4.5 Article

Unique gene alterations are induced in FACS-purified Fos-positive neurons activated during cue-induced relapse to heroin seeking

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 124, 期 1, 页码 100-108

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jnc.12074

关键词

craving; extinction; flow cytometry; orbitofrontal; relapse; self-administration

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIA DA000467-09] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [F30 DA024931, F30DA024931] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM007205, 5T32GM07205] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cue-induced heroin seeking after prolonged withdrawal is associated with neuronal activation and altered gene expression in prefrontal cortex (PFC). However, these previous studies assessed gene expression in all neurons regardless of their activity state during heroin seeking. Using Fos as a marker of neural activity, we describe distinct molecular alterations induced in activated versus non-activated neurons during cue-induced heroin seeking after prolonged withdrawal. We trained rats to self-administer heroin for 10 days (6 h/day) and assessed cue-induced heroin seeking in extinction tests after 14 or 30 days. We used fluorescent-activated cell sorting (FACS) to purify Fos-positive and Fos-negative neurons from PFC 90 min after extinction testing. Flow cytometry showed that Fos-immunoreactivity was increased in less than 10% of sparsely distributed PFC neurons. mRNA levels of the immediate early genes fosB, arc, egr1, and egr2, as well as npy and map2k6, were increased in Fos-positive, but not Fos-negative, neurons. In support of these findings, double-label immunohistochemistry indicated substantial coexpression of neuropeptide Y (NPY)- and Arc-immunoreactivity in Fos-positive neurons. Our data indicate that cue-induced relapse to heroin seeking after prolonged withdrawal induces unique molecular alterations within activated PFC neurons that are distinct from those observed in the surrounding majority of non-activated neurons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据