Search

Relapse often occurs when individuals are exposed to stimuli or cues previously associated with the drug-taking experience. The ability of drug cues to trigger relapse is believed to be a consequence of incentive salience attribution, a process by which the incentive value of reward is transferred to the reward-paired cue. Sign-tracker (ST) rats that attribute enhanced incentive value to reward cues are more prone to relapse compared to goal-tracker (GT) rats that primarily attribute predictive value to such cues.The neurobiological mechanisms underlying this individual variation in relapse propensity remains largely unexplored. The paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) has been identified as a critical node in the regulation of cue-elicited behaviors in STs and GTs, including cue-induced reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior. Here we used a chemogenetic approach to assess whether "top-down" cortical input from the prelimbic cortex (PrL) to the PVT plays a role in mediating individual differences in relapse propensity.Chemogenetic inhibition of the PrL-PVT pathway selectively decreased cue-induced reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior in STs, without affecting behavior in GTs. In contrast, cocaine-primed drug-seeking behavior was not affected in either phenotype. Furthermore, when rats were characterized based on a different behavioral phenotype-locomotor response to novelty-inhibition of the PrL-PVT pathway had no effect on either cue- or drug-induced reinstatement.These results highlight an important role for the PrL-PVT pathway in vulnerability to relapse that is consequent to individual differences in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to discrete reward cues.

Environmental cues attain the ability to guide behavior via learned associations. As predictors, cues can elicit adaptive behavior and lead to valuable resources (e.g., food). For some individuals, however, cues are transformed into incentive stimuli and elicit motivational states that can be maladaptive. The goal-tracker/sign-tracker animal model captures individual differences in cue-motivated behaviors, with reward-associated cues serving as predictors of reward for both phenotypes but becoming incentive stimuli to a greater degree for sign-trackers. While these distinct phenotypes are characterized based on Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior, they exhibit differences on a number of behaviors relevant to psychopathology. To further characterize the neurobehavioral endophenotype associated with individual differences in cue-reward learning, neuroendocrine and behavioral profiles associated with stress and anxiety were investigated in male goal-tracker, sign-tracker, and intermediate responder rats. It was revealed that baseline corticosterone increases with Pavlovian learning, but to the same degree, regardless of phenotype. No significant differences in behavior were observed between goaltrackers and sign-trackers during an elevated plus maze or open field test, nor were there differences in corticosterone response to the open field test or physiological restraint. Upon examination of central markers associated with stress-reactivity, we found that sign-trackers have greater glucocorticoid receptor mRNA expression in the ventral hippocampus, with no phenotypic differences in the dorsal hippocampus or prelimbic cortex. These findings demonstrate that goal-trackers and sign-trackers do not differ on stress- and anxiety-related behaviors, and suggest that differences in neuroendocrine measures between these phenotypes can be attributed to distinct cue-reward learning styles.Significance StatementWhile the goal-tracker/ sign-tracker animal model derives from individual differences in Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior, other traits, including some of relevance to addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder, have been shown to co-exist with the propensity to sign-track. The extent to which this model encompasses differences in aversive arousal and associated neuroendocrine measures, however, remains largely unexplored. Here we show that behavioral and corticosterone response to stress-related paradigms do not differ between goal-trackers and sign-trackers. However, glucocorticoid receptor expression in the ventral hippocampus does differ between phenotypes, suggesting that this central marker that is typically associated with stress-responsivity, may, in fact, play an important role in appetitive motivation.

RationalePrior research suggests that inputs from the lateral hypothalamic area (LHA) to the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) contribute to the attribution of incentive salience to Pavlovian-conditioned reward cues. However, a causal role for the LHA in this phenomenon has not been demonstrated. In addition, it is unknown which hypothalamic neurotransmitter or peptide system(s) are involved in mediating incentive salience attribution.ObjectivesTo examine: 1) the role of the LHA in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues, and 2) the role of orexinergic signaling in the PVT on the expression of Pavlovian conditioned approach (PavCA) behavior, a reflection of incentive salience attribution.MethodsMale Sprague-Dawley rats received bilateral excitotoxic lesions of the LHA prior to the acquisition of Pavlovian conditioned approach (PavCA) behavior. A separate cohort of male rats acquired PavCA behavior and were characterized as sign-trackers (STs) or goal-trackers (GTs) based on their conditioned response. The orexin 1 receptor (OX1r) antagonist SB-334867, or the orexin 2 receptor (OX2r) antagonist TCS-OX2-29, were then administered directly into the PVT to assess the effects of these pharmacological agents on the expression of PavCA behavior and on the conditioned reinforcing properties of the Pavlovian reward cue.ResultsLesions of the LHA before training attenuated the development of lever-directed (sign-tracking) behaviors in the PavCA paradigm, without affecting magazine-directed (goal-tracking) behaviors. In STs, administration of the OX1r antagonist into the PVT reduced lever-directed behaviors and increased magazine-directed behaviors; while administration of the OX2r antagonist only reduced lever-directed behaviors. Further, OX2r, but not OX1r, antagonism was able to reduce the incentive motivational value of the conditioned stimulus on a conditioned reinforcement test in STs. The behavior of GTs was unaffected by orexinergic antagonism in the PVT.ConclusionsThe LHA is necessary for the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues and, thereby, the development of a sign-tracking conditioned response. Furthermore, blockade of orexin signaling in the PVT attenuates the incentive value of a Pavlovian reward cue. These data suggest that hypothalamic orexin inputs to the PVT are a key component of the circuitry that encodes the incentive motivational value of reward cues and promotes maladaptive cue-driven behaviors.

The paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) has been shown to mediate cue-motivated behaviors, such as sign- and goal-tracking, as well as reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior. However, the role of the PVT in mediating individual variation in cue-induced drug-seeking behavior remains unknown. This study aimed to determine if inactivation of the PVT differentially mediates cue-induced drug-seeking behavior in sign-trackers and goal-trackers. Rats were characterized as sign-trackers (STs) or goal-trackers (GTs) based on their Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior. Rats were then exposed to 15 days of cocaine self-administration, followed by a 2-week forced abstinence period and then extinction training. Rats then underwent tests for cue-induced reinstatement and general locomotor activity, prior to which they received an infusion of either saline (control) or baclofen/muscimol (B/M) to inactivate the PVT. Relative to control animals of the same phenotype, GTs show a robust increase in cue-induced drug-seeking behavior following PVT inactivation, whereas the behavior of STs was not affected. PVT inactivation did not affect locomotor activity in either phenotype. In GTs, the PVT appears to inhibit the expression of drug-seeking, presumably by attenuating the incentive value of the drug cue. Thus, inactivation of the PVT releases this inhibition in GTs, resulting in an increase in cue-induced drug-seeking behavior. PVT inactivation did not affect cue-induced drug-seeking behavior in STs, suggesting that the role of the PVT in encoding the incentive motivational value of drug cues differs between STs and GTs.

Environmental cues attain the ability to guide behavior via learned associations. As predictors, cues can elicit adaptive behavior and lead to valuable resources (e.g., food). For some individuals, however, cues are transformed into incentive stimuli and elicit motivational states that can be maladaptive. The goal-tracker/sign-tracker animal model captures individual differences in cue-motivated behaviors, with reward-associated cues serving as predictors of reward for both phenotypes but becoming incentive stimuli to a greater degree for sign-trackers. While these distinct phenotypes are characterized based on Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior, they exhibit differences on a number of behaviors relevant to psychopathology. To further characterize the neurobehavioral endophenotype associated with individual differences in cue-reward learning, neuroendocrine and behavioral profiles associated with stress and anxiety were investigated in male goal-tracker, sign-tracker, and intermediate responder rats. It was revealed that baseline corticosterone increases with Pavlovian learning, but to the same degree, regardless of phenotype. No significant differences in behavior were observed between goal-trackers and sign-trackers during an elevated plus maze or open field test, nor were there differences in corticosterone response to the open field test or physiological restraint. Upon examination of central markers associated with stress-reactivity, we found that sign-trackers have greater glucocorticoid receptor mRNA expression in the ventral hippocampus, with no phenotypic differences in the dorsal hippocampus or prelimbic cortex. These findings demonstrate that goal-trackers and sign-trackers do not differ on stress- and anxiety-related behaviors, and suggest that differences in neuroendocrine measures between these phenotypes can be attributed to distinct cue-reward learning styles. Significance statement While the goal-tracker/ sign-tracker animal model derives from individual differences in Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior, other traits, including some of relevance to addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder, have been shown to co-exist with the propensity to sign-track. The extent to which this model encompasses differences in aversive arousal and associated neuroendocrine measures, however, remains largely unexplored. Here we show that behavioral and corticosterone responseto stress-related paradigms do not differ between goal-trackers and sign-trackers. However, glucocorticoid receptor expression in the ventral hippocampus does differbetween phenotypes, suggesting that this central marker that is typically associated with stress-responsivity, may, in fact, play an important role in appetitive motivation.