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, Disorders of the Nervous System

Distinct Populations of Neurons Activated by Heroin and Cocaine in the Striatum as Assessed by catFISH

Philip Vassilev, Riccardo Avvisati, Eisuke Koya and Aldo Badiani
eNeuro 14 January 2020, 7 (1) ENEURO.0394-19.2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0394-19.2019
Philip Vassilev
1Sussex Addiction Research and Intervention Centre (SARIC), School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Riccardo Avvisati
1Sussex Addiction Research and Intervention Centre (SARIC), School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Riccardo Avvisati
Eisuke Koya
1Sussex Addiction Research and Intervention Centre (SARIC), School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eisuke Koya
Aldo Badiani
1Sussex Addiction Research and Intervention Centre (SARIC), School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, United Kingdom
2Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Aldo Badiani
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Despite the still prevailing notion of a shared substrate of action for all addictive drugs, there is evidence suggesting that opioid and psychostimulant drugs differ substantially in terms of their neurobiological and behavioral effects. These differences may reflect separate neural circuits engaged by the two drugs. Here we used the catFISH (cellular compartment analysis of temporal activity by fluorescence in situ hybridization) technique to investigate the degree of overlap between neurons engaged by heroin versus cocaine in adult male Sprague Dawley rats. The catFISH technique is a within-subject procedure that takes advantage of the different transcriptional time course of the immediate-early genes homer 1a and arc to determine to what extent two stimuli separated by an interval of 25 min engage the same neuronal population. We found that throughout the striatal complex the neuronal populations activated by noncontingent intravenous injections of cocaine (800 μg/kg) and heroin (100 and 200 μg/kg), administered at an interval of 25 min from each other, overlapped to a much lesser extent than in the case of two injections of cocaine (800 μg/kg), also 25 min apart. The greatest reduction in overlap between populations activated by cocaine and heroin was in the dorsomedial and dorsolateral striatum (∼30% and ∼22%, respectively, of the overlap observed for the sequence cocaine–cocaine). Our results point toward a significant separation between neuronal populations activated by heroin and cocaine in the striatal complex. We propose that our findings are a proof of concept that these two drugs are encoded differently in a brain area believed to be a common neurobiological substrate to drug abuse.

  • addiction
  • neuroplasticity
  • nucleus accumbens
  • opioid
  • psychostimulant
  • striatal complex

Significance Statement

Despite significant advances in the substance use disorders field, effective prevention and treatment strategies are scarce and still under active development. Here we add to growing evidence indicating major differences in the neurobiological effects of opioid versus psychostimulant drugs, which is at odds with the still prevailing notion of a shared substrate of action for all addictive drugs. This suggests that, to be effective, the development of prevention and treatment strategies should not look for a “silver bullet” solution to all drug addictions. Instead, they should be tailored to the specific drug preference of pathologic users.

Introduction

Virtually all current theories of drug abuse posit that the addictive properties of drugs depend on common neurobiological processes, including hyper-reactivity of motivational systems (Wolf, 2010; Berridge and Robinson, 2016), impaired impulse control (Jentsch and Taylor, 1999), and aberrant learning (Everitt and Robbins, 2005). Regardless of the core process on which each theory focuses, the biological substrate of said processes involves the mesotelencephalic dopamine (DA) system projecting from ventral tegmental area (VTA) and substantia nigra to the striatal complex, including caudate and nucleus accumbens (NAcc), and to the prefrontal cortex (PFC). Indeed, it is commonly assumed that all substances of abuse increase dopamine levels in the terminal regions of the dopaminergic system (Di Chiara and Imperato, 1988; Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Wise, 1996; Nestler, 2001, 2004; Hyman et al., 2006; Koob and Volkow, 2010; Berridge, 2012; Covey et al., 2014; Keiflin and Janak, 2015; Volkow and Morales, 2015; Berridge and Robinson, 2016; Keramati et al., 2017; Volkow et al., 2017) albeit via different mechanisms of action. Psychostimulant drugs, such as cocaine and amphetamines, produce dopamine overflow by binding the dopamine transporter (for review, see Kuczenski et al., 1982; Johanson and Fischman, 1989). Opioid agonists, such as heroin and morphine, are thought to increase dopamine concentrations indirectly by binding μ-opioid receptors located on inhibitory interneurons in the VTA; hence, disinhibiting dopaminergic neurons (Gysling and Wang, 1983; Matthews and German, 1984; Johnson and North, 1992). Yet, the magnitude of drug-induced dopamine overflow differs enormously from one drug to another, even within the same pharmacological class. For example, some opioids produce dramatic increases in dopamine, whereas others have very little effect (Gottås et al., 2014; Vander Weele et al., 2014). Furthermore, electrophysiological experiments have shown that neurons in the striatum respond in a very different manner to heroin versus cocaine self-administration (Chang et al., 1998; Wei et al., 2018), suggesting that the effects of the two drugs are encoded differently in this brain area.

The aim of the two experiments reported here was to further explore this hypothesis using the catFISH (cellular compartment analysis of temporal activity by fluorescence in situ hybridization) technique, which is a within-subject technique that takes advantage of the different transcriptional time course of the immediate-early genes (IEGs) homer 1a (h1a) and arc to detect the activation of partly distinct neuronal populations in response to two temporally distinct stimuli (Fig. 1; Guzowski et al., 1999; Vazdarjanova et al., 2002; Vazdarjanova and Guzowski, 2004). To date, a few studies have looked at the effects of cocaine on arc ( Caffino et al., 2011) or homer 1a expression (Unal et al., 2009), whereas there is no information on the effects of heroin administration on the expression of these two IEGs. As in the case of the IEG c-fos, which is known to be transcribed across the striatum in response to heroin and cocaine administration (Harlan and Garcia, 1998; Paolone et al., 2007; Celentano et al., 2009), both arc and homer 1a are activated by the transcription factor CREB; that is, they are transcribed following the activation of the ERK/MAPK pathway, elevated cAMP activity, or calcium influx to the cell (Impey et al., 1998; Sato et al., 2001; Kawashima et al., 2014). Considering these shared mechanisms of expression, we expected that arc and homer 1a would be suitable markers of neuronal activity produced by drug administration. We predicted that intravenous injections of heroin and cocaine will produce a rapid and transient IEG transcription in the striatum. Indeed, we found that intravenous administration of low doses (i.e., those typically used in self-administration experiments) of heroin and cocaine produce temporally distinct increases in the expression of h1a and/or arc suggesting that both drugs induce neuronal activity across the striatum. In a second experiment, we used the catFISH technique to establish to what extent this activity occurs in overlapping versus drug-specific neuronal populations. Based on electrophysiological evidence suggesting distinct neuronal activity produced by heroin versus cocaine (Chang et al., 1998), we predicted that the administration of heroin following cocaine would activate nonoverlapping neuronal populations across the striatum.

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

The catFISH paradigm. Working hypothesis based on the review by Guzowski et al. (2005): the expression of mRNA encoding for h1a and arc should be detectable at different time points after drug administration. A, arc mRNA expression in the nucleus should peak at ∼5 min after drug administration, whereas h1a mRNA should peak at ∼30 min. B, Overlap in the expression of Drug 1-induced h1a mRNA and Drug 2-induced arc mRNA should be observed at time 30 min (25 min after Drug 1 and 5 min after Drug 2).

Materials and Methods

Subjects

A total of 66 male Sprague Dawley rats [n = 37 in experiment (Exp) 1 and n = 29 in Exp 2] from ENVIGO were tested at a weight of 300–375 g. The rats were housed and tested in a temperature- and humidity-controlled room (21 ± 1°C; 50%) with a reversed 12 h light/dark cycle (lights on at 7:00 P.M.). The rats were housed in groups of three or four until surgery and individually thereafter. Food and water were provided ad libitum except during testing sessions. All regulated procedures were conducted in accordance with the UK 1986 Animal Scientific Procedures Act (ASPA) and received approval from the relevant Animal Welfare and Ethics Review Board. After their arrival in the animal facilities, the rats were given a period of at least 7 d before undergoing experimental procedures.

Drugs

Anesthesia was induced with 110 mg/kg ketamine (Anesketin, Dechra) and 2 mg/kg xylazine (Rompun, Bayer HealthCare). Cocaine and heroin hydrochloride (Johnson Matthey-MacFarlan Smith) were dissolved in sterile saline and infused intravenously at the doses specified in the next paragraphs. Each infusion consisted of a volume of 40 μl of the appropriate drug solution delivered over 4 s. Saline-treated rats received equivalent volumes of saline.

Intravenous catheter surgery

The surgical procedures were similar to those recently described by Avvisati et al. (2019). Briefly, after anesthesia, an 11 cm silicone catheter (0.37 mm inner diameter, 0.94 mm outer diameter), sheathed at 3.4 cm from its proximal end by a silicone bead, was implanted in the right jugular vein, externalized at the nape of the neck, and attached to a cannula secured to the top of the skull with dental cement. Following surgery, rats were allowed to recover for at least 7 d. Catheter patency was maintained by flushing the catheters daily with 0.1 ml saline.

Catheter patency test

At the appropriate time (see next sections), the rats were killed via an intravenous infusion of pentobarbital (120 mg/kg in 200 μl of saline) through the catheter. This also served as a catheter patency test: the rats that did not become ataxic and die within 5 s would be excluded from the data analysis. All catheters were found to be patent.

Drug administration procedures

Experiment 1

After recovery, the rats received, while briefly restrained, an intravenous infusion of either 400 μg/kg cocaine (n = 18) or 50 μg/kg heroin (n = 19) in their home cage. These doses were selected based on the findings of previous self-administration experiments (Caprioli et al., 2007b, 2008). The rats received the lethal pentobarbital injection and were then decapitated at different time points after the cocaine or heroin infusion, as follows: 0 min (n = 3 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), 8 min (n = 3 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), 16 min (n = 4 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), 25 min (n = 4 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), and 35 min (n = 4 and n = 5 for the cocaine and heroin groups, respectively).

Experiment 2

After recovery, the rats were moved to testing chambers used for self-administration experiments (PRS Italia; Avvisati et al., 2019). To reduce the potentially confounding effects of environmental novelty on drug-induced IEG expression (Uslaner et al., 2001; Paolone et al., 2007), we let the rats habituate to these chambers for 18 h before tethering them to the infusion lines. Food and water were available ad libitum during this habituation period and were removed immediately before tethering. The use of self-administration chambers allowed us to deliver drug infusions remotely via a computer-controlled infusion pump. The infusion pumps were programmed to start automatically, in the absence of the experimenter, 1 h after tethering. In this way, we avoided the confounding effects usually associated with signaled drug administration (Crombag et al., 1996) and/or handling. All rats received two intravenous infusions, 25 min apart, of the following: saline–saline (n = 4), cocaine 800 μg/kg–saline (n = 6), cocaine 800 μg/kg–cocaine 800 μg/kg (n = 6), cocaine 800 μg/kg–heroin 100 μg/kg (n = 6), or cocaine 800 μg/kg–heroin 200 μg/kg (n = 7). To administer two separate injections through the same catheter, the infusion lines were backfilled with the appropriate drug solutions, separated by a tiny air bubble, just before tethering of the rats. The rationale for using higher doses of cocaine and heroin in Exp 2 was to boost the magnitude of IEG expression. These doses were still within the range of those used in self-administration experiments (Zito et al., 1985; Dai et al., 1989; Roberts et al., 1989; Pettit and Justice, 1991; Shaham and Stewart, 1994; Wise et al., 1995; Mantsch et al., 2001; Wee et al., 2007; Mandt et al., 2012).

Five minutes after the second infusion, the rats were given 120 mg/kg pentobarbital, i.v., and, after decapitation, their brains were snap frozen in isopentane at −50°C.

Brain slicing

The brains were excised and snap frozen in 400 ml of isopentane cooled to −50°C and later sectioned on a cryostat at 16 or 20 μm thickness. In Exp 1, sectioning started from the tip of the olfactory bulbs and brain sections were removed until the Sylvian fissure no longer reached the midline (+3.70 mm from bregma). At this point, either 100 or 80 sections were removed (when sectioning at 16 and 20 μm, respectively) to reach +2.00 mm from bregma at which point the sections contained anterior dorsal striatum (DS) and NAcc core (Fig. 2A). Two coronal sections per rat (16 or 20 μm thick) were obtained at this point. An identical procedure was used in Exp 2 to collect two coronal sections containing NAcc core and shell, dorsomedial striatum (DMS), and dorsolateral striatum (DLS) at +1.70 mm from bregma (Fig. 3A).

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

Effect of single drug injections on IEG expression. Time course of arc mRNA and h1a mRNA expression in experiment 1. A, Regions of interest (plate from Paxinos and Watson, 1986). B, Average number of arc- or h1a+ cell nuclei as a function of brain area and administered drug (expressed as a percentage of all DAPI+ nuclei). The brains were excised at different time points after drug administration, as follows: 0 min (n = 3 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), 8 min (n = 3 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), 16 min (n = 4 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), 25 min (n = 4 for both the cocaine and heroin groups), and 35 min (n = 4 and n = 5 for the cocaine and heroin groups, respectively).

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

Overlap in the neuronal populations engaged by heroin and cocaine. Coexpression of arc and h1a mRNAs in experiment 2. A, Regions of interest (plate from Paxinos and Watson, 1986). B, Overlap expressed as the percentage of overlap in the cocaine–cocaine condition as a function of brain area and drugs administered, 25 min apart, in Exp 2: saline–saline (n = 4), cocaine (800 μg/kg)–saline (n = 6), cocaine (800 μg/kg)–cocaine (800 μg/kg; n = 6), cocaine (800 μg/kg)–heroin 100 μg/kg (n = 6), and cocaine (800 μg/kg)–heroin 200 μg/kg (n = 7).

In situ hybridization

Immediately after cutting, the brain tissue sections were mounted on Superfrost Plus slides. On the first day of staining, the slides were incubated in 10% neutral buffered formalin (catalog #HT501128-4L, Sigma-Aldrich) for 20 min at 4°C, followed by 2× 1 min washes in 1× PBS, and then serial dehydration in ascending concentrations of ethanol (5 min incubation in 50%, 70%, and 2× 100%). Following this, the tissue was stored in 100% ethanol overnight. On day 2, the tissue was air dried and then incubated with protease for 20 min, followed by 2× 1 min washes in distilled H2O. Protease, probe, and amplifier solutions were supplied by Advanced Cell Diagnostics (ACDbio) as part of a commercially available RNAscope Kit (ACDbio). Arc and h1a hybridization probes (catalog #317071-C2 and #433261, respectively, ACDbio) were hybridized to fresh frozen brain coronal sections sliced on a Leica CM1900 cryostat. The signal was amplified with an RNAscope Multiplex Fluorescent Reagent Kit (catalog #320850, ACDbio). The arc probe targeted the region spanning 1519–2621 bp of the arc gene mRNA (accession No. NM_019361.1). The h1a probe targeted the 3′ untranslated region of the h1a gene mRNA, spanning 5001–5625 bp (accession #U92079.1).

The arc and h1a probes were applied (50 μl/section), and the sections were incubated for 2 h at 40°C in a humidity-controlled oven. After incubation with the probes, the signal was amplified at four separate stages with 15, 30, 15, and 30 min of incubation in between (respectively) at 40°C in the hybridization oven. The probe and amplifier solutions were applied to the sections with the help of a hydrophobic pen barrier. There were 2× 2 min washes in wash buffer after each incubation (including after probe hybridization). Finally, sections were coverslipped and counterstained with DAPI mounting medium (catalog #H-1500, Vector Laboratories) and left at 4°C overnight.

Image acquisition and analysis

Fluorescent signal was detected using a Zeiss Axioskop 2 Plus epifluorescent microscope, and images were acquired using AxioVision software (Zeiss).

Grayscale images were taken from both hemispheres of two adjacent sections for each rat at 20× magnification. This yielded four images per brain area for each rat. Final counts of DAPI-, arc-, and h1a+ nuclei were averaged from these four images. The resulting images represented a region of interest of 700 × 550 μm. These images were analyzed using the RIO Montpelier extension of the ImageJ software (Baecker and Travo, 2006). Grayscale images were analyzed separately for each channel—DAPI, Alexa Fluor 488 (h1a) and Cy3 (arc)—as follows. First, each DAPI image was analyzed by applying a Gaussian blur filter (sigma = 2), then a “rolling ball” background subtraction algorithm (ball radius = 20), followed by the application of the default automatic global thresholding algorithm. This yielded a binary image, which was then used to count objects selected on the basis of their size and circularity using the “analyze particles” function of ImageJ. The size criterion was set to 0.0045–0.045 square inches, and the circularity—to 0.7–1.00. This analysis resulted in a binary mask image containing only objects fulfilling the aforementioned criteria.

The images from the Alexa Fluor 488 and Cy3 channels were first adjusted for brightness so that the most visible signal was that coming from nuclear staining for arc and h1a. This was defined as any signal representing one or two bright dots close to each other, as opposed to the cytoplasmic signal, which is less bright and more diffused (Guzowski et al., 1999). A global threshold was then applied to the images (default algorithm), and the “analyze particles” function was used again to select only objects of 4–90 square pixels and to create a binary image mask showing only the defined particles.

A Windows 10 Dell OptiPlex 7060 desktop computer ran a MATLAB script to overlay the three binary mask images and count instances where objects defined as DAPI nuclei coincided with objects defined as arc mRNA, h1a mRNA, or both. The MATLAB code will be made available on request. Thus, IEG expression was measured by counting DAPI+ cell nuclei also positive for h1a, arc, or both.

Statistical analyses

The data from Exp 1 were analyzed by two-way mixed ANOVAs, with time and IEG as fixed factors. The number of IEG+ cell nuclei (as a percentage of all DAPI-stained nuclei) was the dependent variable. The data from Exp 2 were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, with brain area and treatment group as fixed factors. The outcome variable was overlap (expressed as a percentage of the cocaine–cocaine group). All analyses were conducted in SPSS 25 software (IBM). An α value of ≤0.05 was used for determining statistically significant effects.

Results

Experiment 1 (time course of Arc and h1a expression following intravenous drug administration)

Figure 2B shows the amount of arc and h1a + nuclei in the NAcc core and DMS expressed as a percentage of all DAPI+ nuclei and as a function of time elapsed since intravenous injections of cocaine and heroin. Table 1 shows the same data before conversion to a percentage.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Mean (SE) number of arc- and h1a-stained cell nuclei as a function of brain area and drug administered in Exp 1

Arc and h1a expression in the NAcc core

Cocaine administration increased both arc and h1a mRNA levels in the NAcc core, but at different time points. A two-way mixed ANOVA showed nonsignificant main effects of IEG (F(1,13) = 0.08, p = 0.782, η2 = 0.006) and time (F(4,13) = 1.62, p = 0.227, η2 = 0.333), but a significant time × IEG interaction (F(4,13) = 7.93, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.977).

Heroin produced a similar pattern of mRNA expression, but the effect did not reach significance: a two-way mixed ANOVA showed nonsignificant main effects of IEG (F(1,14) = 2.32, p = 0.150, η2 = 0.142) and time (F(4,14) = 0.72, p = 0.596, η2 = 0.17), and a nonsignificant time × IEG interaction (F(4,14) = 2.15, p = 0.129, η2 = 0.38).

Arc and h1a expression in the DMS

As in the NAcc core, cocaine treatment increased IEG levels in a time-dependent manner. A two-way mixed ANOVA showed significant main effects of IEG (F(1,13) = 18.93, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.593) and time (F(4,13) = 5.36, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.623), and a significant time × IEG interaction (F(4,13) = 44.58, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.932).

Heroin produced a similar effect. A two-way mixed ANOVA showed nonsignificant main effects of IEG (F(1,14) = 3.17, p = 0.097, η2 = 0.185) and time (F(4,14) = 0.22, p = 0.924, η2 = 0.059), but a significant time × IEG interaction (F(4,14) = 3.58, p = 0.033, η2 = 0.506).

Experiment 2 (overlap in neuronal populations activated by cocaine and heroin)

Table 2 shows the average number of arc-only, h1a-only, and double-stained cell nuclei as a function of brain area and drugs administered in experiment 2. Figure 4-Figure 7 show representative images from all brain areas analyzed using catFISH.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Mean (SE) number of h1a-only, arc-only, and double-stained cell nuclei as a function of brain area and drugs administered, 25 min apart, in Exp 2: saline–saline (n = 4), and cocaine (800 μg/kg)–saline (n = 6), cocaine (800 μg/kg)–cocaine (800 μg/kg; n = 6), cocaine (800 μg/kg)–heroin 100 μg/kg (n = 6), and cocaine (800 μg/kg)–heroin 200 μg/kg (n = 7)

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

Representative microscope images taken from the NAcc core. DAPI-stained cell nuclei (blue) coexpress only h1a (green), only arc (red), or both. The columns show green and red channels separately and then merged. Taken from Nacc core. Scale bars, 0.1 mm. Arrows point to mRNA+ nuclei.

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

Representative microscope images taken from the NAcc shell. DAPI-stained cell nuclei (blue) coexpress only h1a (green), only arc (red), or both. The columns show green and red channels separately and then merged. Scale bars, 0.1 mm. Arrows point to mRNA+ nuclei.

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

Representative microscope images taken from the DMS. DAPI-stained cell nuclei (blue) coexpress only h1a (green), only arc (red), or both. The columns show green and red channels separately and then merged. Scale bars, 0.1 mm. Arrows point to mRNA+ nuclei.

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

Representative microscope images taken from the DLS. DAPI-stained cell nuclei (blue) coexpress only h1a (green), only arc (red), or both. The columns show green and red channels separately and then merged. Scale bars, 0.1 mm. Arrows point to mRNA+ nuclei.

Figure 3B shows the extent of overlap between neuronal populations activated by cocaine and heroin as a percentage change from the cocaine–cocaine group. Overlap was quantified as the number of nuclei coexpressing arc and h1a expressed as a percentage of all mRNA+ nuclei (single and double labeled). In all four brain areas examined, there was a substantial reduction in overlap when cocaine and heroin were administered in succession, relative to the overlap seen when cocaine was administered twice, and regardless of heroin dose (Fig. 3). A two-way mixed ANOVA showed a significant main effect of treatment group (F(3,19) = 20.97, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.768) and brain area (F(3,57) = 3.40, p = 0.024, η2 = 0.152), but not treatment × brain area interaction (F(9,57) = 0.79, p = 0.619, η2 = 0.112).

Discussion

We have shown that intravenous injections of heroin and cocaine at doses typically self-administered by rats produce a quick and transient increase of homer 1a and arc expression across the striatum. More importantly, using the catFISH technique, we took advantage of the difference in the timing of expression between the two IEGs to show that heroin and cocaine activate partly distinct neuronal populations in this brain area.

In line with our findings, previous studies have shown that heroin and cocaine increase c-fos levels in the ventral and dorsomedial striatum (Hope et al., 1992; Harlan and Garcia, 1998; Uslaner et al., 2001; Ferguson et al., 2004; Paolone et al., 2007; Celentano et al., 2009). The IEG c-fos is a marker of neuronal activity expressed under similar conditions of arc and homer 1a (Guzowski et al., 2001). In addition, our findings indicate that this activity occurs in separate neuronal populations and may explain why only a small proportion of neurons shows similar electrophysiological responses to heroin and cocaine (Chang et al., 1998).

It is likely that drug-induced IEG expression represents glutamatergic activity modulated by DA, because NMDA and DA D1 receptors play a key role in IEG expression through the activation of CREB (Impey et al., 1998; Mattson et al., 2005; Surmeier et al., 2007; Guez-Barber et al., 2011; Tritsch and Sabatini, 2012), and both DA and glutamate levels are increased in the striatum following heroin and cocaine administration. Note, however, that DA release alone does not produce IEG expression in the absence of glutamatergic activity (Kreuter et al., 2004). In addition, NMDA receptor activity and DA transmission in the accumbens are necessary for food and cocaine self-administration, but not heroin self-administration (Ettenberg et al., 1982; Pettit et al., 1984; Pulvirenti et al., 1992; Kelley et al., 1997). Finally, D1 receptor-expressing medium spiny neurons (MSNs) in the dorsal striatum appear to be sufficient to sustain operant behavior (Kravitz et al., 2012), and these neurons express IEGs (i.e., are activated) following cocaine administration. Thus, loss- and gain-of-function studies have provided evidence that the activity of cells in the striatum plays a key role for cocaine, but not for heroin, reinforcement through DA and glutamate transmission. The functional role of the distinct neuronal populations engaged by heroin relative to cocaine remains to be determined.

A case for drug-specific neural circuitries

Perhaps the most intriguing interpretation of the results presented here is that partly distinct neuronal populations activated by heroin and cocaine across the striatum are suggestive of dissociated circuitry processing the acute effects of the two drugs. There is already evidence that the striatum is functionally and structurally organized to accommodate circuits that operate in parallel but carry out separate functions. First, striatal MSNs are characterized by more or less excitable states (i.e., “up” and “down” states; Wolf et al., 2001; O’Donnell, 2003), and in order for MSNs to be excited (and to express IEGs), they must receive input from several sources, which may include different combinations of amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, PFC, and VTA/SNc afferent inputs (Pennartz et al., 1994). Each of the brain areas sending these afferent projections (1) is affected differently by heroin, cocaine, and natural rewards (Chang et al., 1998; Mukherjee et al., 2018); (2) contains neuronal ensembles involved in distinct functions (Zelikowsky et al., 2014; Warren et al., 2016); and (3) might be composed of genetically distinct projection neurons. Thus, considering the integrative function of the striatum, the diverse connectivity and specialized functions of its input regions, and the necessity for synchronized excitatory input to elicit action potentials from MSNs, it is quite possible that the activation of partly distinct neuronal populations in the striatum reflects the activation of dissociated circuitries. Here it must be noted that, although the afferent inputs of the striatum from limbic and cortical areas are topographically organized in a ventromedial–dorsolateral fashion, they are not constrained to perfectly defined striatal subregions, but are overlapping, with higher concentrations of certain afferents in, for example, shell versus core (Voorn et al., 2004). It should also be considered that MSNs send collateral GABAergic projections to neighboring MSNs. This mutual inhibition between MSNs is another functional-anatomic feature predisposing the accumbens and the rest of striatum to accommodate neuronal ensembles embedded in distinct circuitries; while one ensemble is active, it can decrease the activity in other ensembles so that only one computation is taking place over others (Pennartz et al., 1994). The experiments presented here are only suggestive of distinct striatal circuitry engaged by heroin and cocaine. Future studies should address this hypothesis by expanding on our findings in three ways. First, single-cell quantitative PCR studies can further elucidate phenotypic differences between neuronal populations activated by heroin and cocaine in terms of their genetic makeup (Hrvatin et al., 2018). Second, retrograde and anterograde labeling studies in conjunction with immunohistochemistry can reveal whether these neuronal populations connect to distinct upstream and downstream targets. And third, selective loss- and gain-of-function studies can be used to test whether inactivation of neurons responding to cocaine in the dorsal striatum and accumbens core would impair heroin reinforcement. The Daun02 technique (Koya et al., 2009, 2016) would be a useful technique in this regard, as well as other techniques that manipulate neuronal ensembles such as the TetTag approach using the Fos-tTA mouse line combined with optogenetics (Reijmers and Mayford, 2009; Liu et al., 2012; Du and Koffman, 2017).

Methodological considerations

Two caveats to the experimental design used here are worthy of mention. There are known differences between the effects of noncontingent versus contingent exposure to heroin and cocaine (Galici et al., 2000; Lecca et al., 2007; Radley et al., 2015). In the present study, we administered heroin and cocaine in a noncontingent but unsignaled manner as we were interested in comparing the acute pharmacological effects of these two drugs using IEG expression as a marker of neuronal activation. Contingent administrations (e.g., self-administration) require repeated exposure to drugs over several test sessions, which has been shown to produce habituation to IEG expression (Hope et al., 1992; Unal et al., 2009). Of course, we recognize the value of studying the encoding of drug-related information in the striatum during and after periods of drug self-administration. Future studies could use in vivo imaging techniques such as the UCLA/Inscopix Miniscope to address this question directly. A second, somewhat related caveat is that our paradigm includes a multisubstance component. It is possible that circuit activity may differ following polysubstance versus single-drug use histories. However, electrophysiological evidence from rats self-administering both substances is congruent with our findings (Chang et al., 1998). Also, we administered only two injections of cocaine and/or heroin to drug-naive rats, so it is unlikely that any long-term polysubstance use effects would have influenced our observations.

Conclusion

In summary, we found a significant dissociation in the neuronal populations responding to self-administration doses of heroin versus cocaine, as indicated by arc and homer 1a expression. Our findings provide a proof of concept that heroin and cocaine effects on the brain must be studied as separate phenomena, adding to the evidence of major differences among the various drugs of abuse (for review, see Badiani et al., 2011). Although the functional significance of these differences remains to be fully explored, they might have implications for both research and treatment. It is remarkable, for example, that the functional or anatomic integrity of the dopaminergic system is required for the reinforcing properties of cocaine but not of heroin (Ettenberg et al., 1982; Pettit et al., 1984; Pisanu et al., 2015), that distinct projections from the PFC to the shell of the NAcc are implicated in the relapse to cocaine versus heroin seeking after abstinence (Peters et al., 2008; Bossert et al., 2012), and that basic environmental manipulations gate in opposite directions the reinforcing, affective, and neurobiological responses to heroin versus cocaine in rats and humans (Uslaner et al., 2001; Ferguson et al., 2004; Caprioli et al., 2007a, 2008, 2009; Paolone et al., 2007; Celentano et al., 2009; Montanari et al., 2015; Avvisati et al., 2016; De Pirro et al., 2018; De Luca et al., 2019).

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments: We thank Dr. Sarah King and Dr. Hans Crombag for their expert advice.

Footnotes

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • The study was supported by funding from the University of Sussex (Strategic Development Funds) to A.B.

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. ↵
    Avvisati R, Contu L, Stendardo E, Michetti C, Montanari C, Scattoni ML, Badiani A (2016) Ultrasonic vocalization in rats self-administering heroin and cocaine in different settings: evidence of substance-specific interactions between drug and setting. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 233:1501–1511. doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4247-4 pmid:26960696
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Avvisati R, Bogen IL, Andersen JM, Vindenes V, Mørland J, Badiani A, Boix F (2019) The active heroin metabolite 6-acetylmorphine has robust reinforcing effects as assessed by self-administration in the rat. Neuropharmacology 150:192–199. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.12.023 pmid:30578794
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Badiani A, Belin D, Epstein D, Calu D, Shaham Y (2011) Opiate versus psychostimulant addiction: the differences do matter. Nat Rev Neurosci 12:685–700. doi:10.1038/nrn3104 pmid:21971065
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Baecker V, Travo P (2006) Cell Image Analyzer - a visual scripting interface for ImageJ and its usage at the microscopy facility Montpellier RIO Imaging. Paper presented at 1st ImageJ User & Developer Conference, Luxemburg, Belgium, May.
  5. ↵
    Berridge KC (2012) From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation. Eur J Neurosci 35:1124–1143. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.x pmid:22487042
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Berridge KC, Robinson TE (2016) Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Am Psychol 71:670–679. doi:10.1037/amp0000059 pmid:27977239
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Bossert JM, Stern AL, Theberge FR, Marchant NJ, Wang HL, Morales M, Shaham Y (2012) Role of projections from ventral medial prefrontal cortex to nucleus accumbens shell in context-induced reinstatement of heroin seeking. J Neurosci 32:4982–4991. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0005-12.2012 pmid:22492053
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Caffino L, Racagni G, Fumagalli F (2011) Stress and cocaine interact to modulate Arc/Arg3.1 expression in rat brain. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 218:241–248. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2331-3 pmid:21590283
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Caprioli D, Celentano M, Paolone G, Badiani A (2007a) Modeling the role of environment in addiction. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 31:1639–1653. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.08.029 pmid:17889978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Caprioli D, Paolone G, Celentano M, Testa A, Nencini P, Badiani A (2007b) Environmental modulation of cocaine self-administration in the rat. Psychopharmacology 192:397–406. doi:10.1007/s00213-007-0717-z pmid:17297633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Caprioli D, Celentano M, Paolone G, Lucantonio F, Bari A, Nencini P, Badiani A (2008) Opposite environmental regulation of heroin and amphetamine self-administration in the rat. Psychopharmacology 198:395–404. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1154-3 pmid:18463850
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Caprioli D, Celentano M, Dubla A, Lucantonio F, Nencini P, Badiani A (2009) Ambience and drug choice: cocaine- and heroin-taking as a function of environmental context in humans and rats. Biol Psychiatry 65:893–899. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.12.009 pmid:19217078
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Celentano M, Caprioli D, Dipasquale P, Cardillo V, Nencini P, Gaetani S, Badiani A (2009) Drug context differently regulates cocaine versus heroin self-administration and cocaine- versus heroin-induced Fos mRNA expression in the rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 204:349–360. doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1467-x pmid:19169671
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Chang JY, Janak PH, Woodward DJ (1998) Comparison of mesocorticolimbic neuronal responses during cocaine and heroin self-administration in freely moving rats. J Neurosci 18:3098–3115. pmid:9526026
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Covey DP, Roitman MF, Garris PA (2014) Illicit dopamine transients: reconciling actions of abused drugs. Trends Neurosci 37:200–210. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2014.02.002 pmid:24656971
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Crombag HS, Badiani A, Robinson TE (1996) Signalled versus unsignalled intravenous amphetamine: large differences in the acute psychomotor response and sensitization. Brain Res 722:227–231. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(96)00066-2 pmid:8813374
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Dai S, Corrigall WA, Coen KM, Kalant H (1989) Heroin self-administration by rats: influence of dose and physical dependence. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 32:1009–1015. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(89)90074-9 pmid:2798525
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    De Luca MT, Montanari C, Meringolo M, Contu L, Celentano M, Badiani A (2019) Heroin versus cocaine: opposite choice as a function of context but not of drug history in the rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 236:787–798. doi:10.1007/s00213-018-5115-1 pmid:30443795
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    De Pirro S, Galati G, Pizzamiglio L, Badiani A (2018) The affective and neural correlates of heroin versus cocaine use in addiction are influenced by environmental setting but in opposite directions. J Neurosci 38:5182–5195. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0019-18.2018 pmid:29760180
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Di Chiara G, Imperato A (1988) Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85:5274–5278. doi:10.1073/pnas.85.14.5274 pmid:2899326
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Du JY, Koffman EE (2017) Labeling aversive memory trace in mouse using a doxycycline-inducible expression system. Bio Protoc 7:1–11. doi:10.21769/BioProtoc.2578
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    Ettenberg A, Pettit HO, Bloom FE, Koob GF (1982) Heroin and cocaine intravenous self-administration in rats: mediation by separate neural systems. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 78:204–209. doi:10.1007/bf00428151 pmid:6296898
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Everitt BJ, Robbins TW (2005) Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat Neurosci 8:1481–1489. doi:10.1038/nn1579 pmid:16251991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Ferguson SM, Thomas MJ, Robinson TE (2004) Morphine-induced c-fos mRNA expression in striatofugal circuits: modulation by dose, environmental context, and drug history. Neuropsychopharmacology 29:1664–1674. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300465 pmid:15138436
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Galici R, Pechnick RN, Poland RE, France CP (2000) Comparison of noncontingent versus contingent cocaine administration on plasma corticosterone levels in rats. Eur J Pharmacol 387:59–62. doi:10.1016/s0014-2999(99)00780-3 pmid:10633161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Gottås A, Boix F, Øiestad EL, Vindenes V, Mørland J (2014) Role of 6-monoacetylmorphine in the acute release of striatal dopamine induced by intravenous heroin. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 17:1357–1365. doi:10.1017/S1461145714000169 pmid:24576415
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Guez-Barber D, Fanous S, Golden SA, Schrama R, Koya E, Stern AL, Bossert JM, Harvey BK, Picciotto MR, Hope BT (2011) FACS identifies unique cocaine-induced gene regulation in selectively activated adult striatal neurons. J Neurosci 31:4251–4259. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6195-10.2011 pmid:21411666
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Guzowski JF, McNaughton BL, Barnes CA, Worley PF (1999) Environment-specific expression of the immediate-early gene Arc in hippocampal neuronal ensembles. Nat Neurosci 2:1120–1124. doi:10.1038/16046 pmid:10570490
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Guzowski JF, Setlow B, Wagner EK, McGaugh JL (2001) Experience-dependent gene expression in the rat hippocampus after spatial learning: a comparison of the immediate-early genes Arc, c-fos, and zif268. J Neurosci 21:5089–5098. pmid:11438584
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Guzowski JF, Timlin JA, Roysam B, McNaughton BL, Worley PF, Barnes CA (2005) Mapping behaviorally relevant neural circuits with immediate-early gene expression. Curr Opin Neurobiol 15:599–606. pmid:16150584
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Gysling K, Wang RY (1983) Morphine-induced activation of A10 dopamine neurons in the rat. Brain Res 277:119–127. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(83)90913-7 pmid:6315137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Harlan RE, Garcia MM (1998) Drugs of abuse and immediate-early genes in the forebrain. Mol Neurobiol 16:221–267. doi:10.1007/BF02741385 pmid:9626665
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Hope B, Kosofsky B, Hyman SE, Nestler EJ (1992) Regulation of immediate early gene expression and AP-1 binding in the rat nucleus accumbens by chronic cocaine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:5764–5768. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.13.5764 pmid:1631058
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    Hrvatin S, Hochbaum DR, Nagy MA, Cicconet M, Robertson K, Cheadle L, Zilionis R, Ratner A, Borges-Monroy R, Klein AM, Sabatini BL, Greenberg ME (2018) Single-cell analysis of experience-dependent transcriptomic states in the mouse visual cortex. Nat Neurosci 21:120–129. doi:10.1038/s41593-017-0029-5 pmid:29230054
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Hyman SE, Malenka RC, Nestler EJ (2006) Neural mechanisms of addiction: the role of reward-related learning and memory. Annu Rev Neurosci 29:565–598. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113009 pmid:16776597
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Impey S, Obrietan K, Wong ST, Poser S, Yano S, Wayman G, Deloulme JC, Chan G, Storm DR (1998) Cross talk between ERK and PKA is required for Ca2+ stimulation of CREB-dependent transcription and ERK nuclear translocation. Neuron 21:869–883. doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80602-9 pmid:9808472
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Jentsch JD, Taylor JR (1999) Impulsivity resulting from frontostriatal dysfunction in drug abuse: implications for the control of behavior by reward-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 146:373–390. doi:10.1007/pl00005483 pmid:10550488
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Johanson CE, Fischman MW (1989) The pharmacology of cocaine related to its abuse. Pharmacol Rev 41:3–52. pmid:2682679
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. ↵
    Johnson SW, North RA (1992) Opioids excite dopamine neurons by hyperpolarization of local interneurons. J Neurosci 12:483–488. pmid:1346804
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Kawashima T, Okuno H, Bito H (2014) A new era for functional labeling of neurons: activity-dependent promoters have come of age. Front Neural Circuit 8:37.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    Keiflin R, Janak PH (2015) Dopamine prediction errors in reward learning and addiction: from theory to neural circuitry. Neuron 88:247–263. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.037 pmid:26494275
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    Kelley AE, Smith-Roe SL, Holahan MR (1997) Response-reinforcement learning is dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor activation in the nucleus accumbens core. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:12174–12179. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.22.12174 pmid:9342382
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    Keramati M, Ahmed SH, Gutkin BS (2017) Misdeed of the need: towards computational accounts of transition to addiction. Curr Opin Neurobiol 46:142–153. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2017.08.014 pmid:28892737
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    Koob GF, Volkow ND (2010) Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 35:217–238. doi:10.1038/npp.2009.110 pmid:19710631
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    Koya E, Golden SA, Harvey BK, Guez-Barber DH, Berkow A, Simmons DE, Bossert JM, Nair SG, Uejima JL, Marin MT, Mitchell TB, Farquhar D, Ghosh SC, Mattson BJ, Hope BT (2009) Targeted disruption of cocaine-activated nucleus accumbens neurons prevents context-specific sensitization. Nat Neurosci 12:1069–1073. doi:10.1038/nn.2364 pmid:19620976
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Koya E, Margetts-Smith G, Hope BT (2016) Daun02 inactivation of behaviorally activated Fos-expressing neuronal ensembles. Curr Protoc Neurosci 76:8.36.31–38.36.17.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    Kravitz AV, Tye LD, Kreitzer AC (2012) Distinct roles for direct and indirect pathway striatal neurons in reinforcement. Nat Neurosci 15:816–818. doi:10.1038/nn.3100 pmid:22544310
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    Kreuter JD, Mattson BJ, Wang B, You ZB, Hope BT (2004) Cocaine-induced Fos expression in rat striatum is blocked by chloral hydrate or urethane. Neuroscience 127:233–242. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.04.047 pmid:15219685
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Kuczenski R, Segal DS, Weinberger SB, Browne RG (1982) Evidence that a behavioral augmentation following repeated amphetamine administration does not involve peripheral mechanisms. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 17:547–553. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(82)90317-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    Lecca D, Valentini V, Cacciapaglia F, Acquas E, Di Chiara G (2007) Reciprocal effects of response contingent and noncontingent intravenous heroin on in vivo nucleus accumbens shell versus core dopamine in the rat: a repeated sampling microdialysis study. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 194:103–116. doi:10.1007/s00213-007-0815-y pmid:17541779
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    Liu X, Ramirez S, Pang PT, Puryear CB, Govindarajan A, Deisseroth K, Tonegawa S (2012) Optogenetic stimulation of a hippocampal engram activates fear memory recall. Nature 484:381–U415. doi:10.1038/nature11028 pmid:22441246
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Mandt BH, Johnston NL, Zahniser NR, Allen RM (2012) Acquisition of cocaine self-administration in male Sprague-Dawley rats: effects of cocaine dose but not initial locomotor response to cocaine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 219:1089–1097. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2438-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    Mantsch JR, Ho A, Schlussman SD, Kreek MJ (2001) Predictable individual differences in the initiation of cocaine self-administration by rats under extended-access conditions are dose-dependent. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 157:31–39. doi:10.1007/s002130100744 pmid:11512040
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    Matthews RT, German DC (1984) Electrophysiological evidence for excitation of rat ventral tegmental area dopamine neurons by morphine. Neuroscience 11:617–625. doi:10.1016/0306-4522(84)90048-4 pmid:6717805
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Mattson BJ, Bossert JM, Simmons DE, Nozaki N, Nagarkar D, Kreuter JD, Hope BT (2005) Cocaine-induced CREB phosphorylation in nucleus accumbens of cocaine-sensitized rats is enabled by enhanced activation of extracellular signal-related kinase, but not protein kinase A. J Neurochem 95:1481–1494. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2005.03500.x pmid:16219028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Montanari C, Stendardo E, De Luca MT, Meringolo M, Contu L, Badiani A (2015) Differential vulnerability to relapse into heroin versus cocaine-seeking as a function of setting. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 232:2415–2424. doi:10.1007/s00213-015-3877-2 pmid:25662790
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    Mukherjee D, Ignatowska-Jankowska BM, Itskovits E, Gonzales BJ, Turm H, Izakson L, Haritan D, Bleistein N, Cohen C, Amit I, Shay T, Grueter B, Zaslaver A, Citri A (2018) Salient experiences are represented by unique transcriptional signatures in the mouse brain. Elife 7:e31220. doi:10.7554/eLife.31220
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    Nestler EJ (2001) Molecular basis of long-term plasticity underlying addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:119–128. doi:10.1038/35053570 pmid:11252991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    Nestler EJ (2004) Historical review: molecular and cellular mechanisms of opiate and cocaine addiction. Trends Pharmacol Sci 25:210–218. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2004.02.005 pmid:15063085
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    O’Donnell P (2003) Dopamine gating of forebrain neural ensembles. Eur J Neurosci 17:429–435.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    Paolone G, Conversi D, Caprioli D, Bianco PD, Nencini P, Cabib S, Badiani A (2007) Modulatory effect of environmental context and drug history on heroin-induced psychomotor activity and fos protein expression in the rat brain. Neuropsychopharmacology 32:2611–2623. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301388 pmid:17392735
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    Paxinos G, Watson C (1986) The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates, Ed 2. London: Academic.
  63. ↵
    Pennartz CM, Groenewegen HJ, Lopes da Silva FH (1994) The nucleus accumbens as a complex of functionally distinct neuronal ensembles: an integration of behavioural, electrophysiological and anatomical data. Prog Neurobiol 42:719–761. doi:10.1016/0301-0082(94)90025-6 pmid:7938546
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    Peters J, LaLumiere RT, Kalivas PW (2008) Infralimbic prefrontal cortex is responsible for inhibiting cocaine seeking in extinguished rats. J Neurosci 28:6046–6053. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1045-08.2008 pmid:18524910
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    Pettit HO, Justice JB Jr (1991) Effect of dose on cocaine self-administration behavior and dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens. Brain Res 539:94–102. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(91)90690-W pmid:2015506
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    Pettit HO, Ettenberg A, Bloom FE, Koob GF (1984) Destruction of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens selectively attenuates cocaine but not heroin self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 84:167–173. doi:10.1007/bf00427441 pmid:6438676
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    Pisanu A, Lecca D, Valentini V, Bahi A, Dreyer JL, Cacciapaglia F, Scifo A, Piras G, Cadoni C, Di Chiara G (2015) Impairment of acquisition of intravenous cocaine self-administration by RNA-interference of dopamine D1-receptors in the nucleus accumbens shell. Neuropharmacology 89:398–411. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.10.018 pmid:25446574
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    Pulvirenti L, Maldonado-Lopez R, Koob GF (1992) NMDA receptors in the nucleus accumbens modulate intravenous cocaine but not heroin self-administration in the rat. Brain Res 594:327–330. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(92)91145-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    Radley JJ, Anderson RM, Cosme CV, Glanz RM, Miller MC, Romig-Martin SA, LaLumiere RT (2015) The contingency of cocaine administration accounts for structural and functional medial prefrontal deficits and increased adrenocortical activation. J Neurosci 35:11897–11910. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4961-14.2015 pmid:26311772
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    Reijmers L, Mayford M (2009) Genetic control of active neural circuits. Front Mol Neurosci 2:27. doi:10.3389/neuro.02.027.2009 pmid:20057936
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    Roberts DC, Loh EA, Vickers G (1989) Self-administration of cocaine on a progressive ratio schedule in rats: dose-response relationship and effect of haloperidol pretreatment. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 97:535–538. doi:10.1007/bf00439560 pmid:2498950
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    Robinson TE, Berridge KC (1993) The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 18:247–291. doi:10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p pmid:8401595
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    Sato M, Suzuki K, Nakanishi S (2001) NMDA receptor stimulation and brain-derived neurotrophic factor upregulate homer 1a mRNA via the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade in cultured cerebellar granule cells. J Neurosci 21:3797–3805. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-11-03797.2001 pmid:11356868
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    Shaham Y, Stewart J (1994) Exposure to mild stress enhances the reinforcing efficacy of intravenous heroin self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl ) 114:523–527. doi:10.1007/BF02249346 pmid:7855213
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    Surmeier DJ, Ding J, Day M, Wang Z, Shen W (2007) D1 and D2 dopamine-receptor modulation of striatal glutamatergic signaling in striatal medium spiny neurons. Trends Neurosci 30:228–235. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2007.03.008 pmid:17408758
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    Tritsch NX, Sabatini BL (2012) Dopaminergic modulation of synaptic transmission in cortex and striatum. Neuron 76:33–50. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.023 pmid:23040805
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    Unal CT, Beverley JA, Willuhn I, Steiner H (2009) Long-lasting dysregulation of gene expression in corticostriatal circuits after repeated cocaine treatment in adult rats: effects on zif 268 and homer 1a. Eur J Neurosci 29:1615–1626. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06691.x pmid:19419424
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    Uslaner J, Badiani A, Day HE, Watson SJ, Akil H, Robinson TE (2001) Environmental context modulates the ability of cocaine and amphetamine to induce c-fos mRNA expression in the neocortex, caudate nucleus, and nucleus accumbens. Brain Res 920:106–116. doi:10.1016/s0006-8993(01)03040-2 pmid:11716816
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    Vander Weele CM, Porter-Stransky KA, Mabrouk OS, Lovic V, Singer BF, Kennedy RT, Aragona BJ (2014) Rapid dopamine transmission within the nucleus accumbens: dramatic difference between morphine and oxycodone delivery. Eur J Neurosci 40:3041–3054. doi:10.1111/ejn.12709 pmid:25208732
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    Vazdarjanova A, Guzowski JF (2004) Differences in hippocampal neuronal population responses to modifications of an environmental context: evidence for distinct, yet complementary, functions of CA3 and CA1 ensembles. J Neurosci 24:6489–6496. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0350-04.2004 pmid:15269259
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    Vazdarjanova A, McNaughton BL, Barnes CA, Worley PF, Guzowski JF (2002) Experience-dependent coincident expression of the effector immediate-early genes arc and Homer 1a in hippocampal and neocortical neuronal networks. J Neurosci 22:10067–10071. pmid:12451105
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    Volkow ND, Morales M (2015) the brain on drugs: from reward to addiction. Cell 162:712–725. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.046 pmid:26276628
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    Volkow ND, Wise RA, Baler R (2017) The dopamine motive system: implications for drug and food addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:741–752. doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.130 pmid:29142296
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    Voorn P, Vanderschuren LJ, Groenewegen HJ, Robbins TW, Pennartz CM (2004) Putting a spin on the dorsal-ventral divide of the striatum. Trends Neurosci 27:468–474. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.06.006 pmid:15271494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    Warren BL, Mendoza MP, Cruz FC, Leao RM, Caprioli D, Rubio FJ, Whitaker LR, McPherson KB, Bossert JM, Shaham Y, Hope BT (2016) Distinct Fos-expressing neuronal ensembles in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex mediate food reward and extinction memories. J Neurosci 36:6691–6703. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0140-16.2016 pmid:27335401
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  86. ↵
    Wee S, Specio SE, Koob GF (2007) Effects of dose and session duration on cocaine self-administration in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 320:1134–1143. doi:10.1124/jpet.106.113340 pmid:17202405
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. ↵
    Wei C, Han X, Weng D, Feng Q, Qi X, Li J, Luo M (2018) Response dynamics of midbrain dopamine neurons and serotonin neurons to heroin, nicotine, cocaine, and MDMA. Cell Discov 4:60. doi:10.1038/s41421-018-0060-z pmid:30416749
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    Wise RA (1996) Neurobiology of addiction. Curr Opin Neurobiol 6:243–251. doi:10.1016/s0959-4388(96)80079-1 pmid:8725967
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    Wise RA, Leone P, Rivest R, Leeb K (1995) Elevations of nucleus accumbens dopamine and DOPAC levels during intravenous heroin self-administration. Synapse 21:140–148. doi:10.1002/syn.890210207 pmid:8584975
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    Wolf JA, Schroeder LF, Finkel LH (2001) Computational modeling of medium spiny projection neurons in nucleus accumbens: toward the cellular mechanisms of afferent stream integration. Proceedings of the IEEE 89:1083–1092. doi:10.1109/5.939824
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. ↵
    Wolf ME (2010) The Bermuda triangle of cocaine-induced neuroadaptations. Trends Neurosci 33:391–398. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2010.06.003 pmid:20655604
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    Zelikowsky M, Hersman S, Chawla MK, Barnes CA, Fanselow MS (2014) Neuronal ensembles in amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex track differential components of contextual fear. J Neurosci 34:8462–8466. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3624-13.2014 pmid:24948801
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  93. ↵
    Zito KA, Vickers G, Roberts DC (1985) Disruption of cocaine and heroin self-administration following kainic acid lesions of the nucleus accumbens. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 23:1029–1036. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(85)90110-8 pmid:3936058
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

Synthesis

Reviewing Editor: Yavin Shaham, NIDA-IRP/NIH

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. The following reviewer(s) agreed to reveal their identity: Susan Ferguson.

The reviewers found merit in the study but differed in their overall evaluation. Based on my reading of the paper, I do not think that additional experimental data are necessary for a successful revision, but it is important to fully address the critical comments of reviewer 1 regarding experimental design and interpretation of the data. I enclose below the individual comments of the reviewers and my recommendation of how to address them in the revision. In addition to their comments, also address the comments below:

1. Abstract: please use the 250 words allocated to this section to provide additional experimental details (drug doses, route of administration, location of injections, striatal regions, etc) and additional description of the empirical results. Also delete citations from this section

2. Introduction: use first author et al. format for text references

3. Methods and other places in the text: please replace 'animals' with 'rats' when referring to the experimental subjects

4. Discussion: please add 2-3 informative sub-headings to orient the readers of the topics being discussed

5. References: please use eNeuro/J Neurosci formatting

6. Figures 4-7: please label in the figure the brain area

7. Figure legends: please add n per group

REVIEWER 1

The authors have presented a study that uses the catFISH technique, based on timing-dependent activation of two immediate early genes, to investigate differences in neuronal activation in the striatum following noncontingent cocaine and heroin administration. While the study overall is logical and of interest, there are significant methodological concerns and missing rationale that limit the potential impact of the work and need to be addressed.

Major concerns:

1. The significance statement refers to a “widely accepted idea of a common neurobiological substrate for all drug addictions,” but the introduction is filled with references that contradict that statement. The wording should be substantially damped down to more accurately describe the state of the field.

Editor: please revise this section to address the reviewer's concern

2. In the introduction, please provide more discussion on the selection of homer 1a and arc in this study (e.g., whether they employ similar signaling cascades, whether stimuli cause equal activation of the two). Additionally, please explicitly state the underlying hypothesis and rationale - as it is currently written, this study appears more as a fishing expedition than a study with a grounded hypothesis.

Editor: please revise this section to address the reviewer's concern

3. Significant methodological details are missing, including how catheter patency was maintained, how and when catheter patency was confirmed, the source of cocaine and heroin, how cocaine and heroin were prepared for iv infusion (concentration, volume, rate), and what alpha value was used for determining significant effects. Additionally, description of the timecourse for Experiment 1 is very odd - were rats euthanized at timepoints relative to pentobarbital injection (as written), or relative to the cocaine/heroin injections?

Editor: please add the missing experimental details

4. Why was an 18h habituation period used for Experiment 2? Water and food restriction are likely to have a confounding impact on interpretation of the data. Moreover, it is unclear why self-administration chambers were used at all, since the infusions were given non-contingently. This needs to be specifically addressed.

Editor: please provide a rationale for the different contexts in Experiments 1 and 2 and address the reviewers' comments on water and food restriction

5. Why was a heroin/heroin or heroin/cocaine group not included in this study? Why wasn't the injection order counterbalanced for each group? Dose responses are needed to ensure that the different patterns of induction are not due to dose. In addition, the overall cell counts for each group are quite low, which is likely due to unsignalled infusions in home cages or following long habituations. Additional experiments using signaled infusions/novel environments and/or following self-administration would strengthen the study greatly.

Editor: as mentioned above, additional experiments are of course welcome but not mandatory for a successful revision. At a minimum, please provide a rationale for not counterbalancing the heroin/cocaine order and for not running the heroin-heroin condition

6. The reporting in the results section is highly redundant and difficult to follow. More importantly, however, is the choice of the authors to simply list their ANOVA summaries without including any post-hoc comparisons. While problematic across-the-board, this is particularly concerning for the NAc core h1a expression data for heroin, in which there were no significant main effects or interactions. If heroin is not inducing h1a expression and cocaine is, this is a serious confound for Experiment 2. How do the authors rationalize this? Analyzes should be represented on figures with symbols.

Editor: please address this comment of the reviewer. I agree with the reviewer that the Result section can be shorter and this can be achieved by deleting means/sem that are depicted in the figures from this section

7. The data for experiment 2 are listed as percent change from cocaine/cocaine group, which is problematic and misleading, particularly given that there is not l large degree of co-localization between genes in that group and that a saline/saline group was run. As heroin was already shown to not activate h1a in the NAc core (Experiment 1), it seems deceptive to show data relative to cocaine, which does activate h1a. Data should be shown as total number of positive nuclei. If percent changes are shown, these should be from the proper control group (saline/saline).

Editor: Based on the reviewer's comment, I suggest showing the actual number of individual and double-label neurons instead of percent values

8. A rationale for and larger discussion of the caveats of examining cocaine and heroin use in a noncontigent model is necessary, given that the activation of cortico-basal-ganglia circuitry may be significantly impacted by the absence of goal-directed behaviors, and how contingent administration may result in differences in overlap in this activity.

Editor: please revise the text to address the reviewer's concern. I recommend adding a section on Methodological and interpretation considerations to the revised Discussion

9. As the paradigm implemented a multi-substance component, discussion should be included on the implications of circuitry activation following polysubstance use and how it may compare to single drug histories.

Editor: please add text to address the reviewer's comment

Minor concerns:

1. Figure 4 includes arrows pointing to mRNA-positive nuclei, but the other similar figures (5-7) do not have this. Arrows should be added to these other figures to assist comparison across brain regions.

2. “D1” is used as an abbreviation for both “drug 1” (Figure 1 legend) and the dopamine D1 receptor (Discussion).

3. Typo, line 114: “sections were cut at on a cryostat”

4. Typo, line 150: “analyzsed using the RIO Montepellier extension”

Editor (minor comments 1-4): please revise the figures and text to address the reviewer's comments

REVIEWER 2

Using the catFISH technique, the authors demonstrate that intravenous injections of cocaine followed by heroin activate non-overlapping neurons in the ventral and dorsal striatum. The introduction and discussion are very well-written and the methods are sound. This is an important proof-of-concept paper that will be well-received by the drug addiction research community. I have only a few comments:

1. Please include figure titles

Editor: please add the titles

2. I cannot see the labeling of arc in the red channel very well, either on my computer screen or the print copy.

Editor: please improve the quality of the figures

3. Labeling arrows should be included in figures 5-7 (like they are in figure 4)

Editor: please add the arrows

4. I am not sure if it is correct to say “activate largely distinct neuronal populations in this brain area” because the overlap was 45-50% in accumbens shell and core which is about 1/2 overlap

Editor: Based on the reviewer's comment, I suggest using the term 'partly overlap' to describe the data

5. Line 68: “This was done to avoid injury from fighting once cannulas were implanted.” Researchers generally single house rats after surgery to prevent them from chewing on the others' cannula, not because of fighting (and rats play, not fight, with their housing partner)

Editor: please revise the text based on the reviewer's comments

6. Line 87: missing “after a” between “rats” and “few seconds”

7. Line 323: change “into” to “to”

Editor: please correct the text

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (1)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 1
January/February 2020
  • 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.
Distinct Populations of Neurons Activated by Heroin and Cocaine in the Striatum as Assessed by catFISH
(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
Distinct Populations of Neurons Activated by Heroin and Cocaine in the Striatum as Assessed by catFISH
Philip Vassilev, Riccardo Avvisati, Eisuke Koya, Aldo Badiani
eNeuro 14 January 2020, 7 (1) ENEURO.0394-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0394-19.2019

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
Distinct Populations of Neurons Activated by Heroin and Cocaine in the Striatum as Assessed by catFISH
Philip Vassilev, Riccardo Avvisati, Eisuke Koya, Aldo Badiani
eNeuro 14 January 2020, 7 (1) ENEURO.0394-19.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0394-19.2019
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
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • addiction
  • neuroplasticity
  • nucleus accumbens
  • opioid
  • psychostimulant
  • striatal complex

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

  • Deciding while acting - Mid-movement decisions are more strongly affected by action probability than reward amount
  • CaMKIIα promoter-controlled circuit manipulations target both pyramidal cells and inhibitory interneurons in cortical networks
  • Gas7 is a novel dendritic spine initiation factor
Show more New Research

Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Impaired AMPARs translocation into dendritic spines with motor skill learning in the Fragile X mouse model
  • Characterization of the Tau Interactome in Human Brain Reveals Isoform-Dependent Interaction with 14-3-3 Family Proteins
  • Glycolytic System in Axons Supplement Decreased ATP Levels after Axotomy of the Peripheral Nerve
Show more Disorders of the Nervous System

Subjects

  • Disorders of the Nervous System

  • 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.