Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Reward (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2) (remove)
Heterozygous mice that express Cre-recombinase under the dopamine transporter promoter (DAT-Cre knock in mice, or KI) are widely used for targeting midbrain dopamine neurons, under the assumption that their constitutive physiology is not affected. We report here that these mice display striking sex-dependent behavioral and molecular differences in relation to wildtypes (WT). Male and female KI mice were constitutively hyperactive, and male KI mice showed attenuated hyperlocomotor responses to amphetamine. In contrast, female KIs displayed a marked reduction in locomotion (“calming” effect) in response to the same dose of amphetamine. Furthermore, male and female DAT-Cre KI mice showed opposing differences in reinforcement learning, with females showing faster conditioning and males showing slower extinction. Other behavioral variables, including working memory and novelty preference, were not changed compared to WT. These effects were paralleled by differences in striatal DAT expression that disproportionately affected female KI mice. Our findings reveal clear limitations of the DAT-Cre line that must be considered when using this model.
Rationale: Dysregulation of dopaminergic neurotransmission, specifically altered reward processing assessed via the reward anticipation in the MID task, plays a central role in the etiopathogenesis of neuropsychiatric disorders. Objectives: We hypothesized to find a difference in the activity level of the reward system (measured by the proxy reward anticipation) under drug administration versus placebo, in that amisulpride reduces, and L-DOPA enhances, its activity. Methods: We studied the influence of dopamine agonist L-DOPA and the antagonist amisulpride on the reward system using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during a monetary incentive delay (MID) task in n = 45 healthy volunteers in a randomized, blinded, cross-over study. Results: The MID paradigm elicits strong activation in reward-dependent structures (such as ventral striatum, putamen, caudate, anterior insula) during reward anticipation. The placebo effect demonstrated the expected significant blood oxygen level–dependent activity in reward-dependent brain regions. Neither amisulpride nor L-DOPA led to significant changes in comparison with the placebo condition. This was true for whole-brain analysis as well as analysis of a pre-defined nucleus accumbens region-of-interest mask. Conclusion: The present results cast doubt on the sensitivity of reward anticipation contrast in the MID task for assessing dopamine-specific changes in healthy volunteers by pharmaco-fMRI. While our task was not well-suited for detailed analysis of the outcome phase, we provide reasonable arguments that the lack of effect in the anticipation phase is not due to an inefficient task but points to unexpected behavior of the reward system during pharmacological challenge. Group differences of reward anticipation should therefore not be seen as simple representatives of dopaminergic states.