Abstract
Orchestrating appropriate behavioral responses in the face of competing signals that predict either rewards or threats in the environment is crucial for survival. The basolateral nucleus of the amygdala (BLA) and prelimbic (PL) medial prefrontal cortex have been implicated in reward-seeking and fear-related responses, but how information flows between these reciprocally connected structures to coordinate behavior is unknown. We recorded neuronal activity from the BLA and PL while rats performed a task wherein competing shock- and sucrose-predictive cues were simultaneously presented. The correlated firing primarily displayed a BLA→PL directionality during the shock-associated cue. Furthermore, BLA neurons optogenetically identified as projecting to PL more accurately predicted behavioral responses during competition than unidentified BLA neurons. Finally photostimulation of the BLA→PL projection increased freezing, whereas both chemogenetic and optogenetic inhibition reduced freezing. Therefore, the BLA→PL circuit is critical in governing the selection of behavioral responses in the face of competing signals.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Maren, S. & Quirk, G.J. Neuronal signalling of fear memory. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 844–852 (2004).
Janak, P.H. & Tye, K.M. From circuits to behaviour in the amygdala. Nature 517, 284–292 (2015).
Rogan, M.T., Stäubli, U.V. & LeDoux, J.E. Fear conditioning induces associative long-term potentiation in the amygdala. Nature 390, 604–607 (1997).
Paton, J.J., Belova, M.A., Morrison, S.E. & Salzman, C.D. The primate amygdala represents the positive and negative value of visual stimuli during learning. Nature 439, 865–870 (2006).
Tye, K.M., Stuber, G.D., de Ridder, B., Bonci, A. & Janak, P.H. Rapid strengthening of thalamo-amygdala synapses mediates cue-reward learning. Nature 453, 1253–1257 (2008).
Shabel, S.J. & Janak, P.H. Substantial similarity in amygdala neuronal activity during conditioned appetitive and aversive emotional arousal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15031–15036 (2009).
Namburi, P. et al. A circuit mechanism for differentiating positive and negative associations. Nature 520, 675–678 (2015).
Beyeler, A. et al. Divergent routing of positive and negative information from the amygdala during memory retrieval. Neuron 90, 348–361 (2016).
Choi, J.-S. & Kim, J.J. Amygdala regulates risk of predation in rats foraging in a dynamic fear environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 21773–21777 (2010).
Amir, A., Lee, S.-C., Headley, D.B., Herzallah, M.M. & Pare, D. Amygdala signaling during foraging in a hazardous environment. J. Neurosci. 35, 12994–13005 (2015).
Burgos-Robles, A., Vidal-Gonzalez, I. & Quirk, G.J. Sustained conditioned responses in prelimbic prefrontal neurons are correlated with fear expression and extinction failure. J. Neurosci. 29, 8474–8482 (2009).
Senn, V. et al. Long-range connectivity defines behavioral specificity of amygdala neurons. Neuron 81, 428–437 (2014).
Moorman, D.E. & Aston-Jones, G. Prefrontal neurons encode context-based response execution and inhibition in reward seeking and extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 9472–9477 (2015).
McGarry, L.M. & Carter, A.G. Inhibitory gating of basolateral amygdala inputs to the prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 36, 9391–9406 (2016).
Dilgen, J., Tejeda, H.A. & O'Donnell, P. Amygdala inputs drive feedforward inhibition in the medial prefrontal cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 110, 221–229 (2013).
Gabbott, P.L.A., Warner, T.A., Jays, P.R.L., Salway, P. & Busby, S.J. Prefrontal cortex in the rat: projections to subcortical autonomic, motor, and limbic centers. J. Comp. Neurol. 492, 145–177 (2005).
Ishikawa, A., Ambroggi, F., Nicola, S.M. & Fields, H.L. Contributions of the amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex to incentive cue responding. Neuroscience 155, 573–584 (2008).
Burgos-Robles, A., Bravo-Rivera, H. & Quirk, G.J. Prelimbic and infralimbic neurons signal distinct aspects of appetitive instrumental behavior. PLoS One 8, e57575 (2013).
Burgos-Robles, A., Vidal-Gonzalez, I., Santini, E. & Quirk, G.J. Consolidation of fear extinction requires NMDA receptor-dependent bursting in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Neuron 53, 871–880 (2007).
Sotres-Bayon, F. & Quirk, G.J. Prefrontal control of fear: more than just extinction. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 20, 231–235 (2010).
Courtin, J. et al. Prefrontal parvalbumin interneurons shape neuronal activity to drive fear expression. Nature 505, 92–96 (2014).
Sierra-Mercado, D., Padilla-Coreano, N. & Quirk, G.J. Dissociable roles of prelimbic and infralimbic cortices, ventral hippocampus, and basolateral amygdala in the expression and extinction of conditioned fear. Neuropsychopharmacology 36, 529–538 (2011).
Sangha, S., Robinson, P.D., Greba, Q., Davies, D.A. & Howland, J.G. Alterations in reward, fear and safety cue discrimination after inactivation of the rat prelimbic and infralimbic cortices. Neuropsychopharmacology 39, 2405–2413 (2014).
Laviolette, S.R., Lipski, W.J. & Grace, A.A. A subpopulation of neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex encodes emotional learning with burst and frequency codes through a dopamine D4 receptor-dependent basolateral amygdala input. J. Neurosci. 25, 6066–6075 (2005).
Sotres-Bayon, F., Sierra-Mercado, D., Pardilla-Delgado, E. & Quirk, G.J. Gating of fear in prelimbic cortex by hippocampal and amygdala inputs. Neuron 76, 804–812 (2012).
Nieh, E.H. et al. Decoding neural circuits that control compulsive sucrose seeking. Cell 160, 528–541 (2015).
Tye, K.M. et al. Amygdala circuitry mediating reversible and bidirectional control of anxiety. Nature 471, 358–362 (2011).
Chow, B.Y. et al. High-performance genetically targetable optical neural silencing by light-driven proton pumps. Nature 463, 98–102 (2010).
Mattis, J. et al. Principles for applying optogenetic tools derived from direct comparative analysis of microbial opsins. Nat. Methods 9, 159–172 (2011).
Armbruster, B.N., Li, X., Pausch, M.H., Herlitze, S. & Roth, B.L. Evolving the lock to fit the key to create a family of G protein-coupled receptors potently activated by an inert ligand. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5163–5168 (2007).
Kim, J., Pignatelli, M., Xu, S., Itohara, S. & Tonegawa, S. Antagonistic negative and positive neurons of the basolateral amygdala. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1636–1646 (2016).
Mahn, M., Prigge, M., Ron, S., Levy, R. & Yizhar, O. Biophysical constraints of optogenetic inhibition at presynaptic terminals. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 554–556 (2016).
Zhang, W. et al. Functional circuits and anatomical distribution of response properties in the primate amygdala. J. Neurosci. 33, 722–733 (2013).
Adhikari, A., Topiwala, M.A. & Gordon, J.A. Single units in the medial prefrontal cortex with anxiety-related firing patterns are preferentially influenced by ventral hippocampal activity. Neuron 71, 898–910 (2011).
Jin, J. & Maren, S. Fear renewal preferentially activates ventral hippocampal neurons projecting to both amygdala and prefrontal cortex in rats. Sci. Rep. 5, 8388 (2015).
Killcross, S. & Coutureau, E. Coordination of actions and habits in the medial prefrontal cortex of rats. Cereb. Cortex 13, 400–408 (2003).
Balleine, B.W. & O'Doherty, J.P. Human and rodent homologies in action control: corticostriatal determinants of goal-directed and habitual action. Neuropsychopharmacology 35, 48–69 (2010).
Smith, K.S., Virkud, A., Deisseroth, K. & Graybiel, A.M. Reversible online control of habitual behavior by optogenetic perturbation of medial prefrontal cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18932–18937 (2012).
Valdés, J.L., Maldonado, P., Recabarren, M., Fuentes, R. & Torrealba, F. The infralimbic cortical area commands the behavioral and vegetative arousal during appetitive behavior in the rat. Eur. J. Neurosci. 23, 1352–1364 (2006).
Keistler, C., Barker, J.M. & Taylor, J.R. Infralimbic prefrontal cortex interacts with nucleus accumbens shell to unmask expression of outcome-selective Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer. Learn. Mem. 22, 509–513 (2015).
Corcoran, K.A. & Quirk, G.J. Activity in prelimbic cortex is necessary for the expression of learned, but not innate, fears. J. Neurosci. 27, 840–844 (2007).
Klavir, O., Genud-Gabai, R. & Paz, R. Functional connectivity between amygdala and cingulate cortex for adaptive aversive learning. Neuron 80, 1290–1300 (2013).
Likhtik, E., Stujenske, J.M., Topiwala, M.A., Harris, A.Z. & Gordon, J.A. Prefrontal entrainment of amygdala activity signals safety in learned fear and innate anxiety. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 106–113 (2014).
Stujenske, J.M., Likhtik, E., Topiwala, M.A. & Gordon, J.A. Fear and safety engage competing patterns of theta-gamma coupling in the basolateral amygdala. Neuron 83, 919–933 (2014).
Karalis, N. et al. 4-Hz oscillations synchronize prefrontal-amygdala circuits during fear behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 605–612 (2016).
Likhtik, E., Pelletier, J.G., Paz, R. & Paré, D. Prefrontal control of the amygdala. J. Neurosci. 25, 7429–7437 (2005).
Etkin, A., Egner, T., Peraza, D.M., Kandel, E.R. & Hirsch, J. Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron 51, 871–882 (2006).
Comte, M. et al. Dissociating bottom-up and top-down mechanisms in the cortico-limbic system during emotion processing. Cereb. Cortex 26, 144–155 (2016).
Rohr, C.S. et al. The neural networks of subjectively evaluated emotional conflicts. Hum. Brain Mapp. 37, 2234–2246 (2016).
Kanske, P. & Kotz, S.A. Emotion speeds up conflict resolution: a new role for the ventral anterior cingulate cortex? Cereb. Cortex 21, 911–919 (2011).
Felix-Ortiz, A.C. et al. BLA to vHPC inputs modulate anxiety-related behaviors. Neuron 79, 658–664 (2013).
Kremer, E.J., Boutin, S., Chillon, M. & Danos, O. Canine adenovirus vectors: an alternative for adenovirus-mediated gene transfer. J. Virol. 74, 505–512 (2000).
Blanchard, R.J., Flannelly, K.J. & Blanchard, D.C. Defensive behavior of laboratory and wild Rattus norvegicus. J. Comp. Psychol. 100, 101–107 (1986).
Ferguson, J.E., Boldt, C. & Redish, A.D. Creating low-impedance tetrodes by electroplating with additives. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 156, 388–393 (2009).
Paxinos, G. & Watson, C. The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates (Academic, 1998).
Meyer, R.M., Burgos-Robles, A., Liu, E., Correia, S.S. & Goosens, K.A. A ghrelin–growth hormone axis drives stress-induced vulnerability to enhanced fear. Mol. Psychiatry 19, 1284–1294 (2014).
Do-Monte, F.H., Quiñones-Laracuente, K. & Quirk, G.J. A temporal shift in the circuits mediating retrieval of fear memory. Nature 519, 460–463 (2015).
Felix-Ortiz, A.C., Burgos-Robles, A., Bhagat, N.D., Leppla, C.A. & Tye, K.M. Bidirectional modulation of anxiety-related and social behaviors by amygdala projections to the medial prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience 321, 197–209 (2016).
Barthó, P. et al. Characterization of neocortical principal cells and interneurons by network interactions and extracellular features. J. Neurophysiol. 92, 600–608 (2004).
Likhtik, E., Pelletier, J.G., Popescu, A.T. & Paré, D. Identification of basolateral amygdala projection cells and interneurons using extracellular recordings. J. Neurophysiol. 96, 3257–3265 (2006).
Livneh, U. & Paz, R. Amygdala-prefrontal synchronization underlies resistance to extinction of aversive memories. Neuron 75, 133–142 (2012).
Abeles, M. & Gerstein, G.L. Detecting spatiotemporal firing patterns among simultaneously recorded single neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 60, 909–924 (1988).
Paz, R., Bauer, E.P. & Paré, D. Measuring correlations and interactions among four simultaneously recorded brain regions during learning. J. Neurophysiol. 101, 2507–2515 (2009).
Tye, K.M. & Janak, P.H. Amygdala neurons differentially encode motivation and reinforcement. J. Neurosci. 27, 3937–3945 (2007).
Herry, C. et al. Switching on and off fear by distinct neuronal circuits. Nature 454, 600–606 (2008).
Johansen, J.P., Tarpley, J.W., LeDoux, J.E. & Blair, H.T. Neural substrates for expectation-modulated fear learning in the amygdala and periaqueductal gray. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 979–986 (2010).
Amano, T., Duvarci, S., Popa, D. & Paré, D. The fear circuit revisited: contributions of the basal amygdala nuclei to conditioned fear. J. Neurosci. 31, 15481–15489 (2011).
Pendyam, S. et al. Fear signaling in the prelimbic-amygdala circuit: a computational modeling and recording study. J. Neurophysiol. 110, 844–861 (2013).
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction 2nd edn. (Springer, 2011).
Narayanan, N.S. & Laubach, M. Methods for studying functional interactions among neuronal populations. Methods Mol. Biol. 489, 135–165 (2009).
Richmond, B.J. & Optican, L.M. Temporal encoding of two-dimensional patterns by single units in primate inferior temporal cortex. II. Quantification of response waveform. J. Neurophysiol. 57, 147–161 (1987).
Cristianini, N. & Shawe-Taylor, J. An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
Schlkopf, B. & Smola, A.J. Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond (MIT Press, 2001).
Good, P.I. Permutation, Parametric, and Bootstrap Tests of Hypotheses (Springer, 2005).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank S. Sorooshyari for discussion and assistance on Matlab programming, as well as C. Wildes, and the entire Tye laboratory for discussion and support on this project. A.B.-R. was supported by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD Young Investigator Award) and NIMH (Research Supplement to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Sciences). E.Y.K. was supported by the Collaborative Clinical Neuroscience Fellowship and the American Brain Foundation Clinical Research Training Fellowship. W.A.R.-G. and P.A.P.-R. were supported by the MIT Summer Research Program, which received support from the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines (CBMM), NSF (STC Award CCF-1231216) and NIH (Endure Award 1R25-MH092912-01). E.H.N. was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF GRFP), the Integrative Neuronal Systems Training Fellowship (T32 GM007484) and the Training Program in the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. A.C.F.-O. was supported by an institutional NRSA training grant (5T32GM007484-38). P.N. was supported by the Singleton, Leventhal and Whitaker fellowships. C.A.L. was supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, an Integrative Neuronal Systems Fellowship and the James R. Killian Fellowship. M.J.P., K.N.P. and M.A. were supported by the MIT Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. K.K.A. was supported by the MIT Research Assistantship Program. K.M.T. is a New York Stem Cell Foundation - Robertson Investigator and McKnight Scholar, and this work was supported by funding from the JPB Foundation, PIIF, PNDRF, JFDP, Whitehall Foundation, Klingenstein Foundation, NARSAD Young Investigator Award, Alfred P Sloan Foundation, New York Stem Cell Foundation, McKnight Foundation, NIH R01-MH102441-01 (NIMH), R01-AA023305-01 (NIAAA) and NIH Director's New Innovator Award DP2-DK-102256-01 (NIDDK).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.B.-R. and K.M.T. conceived and designed experiments. A.B.-R. and K.N.P. designed and constructed electrodes and optrodes for neural recordings. A.B.-R. performed surgeries to chronically implant electrodes and performed single-unit recordings. A.B.-R., C.A.L. and K.N.P. sorted extracellular waveforms. A.B.-R. and E.Y.K. analyzed electrophysiology data. E.Y.K. wrote the Matlab scripts for the support vector machine learning algorithms. E.M.I., M.J.P., K.N.P., K.K.A., P.A.P.-R. and M.A. built optical fibers. A.B.-R., E.M.I., M.J.P., W.A.R.-G., K.N.P. and M.A. performed animal training and analyzed behaviors from videos. A.B.-R., E.M.I., M.J.P., W.A.R.-G., A.C.F.-O., K.N.P., K.K.A. and M.A. performed histological assessment. E.H.N. assisted with programing of the neural recording workstation and wrote the Matlab script for quantification of animal movement. P.N. assisted with Med-PC programming for behavioral studies and wrote the Matlab scripts to analyze port entry data and waveform properties. A.B. performed ex vivo whole-cell patch-clamp electrophysiological recordings. A.B. and A.C.F.-O. assisted with figures. A.B.-R., E.Y.K. and K.M.T. made figures and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the editing and revision of the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Integrated supplementary information
Supplementary Figure 1 Progression of port entry and freezing responses across training.
Related to Figure 1. (a-b) Training timeline and behavioral apparatus. Sensory modalities for the sucrose- and shock-predictive cues (conditioned stimuli, CSs) were counterbalanced across animals. During competition trials, the CS-Suc and CS-Shock associations were co-presented to induce conflicting motivational drives and competition between the reward- and fear-related behaviors. (c) Progression of port entry responses during reward conditioning, plotted in blocks of five trials (repeated measures two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests, epoch x trial-block interaction, F14,448 = 5.36, P < 0.001; t14 > 4.16, ***P < 0.001). (d) Progression of port entry and freezing responses during the discrimination and competition sessions, plotted as session-blocks (trial-type x training-session interactions; port entry during discrimination, F2,60 = 21.4, P < 0.001; freezing during discrimination, F2,60 = 23.4, P < 0.001; port entry during competition, F1,30 = 1.68, P = 0.20; freezing during competition, F1,30 = 7.37, P = 0.011; Bonferroni post-hoc tests, t14 > 3.89, ***P < 0.001). (e-g) Effects of cue modality on behavioral performance. Superimposed dots represent individual subjects. No significant statistical differences were detected between animals that were trained with the light cue for the reward association and the tone cue for the fear association (RLight FTone: n = 8 animals), or vice versa (RTone FLight: n = 8 animals) (Reward Conditioning: two-way repeated measures ANOVA, group x training-session interaction, F2,28 = 0.57, P = 0.57) (Discrimination Session: Bonferroni-corrected unpaired T-Tests, all t14 < 1.71, all P > 0.11) (Competition Session: Bonferroni-corrected unpaired T-Tests, all t14 < 1.61, all P > 0.13). (h) Purity of behavioral responses across trial types during the last competition session. Dots represent individual animals. Values closer to “1” indicate that animals tended to solely perform a behavioral response type (either port entry or freezing) during each trial (see inset heatmap on the left). Values away from “1” indicate that animals tended to perform behavioral transitions (from freezing to port entry, or vice versa) within single trials (see inset heatmap on the right). (i) Effects of previous trial on behavioral output during competition trials. Connecting lines represent individual subjects. No significant differences were detected (repeated measures one-way ANOVA: port entries, F2,15 = 1.81, P = 0.18; freezing, F2,15 = 1.56, P = 0.23). (j) Latency of port entry and freezing responses during competition. Superimposed dots represent latencies for individual subjects. Latencies were capped at 20 s, which was the maximum trial length. Significant differences were detected across trial types for port entry latencies (repeated measures one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests, F2,47 = 99.7, P < 0.001; all t15 > 5.89, all ***P < 0.001) and freezing latencies (F2,47 = 64.6, P < 0.001; all t15 > 4.29, all ***P < 0.001). In all data panels, error bars represent s.e.m.
Supplementary Figure 2 Histological reconstruction of neural recording sites in the BLA and PL.
Related to Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5. (a-c) Electrodes were chronically implanted in both the BLA and PL for simultaneous single-unit recordings. Error bands for the representative waveforms represent s.d. Circles of matching colors in the coronal drawings correspond to the same animal. (d) Representative confocal images show the recording sites for one animal. (e) Representative waveforms and clusters from well-isolated cells. Waveforms are illustrated in a superimposed manner for each cluster. Clusters are shown in three-dimensional principal component space. (f-g) Distribution of firing frequencies for the BLA and PL cells. Red lines indicate the cutoffs used to exclude low firing rate cells (<0.1 Hz) from the cross-correlation analyses, as cells with such firing rates typically produce unpopulated correlograms with spurious peaks that may result on false positive correlations.
Supplementary Figure 3 Criteria used for the detection of significant correlations between the BLA and PL cells, and side-by-side results with multiple time bin sizes.
Related to Figure 2. (a) Cross-correlograms were calculated using 25-ms time bins, they were then corrected using two different predictor methods (trial shifting and spike shuffling) to eliminate confounds produced by CS-elicited changes in firing frequency, and they were then z-score transformed to detect significant peaks or troughs. (a1) Correction by shifting trials (repeated 19 times per trial type). (a2) Correction by shuffling spike trains (repeated 100 times per trial type). (a3) Repetition of the analysis using 5-ms time bins to detect and exclude “zero-lag correlations” (i.e., peaks or troughs that are centered at zero, ±2.5 ms), which typically result from common input-induced comodulation. The resulting correlograms from the shift and shuffle predictors (second column) were subtracted from the raw correlograms (first column), and the difference was z-score transformed (third column; zoomed in on the fourth column) to detect significant peaks or troughs within the time window of interest (±100 ms). Peaks or troughs were required to reach a z-value threshold (indicated by dashed horizontal lines) that was calculated based on a P-level of <0.01 (corrected for two-tail comparisons and Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons). Significant peaks in these representative correlograms are indicated with colored dots for each trial type. To classify neural pairs as significantly correlated, peaks or troughs were required to exceed the significance threshold after correcting with both predictor correctors (trial-shifting and spike shuffling), and do not show "zero-lag" latencies in the 5-ms binned correlograms. In addition, neural pairs were classified as either “BLA led” if peaks or troughs occurred within the range of +2.5 to +100 ms, or as “PL led” if peaks or troughs occurred within the range of -100 to -2.5 ms, relative to the BLA reference spikes. (b-c) Side-by-side cross-correlation results using either 25-ms or 10-ms bin widths. Numbers within the heatmaps represent the proportion of significantly correlated BLA/PL neural pairs during the CS-Suc and CS-Shock trials. Inset heatmaps show zoomed in views of the time window of interest (±100 ms). (d-e) Lead and lag results using either 25 ms or 10 ms bins. With both bin widths, excitatory correlations were likelier to be led by the BLA during the CS-Shock trials, whereas inhibitory correlations were likelier to be led by the BLA during the CS-Suc trials. Chi-square tests for the 25-ms binned excitatory CCs: X2 = 29.8 and ***P < 0.001 (BLA vs PL during the CS-Shock), X2 = 16.0 and ***P < 0.001 (CS-Suc vs CS-Shock ratios). Chi-square tests for the 25-ms binned inhibitory CCs: X2 = 5.99 and *P = 0.014 (BLA vs PL during the CS-Suc), X2 = 5.70 and *P = 0.017 (CS-Suc vs CS-Shock ratios). Chi-square tests for the 10-ms binned excitatory CCs: X2 = 21.0 and ***P < 0.001 (BLA vs PL during the CS-Shock), X2 = 14.4 and ***P < 0.001 (CS-Suc vs CS-Shock ratios). Chi-square tests for the 10-ms binned inhibitory CCs: X2 = 0.67 and P = 0.41 (BLA vs PL during the CS-Suc), X2 = 1.18 and P = 0.28 (CS-Suc vs CS-Shock ratios). (f-g) Mean latency of peaks and troughs. Boxes represent the median and the 25th to 75th percentiles, whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentiles, and the plus signs (+) within the boxes represent the mean latencies per event. The mean latencies for the excitatory correlations with the 25-ms bins were as follow: CS-Suc, 5.9±2.5 ms; CS-Shock, 13.0±2.4 ms (unpaired T-test: t623 = 2.05, *P = 0.041). The mean latencies for the inhibitory correlations with the 25-ms bins were as follow: CS-Suc, 17.1±7.6 ms; CS-Shock, -1.4±5.2 ms (t95 = 1.95, ~P = 0.055). The mean latencies for the excitatory correlations with the 10-ms bins were as follow: CS-Suc, 2.0±2.7 ms; CS-Shock, 8.1±2.5 ms (t623 = 2.05, ~P = 0.064). The mean latencies for the inhibitory correlations with the 10-ms bins were as follow: CS-Suc, 9.5±15.0 ms; CS-Shock, 8.2±8.9 ms (t34 = 0.08, P = 0.94).
Supplementary Figure 4 Representative raw cross-correlations demonstrating potential increased variability with smaller time bin widths.
Related to Figure 2. Cross-correlations for each neural pair (individual columns) are represented in triplicate using three different bin widths: 25 ms (top row), 10 ms (middle row), and 5 ms (bottom row). Significant correlations are displayed as solid lines, and non-significant correlations are displayed as dotted lines. Significant peaks are indicated by colored dots. While these examples illustrate the y-axes as PL spike probability, the significance of each correlation was assessed using our compound criteria based on z-score thresholds after correcting with the trial-shifting and spike-shuffling predictors (as in Supplementary Fig. S3a). (a) Correlograms between representative BLA and PL cells with moderate firing frequencies that showed consistent peaks and lead/lag timings across all three bin widths. (b) Correlograms between representative BLA and PL cells with relatively low firing frequencies that showed peaks and lead/lag timings that were somewhat inconsistent across the distinct bin widths. (c-d) Example correlograms between representative BLA and PL cells with either low or moderate firing frequencies that exhibited spurious significant peaks when using the narrowest 5-ms bin widths, raising concerns for false positives due to the increased variability obtained with the small bins. (e-f) Example correlograms between representative BLA and PL cells both with relatively low firing frequencies that also showed spurious significant peaks with the smaller bin widths. These examples also raised concerns for false positives when using small bin widths due to sparse firing. (g) Example correlograms that represent the potential for false negatives with the 5-ms bins, which may be due to splitting of the peaks among adjacent bins, or due to the more stringent z-score criteria, which required additional corrections for multiple comparison in the case of the 5-ms bins compared to the wider bin widths. In summary, our dataset provided more reliable cross-correlation results when using the relatively wider bin widths (25 ms).
Supplementary Figure 5 BLA and PL exhibited less correlated activity during a habituation session prior to the acquisition of the reward and fear memories, as well as during a neutral cue after acquiring the memories.
Related to Figure 2. (a) On a subset of animals (n = 4), BLA/PL recordings were performed during an initial habituation session in which three cues (light, tone, and white noise) were presented without any outcome. These cues were then paired with either sucrose, shock, or no outcome to become the CS-Suc, CS-Shock, and neutral CS–, respectively. Recordings were then performed during a discrimination session after animals acquired these associations. (b-c) Behavioral responses during the discrimination session. While animals showed selective port entry and freezing responses to the CS-Suc and CS-Shock, respectively, they did not display any of these behaviors during the neutral CS–. Error bands represent s.e.m. (d) Proportion of BLA/PL neural pairs that exhibited significantly correlated activity during either the habituation or discrimination session. Significantly higher proportions of BLA/PL neural pairs exhibited correlated activity during the discrimination session than the habituation session during all epochs, except the CS– (Bonferroni-corrected chi-square tests comparing habituation versus discrimination: ITI, X2 = 21.6, ***P < 0.001; CS-Suc, X2 = 18.6, ***P < 0.001; CS-Shock, X2 = 13.0, **P = 0.0012; CS–, X2 = 2.91, P = 0.36). In addition, during the discrimination session there were fewer correlated neural pairs during the CS– than during the other epochs (Bonferroni-corrected chi-square tests: CS– vs ITI, X2 = 8.40, *P = 0.015; CS– vs CS-Suc, X2 = 3.7, P = 0.22; CS– vs CS-Shock, X2 = 3.11, P = 0.31). These findings support the hypothesis that BLA/PL correlations strengthened with learning.
Supplementary Figure 6 Variations on cross-correlation lead/lag across counterbalanced cue conditions, event-biased populations, and putative projection neurons and interneurons.
Related to Figure 2. (a-b) Lead/lag comparisons between animals that received the light cue for the rewarding CS-Suc association and the tone cue for the fearful CS-Shock association (“RewLight FearTone”, n = 6 subjects), or vice versa (“RewTone FearLight”, n = 6 subjects). On both counterbalanced combinations, the BLA was still likelier to lead the excitatory correlations during the CS-Shock (Bonferroni-corrected chi-square tests: RewLight FearTone; BLA vs PL during CS-Shock, X2 = 16.8, ***P < 0.001; CS-Shock vs ITI, X2 = 9.03, **P = 0.008; CS-Shock vs CS-Suc, X2 = 7.52, *P = 0.018; RewTone FearLight; BLA vs PL during CS-Shock, X2 = 13.1, ***P < 0.001; CS-Shock vs ITI, X2 = 2.88, P = 0.27; CS-Shock vs CS-Suc, X2 = 10.2, **P = 0.004). In addition, the BLA was still likelier to lead the inhibitory correlations during the CS-Suc on both cue combinations. However, statistical comparisons for the inhibitory correlations were unreliable due to the overall low numbers. (c-d) Lead/lag on distinct BLA/PL pairwise populations that exhibited correlations during either specific task events (“event-biased populations”) or during various task events (“unbiased populations”). While zero-lag “common-input” correlations were included in this analysis (represented in the bars as “0”), they were not considered for statistical comparisons due to the overall low numbers (Event-Biased BLA vs PL: X2 = 4.66, ~P = 0.087; Unbiased to ITI & CS-Shock BLA vs PL: X2 = 13.2, ***P < 0.001; Unbiased to All Events BLA vs PL: X2 = 13.4, ***P < 0.001; Unbiased to All Events CS-Shock vs ITI: X2 = 7.59, *P = 0.018; Unbiased to All Events CS-Shock vs CS-Suc: X2 = 9.66, **P = 0.006). Representative correlations in the line plots were constructed using 5-ms bins and were smoothed using a Gaussian distribution for illustration purposes. (e-i) Lead/lag comparisons across putative projection cells and interneurons. (e) BLA and PL cells were classified as putative projection cells or interneurons based on three properties: depolarization half-width, hyperpolarization half-width, and mean firing frequency. A hierarchical clustering method was used to separate cells into two populations: wide spike-width (putative projection cells; blue dots) or narrow spike-widths (putative interneurons; red dots). (f) Lead/lag results for the excitatory correlations after excluding putative interneurons. The BLA was still likelier to lead excitatory correlations during the CS-Shock, but not during the CS-Suc (BLA vs PL during CS-Shock: X2 = 27.7, ***P < 0.001; CS-Shock vs CS-Suc: X2 = 13.5, ***P < 0.001). (g) Proportion of BLA-led excitatory correlations across multiple combinations between the putative projection cells and interneurons. (h) Lead/lag results for the inhibitory correlations after excluding putative interneurons. The BLA was still likelier to lead more of the inhibitory correlations during the CS-Suc, but not during the CS-Shock (BLA vs PL during CS-Suc: X2 = 3.75, ~P = 0.053; CS-Shock vs CS-Suc: X2 = 2.92, ~P = 0.087). (i) Proportion of BLA-led inhibitory correlations across multiple combinations between the putative projection cells and interneurons.
Supplementary Figure 7 CS-responsive populations in the BLA and PL, and cross-correlations across responsive and nonresponsive cells during reward–fear discrimination.
Related to Figure 3. (a-b) Representative BLA and PL cells exhibiting significant changes in activity during the reward- or fear-related CSs. Cells were deemed as either “R+”, “R-”, “F+”, or “F-”, respectively, if they exhibited a selective increase or decrease in activity to either of the CSs. Cells that exhibited significant responses to CSs were deemed as “R+F+”, “R-F-”, “R+F-”, or “R-F+”, respectively. (c-d) Mean response for each CS-responsive population in the BLA and PL. Error bands represent s.e.m. (e-f) Response latencies per CS. Numbers within parentheses indicate the overall number of cells that responded to each CS, with either excitation (“Exc”; increased activity) or inhibition (“Inh”; decreased activity). Boxes represent the median and the 25th to 75th percentiles, whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentiles, and the plus signs (+) within the boxes represent the mean response latencies, using 50-ms time bins. The mean latencies obtained for the BLA cells were as follow: excitation to the CS-Suc, 108±32; excitation to the CS-Shock, 107±21; inhibition to the CS-Suc, 152±18; inhibition to the CS-Shock, 129±24. The mean latencies obtained for the PL cells were as follow: excitation to the CS-Suc, 183±32; excitation to the CS-Shock, 145±23; inhibition to the CS-Suc, 165±31; inhibition to the CS-Shock, 200±42. No significant differences were detected with the Dunn’s post-hoc tests between the response latencies for the CS-Suc and CS-Shock. (g-j) Cross-correlation lead/lag comparisons among populations of BLA and PL cells that exhibited significant responses to the reward-related cue (“R cells”) or the fear-related cue (“F cells”).
Supplementary Figure 8 Histological assessment for the BLA→PL stimulation experiments and behavioral effects during a discrimination session with a neutral cue.
Related to Figure 6. (a) Histological reconstruction of viral infusions and location of optical fibers (eYFP: n = 10 animals; ChR2: n = 8 animals). Circles in the BLA drawings represent the center of viral infusions. Dashes in the PL drawings represent the optical fiber tips. (b) Histology for the pharmacology experiment (n = 10 animals). Dashes in the PL drawings represent the position of cannulas and optical fibers. (c) Photostimulation during the discrimination of a CS-Suc, CS-Shock, and a neutral cue (CS–). Animals were tested over two days shortly after infusion of either ACSF or NBQX+AP5. Difference scores are plotted relative to laser-OFF trials. A significant interaction between the drug and laser treatments was detected for freezing responses during CS-Shock trials (repeated measures two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests: F1,18 = 7.57, P = 0.013; t18 = 3.89, ***P < 0.001). No significant interaction effects were detected for port entries during CS-Suc trials (F1,18 = 0.01, P = 0.97). No significant interaction effects were detected for either behavior during the CS– (freezing, F1,18 = 0.50, P = 0.49; port entry, F1,18 = 2.84, P = 0.11). Error bars represent s.e.m.
Supplementary Figure 9 Validation of the ArchT viral construct and effects of optogenetically mediated inhibition of BLA inputs on the spontaneous firing of PL neurons.
Related to Figure 7. (a) Single-unit activity was monitored in the BLA at several time points after viral infusion to determine whether the ArchT construct produced reliable silencing. In the coronal drawings, four recording sites are illustrated per animal (n = 4 subjects), as microlesions were performed on four representative channels along the circumference of the optical fiber. (b-c) BLA units exhibiting ArchT-induced inhibition or excitation. (d) Quantification of the BLA cells that exhibited significant inhibition (“-”), excitation (“+”), or no change (“No Δ”). ArchT-induced inhibition predominated at all recording time points (chi-square tests comparing inhibited and excited populations: 10 days, X2 = 9.07, **P = 0.003; 20 days, X2 = 19.4, ***P < 0.001; 30 days, X2 = 20.0, ***P < 0.001). (e-f) Population histograms for the inhibited and excited BLA cells. (g) Assessment of spontaneous activity in PL upon local ArchT-induced inhibition of BLA inputs. Coronal drawings show the recording sites in PL. (h) Quantification of the PL cells that exhibited significant changes in activity during inhibition of BLA inputs. Inhibition of BLA inputs produced sparse effects on the spontaneous activity of PL neurons (Fisher exact probability tests: 10 days, P = 1.00; 20 days, P = 0.50; 30 days, P = 0.25). Error bands represent s.e.m.
Supplementary Figure 10 Histological assessment for the BLA→PL inhibition experiments and behavioral effects during discrimination sessions with a neutral cue.
Related to Figure 7. (a) Histology for the optogenetic inhibition experiments (GFP: n = 6 animals; ArchT: n = 6 animals). (b) ArchT-mediated photoinhibition during the discrimination of a CS-Suc, CS-Shock, and a neutral cue (CS–). Difference scores are plotted relative to laser-OFF trials. A significant group x laser treatment interaction was detected for freezing responses during CS-Shock trials (repeated measures two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests: F1,10 = 6.17, P = 0.032; t10 = 3.51, **P = 0.006). Significant interaction effects were also detected for port entries during CS-Suc trials (F1,10 = 6.86, P = 0.026; t10 = 3.70, **P = 0.004). No significant effects were detected for either behavior during the CS– (freezing, F1,10 = 0.65, P = 0.44; port entry, F1,10 = 0.06, P = 0.82). (c) Histology for the chemogenetic inhibition experiments (mCherry: n = 7 animals; M4D(Gi): n = 7 animals). CAV2-Cre infusions in PL were determined from needle tracks, and two infusion sites are illustrated per animal as the CAV2-Cre virus was infused into two dorsal-ventral PL locations to maximize tissue coverage. (d) Chemogenetic inhibition during the discrimination of a CS-Suc, CS-Shock, and CS–. Animals were tested over three days after systemic injections of either CNO or vehicle. Difference scores are plotted relative to the first vehicle session. A significant group x drug treatment interaction was detected for freezing during the CS-Shock (F2,24 = 6.22, P = 0.007; t12 = 4.32, ***P = 0.001). No significant interaction effects were detected for port entries during the CS-Suc (F2,24 = 2.25, P = 0.13). While a significant interaction effect was detected for freezing during the CS– (F2,24 = 4.95, P = 0.016; t12 = 3.00, *P = 0.011), this effect was not related to the CNO treatment (group difference during CNO, P = 0.58). Port entry responses during the CS– were also unaffected (F2,24 = 0.42, P = 0.66). Error bars represent s.e.m.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Text and Figures
Supplementary Figures 1–10 (PDF 2979 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burgos-Robles, A., Kimchi, E., Izadmehr, E. et al. Amygdala inputs to prefrontal cortex guide behavior amid conflicting cues of reward and punishment. Nat Neurosci 20, 824–835 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4553
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4553
This article is cited by
-
Comparison of genes involved in brain development: insights into the organization and evolution of the telencephalic pallium
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Evaluation of behavioural selection processes in conflict scenarios using a newly developed mouse behavioural paradigm
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Hippocampal sharp wave ripples underlie stress susceptibility in male mice
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Prefrontal circuits encode both general danger and specific threat representations
Nature Neuroscience (2023)
-
Different projection neurons of basolateral amygdala participate in the retrieval of morphine withdrawal memory with diverse molecular pathways
Molecular Psychiatry (2023)