| Literature DB >> 25249948 |
Helen J Cassaday1, Andrew J D Nelson2, Marie A Pezze1.
Abstract
Distinctions along the dorsal-ventral axis of medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), between anterior cingulate (AC), prelimbic (PL), and infralimbic (IL) sub-regions, have been proposed on a variety of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological grounds. Conventional lesion approaches (as well as some electrophysiological studies) have shown that these distinctions relate to function in that a number behavioral dissociations have been demonstrated, particularly using rodent models of attention, learning, and memory. For example, there is evidence to suggest that AC has a relatively greater role in attention, whereas IL is more involved in executive function. However, the well-established methods of behavioral neuroscience have the limitation that neuromodulation is not addressed. The neurotoxin 6-hydroxydopamine has been used to deplete dopamine (DA) in mPFC sub-regions, but these lesions are not selective anatomically and noradrenalin is typically also depleted. Microinfusion of drugs through indwelling cannulae provides an alternative approach, to address the role of neuromodulation and moreover that of specific receptor subtypes within mPFC sub-regions, but the effects of such treatments cannot be assumed to be anatomically restricted either. New methodological approaches to the functional delineation of the role of mPFC in attention, learning and memory will also be considered. Taken in isolation, the conventional lesion methods which have been a first line of approach may suggest that a particular mPFC sub-region is not necessary for a particular aspect of function. However, this does not exclude a neuromodulatory role and more neuropsychopharmacological approaches are needed to explain some of the apparent inconsistencies in the results.Entities:
Keywords: anterior cingulate; associative leaning; attention; dopamine; infralimbic; object recognition memory; prelimbic
Year: 2014 PMID: 25249948 PMCID: PMC4157611 DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00160
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Syst Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5137
The behavioral effects associated with changes in neuronal activity in anterior cingulate (AC), prelimbic (PL), and infralimbic (IL) sub-regions of medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in tasks measuring serial reaction time, latent inhibition, trace conditioning and object recognition, as well as related benchmark tests of learning and memory (for which the effects of similar interventions in different mPFC sub-regions have been examined).
| Serial reaction time | Excitotoxic lesion | Reduced accuracy, increased latencies to collect reward, increased omissions (Passetti et al., | Increased perseverative responding, transient effect on accuracy (Passetti et al., | Increased perseverative responding, transient effect on accuracy (Passetti et al., |
| Reduced accuracy and decreased impulsive responding (Chudasama et al., | Reduced accuracy, slower response latencies, increased omissions and premature responses (Pezze et al., | Increased impulsive responding (Chudasama et al., | ||
| Single unit recording | Neuronal responses higher when accurately responding to cue, lower before an incorrect response and increased after an incorrect response (Totah et al., | Neuronal responses higher when accurately responding to cue, lower before an incorrect response, but no significant change after an incorrect response (Totah et al., | ||
| Reversible inactivation | Lower dose muscimol increased premature responding (Paine et al., | Muscimol increased the number of premature responses (Murphy et al., | ||
| Higher dose muscimol decreased accuracy and impulsive responding (Pezze et al., | ||||
| Disinhibition | SRB95531 decreased accuracy and increased omissions (Pehrson et al., | Bicuculine decreased accuracy, increased omissions and increased latencies to collect rewards (Paine et al., | Bicuculine blocked the increase in premature responding otherwise caused by CPP (Murphy et al., | |
| Picrotoxin decreased accuracy and increased omissions (Pezze et al., | ||||
| Micro-injection of NMDA antagonist | MK801 increased omissions (Pehrson et al., | CPP increased the number of premature responses (Murphy et al., | ||
| Reinforced responding in the Skinner box | Excitotoxic lesions | No effect (Risterucci et al., | Increased premature responding and disrupted the distribution of preparatory responding during the intervals between cues (Risterucci et al., | Increased premature responding and disrupted the distribution of preparatory responding during the intervals between cues (Risterucci et al., |
| Reinforced responding in the Skinner box (Continued) | Single neuron recording | Fast transient responses to sucrose delivery (Burgos-Robles et al., | Delayed prolonged responses to sucrose delivery (Burgos-Robles et al., | |
| Reversible inactivation | Muscimol without effect on collection of earned sucrose rewards (Burgos-Robles et al., | Muscimol delayed collection of earned sucrose rewards (Burgos-Robles et al., | ||
| Pre-pulse inhibition | Excitotoxic lesion | No effect (Lacroix et al., | No effect (Sullivan and Gratton, | |
| Increased by larger lesions (Lacroix et al., | ||||
| Micro-injection of D1 antagonist | Impaired (Ellenbroek et al., | Impaired (Shoemaker et al., | ||
| Impaired (Shoemaker et al., | ||||
| Latent inhibition | Electrolytic lesion | No effect (Joel et al., | No effect (Joel et al., | No effect (Joel et al., |
| Excitotoxic lesion | No effect (Lacroix et al., | Enhanced (George et al., | ||
| No effect (George et al., | ||||
| 6-OHDA lesion | Enhanced (Nelson et al., | No effect (Nelson et al., | ||
| Trace conditioning | Aspiration lesion | Impaired acquisition (Kronforst-Collins and Disterhoft, | ||
| Electrolytic lesion | Impaired acquisition but only at longer CS duration (McLaughlin et al., | |||
| Erk inhibition | Impaired retention but not acquisition (Runyan et al., | |||
| Single neuron recording | Attentional responses to CSs (Weible et al., | Increased activity to the trace conditioned CS, including within the trace interval (Gilmartin and McEchron, | Decreased activity to the trace conditioned CS, no change in trace interval activity (Gilmartin and McEchron, | |
| Persistent activity within the trace interval during retention tests (Hattori et al., | ||||
| Trace conditioning (Continued) | Reversible inactivation | Impaired acquisition (Kalmbach et al., | ||
| Excitotoxic lesion | Impaired by lesion and associated with increased neuronal activity in Cg1 but not Cg2 (Han et al., | |||
| Excitotoxic lesion | Impaired by immediate-post-training lesions (Oswald et al., | Impaired by 1-week-post-training lesions (Oswald et al., | ||
| Fear conditioning | Microstimulation | No effect on the expression or extinction of conditioned fear (Vidal-Gonzalez et al., | Increased the expression of conditioned fear and prevented extinction (Vidal-Gonzalez et al., | Decreased the expression of conditioned fear and facilitated extinction (Vidal-Gonzalez et al., |
| Single neuron recording | Decreased activity during extinction and extinction memory in male rats; females showed increased activity during extinction (Fenton et al., | Increased activity during extinction and extinction memory (no sex difference; Fenton et al., | ||
| Reversible inactivation | Muscimol impaired fear expression, but had no effect on extinction memory (Sierra-Mercado et al., | Muscimol had no effect of fear expression, but impaired extinction memory (Sierra-Mercado et al., | ||
| Object recognition—identity | Excitotoxic lesion | No effect (Ennaceur et al., | No effect (Ennaceur et al., | |
| Reversible inactivation | No effect (Hannesson et al., | |||
| 6-OHDA lesion | No effect (Nelson et al., | No effect (Nelson et al., | ||
| Object recognition—recency | Excitotoxic lesion | Impaired (Barker et al., | ||
| Reversible inactivation | Impaired (Hannesson et al., | |||
| 6-OHDA lesion | Impaired (Nelson et al., | Impaired (Nelson et al., | ||
| Single neuron recording | Increased activity when in location of a “missing” object at 6 h or 30 day delay (Weible et al., | |||
| Object recognition—location | Excitotoxic lesion | No effect unless lesion extended to include retrosplenial cortex (Ennaceur et al., | No effect (Ennaceur et al., | |
| Object recognition—location (Continued) | 6-OHDA lesion | No effect (Nelson et al., | Impaired (Nelson et al., | |
| Spatial recognition memory | Reversible inactivation | No effect on spatial recognition memory, impaired spatial temporal order memory (Hannesson et al., | ||
| Spatial memory | Reversible inactivation | Impaired working memory in radial arm maze (Seamans et al., | Impaired reference memory (Seamans et al., | |
| Micro-injection of D1 antagonist | Disrupted performance if 30 min delay between training and test (Seamans et al., | |||
| Electrolytic lesions | No effect on non-matching to position (Joel et al., | Some transient impairment in non-matching to position but more marked impairment in rule reversal (Joel et al., | ||
Figure 1The connections of rat medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) sub-regions with other key brain regions; based on Heidbreder and Groenewegen (. The different arrow line formats (use of dashed and gray lines) denote connections to (and from) different target structures.
Figure 2A schematic representation of the anatomical (how precisely located), temporal (how well-specified in terms of duration of action), and pharmacological resolution afforded by the techniques most widely available to study medial prefrontal function . Whilst there is generally a trade-off between anatomical and temporal resolution, this schematic representation breaks down for some of the newer neuropsychopharmacological methods. For example, fast-cyclic voltammetry has fantastic temporal resolution combined with excellent anatomical resolution. Pharmacogenetic approaches should deliver on all fronts; however they have yet to be widely applied.