Different Synaptic Plasticity After Physiological and Psychological Stress in the Anterior Insular Cortex in an Observational Fear Mouse Model

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience Pub Date : 2022-05-11 DOI:10.3389/fnsyn.2022.851015
Wenlong Shi, Yuan Fu, Tian-yao Shi, Wenxia Zhou
{"title":"Different Synaptic Plasticity After Physiological and Psychological Stress in the Anterior Insular Cortex in an Observational Fear Mouse Model","authors":"Wenlong Shi, Yuan Fu, Tian-yao Shi, Wenxia Zhou","doi":"10.3389/fnsyn.2022.851015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be triggered not only in people who have personally experienced traumatic events but also in those who witness them. Physiological and psychological stress can have different effects on neural activity, but little is known about the underlying mechanisms. There is ample evidence that the insular cortex, especially the anterior insular cortex (aIC), is critical to both the sensory and emotional experience of pain. It is therefore worthwhile to explore the effects of direct and indirect stress on the synaptic plasticity of the aIC. Here, we used a mouse model of observational fear to mimic direct suffering (Demonstrator, DM) and witnessing (Observer, OB) of traumatic events. After observational fear training, using a 64-channel recording system, we showed that both DM and OB mice exhibited a decreased ratio of paired-pulse with intervals of 50 ms in the superficial layers of the aIC but not in the deep layers. We found that theta-burst stimulation (TBS)–induced long-term potentiation (LTP) in OB mice was significantly higher than in DM mice, and the recruitment of synaptic responses occurred only in OB mice. Compared with naive mice, OB mice showed stronger recruitment and higher amplitude in the superficial layers of the aIC. We also used low-frequency stimulation (LFS) to induce long-term depression (LTD). OB mice showed greater LTD in both the superficial and deep layers of the aIC than naive mice, but no significant difference was found between OB and DM mice. These results provide insights into the changes in synaptic plasticity in the aIC after physiological and psychological stress, and suggest that different types of stress may have different mechanisms. Furthermore, identification of the possible causes of the differences in stress could help treat stress-related disorders.","PeriodicalId":12650,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsyn.2022.851015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be triggered not only in people who have personally experienced traumatic events but also in those who witness them. Physiological and psychological stress can have different effects on neural activity, but little is known about the underlying mechanisms. There is ample evidence that the insular cortex, especially the anterior insular cortex (aIC), is critical to both the sensory and emotional experience of pain. It is therefore worthwhile to explore the effects of direct and indirect stress on the synaptic plasticity of the aIC. Here, we used a mouse model of observational fear to mimic direct suffering (Demonstrator, DM) and witnessing (Observer, OB) of traumatic events. After observational fear training, using a 64-channel recording system, we showed that both DM and OB mice exhibited a decreased ratio of paired-pulse with intervals of 50 ms in the superficial layers of the aIC but not in the deep layers. We found that theta-burst stimulation (TBS)–induced long-term potentiation (LTP) in OB mice was significantly higher than in DM mice, and the recruitment of synaptic responses occurred only in OB mice. Compared with naive mice, OB mice showed stronger recruitment and higher amplitude in the superficial layers of the aIC. We also used low-frequency stimulation (LFS) to induce long-term depression (LTD). OB mice showed greater LTD in both the superficial and deep layers of the aIC than naive mice, but no significant difference was found between OB and DM mice. These results provide insights into the changes in synaptic plasticity in the aIC after physiological and psychological stress, and suggest that different types of stress may have different mechanisms. Furthermore, identification of the possible causes of the differences in stress could help treat stress-related disorders.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
观察性恐惧小鼠模型中前岛皮质生理和心理应激后突触可塑性的差异
创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)不仅会发生在亲身经历过创伤事件的人身上,也会发生在亲眼目睹这些事件的人身上。生理和心理压力对神经活动有不同的影响,但对其潜在机制知之甚少。有充分的证据表明,岛叶皮质,尤其是前岛叶皮质(aIC),对疼痛的感觉和情感体验都至关重要。因此,直接应激和间接应激对aIC突触可塑性的影响值得进一步探讨。在这里,我们使用观察性恐惧的小鼠模型来模拟创伤事件的直接痛苦(演示者,DM)和目击(观察者,OB)。在观察恐惧训练后,采用64通道记录系统,我们发现DM和OB小鼠在aIC的浅层中出现间隔50 ms的成对脉冲比率下降,而在深层中则没有。我们发现β -爆发刺激(TBS)诱导的长期增强(LTP)在OB小鼠中显著高于DM小鼠,并且突触反应的募集仅发生在OB小鼠中。与幼稚小鼠相比,OB小鼠在aIC浅层表现出更强的招募和更高的振幅。我们还使用低频刺激(LFS)诱导长期抑郁(LTD)。OB小鼠aIC浅层和深层的LTD均高于幼稚小鼠,但OB与DM小鼠之间无显著差异。这些结果揭示了生理和心理应激后aIC突触可塑性的变化,并提示不同类型的应激可能有不同的机制。此外,确定压力差异的可能原因有助于治疗压力相关疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
74
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Role of protein palmitoylation in synaptic plasticity and neuronal differentiation, volume II. The short-term plasticity of VIP interneurons in motor cortex. Editorial: Regulation of AMPA receptors in brain diseases, from the genetic to the functional level, volume II. Roles of AMPA receptors in social behaviors Editorial: Insights in synaptic neuroscience 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1