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, Sensory and Motor Systems

Optogenetic Evidence for a Direct Circuit Linking Nociceptive Transmission through the Parabrachial Complex with Pain-Modulating Neurons of the Rostral Ventromedial Medulla (RVM)

QiLiang Chen, Zachary Roeder, Ming-Hua Li, YangMiao Zhang, Susan L. Ingram and Mary M. Heinricher
eNeuro 19 June 2017, 4 (3) ENEURO.0202-17.2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0202-17.2017
QiLiang Chen
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
3Neuroscience Graduate Program, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zachary Roeder
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ming-Hua Li
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ming-Hua Li
YangMiao Zhang
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for YangMiao Zhang
Susan L. Ingram
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Susan L. Ingram
Mary M. Heinricher
1Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
2Department of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The parabrachial complex (PB) is a functionally and anatomically complex structure involved in a range of homeostatic and sensory functions, including nociceptive transmission. There is also evidence that PB can engage descending pain-modulating systems, the best characterized of which is the rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM). Two distinct classes of RVM neurons, “ON-cells” and “OFF-cells,” exert net pronociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects, respectively. PB was recently shown to be a relay of nociceptive information to RVM ON- and OFF-cells. The present experiments used optogenetic methods in a lightly anesthetized rat and an adult RVM slice to determine whether there are direct, functionally relevant inputs to RVM pain-modulating neurons from PB. Whole-cell patch-clamp recordings demonstrated that PB conveys direct glutamatergic and GABAergic inputs to RVM neurons. Consistent with this, in vivo recording showed that nociceptive-evoked responses of ON- and OFF-cells were suppressed by optogenetic inactivation of archaerhodopsin (ArchT)-expressing PB terminals in RVM, demonstrating that a net inhibitory input to OFF-cells and net excitatory input to ON-cells are engaged by acute noxious stimulation. Further, the majority of ON- and OFF-cells responded to optogenetic activation of channelrhodopsin (ChR2)-expressing terminals in the RVM, confirming a direct PB influence on RVM pain-modulating neurons. These data show that a direct connection from the PB to the RVM conveys nociceptive information to the pain-modulating neurons of RVM under basal conditions. They also reveal additional inputs from PB with the capacity to activate both classes of RVM pain-modulating neurons and the potential to be recruited under different physiological and pathophysiological conditions.

  • brainstem
  • descending control
  • pain modulation
  • raphe
  • rat

Significance Statement

Pain-modulatory circuits receive input from ascending pain transmission pathways as part of a recurrent network. Using optogenetics with whole-cell patch-clamp recording and in vivo single-cell recording, the present studies identified direct functional connections from the parabrachial complex (PB), a major target of ascending nociceptive pathways, to physiologically identified pain-modulating neurons of the rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM), the primary output node of a major descending pain-modulating system. These data for the first time point to an identified nociceptive synapse in RVM that could be probed in relevant physiologic contexts, and set the stage for a dissection of the links between nociceptive transmission and nociceptive modulation in the transition from acute to chronic pain.

Introduction

Descending pain-modulatory circuits mediate top-downregulation of nociceptive processing, transmitting cortical and limbic influences to the dorsal horn. These modulatory pathways are also intimately intertwined with ascending transmission pathways as part of positive and negative feedback loops. However, circuits through which ascending nociceptive information gains access to descending pain-modulatory systems are only now being defined.

The parabrachial complex (PB) is a functionally and anatomically complex structure involved in a range of homeostatic and sensory functions (Sakai and Yamamoto, 1998; Morrison, 2011; Kaur et al., 2013; Davern, 2014; Han et al., 2015; Yokota et al., 2015; Meek et al., 2016; Roman et al., 2016; Sammons et al., 2016), including nociception (Gauriau and Bernard, 2002; Neugebauer, 2015). PB receives nociceptive input via the spinoparabrachial tract. Nociceptive neurons have been identified in the PB, with the highest density in the lateral region (Bernard et al., 1994; Hermanson and Blomqvist, 1996; Bourgeais et al., 2001). A subset of nociceptive PB neurons have been implicated in recruitment of amygdala circuits important for the affective dimension of pain (Neugebauer, 2015). However, in addition to this well-documented role as part of an ascending nociceptive pathway, PB can engage descending pain-modulating systems (Lapirot et al., 2009; Roeder et al., 2016), which in turn project back to the dorsal horn to influence nociceptive processing.

The best-characterized brainstem pain-modulating system includes links in the midbrain periaqueductal gray and rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM; Heinricher et al., 2009; Heinricher and Fields, 2013). The RVM can facilitate or suppress nociceptive transmission at the level of the dorsal horn through the actions of two distinct classes of neurons, “ON-cells” and “OFF-cells,” which respectively exert pronociceptive and anti-nociceptive effects. Both classes receive noxious inputs: ON-cells are activated, leading to a “burst” of activity associated with behavioral responses to noxious stimulation, while OFF-cell firing is suppressed, producing a “pause” in any ongoing activity. Although these reflex-related changes in ON- and OFF-cell firing are critical to their pain-modulating function (Fields and Heinricher, 1985; Heinricher et al., 2010), the pathways through which nociceptive information is conveyed to the RVM have only recently begun to be delineated, with PB identified as one important relay (Roeder et al., 2016).

Because of the structural and functional complexity of PB efferent projections, defining the pathways through which PB exerts its influence on RVM pain-modulating neurons is challenging. Although PB can be shown to project directly to RVM using bulk tracer methods (Beitz, 1982; Verner et al., 2008), whether that projection has a role in pain modulation or in one of the other functions shared by these two regions is unclear. Moreover, PB has abundant projections to other structures that are themselves implicated in pain modulation and project directly to the RVM, including the periaqueductal gray, insula, and amygdala (McGaraughty and Heinricher, 2002; Jasmin et al., 2003; McGaraughty et al., 2004; Sato et al., 2013).

A direct connection from PB to the RVM pain-modulating neurons would allow PB to contribute to positive and negative intrabrainstem feedback loops, promoting or limiting development and maintenance of pathologic pain states (Porreca et al., 2001; Ren and Dubner, 2002; Heinricher et al., 2009; De Felice et al., 2011). The present experiments used optogenetic methods in both the adult RVM slice and intact, lightly anesthetized rats to test the hypothesis that there are direct, functionally relevant PB inputs to RVM pain-modulating neurons, and that the two classes of pain-modulating neurons, ON- and OFF-cells, receive distinct influences from PB. We used a channelrhodopsin (ChR2)-assisted circuit-mapping approach in an RVM slice to determine direct synaptic inputs to RVM. We then used ChR2 in vivo to determine the net effect of PB-terminal stimulation on identified RVM pain-modulating neurons. While activation of PB terminals using ChR2 provided evidence that inputs exist and have the potential to be activated, this approach does not imply that a given input is in fact activated under any given condition. Complementary in vivo studies therefore used archaerhodopsin (ArchT) expressed in PB terminals to determine what PB inputs to RVM are recruited by acute noxious stimuli. Our data indicate that the PB projection to the RVM constitutes a direct connection that conveys nociceptive information to this pain-modulating circuit.

Materials and Methods

All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Oregon Health & Science University and followed the guidelines of the Committee for Research and Ethical Issues of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Vector injection

Rats (90–110 g, male Sprague Dawley, Charles River Laboratories) were deeply anesthetized using isoflurane. The rat was placed in a stereotaxic apparatus, and maintained on a circulating warm-water pad. A craniotomy was performed ∼1-3 mm lateral to the sagittal suture and 0.5–2.5 mm rostral to the lambdoid suture, and the dura removed to allow the placement of a microinjection cannula with a 14° angle to the coronal plane into the lateral parabrachial nucleus (anterior-posterior: −1.2 mm, medial-lateral: ± 2.3 mm, medial-lateral: +3 mm from interaural). AAV9-hSyn-ChR2-eYFP or AAV9-CAG-ArchT-eGFP (200 nl, Penn Vector Core, University of Pennsylvania) was microinjected into the lateral PB, since lateral, but not medial, PB relays nociceptive information to the RVM (Roeder et al., 2016). The microinjection cannula was left at the injection site for 10 min before retraction to minimize back-flow. The craniotomy site was filled with gelfoam, and the incision site closed. Rats received lidocaine ointment, penicillin G (80 kU/ml, i.m.) and carprofen (5 mg/ml, s.c., Pfizer) after the procedure, and were returned to the home cage for 2–5 weeks to allow expression of ChR2 and ArchT. Examples showing reporter in cell bodies in PB and in terminals in RVM are shown in Figure 1. A plot of ChR2 and ArchT injection sites in PB is provided in Figure 2 (anatomic control sites surrounding PB were not tested because previous work has shown that lateral PB is the relevant source of nociceptive inputs to the RVM; Roeder et al., 2016).

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

Examples of ChR2 and ArchT expression in the lateral PB region and terminal expression in RVM. Examples of ChR2 expression in (A) PB cell bodies and (B) PB projecting fibers in RVM. Examples of ArchT expression (C) PB cell bodies and (D) PB projecting fibers in RVM. lPB, lateral PB region; scp, superior cerebellar peduncle.

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

Vector injection sites in PB. Injection sites were distributed among sections at +0.24 to −0.36 mm relative to the interaural line. Injections inside the lateral PB (lPB) area were considered on-target. KF, Kölliker-Fuse; mPB, medial PB area; SCP, superior cerebellar peduncle.

In vitro whole-cell patch-clamp recordings

RVM slice preparation

The RVM slice was prepared as described previously (Li et al., 2015). Two to five weeks after vector injection, rats were deeply anesthetized with isoflurane, and the brains rapidly removed and placed in n-methyl-D-glucamine (NMDG)-sucrose based “cutting buffer” containing 52 mM NMDG, 2.5 mM KCl, 0.5 mM CaCl2, 10 mM MgSO4, 1.2 mM NaH2PO4, 30 mM NaHCO3, 25 mM D-dextrose, 75 mM sucrose, 5 mM sodium ascorbate, 2 mM thiourea, and 3 mM sodium pyruvate, at pH 7.4 (adjusted with HCl) and 300–310 mOsm (Zhao et al., 2011; Ting et al., 2014). Coronal slices (180–200 µm) were cut in 95% O2/5% CO2 cutting buffer. Slices were incubated at 35°C in a submerged chamber containing artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) equilibrated with 95% O2/5% CO2 for at least 30 min and subsequently maintained at room temperature until transfer to a recording chamber held at 30–31°C. The aCSF contained 126 mM NaCl, 2.5 mM KCl, 2.4 mM CaCl2, 1.2 mM MgCl2, 1.2 mM NaH2PO4, 21.4 mM NaHCO3, and 11.1 mM D-dextrose, pH 7.4, and 300–310 mOsm.

Whole-cell patch-clamp recordings

Voltage-clamp recordings (holding potential −70 mV) were made from RVM neurons in the whole-cell configuration using an Axopatch 200B amplifier (Molecular Devices). Patch clamp electrodes were pulled from borosilicate glass (1.5 mm in diameter; WPI) on a two-stage puller (PP83, Narishige). Pipettes had a resistance of 2–4 MΩ. Postsynaptic currents were recorded in an intracellular pipette solution containing 140 mM CsCl, 10 mM HEPES, 4 mM MgATP, 3 mM NaGTP, 1 mM EGTA, 1 mM MgCl2, and 0.3 mM CaCl2, pH adjusted to 7.3 with CsOH, 290 mOsm. Series resistance (<20 MΩ) was compensated by 70–80% and continuously monitored during experiments. A junction potential of −5 mV was corrected during recording. GABAergic events were isolated in the presence of glutamate receptor antagonists NBQX (10 µM) and kynurenic acid (KA; 100 µM). Glutamatergic events were isolated in the presence of the GABAA receptor antagonist bicuculline (BIC; 30 µM). Recordings in which access resistance or capacitance changed by >15% during the experiment were excluded from data analysis. Latency of synaptic currents was measured as latency at 5% of the peak current and jitter as the SD of latency.

In vivo recording

Four to five weeks after vector injection in the PB, animals were deeply anesthetized (isoflurane) and a catheter inserted in the external jugular vein for subsequent infusion of the short-acting barbiturate methohexital. They were then transferred to a stereotactic frame. Small craniotomies were made to gain access to the RVM and PB, and the meninges were opened. Heart rate was monitored using EKG. Body temperature was monitored and maintained at 36–37°C with a heating pad.

When preparatory surgeries were complete, rats were placed on a continuous methohexital infusion. The anesthetic plane was set at a depth that allowed a stable heat-evoked hindpaw withdrawal reflex, while preventing spontaneous movement.

Extracellular single-unit recordings were made using an optoelectrode, constructed by pairing a stainless-steel microelectrode (Microprobes) with gold- and platinum-plated tips with an optical fiber (200 µm in diameter, ThorLabs). Signals were amplified (10 k) and bandpass-filtered (400 Hz to 15 kHz) before analog-to-digital conversion at 32-k samples/s.

Validating opsin functions

A subset of ChR2- or ArchT-injected animals was used to confirm that ChR2 expression allows light-induced activation of PB neurons, and that ArchT expression results in light-evoked inhibition of PB neurons. A neuron in lateral PB was isolated, and classified as nociceptive based on increased firing rate during a noxious heat stimulus applied to the plantar surface of the hindpaw using a Peltier device (Yale Instrumentation Service). A light source with mean wavelength of 470 nm (range: 465–475 nm, 1.1 mW power) was used to activate ChR2. A source with mean wavelength of 565 nm (range: 540–575 nm, 0.5 mW maximum power) was used to activate ArchT (both from Thorlabs).

Recording RVM neurons in response to PB terminal manipulations

An RVM neuron was isolated and classified as an ON-, OFF-, or NEUTRAL-cell (Fields and Heinricher, 1985; Barbaro et al., 1986) using a noxious heat stimulus applied to the plantar surface of the hindpaw (Peltier device as above). The surface temperature was held at 35°C between trials, and then increased at a rate of 1.2°C/s from 35°C to a maximum of 53°C. Withdrawals were recorded as hamstring muscle electromyographic response (EMG), with the first positive inflection of the rectified EMG used as the onset of the response. ON-cells exhibit a burst of action potentials beginning immediately before a nocifensive withdrawal, or continue firing if already active. OFF-cells cease firing (if active), or remain silent (if inactive). To further confirm cell classification, a 10 s noxious pinch was delivered to the hindpaw using a toothed forceps: ON-cells fire and OFF-cells cease firing throughout the stimulus. All remaining neurons (i.e., those not showing a withdrawal-related burst or pause) were classified as NEUTRAL-cells. To avoid misclassifying any ON-cells with continuous ongoing activity as NEUTRAL-cells (Barbaro et al., 1986), a bolus of methohexital anesthetic was given to the point that the withdrawal reflex was abolished. Firing of NEUTRAL-cells is unaltered during this maneuver, whereas spontaneously active ON-cells slow or stop. After confirmation of cell type, animals were restabilized at a constant anesthetic flow rate before beginning data collection.

For the ArchT experiments, we recorded RVM responses to optogenetic manipulations of cell bodies in PB and PB terminals in RVM. Three trials with light-induced inhibition of PB terminals in RVM were performed, followed by three additional trials with light-induced inhibition of cell bodies in PB. Light trials (terminal or cell body stimulation) consisted of ∼60 s of continuous light stimulation, with a heat stimulus delivered in the second half of the light period, and ∼5 min between trials. No-light/heat-only trials were performed before every light stimulation to provide a control heat-related response. Because the densest spinoparabrachial projection ascends to the contralateral PB (Bernard et al., 1995; Feil and Herbert, 1995; Bester et al., 2000; Todd et al., 2000; Polgár et al., 2010), the heat stimulus was delivered to the paw contralateral to PB opsin expression.

For the ChR2 experiments, only terminal stimulations were performed. Each light trial consisted of ∼45 s of total light stimulation, with a heat trial in the last 30 s of the light train. To screen RVM neuron responses to pulses of different widths and frequencies, six different stimulation protocols were used for all isolated RVM neurons: continuous light, 50 ms at 10 Hz, 20 ms at 10 Hz, 10 ms at 10 Hz, 20 ms at 20 Hz, and 20 ms at 40 Hz, delivered in that order, with 2–5 min between stimulus trains. Each light protocol was tested once. To control for possible antidromic activation of PB cell bodies by terminal stimulation, 4% lidocaine (200 nl) was microinjected in PB in some experiments. Following the injection, two additional sets of terminal stimulation were performed in these animals (continuous light and 50 ms pulses at 10 Hz).

Histology

At the completion of the electrophysiological experiment, recording sites were marked with an electrolytic lesion (Fig. 3). Animals were then overdosed with methohexital, and perfused transcardially with saline followed by 10% formalin. The brains were removed, blocked, and sectioned (40 μm). Recording sites as well as viral expression in PB cell bodies and in terminals around the recording sites in the RVM were plotted on hand-drawn sections in Adobe Illustrator using landmarks defined by Paxinos and Watson (2009). Only data from “on-target” reporter expression and recording sites were analyzed. The RVM was defined as the nucleus raphe magnus and adjacent reticular formation at the level of the facial nucleus (−1.32 to −3.12 mm from interaural line, ±0.6 mm lateral, and 9–10 mm ventral to the brain surface).

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

Recording sites within the RVM. Recording sites for both ArchT (gray circles) and ChR2 (black circles) experiments were distributed between −1.04 and −2.30 mm (relative to the interaural line). The majority of cells were isolated between −1.04 and −1.80 mm.

Analysis

The microelectrode signal, EMG, and EKG output were digitized and collected using Spike2 software (Cambridge Electronics Design). Each wave form was sorted using Spike2 template matching and cluster analysis, verified on an individual spike basis.

We characterized reflex-related changes in OFF-cell activity by the duration of the reflex-related pause. ON-cell activity was quantified as the total number of spikes in each reflex-related burst (which may last for many seconds or even minutes). In ChR2 experiments in which a reflex-related burst could not be defined due to light-evoked activation, the number of spikes in the 3-s period beginning 0.5 s before the paw withdrawal reflex was used in place of total evoked spikes.

Spontaneous activity was defined as the firing rate in the 10-s period before each stimulus (heat or light) or stimulus train (light). To assess the effect of each light-stimulation protocol, a ratio of firing during the light stimulus to that before stimulus onset was obtained. A change of >50% was considered an effect. If the cell was silent before stimulus onset, an increase of <10 spikes was considered no difference.

We also measured the latency of the cell response to light pulses in ChR2 experiments. To calculate the response latency for those cells with excitatory inputs, a peri-stimulus time histogram (0.5-ms bins) was constructed. The mean and SD of the control firing rate was calculated for a 10-s period before light onset, and the trial-specific response latency defined as the time at which the light-induced firing rate exceeded a threshold of 1.95 SDs above the prestimulation mean. The average response latency over all light-pulse trials was calculated for each light-evoked response. To calculate response latency for cells with inhibitory responses to optogenetic activation of PB afferents, interspike intervals were used.

EMG was rectified and smoothed, and area under the curve (AUC) for 15 s beginning at response onset (or cutoff in two cases with no response) calculated. A prestimulus 15-s “baseline” was subtracted for each trial. AUC during terminal or cell body inactivation was expressed as a percentage of that during no-light trials, reflecting the impact of ArchT inhibition of PB terminals or cell bodies on the magnitude of paw withdrawal.

Parameters describing ON- and OFF-cell firing (spontaneous firing rate, pause duration, burst) are typically highly right-skewed, and were log-transformed and analyzed using paired t test, or one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and post hoc Dunn’s multiple comparison test. Light versus prelight ratios were analyzed using Wilcoxon’s signed rank tests. These cell parameters are presented as geometric mean ± 95% confidence intervals. Other data are reported as mean ± SEM. Paw withdrawal latencies were analyzed using nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, Friedman’s test) because some responses were at the cutoff value. EMG magnitude was normalized to no-light trials for each cell, and compared with 1.0 using a one-sample t test. For all tests, p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Expression of ArchT or ChR2 on neurons and terminals projecting from lateral PB to RVM

ArchT or ChR2 viral vectors were injected in the right PB two to five weeks before the electrophysiological experiment. Reporter proteins were expressed along the fibers and terminals projecting from PB. Positive fibers were found in regions consistent with a previous study using anterograde tracing methods (Saper and Loewy, 1980), and with other studies employing retrograde tracers (Beitz, 1982; Verner et al., 2008; Roeder et al., 2016). In the current study, PB fibers were seen to project throughout the RVM (raphe magnus nucleus, raphe pallidus nucleus, gigantocellular reticular nucleus), spanning the length of the RVM from the facial nerve (−1.32 mm from interaural line) to the caudal end of the facial nucleus (−3.12 mm from interaural line). In addition to the RVM, reporter-expressing fibers of similar density were also found in rostroventrolateral reticular nucleus and the facial nucleus. There were also lower-density positive fibers in other reticular nuclei, the solitary nucleus, abducens nucleus, and in the dorsal part of medial longitudinal fasciculus.

Validation of light-evoked changes in firing in animals expressing ChR2 and ArchT in PB neurons

A subset of ChR2- or ArchT-injected animals was used to ensure that ChR2 expression supported light-induced activation of PB neurons and that ArchT expression resulted in light-evoked inhibition of PB neurons. Most PB neurons sampled exhibited alternating silent and active phases in the absence of photostimulation, similar to those seen in RVM neurons (Barbaro et al., 1989). An example of light-induced activation of a PB neuron expressing ChR2 is shown in Figure 4A. Light trains were administered (1- to 2-ms pulses at 2, 10, or 20 Hz) during inactive phases. As illustrated in the representative trace, this PB neuron fired one spike with each light pulse at all three frequencies tested. An example of light-induced inhibition of a PB neuron expressing ArchT is shown in Figure 4B. Three light pulses of different durations were applied during an active phase of the recorded neuron. With activation of ArchT, firing of this neuron was noticeably depressed and even ceased entirely.

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

Validation of ChR2 and ArchT function on PB neurons. A, Activation of PB neuron by light-induced activation of ChR2 (1- to 2-ms pulses at 2, 10, or 20 Hz). Firing of the neuron reliably followed the light trains. B, Suppression of activity of a PB neuron during light-induced activation of ArchT.

Direct PB projections release either glutamate or GABA onto single RVM neurons

To determine if there are direct synaptic connections from PB to individual RVM neurons, we used whole-cell patch-clamp methods in acute RVM slices taken from adult animals. An example of opsin expression in PB and the location of a recorded RVM neuron are shown in Figure 5A–D. Light stimulation of terminals expressing ChR2 in RVM slices elicited synaptic currents in 29 neurons (Fig. 5E). Of those 29, 21 had synaptic currents that were blocked by the glutamate antagonists KA or NBQX but were unaffected by the GABAA receptor antagonist BIC, indicating a direct glutamatergic projection (Fig. 5E, left). The latency of onset of synaptic currents was 2.3 ± 0.2 ms with jitter (STD of latency) of 408 ± 26 µs (n = 21). The remaining 8/29 RVM neurons had light-evoked synaptic currents that were blocked by BIC but were unaffected by glutamate antagonists, indicating that they were direct GABAergic inputs (Fig. 5E, right). The GABAergic synaptic currents had longer decay kinetics and longer latency of onset (3.8 ± 0.6 ms; t6.9 = 2.53 with Welch’s correction, p = 0.039). The observed jitter was 622 ± 112 µs and was not significantly different from the glutamatergic synaptic currents (t6.7 = 1.871 with Welch’s correction, p = 0.106). Both synaptic currents occurred within the expected timeframe for monosynaptic connections. These data provide evidence for direct PB inputs to RVM neurons, and suggest that these inputs release either glutamate or GABA, but not both, onto individual RVM neurons.

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

In vitro electrophysiology shows evidence for direct, functional PB inputs to individual RVM neurons. A, Micrograph of slice showing area of PB microinjection. B, Expression of reporter for ChR2 construct in PB in area outlined by square in A. C, Low magnitude (4×) picture of RVM slice containing a biocytin-labeled neuron that was filled during recording. D, High magnification (20×) of biocytin-labeled cell in C. E, Light-evoked stimulation elicited either glutamatergic synaptic currents that were inhibited by KA but not BIC, or GABAergic synaptic currents that were inhibited by BIC but not KA. Note the difference in synaptic decay kinetics. Arrow indicates delivery of light stimulus.

RVM neurons can be activated or inhibited by optogenetic activation of PB terminals in RVM in ChR2-injected animals in vivo

The in vitro studies documented direct glutamatergic and GABAergic synaptic connections to RVM neurons from PB. However, the recorded neurons were not functionally identified as ON-cells, OFF-cells, or NEUTRAL-cells in these slice studies. In a second set of experiments, we tested whether direct inputs from PB to RVM could alter activity of neurons in these three different classes. Using rats in which ChR2 viral vectors were injected in PB, we examined the net effect of stimulating PB terminals in RVM. Responses of 13 ON-cells, 14 OFF-cells, and 9 NEUTRAL-cells to light-induced activation of PB terminals in RVM were recorded in 28 animals. A range of light pulse widths and frequencies were tested (see Materials and Methods). We also determined whether optogenetic activation of PB terminals in RVM altered heat-evoked neuronal and behavioral responses. Unlike in the slice recording experiments, responses recorded in vivo reflects influences mediated by local circuits as well as any direct inputs to the cell being recorded.

Both ON- and OFF-cells responded to light-induced activation of PB terminals in RVM, with overall increases in the firing of both classes (Fig. 6A,B). As a class, NEUTRAL-cells did not show a significant overall increase in firing during light-induced activation of PB terminals (Fig. 6C). For ON-cells, 8 of 13 cells recorded (62%) showed an increase in firing rate during the light pulse train, one cell exhibited a decrease in firing rate, and 4 cells showed no change in activity. As a whole, the population exhibited a 3.4 ± 1.1 spikes/s increase in overall firing rate with these stimulation protocols. Similarly, 10 of 14 OFF-cells (71%) displayed increased firing rate in response to light, two cells showed a decrease in spontaneous firing rate, and two cells showed no response. As a whole, OFF-cell firing was increased by 8.0 ± 2.0 spikes/s. Most NEUTRAL-cells were unresponsive, with two of nine NEUTRAL-cells recorded demonstrating an increase in overall firing, and one a decrease. The remaining six cells (67%) exhibited no change in firing. The mean change in NEUTRAL-cell firing was 4.2 ± 4.5 spikes/s.

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

Effect of ChR2-induced activation of PB terminals on ongoing firing of ON-, OFF-, and NEUTRAL-cells in RVM. Terminal activation significantly increased the net firing rate of both ON- and OFF-cells (A, B) but had no net effect on NEUTRAL cells (C). *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 compared with baseline, paired t test, n = 9–14 cells per class. Effects of different stimulation parameters are pooled for this analysis.

The varied responses to PB terminal activation were not due to recruitment of other non-RVM PB targets via antidromic impulses, as ChR2-induced changes were preserved when lidocaine (4%, 200 nl) was injected in PB to block conduction at the soma. Each of the seven cells recorded with this approach (one OFF-cell, three ON-cells, three NEUTRAL-cells) responded to terminal activation both in baseline and during lidocaine block of PB cells bodies (t6 = 0.34, p = 0.74).

When comparing RVM neuronal activity during the light-on periods to the prelight periods, the different stimulation protocols tested were all capable of altering spontaneous firing of both ON- and OFF-cells, whereas they had no overall effect on NEUTRAL-cells. Net effects of terminal activation for different protocols are summarized in Figure 7 for each cell class. Individual neurons showed consistent responses across different stimulation protocols.

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

Effect of ChR2-induced activation of PB terminals on RVM neurons when using different stimulation protocols. As a class, ON-cells (A) and OFF-cells (B) showed significant and comparable responses to all light stimulation trains, whereas NEUTRAL-cells (C) did not respond during any protocol. Reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence intervals, *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 compared with the hypothetical value of 1 (no change), Wilcoxon’s signed rank test, n = 9–14 cells per class.

For those cells that exhibited an excitatory response, we determined the latency of the response to light-induced terminal activation. The OFF-cells responded at an average latency of 2.2 ± 0.2 ms from onset of the light pulse, consistent with a single synaptic delay. ON-cells responded at a significantly longer latency to activation of PB terminals, 3.5 ± 0.5 ms (unpaired t test, t16 = 2.54, p = 0.022, n = 18 cells). For the two NEUTRAL cells activated by terminal stimulation, the mean response latency was 2.1 ms (1.5 and 2.6 ms for the two cells). For the few cells that exhibited an inhibitory response to terminal activation, the response occurred at a much longer latency. For the two OFF-cells inhibited by light, the response occurred with an average delay of 139 ms, whereas that for the sole ON-cell was 228 ms, and for the NEUTRAL-cell was 161 ms. This long latency suggests that inhibition was an indirect response mediated by activity in local and/or remote circuits.

As might be expected given the increase in overall firing rate, the duration of the OFF-cell pause was reduced during activation of PB terminals (t11 = 6.88, p < 0.0001, n = 12; as noted above, firing of 2 of the 14 cells examined was suppressed during light stimulation, which precluded determination of a pause). The ON-cell burst was not changed significantly (t12 = 1.94, p = 0.076, n = 13).

Finally, consistent with the increase in overall OFF-cell firing, the heat-evoked paw withdrawal was delayed significantly with activation of PB terminals (latencyno light = 9.65 ± 0.18 s versus latencylight = 10.41 ± 0.27 s; W = −318.0, n = 28, p = 0.0003), indicating a modest anti-nociceptive effect of nonselectively activating PB input to RVM with these stimulus protocols.

Taken together, the in vitro and in vivo experiments using ChR2 to stimulate PB terminals in RVM demonstrate that PB terminals provide glutamatergic and GABAergic synaptic inputs to RVM neurons, and that direct inputs to the RVM can influence RVM pain-modulating neurons. The net effect of nonselective stimulation of PB input to RVM is predominantly excitatory. However, these experiments do not tell us what PB inputs to RVM are activated under any given physiologic or pathophysiological condition.

Light-evoked inhibition of PB terminals in RVM using ArchT attenuates nociceptive response-related changes in RVM ON- and OFF-cell firing in vivo

To determine what PB inputs to RVM pain-modulating neurons are activated by acute noxious stimulation in an intact animal, we next used an optogenetic method to suppress activity in RVM-projecting PB terminals. In these experiments, we recorded RVM ON- and OFF-cell responses evoked by heat stimulation of the hindpaw in rats expressing ArchT in PB. We studied 15 ON-cells and 14 OFF-cells in 19 animals with light-induced inhibition of both PB terminals in RVM and PB cell bodies.

Light-evoked inhibition of PB terminals in RVM significantly attenuated the ON-cell burst and OFF-cell pause (Fig. 8A), demonstrating that a direct projection from PB to the RVM conveys nociceptive information to RVM pain-modulating neurons. Light-evoked inhibition of cell bodies in PB also attenuated the ON-cell burst and OFF-cell pause evoked by noxious thermal stimulation, demonstrating that PB is a direct relay of nociceptive information to RVM ON- and OFF-cells. The effects of light-evoked suppression of PB terminals in RVM and cell bodies in PB are summarized for ON-cells (Fig. 8B) and OFF-cells (Fig. 8C).

Figure 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 8.

Effects of ArchT-induced inhibition of PB terminals and cell bodies on ON- and OFF-cell nociception-related activity. A, Representative examples show ON- and OFF-cell activity during withdrawal from noxious heat stimulus at baseline compared with during Arch-T inhibition of PB terminals in RVM or at the cell bodies in PB itself. Arrow denotes heat onset. In both cases, nociception-related changes in firing were substantially attenuated. Summary data are provided in B, C. B, ON-cells: effect of ArchT-induced inhibition of PB terminals and cell bodies on the ON-cell burst. C, OFF-cells: the effect of ArchT-induced inhibition of PB terminals and cell bodies on the OFF-cell pause. Reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence intervals, *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 compared with baseline, one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and post hoc Dunn’s multiple comparisons test, n = 15 ON-cells, 14 OFF-cells.

Light-evoked inhibition of activity in PB terminals in RVM also altered the ongoing discharges of both ON- and OFF-cells (Fig. 9), with a statistically significant decrease in ON-cell firing and increase in OFF-cell firing. However, the effect was quite modest (mean change of less than two spikes/s for both classes). Further, general inhibition of PB activity at the cell bodies did not produce significant changes in ON- and OFF-cell ongoing activity (Fig. 9). Any difference between the effects of terminal and cell body inhibition could be due to a failure to align the light probe with the densest expression of vector in PB itself (the terminal light probe was coupled to the recording site), inability to influence the full extent of the PB complex, or recruitment of long, extra-brainstem loops that have their own effects on RVM excitability. In any case, consistent with the minimal effect of terminal or cell body stimulation on the ongoing activity of ON- and OFF-cells, heat-evoked paw withdrawal latencies in animals with terminal or cell body inhibition were not significantly different from baseline (Friedman’s test, Fr = 3.79, p = 0.15, n = 19 animals; data not shown). However, the magnitude of the response was significantly reduced during inactivation of both terminals and cell bodies, to 64.4 ± 8.6% of no-light trials (t18 = 4.14, p = 0.0006 compared with 100%) and 58.3 ± 7.0% of no-light trials (t18 = 5.97, p < 0.0001), respectively.

Figure 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 9.

Effects of ArchT-induced inhibition of PB terminals and cell bodies on ongoing firing of ON- and OFF-cells in RVM. Terminal inhibition significantly decreased ON-cell ongoing firing, while increasing OFF-cell firing. Cell body inhibition did not significantly affect the ongoing firing of either ON- or OFF-cells. *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01 compared with baseline, one-way ANOVA with repeated measures and post hoc Dunn’s multiple comparisons test, n = 15 ON-cells, 14 OFF-cells.

Discussion

PB conveys nociceptive signals to RVM ON- and OFF-cells via a direct, intrabrainstem projection

Descending pain-modulating pathways regulate nociceptive processing via projections from the brainstem to the dorsal horn. The pronociceptive and anti-nociceptive outputs of RVM, mediated by ON- and OFF-cells, are themselves modulated by “top-down” inputs from areas including the amygdala, periaqueductal gray, and hypothalamus (Heinricher et al., 2009; Martenson et al., 2009; Heinricher and Fields, 2013). “Bottom-up,” nociceptive sensory inputs also play an important role in modulating RVM output: noxious stimuli activate pain-facilitating ON-cells, giving rise to a burst of firing, while suppressing the firing of pain-inhibiting OFF-cells, leading to a pause in any ongoing activity. These sudden changes in firing begin immediately before the behavioral withdrawal from the stimulus, allowing the response to occur by removing OFF-cell-mediated descending inhibition and enhancing the magnitude of the behavioral response (Fields and Heinricher, 1985; Jinks et al., 2007; Heinricher et al., 2010). Pain-modulating pathways are thus closely intertwined with pain-transmission pathways, forming a recurrent network that can only be fully understood from an integrative perspective.

PB is a nociceptive, emotional, and autonomic processing and relay center that, at least in rodent, is the target of the bulk of supraspinal projections from the superficial dorsal horn (Gauriau and Bernard, 2002; Todd, 2010). It also receives input from deep dorsal horn (Bernard et al., 1995; Bourgeais et al., 2001). PB was recently identified as an important relay of nociceptive information to the RVM (Roeder et al., 2016). However, that finding left open the question of whether there is a direct nociceptive connection from the PB to the RVM. PB could send nociceptive information to RVM indirectly, via structures such as the amygdala, insula, or periaqueductal gray, which receive input from PB and in turn project to RVM (Fulwiler and Saper, 1984; Jasmin et al., 1997; Gauriau and Bernard, 2002; Jasmin et al., 2004; Sato et al., 2013). Here we used optogenetic methods to determine if a direct projection from PB to RVM influenced activity of pain-modulating neurons and conveyed nociceptive information.

We used an inhibitory opsin, ArchT, to determine what PB inputs to RVM ON- and OFF-cells are activated by an acute noxious stimulus. In these experiments, optogenetic inactivation of PB terminals in the RVM substantially attenuated the nociceptive ON-cell burst and OFF-cell pause. This indicates that the direct projection from PB to RVM contributes to the ON-cell burst and OFF-cell pause. As with global inactivation of the PB area using the GABAA receptor agonist muscimol (Roeder et al., 2016), neither the ON-cell burst nor the OFF-cell pause were completely eliminated with optogenetic inhibition of the PB terminals in RVM. This suggests that other inputs or relays also carry nociceptive information to the RVM. This could include direct spinal or trigeminal inputs to RVM, which have been documented in anatomic studies (Sugiyo et al., 2005).

PB supplies both excitatory and inhibitory inputs to pain-modulating neurons in RVM

ArchT can be used to determine what inputs are activated by a given stimulus, as described above. By contrast, activation of PB terminals using ChR2 can provide evidence that certain inputs exist and have the potential to be activated, although it does not imply that they are in fact activated under any given physiologic or pathophysiological condition. ChR2-mediated activation of PB terminals in an RVM slice showed that PB conveys direct glutamatergic and GABAergic inputs to RVM neurons. The majority of responses evoked by PB terminal activation in vitro were glutamatergic (72%), with a smaller percentage of GABAergic inputs (28%). Furthermore, a given RVM neuron showed short-latency glutamatergic or GABAergic responses, but not both. This implies that direct PB synapses onto specific populations of RVM neurons are either glutamatergic or GABAergic. It is tempting to speculate that the GABAergic inputs revealed in the slice experiments map to the inhibitory nociceptive input to OFF-cells demonstrated in vivo using ArchT, since the inhibitory input responsible for the OFF-cell pause is known not to be mediated by local circuit interactions (Heinricher and McGaraughty, 1998; Cleary et al., 2008). It is also reasonable to suggest that at least some excitatory inputs identified in the slice were to ON-cells, since the in vivo experiments using ArchT confirmed an excitatory nociceptive input to neurons of this class. It is also possible that some of the neurons with glutamatergic inputs recorded in slice correspond to NEUTRAL-cells recorded in vivo.

The ArchT experiments showed that a net inhibitory input to OFF-cells and a net excitatory input to ON-cells from PB was recruited by noxious stimulation, yet the majority of ON- and OFF-cells surveyed were excited by ChR2 activation of PB terminals. These findings are not contradictory. As already noted, ArchT can be used to determine what inputs are activated by a given stimulus whereas activation of PB terminals using ChR2 provides evidence that certain inputs exist and have the potential to be activated. The excitatory responses to optogenetic activation of PB terminals occurred at short latency, consistent with a direct connection. These effects were not mediated by antidromic activation of PB cell bodies, as lidocaine injection in PB did not alter the light-induced responses of RVM neurons. These findings indicate that although PB relays a nociception-triggered inhibitory input to OFF-cells and excitatory input to ON-cells, additional direct projections from PB to RVM have the capacity to activate both classes of RVM pain-modulating neurons, ON- and OFF-cells, with the potential to be recruited under different conditions. These inputs, which would not have been predicted by a view of ON- and OFF-cells as receiving no information other than that driving the ON-cell burst and OFF-cell pause, presumably convey other influences to RVM pain-modulating neurons. For example, PB receives taste-related sensory-information (Sammons et al., 2016), which if relayed to the RVM could play a role in tastant-induced pain modulation (Anseloni et al., 2005; Foo and Mason, 2009). Different parabrachial circuits could also be recruited in persistent pain models. RVM neurons develop “sensitized” responses to normally non-noxious mechanical stimuli in neuropathic and inflammatory chronic pain models (Carlson et al., 2007; Cleary and Heinricher, 2013), and in vitro studies have shown that glutamatergic and GABAergic transmission, as well as effects of opioids, are altered in slices taken from CFA-treated animals (Guan et al., 2003; Guan et al., 2004; Zhang and Hammond, 2009; Zhang et al., 2013; Li et al., 2015, 2017). Delineating what PB inputs to RVM pain-modulating neurons are engaged under different conditions will require additional studies beyond the scope of the present manuscript.

The short latency of the OFF-cell activation by PB terminal activation in vivo is consistent with a single synaptic delay, which suggests that projections from PB form synaptic connections with RVM OFF-cells. The latency of the ON-cell response to PB terminal stimulation, although somewhat longer, is nonetheless consistent with a single synaptic delay. The difference in latencies between the two cell classes could be due to factors such as differential location of PB inputs on the ON-cells compared with the OFF-cells, or differences in intrinsic membrane properties. We also found a small percentage of ON- and OFF-cells that were inhibited by activation of local PB terminals. The latencies of these inhibitory responses were significantly longer than those of excitatory responses, implying that the short-latency inhibitory inputs demonstrated in the slice experiments and suggested by the ArchT experiments were masked by concurrent excitatory influences.

The ChR2 studies revealed a potential influence of PB on a subset of NEUTRAL-cells. Although the proportion of NEUTRAL-cells responding to activation of PB terminals in RVM was small, both activation and suppression of firing were seen. Since inactivation of PB terminals in the present studies and pharmacological block of PB itself had no effect on the firing of NEUTRAL-cells (Roeder et al., 2016), it would be interesting to know when and how parabrachial input to NEUTRAL-cells is engaged. It is likely that at least some of these NEUTRAL-cells serve other physiologic functions that are shared between PB and RVM, but unrelated to pain (e.g., thermogenesis; Morrison, 2011; Morrison et al., 2012).

Implications for behavior

PB itself is not strongly implicated in acute nociceptive responding. Lesion of NK1-expressing neurons in dorsal horn, a major input to PB, has minimal (if any) effect on baseline nociceptive responding, although potentiated pain states are attenuated (Nichols et al., 1999; Suzuki et al., 2002; Rivat et al., 2009). Similarly, recruitment of RVM under extreme conditions can produce analgesia or hyperalgesia. For example, intense fear or pharmacological manipulations such as morphine eliminate the OFF-cell pause and produce analgesia. Conversely, sensitization of ON-cells and high levels of ongoing activity (10 Hz or more) contribute to hyperalgesia in inflammatory pain states. However, basal activity of RVM ON- and OFF-cell populations does not produce wide fluctuations in nociceptive responding, but instead contributes to the modest variations in nociceptive threshold that are more typical in daily life (Heinricher et al., 1989; Heinricher and Kaplan, 1991). Moreover, the ON-cell burst is not required for behavioral responses under baseline conditions, although it contributes to response magnitude (Heinricher and McGaraughty, 1998; Jinks et al., 2007). Conversely, reducing but not eliminating the OFF-cell pause does not produce potent analgesia (Heinricher et al., 2010).

In the present experiments, blocking PB terminals in RVM, which produced a slight shift in ON- and OFF-cell firing while substantially reducing the ON-cell burst and OFF-cell pause, had no effect on the latency of the heat-evoked paw withdrawal, but reduced the magnitude of the behavior. Conversely, the ChR2 stimulation protocol, which produced a moderate activation of both ON- or OFF-cells, resulted in a significant increase in response latency. Both outcomes are entirely what would have been expected given known effects of manipulating ON- and OFF-cell activity on acute nociceptive responding. Thus, the reduction in magnitude of the reflex with block of PB inputs to RVM was consistent with the reported reduction in response magnitude following selective block of the ON-cell burst (Jinks et al., 2007), since both the ON-cell burst and OFF-cell pause were decreased by inactivation of PB terminals. Conversely, the measurable increase in response latency during ChR2 activation of PB terminals is most likely explained by the measurable increase (<10 Hz) in overall OFF-cell firing. Studies in multiple persistent pain models will be needed to understand whether different PB inputs to RVM are engaged in different pain states, and will be an important next step in understanding this system.

Conclusion

Although PB has been proposed as an important relay through which nociceptive information engages descending control circuitry important for diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (Lapirot et al., 2009), it was only recently that PB was established as a relay of nociceptive information to the RVM (Roeder et al., 2016). The present study demonstrates both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic input to RVM neurons from PB (ChR2 in RVM slice), and further shows that the direct projection from PB to RVM conveys acute nociceptive information to pain-modulating neurons in this region, with a net inhibitory input to OFF-cells and net excitatory input to ON-cells (ArchT in vivo). These observations are consistent with a circuit in which PB relays nociceptive input to suppress OFF-cell firing and enhance ON-cell firing.

The ArchT experiments demonstrated that PB provides net inhibitory input to OFF-cells during acute noxious stimulation and a net excitatory input to ON-cells. However, the ChR2 experiments revealed additional inputs beyond those activated by the acute noxious stimulus: excitatory influences on OFF-cells and inhibitory influences on ON-cells were also shown to exist. This raises the possibility that additional PB inputs to ON- and OFF-cells could be recruited under different conditions. Although RVM demonstrates significant, time-varying molecular, neurophysiological and functional plasticity in persistent pain states (Hurley and Hammond, 2000; Guan et al., 2004; Bie and Pan, 2007; Roberts et al., 2009; LaGraize et al., 2010; Leong et al., 2011), how these changes translate to enhanced pain remains poorly understood, in part because of the lack of an identified synapse that can be dissected in mechanistic studies. Given the importance of spinoparabrachial dorsal horn neurons in pathologic pain (Nichols et al., 1999; Suzuki et al., 2002), it is tempting to speculate that the inputs from PB to RVM identified here play a role in this well-documented plasticity. We suggest that the unexpected inputs revealed using ChR2 are activated or unmasked in persistent pain, and contribute to, or limit, expression of hyperalgesia. Isolating the synaptic mechanisms linking specific PB inputs to RVM ON- and OFF-cells could therefore provide unprecedented insights into the factors underlying sensitization of brainstem circuitry in persistent pain. The present studies thus both stand on their own in defining a significant pathway through which acute nociceptive information is conveyed to pain-modulating neurons of the RV and serve as a foundation for studies in persistent pain states.

Footnotes

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • This work was supported by NIH Grants NS066159 and NS093894. Q.C. was supported by NIH Grant F31 NS087634.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

References

  1. ↵
    Anseloni VC, Ren K, Dubner R, Ennis M (2005) A brainstem substrate for analgesia elicited by intraoral sucrose. Neuroscience 133:231–243. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.01.055 pmid:15893646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Barbaro NM, Heinricher MM, Fields HL (1986) Putative pain modulating neurons in the rostral ventral medulla: reflex-related activity predicts effects of morphine. Brain Res 366:203–210. pmid:3697678
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Barbaro NM, Heinricher MM, Fields HL (1989) Putative nociceptive modulatory neurons in the rostral ventromedial medulla of the rat display highly correlated firing patterns. Somatosens Mot Res 6:413–425. pmid:2547274
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Beitz AJ (1982) The nuclei of origin of brain stem enkephalin and substance P projections to the rodent nucleus raphe magnus. Neuroscience 7:2753–2768. pmid:6185878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Bernard JF, Huang GF, Besson JM (1994) The parabrachial area: electrophysiological evidence for an involvement in visceral nociceptive processes. J Neurophysiol 71:1646–1660. pmid:8064340
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Bernard JF, Dallel R, Raboisson P, Villanueva L, Le Bars D (1995) Organization of the efferent projections from the spinal cervical enlargement to the parabrachial area and periaqueductal gray: a PHA-L study in the rat. J Comp Neur 353:480–505. doi:10.1002/cne.903530403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Bester H, Chapman V, Besson JM, Bernard JF (2000) Physiological properties of the lamina I spinoparabrachial neurons in the rat. J Neurophysiol 83:2239–2259.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Bie B, Pan ZZ (2007) Trafficking of central opioid receptors and descending pain inhibition. Mol Pain 3:37. doi:10.1186/1744-8069-3-37 pmid:18053223
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Bourgeais L, Monconduit L, Villanueva L, Bernard JF (2001) Parabrachial internal lateral neurons convey nociceptive messages from the deep laminas of the dorsal horn to the intralaminar thalamus. J Neurosci 21:2159–2165.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Carlson JD, Maire JJ, Martenson ME, Heinricher MM (2007) Sensitization of pain-modulating neurons in the rostral ventromedial medulla after peripheral nerve injury. J Neurosci 27:13222–13231. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3715-07.2007 pmid:18045916
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Cleary DR, Heinricher MM (2013) Adaptations in responsiveness of brainstem pain-modulating neurons in acute compared with chronic inflammation. Pain 154:845–855. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2013.02.019 pmid:23588008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Cleary DR, Neubert MJ, Heinricher MM (2008) Are opioid-sensitive neurons in the rostral ventromedial medulla inhibitory interneurons? Neuroscience 151:564–571. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.10.023 pmid:18055121
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Davern PJ (2014) A role for the lateral parabrachial nucleus in cardiovascular function and fluid homeostasis. Front Physiol 5:436. doi:10.3389/fphys.2014.00436 pmid:25477821
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    De Felice M, Sanoja R, Wang R, Vera-Portocarrero L, Oyarzo J, King T, Ossipov MH, Vanderah TW, Lai J, Dussor GO, Fields HL, Price TJ, Porreca F (2011) Engagement of descending inhibition from the rostral ventromedial medulla protects against chronic neuropathic pain. Pain 152:2701–2709. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.06.008 pmid:21745713
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Feil K, Herbert H (1995) Topographic organization of spinal and trigeminal somatosensory pathways to the rat parabrachial and Kölliker-Fuse nuclei. J Comp Neur 353:506–528. doi:10.1002/cne.903530404 pmid:7759613
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Fields HL, Heinricher MM (1985) Anatomy and physiology of a nociceptive modulatory system. Philos Trans of the R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 308:361–374. doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0037
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Foo H, Mason P (2009) Analgesia accompanying food consumption requires ingestion of hedonic foods. J Neurosci 29:13053–13062. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3514-09.2009 pmid:19828818
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Fulwiler CE, Saper CB (1984) Subnuclear organization of the efferent connections of the parabrachial nucleus in the rat. Brain Res 319:229–259. pmid:6478256
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    Gauriau C, Bernard JF (2002) Pain pathways and parabrachial circuits in the rat. Exp Physiol 87:251–258. pmid:11856971
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Guan Y, Guo W, Zou S-P, Dubner R, Ren K (2003) Inflammation-induced upregulation of AMPA receptor subunit expression in brain stem pain modulatory circuitry. Pain 104:401–413. pmid:12855351
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Guan Y, Guo W, Robbins MT, Dubner R, Ren K (2004) Changes in AMPA receptor phosphorylation in the rostral ventromedial medulla after inflammatory hyperalgesia in rats. Neurosci Lett 366:201–205. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.05.051 pmid:15276247
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Han S, Soleiman MT, Soden ME, Zweifel LS, Palmiter RD (2015) Elucidating an affective pain circuit that creates a threat memory. Cell 162:363–374. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.057 pmid:26186190
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Heinricher MM, Kaplan HJ (1991) GABA-mediated inhibition in rostral ventromedial medulla: role in nociceptive modulation in the lightly anesthetized rat. Pain 47:105–113. pmid:1663224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Heinricher MM, McGaraughty S (1998) Analysis of excitatory amino acid transmission within the rostral ventromedial medulla: implications for circuitry. Pain 75:247–255. pmid:9583760
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Heinricher MM, Fields HL (2013) Central nervous system mechanisms of pain modulation. In: Wall and Melzack's textbook of pain, Ed 6 ( McMahon S, Koltzenburg M, Tracey I, Turk DC , eds), pp 129-142. London: Elsevier.
  26. ↵
    Heinricher MM, Barbaro NM, Fields HL (1989) Putative nociceptive modulating neurons in the rostral ventromedial medulla of the rat: firing of on- and off-cells is related to nociceptive responsiveness. Somatosens Mot Res 6:427–439. doi:10.3109/08990228909144685
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Heinricher MM, Tavares I, Leith JL, Lumb BM (2009) Descending control of nociception: specificity, recruitment and plasticity. Brain Res Rev 60:214–225. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.12.009 pmid:19146877
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Heinricher MM, Maire JJ, Lee D, Nalwalk JW, Hough LB (2010) Physiological basis for inhibition of morphine and improgan antinociception by CC12, a P450 epoxygenase inhibitor. J Neurophysiol 104:3222–3230. doi:10.1152/jn.00681.2010 pmid:20926616
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Hermanson O, Blomqvist A (1996) Subnuclear localization of FOS-like immunoreactivity in the rat parabrachial nucleus after nociceptive stimulation. J Comp Neur 368:45–56. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19960422)368:1<45::AID-CNE4>3.0.CO;2-K
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Hurley RW, Hammond DL (2000) The analgesic effects of supraspinal mu and delta opioid receptor agonists are potentiated during persistent inflammation. J Neurosci 20:1249–1259. pmid:10648729
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    Jasmin L, Burkey AR, Card JP, Basbaum AI (1997) Transneuronal labeling of a nociceptive pathway, the spino-(trigemino-)parabrachio-amygdaloid, in the rat. J Neurosci 17:3751–3765.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Jasmin L, Burkey AR, Granato A, Ohara PT (2004) Rostral agranular insular cortex and pain areas of the central nervous system: a tract-tracing study in the rat. J Comp Neur 468:425–440. doi:10.1002/cne.10978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Jasmin L, Rabkin SD, Granato A, Boudah A, Ohara PT (2003) Analgesia and hyperalgesia from GABA-mediated modulation of the cerebral cortex. Nature 424:316–320. doi:10.1038/nature01808 pmid:12867983
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Jinks SL, Carstens EE, Antognini JF (2007) Glutamate receptor blockade in the rostral ventromedial medulla reduces the force of multisegmental motor responses to supramaximal noxious stimuli. Neurosci Lett 426:175–180. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.08.060 pmid:17904740
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Kaur S, Pedersen NP, Yokota S, Hur EE, Fuller PM, Lazarus M, Chamberlin NL, Saper CB (2013) Glutamatergic signaling from the parabrachial nucleus plays a critical role in hypercapnic arousal. J Neurosci 33:7627–7640. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0173-13.2013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    LaGraize SC, Guo W, Yang K, Wei F, Ren K, Dubner R (2010) Spinal cord mechanisms mediating behavioral hyperalgesia induced by neurokinin-1 tachykinin receptor activation in the rostral ventromedial medulla. Neuroscience 171:1341–1356. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.09.040 pmid:20888891
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Lapirot O, Chebbi R, Monconduit L, Artola A, Dallel R, Luccarini P (2009) NK1 receptor-expressing spinoparabrachial neurons trigger diffuse noxious inhibitory controls through lateral parabrachial activation in the male rat. Pain 142:245–254. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.01.015 pmid:19231081
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Leong ML, Gu M, Speltz-Paiz R, Stahura EI, Mottey N, Steer CJ, Wessendorf M (2011) Neuronal loss in the rostral ventromedial medulla in a rat model of neuropathic pain. J Neurosci 31:17028–17039. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1268-11.2011
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    Li MH, Suchland KL, Ingram SL (2015) GABAergic transmission and enhanced modulation by opioids and endocannabinoids in adult rat rostral ventromedial medulla. J Physiol 593:217–230. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2014.275701 pmid:25556797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    Li MH, Suchland KL, Ingram SL (2017) Compensatory activation of cannabinoid CB2 receptor inhibition of GABA release in the rostral ventromedial medulla in inflammatory pain. J Neurosci 37:626–636. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1310-16.2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Martenson ME, Cetas JS, Heinricher MM (2009) A possible neural basis for stress-induced hyperalgesia. Pain 142:236–244. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.01.011 pmid:19232470
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    McGaraughty S, Heinricher MM (2002) Microinjection of morphine into various amygdaloid nuclei differentially affects nociceptive responsiveness and rvm neuronal activity. Pain 96:153–162. pmid:11932071
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    McGaraughty S, Farr DA, Heinricher MM (2004) Lesions of the periaqueductal gray disrupt input to the rostral ventromedial medulla following microinjections of morphine into the medial or basolateral nuclei of the amygdala. Brain Res 1009:223–227. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2004.02.048 pmid:15120601
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    Meek TH, Nelson JT, Matsen ME, Dorfman MD, Guyenet SJ, Damian V, Allison MB, Scarlett JM, Nguyen HT, Thaler JP, Olson DP, Myers MG Jr., Schwartz MW, Morton GJ (2016) Functional identification of a neurocircuit regulating blood glucose. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E2073–E2082. doi:10.1073/pnas.1521160113
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    Morrison SF (2011) Central neural pathways for thermoregulatory cold defense. J Appl Physiol (1985) 110:1137–1149. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01227.2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    Morrison SF, Madden CJ, Tupone D (2012) Central control of brown adipose tissue thermogenesis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 3. doi:10.3389/fendo.2012.00005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    Neugebauer V (2015) Amygdala pain mechanisms. Handb Exp Pharmacol 227:261–284. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46450-2_13 pmid:25846623
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    Nichols ML, Allen BJ, Rogers SD, Ghilardi JR, Honore P, Luger NM, Finke MP, Li J, Lappi DA, Simone DA, Mantyh PW (1999) Transmission of chronic nociception by spinal neurons expressing the substance P receptor. Science 286:1558–1561. pmid:10567262
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    Paxinos G, Watson C (2009) The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates, compact, Ed 6. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
  50. ↵
    Polgár E, Wright LL, Todd AJ (2010) A quantitative study of brainstem projections from lamina I neurons in the cervical and lumbar enlargement of the rat. Brain Res 1308:58–67. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.10.041 pmid:19854164
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Porreca F, Burgess SE, Gardell LR, Vanderah TW, Malan TP Jr., Ossipov MH, Lappi DA, Lai J (2001) Inhibition of neuropathic pain by selective ablation of brainstem medullary cells expressing the mu-opioid receptor. J Neurosci 21:5281–5288.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    Ren K, Dubner R (2002) Descending modulation in persistent pain: an update. Pain 100:1–6. pmid:12435453
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    Rivat C, Vera-Portocarrero LP, Ibrahim MM, Mata HP, Stagg NJ, De Felice M, Porreca F, Malan TP (2009) Spinal NK-1 receptor-expressing neurons and descending pathways support fentanyl-induced pain hypersensitivity in a rat model of postoperative pain. Eur J Neurosci 29:727–737. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06616.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    Roberts J, Ossipov MH, Porreca F (2009) Glial activation in the rostroventromedial medulla promotes descending facilitation to mediate inflammatory hypersensitivity. Eur J Neurosci 30:229–241. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06813.x pmid:19614984
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Roeder Z, Chen Q, Davis S, Carlson JD, Tupone D, Heinricher MM (2016) The parabrachial complex links pain transmission to descending pain modulation. Pain 157:2697–2708. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000688 pmid:27657698
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Roman CW, Derkach VA, Palmiter RD (2016) Genetically and functionally defined nts to pbn brain circuits mediating anorexia. Nat Commun 7:11905. doi:10.1038/ncomms11905 pmid:27301688
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    Sakai N, Yamamoto T (1998) Role of the medial and lateral parabrachial nucleus in acquisition and retention of conditioned taste aversion in rats. Behav Brain Res 93:63–70. pmid:9659987
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    Sammons JD, Weiss MS, Victor JD, Di Lorenzo PM (2016) Taste coding of complex naturalistic taste stimuli and traditional taste stimuli in the parabrachial pons of the awake, freely licking rat. J Neurophysiol 116:171–182. doi:10.1152/jn.01119.2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    Saper CB, Loewy AD (1980) Efferent connections of the parabrachial nucleus in the rat. Brain Res 197:291–317. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(80)91117-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    Sato F, Akhter F, Haque T, Kato T, Takeda R, Nagase Y, Sessle BJ, Yoshida A (2013) Projections from the insular cortex to pain-receptive trigeminal caudal subnucleus (medullary dorsal horn) and other lower brainstem areas in rats. Neuroscience 233:9–27. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.12.024 pmid:23270856
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    Sugiyo S, Takemura M, Dubner R, Ren K (2005) Trigeminal transition zone/rostral ventromedial medulla connections and facilitation of orofacial hyperalgesia after masseter inflammation in rats. J Comp Neur 493:510–523. doi:10.1002/cne.20797 pmid:16304628
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    Suzuki R, Morcuende S, Webber M, Hunt SP, Dickenson AH (2002) Superficial NK1-expressing neurons control spinal excitability through activation of descending pathways. Nat Neurosci 5:1319–1326. doi:10.1038/nn966 pmid:12402039
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    Ting JT, Daigle TL, Chen Q, Feng G (2014) Acute brain slice methods for adult and aging animals: application of targeted patch clamp analysis and optogenetics. Methods Mol Biol 1183:221–242. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1096-0_14 pmid:25023312
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    Todd AJ (2010) Neuronal circuitry for pain processing in the dorsal horn. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:823–836. doi:10.1038/nrn2947 pmid:21068766
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    Todd AJ, McGill MM, Shehab SA (2000) Neurokinin 1 receptor expression by neurons in laminae I, III and IV of the rat spinal dorsal horn that project to the brainstem. Eur J Neurosci 12:689–700. pmid:10712649
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    Verner TA, Pilowsky PM, Goodchild AK (2008) Retrograde projections to a discrete apneic site in the midline medulla oblongata of the rat. Brain Res 1208:128–136. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.02.028 pmid:18387596
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    Yokota S, Kaur S, VanderHorst VG, Saper CB, Chamberlin NL (2015) Respiratory-related outputs of glutamatergic, hypercapnia-responsive parabrachial neurons in mice. J Comp Neur 523:907–920. doi:10.1002/cne.23720 pmid:25424719
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    Zhang L, Hammond DL (2009) Substance P enhances excitatory synaptic transmission on spinally projecting neurons in the rostral ventromedial medulla after inflammatory injury. J Neurophysiol 102:1139–1151. doi:10.1152/jn.91337.2008 pmid:19494188
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    Zhang Z, Wang X, Wang W, Lu YG, Pan ZZ (2013) Brain-derived neurotrophic factor-mediated downregulation of brainstem K+-Cl- cotransporter and cell-type-specific GABA impairment for activation of descending pain facilitation. Mol Pharmacol 84:511–520. doi:10.1124/mol.113.086496 pmid:23847084
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    Zhao S, Ting JT, Atallah HE, Qiu L, Tan J, Gloss B, Augustine GJ, Deisseroth K, Luo M, Graybiel AM, Feng G (2011) Cell type-specific channelrhodopsin-2 transgenic mice for optogenetic dissection of neural circuitry function. Nat Methods 8:745–752. pmid:21985008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

Synthesis

Reviewing Editor: Karen Davis, Krembil Research Institute and University of Toronto

Decisions are customarily a result of the Reviewing Editor and the peer reviewers coming together and discussing their recommendations until a consensus is reached. When revisions are invited, a fact-based synthesis statement explaining their decision and outlining what is needed to prepare a revision will be listed below. Note: If this manuscript was transferred from JNeurosci and a decision was made to accept the manuscript without peer review, a brief statement to this effect will instead be what is listed below.

The authors have done a thorough job in responding to the previous reviews from the submission to J. Neuroscience and provide a convincing argument for the importance of the findings.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 4 (3)
eNeuro
Vol. 4, Issue 3
May/June 2017
  • 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.
Optogenetic Evidence for a Direct Circuit Linking Nociceptive Transmission through the Parabrachial Complex with Pain-Modulating Neurons of the Rostral Ventromedial Medulla (RVM)
(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
Optogenetic Evidence for a Direct Circuit Linking Nociceptive Transmission through the Parabrachial Complex with Pain-Modulating Neurons of the Rostral Ventromedial Medulla (RVM)
QiLiang Chen, Zachary Roeder, Ming-Hua Li, YangMiao Zhang, Susan L. Ingram, Mary M. Heinricher
eNeuro 19 June 2017, 4 (3) ENEURO.0202-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0202-17.2017

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
Optogenetic Evidence for a Direct Circuit Linking Nociceptive Transmission through the Parabrachial Complex with Pain-Modulating Neurons of the Rostral Ventromedial Medulla (RVM)
QiLiang Chen, Zachary Roeder, Ming-Hua Li, YangMiao Zhang, Susan L. Ingram, Mary M. Heinricher
eNeuro 19 June 2017, 4 (3) ENEURO.0202-17.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0202-17.2017
Reddit logo 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
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • brainstem
  • Descending Control
  • pain modulation
  • raphe
  • rat

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

  • Heterozygous Dab1 null mutation disrupts neocortical and hippocampal development
  • The nasal solitary chemosensory cell signaling pathway triggers mouse avoidance behavior to inhaled nebulized irritants
  • Different control strategies drive interlimb differences in performance and adaptation during reaching movements in novel dynamics
Show more New Research

Sensory and Motor Systems

  • The nasal solitary chemosensory cell signaling pathway triggers mouse avoidance behavior to inhaled nebulized irritants
  • Different control strategies drive interlimb differences in performance and adaptation during reaching movements in novel dynamics
  • Taste-odor association learning alters the dynamics of intra-oral odor responses in the posterior piriform cortex of awake rats
Show more Sensory and Motor Systems

Subjects

  • Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 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 Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 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.