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

Involvement of CRFR1 in the Basolateral Amygdala in the Immediate Fear Extinction Deficit

Fiona Hollis, Yannick Sevelinges, Jocelyn Grosse, Olivia Zanoletti and Carmen Sandi
eNeuro 17 October 2016, 3 (5) ENEURO.0084-16.2016; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0084-16.2016
Fiona Hollis
Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Fiona Hollis
Yannick Sevelinges
Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jocelyn Grosse
Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jocelyn Grosse
Olivia Zanoletti
Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carmen Sandi
Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carmen Sandi
  • 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.

    Efficient fear extinction is dependent on the interval between conditioning and extinction sessions. Animals were separated into EXT and No-EXT (NE) groups (A) balanced for anxiety-like behavior on the elevated plus maze (B) and conditioned to similarly associate a foot shock with a tone assessed by levels of freezing (see also Table 2). Animals in the EXT group were then exposed to an extinction session (30 min, 3 h, or 24 h after conditioning), with all interval groups showing similar patterns of extinction (C, open symbols). Animals in the No-EXT group were exposed to the Context B arena without tones, and each subgroup showed similar levels of freezing during this period (C, filled symbols). Animals exposed to extinction sessions immediately after conditioning (30 min) exhibited levels of freezing similar to those of the No-EXT group during the extinction test (D). Animals exposed to delayed extinction sessions (3 or 24 h) exhibited significantly reduced freezing levels. BL, baseline freezing during the first 3 min pretone. The freezing behavior during the extinction test in animals exposed to an extinction session 30 min after conditioning was positively and significantly correlated with the amount of fear shown during the initial fear training sessions (E), whereas those receiving an extinction session 24 h after conditioning had a significant negative correlation between freezing behavior in the extinction test versus fear training (F). Data are depicted as mean percentage of time spent freezing ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) with the corresponding No-EXT group; n = 8/group.

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

    Impaired extinction efficiency due to immediate post-conditioning interval is restored by a post-conditioning bilateral infusion of CRFR1 antagonist NBI30775 in the BLA. Animals were separated into groups (A) balanced for anxiety-like behavior on the elevated plus maze (B). After successful fear conditioning they received a bilateral infusion of NBI30775 or vehicle immediately at the end of the session (C) and were given an extinction training session 30 min later (D). Animals infused with the 10-µg dose of NBI30775 showed significantly reduced freezing levels during the first testing session 48 h post-conditioning (E). Both 1- and 10-µg doses showed significantly reduced freezing levels when tested 1 week later (F). A separate group of animals were fear conditioned and received NBI or vehicle afterward and were left undisturbed until testing 48 h later. Treated animals showed similar levels of freezing in the test, suggesting that infusion of NBI does not affect memory consolidation (G). BL, baseline freezing during the first 3 min pretone. Data depicted as mean percentage of time spent freezing ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) with the DMSO vehicle group; n = 6–10/group.

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

    Infusion of CRF agonist CRF6–33 in the BLA immediately before delayed extinction session alters extinction efficacy. Animals were separated into groups (A) balanced for anxiety-like behavior on the elevated plus maze (B), successfully fear conditioned to a similar level (C), and infused with CRF6–33 or saline 30 min before a delayed (24 h) extinction session. Treated animals showed significantly increased freezing levels compared with vehicle (D). BL, baseline freezing during the first 3 min pretone. Data depicted as percentage of time spent freezing ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) with the CRF agonist CRF6–33 group (0.1 µg/0.2 µl); n = 5–6/group.

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

    Immediate extinction impairment is associated with reduced phosphorylation of the AMPA GluA1 Ser845 subunit. Animals were separated into groups (A) balanced for anxiety-like behavior on the elevated plus maze (B), fear conditioned and sacrificed (X) immediately after various context B (CtxB) exposures either 30 min or 24 h after training, with each group showing similar levels of freezing during CtxB exposure (C). Phosphorylation of AMPA GluA1 Ser845 was significantly decreased in animals exposed to CS presentations 30 min post-conditioning but not in those with a delayed (24 h) exposure (D) compared with the home cage controls (HC). There were no significant differences in the phosphorylation levels of AMPA GluA1 Ser831 (E) or total GluA1 receptor protein (F). Data depicted as percentage of control group ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) with HC group; n = 6/group.

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

    GluA1 Ser845 phosphorylation levels are reversed with administration of NBI. Animals were separated into groups (A) balanced for anxiety-like behavior on the elevated plus maze (B) and received a post-conditioning infusion of either the CRFR1 antagonist NBI30775 or vehicle and an immediate extinction session 30 min later (C). Treatment with NBI30775 restored GluA1 Ser845 phosphorylation to vehicle home cage (HC) levels (D,E) but had no effect on GluA1 Ser831 (D,F) or on its own (G). Data depicted as percentage of vehicle HC control group (hatched bar and also dotted line) ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) with the vehicle-treated HC group; n = 8–12/group.

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

    Enhanced calcineurin activity after extinction is reversed by NBI administration. Animals were fear conditioned and infused post-conditioning with either NBI30775 or vehicle, separated into groups (A) balanced for anxiety-like behavior on the elevated plus maze (B), and sacrificed (X) for calcineurin activity assessment after either 3 min or a full extinction session 30 min after conditioning. Calcineurin activity tended to increase after the extinction session in vehicle-treated animals (CtxB CS group) but was blocked by post-conditioning treatment with NBI30775 (C). Data depicted as percentage of vehicle home cage control group (hatched bar and dotted line) ± SEM. *Significant difference (p < 0.05) with the vehicle-treated home cage group; n = 8–10/group.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Summary of statistics for all experiments.

    LineFigureDescriptionData structureType of testPower
    a1BEPM: time spent on the open armsNormal distribution2-way ANOVA1
    b1CExtinction training: effect of trialNormal distribution3-way repeated ANOVA1
    c1CExtinction training: extinction × trial interactionNormal distribution3-way repeated ANOVA0.95
    d1CExtinction training: interval × trial interactionNormal distribution3-way repeated ANOVA0.45
    e1CExtinction training: extinction interval × trialNormal distribution3-way repeated ANOVA0.12
    f1DExtinction test: effect of extinctionNormal distribution2-way ANOVA0.99
    g1DExtinction test: effect of intervalNormal distribution2-way ANOVA0.94
    h1DExtinction test: extinction × interval interactionNormal distribution2-way ANOVA0.69
    I1DExtinction test: freezing (30-min EXT vs. 30-min No-EXT)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test0.24
    J1DExtinction test: freezing (3-h EXT vs. 3-h No-EXT)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    k1DExtinction test: freezing (24-h EXT vs. 24-h No-EXT)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    l1DExtinction test: freezing (3-h EXT vs. 24-h EXT)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    m1ECorrelation: 30-min postconditioning train vs. testNormal distributionLinear correlationR 2 = 0.74
    n1FCorrelation: 24-h postconditioning train vs. testNormal distributionLinear correlationR 2 = 0.52
    oNot shownCorrelation: 3-h postconditioning train vs. testNormal distributionLinear correlationR 2 = 0.28
    p2BEPM: time spent on the open armsNormal distribution1-way ANOVA1
    q2DExtinction training: effect of trialNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA1
    r2EExtinction test: effect of drugNormal distribution1-way ANOVA0.81
    s2EExtinction test: freezing (VEH vs. 10 µg)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    t2FExtinction test, 7 d: effect of drugNormal distribution1-way ANOVA0.81
    u2FExtinction test, 7 d: freezing (VEH vs. 1 µg)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    v2FExtinction test-7d: freezing (VEH vs. 10 µg)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    w2GConsolidation control: freezing (VEH vs. 10 µg)Normal distributionStudent’s 2-tailed t-test0.96
    x3BEPM: time spent on the open armsNormal distributionStudent’s 2-tailed t-test0.8
    y3CExtinction training: effect of trialNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA0.91
    z3DExtinction test: effectNormal distributionStudent’s 2-tailed t-test0.83
    aa4BEPM: time spent on the open armsNormal distribution2-way ANOVA1
    bb4CProtein: extinction training effect of trialNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA1
    cc4CProtein: extinction training effect of intervalNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA0.3
    dd4CProtein: extinction training: effect of groupNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA0.44
    ee4CProtein: extinction training: interactionNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA0.29
    ff4DProtein: 30-min intervalNormal distribution1-way ANOVA0.79
    gg4DProtein: 30-min (HOME vs. CtxB no CS)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test0.12
    hh4DProtein: 3-min (HOME vs. CtxB CS)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    ii4DProtein: 30-min (HOME vs. CtxB-3-min CSNormal distributionFisher’s post hoc test1
    jj5BEPM: time spent on the open armsNormal distribution1-way ANOVA1
    kk5CProtein: Extinction training: effect of “trial”Normal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA1
    ll5CProtein: extinction training: effect of treatmentNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA0.7
    mm5CProtein: extinction training: interactionNormal distribution2-way repeated ANOVA0.47
    nn5EProtein (VEH vs. HOME)Normal distributionStudent’s 2-tailed t-test1
    oo5EProtein (NBI vs. HOME)Normal distributionStudent’s 2-tailed t-test0.06
    pp5GProtein: effect of treatmentNormal distribution2-way ANOVA0.11
    qq6BEPM: time spent on the open armsNormal distribution2-way ANOVA1
    rr6CCalcineurin activity: effect of NBINormal distribution2-way ANOVA0.79
    ss6CCalcineurin activity (VEH CtxB-CS vs. home cage)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test0.99
    tt6CCalcineurin activity (NBI CtxB-CS vs. home cage)Normal distributionFisher’s post hoc test0.07
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Summary of statistics for fear conditioning sessions.

    ExperimentGroupMeanSEMTestp-value
    Figure 1No-Ext, 30 min80.1543.3783-way repeated ANOVA
    Ext, 30 min77.5762.659Time: < 0.0001
    No-Ext, 3 h100.14712.016Time × extinction: 0.51
    Ext, 3 h91.93310.933Time × interval: 0.51
    No-Ext, 24 h88.5751.827Interaction: 0.17
    Ext, 24 h78.42.728
    Figure 2VEH81.83.8721-way repeated ANOVA
    0.1 µg85.0332.789Time: < 0.0001
    0.3 µg83.5713.521Group: 0.21
    1 µg69.4868.752
    10 µg77.283.238
    Figure 3VEH75.5667.0531-way repeated ANOVATime: < 0.0001
    0.1 µg84.8533.149Group: 0.89
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 3 (5)
eNeuro
Vol. 3, Issue 5
September/October 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.
Involvement of CRFR1 in the Basolateral Amygdala in the Immediate Fear Extinction Deficit
(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
Involvement of CRFR1 in the Basolateral Amygdala in the Immediate Fear Extinction Deficit
Fiona Hollis, Yannick Sevelinges, Jocelyn Grosse, Olivia Zanoletti, Carmen Sandi
eNeuro 17 October 2016, 3 (5) ENEURO.0084-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0084-16.2016

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
Involvement of CRFR1 in the Basolateral Amygdala in the Immediate Fear Extinction Deficit
Fiona Hollis, Yannick Sevelinges, Jocelyn Grosse, Olivia Zanoletti, Carmen Sandi
eNeuro 17 October 2016, 3 (5) ENEURO.0084-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0084-16.2016
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

  • basolateral amygdala
  • corticotropin-releasing factor
  • fear conditioning
  • immediate-extinction deficit

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

  • Pairing mouse social and aversive stimuli across sexes does not produce social aversion in females
  • In-vivo analysis of medial perforant path-evoked excitation and inhibition in dentate granule cells
  • Altered Dopamine Signaling in Extinction-Deficient Mice
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 © 2025 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.