| Literature DB >> 31752398 |
Robert J Oliver1, Dvijen C Purohit1, Khush M Kharidia1, Chitra D Mandyam1,2.
Abstract
The dorsal striatum is important for the development of drug addiction; however, the role of dopamine D1 receptor (D1R) expressing medium-sized spiny striatonigral (direct pathway) neurons (D1-MSNs) in regulating excessive methamphetamine intake remains elusive. Here we seek to determine if modulating D1-MSNs in the dorsal striatum alters methamphetamine self-administration in animals that have demonstrated escalation of self-administration. A viral vector-mediated approach was used to induce expression of the inhibitory (Gi coupled-hM4D) or stimulatory (Gs coupled-rM3D) designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs (DREADDs) engineered to specifically respond to the exogenous ligand clozapine-N-oxide (CNO) selectively in D1-MSNs in the dorsal striatum. CNO in animals expressing hM4D increased responding for methamphetamine compared to vehicle in a within subject treatment paradigm. CNO in animals that did not express DREADDs (DREADD naïve-CNO) or expressed rM3D did not alter responding for methamphetamine, demonstrating specificity for hM4D-CNO interaction in increasing self-administration. Postmortem tissue analysis reveals that hM4D-CNO animals had reduced Fos immunoreactivity in the dorsal striatum compared to rM3D-CNO animals and DREADD naïve-CNO animals. Cellular mechanisms in the dorsal striatum in hM4D-CNO animals reveal enhanced expression of D1R and Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent kinase II (CaMKII). Conversely, rM3D-CNO animals had enhanced activity of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (Erk1/2) and Akt in the dorsal striatum, supporting rM3D-CNO interaction in these animals compared with drug naïve controls, DREADD naïve-CNO and hM4D-CNO animals. Our studies indicate that transient inhibition of D1-MSNs-mediated strengthening of methamphetamine addiction-like behavior is associated with cellular adaptations that support dysfunctional dopamine signaling in the dorsal striatum.Entities:
Keywords: Akt; CaMKII; D1-MSNs; Erk1/2; Fos
Year: 2019 PMID: 31752398 PMCID: PMC6895983 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci9110330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1(a) Schematic representation of a coronal section through the dorsal striatum of the adult rat brain indicating the placement of injector needle for virus infusions. (b) Schematic of the lentiviral vector backbone indicating the genes of interest along with the dynorphin (Dyn) promoter that are inserted upstream of the WPRE in the pHIV-7 vector; IRES, internal ribosome entry site; eGFP, enhanced green fluorescent protein. (c,d) Time course of Dyn-GFP virus infection demonstrated that maximal expression was seen between 3–6 weeks after virus injection. (d) Quantitative analysis of Dyn-GFP positive cells in the striatum of virus injected animals; n = 2–4 each time point. Data is represented as mean ± SEM. (e–j) Coronal sections with Dyn-GFP positive neurons along the rostral-caudal direction of the dorsal striatum. The rectangular box in f, h indicates the striatal area labeled with Dyn-GFP neurons in g, i. LV, lateral ventricle; DS, dorsal striatum; cc, corpus callosum. (k–m) Colabeling of Dyn-GFP with SubP (CY3, red) a maker for D1R-MSNs; arrow and arrowheads in k–m point to colabeled immunoreactive cells. (n–p) Colabeling of Dyn-GFP with ENK (CY3, red) a maker for D2R-MSNs; arrowhead in n–p point to Dyn-GFP cell that is not colabeled with ENK cells. (q–s) Confocal z-stack images in orthogonal view indicating colabeling of the cell in (k–m) pointed with an arrow. Xy- and yz axis is indicated in q-s to demonstrate equal penetration of GFP and SubP antibodies. (t,u) Confocal images indicating detector gain (t; black and white image shows no red—overmodulation or green—undermodulation of cells and therefore the lasers have been optimized in the multi-channel image acquisition) and amplifier gain (u; rainbow image shows no red—overmodulation or blue—undermodulation of areas expressing cells; note that the area of the axon bundles are blue due to lack of any cellular bodies) of the section used for orthogonal view. GFP, green fluorescent protein; SubP, substance P; ENK, enkephalin. (v) Virus injected section stained with Vector FastRed showing minimal damage to the dorsal striatum. (w,x) Iba-1 staining via DAB in virus naïve (w) and Dyn-GFP (x) injected rat. (y,z) GFP immunoreactivity in the dorsal striatum of a rat injected with Dyn-hM4D-GFP (y) and Dyn-rM3D-GFP (z). Scale bar in u is 200 um applies to e, g, i, j, v, w, x; 20 um applies k–p; 30 um applies q–u; 70 um applies y–z.
Figure 2(a) Schematic of the timeline of experimental design and age of rats in postnatal days (PND) from the start to the completion of the study. (b) Active and inactive lever responses during extended access sessions of methamphetamine self-administration (MethSA). * p < 0.05 vs. session 1–4 by repeated measures ANOVA. (c) Active lever responses during sessions 11 to 14 of methamphetamine self-administration. * p < 0.05 vs. session 12 by paired t test. (d) Percent change in active lever responses on vehicle day and CNO days. $ p < 0.05, significant interaction, # p < 0.05 vs. hM4D and * p < 0.05 vs. vehicle day by repeated measures ANOVA. (e,f) Percent change in inactive lever responses (e) on CNO days vs. vehicle day and percent change in time out responses (f) on CNO days vs. vehicle day. n = 5–10 in each group. Data is represented as mean ± SEM.
Figure 3(a) Photomicrograph of a dorsal striatal section stained with Fos indicating the area of analysis of Fos IR cells (square box) in the dorsal striatum. (b–g) Representative sections of the dorsal striatum from each experimental group. Scale bar in (a) is 400 um; is 150 um in b-d. Arrowheads in (b–g) point to Fos IR cells that were quantified as activated. (h) Quantitative analysis of Fos IR cells in methamphetamine experienced groups (virus naïve, hM4D and rM3D) and controls. * p < 0.05 vs. Meth/LV naïve controls; $ p < 0.05 vs. Meth naïve + LV controls; # p < 0.05 vs. hM4D animals by one-way ANOVA followed by posthoc analysis. n = 3–10 in each group. Data is represented as mean ± SEM.
Figure 4(a) Representative immunoblots of the various proteins used for Western blotting analysis. The experimental groups are indicated as colored square boxes for each lane (Meth/LV naïve control, white square; Meth + LV and Meth + CNO groups combined, blue square; Meth + hM4D + CNO, red square; Meth + rM3D + CNO, green square. Molecular masses (kilodaltons, kDa) are indicated adjacent to each representative blot. Corresponding Coomassie staining (Coom) of the membrane is shown as loading control. (b–i) Quantitative analysis of the proteins. * p < 0.05 vs. controls, # p < 0.05 vs. hM4D animals, ^ p < 0.05 vs. rM3D animals by one-way ANOVA followed by posthoc analysis. n = 5–10 in each group. Data is represented as mean ± SEM.