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

The NeuroD6 Subtype of VTA Neurons Contributes to Psychostimulant Sensitization and Behavioral Reinforcement

Zisis Bimpisidis, Niclas König, Stefanos Stagkourakis, Vivien Zell, Bianca Vlcek, Sylvie Dumas, Bruno Giros, Christian Broberger, Thomas S. Hnasko and Åsa Wallén-Mackenzie
eNeuro 16 May 2019, 6 (3) ENEURO.0066-19.2019; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0066-19.2019
Zisis Bimpisidis
1Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Zisis Bimpisidis
Niclas König
1Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefanos Stagkourakis
2Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vivien Zell
3Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bianca Vlcek
1Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bianca Vlcek
Sylvie Dumas
5Oramacell, 8 Rue Grégoire de Tours, 75006 Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruno Giros
6Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, INSERM UMRS 1130; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 8246; Sorbonne University Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, Neurosciences Paris-Seine, F-75005, Paris, France
7Douglas Mental Health University Institute 6875 LaSalle blvd, Verdun (Qc), H4H 1R3, Montreal, Canada
8Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bruno Giros
Christian Broberger
2Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christian Broberger
Thomas S. Hnasko
3Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA
4Research Service VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA 92161
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thomas S. Hnasko
Åsa Wallén-Mackenzie
1Department of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Åsa Wallén-Mackenzie
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    NeuroD6 mRNA is found in a modest population of the VTA, co-localizes with dopaminergic markers and partially with a glutamatergic marker. A–G, Double FISH in the ventral midbrain of adult wild-type mice detecting the following mRNAs. A, A’, NeuroD6 (red). B, B’, Th (green). C, C’, NeuroD6 (red) and Th (green). Th/NeuroD6 mRNA overlap shown in yellow. Low magnification to the left; close-ups to the right. Schematic outline shows borders for SNc and subregions of VTA: PN, PIF, PBP, IF, RLi. D, Quantification of percentage of NeuroD6-positive cells among all Th VTA cells; all NeuroD6 cells are positive for Th mRNA. E, NeuroD6 (red) and Dat (green), inset with high magnification of Dat/NeuroD6 mRNA overlap (yellow). F, NeuroD6 (red) and Vglut2 (green). G, NeuroD6 (red) and Viaat (green), inset with high magnification of Viaat-negative/NeuroD6-positive (red). H–P, Triple-labeling FISH in the ventral midbrain of adult wild-type mice detecting: (H) Th (blue); (I) NeuroD6 (red); (J) Vglut2 (green) mRNAs and their co-localization: (K) NeuroD6/Th; (L) NeuroD6/Vglut2; (M) Th/NeuroD6/Vglut2. Cellular closeups: (N) NeuroD6/Th (top), NeuroD6/Vglut2 (middle), Th/NeuroD6/Vglut2 (bottom). Arrows point to NeuroD6 mRNA-positive cells. O, Quantification of percentage of NeuroD6+/Th+/Vglut2+ and NeuroD6+/Th+/Vglut2− neurons of the VTA. P, Schematic illustration of distribution pattern of NeuroD6+/Th+/Vglut2+ and NeuroD6+/Th+/Vglut2− neurons within the VTA (same as shown with experimental data in M). NeuroD6+/Th+/Vglut2- cells in magenta; NeuroD6+/Th+/Vglut2+ cells in cyan. VTA, ventral tegmental area; SNc, substantia nigra pars compacta; PBP, parabrachial pigmented nucleus; PN, paranigral nucleus; PIF, parainterfascicular nucleus; RLi, rostral linear nucleus; IF, interfascicular nucleus. FISH, fluorescent in situ; Dat, Dopamine transporter; Th, Tyrosine hydroxylase; Vglut2, Vesicular glutamate transporter 2; Viaat, Vesicular inhibitory amino acid transporter.

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

    Conditional ablation of the Vmat2 gene in NEX-Cre neurons, a model for spatially restricted DA deficiency. A, Breeding strategy for generation of mice gene-targeted for Vmat2 in VTA NEX-Cre neurons. NEX-Cre transgenic mice were mated to Vmat2lox/lox mice to generate NEX-Cre-positive mice homozygous for Vmat2lox/lox (Vmat2lox/lox;NEX-Cre-tg: cKO mice) and littermate control mice homozygous for Vmat2lox/lox and negative for the NEX-Cre transgene (Vmat2lox/lox;NEX-Cre-wt: Ctrl mice). B, Two-probe approach for detection of Vmat2 mRNA by ISH. Probe 1 detects exons 6–15 and probe 2 detects exon 2 of the Vmat2 gene. Exon 2 is floxed in Vmat2lox/lox mice leading to failure of probe 2-binding to Vmat2 mRNA in cKO neurons. C, Implementation of Vmat2 mRNA two-probe approach in Vmat2lox/lox;NEX-Cre-wt (Ctrl, left panel) and Vmat2lox/lox;NEX-Cre-tg (cKO, right panel) brains. Wild-type neurons are positive for both Vmat2 probes, while cKO neurons are only positive for probe 1 due to targeted deletion of exon 2 (detected by probe 2). Probe 1 detected in green and probe 2 detected in blue results in green-blue double-labeling in wild-type cells and green-only labeling in cKO cells. Green arrows point to green-only cells, i.e., VMAT2 cKO cells. D, Vmat2 mRNA two-probe ISH in additional monoaminergic areas. E, TH immunohistochemistry in Ctrl and cKO midbrain and striatum. LC, locus coeruleus; ROB, raphe nucleus obscurus; VMH, ventromedial hypothalamus; VTA, ventral tegmental area; SNc, substantia nigra pars compacta; DStr, dorsal striatum; NAc, nucleus accumbens; OT, olfactory tubercle. TH, Tyrosine hydroxylase; Vmat2/VMAT2, Vesicular monoamine transporter 2; Ctrl, control; cKO, conditional knockout.

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

    Altered responsiveness to psychostimulants upon ablation of Vmat2 gene expression in NeuroD6 VTA neurons. Color coding: Vmat2lox/lox;NEX-Cre-wt (Ctrl) in white; Vmat2lox/lox;NEX-Cre-tg (cKO) in green. A, Weight curve for Ctrl (N = 14) and cKO (N = 23) mice. Data presented as mean weight in grams for each week ± SEM (+p < 0.05 effect of genotype; ###p < 0.001, effect of age). B, Baseline locomotion in novel environment. Ctrl (N = 17) and cKO (N = 17). Data expressed as mean distance moved in 5-min bins ± SEM (###p < 0.001, effect of time). C, Sucrose preference expressed as percentage of preference for sucrose over tap water ± SEM. Ctrl (N = 14) and cKO (N = 21; ###p < 0.001 effect of sucrose concentration). D, Ethanol preference expressed as percentage of preference for ethanol solution over tap water ± SEM. Ctrl (N = 14) and cKO (N = 14; ###p < 0.001 effect of ethanol concentration, §§§p < 0.001 3% vs 6% and 10% in ctrl mice). E, Cocaine-induced locomotion. Top, Administration schedule. Bottom, Average distance moved 1 h after injection of saline and 5, 10, 20 mg/kg of cocaine; Ctrl (N = 14) and cKO (N = 21) mice. Data expressed as total distance moved during the 1-h recording period ± SEM (###p < 0.001 effect of session). F, Amphetamine-induced locomotion. Top, Administration schedule. Bottom, Average distance moved 1.5 h after injection; Ctrl (N = 17) and cKO mice (N = 17). Data presented as mean of total distance moved in cm ± SEM for each session; ++p < 0.01 effect of genotype, ###p < 0.001 effect of session, *p < 0.05 and ***p < 0.001 cKO versus Ctrl. G, CPP. Illustration of setup and administration schedule. H, J, Preference score displayed as Δsec, the difference between time spent in drug-paired compared during pretest and test ± SEM, positive value indicates preference (cocaine: Ctrl N = 12, cKO N = 15; amphetamine: Ctrl N = 13, cKO N = 16). I, K, Cocaine-induced and amphetamine-induced locomotion during conditioning in the CPP setup displayed as distance moved in 30 min ± SEM (cocaine: Ctrl N = 12, cKO N = 15; amphetamine: Ctrl N = 15, cKO N = 17, +p = 0.031 effect of genotype, ##p = 0.006, ###p < 0.001 effect of session). Ctrl, Control; cKO, conditional knockout; CPP, Conditioned place preference.

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

    NeuroD6 mRNA co-localizes partly with Calb2 mRNA, but Calb2 mRNA is abundant throughout the VTA and SNc. Double-labeling FISH in the ventral midbrain of adult wild-type mice detecting the following mRNAs. A, NeuroD6 (red) and Calb2 (green), inset with high magnification of overlap (yellow), pie charts illustrating quantification of overlap between NeuroD6 and Calb2. B, Calb (red) and Th (green), inset with high magnification of overlap (yellow), pie charts illustrating quantification of overlap between Th and Calb2. C, Calb2 (red) and Dat (green), inset with high magnification of Dat/Calb2 mRNA overlap (yellow), pie chart illustrating quantification of overlap between Th and Calb2. D, Calb2 (red) and Vglut2 (green), inset with high magnification of Vglut2/Calb2 mRNA overlap (yellow) in blue square and Vglut2-negative/Calb2-positive (red) in white square, pie chart illustrating quantification of overlap between Th and Calb2. E, Calb2 (red) and Viaat (green), inset with high magnification of Viaat negative or positive (red, yellow, green) in white square. VTA, ventral tegmental area; SNc, substantia nigra pars compacta; PBP, parabrachial pigmented nucleus; PN, paranigral nucleus; PIF, parainterfascicular nucleus; RLi, rostral linear nucleus; IF, interfascicular nucleus. Calb2, Calbindin 2 (Calretinin); Dat, Dopamine transporter; Th, Tyrosine hydroxylase; Vglut2, Vesicular glutamate transporter 2; Viaat, Vesicular inhibitory amino acid transporter; FISH, fluorescent in situ hybridization.

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

    Spatially restricted striatal innervation by NeuroD6 and Calb2 VTA neurons. A, Schematic illustration of stereotaxic injection into VTA of Cre-dependent DIO-ChR2-eYFP DNA construct packaged into AAV. B, Representative VTA neurons immunopositive for TH (red), YFP (green), or both (yellow; DIO-ChR2-eYFP-injected NEX-Cre mice). C–F, Representative pictures of VTA (left panels) and striatal complex (right panels) in DIO-ChR2-eYFP-injected DAT-Cre (C–C’’), Vglut2-Cre (D–D’’), Calb2-Cre (E–E’’), and NEX-Cre (F–F’’) mice. Panel far right, Schematic summary of striatal innervation pattern. Additional target areas listed in Table 2. Quantification of YFP and TH immunofluorescent overlap: schematic illustration of four representative VTA areas selected for counting, shown as squares and labeled VTA 1–4 (G). Results of quantifications shown in histograms for each VTA area and the total sum (H). PBP, parabrachial pigmented nucleus; PN, paranigral nucleus; PIF, parainterfascicular nucleus; RLi, rostral linear nucleus; IF, interfascicular nucleus; SNc, substantia nigra pars compacta; SNr, substantia nigra pars reticulata; IPR, interpeduncular nucleus, rostral subnucleus; IPC, interpeduncular nucleus, caudal subnucleus; DMStr, dorsomedial striatum; NAcC, nucleus accumbens core; NAcSh, nucleus accumbens shell; aca; anterior commissure, anterior part; OT, olfactory tubercle. DAT, Dopamine transporter, Calb2, Calbindin 2 (Calretinin); NEX, NeuroD6; Vglut2; Vesicular glutamate transporter 2; Th, Tyrosine hydroxylase; ChR2; Channelrhodopsin 2; eYFP, enhanced Yellow fluorescent protein.

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

    Optogenetic stimulation in striatal target areas of NeuroD6 and Calb2 VTA neurons verifies DA release. A, Schematic representation of stereotaxic injection into VTA of Cre-dependent DIO-ChR2-eYFP and DIO-eYFP (Ctrl); FSCV recording sites within NAcSh and OT (red dots). B, Illustration of the experimental setup. C, Representative light-evoked DA recordings from injected DAT-Cre (left), NEX-Cre (middle), and Calb2-Cre (right) mice in the NAcSh (top) and the OT (bottom). D, Quantification of photostimulation-evoked DA release in the NAc shell (left) and OT (right); N = 10 recording sites per group for each region. Mice used for the recordings: DAT-Cre/ChR2 N = 2, DAT-Cre/eYFP N = 2, NEX-Cre/ChR2 N = 3, NEX-Cre/eYFP N = 2 Calb2-Cre/ChR2 N = 3, and Calb2-Cre/eYFP N = 2. Box and whisker plots, Center lines indicate medians, box edges represent the interquartile range, whiskers extend to the minimal and maximal values (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 ChR2 vs ctrl). DStr, dorsal striatum; NAcSh, nucleus accumbens shell; OT, olfactory tubercle. DAT, Dopamine transporter; Calb2, Calbindin 2 (Calretinin); ChR2; Channelrhodopsin 2; eYFP, enhanced Yellow fluorescent protein; NEX, NeuroD6.

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

    Optogenetic stimulation in striatal target areas of NeuroD6 and Calb2 VTA neurons reveals glutamatergic postsynaptic responses. A, Representative picture from patch-clamp slice electrophysiology in NAcSh of NEX-Cre mice and OT of Calb2-Cre mice injected with DIO-ChR2-eYFP. B, Representative traces of photostimulation-evoked postsynaptic currents recorded from NAcSh cells from NEX-Cre and OT cells from Calb2-Cre mice injected with DIO-ChR2-eYFP. C, Pie charts represent the percentage of cells showing EPSCs (white) versus negative (black) upon photostimulation of terminals in the NAcSh (N = 18 cells from four mice) of NEX-Cre mice, and OT (N = 14 cells from 4 mice) of Calb2-Cre mice. The y-axis shows amplitude in pA; each circle represents one cell, and bold lines the mean amplitude ± SEM. D, Patch-clamp recordings pre-bath (control) and post-bath application of DNQX upon photostimulation in NAcSh of NEX-Cre/ChR2 (left, N = 6 cells from three mice) and OT of Calb2-Cre/ChR2 mice (right, N = 5 cells from three mice). Each circle represents one cell (*p < 0.05 control vs DNQX). NAcSh, nucleus accumbens shell; OT, olfactory tubercle. Calb2, Calbindin 2 (Calretinin); NEX; NeuroD6; ChR2; Channelrhodopsin 2; eYFP, enhanced Yellow fluorescent protein.

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

    Optogenetic activation of NeuroD6 VTA neurons, but not Calb2 VTA neurons, induces place preference. A, Schematic drawing of stereotaxic injection into VTA of Cre-dependent DIO-ChR2-eYFP and of experimental setup for RT-PP analysis. B–F, Time spent in light-paired (blue), unpaired (white during phase 1, black during reversal phase), and neutral (gray) compartments shown as mean percentage of time spent in each compartment ± SEM (left; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001 paired vs unpaired compartment); average percentage of time spent in each compartment during days 3, 4, 6, and 7 ± SEM (bar graphs; right; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001 vs light-paired compartment; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 vs unpaired compartment). DAT-Cre N = 10; Vglut2-Cre N = 7; Calb2-Cre N = 7; NEX-Cre N = 5. F, High-power stimulation of bilaterally injected NEX-Cre mice (N = 4). G, Schematic illustration of optical fiber placement in mice analyzed in RT-PP analysis. NS, non-significant. DAT, Dopamine transporter; Calb2, Calbindin 2 (Calretinin); NEX, NeuroD6; Vglut2; Vesicular glutamate transporter 2; ChR2; Channelrhodopsin 2; eYFP, enhanced Yellow fluorescent protein.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Extended Data
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Statistical analysis of results obtained in behavioral and electrophysiological experiments

    FigureData structureType of testSample SizeStatistical data
    Figure 3A Weight analysis of ctrl and cKO miceNormally distributedTwo-way ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 14(M = 8, F = 6)cKO N = 23(M = 15, F = 8)Interaction: p = 0.996, F(4,158) = 0.0447Week: p < 0.001, F(4,158) = 79.8Genotype: p = 0.032, F(1,158) = 4.67Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKOw4 p = 0.908; 95% CI: –3.55 to 1.75w5 p = 0.966; 95% CI: –2.70 to 1.57w6 p = 0.876; 95% CI: –2.91 to 1.35w7 p = 0.720; 95% CI: –3.19 to 1.15w8 p = 0.783; 95%CI: –3.11 to 1.23
    Figure 3B Baseline locomotion of ctrl and cKO mice for 30 min in 5-min binsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 17(M = 8, F = 9)cKO N = 17(M = 13, F = 4)Interaction: p = 0.256, F(5,160) = 1.33Time: p < 0.001, F(5,160) = 69.5Genotype: p = 0.535, F(1,32) = 0.00912Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKO5 p > 0.999; 95% CI: –287 to 21110 p > 0.999; 95% CI: –217 to 28215 p = 0.952; 95% CI: –170 to 32920 p > 0.999; 95% CI: –236 to 26325 p = 0.886; 95% CI: –346 to 15330 p = 0.993; 95% CI: –195 to 304
    Figure 3C Sucrose preference of ctrl and cKO mice for 1%, 3%, and 10% sucrose solutionsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 14(M = 8, F = 6)cKO N = 21(M = 13, F = 8)Interaction: p = 0.475, F(2,66) = 0.752Concentration: p < 0.001, F(2,66) = 151Genotype: p = 0.297, F(1,33) = 1.12Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKO1% p > 0.999; 95% CI: –5.21 to 5.693% p = 0.294; 95% CI: –1.83 to 9.0810% p = 0.991; 95% CI: –4.85 to 6.05
    Figure 3D Ethanol preference of ctrl and cKO mice for 3%, 6%, and 10% ethanol concentrationsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 14(M = 7, F = 7)cKO N = 14(M = 6, F = 8)Interaction: p = 0.129, F(2,52) = 2.13Concentration: p < 0.001, F(2,52) = 14.2Genotype: p = 0.334, F(1,26) = 0.969Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKO3% p = 0.983; 95% CI: –9.31 to 7.116% p = 0.453; 95% CI: –3.68 to 12.710% p = 0.396; 95% CI: –3.38 to 13.0Ctrl3% vs 6% p < 0.001; 95% CI: –14.7 to –3.453% vs 10% p < 0.001; 95% CI: –16.9 to –5.586% vs 10% p = 0.733; 95% CI: –7.78 to 3.52cKO3% vs 6% p = 0.354; 95% CI: –9.11 to 2.183% vs 10% p = 0.072; 95% CI: –10.9 to 0.3546% vs 10% p = 0.814; 95% CI: –7.47 to 3.82
    Figure 3E Injection-induced locomotion for ctrl and cKO mice after saline and 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg injections of cocaineNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 14(M = 8, F = 6)cKO N = 21(M = 13, F = 8)Interaction: p = 0.396, F(3,99) = 1Session: p < 0.001, F(3,99) = 108Genotype: p = 0.208, F(1,33) = 1.65Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKOSaline p = 0.966; 95% CI: –3437 to 54365 mg/kg. p = 0.962; 95% CI: –3410 to 546410 mg/kg. p = 0.887; 95% CI: –3015 to 585820 mg/kg. p = 0.152; 95% CI: –802 to 8071
    Figure 3F Amphetamine- induced (3 mg/kg) locomotion under a sensitization protocol for ctrl and cKO miceNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 17(M = 8, F = 9)cKO N = 17(M = 13, F = 4)Interaction: p < 0.001, F(5,160) = 4.79Session: p < 0.001, F(5,160) = 40.9Genotype: p = 0.005, F(1,32) = 9.09Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKODay1 p > 0.999; 95% CI: –13,977 to 12,091Day2 p = 0.266; 95% CI: –3371 to 22,696Day3 p = 0.063; 95% CI: –407 to 25,661Day4 p = 0.011; 95% CI: –2481 to 28,549Day5 p < 0.001; 95% CI: –6873 to 32,941Day17 p = 0.029; 95% CI: –928 to 26,996
    Figure 3HCocaine (20 mg/kg, i.p) CPP for ctrl and cKO miceNormally distributedUnpaired t testCtrl N = 12 (M = 6, F = 6)cKO N = 15 (M = 6, F = 9)t testctrl vs cKOp = 0.860; 95% CI: –162.0 to 136.1
    Figure 3H, bottom panelAmphetamine (3 mg/kg, i.p.) CPP for ctrl and cKO miceAssumed normalityUnpaired t testCtrl N = 13 (M = 6, F = 7)cKO N = 16 (M = 9, F = 7)t testctrl vs cKOp = 0.744; 95% CI: –365.5 to 264.3
    Figure 3ICocaine-induced locomotion during the CPP for ctrl and cKO miceAssumed normalityTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 12 (M = 6, F = 6)cKO N = 15 (M = 6, F = 9)Interaction: p = 0.652, F(3,75) = 0.5Session: p = 0.006, F(3,75) = 4.4Genotype: p = 0.031, F(1,25) = 5.2Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKOInjection 1: p = 0.373; 95% CI: –6850 to 1526Injection 2: p = 0.067; 95% CI: –8185 to 191Injection 3: p = 0.115; 95% CI: –7818 to 558Injection 4: p = 0.475; 95% CI: –6591 to 1785
    Figure 3K, bottom panelAmphetamine-induced locomotion during the CPP for ctrl and cKO miceNormally distributedMixed-effects model (REML) followed by Sidak’s multiple comparison testCtrl N = 15 (M = 7, F = 8)cKO N = 17 (M = 10, F = 7)Interaction: p = 0.567, F(3,85) = 0.680Session: p < 0.001, F(3,85) = 24.0Genotype: p = 0.803, F(1,30) = 0.0631Multiple comparisonsCtrl vs cKOInjection 1: p = 0.941; 95% CI: –2522 to 1473Injection 2: p = 0.931; 95% CI: –1431 to 2517Injection 3: p = 0.995; 95% CI: –1783 to 2331Injection 4: p = 0.989; 95% CI: –1671 to 2327
    Figure 6D, leftOptically evoked DA release in NAcSh of DAT-, NEX-, and Calb2-Cre mice injected with ChR2 or eYFPNormally distributedUnpaired t test10 observations for each group and virusDAT-Cre/Chr2 N = 2(M = 0, F = 2)DAT-Cre/eYFP N = 2(M = 1, F = 1)NEX-Cre/Chr2 N = 3(M = 2, F = 1)NEX-Cre/eYFP N = 2(M = 0, F = 2)Calb2-Cre/Chr2 N = 3(M = 1, F = 2)Calb2-Cre/eYFP N = 2(M = 0, F = 2)t testDAT-Cre/ChR2 vs DAT-Cre/eYFPp < 0.0001; 95% CI: –1.272 to –0.6540NEX-Cre/ChR2 vs NEX-Cre/eYFPp < 0.0001; 95% CI: –0.6289 to –0.2909Calb2-Cre/ChR2 vs Calb2-Cre/eYFPp = 0.0148; 95% CI: –0.01602 to –0.001988
    Figure 6D, rightOptically evoked DA release in OT of DAT-, NEX-, and Calb2-Cre mice injected with ChR2 or eYFPNormally distributedUnpaired t testAs abovet testDAT-Cre/ChR2 vs DAT-Cre/eYFPp < 0.0001; 95% CI: –0.2354 to –0.1810NEX-Cre/ChR2 vs NEX-Cre/eYFPp = 0.0049; 95% CI: –0.01295 to –0.002704Calb2-Cre/ChR2 vs Calb2-Cre/eYFPp = 0.0002; 95% CI: –0.02022 to –0.007554
    Figure 7D, left panelOptically evoked EPSCs in NAcSh of NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice before (control) and after DNQX bath applicationAssumed normalityPaired t test6 cells from 3 NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice(M = 3, F = 0)p = 0.0481; 95% CI: –61.86 to –0.3739
    Figure 7D, right panelOptically evoked EPSCs in OT of Calb2-Cre/ChR2 mice before (control) and after DNQX bath applicationAssumed normalityPaired t test5 cells from 3 Calb2-Cre/ChR2 mice(M = 2, F = 1)p = 0.0456; 95% CI: –89.88 to –1.444
    Figure 8B, leftBehavioral analysis of DAT-Cre/ChR2 mice throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 10(M = 2, F = 8)Interaction: p < 0.001, F(12,108) = 33Day: p = 0.435, F(6,54) = 1Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,18) = 51.8Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.513; 95% CI: –38.4 to –6.29Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 21.7 to 66.4Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 35.7 to 80.4Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 37.6 to 82.3Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 47.3 to 92.0Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 11.5 to 56.1Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 26.7 to 71.4Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –65.7 to –21.0Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 34.4 to 79.1Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –85.0 to –40.4Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 43.1 to 87.7Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –67.2 to –22.5Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 33.6 to 78.3
    Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 22.8 to 67.4Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 32.5 to 77.2Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 32.3 to 76.9Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 42.0 to 86.7Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 17.5 to 62.2
    Figure 8B, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for DAT-Cre/ChR2 miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 10(M = 2, F = 8)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 166Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 41.1 to 63.9Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 51.7 to 74.5Unpaired vs neutral p = 0.066; 95% CI: –0.808 to 22.0
    Extended Data Figure 8-1A, leftBehavioral analysis of DAT-Cre-negative mice injected with AAV-ChR2 throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 3(M = 0, F = 3)Interaction: p = 0.562, F(12,24) = 0.898Day: p = 0.569, F(6,12) = 0.830Compartment: p = 0.102, F(2,4) = 4.26Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.010; 95% CI: –49.6 to –4.05Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.074; 95% CI: 44.5 to 1.05Paired vs neutral p = 0.292; 95% CI: –5.3 to 40.3Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.236; 95% CI: –41.0 to 4.57Paired vs neutral p = 0.055; 95% CI: –0.241 to 45.3Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.074; 95% CI: –44.5 to 1.08Paired vs neutral p = 0.204; 95% CI: –4.08 to 41. 5Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.998; 95% CI: –30.3 to 15.3Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 12.0 to 57.6Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.863; 95% CI: –34.5 to 11.0Paired vs neutral p = 0.001; 95% CI: 9.18 to 54.8Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.012; 95% CI: –49.2 to –3.6Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 22.5 to 68.1Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.995; 95% CI: –30.8 to 14.8Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –27.0 to 18.5Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –28.0 to 17.6Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –24.2 to 21.4Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –21.3 to 24.3
    Extended Data Figure 8-1A, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for DAT-Cre-negative/ChR2 miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 3(M = 0, F = 3)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 48.7Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p = 0.358; 95% CI: –15.8 to 5.46Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 16.1 to 37.3Unpaired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 21.2 to 42.5
    Extended Data Figure 8-1B, leftBehavioral analysis of DAT-Cre/eYFP throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 3(M = 0, F = 3)Interaction: p = 0.677, F(12,24) = 0.767Day: p = 0.935, F(6,12) = 0.281Compartment: p = 0.004, F(2,4) = 27.9Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –62.8 to –22.5Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –64.9 to –24.6Paired vs neutral p = 0.198; 95% CI: –3.52 to 36.7Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –63.5 to –23.2Paired vs neutral p = 0.222; 95% CI: –3.85 to 36.4Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –65.9 to –25.6Paired vs neutral p = 0.251; 95% CI: –4.21 to 36.1Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –70.7 to –30.5Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 45.8 to 86.1Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –55.5 to –15.2Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 31.3 to 71.6Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –66.1 to –25.8Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: –42.7 to 82.9
    Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –17.8 to 22.5Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –23.1 to 17.2Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –17.4 to 22.9Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –22.7 to 17.5Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –20.4 to 19.9
    Extended Data Figure 8-1B, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for DAT-Cre/eYFP miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 3(M = 0, F = 3)Compartment p = 0.127, F(2,6) = 2.97Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –55.6 to 54.5Paired vs neutral p = 0.171; 95% CI: –17.5 to 92.6Unpaired vs neutral p = 0.165; 95% CI: –16.9 to 93.1
    Extended Data Figure 8-1C, leftBehavioral analysis of DAT-Cre controls (pooled) throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 6(M = 0, F = 6)Interaction: p = 0.494, F(12,60) = 0.963Day: p = 0.929, F(6,30) = 0.306Compartment: p < 0.001 F(2,10) = 18.6Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –48.6 to –20.8Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –47.1 to –19.4Paired vs neutral p = 0.004; 95% CI: 3.15 to 30.9Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –44.7 to –16.9Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 5.52 to 33.3Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –47.6 to –19.8Paired vs neutral p = 0.003; 95% CI: 3.42 to 31.2Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –42.9 to –15.1Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 36.5 to 64.3Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –37.4 to –9.64Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 27.8 to 55.6Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –50.1 to –22.3Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 40.2 to 67.9Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –16.7 to 11.1Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –17.5 to 10.3Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –15.1 to 12.7Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –15.9 to 11.9Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –13.3 to 14.5
    Extended Data Figure 8-1C, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for DAT-Cre control mice (pooled)Normally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 6(M = 0, F = 6)Compartment p = 0.015, F(2,6) = 9.27Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p = 0.946; 95% CI: –30.6 to 24.8Paired vs neutral p = 0.028; 95% CI: 4.44 to 59.8Unpaired vs neutral p = 0.019; 95% CI: 7.30 to 62.7
    Extended Data Figure 8-1E, leftBehavioral analysis of DAT-Cre/ChR2 mice tested on high power, throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 10(M = 2, F = 8)Interaction: p < 0.001, F(12,36) = 22.6Day: p = 0.455, F(6,18) = 1Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 105Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –45.7 to 26.7Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 26.2 to 98.6Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 38.5 to 111Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 42.7 to 115Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 47.1 to 119Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 17.4 to 89.8Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 16.5 to 88.8Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –98.0 to –25.6Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 36.5 to 109Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –109 to –37.0Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 42.3 to 115Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.407; 95% CI: –62.5 to 9.72Paired vs neutral p = 0.030; 95% CI: 1.98 to 74.3
    Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 26.5 to 98.9Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 32.1 to 104Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 34.8 to 107Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 40.5 to 113Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 4.15 to 76.5
    Extended Data Figure 8-1E, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for DAT-Cre/ChR2 mice under high power stimulationNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 4(M = 0, F = 4)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 404Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 59.9 to 78.2Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 68.1 to 86.5Unpaired vs neutral p = 0.074; 95% CI: –0.934 to 17.4
    Figure 8C, leftBehavioral analysis of Vglut2-Cre/ChR2 mice throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 7(M = 2, F = 5)Interaction: p < 0.001, F(12,72) = 16.1Day: p = 0.181, F(6,36) = 1.58Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,12) = 40.9Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –28.1 to 26.6Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –71.9 to –17.2Paired vs neutral p > 0.999; 95% CI: –18.0 to 36.7Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –68.1 to –13.4Paired vs neutral p > 0.997; 95% CI: –16.9 to 37.8Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.998; 95% CI: –37.8 to 16.9Paired vs neutral p = 0.019; 95% CI: 2.42 to 57.1Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 32.9 to 87.6Paired vs neutral p > 0.999; 95% CI: –28.8 to 25.9Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 27.0 to 81.7Paired vs neutral p > 0.999; 95% CI: –28.9 to 25.8Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.783; 95% CI: –10.8 to 43.9Paired vs neutral p = 0.055; 95% CI: –0.268 to 54.4Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –78.7 to –24.1Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –74.8 to –20.1Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –77.1 to –22.4Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –73.2 to –18.5Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p = 0.952; 95% CI: –41.0 to 13.7
    Figure 8C (right) time spent in paired, unpaired and neutral compartments during the 4 RT-PP days for Vglut2-Cre/ChR2 miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 7(M = 2, F = 5)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 162Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –60.2 to –39.7Paired vs neutral p = 0.469; 95% CI: –6.08 to 14.5Unpaired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 43.9 to 64.4
    Figure 8D, leftBehavioral analysis of Calb2-Cre/ChR2 mice throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 7(M = 0, F = 7)Interaction: p = 0.163, F(12,72) = 1.45Day: p = 0.567, F(6,36) = 0.813Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,12) = 27Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.096; 95% CI: –33.3 to 1.13Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.343; 95% CI: –30.6 to 3.82Paired vs neutral p = 0.010; 95% CI: 2.52 to 37.0Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –21.1 to 13.4Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 8.22 to 42.7Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: 13.4 to 47.9Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: –15.7 to 18.8Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –18.2 to 16.2Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 13.0 to 47.5Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –17.6 to 16.9Paired vs neutral p > 0.999; 95% CI: 10.8 to 45.2Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –13.1 to 21.3Paired vs neutral p > 0.999; 95% CI: 7.45 to 41.9
    Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.991; 95% CI: –24.6 to 9.91Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p = 0.995; 95% CI: –24.2 to 10.2Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –19.5 to 15.0Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –19.1 to 15.3Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –17.2 to 17.3
    Figure 8D, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for Calb2-Cre/ChR2 miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 7(M = 0, F = 7)Compartmentp < 0.001, F(2,6) = 90.1Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p = 0.297; 95% CI: –11.4 to 3.42Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 18.5 to 33.3Unpaired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 22.4 to 37.3
    Extended Data Figure 8-1FBehavioral analysis of Calb2-Cre/ChR2 mice tested on high power, throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 7(M = 0, F = 7)Interaction: p = 0.927, F(12,72) = 0.469Day: p = 0.661, F(6,36) = 0.688Compartment: p = 0.001, F(2,12) = 12.5Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.104; 95% CI: –33.5 to 1.28Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.995; 95% CI: –24.4 to 10.4Paired vs neutral p = 0.019; 95% CI: 1.56 to 36.3Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –22.6 to 12.2Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 47.1 to 119Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.742; 95% CI: –28.2 to 6.54Paired vs neutral p = 0.015; 95% CI: 1.87 to 36.6Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.937; 95% CI: –26.3 to 8.46Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 11.1 to 45.9Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –22.3 to 12.5Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 7.32 to 42.1Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.976; 95% CI: –25.5 to 9.30Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 7.52 to 42.3Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –17.0 to 17.8Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –18.4 to 16.4Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –15.1 to 19.6Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –16.5 to 18.2Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –17.5 to 17.3
    Extended Data Figure 8-1F, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for Calb2-Cre/ChR2 mice under high power stimulationNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 7(M = 0, F = 7)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 47.3Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p = 0.988; 95% CI: –8.15 to 8.97Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 15.1 to 32.3Unpaired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 14.7 to 31.8
    Figure 8E, leftBehavioral analysis of NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 5(M = 1, F = 4)Interaction: p < 0.001, F(12,48) = 4.63Day: p = 0.307, F(6,24) = 1.27Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,8) = 76.8Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –18.7 to 24.9Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.414; 95% CI: –5.70 to 37.9Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 17.1 to 60.7Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –17.5 to 26.1Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 16.6 to 60.3Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: 12.0 to 55.6Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: –5.03 to 38.6Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.020; 95% CI: –45.5 to –1.92Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 15.1 to 58.7Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –51.8 to –8.16Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 20.5 to 64.1Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.937; 95% CI: –32.7 to 10.9Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 16.3 to 59.9
    Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.049; 95% CI: 0.0239 to 43.6Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p = 0.016; 95% CI: 2.38 to 46.0Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.252; 95% CI: –4.06 to 39.5Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p = 0.105; 95% CI: –1.71 to 41.9Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p = 0.998; 95% CI: –14.0 to 29.6
    Figure 8E, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for NEX-Cre/ChR2 miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 5(M = 1, F = 4)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 39.7Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p = 0.013; 95% CI: 5.03 to 32.0Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 25.7 to 52.6Unpaired vs neutral p = 0.008; 95% CI: 7.16 to 34.1
    Extended Data Figure 8-1G, leftBehavioral analysis of NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice tested on high power, throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 4(M = 1, F = 3)Interaction: p < 0.001, F(12,36) = 8.58Day: p = 0.252, F(6,18) = 1.44Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 48.3Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.369; 95% CI: –25.0 to 3.62Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.358; 95% CI: –3.54 to 25.1Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 16.0 to 44.6Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.003; 95% CI: 3.97 to 32.6Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 24.9 to 53.5Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.084; 95% CI: –0.819 to 27.8Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 19.7 to 48.3Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.087; 95% CI: –27.8 to 0.877Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 17.7 to 46.4Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –34.7 to –6.03Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 21.8 to 50.5Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.798; 95% CI: –22.5 to 6.11Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 13.7 to 42.3Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.203; 95% CI: –2.36 to 26.3Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p = 0.028; 95% CI: 0.881 to 29.5Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.005; 95% CI: 3.12 to 31.8Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 6.36 to 35.0Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p = 0.202; 95% CI: –2.35 to 26.3
    Extended Data Figure 8-1G, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice under high-power stimulationNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 4(M = 1, F = 3)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 178Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 10.1 to 21.3Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 28.8 to 40.0Unpaired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 13.1 to 24.3
    Extended Data Figure 8-1H, leftBehavioral analysis of bilaterally injected NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice throughout the opto-behavioral experimentsNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 4(M = 0, F = 4)Interaction: p = 0.040, F(12,36) = 2.13Day: p = 0.384, F(6,18) = 1.13Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 43.3Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.999; 95% CI: –50.7 to 25.1Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.998; 95% CI: –24.6 to 51.2Paired vs neutral p = 0.017; 95% CI: 4.27 to 80.1Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.768; 95% CI: –15.7 to 60.2Paired vs neutral p = 0.003; 95% CI: 10.3 to 86.1Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.974; 95% CI: –21.2 to 54.7Paired vs neutral p = 0.015; 95% CI: 4.63 to 80.5Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –49.6 to 26.3Paired vs neutral p = 0.029; 95% CI: 2.13 to 78.0Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.999; 95% CI: –52.5 to 23.3Paired vs neutral p = 0.019; 95% CI: 3.69 to 79.5Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.185; 95% CI: –70.1 to 5.78Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 14.2 to 90.0
    Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.999; 95% CI: –25.0 to 50.8Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p = 0.995; 95% CI: –23.6 to 52.3Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.952; 95% CI: –20.0 to 55.8Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p = 0.999; 95% CI: –18.6 to 57.3Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p = 0.668; 95% CI: –14.1 to 61.8
    Extended Data Figure 8-1H, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for bilaterally injected NEX-Cre/ChR2 miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 4(M = 0, F = 4)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 331Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 10.1 to 20.8Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 37.7 to 48.4Unpaired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 22.2 to 32.9
    Figure 8F, left Behavioral analysis of bilaterally injected NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice throughout the opto-behavioral experiments, tested on high powerNormally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 4(M = 0, F = 4)Interaction: p < 0.001, F(12,36) = 9.03Day: p = 0.310, F(6,18) = 1.29Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 36.5Multiple comparisons (of interest)Day2 (pre-test)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.982; 95% CI: –42.9 to 17.4Day3 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.349; 95% CI: –7.34 to 53.0Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 20.0 to 80.3Day4 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 14.1 to 74.4Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 30.8 to 91.1Day5 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –29.7 to 30.6Paired vs neutral p = 0.002; 95% CI: 9.24 to 69.5Day6 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –76.1 to –15.8Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 28.5 to 88.8Day7 (RT-PP)Paired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: –74.4 to –14.1Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 27.0 to 87.3Day8 (CR)Paired vs unpaired p = 0.989; 95% CI: –42.4 to 17.9Paired vs neutral p = 0.006; 95% CI: 6.19 to 66.5Reversal parameters:Day3 paired vs Day6 unpaired p = 0.009; 95% CI: 5.24 to 65.5Day3 paired vs Day7 unpaired p = 0.011; 95% CI: 4.65 to 64.9Day4 paired vs Day6 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 16.0 to 76.3Day4 paired vs Day7 unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 15.4 to 75.7Day5 paired vs Day8 unpaired p > 0.999; 95% CI: –20.8 to 39.5
    Figure 8F, rightTime spent in paired, unpaired, and neutral compartments during the four RT-PP days for NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice bilaterally injected and under high-power stimulationAssumed normalityRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 4(M = 0, F = 4)Compartment p < 0.001, F(2,6) = 106Multiple comparisonsPaired vs unpaired p < 0.001; 95% CI: 27.1 to 51.6Paired vs neutral p < 0.001; 95% CI: 44.5 to 69.0Unpaired vs neutral p = 0.011; 95% CI: 5.19 to 29.7
    Extended Data Figure 8-1IiiBehavioral analysis of Vglut2-Cre throughout the NCP experimentsNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 5(M = 0, F = 5)Interaction: p = 0.002, F(4,16) = 6.90Day: p = 0.410, F(2,8) = 1Compartment: p < 0.001, F(2,8) = 70.9Multiple comparisons (of interest)Stimulation 1Neutral vs Paired1 p = 0.009; 95% CI: –93.5 to –10.6Neutral vs Paired2 p = 0.004; 95% CI: –98.6 to –15.7Paired 1 vs Paired2 p > 0.999; 95% CI: –36.4 to 46.5Stimulation 2Neutral vs Paired1 p < 0.001; 95% CI: –113 to –29.9Neutral vs Paired2 p < 0.001; 95% CI: –112 to –29Paired 1 vs Paired2 p > 0.999; 95% CI: –42.3 to 40.6CRNeutral vs Paired1 p = 0.998; 95% CI: –49.8 to 33.1Neutral vs Paired2 p > 0.999; 95% CI: –35.5 to 47.4Paired 1 vs Paired2 p = 0.938; 95% CI: –55.7 to 27.2
    Extended Data Figure 8-1IiiiTime spent in paired1, paired2, and neutral compartments during the two NCP days for Vglut2-Cre/ChR2 miceNormally distributedRM one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison testN = 5(M = 0, F = 5)Compartment p = 0.018, F(2,2) = 54.2Multiple comparisonsPaired1 vs Paired2 p = 0.951; 95% CI: –38.9 to 43.2Paired1 vs Neutral p = 0.023; 95% CI: –103 to –20.7Paired2 vs Neutral p = 0.021; 95% CI: –105 to –22.8
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Projection areas of VTA neurons represented in NEX-Cre and Calb2-Cre mice compared with DAT-Cre and Vglut2-Cre mice

    AreaCre-driver
    DATVglut2Calb2NEX
    Anterior olfactory area++++
    Medial prefrontal cortex (infralimbic, prelimbic, and anterior cingulate cortices)++++
    (Medial) orbital cortex++++
    Nucleus accumbens shell++(+)+
    Nucleus accumbens core+--+
    Dorsomedial Striatum+---
    Olfactory tubercle++++
    Cingulate cortex++++
    Septum/septal nuclei++-+
    Diagonal band of Broca++++
    Ventral pallidum++++
    Bed nuclei of the stria terminalis++++
    Preoptic area++++
    Lateral habenula++--
    Medial habenula--++
    Hippocampus---+
    Dentate gyrus---+
    Amygdala++++
    Hypothalamic area++-+
    • Summary of projection areas for VTA neurons virally injected with optogenetic constructs (DIO-ChR2-eYFP) in DAT-Cre, Vglut2-Cre, Calb2-Cre, and NEX-Cre mice, respectively, and detected as YFP-positive fibers. + indicates presence of YFP-positive fibers; - indicates absence of YFP-positive fibers; (+) indicates low presence of fibers.

Extended Data

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Extended Data Figure 2-1

    ISH for detection of Th, NeuroD6, and Vmat2 mRNA. Analysis of Th, NeuroD6, and Vmat2 (two probes, covering mRNA derived from exon 1 and exon 2, respectively) mRNAs using radioactively labeled oligo-probes on sections throughout the whole brains of Vmat2lox/lox/NEX-Cre-wt (Ctrl) and Vmat2lox/lox/NEX-Cre-tg (cKO) mice. Download Figure 2-1, EPS file.

  • Extended Data Figure 8-1

    Complementary data from behavioral optogenetics. DAT-Cre-negative mice injected with DIO-ChR2-eYFP (A) and DAT-Cre-positive mice injected with DIO-eYFP mice (B) did not show preference to the light paired compartment so their results were pooled together (C). D, Schematic illustration of optical fiber placement for mice analyzed in RT-PP analysis. E–G, RT-PP testing under high power (20 mW, 5 ms, 20 Hz) stimulation for DAT-Cre/ChR2 (E), Calb2-Cre/ChR2 (F) and NEX-Cre/ChR2 (G). H, RT-PP results for bilaterally injected NEX-Cre/ChR2 mice. A–C, E–H, Graphs: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 paired versus unpaired; bar graphs: *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001 versus paired, #p < 0.05, ###p < 0.001 versus unpaired. I, Vglut2-Cre/ChR2 tested in the NCP test. Ii, Schematic of the experimental setup. Iii–Iiii, Mice spent significantly more time in the light-unpaired neutral compartment (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 neutral vs Paired1 and Paired2 compartments). DAT-Cre negative N = 3, DAT-Cre/eYFP = 3, DAT-Cre/ChR2 high power N = 4, Calb2-Cre/ChR2 high power N = 7, NEX-Cre/ChR2 N = 4, NEX-Cre/ChR2 bilateral N = 4. NS, non-significant. Download Figure 8-1, EPS file.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 6 (3)
eNeuro
Vol. 6, Issue 3
May/June 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
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.
The NeuroD6 Subtype of VTA Neurons Contributes to Psychostimulant Sensitization and Behavioral Reinforcement
(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
The NeuroD6 Subtype of VTA Neurons Contributes to Psychostimulant Sensitization and Behavioral Reinforcement
Zisis Bimpisidis, Niclas König, Stefanos Stagkourakis, Vivien Zell, Bianca Vlcek, Sylvie Dumas, Bruno Giros, Christian Broberger, Thomas S. Hnasko, Åsa Wallén-Mackenzie
eNeuro 16 May 2019, 6 (3) ENEURO.0066-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0066-19.2019

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
The NeuroD6 Subtype of VTA Neurons Contributes to Psychostimulant Sensitization and Behavioral Reinforcement
Zisis Bimpisidis, Niclas König, Stefanos Stagkourakis, Vivien Zell, Bianca Vlcek, Sylvie Dumas, Bruno Giros, Christian Broberger, Thomas S. Hnasko, Åsa Wallén-Mackenzie
eNeuro 16 May 2019, 6 (3) ENEURO.0066-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0066-19.2019
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

  • Accumbens
  • dopamine
  • mouse genetics
  • optogenetics
  • reward
  • ventral tegmental area

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • 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

  • A progressive ratio task with costly resets reveals adaptive effort-delay tradeoffs
  • Luminance matching in cognitive pupillometry is not enough: The curious case of orientation
  • Prefrontal and subcortical c-Fos mapping of reward responses across competitive and social contexts
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

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

Content

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

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

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

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

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