a Timeline of DREADD experiments involving 10–16-day saline and remifentanil female mice expressing an excitatory CaMKII-hM3Dq(Gq)-DREADD or control GFP AAV in the PrLC. All mice received a saline or CNO (1.5–2.0 mg/kg, i.p.) injection 30 min prior to the visual cue and ED shift test, respectively. b Comparison of trials required to reach criterion during visual cue testing showed no effect of treatment, virus, or treatment by virus interaction. c For trials to criterion during the ED shift, female GFP-remifentanil mice required more trials vs. GFP-saline and Gq-remifentanil mice. Gq-remifentanil mice performed significantly better than Gq-saline mice. There was no significant difference between GFP-saline and Gq-saline. d–f Ex vivo comparison of rheobase and synaptic transmission following in vivo systemic CNO injection. d Comparison of rheobase in PrLC pyramidal neurons showed a treatment by virus interaction, with more current required to evoke an action potential in female GFP-remifentanil mice vs. GFP-saline and Gq-remifentanil mice. Rheobase in Gq-saline did not differ compared to GFP-saline or Gq-remifentanil. e Spontaneous EPSC (sEPSC) frequency (left) and amplitude (right) in GFP- and Gq-expressing PrLC pyramidal neurons. Pyramidal neurons in GFP-remifentanil mice showed a reduction in frequency compared to GFP-saline and Gq-remifentanil mice. sEPSC frequency in Gq-saline was not significantly different compared to GFP-saline or Gq-remifentanil. For sEPSC amplitude, Gq+ cells exhibited an overall greater amplitude compared to GFP. f Spontaneous IPSC (sIPSC) frequency and amplitude in GFP and Gq-expressing PrLC pyramidal neurons. sIPSC frequency was increased in remifentanil mice compared to saline mice regardless of virus. For sIPSC amplitude, no pairwise comparisons of interest were significant. Scale bars: 10 pA/100 ms. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ^^p < 0.01 main effect of virus, +p < 0.05 main effect of treatment.