Mapping the activity of the human mesolimbic dopamine system by BOLD-fMRI is a tempting approach to non-invasively study the action of the brain reward system during different experimental conditions. However, the contribution of dopamine release to the BOLD signal is disputed. To assign the actual contribution of dopaminergic and non-dopaminergic VTA neurons to the formation of BOLD responses in target regions of the mesolimbic system, we used two optogenetic approaches in rats. We either activated VTA dopaminergic neurons selectively, or dopaminergic and mainly glutamatergic projecting neurons together. We further used electrical stimulation to non-selectively activate neurons in the VTA. All three stimulation conditions effectively activated the mesolimbic dopaminergic system and triggered dopamine releases into the NAcc as measured by in vivo fast-scan cyclic voltammetry. Furthermore, both optogenetic stimulation paradigms led to indistinguishable self-stimulation behavior. In contrast to these similarities, however, the BOLD response pattern differed greatly between groups. In general, BOLD responses were weaker and sparser with increasing stimulation specificity for dopaminergic neurons. In addition, repetitive stimulation of the VTA caused a progressive decoupling of dopamine release and BOLD signal strength, and dopamine receptor antagonists were unable to block the BOLD signal elicited by VTA stimulation. To exclude that the sedation during fMRI is the cause of minimal mesolimbic BOLD in response to specific dopaminergic stimulation, we repeated our experiments using CBF SPECT in awake animals. Again, we found activations only for less-specific stimulation. Based on these results we conclude that canonical BOLD responses in the reward system represent mainly the activity of non-dopaminergic neurons. Thus, the minor effects of projecting dopaminergic neurons are concealed by non-dopaminergic activity, a finding which highlights the importance of a careful interpretation of reward-related human fMRI data.

Several human functional magnetic resonance imaging studies point to an activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system during reward, addiction and learning. We previously found activation of the mesolimbic system in response to continuous but not to discontinuous perforant pathway stimulation in an experimental model that we now used to investigate the role of dopamine release for the formation of functional magnetic resonance imaging responses. The two stimulation protocols elicited blood-oxygen-level dependent responses in the medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens. Inhibition of dopamine D receptors abolished the formation of functional magnetic resonance imaging responses in the medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate cortex during continuous but not during discontinuous pulse stimulations, i.e. only when the mesolimbic system was activated. Direct electrical or optogenetic stimulation of the ventral tegmental area caused strong dopamine release but only electrical stimulation triggered significant blood-oxygen level-dependent responses in the medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens. These functional magnetic resonance imaging responses were not affected by the D receptor antagonist SCH23390 but reduced by the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist MK801. Therefore, glutamatergic ventral tegmental area neurons are already sufficient to trigger blood-oxygen-level dependent responses in the medial prefrontal/anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens. Although dopamine release alone does not affect blood-oxygen-level dependent responses it can act as a switch, permitting the formation of blood-oxygen-level dependent responses.

No abstract

Background: Optogenetic stimulation has grown into a popular brain stimulation method in basic neuroscience while electrical stimulation predominates in clinical applications. In order to explain the effects of electrical stimulation on a cellular level and evaluate potential advantages of optogenetic therapies, comparisons between the two stimulation modalities are necessary. This comparison is hindered, however, by the difficulty of effectively matching the two fundamentally different modalities. Objective: Comparison of brain-wide activation patterns in response to intensity-matched electrical and optogenetic VTA stimulation. Methods: We mapped optogenetic and electrical self-stimulation rates in the same mice over stimulation intensity and determined iso-behavioral intensities. Using functional 99m Tc-HMPAO SPECT imaging of cerebral blood flow in awake animals, we obtained brain-wide activation patterns for both modalities at these iso-behavioral intensities. We performed these experiments in two mouse lines commonly used for optogenetic VTA stimulation, DAT::Cre and TH::Cre mice. Results: We find iso-behavioral intensity matching of stimulation gives rise to similar brain activation patterns. Differences between mouse lines were more pronounced than differences between modalities. Conclusions: Previously found large differences of electrical and optogenetic stimulation might be due to unmatched stimulation intensity, particularly relative electrical overstimulation. These findings imply that therapeutic electrical VTA stimulation might be relatively specific if employed with optimized parameters.

No abstract