Acute stress enhances associative learning via dopamine signaling in the
ventral lateral striatum
Claire E. Stelly1, Sean C. Tritley1, Yousef Rafati1, Matthew J. Wanat1
1Neurosciences Institute and Department of Biology, University of Texas at San Antonio,
San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
Corresponding Author:
Matthew J. Wanat
Neurosciences Institute
Department of Biology
University of Texas at San Antonio
One UTSA Circle
San Antonio, TX 78249
210.458.6684
1
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
Abstract:
Acute stress transiently increases vigilance, whereby enhancing the detection of
salient stimuli. This increased perceptual sensitivity is thought to promote associating
rewarding outcomes with relevant cues. The mesolimbic dopamine system is critical for
learning cue-reward associations. Dopamine levels in the ventral striatum are elevated
following exposure to stress. Together, this suggests the mesolimbic dopamine system
could mediate the influence of acute stress on cue-reward learning. To address this
possibility, we examined how a single stressful experience influenced learning in an
appetitive Pavlovian conditioning task. Male rats underwent an episode of restraint
prior to the first conditioning session. This acute stress treatment augmented
conditioned responding in subsequent sessions. Voltammetry recordings of mesolimbic
dopamine levels demonstrated that acute stress selectively increased reward-evoked
dopamine release in the ventral lateral striatum (VLS), but not in the ventral medial
striatum (VMS). Antagonizing dopamine receptors in the VLS blocked the stress-
induced enhancement of conditioned responding. Collectively, these findings illustrate
that stress engages dopamine signaling in the VLS to facilitate appetitive learning.
Introduction:
Acute stress triggers a transient state of increased vigilance. This heightened
awareness of one’s surroundings reflects activation of the ‘salience network’, a large-
scale brain network for detecting and attending to stimuli that are potentially harmful or
beneficial1-5. Increased stimulus salience is theorized to facilitate associative learning6,7.
As stress increases salience, associative learning should be enhanced accordingly.
Consistent with this idea, stress promotes conditioned responding to aversive cues8-12.
While stress facilitates learning to associate contextual cues with drug rewards13,14, it is
unclear if acute stress additionally enhances conditioning with natural rewards.
Phasic dopamine release in the ventral striatum is essential for learning to
associate cues with rewarding outcomes15-19. The mesolimbic dopamine system is also
sensitive to stress, as dopamine levels in the ventral striatum are modulated during and
2
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
after exposure to stressors20-25. However, it is not known if acute stress regulates phasic
dopamine release to impact associative learning.
To address this question, male rats were exposed to a single episode of restraint
stress prior to training on a Pavlovian conditioning task using food rewards. We
monitored dopamine release in the ventral medial and ventral lateral striatum
throughout training to determine if stress altered the dopamine response to rewards or
their predictors. Additionally, we performed local pharmacological manipulations to
establish if stress-induced behavioral changes required dopamine transmission.
Methods:
Subjects and surgery:
The University of Texas at San Antonio Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee approved all procedures. Male CD IGS Sprague Dawley rats (Charles River
Laboratories, RRID:RGD 734476) were pair-housed upon arrival, allowed ad libitum
access to water and chow, and maintained on a 12 h light/dark cycle. Voltammetry
electrodes were surgically implanted under isoflurane anesthesia in rats weighing 300 –
400 g. Carbon fiber electrodes were placed bilaterally targeting the VMS or VLS (relative
to bregma: 1.3 mm anterior; ± 1.3 mm lateral; 7.0 mm ventral or 1.3 mm anterior; ± 2.7
mm lateral; 7.3 mm ventral, respectively), along with an Ag/AgCl reference electrode
placed under the skull. Bilateral stainless steel guide cannulae (InVivo One) were
implanted 1 mm dorsal to the VLS. Following surgery, rats were single-housed for the
duration of the experiment and allowed to recover for 1-3 weeks before behavioral
procedures. Electrode and cannula placements are depicted in Fig. 1. The microinjection
area is based on the spread of an equivalent volume of Evans Blue dye.
Behavioral procedures:
At ≥ 7 days post-surgery, rats were placed on mild dietary restriction to 90% of
their free feeding weight, allowing for a weekly increase of 1.5%. Animals were handled
regularly before behavioral testing commenced. All behavioral sessions occurred during
the light cycle in operant boxes (Med Associates) with a grid floor, a house light, a
3
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
4
Ventral medial striatum Ventral lateral striatum
Bregma +1.80mm
Bregma +1.20mm
Control; Stressed
Figure 1 Voltammetry electrode placement
Bregma +1.68mm
Vehicle Flupenthixol
Control
Stressed
Cannula placement
A
B
Figure 1. Voltammetry electrode and cannula placement. A, Histologically verified locations of voltammetry electrodes in control rats (black circles) and stressed rats (magenta circles). We used the lateral edge of the anterior commissure as the boundary of the ventral medial (left) and ventral lateral (right) striatum. B, Histologically verified locations of microinjector tips and approximate infusion area of vehicle (left, blue) and flupenthixol (right, orange) in control rats (above, black border) and stressed rats (below, magenta border).
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
recessed food tray equipped with an infrared beam-break detector, and a white noise
generator. To familiarize the animals with the operant chamber and food retrieval from
the tray, rats first received 1-2 magazine training sessions in which 20 unsignaled food
pellets (45 mg, BioServ) were delivered at a 90 s variable interval. Rats then underwent
10 Pavlovian reward conditioning sessions comprised of 50 trials each. Trials consisted
of a 5 s white noise conditioned stimulus (CS) presentation terminating with the
delivery of a single food pellet unconditioned stimulus (US) and 4.5 s illumination of the
tray light. Trials were separated by a 55 ± 15 s intertrial interval. We monitored head
entries into the food tray across training sessions. Conditioned responding was
quantified as the change in the rate of head entries during the 5 s CS relative to the 5 s
preceding the CS delivery26. Response latency was calculated as the interval from CS
onset to the first head entry during the CS. To assay response vigor, we calculated the
head entry rate during the interval from the first entry to the end of the CS. We then
took the difference between this adjusted response rate relative to the head entry rate in
the 5 s preceding the CS delivery.
Restraint stress:
In a novel room, rats were either introduced to a clean, empty cage (control) or
confined in a clear acrylic tail vein restrainer (Braintree Scientific) for 20-30 min
(stress). Rats were then transferred to a clean recovery cage in the familiar testing area
for 5 min. Following recovery, rats were connected to the voltammetric amplifier in the
operant chamber and electrodes were cycled for 15 min prior to Pavlovian training
sessions, for a total interval of 20 min from the end of stress/control procedure to the
start of training. An additional group of animals were returned to their home cages for
1o0 min after recovery, allowing for a 2 hr interval from the end of stress/control
procedure to the start of training.
Pharmacology:
Flupenthixol dihydrochloride (Tocris) was dissolved in sterile 0.9% NaCl. Rats
received bilateral 0.5 µl microinjections of flupenthixol (10 µg/side) or vehicle into the
ventrolateral striatum at 0.25 µl/min. The injectors were removed 1 minute after the
5
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
infusion ended. Behavioral sessions commenced 30 min after the intra-VLS
microinjections27.
Voltammetry recordings and analysis:
Indwelling carbon fiber microelectrodes were connected to a head-mounted
amplifier to monitor dopamine release in behaving rats using fast-scan cyclic
voltammetry as described previously26,28-30. During voltammetric scans, the potential
applied to the carbon fiber was ramped in a triangular waveform from -0.4 V (vs. Ag/
AgCl) to +1.3 V and back at a rate of 400 V/s. Scans occurred at 10 Hz with the electrode
potential held at -0.4 V between scans. Dopamine was chemically verified by obtaining
high correlation of the cyclic voltammogram during a reward-related event with that of a
dopamine standard (correlation coefficient r2 ≥ 0.75 by linear regression). Voltammetry
data for a session were excluded from analysis if the detected voltammetry signal did not
satisfy the chemical verification criteria, as in prior studies26,29,30. Dopamine was
isolated from the voltammetry signal using chemometric analysis31 with a standard
training set accounting for dopamine, pH, and drift. The background for voltammetry
recording analysis was set at 0.5 s before the CS onset. CS-evoked dopamine release was
quantified as the mean dopamine level during the 5 s CS relative to the 5 s prior to the
CS delivery26. US-evoked dopamine was quantified as the peak dopamine level during
the 2.5 s following US delivery relative to the 0.5 s preceding the US delivery. Trials were
excluded if chemometric analysis failed to identify dopamine on > 25% of the data
points. The change in dopamine concentration was estimated based on the average post-
implantation electrode sensitivity (34 nA/µM)28. .
Experimental design and statistical analysis:
Rats were assigned to stress or control groups in an unbiased manner. We
performed all statistical analyses in Graphpad Prism 8. All data are plotted as mean ±
SEM. A mixed-effects model fit (restricted maximum likelihood method) was used to
analyze effects on behavioral measures and dopamine responses. Student’s unpaired t-
test with Welch’s correction was used to compare dopamine responses between dorsal
and ventral VMS. The significance level was set to α = 0.05 for all tests.
6
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
Histology:
Rats with were anesthetized, electrically lesioned via the voltammetry electrodes,
and perfused intracardially with 4% paraformaldehyde. Brains were extracted and post-
fixed in the paraformaldehyde solution for a minimum of 24 hrs, then were transferred
to 15 % and 30 % sucrose in phosphate-buffered saline. Tissue was cryosectioned and
stained with cresyl violet. Implant locations were mapped to a standardized rat brain
atlas32. The VMS and VLS were delineated by the anatomical boundary formed by the
lateral edge of the anterior commissure.
Results:
A single stress exposure enhances conditioned responding to reward-
predictive stimuli
We examined how a single episode of restraint stress affected the acquisition of
conditioned behavioral responses to a reward-predictive cue. As a control, a separate
group of rats was exposed to a clean, empty cage for an equivalent period of time. Rats
underwent the stress or control treatment 20 min prior to the first Pavlovian
conditioning session. Training continued for 9 additional daily sessions without any
further stress experience (Fig. 2A). Each session consisted of 50 presentations of a 5 s
audio CS that terminated with the delivery of a single food pellet US (Fig. 2B).
Conditioned responding was elevated in stressed rats relative to controls (treatment
effect F(1, 35)=8.22, p=0.007; n=16 control, 21 stress; Fig. 2C). Stress did not alter the
time to approach to the food tray, as the latency from the CS onset to the first tray entry
did not differ between groups (treatment effect F(1, 35)=0.80, p=0.38; Fig. 2D). The
number of tray entries during the intertrial interval was unaffected by stress exposure,
indicating no change in overall activity (treatment effect F(1, 35)=1.03, p=0.32; Fig. 2E).
Together, these results demonstrate that stress selectively increases conditioned
responses towards a reward-predictive cue.
Stressful experience produces physiological effects ranging from minutes to
hours33. To determine the temporal window in which acute stress impacts Pavlovian
reward learning, we increased the interval between the stressor and the conditioning
7
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
8
Figure 2
A B Pavlovian reward task (50 trials per session)
ITICS
US
5 s45-75 s
Experimental timeline
20 min
F2 hours
J1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
G H I
Chan
ge in
ent
ries
/ s
Session
Conditioned responding
Session
Response latency
Session
Non - CS tray entries
C D E
Chan
ge in
ent
ries
/ s
**
Session
Conditioned respondingControl ratsStressed rats
SessionSe
cond
s
Response latency
Session
Non - CS tray entries
K L MResponse latency
Seco
nds
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
3
4
Session
Conditioned responding
Session
Chan
ge in
ent
ries
/ s
Non - CS tray entries
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
500
1000
1500
2000
Session
Stress
Control
20 minStress
Control
Stress
Control
Conditioning session
2 3 101
2 3 101
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
3
4
Seco
nds
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
500
1000
1500
2000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
500
1000
1500
2000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Figure 2. A single stress experience enhances subsequent Pavlovian conditioning. A, Training paradigm. Animals are stressed once, 20 min prior to the first conditioning session. B, Task structure. C, Elevated conditioned responding to the reward-predictive CS in rats stressed before the first training session. Magenta arrows denote restraint stress/control procedure D, Latency to head entry. E, Non-CS tray entries. F, Training paradigm with a 2 hr delay between the stress/control treatment and the start of conditioning. G, Conditioned responding is not increased when training begins 2 hrs after the stressor. H, Latency to head entry. I, Non-CS tray entries. J, Training paradigm with stress/control treatment occurring 20 min prior to the sixth conditioning session. K, Conditioned responding is not increased when stress experience occurs after acquisition of the task. L, Latency to head entry. M, Non-CS tray entries. **p < .01
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
session to 2 hrs (Fig. 2F). Conditioned responding did not differ between stressed and
control rats (treatment effect F(1, 17)=0.13, p=0.72; n=9 control, 10 stress; Fig. 2G).
Additionally, there was no difference in the response latency (treatment effect F(1,
17)=0.28, p=0.61; Fig.2H) or non-CS tray entries (treatment effect F(1, 17)=1.20, p=0.29;
Fig. 2I). These findings demonstrate that the stress exposure and the training
experience must occur in close temporal proximity for stress to affect learning.
9
Figure 3
A B
2 nM2 s
Session у
dop
amin
e (n
M) CS response
Session 1
Session 3
Session 5 Session 5
C D Control
E
Session
US response
у d
opam
ine
(nM
)
USCS
2 nM2 s
Session 1
Stressed
USCS
USCS
Session 3
USCS
USCS
USCS
2.5 nA
-1.7 nA2 s
Ventral medial striatum
1 2 3 4 50
2
4
6
8
1 2 3 4 50
2
4
6
8
Stressed
USCS
Control
2 sUS
CS
-0.4 V
-0.4 V
+1.3 V
Figure 3. Acute stress does not alter dopamine signals in the VMS. A, Voltammetry recordings were taken from the VMS (shaded in cyan). B, Representative color plots of voltammetry recording during session 3 from a single electrode in a control rat (left) and a stressed rat (right). C, Average dopamine signals across electrodes in control rats (left) and stressed rats (right) during the first, third, and fifth training sessions. The blue bar denotes CS presentation and the grey arrow denotes reward delivery. D, Average CS-evoked dopamine release. E, Average US-evoked dopamine release.
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
We next examined if stress exposure similarly facilitated conditioned responding
in well-trained animals. Rats were trained for 5 Pavlovian conditioning sessions before
undergoing a single stress exposure 20 min prior to the sixth session (Fig. 2J). Acute
stress exposure in well-trained animals did not impact subsequent conditioned
responding (treatment effect F(1, 2o)=1.07, p=0.31; n=10 control, 12 stress; Fig. 2K),
response latency (treatment effect F(1, 20)=0.05, p=0.82; Fig. 2L) or non-CS tray entries
(treatment effect F(1, 20)=0.01, p=0.93; Fig. 2M). These results illustrate that acute stress
does not influence the expression of a previously acquired conditioned response.
Stress selectively enhances reward-evoked dopamine release in the
ventral lateral striatum
Dopamine transmission in the ventral striatum is required for the acquisition of
conditioned responding17. Furthermore, increasing ventral striatal phasic dopamine
release is sufficient to confer conditioned motivational properties to neutral stimuli19.
The enhanced conditioned responding observed after acute stress could therefore reflect
stress-induced augmentation of ventral striatal dopamine signals. To address this
possibility, we performed voltammetry recordings of dopamine release in the ventral
striatum across Pavlovian conditioning sessions. We analyzed dopamine release during
the first five sessions, as conditioned responding was insensitive to the stress
manipulation after this point (Fig 2J-M).
We first examined dopamine signaling in the ventral medial striatum (VMS)
given the involvement of the VMS in reward-related behaviors34,35. Consistent with prior
studies36,37, dopamine release in the VMS was time-locked to both the CS and the US
(Fig. 3B-C). The CS dopamine response did not differ between stressed and control rats
(treatment effect F(1, 20)=0.64, p=0.43; n=9 control, 13 stress; Fig. 3D). Dopamine release
to the US decayed with training (session effect F(2.5, 43.9)=8.02, p=.0005; Fig 3E), but was
unaffected by stress exposure (treatment effect F(1, 20)=2.22, p=0.15). Collectively, these
results indicate that acute stress prior to the first conditioning session did not influence
the VMS dopamine response to rewards or reward-predictive cues.
10
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
Recent studies have illustrated heterogeneity of VMS dopamine responses to
rewarding stimuli along the dorsal-ventral axis38,39. We compared VMS dopamine
responses during the first training session from electrodes dorsal and ventral to the
anterior commissure. There was no difference in CS- or US-evoked dopamine release
between dorsal and ventral electrodes in control rats (CS: unpaired t-test t(5.9)=1.65,
p=0.15; US: t(5.0)=0.28, p=0.79; n=5 dorsal, 5 ventral) or stressed rats (CS: t(4.2)=1.15,
p=0.31; US: t(8.5)=0.0072, p=0.99; n=6 dorsal, 5 ventral).
11
Figure 4
A B Ventral lateral striatum
C
Session
CS response
1 2 3 4 50
2
4
6
8
у d
opam
ine
(nM
)
D
Session
**
US response
1 2 3 4 50
2
4
6
8
у d
opam
ine
(nM
)
E
Session 1
2 nM2 s
Control
USCS
Session 3
Session 5
USCS
Session 1
2 nM2 s
Stressed
USCS
Session 3
USCS
USCS
Session 5
USCS
-0.4 V
-0.4 V
+1.3 V
2 s
Control
USCS2 s
Stresssed 3.5 nA
-2.3 nA
USCS
Figure 4. Acute stress selectively enhances US-evoked dopamine signals in the VLS. A, Voltammetry recordings were taken from the VLS (shaded in orange). B, Representative color plots of voltammetry recording during session 3 from a single electrode in a control rat (left) and a stressed rat (right). C, Average dopamine responses across electrodes in control rats (left) and stressed rats (right) during the first, third, and fifth training sessions. The blue bar denotes CS presentation and the grey arrow denotes reward delivery. D, Average CS-evoked dopamine release does not differ between groups. E, Average US-evoked dopamine release is enhanced in stressed rats. **p <. 01
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
Increasing evidence highlights that the ventral lateral striatum (VLS) contributes
to reward-related behaviors35,40,41. Furthermore, aversive experience increases
excitatory transmission to dopamine neurons projecting to the VLS42. As such, acute
stress could enhance dopamine signaling in the VLS. Similar to the VMS, we identified
time-locked dopamine signals in the VLS in response to the CS and US across Pavlovian
conditioning sessions (Fig. 4B-C). There was no difference in CS-evoked dopamine
release between stressed and control rats (treatment effect F(1, 21)=0.92, p=0.35, n=12
control, 13 stress; Fig. 4D). VLS dopamine release to the US decayed with training
(session effect F(2.6, 46.2)=5.30, p=0.005; Fig.4E). However, US-evoked dopamine release
was elevated across sessions in stressed animals (treatment effect F(1, 21)=8.16, p=0.01).
Stress therefore selectively upshifts reward-evoked dopamine signals in the VLS.
Stress recruits VLS dopamine signaling to regulate appetitive learning
We next examined whether VLS dopamine signaling was required for the stress-
induced enhancement of conditioned responding. To address this, rats were implanted
with bilateral cannulae targeting the VLS for local pharmacological manipulations. The
D1/D2 dopamine receptor antagonist flupenthixol (10 µg/side) or vehicle was infused
into the VLS 30 min before the first 5 sessions. Rats were trained without injections for
5 additional sessions to differentiate the acute versus sustained behavioral effects of the
flupenthixol treatment (Fig. 5A).
VLS dopamine receptor blockade did not disrupt conditioned responding in
control rats (drug effect F(1, 20)=1.45, p=0.24, n=11 vehicle, 11 flupenthixol; Fig. 5B). We
note a non-significant reduction in responding on the last day of flupenthixol treatment
and a significant reduction in subsequent sessions in which no injection was
administered (prior treatment effect F(1, 20)=6.03, p=0.02; Fig. 5B). This suggests that
VLS dopamine signaling is not essential for conditioned responding early in training but
regulates behavior in later sessions. In contrast to the effect on conditioned responding,
flupenthixol did not affect response latency acutely (drug effect F(1, 20)=1.37, p=0.26) or
during subsequent sessions without injections (prior treatment effect F(1, 20)=0.0006,
p=0.98; Fig. 5C). VLS dopamine receptor antagonism therefore selectively affects
conditioned responding without altering approach latency in unstressed rats.
12
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
13
Figure 5
1 2 3 4 5
3
4
0
1
2
6 7 8 9 10Session
Seco
nds
Response latency
D
Session
*
Response latency
Seco
nds
1 2 3 4 50
1
2
3
4
6 7 8 9 10
A Experimental timeline
1 2 3 4 5
}VLS microinjection
6 7 8 9 10
C
1 2 3 4 5
****
Response vigor
Chan
ge in
ent
ries
/ s
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
6 7 8 9 10Session
**
Response vigor
4 51 2 30.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
Session6 7 8 9 10
*
Chan
ge in
ent
ries
/ s
response vigor
CSUS
first tray entry
B No injection
No injection
Vehicle
FlupenthixolControl
No injection
No injectionStressed
Session6 7 8 9 10
*
1 2 3 4 50.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
Chan
ge in
ent
ries
/ s
Conditioned responding
Session
Conditioned responding
Chan
ge in
ent
ries
/ s
***
1 2 3 4 50.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
**
6 7 8 9 10
E
F
G H
Vehicle
Flupenthixol
20 minStress
Control
Figure 5. VLS dopamine signals are required for conditioning in stressed animals. A, Training paradigm. Animals were stressed once, 20 min prior to the first session. Flupenthixol or vehicle was infused to the VLS before each of the first 5 training sessions. Training continued for 5 additional sessions without injections. B, Conditioned responding acquisition was not initially impaired by flupenthixol treatment in control rats, but a delayed deficit emerged with additional training. C, Response latency was not altered by flupenthixol treatment in controls. D, Flupenthixol treatment impaired conditioned responding in stressed rats. E, Flupenthixol treatment reversibly increased the latency in stressed rats. F, Calculation of response vigor. G, Response vigor was not initially impaired by flupenthixol treatment in control rats, but a delayed deficit emerged with extended training. H, Flupenthixol treatment impairs response vigor in stressed rats. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, ****p < .0001
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
In stressed rats, flupenthixol in the VLS acutely suppressed conditioned
responding (drug effect F(1, 21)=19.93, p=0.0002, n=12 vehicle, 11 flupenthixol; Fig. 5D).
This effect persisted throughout subsequent sessions in which no injection was
administered (prior treatment effect F(1, 21)=10.64, p=0.004; Fig. 5D). Furthermore,
flupenthixol acutely slowed the latency to respond in stressed rats (drug effect F(1,
21)=6.41, p=0.02), but this effect was not observed in subsequent sessions (prior
treatment effect F(1, 21)=0.92, p=0.35; Fig. 5E). Collectively, these results demonstrate
that flupenthixol impaired conditioned responding earlier in training in stressed
animals relative to controls. Furthermore, flupenthixol treatment reversibly increased
response latency in stressed animals but had no effect in controls. These results
highlight that conditioned responding and response latency are differentially regulated
by VLS dopamine transmission.
The effect of flupenthixol treatment on conditioned responding in stressed
animals could be driven by the increased latency to approach the food tray, which
reduces the time available for conditioned head entries. To eliminate the confound of
response latency, we recalculated the CS-evoked response rate based on the interval
between the first head entry and the US delivery (‘response vigor’; Fig. 5F). In stressed
rats, flupenthixol acutely reduced response vigor (drug effect F(1, 21)=33.80, p <0.0001;
Fig. 5H), and this effect persisted throughout subsequent sessions (prior treatment
effect F(1, 21)=10.37, p =0.004). These results illustrate that VLS dopamine transmission
regulates both the latency and the vigor of conditioned appetitive responses in stressed
animals.
Discussion:
In adverse circumstances, it is adaptive to rapidly and effectively learn which
stimuli predict beneficial outcomes. Prior rodent studies have shown that stress
enhances the learned preference for a cocaine-associated context13,14, though it was
unclear if acute stress similarly facilitated learning driven by natural rewards. Here, we
addressed this question by utilizing a Pavlovian task in which an auditory CS signaled
the upcoming delivery of a food reward. We demonstrate that a single, brief episode of
restraint stress induces a persistent increase in conditioned responding.
14
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
The effect of stress on subsequent behavior depends on the time elapsed from the
stressor, as well as the duration, intensity, and frequency of the stressful experience43-45.
Our results indicate that the influence of acute restraint stress on reward learning is
time-dependent. Stress administered two hours prior to the first conditioning session
failed to affect behavior. Additionally, acute stress did not increase conditioned
responding in rats that had already learned the task. Stressful experience therefore has
maximal influence over behavior when it occurs early in training. Collectively, these
findings demonstrate that stress induces a short-term state that interacts with the
associative learning mechanism to produce a long-term change in behavior.
Studies examining the role of ventral striatal dopamine in appetitive behavior
have primarily focused on the VMS26,37,46-49. However, recent findings indicate that
dopaminoceptive VLS spiny projection neurons regulate aspects of reward-
seeking35,40,41. Our results demonstrate that dopamine in the VLS regulates conditioned
responding in later training sessions in unstressed animals. Interestingly, acute stress
shifts the temporal window in which VLS dopamine controls conditioned responding to
an earlier point in training.
Stress selectively enhanced dopamine release in the VLS without affecting
dopamine release in the VMS. This result is in line with previous findings demonstrating
that the dopamine neurons targeting the VLS are anatomically and functionally distinct
from those targeting the VMS38,42,50-52. Furthermore, VMS and VLS spiny projection
neurons innervate different downstream targets, (e.g., medial vs. lateral ventral
pallidum and VTA)53,54. Reward-evoked dopamine signals encode subjective value based
upon one’s internal state (e.g., satiety)55-57. We suggest that the stress-induced increase
in VLS dopamine release reflects an upshift in reward value which then invigorates
conditioned appetitive behavior. Interestingly, our data illustrate that increased reward-
evoked dopamine release accompanies invigorated CS-evoked behavior. We propose
that the US-evoked dopamine signal initiates sustained changes downstream of the VLS,
resulting in a persistent increase in conditioned responding.
15
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
A single traumatic experience can exert long-lasting effects on behavior, as is the
case in post-traumatic stress disorder. As such, the role of stress in behavior motivated
by aversive stimuli has been studied extensively. However, traumatic stress also alters
responsivity to rewards58,59. Here, we demonstrate that a single stress exposure acts
upon a specific mesolimbic circuit to produce lasting changes in appetitive behavior.
These findings highlight the ventral lateral striatum as a nexus for stress to modulate
the neural representation of reward.
Acknowledgements:
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants DA033386 and
DA042362 to M.J.W. The authors thank Merridee Lefner for critical input on the
manuscript. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author Contributions:
CES, SCT, and YR performed the experiments and analyzed the data. CES and MJW
designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript.
References:
1 Seeley, W. W. et al. Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience
processing and executive control. J Neurosci 27, 2349-2356, doi:10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007 (2007).
2 Hermans, E. J. et al. Stress-related noradrenergic activity prompts large-scale
neural network reconfiguration. Science 334, 1151-1153, doi:10.1126/
science.1209603 (2011).
3 Hermans, E. J., Henckens, M. J., Joels, M. & Fernandez, G. Dynamic adaptation
of large-scale brain networks in response to acute stressors. Trends Neurosci 37,
304-314, doi:10.1016/j.tins.2014.03.006 (2014).
4 Clemens, B. et al. Alerted default mode: functional connectivity changes in the
aftermath of social stress. Sci Rep 7, 40180, doi:10.1038/srep40180 (2017).
16
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
5 Schwabe, L. Memory under stress: from single systems to network changes. Eur J
Neurosci 45, 478-489, doi:10.1111/ejn.13478 (2017).
6 Rescorla, R. A. W., A.R. in Classical conditioning II: current research and theory
(eds Abraham H. Black & William Frederick Prokasy) (Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1972).
7 Mackintosh, N. J. A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli
with reinforcement. Psychological Review 82, 276-298, doi:10.1037/h0076778
(1975).
8 Wilson, L. M., Wilson, J. R. & Dicara, L. V. Facilitation of Pavlovian conditioned
cardiodecelerations following preshock in immobilized rats. Physiol Behav 15,
653-658, doi:10.1016/0031-9384(75)90115-8 (1975).
9 Shors, T. J., Weiss, C. & Thompson, R. F. Stress-induced facilitation of classical
conditioning. Science 257, 537-539, doi:10.1126/science.1636089 (1992).
10 Shors, T. J. Acute stress rapidly and persistently enhances memory formation in
the male rat. Neurobiol Learn Mem 75, 10-29, doi:10.1006/nlme.1999.3956
(2001).
11 Rau, V. & Fanselow, M. S. Exposure to a stressor produces a long lasting
enhancement of fear learning in rats. Stress 12, 125-133,
doi:10.1080/10253890802137320 (2009).
12 Goodman, A. M. et al. Anticipatory prefrontal cortex activity underlies stress-
induced changes in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Neuroimage 174, 237-247,
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.030 (2018).
13 Montagud-Romero, S. et al. Acute social defeat stress increases the conditioned
rewarding effects of cocaine in adult but not in adolescent mice. Pharmacol
Biochem Behav 135, 1-12, doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2015.05.008 (2015).
14 Tovar-Diaz, J., Pomrenze, M. B., Kan, R., Pahlavan, B. & Morikawa, H.
Cooperative CRF and alpha1 Adrenergic Signaling in the VTA Promotes NMDA
Plasticity and Drives Social Stress Enhancement of Cocaine Conditioning. Cell
Rep 22, 2756-2766, doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.039 (2018).
15 Tsai, H. C. et al. Phasic firing in dopaminergic neurons is sufficient for behavioral
conditioning. Science 324, 1080-1084, doi:10.1126/science.1168878 (2009).
17
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
16 Steinberg, E. E. et al. A causal link between prediction errors, dopamine neurons
and learning. Nat Neurosci 16, 966-973, doi:10.1038/nn.3413 (2013).
17 Darvas, M., Wunsch, A. M., Gibbs, J. T. & Palmiter, R. D. Dopamine dependency
for acquisition and performance of Pavlovian conditioned response. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 111, 2764-2769, doi:10.1073/pnas.1400332111 (2014).
18 Chang, C. Y. et al. Brief optogenetic inhibition of dopamine neurons mimics
endogenous negative reward prediction errors. Nat Neurosci 19, 111-116,
doi:10.1038/nn.4191 (2016).
19 Saunders, B. T., Richard, J. M., Margolis, E. B. & Janak, P. H. Dopamine neurons
create Pavlovian conditioned stimuli with circuit-defined motivational properties.
Nat Neurosci 21, 1072-1083, doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0191-4 (2018).
20 Abercrombie, E. D., Keefe, K. A., DiFrischia, D. S. & Zigmond, M. J. Differential
effect of stress on in vivo dopamine release in striatum, nucleus accumbens, and
medial frontal cortex. J Neurochem 52, 1655-1658, doi:10.1111/
j.1471-4159.1989.tb09224.x (1989).
21 Puglisi-Allegra, S., Imperato, A., Angelucci, L. & Cabib, S. Acute stress induces
time-dependent responses in dopamine mesolimbic system. Brain Res 554,
217-222, doi:10.1016/0006-8993(91)90192-x (1991).
22 Kalivas, P. W. & Duffy, P. Selective activation of dopamine transmission in the
shell of the nucleus accumbens by stress. Brain Res 675, 325-328,
doi:0006-8993(95)00013-G [pii] (1995).
23 Tidey, J. W. & Miczek, K. A. Social defeat stress selectively alters
mesocorticolimbic dopamine release: an in vivo microdialysis study. Brain
Research 721, 140-149 (1996).
24 Anstrom, K. K., Miczek, K. A. & Budygin, E. A. Increased phasic dopamine
signaling in the mesolimbic pathway during social defeat in rats. Neuroscience
161, 3-12, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.03.023 (2009).
25 Valenti, O., Lodge, D. J. & Grace, A. A. Aversive stimuli alter ventral tegmental
area dopamine neuron activity via a common action in the ventral hippocampus.
J Neurosci 31, 4280-4289, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5310-10.2011 (2011).
18
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
26 Fonzi, K. M., Lefner, M. J., Phillips, P. E. M. & Wanat, M. J. Dopamine Encodes
Retrospective Temporal Information in a Context-Independent Manner. Cell Rep
20, 1765-1774, doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.07.076 (2017).
27 Saunders, B. T. & Robinson, T. E. The role of dopamine in the accumbens core in
the expression of Pavlovian-conditioned responses. Eur J Neurosci 36,
2521-2532, doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08217.x (2012).
28 Clark, J. J. et al. Chronic microsensors for longitudinal, subsecond dopamine
detection in behaving animals. Nat Methods 7, 126-129, doi:10.1038/nmeth.1412
(2010).
29 Oliva, I. & Wanat, M. J. Operant Costs Modulate Dopamine Release to Self-
Administered Cocaine. J Neurosci 39, 1249-1260, doi:10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.1721-18.2018 (2019).
30 Stelly, C. E. et al. Pattern of dopamine signaling during aversive events predicts
active avoidance learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116, 13641-13650,
doi:10.1073/pnas.1904249116 (2019).
31 Heien, M. L. et al. Real-time measurement of dopamine fluctuations after cocaine
in the brain of behaving rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102, 10023-10028,
doi:10.1073/pnas.0504657102 (2005).
32 Paxinos, G. & Watson, C. The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates : The New
Coronal Set. (Elsevier Science & Technology, 2004).
33 Carrasco, G. A. & Van de Kar, L. D. Neuroendocrine pharmacology of stress. Eur
J Pharmacol 463, 235-272, doi:10.1016/s0014-2999(03)01285-8 (2003).
34 Kelley, A. E. Ventral striatal control of appetitive motivation: role in ingestive
behavior and reward-related learning. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 27, 765-776,
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2003.11.015 (2004).
35 Tsutsui-Kimura, I. et al. Distinct Roles of Ventromedial versus Ventrolateral
Striatal Medium Spiny Neurons in Reward-Oriented Behavior. Curr Biol 27,
3042-3048 e3044, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.061 (2017).
36 Stuber, G. D. et al. Reward-predictive cues enhance excitatory synaptic strength
onto midbrain dopamine neurons. Science 321, 1690-1692, doi:10.1126/
science.1160873 (2008).
19
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
37 Flagel, S. B. et al. A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning.
Nature 469, 53-57, doi:10.1038/nature09588 (2011).
38 de Jong, J. W. et al. A Neural Circuit Mechanism for Encoding Aversive Stimuli
in the Mesolimbic Dopamine System. Neuron 101, 133-151 e137, doi:10.1016/
j.neuron.2018.11.005 (2019).
39 Yuan, L., Dou, Y. N. & Sun, Y. G. Topography of Reward and Aversion Encoding
in the Mesolimbic Dopaminergic System. J Neurosci 39, 6472-6481, doi:10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.0271-19.2019 (2019).
40 Natsubori, A. et al. Ventrolateral Striatal Medium Spiny Neurons Positively
Regulate Food-Incentive, Goal-Directed Behavior Independently of D1 and D2
Selectivity. J Neurosci 37, 2723-2733, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3377-16.2017
(2017).
41 Tsutsui-Kimura, I. et al. Dysfunction of ventrolateral striatal dopamine receptor
type 2-expressing medium spiny neurons impairs instrumental motivation. Nat
Commun 8, 14304, doi:10.1038/ncomms14304 (2017).
42 Lammel, S., Ion, D. I., Roeper, J. & Malenka, R. C. Projection-specific modulation
of dopamine neuron synapses by aversive and rewarding stimuli. Neuron 70,
855-862, doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.025 (2011).
43 Schwabe, L., Wolf, O. T. & Oitzl, M. S. Memory formation under stress: quantity
and quality. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34, 584-591, doi:10.1016/
j.neubiorev.2009.11.015 (2010).
44 Joels, M., Fernandez, G. & Roozendaal, B. Stress and emotional memory: a
matter of timing. Trends Cogn Sci 15, 280-288, doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.004
(2011).
45 Sapolsky, R. M. Stress and the brain: individual variability and the inverted-U.
Nat Neurosci 18, 1344-1346, doi:10.1038/nn.4109 (2015).
46 Cheng, J. J., De Bruin, J. P. C. & Feenstra, M. G. P. Dopamine efflux in nucleus
accumbens shell and core in response to appetitive classical conditioning.
European Journal of Neuroscience 18, 1306-1314, doi:10.1046/
j.1460-9568.2003.02849.x (2003).
20
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
47 Day, J. J., Roitman, M. F., Wightman, R. M. & Carelli, R. M. Associative learning
mediates dynamic shifts in dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens.
Nature Neuroscience 10, 1020-1028, doi:10.1038/nn1923 (2007).
48 Nicola, S. M. The flexible approach hypothesis: unification of effort and cue-
responding hypotheses for the role of nucleus accumbens dopamine in the
activation of reward-seeking behavior. J Neurosci 30, 16585-16600, doi:10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.3958-10.2010 (2010).
49 Clark, J. J., Collins, A. L., Sanford, C. A. & Phillips, P. E. Dopamine encoding of
Pavlovian incentive stimuli diminishes with extended training. J Neurosci 33,
3526-3532, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5119-12.2013 (2013).
50 Ikemoto, S. Dopamine reward circuitry: two projection systems from the ventral
midbrain to the nucleus accumbens-olfactory tubercle complex. Brain Res Rev
56, 27-78, doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.05.004 (2007).
51 Beier, K. T. et al. Circuit Architecture of VTA Dopamine Neurons Revealed by
Systematic Input-Output Mapping. Cell 162, 622-634, doi:10.1016/
j.cell.2015.07.015 (2015).
52 Beier, K. T. et al. Topological Organization of Ventral Tegmental Area
Connectivity Revealed by Viral-Genetic Dissection of Input-Output Relations.
Cell Rep 26, 159-167 e156, doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.12.040 (2019).
53 Groenewegen, H. J., Wright, C. I., Beijer, A. V. & Voorn, P. Convergence and
segregation of ventral striatal inputs and outputs. Ann N Y Acad Sci 877, 49-63,
doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09260.x (1999).
54 Yang, H. et al. Nucleus Accumbens Subnuclei Regulate Motivated Behavior via
Direct Inhibition and Disinhibition of VTA Dopamine Subpopulations. Neuron
97, 434-449 e434, doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.12.022 (2018).
55 Lak, A., Stauffer, W. R. & Schultz, W. Dopamine prediction error responses
integrate subjective value from different reward dimensions. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A 111, 2343-2348, doi:10.1073/pnas.1321596111 (2014).
56 Cone, J. J. et al. Physiological state gates acquisition and expression of
mesolimbic reward prediction signals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113, 1943-1948,
doi:10.1073/pnas.1519643113 (2016).
21
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint
57 Keiflin, R., Pribut, H. J., Shah, N. B. & Janak, P. H. Ventral Tegmental Dopamine
Neurons Participate in Reward Identity Predictions. Curr Biol 29, 93-103 e103,
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.11.050 (2019).
58 Elman, I. et al. Functional neuroimaging of reward circuitry responsivity to
monetary gains and losses in posttraumatic stress disorder. Biol Psychiatry 66,
1083-1090, doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.06.006 (2009).
59 Nawijn, L. et al. Reward functioning in PTSD: a systematic review exploring the
mechanisms underlying anhedonia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 51, 189-204,
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.019 (2015).
22
(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. The copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted December 19, 2019. . https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.881417doi: bioRxiv preprint