Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Oct 17.
Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2022 Mar 16;603(7902):667–671. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04507-5

Extended Data Figure 10: mPFC-LH photostimulation does not affect other motivated behaviors.

Extended Data Figure 10:

a, Representative images showing electrode lesions and mPFC-LH cells and LH axon terminals. b, Representative images showing electrode lesions and mPFC-BLA cells and BLA axon terminals. c, Responsive cells to tones and port entries while performing the reward task alone vs in social competition (alone: tone mPFC-LH n=2/13, mPFC-BLA n=3/5, non-phototagged n=54/470; entries during tone: mPFC-LH n=8/13, mPFC-BLA n=2/5, non-phototagged n=115/470; entries during ITI: mPFC-LH n=5/13, mPFC-BLA n=3/5, non-phototagged n=170/470; competition win trials: mPFC-LH n=3/43, mPFC-BLA n=1/10, non-phototagged n=62/920; self entries during tone mPFC-LH: n=11/43, mPFC-BLA n=1/10, non-phototagged n=193/920; self entries during ITI: mPFC-LH n=19/43, mPFC-BLA n=2/10, non-phototagged n=271/920, Fisher’s exact test non-photo vs LH p=0.011). d, Summary of mPFC optical fiber location (indicated with horizontal gray lines), mPFC viral expression and LH CAV2-Cre injection sites across mice for experiments shown below and in Figure 4. Distance to bregma is indicated under each brain slice. Top row shows LH injection and bottom row shows mPFC injection and fiber. e, mPFC-LH photostimulation in ChR2 mice did not change latency to pick reward while performing reward task alone (n=10; paired t-test, p=0.42). f, mPFC-LH photostimulation did not increase chow eating in the homecage (eYFP n=8, ChR2 n=7; 2-way RM ANOVA no significant effect of light, virus or interaction). g, mPFC-LH photostimulation in ChR2 mice did not change time spent in social chamber in the 3-chamber social interaction assay (n=10; paired t-test, p=0.79). h, mPFC-LH photostimulation did not change anxiety-like behavior in the open field (ChR2 n=8, eYFP n=8; 2-way repeated measures (RM) ANOVA no significant effect of light, virus or interaction). i, mPFC-LH photostimulation did not evoke conditioned placed preference or aversion (ChR2 n=5, eYFP n=5; 2-way RM ANOVA no significant effect of light, virus or interaction). j, Effort based T-maze allows mice to choose between a low reward low effort arm or a high reward high effort arm in which they must climb a wall to obtain the reward. k, mPFC-LH photostimulation did not increase high effort choice in the effort T-maze (ChR2 n=8, eYFP n=9; 2-way RM ANOVA no significant effect of light, virus or interaction for both 14 and 7 cm walls).