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

Inhibition of a Descending Prefrontal Circuit Prevents Ketamine-Induced Stress Resilience in Females

S. D. Dolzani, M. V. Baratta, J. M. Moss, N. L. Leslie, S. G. Tilden, A. T. Sørensen, L. R. Watkins, Y. Lin and S. F. Maier
eNeuro 26 February 2018, 5 (1) ENEURO.0025-18.2018; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0025-18.2018
S. D. Dolzani
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
2Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for S. D. Dolzani
M. V. Baratta
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. M. Moss
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J. M. Moss
N. L. Leslie
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. G. Tilden
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. T. Sørensen
3Department of Neuroscience, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 1165 Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A. T. Sørensen
L. R. Watkins
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Y. Lin
4McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. F. Maier
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Low-dose ketamine protects female rats against later stress-induced JSE deficits. A, Rats received low (10 mg/kg, i.p.) or high (40 mg/kg, i.p.) dose ketamine one week before stress or HC treatment. JSE was measured 24 h after stress or HC treatment. Tukey’s post hoc method: *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001. Bars represent group mean ± SEM.

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

    Low-dose ketamine blunts stress-induced DRN activation. A, Representative photomicrograph showing a 5-HT+ cell (red arrow), Fos+ cell (black arrow), and double-labeled cell expressing 5-HT and Fos (white arrow). B, Total number of Fos+ cells (left) and percentage of 5-HT+ cells also expressing Fos within the rostral, middle, and caudal subregions of the DRN. Tukey’s post hoc method: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. Bars represent group mean ± SEM.

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

    Ketamine-induced RAM labeling of a transcriptionally active neural ensemble that is later activated by uncontrollable stress. A, Schematic timeline of the experimental procedure. Rats were injected with AAV-NLS-RAM-mKate2 (RAM). Nine days later, rats received a single systemic injection of low-dose ketamine (10 mg/kg, i.p.), high-dose ketamine (40 mg/kg, i.p.), or saline. Seventy-two hours later, rats were subjected to IS or left undisturbed in their homecage. B, Schematic diagram of a coronal section of rat brain demonstrating the location of RAM injections into the PL. Viral injection verification was confirmed with eYFP and RAM + Fos were quantified in the PL subregion denoted with a dashed rectangle. C, Representative images of the PL showing eYFP+ cells (green), RAM+ cells (red), Fos+ cells (blue), and RAM cells expressing Fos (denoted with yellow arrows in far right panel). Scale bar: 100 μm and applies to all images. D, Enlarged image of the PL showing RAM (denoted with red arrow), Fos (denoted with white arrow), and a RAM cell expressing Fos (denoted with yellow arrow). Scale bar: 50 μm. E, Number of RAM labeled cells (left), Fos+ cells (middle), and percentage of double-labeled RAM+ cells that also express Fos (right) in the PL of rats that received ketamine or saline followed by later IS or HC treatment. Tukey’s post hoc method: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 for graph of RAM+ cells and % RAM cells expressing Fos. Two-way ANOVA main effect: ***p < 0.001 for graph of Fos+. Bars represent group mean ± SEM.

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

    Acute ketamine activates the PL-DRN pathway. A, Schematic diagram of the experimental procedure. Rats were injected with red fluorescent RBs in the DRN. Two weeks later, rats received a single systemic injection of ketamine (10 mg/kg, i.p.) or saline. Two hours later, rats were killed. RB and Fos expression was assessed in the PL. B, Representative images of the PL showing RB+ cells (red), Fos+ cells (green), and RB + Fos (denoted with white arrows in far right panel). Scale bar: 50 μm and applies to all images. C, Number of RB labeled cells (left), Fos+ cells (middle), and percentage of double-labeled RB-labeled cells that also express Fos (right) in the PL of rats that received ketamine or saline. Unpaired t test: **p < 0.01. Bars represent group mean ± SEM.

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

    hM4Di prevents the effects of prior ketamine on activation of the PL-DRN pathway. A, Schematic diagram of the injection procedure. Rats were injected with retrogradely transported AAV vectors encoding Cre and eGFP. Five days later, rats were injected with Cre-dependent AAV vectors encoding hM4Di-mCherry Scale bar: 250 μm and applies to both images. B, Representative images of the PL showing hM4Di-mCherry expression (left), Fos expression (middle), and the colocalization of hM4Di-mCherry and Fos (right). Scale bar: 50 μm. C, Number of hM4Di-mCherry labeled cells (left), Fos+ cells (middle), and percentage of hM4Di-mCherry expressing cells that also express Fos (right) in the PL of rats that received ketamine before CNO or vehicle. Unpaired t test: **p < 0.01. Bars represent group mean ± SEM.

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

    hM4Di-mediated inhibition of the PL-DRN pathway prevents the prophylactic effect of prior ketamine on JSE. Rats previously injected with hM4Di or mCherry targeted to the PL-DRN pathway received a single injection of saline or ketamine one week before IS or HC. JSE was assessed 24 h after IS or HC. Tukey’s post hoc method: **p < 0.01. Bars represent group mean ± SEM. Symbols represent mean social exploration for rats that received HC or IS during diestrus, proestrus, or estrus.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.
    FigureData StructureType of testANOVA p values, t test p values, 95% CI
    Fig. 1Normal distributionTwo-way ANOVAMain effect of stress: p < 0.0001
    Main effect of drug: p < 0.0001
    Interaction: p = 0.0249
    Tukey’s multiple comparisons test
    Homecage:saline vs homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg)9−19.55 to 10.49
    Homecage:saline vs homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)−10.27 to 20.6
    Homecage:saline vs stress:saline7.037 to 37.08
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)−17.34 to 12.7
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)6.635 to 37.5
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)−5.735 to 25.13
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:saline11.57 to 41.61
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)−12.81 to 17.23
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)11.16 to 42.03
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:saline1.459 to 32.32
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)−22.92 to 7.942
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)1.067 to 32.73
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)−39.4 to −9.36
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)−15.42 to 15.44
    Stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)8.958 to 39.82
    Fig. 2Normal distributionANOVA
    Total 5-HT RostralTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = 0.16
    Drug: p = 0.47
    Interaction: p = 0.81
    Total 5-HT MiddleTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = 0.59
    Drug: p = 0.06
    Interaction: p = 0.60
    Total 5-HT CaudalTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = 0.55
    Drug: p = 0.23
    Interaction: p = 0.16
    Fig. 2, middleANOVA
    Total Fos RostralTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = 0.0004
    Drug: p = 0.047
    Interaction: p = 0.055
    Tukey's multiple comparisons test
    Saline:HC vs saline:IS
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:IS
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:IS
    Ketamine:HC vs ketamine:IS
    −25.9 to −5.303
    −10.1 to 10.5
    −14.76 to 4.959
    5.503 to 26.1
    0.8412 to 20.56
    −14.96 to 4.759
    Total Fos MiddleTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = 0.0004
    Drug: p = 0.04
    Interaction: p = 0.044
    Tukey's multiple comparisons test
    Saline:HC vs saline:IS
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:IS
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:IS
    Ketamine:HC vs ketamine:IS
    −17.4 to −3.713
    −6.544 to 6.744
    −9.418 to 3.251
    3.526 to 17.78
    0.6301 to 14.31
    −9.827 to 3.46
    Total Fos CaudalTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = 0.004
    Drug: p = 0.62
    Interaction: p = 0.83
    Tukey's multiple comparisons test
    Saline:HC vs saline:IS
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:IS
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:IS
    Ketamine:HC vs ketamine:IS
    −7.269 to 0.5419
    −3.602 to 4.209
    −6.341 to 1.069
    −0.4295 to 7.763
    −3.178 to 4.633
    −6.845 to 0.9661
    Fig. 2, rightNormal distribution
    5-HT + Fos RostralTwo-way ANOVAStress: p < 0.0001
    Drug: p = 0.046
    Interaction: p = 0.08
    Tukey's multiple comparisons test
    Saline:HC vs saline:IS
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:IS
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:IS
    Ketamine:HC vs ketamine:IS
    −9.626 to −2.267
    −3.43 to 3.929
    −5.808 to 1.238
    2.516 to 9.876
    0.1389 to 7.185
    −6.057 to 0.989
    5-HT + Fos MiddleTwo-way ANOVAStress: p < 0.0001
    Drug: p = 0.03
    Interaction: p = 0.03
    Tukey's multiple comparisons test
    Saline:HC vs saline:IS
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:IS
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:IS
    Ketamine:HC vs ketamine:IS
    −7.904 to −2.494
    −2.625 to 2.628
    −4.548 to 0.4605
    2.382 to 8.019
    0.4502 to 5.86
    −4.672 to 0.581
    5-HT + Fos CaudalTwo-way ANOVAStress: p < 0.0001
    Drug: p = 0.03
    Interaction: p = 0.03
    Tukey's multiple comparisons test
    Saline:HC vs saline:IS
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:HC vs ketamine:IS
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:HC
    Saline:IS vs ketamine:IS
    Ketamine:HC vs ketamine:IS
    −4.4 to −0.994
    −1.515 to 1.892
    −3.019 to 0.212
    1.099 to 4.672
    −0.4097 to 2.996
    −3.295 to 0.1108
    Fig. 3Normal distribution
    Total RAMTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = .99
    Drug: p = 0.0003
    Interaction: p = 0.87
    Homecage:saline vs Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs stress:saline
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:saline
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:saline
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    −46.01 to 13.18
    −60.26 to −1.071
    −27.01 to 32.18
    −50.1 to 9.096
    −57.58 to −0.5401
    −43.85 to 15.35
    −10.6 to 48.6
    −33.68 to 25.51
    −41.16 to 15.88
    3.654 to 62.85
    −19.43 to 39.76
    −26.91 to 30.13
    −52.68 to 6.513
    −60.16 to −3.123
    −37.08 to 19.96
    Total FosTwo-way ANOVAStress: p < 0.0001
    Drug: p = 0.1326
    Interaction: p = 0.1498
    Homecage:saline vs homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs stress:saline
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:saline
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:saline
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    −27.09 to 12.92
    −34.42 to 5.587
    −48.67 to −8.663
    −59 to −19
    −47.66 to −9.105
    −27.34 to 12.67
    −41.59 to −1.579
    −51.92 to −11.91
    −40.57 to −2.021
    −34.25 to 5.754
    −44.59 to −4.579
    −33.24 to 5.312
    −30.34 to 9.671
    −18.99 to 19.56
    −8.657 to 29.9
    % RAM + FosTwo-way ANOVAStress: p = 0.0064
    Drug: p < 0.0001
    Interaction: p = 0.0128
    Homecage:saline vs homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs stress:saline
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:saline
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:saline
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Homecage:ketamine (40 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    −21.56 to 5.718
    −16.43 to 10.84
    −13.64 to 13.64
    −40.35 to −13.07
    −19.63 to 6.654
    −8.516 to 18.76
    −5.718 to 21.56
    −32.43 to −5.156
    −11.71 to 14.57
    −10.84 to 16.43
    −37.55 to −10.28
    −16.83 to 9.452
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg)
    Stress:saline vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    Stress:ketamine (10 mg/kg) vs stress:ketamine (40 mg/kg)
    −40.35 to −13.07
    −19.63 to 6.654
    7.084 to 33.37
    Fig. 4
    Total RB
    Normal distributionIndependent samples t test
    T,df
    p = 0.49
    t = 0.70; df = 13
    Fig. 4
    Total Fos
    Normal distributionIndependent samples t test
    T,df
    p = 0.0012
    t = 4.145; df = 13
    Fig. 4C
    % Double Label
    Normal distributionIndependent samples t test
    T,df
    p = 0.0043
    t = 3.453; df = 13
    Fig. 5Normal distributionIndependent samples t test
    T,df
    Total hM4Dip = 0.83
    t = 0.21; df = 8
    Total Fosp = 0.0025
    t = 0.4.34; df = 8
    hM4Di + Fosp = 0.0037
    t = 4.05; df = 8
    Fig. 6Normal distributionThree-way ANOVAp value, power
    Drug
    Stress
    Virus
    Drug*Stress
    Drug*Virus
    Stress*Virus
    Drug*Stress*Virus
    0.053, 0.47
    <0.0001, 1.0
    0.085, 0.39
    0.004, 0.851
    0.18, 0.252
    0.0001, 0.989
    0.023, 0.59
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (1)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 1
January/February 2018
  • 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.
Inhibition of a Descending Prefrontal Circuit Prevents Ketamine-Induced Stress Resilience in Females
(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
Inhibition of a Descending Prefrontal Circuit Prevents Ketamine-Induced Stress Resilience in Females
S. D. Dolzani, M. V. Baratta, J. M. Moss, N. L. Leslie, S. G. Tilden, A. T. Sørensen, L. R. Watkins, Y. Lin, S. F. Maier
eNeuro 26 February 2018, 5 (1) ENEURO.0025-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0025-18.2018

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
Inhibition of a Descending Prefrontal Circuit Prevents Ketamine-Induced Stress Resilience in Females
S. D. Dolzani, M. V. Baratta, J. M. Moss, N. L. Leslie, S. G. Tilden, A. T. Sørensen, L. R. Watkins, Y. Lin, S. F. Maier
eNeuro 26 February 2018, 5 (1) ENEURO.0025-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0025-18.2018
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

  • dorsal raphe nucleus
  • ketamine
  • prefrontal cortex
  • resilience
  • serotonin
  • stress

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
  • TrkB Signaling Influences Gene Expression in Cortistatin-Expressing Interneurons
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • The Novel Progressive Ratio with Reset Task Reveals Adaptive Effort-Delay Trade-Offs
  • TriNet-MTL: A Multi-Branch Deep Learning Framework for Biometric Identification and Cognitive State Inference from Auditory-Evoked EEG
  • When Familiar Faces Feel Better: A Framework for Social Neurocognitive Aging in a Rat Model
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

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

Content

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

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

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

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

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