4.8 Article

Cocaine and sucrose rewards recruit different seeking ensembles in the nucleus accumbens core

期刊

MOLECULAR PSYCHIATRY
卷 25, 期 12, 页码 3150-3163

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-020-00888-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [DA046522, DA040004, DA003906, DA12513]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poorly regulated reward seeking is a central feature of substance use disorder. Recent research shows that rewarding drug-related experiences induce synchronous activation of a discrete number of neurons in the nucleus accumbens that are causally linked to reward-related contexts. Here we comprehensively characterize the specific ensemble of neurons built through experience that are linked to seeking behavior. We additionally address the question of whether or not addictive drugs usurp the neuronal networks recruited by natural rewards by evaluating cocaine- and sucrose-associated ensembles within the same mouse. We used Fos(CreERT2/+)/Ai14 transgenic mice to tag cells activated by and potentially encoding cocaine and sucrose seeking. We tagged similar to 1% of neurons in the core subregion of the accumbens (NAcore) activated during cue-induced seeking for cocaine or sucrose. The majority of tagged cells in the seeking ensembles were D1-MSNs, and specifically activated during seeking, not during extinction or when mice remained in the home cage. To compare different reward-specific ensembles within the same mouse, we used a dual cocaine and sucrose self-administration protocol allowing reward-specific seeking. Using this model, we found similar to 70% distinction between the cells constituting the cocaine- compared to the sucrose-seeking ensemble. Establishing that cocaine recruits an ensemble of NAcore neurons largely distinct from neurons recruited into an ensemble coding for sucrose seeking suggest a finely tuned specificity of ensembles. The findings allow further exploration of the mechanisms that transform reward-based positive reinforcement into maladaptive drug seeking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据