Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

Mesocortical Dopamine Phenotypes in Mice Lacking the Sonic Hedgehog Receptor Cdon

Michael Verwey, Alanna Grant, Nicholas Meti, Lauren Adye-White, Angelica Torres-Berrío, Veronique Rioux, Martin Lévesque, Frederic Charron and Cecilia Flores
eNeuro 29 June 2016, 3 (3) ENEURO.0009-16.2016; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0009-16.2016
Michael Verwey
1Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
2Molecular Biology of Neural Development, Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael Verwey
Alanna Grant
1Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas Meti
2Molecular Biology of Neural Development, Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lauren Adye-White
1Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angelica Torres-Berrío
1Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Angelica Torres-Berrío
Veronique Rioux
6Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
7Centre de Recherche Université Laval-Robert-Giffard, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Lévesque
6Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
7Centre de Recherche Université Laval-Robert-Giffard, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Martin Lévesque
Frederic Charron
2Molecular Biology of Neural Development, Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
3Department of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
4Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Department of Biology, Division of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
5Program in Neuroengineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Frederic Charron
Cecilia Flores
1Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Cecilia Flores
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Cdon is expressed in proliferating progenitor cells of the ventral midbrain at E12.5. A, Schematic illustration of a brain from E12.5 embryo showing the anteroposterior level used in the coronal sections shown in B–D. B, Cdon+/− embryos exhibit staining for β-Gal (Cdon) expression in the ventral midbrain (middle), which is not seen in WT negative control (bottom panel). C, Cdon immunolabeling appears throughout the dopamine progenitor zone in the ventral midbrain of a WT embryo (top and middle), while a control section stained without primary antibody (bottom) has no such labeling. D, β-Gal (Cdon) expression relative to TH (a marker of mature dopamine neurons), Nurr1 (a marker of immature postmitotic dopamine neurons), and Ki67 (a marker of proliferation) indicate that Cdon overlaps mainly with the proliferative Ki67-positive zone.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    The number of proliferating cells in the ventral midbrain of Cdon−/− embryos is increased at E12.5. A, Representative merged images of immunofluorescence for Ki67 (green), TH (red), and DAPI (blue) in coronal slices of the ventral midbrain of embryos at E12.5. B, Schematic illustrating the coronal plane of analysis. C, The total number of Ki67 immunoreactive cells was significantly increased in Cdon−/− embryos relative to WT controls (Student’s t test, p = 0.0069; Table 1, a), and, D, this effect was seen across the anterior to mid-posterior extent of the ventral midbrain (ANOVAGenotype×Level, main effect of genotype, p = 0.0003; Table 1, b). E, The total number of TH immunoreactive cells was similar between Cdon−/− embryos relative to WT controls (Student’s t test, p = 0.498; Table 1, c), and no genotype- or level-based effect was observed at, F, anterior, mid, or posterior levels of the ventral midbrain (ANOVAGenotype×Level; Table 1, d). n = 6-8 embryos/group.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    A greater number of TH-positive neurons in the VTA of Cdon−/− mice at birth and in adulthood. A, B, Total number of TH-positive neurons in the VTA (left, in red) and SN (right, in blue) in P0 (A) and adult mice (B) as measured by stereology. A greater number of TH-positive neurons were observed in the VTA of Cdon−/− mice compared to WT controls at birth (Student’s t test, p < 0.05; Table 1, e) and in adulthood (Student’s t test, p < 0.01; Table 1, f). C, Mouse brain atlas illustrations showing the VTA and SN sections that were included in this analysis, and representative TH immunoreactivity in coronal sections of adult mice. n = 4-5 mice/group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Greater dopamine and DOPAC concentrations in the mPFC, but not the NAcc or DS, of adult Cdon−/− mice. A, Brain samples were taken from each target region illustrated. B, HPLC revealed a selective increase in the dopamine and DOPAC concentrations of the mPFC of Cdon−/− mice, an effect that was not seen in the NAcc or DS (Table 1, g). n = 7-10 animals/group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Increased number of dopamine varicosities in the mPFC of Cdon−/− mice. A, Stereological quantifications of the number of dopamine varicosities in the Cg, the PL, and the IL pregenual mPFC. B, The total number of dopamine varicosities was greater in the Cdon−/− mice compared with WT controls (ANOVAGenotype, p = 0.0079; Table 1, h). C, There were no differences in the volume that dopamine varicosities occupied in the mPFC between Cdon−/− and WT mice (Table 1, i). D, Likewise, an increase in the density of dopamine varicosities was observed in all three subregions (ANOVAGenotype, p = 0.0073; Table 1, j). E, Representative photomicrographs at high magnification illustrating differences in the total number/density of dopamine varicosities in the PL mPFC comparing Cdon−/− and WT mice. n = 3 mice/group.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Locomotor activity testing of Cdon−/− mice reveals attenuation of behavioral plasticity in adulthood. A–C, First exposure/habituation to the locomotor testing environment (A), habituation to handling and saline injection (injection denoted by “S” vertical line; B), and the first injection of amphetamine (injection denoted by “A” vertical line, 2.5 mg/kg, i.p.; C) all produce indistinguishable levels of locomotor activity between Cdon−/− and WT controls (Table 1, k, l, and m, respectively). D, E, In contrast, a sensitizing schedule of amphetamine injections (D) induced robust locomotor sensitization in WT controls (E), while locomotor sensitization in Cdon−/− mice was greatly attenuated (ANOVAGenotype×Time, p = 0.043; Table 1, n). F, Stereotypy counts were increased in WT controls, but did not change significantly in Cdon−/− mice. n = 6-10 animals/group.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Sensorimotor gating function is attenuated in adult Cdon−/− mice. PPI is measured relative to the baseline startle for each mouse and is shown according to the volume of each prepulse (pp3, pp5, pp7, pp10, pp15, pp20), which is the number of decibels above environmental white noise (70 dB). The PPI percentage was calculated for each prepulse volume (mean prepulse) as a percentage of the unsignaled startle intensity (mean startle) for each individual mouse, and the baseline movement in the absence of acoustic pulses (mean null) was subtracted from all values: PPI% = 1 − (mean prepulse − mean null)/(mean startle − mean null)*100. When the normalized PPI for each individual were compared by two-way ANOVAppvolume × Genotype significant effects of volume (ANOVAppvolume, p < 0.0001; Table 1, p) and genotype (ANOVAGenotype, p < 0.001; Table 1, p) were observed on PPI.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Statistical tests and values

    GraphType of testStatistical values
    a.
    b.  
    c.
    d.  
    e. 
    f. 
    g.        
    h.  
    i.  
    j.  
    k.  
    l.  
    m.  
    n.  
    o.  
    p.  
    Figure 2C
    Figure 2D  
    Figure 2E
    Figure 2F  
    Figure 3A (VTA)
    Figure 3A (SN)
    Figure 3B (VTA)
    Figure 3B (SN)
    Figure 4B (mPFC)  
    Figure 4B (NAcc)  
    Figure 4C (DS)  
    Figure 5B  
    Figure 5C  
    Figure 5D  
    Figure 6A  
    Figure 6B  
    Figure 6C  
    Figure 6E  
    Figure 6F  
    Figure 7  
    Unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    ANOVA (genotype × level)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (level)
    Unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    ANOVA (genotype × level)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (level)
    Unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    Unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    Unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    Unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    DA unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    DOPAC unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    HVA unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    DA unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    DOPAC unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    HVA unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    DA unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    DOPAC unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    HVA unpaired t test (two-tailed)
    ANOVA (genotype × subregion)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (subregion)
    ANOVA (genotype × subregion)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (subregion)
    ANOVA (genotype × subregion)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (subregion)
    ANOVA (genotype × time)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (time)
    ANOVA (genotype × time)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (time)
    ANOVA (genotype × time)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (time)
    ANOVA (genotype × test)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (test)
    ANOVA (genotype × test)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (test)
    ANOVA (genotype × pp volume)
    ANOVA (genotype)
    ANOVA (pp volume)
    t(12) = 3.252, p = 0.0069*
    F(2,34) = 0.3468, p = 0.7094
    F(1,34) = 15.96, p = 0.0003*
    F(2,34) = 0.5282, p = 0.5944
    t(12) = 0.6990, p = 0.4979
    F(2,34) = 0.04603, p = 0.9551
    F(1,34) = 0.6569, p = 0.4233
    F(2,34) = 1.357, p = 0.2711
    t(6) = 3.655, p = 0.0105*
    t(6) = 1.399, p = 0.2114
    t(8) = 3.747, p = 0.0056*
    t(8) = 1.004, p = 0.3448
    t(15) = 5.482, p < 0.0001*
    t(15) = 6.529, p < 0.0001*
    t(15) = 0.02491, p = 0.9805
    t(15) = 0.8655, p = 0.4004
    t(15) = 0.3288, p = 0.7469
    t(15) = 0.6184, p = 0.5456
    t(15) = 0.1534, p = 0.8801
    t(15) = 0.4683, p = 0.6463
    t(15) = 1.245, p = 0.2321
    F(2,12) = 0.8166, p = 0.465
    F(1,12) = 10.13, p = 0.0079*
    F(2,12) = 21.25, p = 0.0001*
    F(2,12) = 0.5533, p = 0.5891
    F(1,12) = 1.431, p = 0.2547
    F(2,12) = 205.6, p < 0.0001*
    F(2,12) = 0.1561, p = 0.8572
    F(1,12) = 10.39, p = 0.0073*
    F(2,12) = 0.07934, p = 0.9242
    F(2,30) = 0.6911, p = 0.5088
    F(1,30) = 0.06015, p = 0.8096
    F(2,30) = 4.016, p = 0.0285*
    F(2,120) = 0.2720, p = 0.9739
    F(1,120) = 0.0003935, p = 0.9844
    F(8,120) = 83615, p < 0.0001*
    F(20,300) = 0.2543, p = 0.9996
    F(1,300) = 0.001303, p = 0.9717
    F(20,300) = 14.34, p < 0.0001*
    F1,15= 4.882, p = 0.0431*
    F(1,15) = 2.417, p = 0.1409
    F(1,15) = 17.18, p = 0.0009*
    F(1,14) = 0.9707, p = 0.3412
    F(1,14) = 0.02339, p = 0.8806
    F(1,14) = 6.592, p = 0.0223*
    F(5,295) = 0.9344, p = 0.4589
    F(1,295) = 13.12, p = 0.0006*
    F(5,295) = 23.5, p < 0.0001*
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 3 (3)
eNeuro
Vol. 3, Issue 3
May/June 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mesocortical Dopamine Phenotypes in Mice Lacking the Sonic Hedgehog Receptor Cdon
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Mesocortical Dopamine Phenotypes in Mice Lacking the Sonic Hedgehog Receptor Cdon
Michael Verwey, Alanna Grant, Nicholas Meti, Lauren Adye-White, Angelica Torres-Berrío, Veronique Rioux, Martin Lévesque, Frederic Charron, Cecilia Flores
eNeuro 29 June 2016, 3 (3) ENEURO.0009-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0009-16.2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Mesocortical Dopamine Phenotypes in Mice Lacking the Sonic Hedgehog Receptor Cdon
Michael Verwey, Alanna Grant, Nicholas Meti, Lauren Adye-White, Angelica Torres-Berrío, Veronique Rioux, Martin Lévesque, Frederic Charron, Cecilia Flores
eNeuro 29 June 2016, 3 (3) ENEURO.0009-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0009-16.2016
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Cdon
  • dopamine
  • medial prefrontal cortex
  • sonic hedgehog
  • ventral tegmental area

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
  • Hsc70 Ameliorates the Vesicle Recycling Defects Caused by Excess α-Synuclein at Synapses
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • TriNet-MTL: A Multi-Branch Deep Learning Framework for Biometric Identification and Cognitive State Inference from Auditory-Evoked EEG
  • When Familiar Faces Feel Better: A Framework for Social Neurocognitive Aging in a Rat Model
  • Hierarchical distribution of reward representation in the cortical and hippocampal regions
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.