2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molecular and Circuit-Dynamical Identification of Top-Down Neural Mechanisms for Restraint of Reward Seeking

Abstract: SUMMARY Reward-seeking behavior is fundamental to survival, but suppression of this behavior can be essential as well, even for rewards of high value. In humans and rodents, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been implicated in suppressing reward seeking; however, despite vital significance in health and disease, the neural circuitry through which mPFC regulates reward seeking remains incompletely understood. Here, we show that a specific subset of superficial mPFC projections to a subfield of nucleus acc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

13
130
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
3

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 126 publications
(150 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
13
130
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As an additional form of validation, we confirmed projection-specific expression of two of the top differentially expressed genes across treatments, Tnnc1 and Pou3f1, by comparing fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with projection-specific labeling (Figure 1I). Further validating these findings, our RNA-seq results replicated the major hits reported in a recent microarray study (Kim et al 2017) that compared expression between PL-NAc and PL-VTA neurons (> 2.8-fold preferential enrichment for Nptx2 , Nrn1 , and Sccpdh in PL-NAc; and > 2.7-fold preferential enrichment for Bcl11b / CTIP2 , Chst8 , and Tcerg1l in PL-VTA; Table S1). …”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…As an additional form of validation, we confirmed projection-specific expression of two of the top differentially expressed genes across treatments, Tnnc1 and Pou3f1, by comparing fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with projection-specific labeling (Figure 1I). Further validating these findings, our RNA-seq results replicated the major hits reported in a recent microarray study (Kim et al 2017) that compared expression between PL-NAc and PL-VTA neurons (> 2.8-fold preferential enrichment for Nptx2 , Nrn1 , and Sccpdh in PL-NAc; and > 2.7-fold preferential enrichment for Bcl11b / CTIP2 , Chst8 , and Tcerg1l in PL-VTA; Table S1). …”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 87%
“…It is presently unknown whether any of the pathwaydefined afferents to the NAc have distinctive activity patterns at a population level, although the inputs are associated with distinct cognitive processes (Floresco, 2015;Humphries and Prescott, 2010). Neural activity has been recorded in forebrain regions upstream of the NAc during reward-seeking tasks, but there is variable activity among neurons in those areas as well (Ambroggi et al, 2008;Ciocchi et al, 2015;Do-Monte et al, 2017;Kim et al, 2017;Li et al, 2016;Otis et al, 2017;Tye et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…TAM inducible CreER/LoxP system laid the foundations of significant discoveries in adult and embryonic neural stem cell fate mapping (Berg et al, 2019;Bond et al, 2015;Fuentealba et al, 2015;Gao et al, 2014), gene functions (Kuo et al, 2006), as well as neuronal subtypes and activity dependent neural circuitry (Kim et al, 2017;Paul et al, 2017;Ye et al, 2016). Is the potential side effect of TAM a vulnerable Achille's heel to cell lineage tracing and/or genetic targeting studies?…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%