Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Aug 4.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Neurosci. 2019 Feb 4;22(3):436–446. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0330-y

Figure 5. Optogenetic stimulation of DLS SST-INs attenuates anxiety and contextual fear responses.

Figure 5.

a-b) Schematic of behavioral testing timeline. c) Schematic illustrating infection of SST DLS-INs with DIO-ChR2 and fiber optic implantation on top of DLS in SST-Cre mice. d-g) Stimulating SST cell bodies in DLS (15 Hz) increases the time spent exploring the open arms in the EPM (f) but has no effect on locomotor behavior and innate anxiety in OF (d-e) and novelty suppressed feeding (NSF) (g). Means ± SEM; n= 7, 6 mice per group, mixed factor two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons post-hoc test. *p < 0.05, DIO-EYFP versus DIO-ChR2 (f). h) Stimulating SST cell bodies (15 Hz) decreases freezing behavior in context A and B on block training 7. Means ± SEM; n= 7, 6 mice per group, mixed factor two-way ANOVA (repeated measure over time). i) Stimulating SST cell bodies (15 Hz) did not alter fear discrimination ratio. Means ± SEM; n= 7, 6 mice per group, mixed factor two-way ANOVA (repeated measure over time). j) Schematic representation of the effect of light stimulation of SST cell bodies in DLS on brain-wide c-Fos expression 60 min following exposure to context B (day 21). Regions highlighted in red denote a significant effect of DIO-ChR2 and arrows indicate the direction of the effect. k) Detailed c-Fos immunostaining quantifications. Brain regions highlighted with red boxes indicate a significant effect of DIO-ChR2. Means ± SEM; n= 4, 5, 5 mice per group, one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons post-hoc test. *p < 0.05, DIO-EYFP or DIO-ChR2 versus controls, #p < 0.05, DIO-EYFP versus DIO-ChR2. All statistics detailed in Supplementary Table 1.