Impact of infralimbic inputs on intercalated amygdala neurons: A biophysical modeling study

Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850, USA.
Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) (Impact Factor: 4.38). 03/2011; 18(4):226-40. DOI: 10.1101/lm.1938011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Intercalated (ITC) amygdala neurons regulate fear expression by controlling impulse traffic between the input (basolateral amygdala; BLA) and output (central nucleus; Ce) stations of the amygdala for conditioned fear responses. Previously, stimulation of the infralimbic (IL) cortex was found to reduce fear expression and the responsiveness of Ce neurons to BLA inputs. These effects were hypothesized to result from the activation of ITC cells projecting to Ce. However, ITC cells inhibit each other, leading to the question of how IL inputs could overcome the inter-ITC inhibition to regulate the responses of Ce neurons to aversive conditioned stimuli (CSs). To investigate this, we first developed a compartmental model of a single ITC cell that could reproduce their bistable electroresponsive properties, as observed experimentally. Next, we generated an ITC network that implemented the experimentally observed short-term synaptic plasticity of inhibitory inter-ITC connections. Model experiments showed that strongly adaptive CS-related BLA inputs elicited persistent responses in ITC cells despite the presence of inhibitory interconnections. The sustained CS-evoked activity of ITC cells resulted from an unusual slowly deinactivating K(+) current. Finally, over a wide range of stimulation strengths, brief IL activation caused a marked increase in the firing rate of ITC neurons, leading to a persistent decrease in Ce output, despite inter-ITC inhibition. Simulations revealed that this effect depended on the bistable properties and synaptic heterogeneity of ITC neurons. These results support the notion that IL inputs are in a strategic position to control extinction of conditioned fear via the activation of ITC neurons.


Available from: Denis Paré, Jun 15, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The amygdala has traditionally been associated with fear, mediating the impact of negative emotions on memory. However, this view does not fully encapsulate the function of the amygdala, nor the impact that processing in this structure has on the motivational limbic corticostriatal circuitry of which it is an important structure. Here we discuss the interactions between different amygdala nuclei with cortical and striatal regions involved in motivation; interconnections and parallel circuitries that have become increasingly understood in recent years. We review the evidence that the amygdala stores memories that allow initially motivationally neutral stimuli to become associated through pavlovian conditioning with motivationally relevant outcomes which, importantly, can be either appetitive (e.g. food) or aversive (e.g. electric shock). We also consider how different psychological processes supported by the amygdala such as conditioned reinforcement and punishment, conditioned motivation and suppression, and conditioned approach and avoidance behavior, are not only psychologically but also neurobiologically dissociable, being mediated by distinct yet overlapping neural circuits within the limbic corticostriatal circuitry. Clearly the role of the amygdala goes beyond encoding aversive stimuli to also encode the appetitive, requiring an appreciation of the amygdala's mediation of both appetitive and fearful behavior through diverse psychological processes.
    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 12/2013; 7:190. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00190 · 4.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The intercalated paracapsular (IPC) islands are clusters of dopamine-D1-and μ-opioid 1-receptor rich GABAergic neurons which surround the rostral half of the basolateral complex of the amygdala (BLA) giving rise to several subgroups which can be further subdivided. IPC cells are small-sized and have an axonal and dendritic pattern which differs according to the group they belong. Functionally, IPC neurons are endowed with unique properties that set them apart from other amygdaloid interneurons and allow them to participate in integrative functions. Consistent with this role IPC cells usually remain confined within the amygdala where they receive BLA and cortical inputs and interact synaptically with each other. They project into both the central (CeA) and medial (MeA) amygdaloid nuclei. Their main effect at the network level seems to control the trafficking of nerve impulses to the main input (BLA) and output (CeA) stations of the amygdala. Such a task seems to be accomplished by providing feedforward inhibition to BLA neurons from putative inputs of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and to CeA from both mPFC and BLA projections. Current experimental evidence will be discussed suggesting that through feedforward inhibitory effects on specific amygdaloid nuclei IPC neurons participate in the maintenance of basal anxiety as well as in the modulation of unconditioned and conditioned fear, and in the process of fear extinction. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Brain Integration.
    Brain research 03/2012; 1476:211-34. DOI:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.03.047 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Memory allows organisms to predict future events based on prior experiences. This requires encoded information to persist once important predictors are extracted, while also being modifiable in response to changes within the environment. Memory reconsolidation may allow stored information to be modified in response to related experience. However, there are many boundary conditions beyond which reconsolidation may not occur. One interpretation of these findings is that the event triggering memory retrieval must contain new information about a familiar stimulus in order to induce reconsolidation. Presently, the mechanisms that affect the likelihood of reconsolidation occurring under these conditions are not well understood. Here we speculate on a number of systems that may play a role in protecting memory from being destabilized during retrieval. We conclude that few memories may enter a state in which they cannot be modified. Rather, metaplasticity mechanisms may serve to alter the specific reactivation cues necessary to destabilize a memory. This might imply that destabilization mechanisms can differ depending on learning conditions.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 03/2012; 36(7):1667-707. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.03.008 · 10.28 Impact Factor