Holloway Salli-Ann, Votoupal Megan, Cone Aaron L, Skelton Hannah E, Legaria Alex A., Ndiokho Imeh, Floyd Tasheia, Kravitz Alexxai V., Bruchas Michael R., Norris Aaron J. (2023) Glutamatergic Supramammillary Nucleus Neurons Respond to Threatening Stressors and Promote Active Coping eLife 12:RP90972

Farrell JS, Lovett-Barron M, Klein PM, Sparks FT, Gschwind T, Ortiz AL, Ahanonu B, Bradbury S, Terada S, Oijala M, Hwaun E, Dudok B, Szabo G, Schnitzer MJ, Deisseroth K, Losonczy A, Soltesz I. Supramammillary regulation of locomotion and hippocampal activity. Science. 2021 Dec 17;374(6574):1492-1496. 

Flavell SW, Pokala N, Macosko EZ, Albrecht DR, Larsch J, and Bargmann CI (2013). Serotonin and the neuropeptide PDF initiate and extend opposing behavioral states in C. elegans. Cell 154, 1023–1035.

Gong R, Xu S, Hermundstad A, Yu Y, Sternson SM. Hindbrain Double-Negative Feedback Mediates Palatability-Guided Food and Water Consumption. Cell. 2020 Sep 17;182(6):1589-1605.e22. 

Hills T, Brockie PJ, Maricq AV (2004) Dopamine and glutamate control area-restricted search behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Neurosci 24: 1217–1225

Horstick EJ, Bayleyen Y, Sinclair JL, Burgess HA. Search strategy is regulated by somatostatin signaling and deep brain photoreceptors in zebrafish. BMC Biol. 2017 Jan 26;15(1):4. 

Isoda M, Hikosaka O. Role for subthalamic nucleus neurons in switching from automatic to controlled eye movement. J Neurosci. 2008 Jul 9;28(28):7209-18.

Jennings JH, Ung RL, Resendez SL, Stamatakis AM, Taylor JG, Huang J, Veleta K, Kantak PA, Aita M, Shilling-Scrivo K, Ramakrishnan C, Deisseroth K, Otte S, Stuber GD. Visualizing hypothalamic network dynamics for appetitive and consummatory behaviors. Cell. 2015 Jan 29;160(3):516-27.

Ji N, Madan GK, Fabre GI, Dayan A, Baker CM, Kramer TS, Nwabudike I, and Flavell SW (2021). A neural circuit for flexible control of persistent behavioral states. eLife 10. 10.7554/eLife.62889.

Kesner AJ, Shin R, Calva CB, Don RF, Junn S, Potter CT, Ramsey LA, Abou-Elnaga AF, Cover CG, Wang DV, Lu H, Yang Y, Ikemoto S. Supramammillary neurons projecting to the septum regulate dopamine and motivation for environmental interaction in mice. Nat Commun. 2021 May 14;12(1):2811.

Kim J, Zhang X, Muralidhar S, LeBlanc SA, Tonegawa S. Basolateral to Central Amygdala Neural Circuits for Appetitive Behaviors. Neuron. 2017 Mar 22;93(6):1464-1479.e5.

Kim DW, Place E, Chinnaiya K, Manning E, Sun C, Dai W, Groves I, Ohyama K, Burbridge S, Placzek M, Blackshaw S. Single-cell analysis of early chick hypothalamic development reveals that hypothalamic cells are induced from prethalamic-like progenitors. Cell Rep. 2022 Jan 18;38(3):110251.

Le May MV, Hume C, Sabatier N, Schéle E, Bake T, Bergström U, Menzies J, Dickson SL. Activation of the rat hypothalamic supramammillary nucleus by food anticipation, food restriction or ghrelin administration. J Neuroendocrinol. 2019 Jul;31(7):e12676.

Liang M, Jian T, Tao J, Wang X, Wang R, Jin W, Chen Q, Yao J, Zhao Z, Yang X, Xiao J, Yang Z, Liao X, Chen X, Wang L, Qin H. Hypothalamic supramammillary neurons that project to the medial septum modulate wakefulness in mice. Commun Biol. 2023 Dec 12;6(1):1255. 

López-Ferreras L, Eerola K, Mishra D, Shevchouk OT, Richard JE, Nilsson FH, Hayes MR, Skibicka KP. GLP-1 modulates the supramammillary nucleus-lateral hypothalamic neurocircuit to control ingestive and motivated behavior in a sex divergent manner. Mol Metab. 2019 Feb;20:178-193. 

Lovett-Barron M, Andalman AS, Allen WE, Vesuna S, Kauvar I, Burns VM, Deisseroth K. Ancestral Circuits for the Coordinated Modulation of Brain State. Cell. 2017 Nov 30;171(6):1411-1423.e17.

Marques JC, Li M, Schaak D, Robson DN, Li JM. Internal state dynamics shape brainwide activity and foraging behaviour. Nature. 2020 Jan;577(7789):239-243.

Plaisier F, Hume C, Menzies J. Neural connectivity between the hypothalamic supramammillary nucleus and appetite- and motivation-related regions of the rat brain. J Neuroendocrinol. 2020 Feb;32(2):e12829.

 Reinig S, Driever W, Arrenberg AB. The Descending Diencephalic Dopamine System Is Tuned to Sensory Stimuli. Curr Biol. 2017 Feb 6;27(3):318-333. 

Rossi MA, Basiri ML, Liu Y, Hashikawa Y, Hashikawa K, Fenno LE, Kim YS, Ramakrishnan C, Deisseroth K, Stuber GD. Transcriptional and functional divergence in lateral hypothalamic glutamate neurons projecting to the lateral habenula and ventral tegmental area. Neuron. 2021 Dec 1;109(23):3823-3837.e6. 

Ryczko D, Grätsch S, Alpert MH, Cone JJ, Kasemir J, Ruthe A, Beauséjour PA, Auclair F, Roitman MF, Alford S, Dubuc R. Descending Dopaminergic Inputs to Reticulospinal Neurons Promote Locomotor Movements. J Neurosci. 2020 Oct 28;40(44):8478-8490.

Sandoval-Rodríguez R, Parra-Reyes JA, Han W, Rueda-Orozco PE, Perez IO, de Araujo IE, Tellez LA. D1 and D2 neurons in the nucleus accumbens enable positive and negative control over sugar intake in mice. Cell Rep. 2023 Mar 28;42(3):112190. 

Sawin ER, Ranganathan R, Horvitz HR (2000) C. elegans locomotory rate is modulated by the environment through a dopaminergic pathway and by experience through a serotonergic pathway. Neuron 26: 619–631 

Shah T, Dunning JL, Contet C. At the heart of the interoception network: Influence of the parasubthalamic nucleus on autonomic functions and motivated behaviors. Neuropharmacology. 2022 Feb 15;204:108906.

Vogel H, Wolf S, Rabasa C, Rodriguez-Pacheco F, Babaei CS, Stöber F, Goldschmidt J, DiMarchi RD, Finan B, Tschöp MH, Dickson SL, Schürmann A, Skibicka KP. GLP-1 and estrogen conjugate acts in the supramammillary nucleus to reduce food-reward and body weight. Neuropharmacology. 2016 Nov;110(Pt A):396-406.

Watts AG, Kanoski SE, Sanchez-Watts G, Langhans W. The physiological control of eating: signals, neurons, and networks. Physiol Rev. 2022 Apr 1;102(2):689-813. 

Wee CL, Song EY, Johnson RE, Ailani D, Randlett O, Kim JY, Nikitchenko M, Bahl A, Yang CT, Ahrens MB, Kawakami K, Engert F, Kunes S. A bidirectional network for appetite control in larval zebrafish. Elife. 2019 Oct 18;8:e43775. 

Ye Q, Nunez J, Zhang X. Zona incerta dopamine neurons encode motivational vigor in food seeking. Sci Adv. 2023 Nov 15;9(46):eadi5326.

Yetnikoff L, Lavezzi HN, Reichard RA, Zahm DS. An update on the connections of the ventral mesencephalic dopaminergic complex. Neuroscience. 2014 Dec 12;282:23-48.

Zheng D, Fu JY, Tang MY, Yu XD, Zhu Y, Shen CJ, Li CY, Xie SZ, Lin S, Luo M, Li XM. A Deep Mesencephalic Nucleus Circuit Regulates Licking Behavior. Neurosci Bull. 2022 Jun;38(6):565-575.