Abstract
Anxiety disorders are among the most prevalent psychiatric disorders, causing significant suffering and disability. Behavioral inhibition is a temperament that is linked to an increased risk for the later development of anxiety disorders and other stress-related psychopathology, and understanding the neural systems underlying this dispositional risk could provide insight into novel treatment targets for anxiety disorders. Nonhuman primates (NHPs) have anxiety-related temperaments that are similar to those of humans with behavioral inhibition, facilitating the design of translational models related to human psychopathology. Characterization of our NHP model of behavioral inhibition, which we term anxious temperament (AT), reveals that it is trait-like. Exploration of the neural substrates of AT in NHPs has revealed a distributed neural circuit that is linked to individual differences in AT, which includes the dorsal amygdala. AT-related metabolism in the dorsal amygdala, including the central nucleus, is stable across time and can be detected even in safe contexts, suggesting that AT has trait-like neural signatures within the brain. The use of lesioning and novel chemogenetic methods allows for mechanistic perturbation of the amygdala to determine its causal contribution to AT. Studies characterizing the molecular bases for individual differences in AT in the dorsal amygdala, which take advantage of novel methods for probing cellular and molecular systems, suggest involvement of neurotrophic systems, which point to the importance of neuroplasticity in AT. These novel methods, when used in combination with translational NHP models such as AT, promise to provide insights into the brain systems underlying the early risk for anxiety disorder development.
Anxiety disorders (ADs) are among the most common psychiatric disorders, affecting about 20% of adults and 30% of adolescents in the United States, leading to significant suffering and disability (1–3). ADs tend to emerge during childhood and adolescence (1,3–5), and many children with ADs do not receive treatment (6,7). Currently available treatments are not fully effective and many patients respond sub-optimally (8–10). Developing new, more effective treatments is critical and can be achieved by a more complete understanding of the neurobiological systems that underlie ADs and the early-life risk factors associated with AD emergence. Behavioral inhibition (BI) is an early temperament that reflects one’s tendency to engage in protective behaviors when confronted with potential threats (11–13). Children with extreme BI are highly sensitive to novel and/or unfamiliar situations and have a very low threshold to activate defensive responses, such as inhibiting ongoing behavior and reducing vocalizations (12,14). BI emerges early in life, and, when extreme, is a prominent risk factor for the later development of ADs, depression, and other stress-related psychopathology (15,16). Many of the behavioral and physiological manifestations of BI are conserved across species (17), facilitating the design of translational animal models, which enable the testing of mechanistic hypotheses involving neural circuits and molecular systems. Nonhuman primates (NHPs) are particularly important in this regard, as they share similarities in temperament with humans (17–19), as well as in the structure and function of the neural systems proposed to underlie temperamental variation (17). Here we review progress in developing NHP models to study the early temperamental risks for later AD development, with a particular focus on our NHP model of anxious temperament (AT), which we argue models components of BI in humans. We also highlight the translational value of NHP models, where complementary behavioral, neuroimaging, and molecular techniques allow for insights into the neural bases of the early risk to develop stress-related psychopathology.
UNDERSTANDING INHIBITED TEMPERAMENT ACROSS SPECIES
BI was initially characterized based on the observation that when exposed to novelty and/or strangers in laboratory-based paradigms, a subset of young children (2–5 years of age) tend to inhibit their ongoing behavior, withdraw, and become hypervigilant (13,14,20) in a manner that is extreme relative to that of their peers. This inhibited behavior can be accompanied by increased physiological reactivity (21,22). When viewed from an evolutionary perspective, freezing and other inhibited responses decrease the likelihood of detection by predators (17) and can be adaptive when expressed at appropriate levels. However, when extreme, expressed out of context, and distressing, these responses can be thought of as antecedents of pathological anxiety. Meta-analyses suggest that when stable and extreme, BI is related to a 3- to 4-fold increase in the likelihood of developing a social AD and comorbid psychiatric disorders (15,16). Because BI is one of the strongest predictors of later social anxiety, an understanding of its neural substrates could provide insight into the brain systems underlying the early risk for developing stress-related psychopathology. This understanding can be improved by use of translational models of BI, the design of which is facilitated by the conserved freezing responses observed in response to novelty and threat across species, particularly in young rhesus monkey. Rhesus monkeys are extremely valuable models owing to their close evolutionary relatedness to humans (17), which manifests in similarities in their defensive repertoire, and the neurobiological systems underlying defensive responses.
In young rhesus monkeys, the human intruder paradigm is used to assess responses to threat across different contexts (23): attachment-related responses when separated from a conspecific (alone condition); protective inhibitory responses induced by the potential threat associated with a human intruder presenting her/his profile (no eye contact condition [NEC]); and fight or flight responses elicited by the imminent threat associated with the direct gaze of a human intruder (stare condition) (23,24). Our group has focused on young monkeys’ behavioral responses to NEC as a model of human BI because the freezing behavior and inhibition of vocalizations, particularly affiliative coo calls, were similar to inhibited children’s responses when exposed to novelty and/or strangers in a laboratory setting (13). We focused on these behaviors associated with BI as they are conserved across species and can be reproducibly measured across large populations (17,25). We later incorporated NEC-induced increases in cortisol levels into the BI concept and termed this anxious temperament (AT). The addition of cortisol broadens the temperamental assessment to include threat-related physiological activation, which captures additional heterogeneity related to individual differences in responses to threat (26,27). Other approaches to modeling BI, as well as other relevant NHP temperamental constructs, are discussed in more depth in the Supplement.
Although the NEC condition of the human intruder paradigm assesses acute responses to uncertain threat, repeated testing has revealed that an individuals’ AT score is moderately stable (r range, .4–.7) and therefore trait-like, across both time and development (Figure 1A) (23,28,29). Context-specific responses to NEC emerge around 3 to 4 months of age in rhesus monkeys (30,31), a developmental point that corresponds to the emergence of stranger anxiety in children (32). In the context of our work, AT is typically assessed in rhesus monkeys between 1 and 3 years of age, which roughly corresponds to the childhood/preadolescent period in humans (Figure 1A). In humans, this age range encompasses both the time during which many ADs, especially the social ADs that children with high BI are predisposed to, begin to emerge (1), and the age at which BI is assessed in humans (15). Large population studies (N = 592) reveal that there is substantial variability in AT, with some monkeys showing inhibition that is extreme relative to their peers (25). Heritability studies in this large sample show that AT is approximately 30% heritable (25,33), which is consistent with the findings of heritability studies of BI (34) and ADs (35) in humans. Studies in a naturalistic setting on the island of Cayo Santiago, Puerto Rico, demonstrate that young rhesus monkeys with high AT tend to engage in lower levels of social interaction (19), similar to social impairments experienced by children with extreme BI. Together, these and other studies [reviewed in (13,29,30,36)] provide compelling evidence for the use of AT in NHPs as a trait-like model of childhood BI.
Figure 1.
(A) A schematic depicting the correspondence of developmental periods between humans and rhesus monkeys: context-specific responses to the HIP emerge around 3 to 4 months of age in rhesus monkeys (31), which corresponds to the 12- to 24-months age range in humans. In green, the age range for the large sample included in many of our analyses, which ranges from 0.87 to 3.8 years, spanning the childhood/preadolescent period. In children, social anxiety disorders that children with extreme BI are predisposed to develop begin to emerge in preadolescence (approximately 10 years of age). (Top panel) The dots on the timeline represent time points at which repeated testing for AT has been performed, with the key showing the study from which the data are drawn. In Kalin et al. (23), young rhesus monkeys were tested at 5, 6, and 11 months, with moderately stable AT across repeated testing (data not available). In Fox et al. (29), subjects were tested at 2.1 years and again at 3.2 years of age, on average. (B) The data from Fox et al. (29), with repeated testing from 24 rhesus monkeys. As can be seen, there is stability of AT across the childhood/preadolescent time period (r = .67). (C) (Left panel) This illustration shows the anatomy of the rhesus monkey amygdala. Lesions of the central nucleus, shaded in blue, result in decreased AT (80), while lesions of the entire amygdala (shaded in blue and gray), do not (24). (Right panel) Individual differences in AT are associated with individual differences in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in the dorsal amygdala, assessed using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as discussed in the main text (25,33), as well as in the adjacent temporal cortex (141) and midline septal area. This figure also illustrates the distinction between the dorsal amygdala (used when the spatial resolution of methods employed does not allow for clear delineation of anatomical boundaries, right panel) and central nucleus (used when methods allow for an assessment of anatomical boundaries, left panel). Created with BioRender.com. AT, anxious temperament; BI, behavioral inhibition; HIP, human intruder paradigm. [(C) (Left panel) Adapted with permission from Paxinos et al. (140).]
THE CENTRAL NUCLEUS OF THE AMYGDALA AS A CORE COMPONENT OF THE NEURAL CIRCUIT UNDERLYING ANXIOUS TEMPERAMENT
Moving beyond phenotypic characterization, several studies from our laboratory have investigated the neural circuit underlying individual differences in AT in rhesus monkeys using a variety of neuroimaging and lesioning methods, and have demonstrated involvement of a brain-wide circuit. This circuit includes prefrontal regulatory regions, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) (37) and posterior orbitofrontal cortex (38,39); limbic structures, including the anterior cingulate cortex (25,40), anterior hippocampus (25,26,29,33), and dorsal amygdala (25–27,29,41); basal forebrain structures, such as the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (25,28,42); and striatal, thalamic, and brainstem regions (25,42). Studies in humans have revealed a largely overlapping circuit that is associated with early BI (16). The details of this circuit have been discussed in depth in several recent publications, and we refer interested readers to these articles (16,19,43). We emphasize that the brain circuit underlying AT is complex, involving structures distributed across multiple functional networks within the brain that interact to mediate individual differences in temperament. Here we highlight the evidence linking the central nucleus (Ce) of the amygdala to individual differences in AT and, more broadly, to inhibited temperament. We focus on the Ce based on the convergence of clinical and preclinical research, which emphasizes the importance of this structure in AT. Furthermore, we use the translational work performed in the primate Ce as a way to highlight the critical translational gap bridged by NHP models, where in vivo phenotyping and imaging commonly employed in human populations can be paired with molecular techniques used in rodent models.
CROSS-SPECIES NEUROIMAGING STUDIES LINKING THE AMYGDALA TO AT
Initial studies posited that the amygdala was a critical substrate of BI, based both on observations of the increased fear, anxiety, and autonomic arousal experienced by children with extreme BI and on the known functions of the amygdala from rodent studies (11,44,45). Located in the medial temporal lobe, the amygdala is a collection of highly interconnected nuclei that play a key role in emotion, social interactions, and threat responses (46,47). Neuroimaging studies performed in individuals with a history of high BI have consistently implicated involvement of this region (15). These studies have also provided insight into the temporal dynamics of amygdala responses, with faster, more sustained amygdala responses (48–50) and less habituation of these responses (51) occurring in individuals with a history of BI. It is noteworthy that many of these neuroimaging studies assess brain function in adolescents and young adults that have a history of BI. Although these studies suggest that BI-related amygdala hyperactivity can be detected into adulthood (15,50,52,53), it is difficult to disambiguate whether this dysfunction is a cause or consequence of long-term, stable inhibited temperament. Studies that aim to assess threat-related amygdala function concomitant with the emergence of BI in children promise to provide insight into the early brain correlates of inhibited temperament.
To characterize the early neural substrates of our AT construct in young rhesus monkeys, our lab has made use of behavioral phenotyping combined with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. The radiotracer 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose can be administered immediately before a 30-minute exposure to NEC, during which time it is trapped in cells that are undergoing increased metabolic demand, the distribution of which can be visualized using positron emission tomography scanning (54). Use of this method across a the previously discussed large NHP pedigree (N = 592) revealed several brain regions in which threat-related metabolism was associated with individual differences in AT (25,33), including a cluster in the amygdala. This cluster (shown in Figure 1C) is in the dorsal amygdala region, which encompasses the Ce, dorsal portions of the basal, accessory basal, and lateral nuclei. Interestingly, the peak of this cluster fell within the Ce, which was confirmed using chemoarchitectonic localization (25). The Ce was localized based on positron emission tomography scans with a ligand with a high affinity for the serotonin transporter, which is expressed at higher levels in the lateral division of the central nucleus (55,56). This finding is largely consistent with meta-analyses of studies assessing BI in humans, which suggest that clusters of functional activation related to differences in BI are more likely to be reported in the dorsal portions of the amygdala (57).
The anatomical inputs and outputs of the Ce make it particularly interesting in the context of AT. The Ce, which comprises a lateral (CeL) and medial (CeM) division, is primarily composed of striatal-like cells that communicate via the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) (57). Local microcircuits within the Ce, as well as intra-amygdala circuits, have been shown in rodent models to be involved in mediating behavioral responses to potential threats (58,59). The CeL receives input from the ventral amygdala, which provides integrated sensory, regulatory, and contextual inputs from cortical and subcortical regions (60–63). The primary output of the amygdaloid complex is via the CeM (64), which innervates hypothalamic and brainstem nuclei that mediate threat- and stress-related behavioral and autonomic responses (63,65). Thus, individual differences in the threat-related function of the Ce, in part mediated by local microcircuits operating within it, could affect the propensity to initiate defensive behavioral and physiological responses, which have been specifically demonstrated to be enhanced in children with high BI and in monkeys with extreme AT.
When assessed with repeated exposures to the NEC, Ce metabolism is relatively stable (intercluster correlation coefficient = 0.64), suggesting that this AT-related brain signature has a trait-like nature (29). Furthermore, metabolism in the amygdala is related to AT in both stressful and nonstressful contexts (11), which is interesting as children with high BI tend to display increased anxiety in “safe” contexts (28). Metabolism in the Ce is independently associated with each of the components of AT (freezing, cooing, cortisol), suggesting that this structure is hyperactive regardless of the admixtures of its components that result in a high AT score (26). Studies performed in children (34) and in our multigenerational rhesus monkey pedigree (25) have demonstrated that both heritable and nonheritable influences are important in determining AT’s neural circuit (25). Together, these studies provide strong evidence for trait-like, context-independent, AT-related neural activity in the amygdala, particularly the Ce.
A CAUSAL ROLE FOR THE DORSAL AMYGDALA IN MEDIATING AT
Lesioning methods in animal models have been very informative in extending these correlative findings. As human studies must capitalize on disease-related or surgery-induced lesions (66,67), efforts to probe the causal contribution of the amygdala in humans are limited by a paucity of individuals with circumscribed amygdala damage. These studies are also complicated by the incomplete or unilateral nature of damage to the amygdala (68,69), the concomitant damage of several amygdala nuclei (70), and an inability to prospectively randomize lesion and comparison groups that could lead to confounds related to preexisting illnesses and behavioral dispositions (71). Furthermore, structural lesions that are indicative of those in humans often include damage to fiber tracts proximal to the amygdala (72). Neurotoxic lesioning methods performed in rhesus monkeys may induce targeted damage that is limited to neurons in the amygdala, or nuclei within it, allowing for the refinement of hypotheses about the causal contribution of the amygdala to temperament, without the confounds potentially associated with concomitant fiber damage. Complete neurotoxic lesions of the amygdala in adult rhesus monkeys result in a variety of behavioral alterations, which influence social interactions and defensive responses (Table 1) (24,72–87). Neonatal lesions of the amygdala also result in alterations in young monkeys’ tendency to display fear-related behaviors during social interactions, in both early life and adulthood (74,88). Surprisingly, although large neurotoxic lesions of the majority of the amygdaloid complex in juvenile monkeys decreased fearful responses in the presence of a snake, they did not alter AT (24). Instead, targeted neurotoxic lesions of the dorsal amygdala, which encompassed the Ce, resulted in behavioral and physiological alterations consistent with a decrease in AT (80). These results suggest that the Ce, which has been proposed to act as a “gate” (89) between incoming sensory and regulatory input and autonomic and behavioral output, is particularly important in determining the extent to which an individual inhibits behavior in the presence of a threat.
Table 1.
Summary of Findings From Selected Studies Exploring the Effects of Either Neurotoxic Lesions or Manipulations to the Amygdala on Threat- and Fear-Related Behaviors in Macaques
Reference | Developmental Stage | Type of Manipulation | Species of Macaque | No. of Amygdala Lesioned Subjects (Sex) | Control/Comparison Groups (Sex) | Age at Lesion/Manipulation | Relevant Behavioral Tests (Age or Time After Surgery) | Summary of Relevant Findings | Linked Publications |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prather et al. (76) | Neonatal | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 3 (2 male, 1 female) | 3 unoperated controls (2 male, 1 female) | 12–16 days after birth | Dyadic social interaction (6.5 mo); responsiveness testing (8.5 mo) | Amygdala-lesioned monkeys displayed normal social development and maintained species-typical interactions with peers and mothers. Lesioned subjects had heightened fear responses in social interactions and blunted fear responses to nonsocial stimuli. | |
Bauman et al. (73) | Neonatal | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 8 (3 male, 5 female) | 8 sham-operated controls (4 male, 4 female), 8 hippocampus lesion (5 male, 3 female) | 12–16 days after birth | Behavioral observations (home cage, solo at 6 and 9 mo; dyads at 6, 9, and 12 mo, social group) | Despite relatively normal social development, amygdala-lesioned animals display more fear behaviors during social interaction (evident at all time points and in all social situations). | See also (74–76, 144–149) |
Bliss-Moreau et al. (74) | Neonatal | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 8 (3 male, 5 female) | 8 sham-operated controls (4 male, 4 female), 8 hippocampus lesion (5 male, 3 female) | 12–16 days after birth | Object responsiveness (9 and 18 mo; temperament assessments) | Amygdala-lesioned monkeys displayed shorter latencies to interact with a variety of novel and fearful objects at 9 and 18 mo. At 18 mo, amygdala-lesioned monkeys were rated as less fearful during testing by trained observers. | See also (74–76, 144–149) |
Bliss-Moreau et al. (75) | Neonatal | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 8 (3 male, 5 female) | 8 sham-operated control (4 male, 4 female), 8 hippocampus lesion (5 male, 3 female) | 12–16 days after birth | Object responsiveness (3 years) | Amygdala-lesioned animals displayed lower latencies to retrieve food rewards in the presence of emotionally salient objects and were quicker to explore objects. | See also (74–76, 144–149) |
Raper et al. (87) | Neonatal | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 16 (9 male, 7 female) | 12 sham-operated controls (6 male, 6 female), 3 behavioral controls (2 male, 1 female) | 23–25 days after birth | Human intruder paradigm (2.5 and 12 mo) | While amygdala-lesioned monkeys did not show major alterations in their defensive responses, some alterations in contextual modulation of these responses were reported when tested in infancy. Differences were more pronounced during the juvenile period, and amygdala-lesioned monkeys showed less freezing in the HIP. Sex differences were reported, which were more prevalent in infancy. | See also (150–154) |
Raper et al. (77) | Neonatal | Chemogenetic inhibition of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 2 (1 male, 1 female) | Within-subject design | 9 mo | Human intruder paradigm (14 mo); socioemotional attention task (3.5–5 mo) | Inactivation using chemogenetic technologies decreased freezing and increased attention to relevant facial features in the socioemotional attention task. | |
Kalin et al. (24) | Juvenile | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 17 (15 male, 2 female) | 10 unoperated controls (9 male, 1 female) | 22.5 mo on average | Human intruder paradigm; snake fear test (1 mo after surgery) | While no alterations were reported in freezing during the HIP, amygdala-lesioned animals displayed decreased fear in the presence of a threatening stimulus (snake). | |
Kalin et al. (80) | Juvenile | Neurotoxic lesion of the dorsal amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 9 bilateral, 9 unilateral (all male) | 16 unoperated controls (16 male) | 34.6 mo on average | Human intruder paradigm; snake fear test | Dorsal amygdala-lesioned animals displayed decreased cooing, freezing and plasma corticotropin levels in the no eye contact condition of the HIP, as well as decreased latencies to reach for a food reward in the presence of a snake. | |
Machado et al. (84) | Juvenile | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 9 (all male) | 9 sham-operated controls, 9 hippocampus lesion, 6 OFC lesion (all male) | 2.4–3.3 years of age | Human intruder paradigm; hormonal reactivity to conspecifics, aversive objects and physical restraint (3–12 mo after surgery); | Amygdala-lesioned subjects displayed less defensive freezing, as well as an overall decrease in ability to regulate tension related behaviors between contexts. Amygdala-lesioned subject displayed blunted cortisol following isolation from peers, but not after the HIP. | See also (155–157) |
Wellman et al. (86) | Juvenile | Pharmacological activation and inactivation of the Ce/BLA | Pigtailed (Macaca nemestrina) | BLA: 3 (1 male, 2 female); Ce: 4 (2 male, 2 female) | Within-subject design | 18 mo to 2 years of age | Dyadic interactions (18 mo to 2 years of age) | Activation of the BLA, and not the Ce suppressed social behavior, while inactivation of both structures increased social behavior within familiar social pairs. | See also (158) |
Meunier et al. (72) | Adult | Comparison of aspiration and neurotoxic lesions of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 3 (all male) aspiration lesions, 6 (all male) neurotoxic lesions | 6 controls (all male) | Adulthood | Object responsiveness (adulthood) | Though aspiration and neurotoxic lesions produce a similar set of behavioral alterations (including reduced freezing in the presence of fear-inducing objects), the alterations seen following aspiration lesions are generally more pronounced. | |
Emery et al. (78) | Adult | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 6 (all male) | 6 unoperated controls (all male) | 6.15 years on average | Behavioral observations in a constrained (6.7 years), unconstrained dyad (7.1 years), and round robin dyad (7.7 years) | Across all behavioral paradigms, amygdala-lesioned subjects displayed an increased tendency towards positive social interaction with peers, as well as decreased tendency towards tension-related behaviors. | See also (82,159,160) |
Stefanacci et al. (79) | Adult | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Cynomologous (Macaca fascicularis) | 5 (all male) | 4 unoperated controls (4 male) | Adulthood | Object responsiveness (3 and 23 mo after surgery) | Amygdala-lesioned animals approached emotional stimuli more readily shortly after surgery (3 month), and displayed a tendency towards approaching more readily long (23 mo) after surgery. | |
Izquierdo et al. (81) | Adult | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 4 (all male) | 10 posterior OFC aspiration lesions, 10 unoperated controls (all male) | Adulthood | Human intruder paradigm; snake fear test | Amygdala-lesioned animals had lower latencies to retrieve a preferred food reward in the presence of a snake and displayed less defensive and more approach behaviors during this task. No alterations were reported in the HIP. | See also (81,85,161) |
Mason et al. (82) | Adult | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 6 (all male) | 6 unoperated controls (all male) | 6.15 years on average | Novel object responsiveness test (5 mo after surgery); human presenting food | During initial exposure to various novel objects, subjects with bilateral amygdala lesions were more likely to interact with the novel objects than were controls. They were also more likely to retrieve a food reward given by a human experimenter or placed near a complex novel object. The differences between controls and amygdala-lesioned subjects diminished with repeated testing, as controls become less inhibited. | See also (78,159,160) |
Antoniadis et al. (83) | Adult | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | Sample 1: 6 (all male); Sample 2: 4 (all male) | Sample 1: 6 sham-operated controls, 6 hippocampus lesion (all male); Sample 2: 4 sham-operated controls (all male) | Sample 1: 11 years on average; Sample 2: 6.43 years on average | Sample 1: fear potentiated startle (4.5 years after surgery); Sample 2: lesions performed after acquisition of fear potentiated startle | Amygdala-lesioned animals failed to acquire fear-potentiated startle. However, damage to the amygdala induced after acquisition of fear-potentiated startle did not block its expression. | See also (97) |
Chudasama et al. (85) | Adult | Neurotoxic lesion of the bilateral amygdala | Rhesus (Macaca mulatta) | 4 (all male) | 9 sham-operated controls, 8 hippocampus lesion (all male) | Adulthood | Snake fear test | Amygdala-lesioned animals had shorter latencies to retrieve a food reward in the presence of fear inducing stimuli (snake and spider) relative to neutral objects and displayed less defensive responses | See also (81,161) |
A subset of selected linked publications, which probe constructs related to fear, threat, and social behavior in either the same or a linked sample of nonhuman primate subjects, are listed. A complementary table, which includes a discussion of results from aspiration lesion studies, as well as other behavioral alterations associated with amygdala lesions, can be found in (143).
BLA, basolateral amygdala; Ce, central nucleus of the amygdala; HIP, human intruder paradigm; OFC, orbitofrontal cortex.
The gating function of the Ce has been linked to the activity of microcircuits comprising several cell types within the Ce, which are defined by their response properties (90), as well as expression of molecular markers (91) (Figure 2A). Furthermore, plasticity within these Ce circuits, as well as in projections to and from other amygdala nuclei and downstream targets, is also important in mediating defensive responses (92–95). Studies in rodents, facilitated by opto- and chemogenetic methods that may discretely target and activate various genetically defined subpopulations of cells in the amygdala, have been essential in refining the understanding of these circuits and their causal contributions to behavior (58,59,96). Most of these rodent studies probe the function of Ce microcircuits in the context of fear-learning paradigms (90,91), whereas most of the primate research discussed in Table 1 relies on paradigms that assess unconditioned fear- and anxiety-related behaviors [but see (97,98)]. The translation of opto- and chemogenetic technologies for use in NHPs will be important in determining the extent to which distinct cell populations are linked to the expression of AT. Although the structure and connections of the amygdala are generally well conserved between rodents and primates, there are several notable cross-species differences: in primates, the ventral amygdala is significantly expanded (approximately 30 times as large in rhesus monkeys as in rats), thought to be due increased cortical input, although the relative size of the Ce has remained fairly constant (approximately 5 times as large in rhesus monkeys as in rats) (99). Understanding how this expanded input from the ventral amygdala influences interactions with Ce microcircuits will be important. At a cellular level, studies suggest that there may be some differences between primate and rodent species in terms of the composition and distribution of relevant cell types and molecules in the Ce (27,100), though the functional significance of these species differences has not been fully explored.
Figure 2.
(A) Anatomy of the rhesus monkey amygdala. In gray, the ventral nuclei of the amygdala receive a majority of projections from cortical, subcortical, and thalamic regions, such as the prefrontal cortex, sensory association cortices, the hippocampus, and medial dorsal thalamus (36). This region primarily contains excitatory neurons (depicted in green), which project to the inhibitory neurons of the Ce (depicted in red). Within the lateral and medial Ce, the two major divisions of the Ce, local inhibitory microcircuits interact to influence threat-related behavioral and physiological responses, which are mediated via projections to hypothalamic and brainstem nuclei (142). This simplified circuit diagram depicts general organizational principles that have been characterized in rodent models (58,90,91,96). It remains to be seen whether these circuits are conserved in primates. (B) Fluorescent images of DREADDs expressing neurons within the basal nucleus of the amygdala. Immunolabeling for the fluorescent reporter associated with the DREADDs receptor hemagglutinin is shown in blue. In red, staining for NeuN, a neuronal marker, delineates nuclei. (C) Depiction of the dual-vector approach for specific targeting of projections between the amygdala and prefrontal cortex. In pink, injection of a viral vector containing the sequence for the DREADDs receptor, under the transcriptional control of the enzyme Cre recombinase, is injected into the amygdala. In blue, a retrogradely transported virus which contains Cre recombinase, is injected into the pOFC. This virus is retrogradely transported (blue dotted arrow) along axonal projections, leading to expression of the DREADDs receptor only in cells projecting from the amygdala to the pOFC (green arrow) (117). Based on comprehensive characterization of the projections between the pOFC and amygdala (105), these projection neurons likely originate from the ventral amygdala, as projections from the Ce to pOFC are sparse. (D, E) T1-weighted intraoperative images showing co-infusions of the viral vector with a contrast agent (gadolinium, bright white) into the (D) dorsal amygdala and (E) pOFC. AB, accessory basal amygdala; B, basal amygdala; Ce, central nucleus; CeL, lateral division of the central nucleus; CeM, medial division of the central nucleus; DREADDs, designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs; ICM, intercalated cell mass; L, lateral amygdala; pOFC, posterior orbitofrontal cortex. [(A) Adapted with permission from Fox et al. (19) and Paxinos et al. (140).]
Relevant to answering these questions, chemogenetic strategies are beginning to emerge as tools for manipulating neurons and understanding microcircuit function in NHPs. The use of viral vector–mediated delivery may be leveraged to induce expression of chemogenetic receptors (commonly, DREADDS [designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs]), which are activated by “inert” ligands that may be systemically administered, to induce reversible changes in firing in the cells where these receptors are expressed (101). Early NHP studies employing these methods have shown that manipulation of cells in the amygdala appears to alter threat-related responses elicited by the human intruder paradigm (77). Initial studies in our own laboratory, which have relied on the development of intraoperative monitoring systems to ensure selective targeting of viral vector infusions to discrete regions (102) (Figure 2D, E), suggest that manipulations of cells in the dorsal amygdala that are based on DREADDS can alter AT. Efforts are ongoing to further advance these methods in NHPs to enable the specific activation of genetically defined cell populations (103), which will prove essential in targeting the functionally distinct amygdala cell types characterized in rodent models. Application of these methods in NHPs (104) will allow for unprecedented insights into the neural circuitry underlying AT in the primate amygdala.
Also of interest from the standpoint of manipulation of the amygdala are the many regulatory projections from the PFC (65,105), which have been linked to fear responses, anxiety, and AT (37–39,106) and primarily target the basolateral amygdala (105). Rhesus monkeys are particularly valuable in the study of prefrontal mechanisms related to psychopathology, as they share with humans many of the same chemo-architectonically and functionally defined prefrontal regions (107–109), which are connected to subcortical structures in similar ways (62,110). White matter pathways that link the prefrontal and medial temporal lobes, including the uncincate fasciculus, have similar organization in humans and rhesus monkeys (111,112), and the microstructural integrity of this tract has been linked to AT (113). Inhibition of cells in the NHP amygdala based on DREADDS results in altered frontolimbic connectivity (114), as assessed using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Dual-vector approaches (Figure 2C) have provided insight into the importance of prefrontal–amygdala interactions in rodents (115–117), but outstanding questions regarding the functional homology between rodent and human prefrontal sectors underscore the importance of performing these studies in NHPs (118–120). In addition to expanding the understanding of the regulatory relationship between the PFC and the amygdala in primates, the use of these methods could be expanded to target many other functional inputs and outputs of the Ce, such as the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and periaqueductal gray.
IDENTIFYING AND TESTING MOLECULAR PROCESSES RELATED TO AT WITHIN THE DORSAL AMYGDALA
Although extensive work in rodents has identified molecular pathways linked to stress (121–123), there is a paucity of similar work in NHPs (124). Because of the substantial evidence linking the Ce to AT, we have focused primarily on identifying AT-related molecular alterations in this region. Characterizing molecular alterations at the level of the transcriptome allows for insight into the combined influence of structural genetic variation and epigenetic regulation on gene expression (125). To probe the molecular processes that mediate the relation between altered Ce metabolism and AT, RNA was collected from the dorsal amygdala region of 24 young rhesus monkeys that had undergone AT phenotyping and neuroimaging (29). Among other transcripts, dorsal amygdala expression levels of the transcript for the NTRK3 receptor (activated by its primary ligand, neurotrophic factor 3 [NT3]) and its downstream target RPS6KA3 were found to be inversely associated with AT, as well as with metabolism in the Ce (29,42). Neurotrophic factors, particularly BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) and FGF (fibroblast growth factor), have been extensively linked to stress in rodent models (126–128). Neurotrophic factors bind to members of a family of tyrosine kinase receptors, such as NTRK3, to affect intracellular signaling cascades, which may result in increased plasticity either through cytoplasmic effectors or changes in gene expression (129). Ultimately, these changes result in increased spine formation and stabilization, among other structural changes (129,130). A recent study confirmed the importance of neurotrophic signaling (BDNF/NTRK2) in facilitating plasticity in CeL neurons. Deletion of presynaptic BDNF in neurons projecting from the paraventricular thalamus to the CeL or depletion of postsynaptic NTRK2 receptors on neurons in the CeL impaired fear conditioning. Furthermore, direct infusion of BDNF into the CeL facilitated fear conditioning, suggesting that the BDNF/NTRK2 pathway is important for plasticity associated with fear learning and responding in the Ce (131). Further work will be needed to determine if these principles extend to the NT3/NTRK3 system.
To causally link the NT3/NTRK3 signaling pathway to AT, we used viral vector–mediated overexpression of NTF3 messenger RNA in young monkeys to increase NT3 protein abundance in the dorsal amygdala (41). Importantly, the effects of this manipulation resulted in decreased AT, as well as altered metabolism in both the Ce and other AT-related brain regions, suggesting that NT3/NTRK3-mediated plasticity in the dorsal amygdala affects both AT and the function of its neural circuit (Figure 3). Together, this work led us to propose a neuroplasticity hypothesis for AT that centers around the Ce (19). As the local circuits within the Ce are thought to be important for integrating information relevant to the initiation of defensive behaviors (91,132–134), decreased plasticity within these circuits could impair the ability to flexibly alter responses related to threat and safety. This impairment could lead to a persistent tendency toward activation of the Ce and its downstream targets, which could promote a tendency toward enhanced threat reactivity, including inhibition. The specific targeting of plasticity within these and other amygdala circuits (135,136), as well as prefrontal regulatory projections (105,137,138) and connections with other AT-related regions (57), could provide novel circuit-based approaches to potentially normalize the aberrant function of this region across development.
Figure 3.
(A) Translational behavioral paradigms, such as the human intruder paradigm, can be used to measure evolutionarily conserved temperaments, such as AT, that are highly relevant to understanding human psychopathology. (B) These paradigms can be administered in conjunction with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to reveal brain regions, including the central nucleus of the amygdala, where metabolic activity is related to individual differences in temperament. (C) Neurons within the dorsal amygdala form local microcircuits, which are essential for processing information relevant to threat. Perturbation of these cells can be achieved using chemogenetic technologies (blue receptors) to induce changes in firing in these cells. (D) At the level of the synapse, activation of NTRK3 by its ligand NT3 results in a variety of intracellular signaling cascades, which ultimately results in increased expression of genes that promote plasticity processes (129). Manipulation of these molecular systems can be achieved using viral vector–mediated approaches. In this case, increased expression of the messenger RNA for the NT3 protein leads to increased signaling via the NTRK3 pathway. These changes in gene expression are presumed to affect plasticity in the dorsal amygdala, resulting in altered metabolism in this AT-related region and others (42). Ultimately, this manipulation affects AT. Together, this figure shows how tools can be leveraged in rhesus monkeys to study AT at various levels—from phenotypes to circuits to cells to molecules—providing insight into the bases for the early-life risk to develop stress-related psychopathology. Created with BioRender.com. AAV, adeno-associated virus; AB, antibody; AT, anxious temperament; CMV, cytomegalovirus; Ori, origin of replication.
CONCLUSIONS
AT is an evolutionarily conserved, anxiety-related temperament analogous to BI in humans, which is strongly linked to the later emergence of stress-related psychopathology. Extensive characterization of AT in NHPs suggests that it has stable neural correlates, particularly in the amygdala. Using complementary in vivo and ex vivo methods, we extend these correlational findings, providing evidence for the critical importance of the primate amygdala, particularly the Ce, in AT. The use of novel methods, including chemogenetics, RNA sequencing technologies, and viral vector–mediated expression, allows for insight into the cellular and molecular bases for circuit-level dysfunction in primates, highlighting the importance of neuroplasticity systems in the dorsal amygdala in mediating individual differences in AT. Considered together with studies in humans and rodent models (11,15,16,89), these findings point to the primate Ce as a target for interventions aimed at ameliorating outcomes associated with early AT. Based on the link between neurotrophic signaling in the dorsal amygdala and AT, interventions could be designed to specifically target this system. Existing drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and ketamine have been shown to interact with neurotrophic systems, though the extent to which these interventions activate neurotrophic signaling in the primate amygdala is unknown. Across medicine (139), the use of viral vector–mediated delivery has garnered increased attention in the scope of gene therapy for patients with refractory conditions, and, in relation to psychiatry, provides a basis for specifically modulating molecular systems within neural circuits. However, continued study in NHPs is necessary to determine potential efficacy, as well as safety, in the primate brain. Despite our focus on the amygdala, we emphasize that the circuit underlying AT includes many brain regions, with complex interactions between these regions (16,19,43). The studies highlighted in this review demonstrate how novel tools can be leveraged to probe the relationship between AT and amygdala function and can serve as a road map for probing molecular and circuit alterations in other regions associated with stress-related psychopathology. The ultimate aim of this work is to develop strategies, by translating from young monkeys to children, that will mitigate the likelihood of at-risk children’s developing ADs and associated stress-related psychopathologies.
Supplementary Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURES
This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant Nos. R01MH081884 and R01MH046729 [to NHK] and 5T32MH018931 [to MMK]) and by grants to the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (Grant Nos. P51-OD011106 and P51-RR000167).
We thank Jonathan A. Oler and Lisa Williams for their comments on the manuscript. We thank Marissa Riedel, Patrick Roseboom, and the staff at the Harlow Center for Biological Psychology, the HealthEmotions Research Institute, the Waisman Center, the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, the Lane Neuroimaging Laboratory, and the Wisconsin National Primate Center.
NHK has served on scientific advisory boards for Corcept Therapeutics, Neuronetics, CeNeRx BioPharma, and Skyland Trail; is a stockholder with equity options in Corcept Therapeutics and CeNeRx BioPharma; owned Promoter Neurosciences; and holds patents for promoter sequences for corticotropin-releasing factor CRF2alpha and a method of identifying agents that alter the activity of the promoter sequences, promoter sequences for urocortin II and the use thereof, and promoter sequences for corticotropin-releasing factor binding protein and the use thereof. MMK reports no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Supplementary material cited in this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.08.028.
REFERENCES
- 1.Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE (2005): Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:593–602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kessler RC, Avenevoli S, Costello EJ, Georgiades K, Green JG, Gruber MJ, et al. (2012): Prevalence, persistence, and sociodemographic correlates of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement. Arch Gen Psychiatry 69:372–380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Costello EJ, Egger HL, Angold A (2005): The developmental epidemiology of anxiety disorders: Phenomenology, prevalence, and comorbidity. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 14:631–648, vii. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Copeland WE, Angold A, Shanahan L, Costello EJ (2014): Longitudinal patterns of anxiety from childhood to adulthood: The Great Smoky Mountains Study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 53:21–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Merikangas KR, He J-P, Burstein M, Swanson SA, Avenevoli S, Cui L, et al. (2010): Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 49:980–989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Costello EJ, Janiszewski S (1990): Who gets treated? Factors associated with referral in children with psychiatric disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand 81:523–529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Allen KB, Benningfield M, Blackford JU (2020): Childhood anxiety—If we know so much, why are we doing so little? JAMA Psychiatry 77:887–888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Walkup JT, Labellarte MJ, Riddle MA, Pine DS, Greenhill L, Klein R, et al. (2001): Fluvoxamine for the treatment of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med 344:1279–1285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Walkup JT, Albano AM, Piacentini J, Birmaher B, Compton SN, Sherrill JT, et al. (2008): Cognitive behavioral therapy, sertraline, or a combination in childhood anxiety. N Engl J Med 359:2753–2766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ginsburg GS, Becker-Haimes EM, Keeton C, Kendall PC, Iyengar S, Sakolsky D, et al. (2018): Results from the Child/Adolescent Anxiety Multimodal Extended Long-Term Study (CAMELS): Primary anxiety outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 57:471–480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fox NA, Henderson HA, Marshall PJ, Nichols KE, Ghera MM (2005): Behavioral inhibition: Linking biology and behavior within a developmental framework. Annu Rev Psychol 56:235–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rosenbaum JF, Biederman J, Bolduc-Murphy EA, Faraone SV, Chaloff J, Hirshfeld DR, Kagan J (1993): Behavioral inhibition in childhood: A risk factor for anxiety disorders. Harv Rev Psychiatry 1:2–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Coll CG, Kagan J, Reznick JS (1984): Behavioral inhibition in young children. Child Dev 55:1005–1019. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kagan J, Reznick JS, Clarke C, Snidman N, Garcia-Coll C (1984): Behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar. Child Dev 55:2212–2225. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Clauss JA, Blackford JU (2012): Behavioral inhibition and risk for developing social anxiety disorder: A meta-analytic study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 51:1066–1075, e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Clauss JA, Avery SN, Blackford JU (2015): The nature of individual differences in inhibited temperament and risk for psychiatric disease: A review and meta-analysis. Prog Neurobiol 127–128:23–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kalin NH, Shelton SE (2003): Nonhuman primate models to study anxiety, emotion regulation, and psychopathology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1008:189–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Capitanio JP (2017): Naturally occurring nonhuman primate models of psychosocial processes. ILAR J 58:226–234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Fox AS, Kalin NH (2014): A translational neuroscience approach to understanding the development of social anxiety disorder and its pathophysiology. Am J Psychiatry 171:1162–1173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Buss KA, Schumacher JRM, Dolski I, Kalin NH, Goldsmith HH, Davidson RJ (2003): Right frontal brain activity, cortisol, and withdrawal behavior in 6-month-old infants. Behav Neurosci 117:11–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kagan J, Reznick JS, Snidman N (1987): The physiology and psychology of behavioral inhibition in children. Child Dev 58:1459–1473. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Calkins SD, Fox NA, Marshall TR (1996): Behavioral and physiological antecedents of inhibited and uninhibited behavior. Child Dev 67:523–540. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kalin NH, Shelton SE (1989): Defensive behaviors in infant rhesus monkeys: environmental cues and neurochemical regulation. Science 243:1718–1721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kalin NH, Shelton SE, Davidson RJ, Kelley AE (2001): The primate amygdala mediates acute fear but not the behavioral and physiological components of anxious temperament. J Neurosci 21:2067–2074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fox AS, Oler JA, Shackman AJ, Shelton SE, Raveendran M, McKay DR, et al. (2015): Intergenerational neural mediators of early-life anxious temperament. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:9118–9122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Shackman AJ, Fox AS, Oler JA, Shelton SE, Davidson RJ, Kalin NH (2013): Neural mechanisms underlying heterogeneity in the presentation of anxious temperament. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:6145–6150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kovner R, Souaiaia T, Fox AS, French DA, Goss CE, Roseboom PH, et al. (2020): Transcriptional profiling of primate central nucleus of the amygdala neurons to understand the molecular underpinnings of early-life anxious temperament. Biol Psychiatry 88:638–648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Fox AS, Shelton SE, Oakes TR, Davidson RJ, Kalin NH (2008): Trait-like brain activity during adolescence predicts anxious temperament in primates. PLoS One 3:e2570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Fox AS, Oler JA, Shelton SE, Nanda SA, Davidson RJ, Roseboom PH, Kalin NH (2012): Central amygdala nucleus (Ce) gene expression linked to increased trait-like Ce metabolism and anxious temperament in young primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:18108–18113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Kalin NH, Shelton SE (1998): Ontogeny and stability of separation and threat-induced defensive behaviors in rhesus monkeys during the first year of life. Am J Primatol 44:125–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kalin NH, Shelton SE, Takahashi LK (1991): Defensive behaviors in infant rhesus monkeys: Ontogeny and context-dependent selective expression. Child Dev 62:1175–1183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Brooker RJ, Buss KA, Lemery-Chalfant K, Aksan N, Davidson RJ, Goldsmith HH (2013): The development of stranger fear in infancy and toddlerhood: Normative development, individual differences, antecedents, and outcomes. Dev Sci 16:864–878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Oler JA, Fox AS, Shelton SE, Rogers J, Dyer TD, Davidson RJ, et al. (2010): Amygdalar and hippocampal substrates of anxious temperament differ in their heritability. Nature 466:864–868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Robinson JL, Kagan J, Reznick JS, Corley R (1992): The heritability of inhibited and uninhibited behavior: A twin study. Dev Psychol 28:1030–1037. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hettema JM, Neale MC, Kendler KS (2001): A review and meta-analysis of the genetic epidemiology of anxiety disorders. Am J Psychiatry 158:1568–1578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Fox AS, Shackman AJ (2017): The central extended amygdala in fear and anxiety: Closing the gap between mechanistic and neuroimaging research. Neurosci Lett 693:58–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Birn RM, Shackman AJ, Oler JA, Williams LE, McFarlin DR, Rogers GM, et al. (2014): Evolutionarily conserved prefrontal-amygdalar dysfunction in early-life anxiety. Mol Psychiatry 19:915–922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Fox AS, Shelton SE, Oakes TR, Converse AK, Davidson RJ, Kalin NH (2010): Orbitofrontal cortex lesions alter anxiety-related activity in the primate bed nucleus of stria terminalis. J Neurosci 30:7023–7027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kalin NH, Shelton SE, Davidson RJ (2007): Role of the primate orbitofrontal cortex in mediating anxious temperament. Biol Psychiatry 62:1134–1139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Jahn AL, Fox AS, Abercrombie HC, Shelton SE, Oakes TR, Davidson RJ, Kalin NH (2010): Subgenual prefrontal cortex activity predicts individual differences in hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activity across different contexts. Biol Psychiatry 67:175–181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Fox AS, Souaiaia T, Oler JA, Kovner R, Kim JM, Hugo) Nguyen J, et al. (2019): Dorsal amygdala neurotrophin-3 decreases anxious temperament in primates. Biol Psychiatry 86:881–889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kalin NH, Shelton SE, Fox AS, Oakes TR, Davidson RJ (2005): Brain regions associated with the expression and contextual regulation of anxiety in primates. Biol Psychiatry 58:796–804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kalin NH (2017): Mechanisms underlying the early risk to develop anxiety and depression: A translational approach. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 27:543–553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Davis M (1992): The role of the amygdala in fear-potentiated startle: Implications for animal models of anxiety. Trends Pharmacol Sci 13:35–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Davis M (1998): Are different parts of the extended amygdala involved in fear versus anxiety? Biol Psychiatry 44:1239–1247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Davis M, Whalen PJ (2001): The amygdala: Vigilance and emotion [no. 1]. Mol Psychiatry 6:13–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.LeDoux JE (2000): Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 23:155–184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Blackford JU, Avery SN, Cowan RL, Shelton RC, Zald DH (2011): Sustained amygdala response to both novel and newly familiar faces characterizes inhibited temperament. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 6:621–629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Blackford JU, Avery SN, Shelton RC, Zald DH (2009): Amygdala temporal dynamics: Temperamental differences in the timing of amygdala response to familiar and novel faces. BMC Neurosci 10:145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Schwartz CE, Wright CI, Shin LM, Kagan J, Rauch SL (2003): Inhibited and uninhibited infants “grown up”: Adult amygdalar response to novelty. Science 300:1952–1953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Blackford JU, Allen AH, Cowan RL, Avery SN (2013): Amygdala and hippocampus fail to habituate to faces in individuals with an inhibited temperament. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 8:143–150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Schwartz CE, Kunwar PS, Greve DN, Moran LR, Viner JC, Covino JM, et al. (2010): Structural differences in adult orbital and ventromedial prefrontal cortex predicted by infant temperament at 4 months of age. Arch Gen Psychiatry 67:78–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Blackford JU, Clauss JA, Avery SN, Cowan RL, Benningfield MM, VanDerKlok RM (2014): Amygdala-cingulate intrinsic connectivity is associated with degree of social inhibition. Biol Psychol 99:15–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Reivich M, Kuhl D, Wolf A, Greenberg J, Phelps M, Ido T, et al. (1979): The [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose method for the measurement of local cerebral glucose utilization in man. Circ Res 44:127–137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Christian BT, Fox AS, Oler JA, Vandehey NT, Murali D, Rogers J, et al. (2009): Serotonin transporter binding and genotype in the nonhuman primate brain using [C-11]DASB PET. Neuroimage 47:1230–1236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.O’Rourke H, Fudge JL (2006): Distribution of serotonin transporter labeled fibers in amygdaloid subregions: Implications for mood disorders. Biol Psychiatry 60:479–490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Fox AS, Oler JA, Tromp DPM, Fudge JL, Kalin NH (2015): Extending the amygdala in theories of threat processing. Trends Neurosci 38:319–329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Janak PH, Tye KM (2015): From circuits to behaviour in the amygdala. Nature 517:284–292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Beyeler A, Dabrowska J (2020): Chapter 3 — Neuronal diversity of the amygdala and the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. In: Urban JH, Rosenkranz JA, editors. (2020), Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 26. Elsevier, pp. 63–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Freese JL, Amaral DG (2009): Neuroanatomy of the primate amygdala. In: Whalen PJ, Phelps EA, editors. The Human Amygdala. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, pp. 3–42. [Google Scholar]
- 61.Insausti R, Amaral DG, Cowan WM (1987): The entorhinal cortex of the monkey: III. Subcortical afferents. J Comp Neurol 264:396–408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Amaral DG, Price JL (1984): Amygdalo-cortical projections in the monkey (Macaca fascicularis). J Comp Neurol 230:465–496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Aggleton JP, Burton MJ, Passingham RE (1980): Cortical and subcortical afferents to the amygdala of the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta). Brain Res 190:347–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.LeDoux JE, Iwata J, Cicchetti P, Reis DJ (1988): Different projections of the central amygdaloid nucleus mediate autonomic and behavioral correlates of conditioned fear. J Neurosci 8:2517–2529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Ghashghaei HT, Barbas H (2002): Pathways for emotion: Interactions of prefrontal and anterior temporal pathways in the amygdala of the rhesus monkey. Neuroscience 115:1261–1279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Newton FH, Rosenberg RN, Lampert PW, O’Brien JS (1971): Neurologic involvement in Urbach-Wiethe’s disease (lipoid proteinosis). A clinical, ultrastructural, and chemical study. Neurology 21:1205–1213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Pitkänen A, Tuunanen J, Kälviäinen R, Partanen K, Salmenperä T (1998): Amygdala damage in experimental and human temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 32:233–253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Adolphs R, Tranel D, Denburg N (2000): Impaired emotional declarative memory following unilateral amygdala damage. Learn Mem 7:180–186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.LaBar KS, LeDoux JE (1996): Partial disruption of fear conditioning in rats with unilateral amygdala damage: Correspondence with unilateral temporal lobectomy in humans. Behav Neurosci 110:991–997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Terburg D, Morgan BE, Montoya ER, Hooge IT, Thornton HB, Hariri AR, et al. (2012): Hypervigilance for fear after basolateral amygdala damage in humans [no. 5]. Transl Psychiatry 2:e115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Vaidya AR, Pujara MS, Petrides M, Murray EA, Fellows LK (2019): Lesion studies in contemporary neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci 23:653–671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Meunier M, Bachevalier J, Murray EA, Málková L, Mishkin M (1999): Effects of aspiration versus neurotoxic lesions of the amygdala on emotional responses in monkeys. Eur J Neurosci 11:4403–4418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Bauman MD, Lavenex P, Mason WA, Capitanio JP, Amaral DG (2004): The development of social behavior following neonatal amygdala lesions in rhesus monkeys. J Cogn Neurosci 16:1388–1411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Bliss-Moreau E, Toscano JE, Bauman MD, Mason WA, Amaral DG (2010): Neonatal amygdala or hippocampus lesions influence responsiveness to objects. Dev Psychobiol 52:487–503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Bliss-Moreau E, Toscano JE, Bauman MD, Mason WA, Amaral DG (2011): Neonatal amygdala lesions alter responsiveness to objects in juvenile macaques. Neuroscience 178:123–132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Prather MD, Lavenex P, Mauldin-Jourdain ML, Mason WA, Capitanio JP, Mendoza SP, Amaral DG (2001): Increased social fear and decreased fear of objects in monkeys with neonatal amygdala lesions. Neuroscience 106:653–658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Raper J, Murphy L, Richardson R, Romm Z, Kovacs-Balint Z, Payne C, Galvan A (2019): Chemogenetic inhibition of the amygdala modulates emotional behavior expression in infant rhesus monkeys. eNeuro 6:0360–19.2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Emery NJ, Capitanio JP, Mason WA, Machado CJ, Mendoza SP, Amaral DG (2001): The effects of bilateral lesions of the amygdala on dyadic social interactions in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Behav Neurosci 115:515–544. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Stefanacci L, Clark RE, Zola SM (2003): Selective neurotoxic amygdala lesions in monkeys disrupt reactivity to food and object stimuli and have limited effects on memory. Behav Neurosci 117:1029–1043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Kalin NH, Shelton SE, Davidson RJ (2004): The role of the central nucleus of the amygdala in mediating fear and anxiety in the primate. J Neurosci 24:5506–5515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Izquierdo A, Suda RK, Murray EA (2005): Comparison of the effects of bilateral orbital prefrontal cortex lesions and amygdala lesions on emotional responses in rhesus monkeys. J Neurosci 25:8534–8542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Mason WA, Capitanio JP, Machado CJ, Mendoza SP, Amaral DG (2006): Amygdalectomy and responsiveness to novelty in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): Generality and individual consistency of effects. Emotion 6:73–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Antoniadis EA, Winslow JT, Davis M, Amaral DG (2007): Role of the primate amygdala in fear-potentiated startle: Effects of chronic lesions in the rhesus monkey. J Neurosci 27:7386–7396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Machado CJ, Bachevalier J (2008): Behavioral and hormonal reactivity to threat: Effects of selective amygdala, hippocampal or orbital frontal lesions in monkeys. Psychoneuroendocrinology 33:926–941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Chudasama Y, Izquierdo A, Murray EA (2009): Distinct contributions of the amygdala and hippocampus to fear expression. Eur J Neurosci 30:2327–2337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Wellman LL, Forcelli PA, Aguilar BL, Malkova L (2016): Bidirectional control of social behavior by activity within basolateral and central amygdala of primates. J Neurosci 36:8746–8756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Raper J, Wallen K, Sanchez MM, Stephens SBZ, Henry A, Villareal T, Bachevalier J (2013): Sex-dependent role of the amygdala in the development of emotional and neuroendocrine reactivity to threatening stimuli in infant and juvenile rhesus monkeys. Horm Behav 63:646–658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Bliss-Moreau E, Bauman MD, Amaral DG (2011): Neonatal amygdala lesions result in globally blunted affect in adult rhesus macaques. Behav Neurosci 125:848–858. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Fadok JP, Markovic M, Tovote P, Lüthi A (2018): New perspectives on central amygdala function. Curr Opin Neurobiol 49:141–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Ciocchi S, Herry C, Grenier F, Wolff SBE, Letzkus JJ, Vlachos I, et al. (2010): Encoding of conditioned fear in central amygdala inhibitory circuits. Nature 468:277–282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Haubensak W, Kunwar PS, Cai H, Ciocchi S, Wall NR, Ponnusamy R, et al. (2010): Genetic dissection of an amygdala microcircuit that gates conditioned fear. Nature 468:270–276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Samson RD, Paré D (2005): Activity-dependent synaptic plasticity in the central nucleus of the amygdala. J Neurosci 25:1847–1855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Penzo MA, Robert V, Li B (2014): fear conditioning potentiates synaptic transmission onto long-range projection neurons in the lateral subdivision of central amygdala. J Neurosci 34:2432–2437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Yu K, Ahrens S, Zhang X, Schiff H, Ramakrishnan C, Fenno L, et al. (2017): The central amygdala controls learning in the lateral amygdala. Nat Neurosci 20:1680–1685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Li H, Penzo MA, Taniguchi H, Kopec CD, Huang ZJ, Li B (2013): Experience-dependent modification of a central amygdala fear circuit [no. 3]. Nat Neurosci 16:332–339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Li B (2019): Central amygdala cells for learning and expressing aversive emotional memories. Curr Opin Behav Sci 26:40–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Antoniadis EA, Winslow JT, Davis M, Amaral DG (2009): The nonhuman primate amygdala is necessary for the acquisition but not the retention of fear-potentiated startle. Biol Psychiatry 65:241–248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Kazama AM, Heuer E, Davis M, Bachevalier J (2012): Effects of neonatal amygdala lesions on fear learning, conditioned inhibition, and extinction in adult macaques. Behav Neurosci 126:392–403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Chareyron LJ, Banta Lavenex P, Amaral DG, Lavenex P (2011): Stereological analysis of the rat and monkey amygdala. J Comp Neurol 519:3218–3239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Kovner R, Fox AS, French DA, Roseboom PH, Oler JA, Fudge JL, Kalin NH (2019): Somatostatin gene and protein expression in the non-human primate central extended amygdala. Neuroscience 400:157–168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Roth BL (2016): DREADDs for neuroscientists. Neuron 89:683–694. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Kalin NH, Fox AS, Kovner R, Riedel MK, Fekete EM, Roseboom PH, et al. (2016): Overexpressing corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) in the primate amygdala increases anxious temperament and alters its neural circuit. Biol Psychiatry 80:345–355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Dimidschstein J, Chen Q, Tremblay R, Rogers S, Saldi G, Guo L, et al. (2016): A viral strategy for targeting and manipulating interneurons across vertebrate species. Nat Neurosci 19:1743–1749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Galvan A, Caiola MJ, Albaugh DL (2017): Advances in optogenetic and chemogenetic methods to study brain circuits in non-human primates. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 125:547–563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Ghashghaei HT, Hilgetag CC, Barbas H (2007): Sequence of information processing for emotions based on the anatomic dialogue between prefrontal cortex and amygdala. Neuroimage 34:905–923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Rudebeck PH, Saunders RC, Prescott AT, Chau LS, Murray EA (2013): Prefrontal mechanisms of behavioral flexibility, emotion regulation and value updating. Nat Neurosci 16:1140–1145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Carmichael ST, Price JL (1996): Connectional networks within the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex of macaque monkeys. J Comp Neurol 371:179–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Ongür D, Price J (2000): The organization of networks within the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex of rats, monkeys and humans. Cereb Cortex 10:206–219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Ongür D, Ferry AT, Price JL (2003): Architectonic subdivision of the human orbital and medial prefrontal cortex. J Comp Neurol 460:425–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Carmichael ST, Price JL (1995): Limbic connections of the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex in macaque monkeys. J Comp Neurol 363:615–641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Lehman JF, Greenberg BD, McIntyre CC, Rasmussen SA, Haber SN (2011): Rules ventral prefrontal cortical axons use to reach their targets: Implications for diffusion tensor imaging tractography and deep brain stimulation for psychiatric illness. J Neurosci 31:10392–10402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Jbabdi S, Lehman JF, Haber SN, Behrens TE (2013): Human and monkey ventral prefrontal fibers use the same organizational principles to reach their targets: Tracing versus tractography. J Neurosci 33:3190–3201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Tromp DPM, Fox AS, Oler JA, Alexander AL, Kalin NH (2019): The relationship between the uncinate fasciculus and anxious temperament is evolutionarily conserved and sexually dimorphic. Biol Psychiatry 86:890–898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Grayson DS, Bliss-Moreau E, Machado CJ, Bennett J, Shen K, Grant KA, et al. (2016): The rhesus monkey connectome predicts disrupted functional networks resulting from pharmacogenetic inactivation of the amygdala. Neuron 91:453–466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Burgos-Robles A, Kimchi EY, Izadmehr EM, Porzenheim MJ, Ramos-Guasp WA, Nieh EH, et al. (2017): Amygdala inputs to prefrontal cortex guide behavior amid conflicting cues of reward and punishment. Nat Neurosci 20:824–835. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Calhoon GG, Tye KM (2015): Resolving the neural circuits of anxiety. Nat Neurosci 18:1394–1404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Gore BB, Soden ME, Zweifel LS (2013): Manipulating gene expression in projection-specific neuronal populations using combinatorial viral approaches. Curr Protoc Neurosci 65:4.35.1–4.35.20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Roberts AC, Clarke HF (2019): Why we need nonhuman primates to study the role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in the regulation of threat- and reward-elicited responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116:26297–26304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Laubach M, Amarante LM, Swanson K, White SR (2018): What, if anything, is rodent prefrontal cortex? eNeuro 5:ENEURO.0315–0318. 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Sharma KK, Kelly EA, Pfeifer CW, Fudge JL (2019): Translating Fear circuitry: Amygdala projections to subgenual and perigenual anterior cingulate in the macaque. Cereb Cortex 30:550–562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Andrus BM, Blizinsky K, Vedell PT, Dennis K, Shukla PK, Schaffer DJ, et al. (2012): Gene expression patterns in the hippocampus and amygdala of endogenous depression and chronic stress models. Mol Psychiatry 17:49–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Krishnan V, Han M-H, Graham DL, Berton O, Renthal W, Russo SJ, et al. (2007): Molecular adaptations underlying susceptibility and resistance to social defeat in brain reward regions. Cell 131:391–404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Surget A, Wang Y, Leman S, Ibarguen-Vargas Y, Edgar N, Griebel G, et al. (2009): Corticolimbic transcriptome changes are state-dependent and region-specific in a rodent model of depression and of antidepressant reversal [no. 6]. Neuropsychopharmacology 34:1363–1380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Sabatini MJ, Ebert P, Lewis DA, Levitt P, Cameron JL, Mirnics K (2007): Amygdala gene expression correlates of social behavior in monkeys experiencing maternal separation. J Neurosci 27:3295–3304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M (2009): RNA-Seq: A revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nat Rev Genet 10:57–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Duman RS (2004): Role of neurotrophic factors in the etiology and treatment of mood disorders. Neuromolecular Med 5:11–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Duman RS, Monteggia LM (2006): A neurotrophic model for stress-related mood disorders. Biol Psychiatry 59:1116–1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Autry AE, Monteggia LM (2012): Brain-derived neurotrophic factor and neuropsychiatric disorders. Pharmacol Rev 64:238–258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Park H, Poo M (2013): Neurotrophin regulation of neural circuit development and function. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:7–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Poo MM (2001): Neurotrophins as synaptic modulators. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:24–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Penzo MA, Robert V, Tucciarone J, Bundel DD, Wang M, Aelst LV, et al. (2015): The paraventricular thalamus controls a central amygdala fear circuit. Nature 519:455–459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Yu K, Garcia da Silva P, Albeanu DF, Li B (2016): Central amygdala somatostatin neurons gate passive and active defensive behaviors. J Neurosci 36:6488–6496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Gu Y, Piper WT, Branigan LA, Vazey EM, Aston-Jones G, Lin L, et al. (2020): A brainstem–central amygdala circuit underlies defensive responses to learned threats [no. 3]. Mol Psychiatry 25:640–654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Wilensky AE, Schafe GE, Kristensen MP, LeDoux JE (2006): Rethinking the fear circuit: The central nucleus of the amygdala is required for the acquisition, consolidation, and expression of pavlovian fear conditioning. J Neurosci 26:12387–12396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Petrovich GD, Swanson LW (1997): Projections from the lateral part of the central amygdalar nucleus to the postulated fear conditioning circuit. Brain Res 763:247–254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Ehrlich I, Humeau Y, Grenier F, Ciocchi S, Herry C, Lüthi A (2009): Amygdala inhibitory circuits and the control of fear memory. Neuron 62:757–771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Yang Y, Liu D-Q, Huang W, Deng J, Sun Y, Zuo Y, Poo M-M (2016): Selective synaptic remodeling of amygdalocortical connections associated with fear memory. Nat Neurosci 19:1348–1355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Rosenkranz JA, Moore H, Grace AA (2003): The prefrontal cortex regulates lateral amygdala neuronal plasticity and responses to previously conditioned stimuli. J Neurosci 23:11054–11064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Lundstrom K (2018): Viral vectors in gene therapy. Diseases 6:42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Paxinos G, Huang X-F, Petrides M, Toga A (2009): The Rhesus Monkey Brain: In Stereotaxic Coordinates. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
- 141.Pessoa L, Adolphs R (2010): Emotion processing and the amygdala: From a ‘low road’ to ‘many roads’ of evaluating biological significance. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:773–783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Paré D, Quirk GJ, Ledoux JE (2004): New vistas on amygdala networks in conditioned fear. J Neurophysiol 92:1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Gothard KM (2020): Multidimensional processing in the amygdala. Nat Rev Neurosci 21:565–575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Bauman MD, Lavenex P, Mason WA, Capitanio JP, Amaral DG (2004): The development of mother-infant interactions after neonatal amygdala lesions in rhesus monkeys. J Neurosci 24:711–721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Bauman MD, Toscano JE, Mason WA, Lavenex P, Amaral DG (2006): The expression of social dominance following neonatal lesions of the amygdala or hippocampus in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Behav Neurosci 120:749–760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Bauman MD, Toscano JE, Babineau BA, Mason WA, Amaral DG (2008): Emergence of stereotypies in juvenile monkeys (Macaca mulatta) with neonatal amygdala or hippocampus lesions. Behav Neurosci 122:1005–1015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Bliss-Moreau E, Moadab G, Bauman MD, Amaral DG (2013): The impact of early amygdala damage on juvenile rhesus macaque social behavior. J Cogn Neurosci 25:2124–2140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Moadab G, Bliss-Moreau E, Amaral DG (2015): Adult social behavior with familiar partners following neonatal amygdala or hippocampus damage. Behav Neurosci 129:339–350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Moadab G, Bliss-Moreau E, Bauman MD, Amaral DG (2017): Early amygdala or hippocampus damage influences adolescent female social behavior during group formation. Behav Neurosci 131:68–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Goursaud A-PS, Bachevalier J (2007): Social attachment in juvenile monkeys with neonatal lesion of the hippocampus, amygdala and orbital frontal cortex. Behav Brain Res 176:75–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Raper J, Wilson M, Sanchez M, Machado CJ, Bachevalier J (2013): Pervasive alterations of emotional and neuroendocrine responses to an acute stressor after neonatal amygdala lesions in rhesus monkeys. Psychoneuroendocrinology 38:1021–1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Raper J, Stephens SBZ, Henry A, Villarreal T, Bachevalier J, Wallen K, Sanchez MM (2014): Neonatal amygdala lesions lead to increased activity of brain CRF systems and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis of juvenile rhesus monkeys. J Neurosci 34:11452–11460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Goursaud A-PS, Wallen K, Bachevalier J (2014): Mother recognition and preference after neonatal amygdala lesions in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) raised in a semi-naturalistic environment. Dev Psychobiol 56:1723–1734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Medina A, Torres J, Kazama AM, Bachevalier J, Raper J (2020): Emotional responses in monkeys differ depending on the stimulus type, sex, and neonatal amygdala lesion status. Behav Neurosci 134:153–165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Machado CJ, Bachevalier J (2006): The impact of selective amygdala, orbital frontal cortex, or hippocampal formation lesions on established social relationships in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Behav Neurosci 120:761–786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Machado CJ, Bachevalier J (2007): The effects of selective amygdala, orbital frontal cortex or hippocampal formation lesions on reward assessment in nonhuman primates. Eur J Neurosci 25:2885–2904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Machado CJ, Kazama AM, Bachevalier J (2009): Impact of amygdala, orbital frontal, or hippocampal lesions on threat avoidance and emotional reactivity in nonhuman primates. Emotion 9:147–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 158.Forcelli PA, Wellman LL, Malkova L (2017): Blockade of glutamatergic transmission in the primate basolateral amygdala suppresses active behavior without altering social interaction. Behav Neurosci 131:192–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159.Machado CJ, Emery NJ, Mason WA, Amaral DG (2010): Selective changes in foraging behavior following bilateral neurotoxic amygdala lesions in rhesus monkeys. Behav Neurosci 124:761–772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Machado CJ, Emery NJ, Capitanio JP, Mason WA, Mendoza SP, Amaral DG (2008): Bilateral neurotoxic amygdala lesions in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): Consistent pattern of behavior across different social contexts. Behav Neurosci 122:251–266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Dal Monte O, Costa VD, Noble PL, Murray EA, Averbeck BB (2015): Amygdala lesions in rhesus macaques decrease attention to threat. Nat Commun 6:10161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.