Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Apr 30.
Published in final edited form as: Cell Rep. 2019 Jan 29;26(5):1128–1142.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.01.014

Figure 6. Comparison between the Conditioned Place Preference Induced by the Activation of VTA SERT-Fibers and the CPP Induced by the Activation of VTA-VGluT3 Fibers.

Figure 6.

(A) Diagram showing virus injection into the DR of SERT::Cre or VGluT3::Cre mice, VTA optical stimulation of DR-SERT-fibers or DR-VGluT3-fibers, and experiment timeline.

(B) On training days, both SERT-ChR2-eYFP and VGluT3-ChR2-eYFP mice spent more time in the chamber associated with the VTA optical stimulation. In tests 1 and 2, both SERT-ChR2-eYFP and VGluT3-ChR2-eYFP mice spent more time in the chamber in which optical stimulation was previously given. In test 3, SERT-ChR2-eYFP, but notVGluT3-ChR2-eYFP, mice spent more time in the chamber in which optical stimulation was given on previous training days. Relative time spent in each chamber is represented as means ± SEM (n = 10 each group). Blue rectangles indicate optical stimulation available in the laser-paired chamber on training days 1 and 2. Both SERT-ChR2-eYFP and VGluT3-ChR2-eYFP mice showed preference for the laser-associated chamber on training days and tests 1 and 2 in comparison with non-laser-associated chamber(group × day × chamber interaction: F12, 216 = 4.342, p = 0.000001, three-way ANOVA; *p < 0.0001 (see p value for each test in Table S2), Newman-Keuls post hoc test), but only SERT-ChR2-eYFP mice showed preference for laser-associated chamber in test 3 in comparison with non-laser-associated chamber (*p = 0.00099, Newman-Keuls post hoc test).