Abstract
The endocannabinoid system and the cannabinoid type 1 receptor (CB1R) are required for the extinction of conditioned fear. CB1 antagonists have been shown to prevent extinction when delivered both systemically and within the amygdala. Anatomical studies suggest that CB1Rs in the basolateral amygdala (BLA) are expressed on GABAergic interneurons expressing the anxiogenic peptide cholecystokinin (CCK). Pre-synaptic CB1Rs inhibit neurotransmitter release, suggesting that CB1R activation during extinction may decrease CCK peptide release as well as GABA release. Thus, we examined whether extinction involves the CB1R modulation of CCK2 receptor activation. We found that intracerebroventricular administration of the CCK2 agonist pentagastrin dose-dependently impaired extinction of conditioned fear. Systemic administration of a CB1 antagonist, rimonabant (SR141716), also potently inhibited extinction learning. This effect was ameliorated with systemic administration of a CCK2 antagonist, CR2945. Furthermore, the extinction blockade by systemic SR141716 was reversed with intra-BLA, but not intrastriatal, infusion of CR2945. Lastly, as extinction usually leads to an increase in Akt phosphorylation, a biochemical effect antagonized by systemic CB1 antagonist treatment, we examined whether CR2945 co-administration would increase extinction-induced p-Akt levels. We observed that extinction-trained animals showed increased Akt phosphorylation following extinction, CB1 antagonist-treated animals showed p-Akt levels similar to those of non-extinction trained animals, and co-administration of CR2945 with SR141716 led to levels of p-Akt similar to those of vehicle-treated, extinction-trained controls. Together, these data suggest that interactions between the endocannabinoid and CCKergic transmitter systems may underlie the process of extinction of conditioned fear.
Similar content being viewed by others
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 15 years, the endogenous cannabinoid system and the cannabinoid type 1 receptor (CB1R) have been linked to a staggering array of normal and pathologic functions of the CNS, ranging from excitotoxicity to nociception. Among the most striking behavioral findings regarding the cannabinoid system has been that genetic or pharmacologic antagonism of the CB1R leads to profound deficits in the extinction of conditioned fear (Marsicano et al, 2002). This systemic effect of CB1 antagonists has now been demonstrated to occur when an antagonist is delivered locally within the basolateral amygdala (BLA) (Roche et al, 2007). Furthermore, we have previously demonstrated that a cannabinoid reuptake inhibitor enhances extinction learning (Chhatwal et al, 2005). As disruptions in extinction learning are thought to be major obstacles in the treatment of a variety of psychiatric illnesses, including PTSD, specific phobias, and many anxiety disorders, the endogenous cannabinoid system has become a major therapeutic target in the treatment of fear and anxiety.
Anatomical studies of the CB1R in the CNS have demonstrated that they are often pre-synaptically located, where they are thought to be activated by retrograde diffusion of endocannabinoid (eCB) transmitters. Once activated, CB1Rs act to decrease the excitability of the pre-synaptic terminal, leading to decreases in neurotransmitter release.
High concentrations of CB1Rs have been observed on the pre-synaptic terminals of GABAergic interneurons expressing the anxiogenic neuropeptide cholecystokinin (CCK) in many brain regions (Katona et al, 1999; Marsicano and Lutz, 1999; McDonald and Mascagni, 2001). Several electrophysiological studies have established that CB1R activation leads to decreases in GABA release and likely CCK release from interneurons in the hippocampus that contain both CCK peptide and CB1R (Katona et al, 1999; Beinfeld and Connolly, 2001; Burdyga et al, 2004; Fride, 2005).
With respect to extinction, Marsicano et al (2002) have demonstrated that re-exposure to conditioned cues in the absence of the original aversive unconditioned stimulus (ie extinction training) is a potent signal for the production of two major eCBs in the amygdala (Marsicano et al, 2002). This coupled with the known electrophysiological effects of CB1R activation suggests that activity-dependent reductions in neurotransmitter release from CCK+/CB1+ neurons in the amygdala may play a role in the neurobiology of extinction learning.
Administration of exogenous CCK peptide (usually given as a sulfated version of the terminal 4–8 peptides) to rodents and humans appears to be anxiogenic and, in some cases, panicogenic (Harro et al, 1993; Belcheva et al, 1994; Vasar et al, 1994; Bradwejn and Koszycki, 2001). The anxiogenic effects of CCK peptide agonists are believed to be mediated by the CCK2 (or CCK-B) receptor, a G-protein-coupled receptor expressed widely in the brain. There has also been considerable evidence that CCK2 receptors within the BLA are responsible for these anxiogenic effects (Josselyn et al, 1995; Frankland et al, 1996). Notably, Frankland et al (1996) have shown that intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) or intra-amygdala administration of the CCK2 agonist pentagastrin leads to increased expression of baseline startle, suggesting that CCK2 receptors within the amygdala are important mediators of fear responses in addition to their role in unconditioned anxiety responses. Furthermore, the same authors have been able to show that administration of a CCK2 antagonist can lead to a decrease in the conditioned, fear-potentiated startle (FPS) response in the rat (Josselyn et al, 1995); this finding has been supported by more recent studies showing that two other CCK2 antagonists reduce post fear-conditioning freezing in mice, both with respect to contextual fear conditioning and conditioning to a discrete conditioned stimulus (CS; Izumi et al, 1996; Tsutsumi et al, 1999).
In this study, we examine the interaction between cannabinoid neurotransmission and CCKergic neurotransmission in the extinction of conditioned fear. Specifically, as the anatomy of the CB1 system suggests that it may be involved in producing activity-dependent, dynamic reductions in CCK and GABA release, we address the hypothesis that the CB1 antagonist-induced blockade of extinction learning may be mediated in part by an inability of eCBs to reduce CCK2 receptor activation during extinction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals
The procedures used were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Emory University and in compliance with National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals. Adult male Sprague–Dawley rats (Charles River, Raleigh, NC) weighing 350–500 g were used. Animals were housed in pairs in a temperature-controlled (24°C) animal colony, with ad libitum access to food and water. They were maintained on a 12 h light/dark cycle with lights on at 0800, with all behavioral procedures performed during the rats’ light cycle.
Surgery
In studies utilizing i.c.v. drug administration, 22-gauge stainless-steel guide cannulae were implanted under ketamine/xylazine anesthesia, and secured using dental cement (coordinates: AP: 0, ML: −1.6, DV: −5.0; nosebar: +5.0). Habituation to the testing context and subsequent behavioral testing began 7–10 days following surgery. Similar procedures were used to implant bilateral cannulae aimed at the basolateral complex of the amygdala (22-gauge cannulae, AP: −3.1, ML: ±5.4, DV: −8.4; nosebar: −3.6). Additional control experiments were performed with cannulae aimed at the striatum (22-gauge cannulae, AP: −1.0, ML: ±4.0, DV: 5.0; nosebar: −3.6). Following behavioral testing, cannulated animals were killed and cannula placement was assessed on cryostat-sectioned tissue. Animals with amygdala-placed (or striatally placed) cannulae were included for analysis (n=8 each for vehicle and CR2945-treated groups).
In Situ Hybridization
In situ hybridization was performed as described previously (Ressler et al, 2002). A cDNA clone containing the coding sequence of the rat cannabinoid receptor type 1 (IMAGE expressed sequence tag clone, GI accession no. 11375084) and pre-pro CCK (IMAGE expressed sequence tag clone, GI accession no. 4059800) were linearized after sequence verification. Antisense riboprobes were generated with T3 RNA polymerase. Slide-mounted sections of snap-frozen rodent brain tissue were post-fixed, proteinase K digested, and blocked followed by overnight hybridization of the tissue at 52°C with [35S]UTP-labeled riboprobes. After a stringent wash protocol, slides were apposed to autoradiography film.
Two-color fluorescent in situ hybridization was performed as described previously (Vosshall et al, 1999). In brief, digoxigenin (CCK) or fluorescein (CB1) was used to label CCK and CB1 riboprobes, respectively (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN). Hybridization and wash protocols identical to those described above for radiolabeled probes were used. Following quenching of endogenous peroxidases and blocking (30 min in 1% bovine serum albumin diluted in 100 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl), hybridized slides were incubated with peroxidase-tagged antibodies against fluorescein (1 : 500 dilution in 1% BSA, 100 mM Tris-HCl, 150 mM NaCl; Roche Diagnostics). Amplification was then performed using an FITC-tyramide conjugate (1 : 50; Perkin-Elmer, Wellesley, MA). Following quenching of the peroxidase activity from the first probe, similar procedures were employed to visualize the digoxigenin-labeled probe (CCK) via the use of a peroxidase-labeled antibody raised against digoxigenin (Roche Diagnostics) followed by amplification with a CY5-tyramide conjugate (Perkin-Elmer).
Startle Apparatus
Animals were trained and tested in 8 × 15 × 15 cm Plexiglas and wire-mesh cages, with floors consisting of four 6.0-mm-diameter stainless-steel bars spaced 18 mm apart. Each cage was suspended between compression springs within a steel frame and located within a custom-designed 90 × 70 × 70 cm ventilated sound-attenuating chamber. Background noise (60-dB wide-band) was provided by a type 1390-B noise generator (ACO Pacific Inc., Belmont, CA) and delivered through high-frequency speakers (Radio Shack Supertweeter; Tandy, Fort Worth, TX) located 5 cm from the front of each cage. Sound level measurements (sound pressure level) were made with a Bruel & Kjaer (Marlborough, MA) model 2235 sound-level meter (A scale; random input) with the microphone (type 4176) located 7 cm from the center of the speaker (approximating the distance of the rat's ear from the speaker). Startle responses were evoked by 50-ms, 95-dB white-noise bursts generated by a Macintosh G3 computer soundfile (0–22 kHz), amplified by a Radio Shack amplifier (100 W; model MPA-200; Tandy), and delivered through the same speakers used to provide background noise. An accelerometer (model U321AO2; PCB Piezotronics, Depew, NY) affixed to the bottom of each cage produced a voltage output proportional to the velocity of cage movement. This output was amplified (model 483B21; PCB Piezotronics) and digitized on a scale of 0–2500 U by an InstruNET device (model 100B; GW Instruments, Somerville, MA) interfaced to a Macintosh G3 computer. Startle amplitude was defined as the maximal peak-to-peak voltage that occurred during the first 200 ms after the onset of the startle-eliciting stimulus. The CS was a 3.7-s light (82 lux) produced by an 8 W fluorescent bulb (100 μs rise time) located 10 cm behind each cage. Luminosity was measured using a VWR light meter (Atlanta, GA). The US was a 0.5-s shock, delivered to the floorbars and produced by a shock generator (SGS-004; Lehigh Valley, Beltsville, MD). Shock intensities (measured as in Cassella and Davis, 1986) were 0.4 mA. The presentation and sequencing of all stimuli were under the control of the Macintosh G3 computer using custom-designed software (The Experimenter; Glassbeads Inc., Newton, CT). Animals were pre-exposed to the chambers for 10 min on each of 2 days before training to habituate them to handling and the test chambers and to minimize the effects of contextual conditioning.
Fear Conditioning
On 2 consecutive days following habituation, rats were returned to the same chambers and presented with 10 pairings of a light (3.7 s) co-terminating with a 0.4-mA, 0.5-s shock (3.6-min intertrial interval).
Post-training Matching
Twenty-four hours following the last fear-conditioning session, animals were returned to the same chambers and presented with startle stimuli (50-ms, 95-dB white-noise bursts) in the presence or absence of the light-CS (15 light–startle compounds and 10 startle-alone trials). Increased startle in the presence of the light-CS was taken as a measure of conditioned fear, and the magnitude of the fear response was calculated as the percentage by which startle increased when the light-CS was presented along with the startle stimulus vs when it was omitted (FPS). Using these measurements, animals were divided into groups displaying approximately equal levels of FPS before drug treatment and extinction training.
Extinction Training (Retention Studies)
Five days following the last fear-conditioning trial, animals were injected intraperitoneally (i.p.) with a test compound or its vehicle in 1 ml/kg volumes and then immediately returned to the same chambers and presented with 90 presentations of the light-CS in the absence of footshock (3.7-s light, 30-s intertrial interval). Light presentations were preceded by 10 95-dB noise burst-alone trials with 30 s ITI to assess potential drug-induced alterations of baseline startle. At 48 and 96 h post-extinction training, animals were tested for the presence of FPS (15 light–startle compounds and 15 startle-alone trials).
Extinction Training (Within-Session Extinction)
In the final experiment in this set of studies, the extinction training program was altered to allow for the assessment of reductions in conditioned fear during the extinction training sessions (within-session extinction). To do this, extinction training was altered to 30 light–startle and 30 startle-alone trials (3.7-s light, 95-dB startle, 30-s interstimulus interval) rather than 90 light-alone trials. FPS was calculated as in the other testing sessions, and results were grouped into 10 blocks of three trials each. To allow for direct comparison of within-session extinction across groups, FPS values were normalized such that each animal's fear response during the first block of trials was considered 100%, a normalization that compensated for variations in FPS before extinction.
Assessment of Drug Effects on Baseline Startle and Unconditioned Fear
A group of behaviorally naïve animals were handled and habituated to the training and testing chambers for 2 consecutive days and then presented with a 15-trial test for the presence of unconditioned fear to the light (15 light–startle compounds and 15 startle-alone trials) and matched into four groups showing equivalent levels of unconditioned fear to the light and equivalent levels of baseline startle. Unconditioned fear to the light was observed to be quite low (<10% per matched group). Three days following this matching test, animals were injected with vehicle (100% DMSO), SR141716A (5 mg/kg), CR2945 (3 mg/kg), or a combination of SR141716A and CR2945 (5 and 3 mg/kg, respectively). In all cases, drugs were administered in volumes of 1 ml/kg. Twenty minutes following injection, animals were tested for alterations in baseline startle and unconditioned fear to light (5 light–startle compounds and 45 startle-alone trials), followed by two light–shock pairings to assess alterations in shock reactivity.
Drugs
SR141716A (Rimonabant NIMH Drug Supply Program, Bethesda, MD) and CR2945 (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO) were dissolved in 100% DMSO. A 25 mg portion of pentagastrin (Sigma-Aldrich) was first dissolved in 2.5 ml of 100% DMSO and then serially diluted to generate 100 and 500 nM working solutions. I.c.v. infusions were performed using a flow rate of 1.0 μl/min with a total infused volume of 5 μl. For local infusion of CR2945, a 1 mg/ml solution of CR2945 in 100% DMSO was diluted to generate a working solution of 2 μg/μl CR2945 in 5% DMSO/95% sterile PBS. Intra-BLA infusions were performed using a flow rate of 0.1 μl/min with a total infused volume of 0.5 μl per side (1 μg drug/side).
Western Blotting
Following extinction training, animals were killed using overdoses of isoflurane. Brains were blocked rapidly over ice and dissected into 2-mm-thick coronal sections. The BLA was removed bilaterally using a brain punch tool, and punches from each side were pooled and homogenized in buffer (5 mM HEPES, 0.32 M sucrose, protease inhibitors) and kept frozen at −80°C until western blot assay. Whole-cell lysed samples were tested for protein concentration using a BCA assay (Pierce Biotechnology, Rockford, IL). Fifteen micrograms of protein per animal was loaded onto polyacrylamide-SDS mini-gels, separated electrophoretically, blotted onto nitrocellulose membranes (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA), and blocked for 1 h in 2% nonfat dry milk, 0.1% Tween 20, 50 mM NaCl, and 10 mM HEPES (pH 7.4) (NDM-HEPES). Membranes were incubated overnight at 4°C in a 1 : 1000 dilution of rabbit × phospho-Akt (Ser473) antibody (Cell Signaling, Danver, MA, no. 9271) in NDM-HEPES buffer and then incubated in a 1 : 2000 dilution of an HRP-labeled secondary antibody for 60 min. The bound antibody was detected by SuperSignal West Chemiluminescence (Pierce Biotechnology) in an Alpha Innotech Fluorchem imaging system (Alpha Innotech, San Leandro, CA). Total blotted protein levels were assessed using levels of α-tubulin (1 : 5000; Sigma), the detection of which was used to control for variations in protein loading.
Statistical Analysis
Comparisons were made across drug treatment groups at each test using an ANOVA or Student's t-test with drug or dose as the independent measure. In experiments involving multiple days of extinction training and subsequent testing, a repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess differences between drug groups and to assess drug treatment interactions with time and FPS. In both cases, Fisher's LSD was used for post hoc analysis.
RESULTS
CCK mRNA is Coexpressed with CB1 mRNA within the BLA
In situ hybridization was used to determine the patterns of CCK mRNA expression within the rat amygdala and to assess differential expression of CCK mRNA in the basolateral, medial, and central amygdaloid nuclei. In close agreement with previous studies, we observed that both CB1R (Figure 1a) and CCK (Figure 1b) mRNAs were highly expressed in the basal, lateral, and basolateral nuclei of the amygdala (collectively referred to as the basolateral complex of the amygdala (BLA)), whereas much lower levels of both mRNAs were observed in the central and medial amygdala. Using fluorescently labeled riboprobes, we examined whether CB1 and CCK mRNAs were expressed in the same neuronal cells within the BLA. In agreement with previous results (Marsicano and Lutz, 1999; McDonald and Mascagni, 2001), we found that many CB1-expressing cells within the BLA also expressed the mRNA for CCK (Figure 1c and d, arrows), although occasionally cells were observed to express only one of these mRNAs (Figure 1c and d, arrowheads). Notably, double-labeling for CCK and CB1 mRNA expression has not been reported in rats. Marsicano and Lutz (1999) found an overlap of CCK mRNA expression in CB1 mRNA-expressing neurons in the mouse ranging from 47 to 100% depending on the brain region and the level of CB1 expression. In this rat sample, we found that approximately 70% of neurons expressing high levels of CB1 mRNA also express CCK mRNA, consistent with reports in mice.
Pentagastrin, a CCK2 Agonist, Impairs Extinction, Similar to a CB1 Antagonist
We hypothesized that CB1R activation, which is critical for extinction, acts through reduction in CCK release and results in subsequent reduction in CCK2 receptor activation. According to this hypothesis, increasing CCK2 activation by administering a CCK2 agonist should impair extinction. To test this hypothesis, rats were implanted with i.c.v. cannulae, allowed to recover for 7–10 days, fear-conditioned as outlined in Figure 2a, and matched into groups demonstrating similar levels of FPS before extinction. Thirty minutes before extinction training (90 lights without shocks), animals were infused with vehicle, 100 nM pentagastrin, or 500 nM pentagastrin (5 μl/infusion).
Two days following extinction training, animals were tested, in the absence of any drug, for the presence of FPS as a measure of conditioned fear. Vehicle-treated control animals showed the lowest levels of FPS following extinction, indicative of significant extinction. In contrast, animals receiving 500 nM pentagastrin at the time of extinction training showed significantly higher levels of conditioned fear than vehicle-treated controls. In animals receiving 100 nM pentagastrin, the levels of FPS were intermediate between vehicle- and 500 nM pentagastrin-treated animals, suggesting that the impairment of extinction retention with pentagastrin may be dose-dependent (Figure 2b; linear contrast ANOVA F(1, 50)=5.074; post hoc 500 nM vs vehicle, p<0.05). Notably, baseline startle in our training and testing paradigm was not significantly different in pentagastrin-treated animals as compared with controls, either immediately after pentagastrin administrations (Supplementary Figure 1A) or 48 h post-extinction (Supplementary Figure 1B).
Blockade of Extinction by a CB1 Antagonist is Reversed with a Systemic CCK2 Antagonist
It has previously been shown that a cannabinoid antagonist (SR141716A) prevents the normal extinction of conditioned fear when delivered systemically (Marsicano et al, 2002; Suzuki et al, 2004; Chhatwal et al, 2005) and through intra-BLA infusions (Roche et al, 2007). Activation of CB1Rs is thought to inhibit the release of GABA and CCK by decreasing the excitability of the pre-synaptic terminal. If preventing CCK release was a critical component of CB1-mediated effects on extinction, we predicted that antagonizing the CCK2 receptor would reverse the normal blockade of extinction seen with CB1R antagonists. Thus, we examined whether co-administration of a CCK2 antagonist (CR2945) might reverse the blockade of extinction seen with CB1 antagonist (SR141716A) treatment. In this series of experiments, animals were again fear-conditioned and matched into groups showing similar levels of FPS before extinction training (Figure 3a). Thirty minutes before extinction training (90 lights without shocks), animals were systemically administered vehicle (100% DMSO), SR141716A (5 mg/kg), CR2945 (3 mg/kg), or a combination of SR141716A and CR2945 (5 and 3 mg/kg, i.p., respectively).
In agreement with previous studies (Marsicano et al, 2002; Suzuki et al, 2004; Chhatwal et al, 2005), we observed that administration of SR141716A potently inhibited extinction learning, as animals receiving SR141716A showed higher levels of FPS than vehicle-treated controls when tested 48- and 96-h post-extinction (Figure 3b). Notably, rats treated with a combination of SR141716A and CR2945 showed significantly less fear than those receiving SR141716A alone and levels of FPS that were statistically similar to those of vehicle-treated controls (Figure 3b; first test F(3, 24)=3.876, p<0.05; second test F(3, 24)=3.060, p<0.05). Rats that received CR2945 alone before extinction training did not show enhanced extinction retention as compared to vehicle-treated animals.
Thus, CCK2 activation is an important downstream effect of CB1R blockade on extinction. Additionally, as we find that in the absence of CB1 blockade, CCK2 antagonism is not sufficient to enhance extinction, other pathways (eg modulation of GABA release) are likely important as well in extinction modulation at baseline.
Blockade of Extinction by a CB1 Antagonist is Reversed with an Intra-amygdalar CCK2 Antagonist
The BLA is known to be a critical site for extinction learning, and intra-BLA infusions of SR141716A have been shown to prevent extinction of fear (Roche et al, 2007). Here, we examined whether the local infusions of CR2945 into the amygdala would mitigate the blockade of extinction seen with systemic SR141716A administration. In these experiments, rats were implanted with bilateral cannulae aimed at the BLA and allowed to recover for 7–10 days. Subsequently, these animals were fear-conditioned and matched into groups showing equivalent levels of startle, as in the aforementioned experiments. Thirty minutes before extinction training (90 lights without shocks), all animals were given i.p. injections of SR141716A (5 mg/kg) along with bilateral infusions of either vehicle (5% DMSO in PBS) or CR2945 (1 μg/0.5 μl/side).
Following extinction training, animals were tested for the presence of FPS 2 days following training. As the animals in these experiments showed relatively little extinction at the first post-extinction test, perhaps as a result of the stress involved in local amygdala infusions, two additional blocks of extinction training (with similar drug treatment) and testing were given (Figure 4a). Importantly, we focused on the amount of FPS demonstrated in the first five trials of each post-extinction testing session and used this to assess extinction retention, as a great deal of within-session extinction was observed on days 2 and 3 of testing. Animals that received intra-BLA infusions of CR2945 showed significant extinction retention on the second and third post-extinction tests as compared to their first test and pre-extinction test values (significant main effect of testing day, repeated measures ANOVA F(3, 18)=4.344, p<0.05; post hoc tests comparing days 2 and 3 to pre-extinction test and first test, p<0.05; Figure 4b and c). In contrast, vehicle-infused controls failed to show significant extinction on any of the three testing days, suggesting that SR141716A was able to attenuate extinction (repeated measures ANOVA F(3, 18)=0.383, p=0.766). Notably, as the amelioration of the CB1 antagonist effect was slightly less pronounced with intra-amygdala CR2945 infusions compared to systemic administrations, sites other than the amygdala may also be important mediators of the CCK–CB1 interaction. Nonetheless, these data suggest that intra-amygdala blockade of CCK2 receptors is sufficient to overcome the extinction deficit caused by systemic CB1 blockade.
Striatal Infusions of CCK2 Antagonist do not Reverse the CB1 Antagonist-Induced Blockade of Extinction
To confirm that the effect of CR2945 on the reversal of the SR141716A-induced blockade of extinction was due to the amygdala and not another nearby subcortical site, a replication study was performed in exactly the same manner as the above experiment. In this study, cannulae were placed either in the BLA (as above; Figure 5b) or within the striatum as an intracerebral control injection site. Animals were trained and tested as in the preceding experiment, with three groups of animals: (1) those receiving vehicle systemically and vehicle intra-BLA (Vehbla/Veh group); (2) those receiving SR141716A systemically and CR2945 intra-BLA (CRbla/SR group); and (3) those receiving SR141716A systemically and CR2945 intrastriatum (CRstr/SR group). We found that the vehicle–vehicle group extinguished rapidly, as expected (Figure 5a; significant main effect of testing day, overall repeated measures ANOVA F(3,87)=5.902, p<0.01; post hoc tests comparing day 1 to pre-extinction, p<0.05, days 2 and 3 to pre-extinction, p<0.001). We also found that, as in the reversal experiment above, animals receiving CR2945 in the amygdala (CRbla/SR group) extinguished significantly faster than animals receiving CR2945 infusions in the striatum (CRstr/SR group), which did not show significant extinction during the testing (Figure 5a, post hoc tests comparing the intra-amygdala group days 2 and 3 to pre-extinction, p<0.05). This experiment confirms and replicates the finding that CCK2 receptor blockade within the amygdala is sufficient to reverse the systemic effects of CB1 blockade on extinction learning. Furthermore, CCK2 blockade at an extra-amygdalar site, the striatum, does not reverse the effect on extinction of systemic CB1 blockade.
Systemic CCK2 Antagonist Reverses CB1 Antagonist-Induced Deficits in Within-Session Extinction
Previous studies by Marsicano et al (2002) have demonstrated that extinction training induces the production of anandamide and 2-AG within the BLA and suggest that activation of CB1Rs during extinction training itself is required for the formation of stable extinction memories. Consistent with this, pre- but not post-training administrations of SR141716A inhibit long-term extinction (Marsicano et al, 2002; Suzuki et al, 2004; Chhatwal et al, 2005). Additionally, the behavior of CB1-knockout mice suggests that they may be impaired in achieving reductions in fear responses during extinction training (Marsicano et al, 2002), in turn suggesting that SR141716A may be blocking extinction retention by impairing the dynamic reduction in fear with increasing numbers of non-reinforced CS-alone extinction trials (ie within-session extinction).
As the aforementioned experiments suggested that CR2945 may reverse the effects of SR141716A on extinction retention, we next examined if SR141716A-treated animals would exhibit deficits in within-session extinction and if this impairment would be improved with CR2945 co-administration. In these experiments, rather than presenting 90 lights without shocks during extinction, we presented fear-conditioned animals with 30 light–startle trials intermixed with 30 startle-alone trials. This alteration in our extinction training paradigm allowed us to measure within-session extinction. Thirty minutes before this extinction training/testing session, animals were administered vehicle (100% DMSO), SR141716A (5 mg/kg), or a combination of SR141716A and CR2945 (5 and 3 mg/kg, respectively). To compare the rates of within-session extinction, each animal's FPS was normalized to 100% according to their behavior on the first block of light–startle trials, allowing for comparison across treatment groups and compensating for variations in fear levels at the outset of extinction.
All three groups showed within-session extinction (Figure 6; within-session extinction: overall ANOVA F(9, 405)=9.891, p<0.001; vehicle group F(9, 153)=6.079, p<0.001; SR141716A-alone group F(9,153)=2.594, p<0.01; SR141716A+CR group F(9, 99)=7.365, p<0.001). However, significantly slower extinction was observed in SR141716A-treated animals than in vehicle-treated controls (Figure 6b), an effect that was especially prominent in the middle blocks of the extinction training/testing session. This observation agrees with previous studies (Marsicano et al, 2002; Suzuki et al, 2004) and provides further evidence that CB1 antagonism impedes within-session extinction.
In contrast, animals co-administered CR2945 and SR141716A showed rates of within-session extinction similar to (and, in some blocks, better than) those of vehicle-treated controls, suggesting that CR2945 may reverse SR141716A-induced deficits in within-session extinction (significant drug × time interaction F(18,405)=1.633, p<0.05; several post hoc differences noted in Figure 6b). Additionally, this result suggests that CCK2 antagonism may enhance the rates of within-session extinction.
As the assessment of CCK and CB1 modulation of within-session extinction in these experiments necessitated the testing of animals ‘on-drug,’ we performed a series of control experiments in which we examined whether the doses of SR141716A and CR2945 used in these studies could affect baseline startle (a measure of basal anxiety) as well as reactivity to footshock, a measure of nociception and general reactivity. Using animals that had been matched for equivalent levels of baseline startle and unconditioned fear to the light, we injected animals with vehicle, SR141716A alone (5 mg/kg), CR2945 (3 mg/kg), or a combination of SR141716A and CR2945 (5 and 3 mg/kg, respectively) 30 min before a test session in which baseline startle and shock reactivity were assessed. We observed that both baseline startle and shock reactivity were similar across all groups (Figure 7), suggesting that the effects of these drugs on within-session extinction proceed without gross alterations of nociception or baseline anxiety.
CCK2 Antagonist Co-administration Reverses CB1 Antagonist-Induced Blockade of Akt Activation Following Extinction
Extinction is an active learning process that is thought to involve many of the same intracellular signaling molecules as fear acquisition. It has previously been shown that extinction training leads to increases in phosphorylated (active) Akt in the amygdala and that the extinction-induced activation of Akt was enhanced when extinction learning was pharmacologically facilitated (Yang and Lu, 2005).
We examined whether SR141716A would prevent the normal induction of phosphorylation of Akt following extinction and whether co-administration of CR2945 with SR141716A would reverse these effects. Rats were fear-conditioned and matched into groups demonstrating similar levels of FPS before extinction (Figure 8a). Thirty minutes before extinction (90 lights without shocks), animals were administered either SR141716A (5 mg/kg) or a combination of SR141716A and CR2945 (5 and 3 mg/kg, respectively). Two control groups were employed: one group received vehicle plus exposure to the training context for the same period of time as extinction-trained controls (context) and the other group received vehicle in addition to extinction training (vehicle group). These rats were then killed 2 h following extinction training and the BLA was rapidly dissected out over ice, homogenized, and stored at −80°C until western blot assays were performed. The 2 h post-extinction time point used here was chosen based on preliminary studies showing that changes in the phosphorylation states of Akt were observable 2 h following extinction training. An overall significant effect of drug treatment and extinction training was seen (ANOVA F(4, 51)=3.529, p=0.013).
Levels of phosphorylated Akt appeared similar between SR141716A-treated animals and non-extinguished controls (SR compared to context, p=0.44), suggesting that SR141716A antagonized the extinction-induced activation of Akt within the amygdala. However, animals co-administered CR2945 with SR141716A showed significantly higher levels of p-Akt following extinction than animals receiving SR141716A alone (p=0.044), whereas no significant differences were seen between the vehicle+extinction and the group co-administered SR+CR before extinction (p=0.52). This suggests that co-administration of CR2945 may allow extinction-induced increases in p-Akt, even in the presence of SR141716A treatment (Figure 8b and c), a biochemical measure that appears to parallel the behavioral effects of these drugs.
DISCUSSION
We present several lines of evidence to suggest that interactions between the eCB and CCK neurotransmitter systems may play an important role in extinction and that CB1-mediated modulation of CCK2 receptor activation may be a critical component in the CB1 dependency of extinction learning. Specifically, these experiments demonstrate that (1) CCK mRNA and CB1 mRNA are both expressed at a higher level within the BLA, whereas they are relatively absent in the CeA and MeA, (2) i.c.v. infusions of the CCK2 agonist pentagastrin dose-dependently impair extinction; (3) pre-extinction administration of the CB1 antagonist SR141716A potently impairs extinction, and this effect is ameliorated with systemic co-administration of the CCK2 antagonist CR2945, (4) local infusion of CR2945 into the amygdala partially reverses the blockade of extinction seen with systemic SR141716A treatment, (5) increased phosphorylation of Akt in the amygdala is observable 2 h post-extinction training, and this effect is reversed in animals pretreated with SR141716A before extinction; (6) co-administration of CR2945 with SR141716A before extinction training leads to levels of Akt phosphorylation that are similar to control animals; and (7) SR141716A-treated animals showed slower rates of within-session extinction than vehicle-treated controls and animals co-administered SR141716A and CR2945.
In terms of understanding the neural circuitry underlying the process of extinction learning, the present study in combination with the aforementioned anatomical studies describing high concentrations of CB1Rs on the presynaptic terminals of CCK+ interneurons (Marsicano and Lutz, 1999; McDonald and Mascagni, 2001) suggests that the putative synapse of CCK/CB1+ neurons onto BLA pyramidal neurons may be an important locus of plasticity underlying extinction. It should be noted, however, that CB1 modulation of both GABAergic and glutamatergic neurotransmission in the BLA has been demonstrated, suggesting that the interaction between the CCKergic and eCB systems could involve a broad range of synapses (Azad et al, 2004). This raises the intriguing possibility that although many pyramidal BLA neurons express low levels of CB1 mRNA, CB1-mediated modulation of glutamate transmission likely plays an important role in extinction.
We have now found in the several experiments described in this paper that the CCK antagonist CR2945 reverses the inhibition of extinction of the CB1 antagonist SR141716A, both when given systemically and via cannula directly into the amygdala. Interestingly, however, CR2945 does not appear to significantly enhance extinction of fear when given alone. There are several possible explanations for this: first, it is possible that the level of extinction that we normally see in these studies is already ‘at ceiling,’ meaning that we cannot detect further facilitation of extinction or that CR2945 would enhance extinction in animals with low levels of extinction-induced CB1 activation (such as may be the case in chronic stress or in animals with chronic exposure to CB1 agonists). As is the case in stress-related neural systems, there are some pathways that are not able to be modulated at baseline, but which respond differently in stress or anxiogenic situations. With this hypothesis, it is possible that blocking CB1 with systemic antagonist treatment mimics a naturally diminished CB1-mediated process. Similarly, in some studies, D-cycloserine (DCS), an NMDA partial agonist that enhances extinction, has been shown to be more efficacious in states of anxiety than at baseline (Bertotto et al, 2006). Additionally, as mentioned earlier, it is likely that CB1-mediated modulation of glutamatergic transmission is also likely to play an important role in extinction.
Furthermore, results from both human and animal literature suggest that although CCK antagonists reverse the anxiogenic effects of CCK activation, they do not consistently show such effects when administered alone (Harro, 2006). This is evident in clinical trials of CCK2 antagonists wherein no effect was found following the administration of several CCK2 antagonists in patients with generalized anxiety disorder or panic disorder (Adams et al, 1995; Kramer et al, 1995; van Megen et al, 1997; Pande et al, 1999). Several results from the animal literature also support the notion that CCK2 antagonists are not necessarily anxiolytic when administered alone (Dawson et al, 1995; Johnson and Rodgers, 1996). These results suggest that the CCK antagonist is not expected to facilitate extinction alone, and are consistent with our hypothesis that perturbation of the endogenous system with the CB1 antagonist is necessary to reveal the underlying behavioral effects of CCK on the extinction of conditioned fear. Further studies aimed at examining pre- and post-synaptic effects of CB1 and CCK2 manipulation on extinction learning hope to further dissect these interacting mechanisms.
The observation that pentagastrin impairs extinction seems to fit well with previous data indicating that CCK receptor agonist treatment is acutely anxiogenic, and with data showing that pentagastrin enhances conditioned fear responses, as measured by FPS (Frankland et al, 1996). In the context of the present study, the enhancement of fear expression seen by Frankland et al (1996) is particularly interesting in that it suggests that pentagastrin-treated animals may have impairments in adequately reducing their fear responses during extinction training (ie within-session extinction)—a phenotype similar to that seen in CB1 knockouts and in animals administered CB1 antagonists (Marsicano et al, 2002; Suzuki et al, 2004; Chhatwal et al, 2005).
Such a connection may have important clinical implications, as pentagastrin has been shown to be anxiogenic and/or panicogenic in humans, and several modulators of the CB1 and CCK2 receptors are being considered for clinical use. As CCK and CB1 modulation of extinction seems to be a within-session effect (ie an acquisition of extinction effect), it is possible that CCK2 antagonists and/or eCB reuptake inhibitors could be given acutely before exposure-based psychotherapy. Such treatment may be particularly effective in patients manifesting deficits in within-session extinction (or who are especially avoidant in exposure-based sessions) as opposed to extinction retention. Indeed, our group and others are currently investigating the intriguing possibility that genetic differences in the eCB and/or CCKergic neurotransmitter systems may lead to altered susceptibility to trauma-induced psychopathology in humans. Additionally, there is potential for modulators of eCB or CCKergic transmission to be given in combination with other drugs, such as DCS, which appear to enhance the consolidation of extinction (Walker et al, 2002; Ledgerwood et al, 2003; Ressler et al, 2004). Notably, recent evidence strongly suggests that the acquisition and consolidation of extinction are separable processes (Quirk et al, 2000; Santini et al, 2001; Chhatwal et al, 2006), suggesting that pharmacologic enhancement of either process or both processes may be possible. Although more work is needed to understand the sites at which centrally active CCK2 antagonists can decrease unconditioned and conditioned fear responses, the results of this study suggest that a more complete understanding of CCK2-mediated affective responses may be very useful in the development of anxiolytics that promote extinction learning.
References
Adams JB, Pyke RE, Costa J, Cutler NR, Schweizer E, Wilcox CS et al (1995). A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a CCK-B receptor antagonist, CI-988, in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol 15: 428–434.
Azad SC, Monory K, Marsicano G, Cravatt BF, Lutz B, Zieglgansberger W et al (2004). Circuitry for associative plasticity in the amygdala involves endocannabinoid signaling. J Neurosci 24: 9953–9961.
Beinfeld MC, Connolly K (2001). Activation of CB1 cannabinoid receptors in rat hippocampal slices inhibits potassium-evoked cholecystokinin release, a possible mechanism contributing to the spatial memory defects produced by cannabinoids. Neurosci Lett 301: 69–71.
Belcheva I, Belcheva S, Petkov VV, Petkov VD (1994). Asymmetry in behavioral responses to cholecystokinin microinjected into rat nucleus accumbens and amygdala. Neuropharmacology 33: 995–1002.
Bertotto ME, Bustos SG, Molina VA, Martijena ID (2006). Influence of ethanol withdrawal on fear memory: effect of D-cycloserine. Neuroscience 142: 979–990.
Bradwejn J, Koszycki D (2001). Cholecystokinin and panic disorder: past and future clinical research strategies. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 234: 19–27.
Burdyga G, Lal S, Varro A, Dimaline R, Thompson DG, Dockray GJ (2004). Expression of cannabinoid CB1 receptors by vagal afferent neurons is inhibited by cholecystokinin. J Neurosci 24: 2708–2715.
Cassella JV, Davis M (1986). The design and calibration of a startle measurement system. Physiol Behav 36: 377–383.
Chhatwal JP, Davis M, Maguschak KA, Ressler KJ (2005). Enhancing cannabinoid neurotransmission augments the extinction of conditioned fear. Neuropsychopharmacology 30: 516–524.
Chhatwal JP, Stanek-Rattiner L, Davis M, Ressler KJ (2006). Amygdala BDNF signaling is required for consolidation but not encoding of extinction. Nat Neurosci 9: 870–872.
Dawson GR, Rupniak NM, Iversen SD, Curnow R, Tye S, Stanhope KJ et al (1995). Lack of effect of CCKB receptor antagonists in ethological and conditioned animal screens for anxiolytic drugs. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 121: 109–117.
Frankland PW, Josselyn SA, Bradwejn J, Vaccarino FJ, Yeomans JS (1996). Intracerebroventricular infusion of the CCKB receptor agonist pentagastrin potentiates acoustic startle. Brain Res 733: 129–132.
Fride E (2005). Endocannabinoids in the central nervous system: from neuronal networks to behavior. Curr Drug Targets CNS Neurol Disord 4: 633–642.
Harro J (2006). CCK and NPY as anti-anxiety treatment targets: promises, pitfalls, and strategies. Amino Acids 31: 215–230.
Harro J, Vasar E, Bradwejn J (1993). CCK in animal and human research on anxiety. Trends Pharmacol Sci 14: 244–249.
Izumi T, Inoue T, Tsuchiya K, Hashimoto S, Ohmori T, Koyama T. (1996). Effect of the selective CCKB receptor antagonist LY288513 on conditioned fear stress in rats. Eur J Pharmacol. 300 (1–2): 25–31.
Johnson NJ, Rodgers RJ (1996). Ethological analysis of cholecystokinin (CCKA and CCKB) receptor ligands in the elevated plus-maze test of anxiety in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 124: 355–364.
Josselyn SA, Frankland PW, Petrisano S, Bush DE, Yeomans JS, Vaccarino FJ (1995). The CCKB antagonist, L-365,260, attenuates fear-potentiated startle. Peptides 16: 1313–1315.
Katona I, Sperlagh B, Sik A, Kafalvi A, Vizi ES, Mackie K et al (1999). Presynaptically located CB1 cannabinoid receptors regulate GABA release from axon terminals of specific hippocampal interneurons. J Neurosci 19: 4544–4558.
Kramer MS, Cutler NR, Ballenger JC, Patterson WM, Mendels J, Chenault A et al (1995). A placebo-controlled trial of L-365,260, a CCKB antagonist, in panic disorder. Biol Psychiatry 37: 462–466.
Ledgerwood L, Richardson R, Cranney J (2003). Effects of D-cycloserine on extinction of conditioned freezing. Behav Neurosci 117: 341–349.
Marsicano G, Lutz B (1999). Expression of the cannabinoid receptor CB1 in distinct neuronal subpopulations in the adult mouse forebrain. Eur J Neurosci 11: 4213–4225.
Marsicano G, Wotjak CT, Azad SC, Bisogno T, Rammes G, Cascio MG et al (2002). The endogenous cannabinoid system controls extinction of aversive memories. Nature 418: 530–534.
McDonald AJ, Mascagni F (2001). Localization of the CB1 type cannabinoid receptor in the rat basolateral amygdala: high concentrations in a subpopulation of cholecystokinin-containing interneurons. Neuroscience 107: 641–652.
Pande AC, Greiner M, Adams JB, Lydiard RB, Pierce MW (1999). Placebo-controlled trial of the CCK-B antagonist, CI-988, in panic disorder. Biol Psychiatry 46: 860–862.
Quirk GJ, Russo GK, Barron JL, Lebron K (2000). The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in the recovery of extinguished fear. J Neurosci 20: 6225–6231.
Ressler KJ, Paschall G, Zhou XL, Davis M (2002). Regulation of synaptic plasticity genes during consolidation of fear conditioning. J Neurosci 22: 7892–7902.
Ressler KJ, Rothbaum BO, Tannenbaum L, Anderson P, Graap K, Zimand E et al (2004). Cognitive enhancers as adjuncts to psychotherapy: use of D-cycloserine in phobic individuals to facilitate extinction of fear. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61: 1136–1144.
Roche M, O’Conner E, Diskin C, Finn DP (2007). The effect of CB1 receptor antagonism in the right basolateral amygdala on conditioned fear and associated analgesia in rats. Eur J Neurosci 26: 2643–2653.
Santini E, Muller RU, Quirk GJ (2001). Consolidation of extinction learning involves transfer from NMDA-independent to NMDA-dependent memory. J Neurosci 21: 9009–9017.
Suzuki A, Josselyn SA, Frankland PW, Masushige S, Silva AJ, Kida S (2004). Memory reconsolidation and extinction have distinct temporal and biochemical signatures. J Neurosci 24: 4787–4795.
Tsutsumi T, Akiyoshi J, Isogawa K, Kohno Y, Hikichi T, Nagayama H. (1999). Suppression of conditioned fear by administration of CCKB receptor antagonist PD135158. Neuropeptides 33: 483–486.
van Megen HJ, Westenberg HG, den Boer JA, Slaap B, van Es-Radhakishun F, Pande AC (1997). The cholecystokinin-B receptor antagonist CI-988 failed to affect CCK-4 induced symptoms in panic disorder patients. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 129: 243–248.
Vasar E, Lang A, Harro J, Bourin M, Bradwejn J (1994). Evidence for potentiation by CCK antagonists of the effect of cholecystokinin octapeptide in the elevated plus-maze. Neuropharmacology 33: 729–735.
Vosshall LB, Amrein H, Morozov PS, Rzhetsky A, Axel R (1999). A spatial map of olfactory receptor expression in the Drosophila antenna. Cell 96: 725–736.
Walker DL, Ressler KJ, Lu KT, Davis M (2002). Facilitation of conditioned fear extinction by systemic administration or intra-amygdala infusions of D-cycloserine as assessed with fear-potentiated startle in rats. J Neurosci 22: 2343–2351.
Yang YL, Lu KT (2005). Facilitation of conditioned fear extinction by D-cycloserine is mediated by mitogen-activated protein kinase and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase cascades and requires de novo protein synthesis in basolateral nucleus of amygdala. Neuroscience 134: 247–260.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NIH (DA019624, MH074097, MH069884, MH070218, MH47840, MH067314), NARSAD, the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (NSF agreement IBN-987675), The Woodruff Foundation, and by an NIH/NCRR base grant (P51RR000165) to Yerkes National Primate Research Center. JPC is supported by an NIH MD/PhD predoctoral fellowship (NRSA). We thank George Toth, Michael Bowser, and Kevin Hertzberg for excellent technical support in performing these studies, and Karyn Myers for helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
DISCLOSURE/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
KJR, MD, and JPC have filed a provisional patent application for the use of enhancers of eCB transmission to augment extinction in clinical settings. Notably, no drugs of this type were used in these studies. KJR has received research support from Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals, LLC. KJR has received consultation fees from Tikvah Pharmaceuticals, LLC.
Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Neuropsychopharmacology website (http://www.nature.com/npp)
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chhatwal, J., Gutman, A., Maguschak, K. et al. Functional Interactions between Endocannabinoid and CCK Neurotransmitter Systems May Be Critical for Extinction Learning. Neuropsychopharmacol 34, 509–521 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2008.97
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2008.97
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Cell type specific cannabinoid CB1 receptor distribution across the human and non-human primate cortex
Scientific Reports (2022)
-
The role of endocannabinoids in consolidation, retrieval, reconsolidation, and extinction of fear memory
Pharmacological Reports (2021)
-
Discovery of a NAPE-PLD inhibitor that modulates emotional behavior in mice
Nature Chemical Biology (2020)
-
Influence of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol on long-term neural correlates of threat extinction memory retention in humans
Neuropsychopharmacology (2019)
-
Tempering aversive/traumatic memories with cannabinoids: a review of evidence from animal and human studies
Psychopharmacology (2019)