Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Apr 4.
Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2019 Jan 16;565(7741):645–649. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0866-8

Fig. 3 |. Activity-guided optogenetic stimulation of individual feeding-specific OFC neurons promotes caloric-reward licking.

Fig. 3 |

a, Cell masks of identified feeding-responsive neurons (cyan) and spiral-stimulation targets (red) from a GCaMP6m-bReaChES mouse. Image from a representative mouse; the experiment was repeated in n = 6 mice with similar results. Scale bar, 100 μm. b, c, Lick raster during a baseline (b; caloric reward delivered every 30 s, 20 total trials) and stimulation (c; each caloric reward paired with 5-s stimulation of 20 feeding-responsive neurons) session from a GCaMP6m-bReaChES mouse. d, Single-cell stimulation of feeding-responsive neurons significantly increased reward licking in GCaMP6m-bReaChES mice compared to baseline sessions (n = 6 mice, interaction F2,10 = 7.538, P = 0.001, two-way ANOVA with repeated measures). e, Feeding-responsive neurons (cyan) and spiral-stimulation targets (red) from an animal expressing GCaMP6m. Image from a representative mouse; the experiment was repeated in n = 6 mice with similar results. Control mice expressed GCaMP6m and lacked bReaChES expression. Scale bar, 100 μm. f, g, Lick raster during baseline (f) and stimulation (g) sessions from a GCaMP6m mouse. h, Spiral-stimulation targeting of feeding-responsive neurons did not significantly affect licking behaviour in GCaMP6m mice (n = 6 mice, interaction F2,10 = 3.88, P = 0.51, two-way ANOVA with repeated measures). i, Single-cell stimulation of feeding-responsive neurons significantly increased licking in GCaMP6m-bReaChES mice when compared to GCaMP6m mice (n = 6 mice per group, interaction F2,30 = 9.93, P < 0.0001, two-way ANOVA). Data replotted from d and h. Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc comparisons.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001; NS, non-significant (P > 0.05).