Morphine disinhibits glutamatergic input to VTA dopamine neurons and promotes dopamine neuron excitation

Abstract

One reported mechanism for morphine activation of dopamine (DA) neurons of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) is the disinhibition model of VTA-DA neurons. Morphine inhibits GABA inhibitory neurons, which shifts the balance between inhibitory and excitatory input to VTA-DA neurons in favor of excitation and then leads to VTA-DA neuron excitation. However, it is not known whether morphine has an additional strengthening effect on excitatory input. Our results suggest that glutamatergic input to VTA-DA neurons is inhibited by GABAergic interneurons via GABAB receptors and that morphine promotes presynaptic glutamate release by removing this inhibition. We also studied the contribution of the morphine-induced disinhibitory effect on the presynaptic glutamate release to the overall excitatory effect of morphine on VTA-DA neurons and related behavior. Our results suggest that the disinhibitory action of morphine on presynaptic glutamate release might be the main mechanism for morphine-induced increase in VTA-DA neuron firing and related behaviors.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ming Chen

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan Univeristy, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Yanfang Zhao

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan Univeristy, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Hualan Yang

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan Univeristy, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Wenjie Luan

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan Univeristy, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jiaojiao Song

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Dongyang Cui

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan Univeristy, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Yi Dong

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Bin Lai

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan Univeristy, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Lan Ma

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan Univeristy, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Ping Zheng

    State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, School of Basic Medical Sciences and Institutes of Brain Science, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    For correspondence
    pzheng@shmu.edu.cn
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures conformed to Fudan University as well as international guidelines on the ethical use of animals and all efforts were made to minimize the number of animals used and their suffering.

Copyright

© 2015, Chen 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

  • 3,224
    views
  • 772
    downloads
  • 56
    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. Ming Chen
  2. Yanfang Zhao
  3. Hualan Yang
  4. Wenjie Luan
  5. Jiaojiao Song
  6. Dongyang Cui
  7. Yi Dong
  8. Bin Lai
  9. Lan Ma
  10. Ping Zheng
(2015)
Morphine disinhibits glutamatergic input to VTA dopamine neurons and promotes dopamine neuron excitation
eLife 4:e09275.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09275

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09275

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Mohsen Alavash
    Insight

    Combining electrophysiological, anatomical and functional brain maps reveals networks of beta neural activity that align with dopamine uptake.

    1. Neuroscience
    Masahiro Takigawa, Marta Huelin Gorriz ... Daniel Bendor
    Research Article

    During rest and sleep, memory traces replay in the brain. The dialogue between brain regions during replay is thought to stabilize labile memory traces for long-term storage. However, because replay is an internally-driven, spontaneous phenomenon, it does not have a ground truth - an external reference that can validate whether a memory has truly been replayed. Instead, replay detection is based on the similarity between the sequential neural activity comprising the replay event and the corresponding template of neural activity generated during active locomotion. If the statistical likelihood of observing such a match by chance is sufficiently low, the candidate replay event is inferred to be replaying that specific memory. However, without the ability to evaluate whether replay detection methods are successfully detecting true events and correctly rejecting non-events, the evaluation and comparison of different replay methods is challenging. To circumvent this problem, we present a new framework for evaluating replay, tested using hippocampal neural recordings from rats exploring two novel linear tracks. Using this two-track paradigm, our framework selects replay events based on their temporal fidelity (sequence-based detection), and evaluates the detection performance using each event's track discriminability, where sequenceless decoding across both tracks is used to quantify whether the track replaying is also the most likely track being reactivated.