Dopamine and opioid systems interact within the nucleus accumbens to maintain monogamous pair bonds

  1. Shanna L Resendez  Is a corresponding author
  2. Piper C Keyes
  3. Jeremy J Day
  4. Caely Hambro
  5. Curtis J Austin
  6. Francis K Maina
  7. Lori Eidson
  8. Kirsten A Porter-Stransky
  9. Natalie Nevárez
  10. J William McLean
  11. Morgan A Kuhnmuench
  12. Anne Z Murphy
  13. Tiffany A Mathews
  14. Brandon J Aragona  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Michigan, United States
  2. University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States
  3. Wayne State University, United States
  4. Georgia State University, United States
  5. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, United States

Abstract

Prairie vole breeder pairs form monogamous pair bonds, which are maintained through the expression of selective aggression toward novel conspecifics. Here, we utilize behavioral and anatomical techniques to extend the current understanding of neural mechanisms that mediate pair bond maintenance. For both sexes, we show that pair bonding up-regulates mRNA expression for genes encoding D1-like dopamine (DA) receptors and dynorphin as well as enhances stimulated DA release within the nucleus accumbens (NAc). We next show that D1-like receptor regulation of selective aggression is mediated through downstream activation of kappa-opioid receptors (KORs) and that activation of these receptors mediates social avoidance. Finally, we also identified sex-specific alterations in KOR binding density within the NAc shell of paired males and demonstrate that this alteration contributes to the neuroprotective effect of pair bonding against drug reward. Together, these findings suggest motivational and valence processing systems interact to mediate the maintenance of social bonds.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Shanna L Resendez

    Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    shanna_resendez@med.unc.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3831-5481
  2. Piper C Keyes

    Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jeremy J Day

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmangham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Caely Hambro

    Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Curtis J Austin

    Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Francis K Maina

    Department of Chemistry, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Lori Eidson

    Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Kirsten A Porter-Stransky

    Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Natalie Nevárez

    Department of Psychology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. J William McLean

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Morgan A Kuhnmuench

    Department of Psychology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Anne Z Murphy

    Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Tiffany A Mathews

    Department of Chemistry, Wayne State University, Detroit, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Brandon J Aragona

    Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    For correspondence
    aragona@umich.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments in this study were 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) protocols (#5531) of the University of Michigan. Experiments conducted in this study were approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (#1331) at the University of Michigan. All surgery was performed under ketamine and xylazine anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2016, Resendez 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

  • 4,004
    views
  • 781
    downloads
  • 62
    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. Shanna L Resendez
  2. Piper C Keyes
  3. Jeremy J Day
  4. Caely Hambro
  5. Curtis J Austin
  6. Francis K Maina
  7. Lori Eidson
  8. Kirsten A Porter-Stransky
  9. Natalie Nevárez
  10. J William McLean
  11. Morgan A Kuhnmuench
  12. Anne Z Murphy
  13. Tiffany A Mathews
  14. Brandon J Aragona
(2016)
Dopamine and opioid systems interact within the nucleus accumbens to maintain monogamous pair bonds
eLife 5:e15325.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15325

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.15325

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Alexa Tompary, Lila Davachi
    Research Article

    Systems consolidation theories propose two mechanisms that enable the behavioral integration of related memories: coordinated reactivation between hippocampus and cortex, and the emergence of cortical traces that reflect overlap across memories. However, there is limited empirical evidence that links these mechanisms to the emergence of behavioral integration over time. In two experiments, participants implicitly encoded sequences of objects with overlapping structure. Assessment of behavioral integration showed that response times during a recognition task reflected behavioral priming between objects that never occurred together in time but belonged to overlapping sequences. This priming was consolidation-dependent and only emerged for sequences learned 24 hr prior to the test. Critically, behavioral integration was related to changes in neural pattern similarity in the medial prefrontal cortex and increases in post-learning rest connectivity between the posterior hippocampus and lateral occipital cortex. These findings suggest that memories with a shared predictive structure become behaviorally integrated through a consolidation-related restructuring of the learned sequences, providing insight into the relationship between different consolidation mechanisms that support behavioral integration.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jinxin Liu, Haoyue He ... Yongbing Deng
    Research Article

    Background:

    Post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is a critical complication that worsens both prognosis and quality of life in patients with ischemic stroke. An interpretable machine learning model was developed to predict PSE using medical records from four hospitals in Chongqing.

    Methods:

    Medical records, imaging reports, and laboratory test results from 21,459 ischemic stroke patients were collected and analyzed. Univariable and multivariable statistical analyses identified key predictive factors. The dataset was split into a 70% training set and a 30% testing set. To address the class imbalance, the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique combined with Edited Nearest Neighbors was employed. Nine widely used machine learning algorithms were evaluated using relevant prediction metrics, with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) used to interpret the model and assess the contributions of different features.

    Results:

    Regression analyses revealed that complications such as hydrocephalus, cerebral hernia, and deep vein thrombosis, as well as specific brain regions (frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes), significantly contributed to PSE. Factors such as age, gender, NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, and laboratory results like WBC count and D-dimer levels were associated with increased PSE risk. Tree-based methods like Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM showed strong predictive performance, achieving an AUC of 0.99.

    Conclusions:

    The model accurately predicts PSE risk, with tree-based models demonstrating superior performance. NIHSS score, WBC count, and D-dimer were identified as the most crucial predictors.

    Funding:

    The research is funded by Central University basic research young teachers and students research ability promotion sub-projec t(2023CDJYGRH-ZD06), and by Emergency Medicine Chongqing Key Laboratory Talent Innovation and development joint fund project (2024RCCX10).