Dopamine receptor 1 neurons in the dorsal striatum regulate food anticipatory circadian activity rhythms in mice

  1. Christian Gallardo
  2. Martin Darvas
  3. Mia Oviatt
  4. Chris Chang
  5. Mateusz Michalik
  6. Timothy F Huddy
  7. Emily E Meyer
  8. Scott A Shuster
  9. Antonio Aguayo
  10. Elizabeth M Hill
  11. Karun Kiani
  12. Jonathan Ikpeazu
  13. Johan S Martinez
  14. Mari Purpura
  15. Andrea N Smit
  16. Danica Paton
  17. Ralph E Mistlberger
  18. Richard Palmiter
  19. Andrew Steele  Is a corresponding author
  1. California Institute of Technology, United States
  2. University of Washington, United States
  3. Claremont-McKenna College, Pitzer College, Scripps College, United States
  4. Simon Fraser University, Canada
  5. California State Polytechnic University Pomona, United States
  6. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, United States

Abstract

Daily rhythms of food anticipatory activity (FAA) are regulated independently of the suprachiasmatic nucleus, which mediates entrainment of rhythms to light, but the neural circuits that establish FAA remain elusive. Here we show that mice lacking the dopamine D1 receptor (D1R KO mice), manifest greatly reduced FAA, whereas mice lacking the dopamine D2 receptor have normal FAA. To determine where dopamine exerts its effect, we limited expression of dopamine signaling to the dorsal striatum of dopamine-deficient mice; these mice developed FAA. Within the dorsal striatum, the daily rhythm of clock gene per2 expression was markedly suppressed in D1R KO mice. Pharmacological activation of D1R at the same time daily was sufficient to establish anticipatory activity in wild-type mice. These results demonstrate that dopamine signaling to D1R in the dorsal striatum plays an important role in manifestation of FAA, possibly by synchronizing circadian oscillators that modulate motivational processes and behavioral output.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Christian Gallardo

    California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Martin Darvas

    University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Mia Oviatt

    California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Chris Chang

    Claremont-McKenna College, Pitzer College, Scripps College, Claremont, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Mateusz Michalik

    Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Timothy F Huddy

    California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Emily E Meyer

    Claremont-McKenna College, Pitzer College, Scripps College, Claremont, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Scott A Shuster

    California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Antonio Aguayo

    California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Elizabeth M Hill

    California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Karun Kiani

    Claremont-McKenna College, Pitzer College, Scripps College, Claremont, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Jonathan Ikpeazu

    California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Johan S Martinez

    California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Mari Purpura

    Claremont-McKenna College, Pitzer College, Scripps College, Claremont, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Andrea N Smit

    Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Danica Paton

    Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Ralph E Mistlberger

    Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Richard Palmiter

    Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    Richard Palmiter, Reviewing editor, eLife.
  19. Andrew Steele

    California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, United States
    For correspondence
    adsteele@csupomona.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Leslie C Griffith, Brandeis University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocol 1567.

Version history

  1. Received: June 25, 2014
  2. Accepted: September 10, 2014
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 12, 2014 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 15, 2014 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2014, Gallardo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,057
    views
  • 378
    downloads
  • 78
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Christian Gallardo
  2. Martin Darvas
  3. Mia Oviatt
  4. Chris Chang
  5. Mateusz Michalik
  6. Timothy F Huddy
  7. Emily E Meyer
  8. Scott A Shuster
  9. Antonio Aguayo
  10. Elizabeth M Hill
  11. Karun Kiani
  12. Jonathan Ikpeazu
  13. Johan S Martinez
  14. Mari Purpura
  15. Andrea N Smit
  16. Danica Paton
  17. Ralph E Mistlberger
  18. Richard Palmiter
  19. Andrew Steele
(2014)
Dopamine receptor 1 neurons in the dorsal striatum regulate food anticipatory circadian activity rhythms in mice
eLife 3:e03781.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03781

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.03781

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Kenneth Chiou, Noah Snyder-Mackler
    Insight

    Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the extent to which marmosets carry genetically distinct cells from their siblings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Flavio J Schmidig, Simon Ruch, Katharina Henke
    Research Article

    We are unresponsive during slow-wave sleep but continue monitoring external events for survival. Our brain wakens us when danger is imminent. If events are non-threatening, our brain might store them for later consideration to improve decision-making. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether novel vocabulary consisting of simultaneously played pseudowords and translation words are encoded/stored during sleep, and which neural-electrical events facilitate encoding/storage. An algorithm for brain-state-dependent stimulation selectively targeted word pairs to slow-wave peaks or troughs. Retrieval tests were given 12 and 36 hr later. These tests required decisions regarding the semantic category of previously sleep-played pseudowords. The sleep-played vocabulary influenced awake decision-making 36 hr later, if targeted to troughs. The words’ linguistic processing raised neural complexity. The words’ semantic-associative encoding was supported by increased theta power during the ensuing peak. Fast-spindle power ramped up during a second peak likely aiding consolidation. Hence, new vocabulary played during slow-wave sleep was stored and influenced decision-making days later.