Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 19;39(25):4945–4958. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2480-18.2019

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

A, AAV was used to express eYFP or hM4Di in PVT, aPVT, or pPVT. Rats then received appetitive to aversive counterconditioning. B, Experiment 3a. Representative images showing hM4Di expression for whole PVT and placement map with each animal represented at 10% opacity (eYFP, n = 8; hM4Di, n = 7). C, Mean ± SEM appetitive responses at the end of appetitive conditioning, mean ± SEM aversive responses during aversive conditioning, and mean ± SEM appetitive and aversive responses on tests. Chemogenetic silencing of PVT on test reduced appetitive behavior and increased aversive behavior. Insets, Appetitive and aversive responses across four blocks of two test trials. D, Experiment 3b. Representative images showing hM4Di expression for aPVT and pPVT for the aPVT experiment and placement map with each animal represented at 10% opacity (eYFP, n = 8; hM4Di, n = 5). E, Mean ± SEM appetitive responses at the end of appetitive conditioning, mean ± SEM aversive responses during aversive conditioning, and mean ± SEM appetitive and aversive responses on tests. Chemogenetic silencing of aPVT on test had no effect on appetitive or aversive behavior. F, Experiment 3c. Representative images showing hM4Di expression for aPVT and pPVT for the pPVT experiment and placement map with each animal represented at 10% opacity (eYFP, n = 7; hM4Di, n = 8). G, Mean ± SEM appetitive responses at the end of appetitive conditioning, mean ± SEM aversive responses during aversive conditioning, and mean ± SEM appetitive and aversive responses on tests. Chemogenetic silencing of pPVT on test had no effect on appetitive or aversive behavior. H, Experiment 4. AAV was used to express eYFP or hM4Di in PVT, rats then received aversive to appetitive counterconditioning. I, Representative images showing hM4Di expression for PVT and placement map with each animal represented at 10% opacity (eYFP, n = 8; hM4Di, n = 7). J, Mean ± SEM aversive responses during aversive conditioning, mean ± appetitive SEM responses at the end of appetitive conditioning, and mean ± SEM appetitive and aversive responses on tests. #p < 0.05.