Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 18.
Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2017 Feb 22;543(7643):103–107. doi: 10.1038/nature21376

Extended Data Figure 8. Effects of corticostriatal and corticothalamic optogenetic manipulations on acquisition and expression of CS− licking.

Extended Data Figure 8

Acquisition: a, Line graph showing average CS− lick rate during conditioning (with laser) and test (no laser) from PFC-NAc::ChR2 (n=5), PFC-NAc::eNpHR (n=6), and PFC-NAc::eYFP mice (n=10). b,c, CDF plots and bar graphs showing CS− lick rate during conditioning (b) and test (c). No differences were observed between PFC-NAc groups during the no-laser test (ChR2 vs. eYFP: auROC=0.53, BHC p=0.43; eNpHR vs. eYFP: auROC=0.45, p=0.43). d, Line graph showing average CS− lick rate during conditioning (with laser) and test (no laser) from PFC-PVT::ChR2 (n=6), PFC-NAc::PVT (n=5), and PFC-PVT::eYFP mice (n=10). e,f, CDF plots and bar graphs showing CS− lick rate during conditioning (e) and test (f). No differences were observed between PFC-PVT groups during the no-laser test (ChR2 vs. eYFP: auROC=0.48, BHC p=0.48; eNpHR vs. eYFP: auROC=0.32, p=0.30). Expression: g–i, CDF plots and bar graphs showing CS− lick rates for PFC-NAc::ChR2 (n=5), PFC-NAc::eNpHR (n=5), and PFC-NAc::eYFP mice (n=8). There were no significant differences in CS− lick rate for PFC-NAc::ChR2 mice (vs. PFC-NAc::eYFP: auROC=0.43, p=0.26), although there was an effect of laser for PFC-NAc eNpHR mice (vs. PFC-NAc::eYFP: auROC=0.23, p=0.006). j–l, CDF plots and bar graphs showing CS− lick rates for PFC-PVT::ChR2 (n=5), PFC-PVT::eNpHR (n=5), and PFC-PVT::eYFP mice (n=6). There were no significant differences in CS− lick rate for PFC-PVT::ChR2 mice (vs. PFC-PVT::eYFP: auROC=0.35, p=0.15) or PFC-PVT::eNpHR mice (vs. PFC-PVT::eYFP: auROC=0.55, p=0.31). Line and bar graphs represent the mean±SEM. CDF, cumulative distribution frequency; NL, no laser test.