Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: effects on feeding behavior and underlying mechanisms

Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, producing marked sustained weight loss with associated reduced morbidity and mortality. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (RYGBP), the most commonly performed procedure, was initially viewed as a hybrid restrictive-malabsorptive procedure. However, over the last decade, it has become apparent that alternative physiologic mechanisms underlie its beneficial effects. RYGBP-induced altered feeding behavior, including reduced appetite and changes in taste/food preferences, is now recognized as a key driver of the sustained postoperative weight loss. The brain ultimately determines feeding behavior, and here we review the mechanisms by which RYGBP may affect central appetite-regulating pathways.

In light of multiple past failures of nonselective obesity pharmacotherapy (25), it is increasingly important to understand the biology of body weight regulation, in order to develop a more individualized approach to obesity therapy (26). Perhaps the most striking development in the obesity field in the last three decades has come not from bench-to-bedside research but from the operating theater (27, 28). The undeniable success of bariatric surgery on a mass scale has sparked a whole new field of metabolic research that aims to develop a knifeless medical alternative to bariatric surgery (29).

Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, both in terms of weight loss achieved and maintained and with regard to amelioration of obesity-related comorbidities (27, 30). In general, bariatric or “metabolic” surgery may be considered for the treatment of patients with BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² or with BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m² plus comorbid conditions that will be improved by weight loss. In light of the aforementioned alterations in feeding behavior that are associated with obesity, it is imperative that we understand the effects of bariatric surgery on the drive to eat. Below we discuss the changes in and the potential mediators of feeding behavior induced by the exemplar bariatric procedure, the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP).

RYGBP is the most frequently performed bariatric operation worldwide (47% of the approximate 341,000 procedures in 2011) (31) and leads to a long-term weight loss of about 20%–30% of body weight (32). RYGBP (Figure 2) alters the anatomy of the normal gastrointestinal (GI) tract with the formation of a small proximal gastric pouch to which a loop of mid-jejunum is connected, creating alimentary, biliopancreatic, and common limbs. Thus, ingested nutrients bypass the majority of the stomach and upper small bowel (all of the duodenum and proximal jejunum) and directly enter the mid-jejunum, expediting delivery of nutrients to the distal gut. Consequently, nutrients, which pass through the alimentary limb, do not mix with pancreatic enzymes or bile acids, which pass through the biliopancreatic limb, until the common channel.

Figure 2

Schematic diagram illustrating the anatomy of RYGBP and the mechanisms leading to altered food intake. In RYGBP, nutrients rapidly pass through the small gastric pouch, bypassing the majority of the stomach and upper small bowel and directly entering the mid-jejunum. Nutrients meet pancreatic enzymes and bile acids at the common channel only. The anatomic modifications of RYGBP result in a higher secretion of PYY and GLP-1, and these hormonal changes are considered among the main mechanisms responsible for the altered food intake observed in RYGBP patients. Other proposed mechanisms include changes in gut microbiota, altered secretion of bile acids, and altered vagal nerve signaling. Since neural circuits ultimately determine feeding behavior, central effects on brain energy homeostatic centers are likely a final common pathway for each of these RYGBP effector mechanisms. MC4R, expressed on the basolateral membrane of L cells, may have an important role in augmenting RYGBP effects on PYY and GLP-1 secretion.

One of the most remarkable effects engendered by this procedure is the ability of RYGBP patients to maintain a markedly reduced body weight in the long-term after surgery (32). This concept is described as a resetting of the body weight set-point (29). The biological basis for the body weight set-point remains largely unknown, but central neural circuits are clearly implicated, given their role in determining feeding behavior (29). Weight loss achieved by dieting results in reductions in leptin secretion, which in combination with long-term gut hormonal adaptations (33) are thought to provide a strong physiological basis for the high failure rate of nonsurgical approaches to weight loss (34). As a consequence of these hormonal changes, the final effect of a diet is increased hunger and less satiety, leading to increased food intake and often complete regain of weight lost (34). Thus, dieting-induced weight loss is accompanied by an active “defense” of the higher body weight (34). Notably, in the case of RYGBP, the sustained body weight reduction occurs despite dramatic falls in circulating leptin levels (35). However, RYGBP-induced gut hormonal changes contrast strongly with those seen after dieting, as the former result in reduced hunger and more satiety, which lead to sustained weight loss (36). Thus, it has been postulated that altered humoral or neural signals, which originate in the gut and are transmitted to the brain, are responsible for the resetting of body weight set-point induced by RYGBP (Figure 2 and ref. 29).

In 1980, soon after the inception of the intestinal bypass (IB), a forerunner of RYGBP, Bray and colleagues in a prescient paper (37) concluded that “food intake decreases in most, if not all, patients” after IB and postulated on oral (taste or smell), GI (mechanical distension or nutrient composition), and post-ingestional (nutrient or hormonal satiety mediators) factors that might mediate the reduction in food intake. Multiple studies in RYGBP patients have since highlighted how the reduced energy intake, typically on the order of 30%–50% caloric reduction, could be due to a combination of changes in appetite, meal patterns, and food preference (38). In addition, in studies employing the Power of Food Scale, which measures motivation to consume highly palatable foods, normalization of hedonic drive was observed in post-RYGBP patients compared with obese controls (39, 40). However, implications for actual consumptive behavior cannot be determined from these studies. The reduction in food intake after RYGBP is reflected in both smaller meal sizes and lower meal eating rates compared with preoperative measures (41). In general, these changes are found to persist in the long term postoperatively (41). There is, however, considerable variability in eating habits after RYGBP (42), the loss of control of which is closely associated with weight regain (42), which occurs in up to 20% of patients (32). In a comparison with weight loss–matched patients who underwent a purely restrictive bariatric procedure, adjustable gastric banding (AGB), RYGBP patients appeared to exhibit a shift in sweetness palatability from pleasant to unpleasant (43). Similarly, RYGBP was again found to be associated with a shift in tastes from high reward value to low reward value in a study using a progressive task ratio paradigm (44). However, it remains unclear whether this shift in palatability actually affects eating behavior and food selection (43, 45). Recent studies suggest that emotional and uncontrolled eating are both decreased postoperatively without a significant impact on cognitive restraint (41, 46) or food aversions (47). Importantly, other energetics studies have revealed that altered energy intake rather than energy expenditure is the predominant driver of the negative energy balance induced by RYGBP (48, 49).

An accumulating body of evidence suggests that altered GI biology underlies the beneficial effects of RYGBP (Figure 2), which is now described as a metabolic rather than restrictive or malabsorptive procedure (28, 50). We now know that RYGBP results in rapid emptying of the gastric remnant (51), meaning any potential restrictive effect is largely negated. Malabsorption contributes only a small proportion to the reduction in net energy absorption due to RYGBP (52). Furthermore, nutrient stimulation of enteroendocrine chemosensory cells is enhanced (53), with resultant postprandial increases in gut hormone secretion (50), and the blunted postprandial circulating bile acid response associated with obesity is normalized (54, 55). These phenomena cannot be explained by mere restriction or malabsorption, and are now considered foremost among the effector mechanisms that underlie the metabolic benefits of RYGBP (50).

The gut hormone system has been extensively investigated in relation to the physiological changes induced by RYGBP (56). In particular, there is now a well-established body of research documenting markedly increased meal-stimulated peptide YY (PYY) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels after RYGBP (57–66). The enhanced gut hormone responses occur as early as one or two days after RYGBP independent of weight loss per se (67), thus implicating a process directly related to the procedure itself. The enhanced responses are evident even with caloric intake as small as 75 kcal, demonstrate a dose-dependent increment (68), and remain persistently elevated in the long-term postoperatively (69). In general, these altered PYY and GLP-1 responses are associated with reduced hunger and increased satiety (66).

This altered hormonal milieu is highly relevant in the context of the known physiological roles of these gut hormones. Both PYY and GLP-1 act upon brain homeostatic and reward circuits to modulate feeding behavior (70–73); thus, enhancement of their secretion is a plausible mechanism for the effects of RYGBP on energy intake. Robust evidence from experimental imaging and translational studies indicate that the biologically active form of PYY, PYY3-36, mediates its anorectic effects predominantly by acting upon central appetite-regulating circuits, the hypothalamic arcuate nucleus and brain regions involved in food reward having been identified as key areas (73). In addition, there is strong evidence that circulating GLP-1 also has appetite-suppressing effects through direct activation of these centers in the brain, in a manner that is additive to PYY effects (72).

An array of human mechanistic and animal studies strongly suggests that the enhanced PYY and GLP-1 responses contribute to the anorectic effects of RYGBP. In two observational studies that stratified RYGBP patients according to weight loss response, the mean GLP-1 response was approximately 50% higher in the “good responders” than in the “poor responders,” with proportionate relative reductions in appetite (67, 74). Furthermore, inhibition of gut hormone responses, including the PYY response with the somatostatin analog octreotide in patients who had undergone RYBGP, results in increased hunger and increased food intake (60). In a rat model of RGYBP, blockade of endogenous PYY resulted in increased food intake (75). Additionally administration of the GLP-1R antagonist exendin(9-39) increased food intake but did not alter energy expenditure after RYGBP (76). Other investigators found that GLP-1R inactivation did not affect food intake and body weight changes post-RGYBP (77, 78); however, such studies utilizing models of functional GLP-1R inactivation should be interpreted with caution in terms of effects on body weight and energy balance, due to the potential confounding effects of lower body weight in GLP-1R knockout mice (77, 78). Furthermore, global GLP-1R deletion and central GLP-1R antagonism not only abolish the effects of peripherally produced GLP-1 but also those of centrally produced GLP-1, which itself plays a role in regulating energy homeostasis (79, 80).

Animal studies using other models of bariatric surgery, including ileal transposition (IT) and enterogastroanastomosis (EGA), provide further evidence of the importance of the enhanced post-RYGBP PYY and GLP-1 responses. Rats who had undergone IT exhibited reduced food intake and, importantly, increased PYY and GLP-1 expression within the transposed segment, coupled with increased circulating PYY and GLP-1 levels compared with controls who had intestinal transections and reanastomosis without transposition (81). A study employing EGA provided direct evidence that PYY plays a key mechanistic role in surgical weight loss (82). EGA in wild-type mice with diet-induced obesity (DIO) exhibited significantly more weight loss and higher PYY and GLP-1 levels compared with sham surgery; however, in obese Pyy knockout mice, weight loss was equivalent after EGA and sham surgery (82), suggesting that PYY is necessary for postoperative weight loss and is presumably driven by reductions in food intake.

Other gut hormones known to modulate feeding behavior, such as the orexigenic hormone ghrelin (70) and anorexigenic hormones cholecystokinin (CCK) and oxyntomodulin (83), have also been studied in the context of RYGBP. The potential role that altered ghrelin secretion plays after RYGBP was first highlighted in the landmark study by Cummings et al., which showed markedly suppressed 24-hour secretory profiles of total ghrelin in RYGBP patients 9–31 months after the procedure (84). This finding was in contrast to the profile of increased total ghrelin secretion, which was observed after dieting (84). Indeed, one might anticipate reduced postprandial suppression of ghrelin secretion (higher ghrelin secretion) in the post-RYGBP state, since ghrelin-secreting cells in the gastric fundus and duodenum are excluded from nutrient contact albeit while remaining in situ (Figure 2). In addition, the suppression of active ghrelin (acyl-ghrelin) levels was found to be more pronounced than that of total ghrelin levels approximately three years after RYGBP (57), although there is conflicting evidence in this regard (85). While further studies have demonstrated a fall in ghrelin secretion in the short term following RYGBP (65, 66, 86), the overriding consensus points to a return of ghrelin secretion to preoperative levels in the long term (e.g., one year) (86–88). Regardless of these discrepancies, studies in good and poor responders (60, 74) suggest that any changes in ghrelin secretion are not sufficient to affect weight outcomes following RYGBP, although both of these studies measured total ghrelin and not acyl-ghrelin. Nevertheless, that ghrelin secretion is not markedly altered in the context of sustained caloric restriction following RYGBP is notable in itself. Studies that address the effects of RYGBP on changes in, for example, PYY and acyl-ghrelin hormone ratios, instead of isolated gut hormone levels, may establish a clearer relationship between the anorectic effects of RYGBP and those of gut hormones. Secretion of oxyntomodulin, like its L cell co-secreted counterparts GLP-1 and PYY, is enhanced in both the short term (one month) (89) and the long term (measured indirectly at three years) (86) postoperatively. Interestingly, the anorectic effects of oxyntomodulin are additive to those of PYY in obese humans (90), indicating a biologically plausible role for this L cell product in mediating the effects of RYGBP on feeding behavior. In contrast, CCK levels are not significantly altered after RYGBP (74, 88).

Alternative candidate mechanisms (Figure 2) that might have a role in inducing the anorectic response and weight loss produced by RYGBP include changes in the secretion of bile acids (54) and the ileal-derived, bile acid–stimulated enterokine FGF-19 (91), a shift toward a “lean” gut microbiota phenotype (92), or altered vagal nerve signaling (93). Indeed, altered bile acid signaling through the farnesoid-X receptor (FXR) is thought to be a critical factor in mediating the effects of an alternative metabolic procedure, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), on food intake and weight loss (94). However, there is markedly contrasting functional anatomy between RYGBP and SG, with expedited proximal mixing of nutrients with bile acids in SG and delayed mixing at the common channel in RYGBP (Figure 2). Bile acid dynamics are thus likely to differ between procedures; indeed, differences in postprandial elevations of circulating bile acids at one year (higher in RYGBP) have been reported (95), although it is unclear whether FXR signaling is critical in RGYBP. Understanding the tridirectional interplay between altered microbiota, bile flow, and hormonal responses in the post-surgery intestinal milieu is increasingly viewed as key to unraveling the metabolic benefits of RYGBP (96); however, at present, mechanistic roles of altered bile acids or gut microbiota in feeding behavior changes induced by RYGBP are far less well established than the roles of gut hormones. In fact, alterations in bile flow are more likely to affect energy expenditure than energy intake (97), and transmission of gut microbiota from RYGBP mice to germ-free mice to germ-free mice resulted in weight loss but no effect on food intake (92). Because neural circuits ultimately determine feeding behavior, central effects on brain energy homeostatic centers are likely to be a final common pathway for each of these RYGBP effector mechanisms (Figure 2). In this regard, there has been an increasing interest in the role that altered hedonic feeding may play in mediating the effects of RYGBP on energy intake (29, 98).

Recent neuroimaging studies have also started to shed light upon the changes in hedonic drive observed following RYGBP (Table 1). Although these studies are quite diverse in terms of experimental protocols, impeding direct comparison of the outcomes, a number of interesting findings relating to RYGBP effects on hedonic feeding behavior are apparent. First, there are differences in activation of brain reward centers in response to food cues in patients before and after RYGBP. Using fMRI brain scanning, Ochner and colleagues demonstrated that high- but not low-palatability food cues produced less mesolimbic reward pathway activation 1 month after RYGBP compared with before RYGBP (99). In a separate study, the same group showed that postoperative reductions in mesolimbic responsivity were associated with postoperative reductions in “wanting” (anticipatory reward) but not “liking” (consummatory reward) (100). In yet another study by Ochner and colleagues, the previously observed postoperative changes in neural responsivity were replicated in the fasted but not the fed state (101). At first glance, this finding appears to contradict expected fed-fasted differences in neural responsivity to food cues following RYGBP, given the enhanced postprandial secretion of PYY and GLP-1. However, while it is clear that PYY in particular modulates neuronal activity acutely at circulating levels equivalent to the postprandial state (73), the effects on neural responsivity of repetitive exaggerated increases in PYY secretion as seen following RYGBP are not known. Second, weight loss alone is unlikely to account for these changes in reward center activation. Scholtz et al. reported that RYGBP patients exhibited markedly reduced brain reward system activation in response to viewing high-calorie food images compared with BMI-matched gastric band patients, despite similar weight loss (102). Third, reduced brain reward center activation appears to be associated with a shift in food preference away from high-caloric-density foods (99, 102). Fourth, changes in reward center activation following RYGBP are likely to be independent of striatal D2/3R availability (103). Finally, neural responsivity to food images in the long term (more than three years) in women who had undergone RYGBP resembled that of lean individuals, despite still remaining above normal weight (104). In addition, long-term postoperative neural responsivity was in marked contrast to that observed in nonoperated obese individuals, who exhibited higher activation of reward-related areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal cortex (104).

Table 1

Summary of neuroimaging studies undertaken in RYGBP patients

An accumulating body of research in animal models corroborates many of the feeding behavior changes observed following RYGBP (105). However, these animal studies should be interpreted with caution due to important differences in the rodent stomach and rodent feeding behavior (106, 107), both of which could adversely affect interpretation of RYGBP-induced outcomes. Furthermore, changes in rodent feeding following bariatric surgery are often not prolonged (108); thus, delineation of the relevant biological processes is challenging. Nevertheless, an obvious advantage of studies in animal models of RYGBP is that the confounding factor of pre- and postoperative dietary advice and counseling, typically provided to human bariatric surgical patients, is removed from the equation. A shift in preference away from fat toward lower-caloric-density foods has been consistently demonstrated in studies comparing RYGBP rats with sham-operated rats (107–111). Of note, while these studies all employed obese rodents fed high-fat diets, rodent studies that found no apparent reduction in food intake used normal-weight animals that were fed regular chow (112, 113), emphasizing the model dependence of these RYGBP studies. This shift to low-palatability foods has also been found to associate with reduced wanting in an incentive runway task and less liking (vigorous licking) in brief access tests of palatable rewards (109). Thus, these studies have provided an additional layer of evidence implicating altered hedonic feeding in mediating the changes in feeding behavior observed after RYGBP. Notably, rodent studies investigating the role of vagal innervation in RYGBP-induced hypophagia generally support the notion that vagal neural signaling contributes to the effects of RYGBP on food intake (114, 115), albeit with a differential time course of the effect between these studies. Vagal sparing during RYGBP resulted in lower food intake compared with rats in which the vagal nerve was not preserved, either through complete paraesophageal neurovascular bundle ligation (114) or celiac branch vagotomy (115), but not with hepatic branch vagotomy (116). The inconsistent findings among vagotomy studies may reflect methodological differences, for example in the specific vagal lesioning employed, in the diets used (regular chow [ref. 114], high-fat [ref. 115], or three-choice diet [ref. 116]), or in the preoperative weight status of the rodents (weight-gaining [ref. 114, 115] or weight-stable [ref. 116]). Although the role of vagal signaling in the effects of RYGBP on humans remains unclear (117), evidence from subjects with truncal vagotomy who had not undergone RYGBP suggests that intact vagal innervation may be important for the anorectic actions of GLP-1, one of the key candidate effectors of RYGBP-induced hypophagia (118).

Given the role of the central MC4R system in the control of energy balance (5) and pathophysiology of human obesity (119), it is not surprising that the model of MC4R perturbation has been employed to interrogate the biological pathways underlying RYGBP effects. Severely obese individuals with heterozygous mutations of MC4R benefit from RYGBP to a similar extent as individuals without MC4R mutations (120, 121), suggesting that one functional copy of MC4R is sufficient to permit RYGBP effects on energy intake. However, rodent studies suggest that MC4R function is critical for the sustained reductions in food intake and weight loss engendered by RYGBP, as demonstrated by studies undertaken in Mc4r-null mice (120). These studies suggest either that non–MC4R-mediated mechanisms by which RYGBP affects energy balance are not powerful enough to overcome complete absence of MC4R signaling or that the MC4R system is intrinsic to the biological response to RYGBP (Figure 2). Importantly, carriers of a MC4R variant (I251L), known to increase basal MC4R activity, experience significantly greater weight loss after RYGBP compared with noncarriers or carriers of other MC4R variants (122).

Understanding the role of MC4R in mediating the biological response to RYGBP could yield important insights into how RYGBP results in resetting the body weight set-point (29). Interestingly, a study employing intracerebroventricular administration of a specific MC4R antagonist in RYGBP and sham-operated rats demonstrated that while central MC4R blockade led to doubling of food intake and weight regain, the reduction in meal size produced by RYGBP was unaffected (123). Restoration of MC4R in key preganglionic autonomic motor neurons of Mc4r-null mice demonstrated that MC4R expression in these neurons was important for RYGBP-induced reductions in food intake, but the effect was greater for RYGBP effects on energy expenditure (124). While these studies highlight the critical role of the melanocortin pathway in regulation of energy intake, they establish that central melanocortin signaling is not the critical mechanism responsible for the anorectic effects of RYGBP, in particular, the RYGBP-induced reduction in meal size, which is clearly central to the feeding changes observed in humans after RYGBP (41).

Of key relevance to the effects of RYGBP on meal size is a recent study that provided convincing evidence for a direct physiological role of MC4R expressed on enteroendocrine L cells in regulating secretion of PYY and GLP-1 (125). The study described an enteroendocrine MC4R system that acts as a positive regulator of PYY and GLP-1 release in vivo (125). Thus, MC4R expressed on the L cells could augment RYGBP effects on PYY and GLP-1 secretion. Indeed, L cell MC4R-driven PYY/GLP-1 enhancement could explain why carriers of MC4R variant (I251L), which is known to increase basal MC4R activity (126), experience greater weight loss after RYGBP compared with noncarriers or carriers of other MC4R variants (Figure 2 and ref. 122). Enhanced coupling of this L cell MC4R pathway with central melanocortin signaling in RYGBP offers a potential explanation for RYGBP-induced resetting of the energy balance set-point. The peripheral MC4R augmentation of PYY/GLP-1 secretion could result in increased production of MC4R ligand centrally, which if transferred to the systemic circulation could theoretically act on enteroendocrine MC4R, thus representing a feed-forward mechanism in the control of energy intake (Figure 2).

Elucidation of the mechanisms governing alterations in feeding behavior induced by RYGBP is critical to our understanding of why RYGBP has been so successful for the millions of patients who have undergone the procedure since the 1980s. The actions of PYY and GLP-1 on brain energy homeostatic centers are well established, and the effects of RYGBP on these gut hormones are well documented. Taken together with the emerging importance of an enteroendocrine MC4R pathway, there is mounting evidence for a place of L cell responses at the center of the biological model of RYGBP effects on feeding behavior. Though they wield huge potential, neuroimaging studies have yet to make a serious impact on bariatric surgery research, or on obesity research in general. Future studies may incorporate simultaneously assessed neural responsivity and circulating gut hormones in the meal-stimulated post-RYGBP setting. Additionally, gender-specific mechanistic studies involving genotype-stratified and obesity phenotype–matched subjects would greatly enhance this field of research. Studies comparing RYGBP with SG, another metabolic procedure with differential biological effects from those of RYGBP (66, 88, 105, 127, 128), might also yield important insights into the mechanisms underlying the changes in food preference, hedonic feeding, and neural responsivity. Future research might also employ these bariatric procedures, using a Mendelian randomization experimental approach, as a tool to probe the physiological and genetic mechanisms underlying obesity.

S. Manning was funded by the Rosetrees Trust and the National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. A. Pucci is supported by the Rosetrees Trust.

Address correspondence to: Rachel Batterham, Centre for Obesity Research, University College London, Rayne Building, 5 University Street, London WC1E 6JJ, United Kingdom. Phone: 44.207.679.0991; E-mail: r.batterham@ucl.ac.uk.

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2015;125(3):939–948. doi:10.1172/JCI76305.

1. Swinburn BA, et al. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):804–814.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
2. Silventoinen K, Rokholm B, Kaprio J, Sørensen TI. The genetic and environmental influences on childhood obesity: a systematic review of twin and adoption studies. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010;34(1):29–40.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
3. Rokholm B, Silventoinen K, Tynelius P, Gamborg M, Sørensen TI, Rasmussen F. Increasing genetic variance of body mass index during the Swedish obesity epidemic. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27135.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
4. Ramachandrappa S, Farooqi IS. Genetic approaches to understanding human obesity. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(6):2080–2086.
   View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
5. Morton GJ, Meek TH, Schwartz MW. Neurobiology of food intake in health and disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014;15(6):367–378.
   View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
6. Gautron L, Elmquist JK. Sixteen years and counting: an update on leptin in energy balance. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(6):2087–2093.–
   View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
7. Yang J, et al. Genome partitioning of genetic variation for complex traits using common SNPs. Nat Genet. 2011;43(6):519–525.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
8. Berndt SI, et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies 11 new loci for anthropometric traits and provides insights into genetic architecture. Nat Genet. 2013;45(5):501–512.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
9. Llewellyn CH, Trzaskowski M, Plomin R, Wardle J. Finding the missing heritability in pediatric obesity: the contribution of genome-wide complex trait analysis. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(11):1506–1509.
   View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
10. Day FR, Loos RJ. Developments in obesity genetics in the era of genome-wide association studies. J Nutrigenet Nutrigenomics. 2011;4(4):222–238.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
11. Mägi R, et al. Contribution of 32 GWAS-identified common variants to severe obesity in European adults referred for bariatric surgery. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e70735.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
12. Qi Q, et al. Fried food consumption, genetic risk, and body mass index: gene-diet interaction analysis in three US cohort studies. BMJ. 2014;348:g1610.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
13. Loos RJ, Yeo GS. The bigger picture of FTO — the first GWAS-identified obesity gene. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014;10(1):51–61.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
14. Speakman JR, Rance KA, Johnstone AM. Polymorphisms of the FTO gene are associated with variation in energy intake, but not energy expenditure. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008;16(8):1961–1965.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
15. van der Klaauw AA, et al. Obesity-associated melanocortin-4 receptor mutations are associated with changes in the brain response to food cues. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(10):E2101–E2106.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
16. Karra E, et al. A link between FTO, ghrelin, and impaired brain food-cue responsivity. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(8):3539–3551.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
17. Carnell S, Gibson C, Benson L, Ochner CN, Geliebter A. Neuroimaging and obesity: current knowledge and future directions. Obes Rev. 2012;13(1):43–56.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
18. Brooks SJ, Cedernaes J, Schioth HB. Increased prefrontal and parahippocampal activation with reduced dorsolateral prefrontal and insular cortex activation to food images in obesity: a meta-analysis of fMRI studies. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60393.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
19. Burger KS, Stice E. Variability in reward responsivity and obesity: evidence from brain imaging studies. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2011;4(3):182–189.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
20. Lips MA, et al. Resting-state functional connectivity of brain regions involved in cognitive control, motivation, and reward is enhanced in obese females. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014;100(2):524–531.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
21. Ziauddeen H, Farooqi IS, Fletcher PC. Obesity and the brain: how convincing is the addiction model? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(4):279–286.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
22. Haltia LT, et al. Effects of intravenous glucose on dopaminergic function in the human brain in vivo. Synapse. 2007;61(9):748–756.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
23. Wang GJ, et al. Brain dopamine and obesity. Lancet. 2001;357(9253):354–357.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
24. Guo J, Simmons WK, Herscovitch P, Martin A, Hall KD. Striatal dopamine D2-like receptor correlation patterns with human obesity and opportunistic eating behavior. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19(10):1078–1084.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
25. Manning S, Pucci A, Finer N. Pharmacotherapy for obesity: novel agents and paradigms. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2014;5(3):135–148.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
26. El-Sayed Moustafa JS, Froguel P. From obesity genetics to the future of personalized obesity therapy. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2013;9(7):402–413.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
27. Gloy VL, et al. Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2013;347:f5934.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
28. Tam CS, et al. Could the mechanisms of bariatric surgery hold the key for novel therapies? Report from a Pennington Scientific Symposium. Obes Rev. 2011;12(11):984–994.
29. Shin AC, Berthoud HR. Obesity surgery: happy with less or eternally hungry? Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2013;24(2):101–108.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
30. Sjostrom L. Review of the key results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) trial — a prospective controlled intervention study of bariatric surgery. J Intern Med. 2013;273(3):219–234.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
31. Buchwald H, Oien DM. Metabolic/bariatric surgery worldwide 2011. Obes Surg. 2013;23(4):427–436.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
32. Courcoulas AP, et al. Weight change and health outcomes at 3 years after bariatric surgery among individuals with severe obesity. JAMA. 2013;310(22):2416–2425.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
33. Sumithran P, et al. Long-term persistence of hormonal adaptations to weight loss. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(17):1597–1604.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
34. Larder R, O’Rahilly S. Shedding pounds after going under the knife: guts over glory-why diets fail. Nat Med. 2012;18(5):666–667.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
35. Korner J, et al. Prospective study of gut hormone and metabolic changes after adjustable gastric banding and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009;33(7):786–795.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
36. Valderas JP, et al. Medical and surgical treatments for obesity have opposite effects on peptide YY and appetite: a prospective study controlled for weight loss. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95(3):1069–1075.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
37. Bray GA, Dahms WT, Atkinson RL, Mena I, Schwartz A. Factors controlling food intake: a comparison of dieting and intestinal bypass. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980;33(2 suppl):376–382.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
38. Mathes CM, Spector AC. Food selection and taste changes in humans after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: a direct-measures approach. Physiol Behav. 2012;107(4):476–483.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
39. Schultes B, Ernst B, Wilms B, Thurnheer M, Hallschmid M. Hedonic hunger is increased in severely obese patients and is reduced after gastric bypass surgery. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92(2):277–283.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
40. Ullrich J, Ernst B, Wilms B, Thurnheer M, Schultes B. Roux-en Y gastric bypass surgery reduces hedonic hunger and improves dietary habits in severely obese subjects. Obes Surg. 2013;23(1):50–55.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
41. Laurenius A, et al. Changes in eating behaviour and meal pattern following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012;36(3):348–355.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
42. Kofman MD, Lent MR, Swencionis C. Maladaptive eating patterns, quality of life, and weight outcomes following gastric bypass: results of an Internet survey. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010;18(10):1938–1943.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
43. Pepino MY, Bradley D, Eagon JC, Sullivan S, Abumrad NA, Klein S. Changes in taste perception and eating behavior after bariatric surgery-induced weight loss in women. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(5):E13–E20.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
44. Miras AD, et al. Gastric bypass surgery for obesity decreases the reward value of a sweet-fat stimulus as assessed in a progressive ratio task. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(3):467–473.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
45. Bueter M, et al. Alterations of sucrose preference after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Physiol Behav. 2011;104(5):709–721.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
46. Bryant EJ, et al. Relationships among tonic and episodic aspects of motivation to eat, gut peptides, and weight before and after bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(5):802–808.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
47. Novais PF, Junior IR, Shiraga EC, de Oliveira MR. Food aversions in women during the 2 years after Rouxen-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2011;21(12):1921–1927.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
48. Olbers T, et al. Body composition, dietary intake, and energy expenditure after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244(5):715–722.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
49. Flancbaum L, Choban PS, Bradley LR, Burge JC. Changes in measured resting energy expenditure after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for clinically severe obesity. Surgery. 1997;122(5):943–949.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
50. Madsbad S, Dirksen C, Holst JJ. Mechanisms of changes in glucose metabolism and bodyweight after bariatric surgery. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(2):152–164.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
51. Dirksen C, et al. Fast pouch emptying, delayed small intestinal transit, and exaggerated gut hormone responses after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(4):346.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
52. Odstrcil EA, et al. The contribution of malabsorption to the reduction in net energy absorption after long-limb Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;92(4):704–713.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
53. Mumphrey MB, Patterson LM, Zheng H, Berthoud HR. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery increases number but not density of CCK-, GLP-1-, 5-HT-, and neurotensin-expressing enteroendocrine cells in rats. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(1):e70–e79.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
54. Pournaras DJ, et al. The role of bile after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in promoting weight loss and improving glycaemic control. Endocrinology. 2012;153(8):3613–3619.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
55. Ahmad NN, Pfalzer A, Kaplan LM. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass normalizes the blunted postprandial bile acid excursion associated with obesity. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(12):1553–1559.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
56. Holst JJ. Enteroendocrine secretion of gut hormones in diabetes, obesity and after bariatric surgery. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2013;13(6):983–988.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
57. Korner J, et al. Effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery on fasting and postprandial concentrations of plasma ghrelin, peptide YY, and insulin. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(1):359–365.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
58. Chan JL, Mun EC, Stoyneva V, Mantzoros CS, Goldfine AB. Peptide YY levels are elevated after gastric bypass surgery. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(2):194–198.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
59. Korner J, et al. Differential effects of gastric bypass and banding on circulating gut hormone and leptin levels. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(9):1553–1561.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
60. le Roux CW, et al. Gut hormone profiles following bariatric surgery favor an anorectic state, facilitate weight loss, and improve metabolic parameters. Ann Surg. 2006;243(1):108–114.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
61. Morinigo R, et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1, peptide YY, hunger, and satiety after gastric bypass surgery in morbidly obese subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(5):1735–1740.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
62. Morínigo R, Vidal J, Lacy AM, Delgado S, Casamitjana R, Gomis R. Circulating peptide YY, weight loss, and glucose homeostasis after gastric bypass surgery in morbidly obese subjects. Ann Surg. 2008;247(2):270–275.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
63. Oliván B, et al. Effect of weight loss by diet or gastric bypass surgery on peptide YY3-36 levels. Ann Surg. 2009;249(6):948–953.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
64. Bose M, et al. Superior appetite hormone profile after equivalent weight loss by gastric bypass compared to gastric banding. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010;18(6):1085–1091.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
65. Jacobsen SH, et al. Changes in gastrointestinal hormone responses, insulin sensitivity, and beta-cell function within 2 weeks after gastric bypass in non-diabetic subjects. Obes Surg. 2012;22(7):1084–1096.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
66. Yousseif A, et al. Differential effects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastric bypass on appetite, circulating acyl-ghrelin, peptide YY3-36 and active GLP-1 levels in non-diabetic humans. Obes Surg. 2014;24(2):241–252.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
67. le Roux CW, et al. Gut hormones as mediators of appetite and weight loss after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Ann Surg. 2007;246(5):780–785.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
68. Yan W, et al. Effects of meal size on the release of GLP-1 and PYY after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in obese subjects with or without type 2 diabetes. Obes Surg. 2014;24(11):1969–1974.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
69. Dar MS, et al. GLP-1 response to a mixed meal: what happens 10 years after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)? Obes Surg. 2012;22(7):1077–1083.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
70. Malik S, McGlone F, Bedrossian D, Dagher A. Ghrelin modulates brain activity in areas that control appetitive behavior. Cell Metab. 2008;7(5):400–409.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
71. Batterham RL, et al. PYY modulation of cortical and hypothalamic brain areas predicts feeding behaviour in humans. Nature. 2007;450(7166):106–109.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
72. De Silva A, et al. The gut hormones PYY 3-36 and GLP-1 7-36 amide reduce food intake and modulate brain activity in appetite centers in humans. Cell Metab. 2011;14(5):700–706.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
73. Manning S, Batterham RL. The role of gut hormone peptide YY in energy and glucose homeostasis: twelve years on. Annu Rev Physiol. 2014;76:585–608.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
74. Dirksen C, et al. Gut hormones, early dumping and resting energy expenditure in patients with good and poor weight loss response after Rouxen-Y gastric bypass. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(11):1452–1459.
    View this article via: CrossRef Google Scholar
75. Fenske WK, Bueter M, Miras AD, Ghatei MA, Bloom SR, le Roux CW. Exogenous peptide YY3-36 and Exendin-4 further decrease food intake, whereas octreotide increases food intake in rats after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012;36(3):379–384.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
76. Abegg K, Schiesser M, Lutz TA, Bueter M. Acute peripheral GLP-1 receptor agonism or antagonism does not alter energy expenditure in rats after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Physiol Behav. 2013;121:70–78.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
77. Ye J, et al. GLP-1 receptor signaling is not required for reduced body weight after RYGB in rodents. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2014;306(5):R352–R362.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
78. Mokadem M, Zechner JF, Margolskee RF, Drucker DJ, Aguirre V. Effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on energy and glucose homeostasis are preserved in two mouse models of functional glucagon-like peptide-1 deficiency. Mol Metab. 2014;3(2):191–201.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
79. Llewellyn-Smith IJ, Reimann F, Gribble FM, Trapp S. Preproglucagon neurons project widely to autonomic control areas in the mouse brain. Neuroscience. 2011;180:111–121.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
80. Yamamoto H, et al. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor stimulation increases blood pressure and heart rate and activates autonomic regulatory neurons. J Clin Invest. 2002;110(1):43–52.
    View this article via: JCI PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
81. Strader AD, Vahl TP, Jandacek RJ, Woods SC, D’Alessio DA, Seeley RJ. Weight loss through ileal transposition is accompanied by increased ileal hormone secretion and synthesis in rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005;288(2):E447–E453.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
82. Chandarana K, et al. Diet and gastrointestinal bypass-induced weight loss: the roles of ghrelin and peptide YY. Diabetes. 2011;60(3):810–818.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
83. Suzuki K, Jayasena CN, Bloom SR. Obesity and appetite control. Exp Diabetes Res. 2012;2012:824305.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
84. Cummings DE, et al. Plasma ghrelin levels after diet-induced weight loss or gastric bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(21):1623–1630.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
85. Barazzoni R, et al. Gastric bypass does not normalize obesity-related changes in ghrelin profile and leads to higher acylated ghrelin fraction. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21(4):718–722.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
86. Falkén Y, Hellström PM, Holst JJ, Näslund E. Changes in glucose homeostasis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery for obesity at day three, two months, and one year after surgery: role of gut peptides. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(7):2227–2235.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
87. Chronaiou A, Tsoli M, Kehagias I, Leotsinidis M, Kalfarentzos F, Alexandrides TK. Lower ghrelin levels and exaggerated postprandial peptide-YY, glucagon-like peptide-1, and insulin responses, after gastric fundus resection, in patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a randomized clinical trial. Obes Surg. 2012;22(11):1761–1770.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
88. Peterli R, et al. Metabolic and hormonal changes after laparoscopic Rouxen-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, prospective trial. Obes Surg. 2012;22(5):740–748.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
89. Laferrère B, et al. Rise of oxyntomodulin in response to oral glucose after gastric bypass surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010;95(8):4072–4076.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
90. Field BC, et al. PYY3-36 and oxyntomodulin can be additive in their effect on food intake in overweight and obese humans. Diabetes. 2010;59(7):1635–1639.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
91. Stanley S, Buettner C. FGF19: How gut talks to brain to keep your sugar down. Mol Metab. 2014;3(1):3–4.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
92. Liou AP, Paziuk M, Luevano JM Jr, Machineni S, Turnbaugh PJ, Kaplan LM. Conserved shifts in the gut microbiota due to gastric bypass reduce host weight and adiposity. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(178):178ra41.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
93. Browning KN, Fortna SR, Hajnal A. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass reverses the effects of diet-induced obesity to inhibit the responsiveness of central vagal motoneurones. J Physiol. 2013;591(pt 9):2357–2372.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
94. Ryan KK, et al. FXR is a molecular target for the effects of vertical sleeve gastrectomy. Nature. 2014;509(7499):183–188.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
95. Steinert RE, et al. Bile acids and gut peptide secretion after bariatric surgery: a 1-year prospective randomized pilot trial. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21(12):E660–E668.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
96. Sweeney TE, Morton JM. Metabolic surgery: action via hormonal milieu changes, changes in bile acids or gut microbiota? A summary of the literature. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28(4):727–740.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
97. Watanabe M, et al. Bile acids induce energy expenditure by promoting intracellular thyroid hormone activation. Nature. 2006;439(7075):484–489.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
98. Shin AC, Berthoud HR. Food reward functions as affected by obesity and bariatric surgery. Int J Obes (Lond). 2011;35(suppl 3):S40–S44.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
99. Ochner CN, et al. Selective reduction in neural responses to high calorie foods following gastric bypass surgery. Ann Surg. 2011;253(3):502–507.
    View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
100. Ochner CN, et al. Relation between changes in neural responsivity and reductions in desire to eat high-calorie foods following gastric bypass surgery. Neuroscience. 2012;209:128–135.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
101. Ochner CN, Laferrère B, Afifi L, Atalayer D, Geliebter A, Teixeira J. Neural responsivity to food cues in fasted and fed states pre and post gastric bypass surgery. Neurosci Res. 2012;74(2):138–143.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
102. Scholtz S, et al. Obese patients after gastric bypass surgery have lower brain-hedonic responses to food than after gastric banding. Gut. 2014;63(6):891–902.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
103. de Weijer BA, et al. Striatal dopamine receptor binding in morbidly obese women before and after gastric bypass surgery and its relationship with insulin sensitivity. Diabetologia. 2014;57(5):1078–1080.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
104. Frank S, et al. Altered brain activity in severely obese women may recover after Roux-en Y gastric bypass surgery. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014;38(3):341–348.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
105. Stefater MA, Wilson-Pérez HE, Chambers AP, Sandoval DA, Seeley RJ. All bariatric surgeries are not created equal: insights from mechanistic comparisons. Endocr Rev. 2012;33(4):595–622.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
106. Seyfried F, le Roux CW, Bueter M. Lessons learned from gastric bypass operations in rats. Obes Facts. 2011;4(suppl 1):3–12.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
107. Wilson-Perez HE, et al. The effect of vertical sleeve gastrectomy on food choice in rats. Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(2):288–295.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
108. Zheng H, et al. Meal patterns, satiety, and food choice in a rat model of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2009;297(5):R1273–R1282.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
109. Shin AC, Zheng H, Pistell PJ, Berthoud HR. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery changes food reward in rats. Int J Obes (Lond). 2011;35(5):642–651.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
110. le Roux CW, et al. Gastric bypass reduces fat intake and preference. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2011;301(4):R1057–R1066.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
111. Shin AC, Zheng H, Townsend RL, Patterson LM, Holmes GM, Berthoud HR. Longitudinal assessment of food intake, fecal energy loss, and energy expenditure after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in high-fat-fed obese rats. Obes Surg. 2013;23(4):531–540.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
112. Furnes MW, Tømmerås K, Arum CJ, Zhao CM, Chen D. Gastric bypass surgery causes body weight loss without reducing food intake in rats. Obes Surg. 2008;18(4):415–422.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
113. Furnes MW, et al. Feeding behavior in rats subjected to gastrectomy or gastric bypass surgery. Eur Surg Res. 2008;40(3):279–288.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
114. Bueter M, et al. Vagal sparing surgical technique but not stoma size affects body weight loss in rodent model of gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2010;20(5):616–622.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
115. Hao Z, Townsend RL, Mumphrey MB, Patterson LM, Ye J, Berthoud HR. Vagal innervation of intestine contributes to weight loss After Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery in rats. Obes Surg. 2014;24(12):2145–2151.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
116. Shin AC, Zheng H, Berthoud HR. Vagal innervation of the hepatic portal vein and liver is not necessary for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery induced hypophagia, weight loss, and hypermetabolism. Ann Surg. 2012;255(2):294–301.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
117. Perathoner A, et al. Vagal nerve dissection during pouch formation in laparoscopic Roux-Y-gastric bypass for technical simplification: does it matter? Obes Surg. 2009;19(4):412–417.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
118. Plamboeck A, et al. The effect of exogenous GLP-1 on food intake is lost in male truncally vagotomized subjects with pyloroplasty. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2013;304(12):G1117–G1127.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
119. Girardet C, Butler AA. Neural melanocortin receptors in obesity and related metabolic disorders. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1842(3):482–494.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
120. Hatoum IJ, et al. Melanocortin-4 receptor signaling is required for weight loss after gastric bypass surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(6):E1023–E1031.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
121. Moore BS, et al. Long-term weight-loss in gastric bypass patients carrying melanocortin 4 receptor variants. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93629.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
122. Mirshahi UL, Still CD, Masker KK, Gerhard GS, Carey DJ, Mirshahi T. The MC4R(I251L) allele is associated with better metabolic status and more weight loss after gastric bypass surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(12):E2088–E2096.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
123. Mumphrey MB, et al. Reversible hyperphagia and obesity in rats with gastric bypass by central MC3/4R blockade. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(8):1847–1853.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
124. Zechner JF, et al. Weight-independent effects of roux-en-Y gastric bypass on glucose homeostasis via melanocortin-4 receptors in mice and humans. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(3):580–590.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
125. Panaro BL, et al. The melanocortin-4 receptor is expressed in enteroendocrine L cells and regulates the release of peptide YY and glucagon-like peptide 1 in vivo. Cell Metab. 2014;20(6):1018–1029.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
126. Xiang Z, et al. Pharmacological characterization of 40 human melanocortin-4 receptor polymorphisms with the endogenous proopiomelanocortin-derived agonists and the agouti-related protein (AGRP) antagonist. Biochemistry. 2006;45(23):7277–7288.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
127. Karamanakos SN, Vagenas K, Kalfarentzos F, Alexandrides TK. Weight loss, appetite suppression, and changes in fasting and postprandial ghrelin and peptide-YY levels after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective, double blind study. Ann Surg. 2008;247(3):401–407.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar
128. Kashyap SR, et al. Metabolic effects of bariatric surgery in patients with moderate obesity and type 2 diabetes: analysis of a randomized control trial comparing surgery with intensive medical treatment. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(8):2175–2182.
     View this article via: PubMed CrossRef Google Scholar