Figure 4.
Optogenetic stimulation of AGRP projections to mPOA, PVH or LHA differentially affect maternal care. A, Schematics on the left and a presentative image on the right showing implantation of bilateral fibers into the mPOA. N = 18. B, Light stimulation of AGRP→mPOA projections in virgin AGRPChR2 females promote food intake over 30 min. C, D, Light stimulation of AGRP→mPOA projections did not affect the percentage of trials (%trial) that animals displayed pup retrieval but slightly decreased the pup retrieval score (C) and significantly reduced the total duration devoted to maternal nest-building in each trial without affecting the percentage of trials that animals displayed the behavior (D). E, Schematics on the left and a presentative image on the right showing unilateral implantation of fibers into the PVH. N = 8. F–H, Light stimulation of AGRP→PVH projections in virgin AGRPChR2 female animals promoted feeding (F), did not affect the percentage of trials that animals displayed pup retrieval or the number of pups that were brought to the nest (score; G), or the percentage of trials that animals displayed maternal nest-building but decreased the total duration devoted to nest-building in each trial (H). I, Schematics on the left and a presentative image on the right showing bilateral implantation of fibers into the LHA. N = 7. J–L, Light stimulation of AGRP→LH projections in virgin AGRPChR2 female animals promoted feeding (J), did not affect the percentage of trials that animals displayed pup retrieval or the number of pups that were brought to the nest (score; K), or the percentage of trials that animals displayed maternal nest-building or the total duration devoted to it in each trial (L). Scale bar, 500 μm. All values are presented as mean ± SEM. Each gray line indicates values from an individual animal. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.