Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Effect of transient mPFC subregion-specific inactivation on preference decision making in a concurrent pup/cocaine choice CPP. A, Schematic representation of cross-sections of the rat brain showing the location of injection sites in mother rats receiving infusions of saline (white circles) or bupivacaine (inactivation, black circles) into each of three mPFC subregions. Numbers beside each plate indicate the distance caudal to bregma in millimeters. B, Experimental timeline. C, Locomotor scores during 1.0 mg/kg intraperitoneal cocaine conditioning in the CPP apparatus across the four conditioning days. D, CPP scores (time spent in the preferred compartment during the postconditioning test minus the time spent in the same compartment during the preconditioning session), (E) conditioned chamber preferences, and (F) mean time spent in each chamber of the CPP apparatus during the test session by behavioral control (n = 12), mPFC vehicle treated (n = 20), and mPFC Cg1 (n = 7), PrL (n = 7), and IL (n = 9) bupivacaine-treated postpartum females. Immediately before the start of the 60-min postconditioning CPP test, mPFC cannulated females randomly received bilateral intracranial infusions of either 2% bupivacaine or saline vehicle. Statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in distribution of preference on concurrent pup/cocaine choice between postpartum females that received vehicle into Cg1, PrL, or IL subregions. As such, these groups were combined into a single vehicle-treated group for graphing purposes. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM; *significant difference at p < 0.05.
- Figure 2.
Effect of transient mPFC subregion-specific inactivation on maternal behavior. A, Number of active maternal responses over the 30-min maternal behavior test following infusion of either 2% bupivacaine or saline vehicle into the Cg1, PrL, or IL. B, C, Latency to first retrieval and reunion of the litter, and (D) duration of total time with pups over the maternal behavior test. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM; *significant difference at p < 0.05.
- Figure 3.
Effect of transient inactivation of the mPFC subregion-specific on expression of cocaine-induced CPP. A, Schematic representation of cross-sections of the rat brain showing the location of injection sites in mother rats receiving infusions of saline (white circles) or bupivacaine (inactivation, black circles) into each of three mPFC subregions. Numbers beside each plate indicate the distance caudal to bregma in millimeters. B, Experimental timeline. C, CPP scores (time spent in the cocaine-associated compartment during the postconditioning test minus the time spent in the same compartment during the preconditioning session), (D) conditioned chamber preferences, and (E) mean time spent in each chamber of the CPP apparatus during the test session by behavioral control (n = 11), mPFC vehicle treated (n = 19), and mPFC Cg1 (n = 6), PrL (n = 7), and IL (n = 7) bupivacaine-treated postpartum females. All further details as in Figure 1. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM; *significant difference at p < 0.05.
- Figure 4.
Effect of transient inactivation of the mPFC subregion-specific on expression of pup-induced CPP. A, Schematic representation of cross-sections of the rat brain showing the location of injection sites in mother rats receiving infusions of saline (white circles) or bupivacaine (inactivation, black circles) into each of three mPFC subregions. Numbers beside each plate indicate the distance caudal to bregma in millimeters. B, Experimental timeline. C, CPP score (time spent in the pup-associated compartment during the postconditioning test minus the time spent in the same compartment during the preconditioning session), (D) conditioned chamber preferences, and (E) mean time spent in each chamber of the CPP apparatus during the test session by behavioral control (n = 11), mPFC vehicle treated (n = 22), and mPFC Cg1 (n = 6), PrL (n = 8), and IL (n = 7) bupivacaine-treated postpartum females. All further details as in Figure 1. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM; *significant difference at p < 0.05.
In this issue
