Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Top-down control of flight by a non-canonical cortico-amygdala pathway

Nature volume 625, pages 743–749 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Survival requires the selection of appropriate behaviour in response to threats, and dysregulated defensive reactions are associated with psychiatric illnesses such as post-traumatic stress and panic disorder1. Threat-induced behaviours, including freezing and flight, are controlled by neuronal circuits in the central amygdala (CeA)2; however, the source of neuronal excitation of the CeA that contributes to high-intensity defensive responses is unknown. Here we used a combination of neuroanatomical mapping, in vivo calcium imaging, functional manipulations and electrophysiology to characterize a previously unknown projection from the dorsal peduncular (DP) prefrontal cortex to the CeA. DP-to-CeA neurons are glutamatergic and specifically target the medial CeA, the main amygdalar output nucleus mediating conditioned responses to threat. Using a behavioural paradigm that elicits both conditioned freezing and flight, we found that CeA-projecting DP neurons are activated by high-intensity threats in a context-dependent manner. Functional manipulations revealed that the DP-to-CeA pathway is necessary and sufficient for both avoidance behaviour and flight. Furthermore, we found that DP neurons synapse onto neurons within the medial CeA that project to midbrain flight centres. These results elucidate a non-canonical top-down pathway regulating defensive responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Neuroanatomical characterization of the DP-to-CeA pathway.
Fig. 2: DP-to-CeA projection cells are activated by high-fear states.
Fig. 3: Chemogenetic inhibition of the DP-to-CeA pathway reduces avoidance.
Fig. 4: Optogenetic modulation of the DP-to-CeA pathway regulates flight.
Fig. 5: DP-to-CeA neurons exert excitatory control over CeM projections.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Information. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Fonzo, G. A. et al. PTSD psychotherapy outcome predicted by brain activation during emotional reactivity and regulation. Am. J. Psychiatry 174, 1163–1174 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fadok, J. P. et al. A competitive inhibitory circuit for selection of active and passive fear responses. Nature 542, 96–99 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roelofs, K. Freeze for action: neurobiological mechanisms in animal and human freezing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 372 (2017).

  4. Fanselow, M. S., Hoffman, A. N. & Zhuravka, I. Timing and the transition between modes in the defensive behavior system. Behav. Processes 166, 103890 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanchard, D. C. & Blanchard, R. J. Defensive behaviors, fear, and anxiety. in Handbook of Anxiety and Fear (eds Blanchard, R. J. et al.) 63–79 (Elsevier, 2008).

  6. Perusini, J. N. & Fanselow, M. S. Neurobehavioral perspectives on the distinction between fear and anxiety. Learn. Mem. 22, 417–425 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson, P. L., Truitt, W. A., Fitz, S. D., Lowry, C. A. & Shekhar, A. Neural pathways underlying lactate-induced panic. Neuropsychopharmacology 33, 2093–2107 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Münsterkötter, A. L. et al. Spider or no spider? Neural correlates of sustained and phasic fear in spider phobia. Depress. Anxiety 32, 656–663 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mobbs, D. et al. From threat to fear: the neural organization of defensive fear systems in humans. J. Neurosci. 29, 12236–12243 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tromp, D. P. M. et al. Reduced structural connectivity of a major frontolimbic pathway in generalized anxiety disorder. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 69, 925–934 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Marek, R., Strobel, C., Bredy, T. W. & Sah, P. The amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex: partners in the fear circuit. J. Physiol. 591, 2381–2391 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Senn, V. et al. Long-range connectivity defines behavioral specificity of amygdala neurons. Neuron 81, 428–437 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Karalis, N. et al. 4-Hz oscillations synchronize prefrontal-amygdala circuits during fear behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 605–612 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Andrewes, D. G. & Jenkins, L. M. The role of the amygdala and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in emotional regulation: implications for post-traumatic stress disorder. Neuropsychol. Rev. 29, 220–243 (2019).

  15. De Franceschi, G., Vivattanasarn, T., Saleem, A. B. & Solomon, S. G. Vision guides selection of freeze or flight defense strategies in mice. Curr. Biol. 26, 2150–2154 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang, W. et al. Coordination of escape and spatial navigation circuits orchestrates versatile flight from threats. Neuron 109, 1848–1860 (2021).

  17. McDonald, A. J. Cortical pathways to the mammalian amygdala. Prog. Neurobiol. 55, 257–332 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kataoka, N., Shima, Y., Nakajima, K. & Nakamura, K. A central master driver of psychosocial stress responses in the rat. Science 367, 1105–1112 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anastasiades, P. G. & Carter, A. G. Circuit organization of the rodent medial prefrontal cortex. Trends Neurosci. 44, 550–563 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Fremeau, R. T. et al. The expression of vesicular glutamate transporters defines two classes of excitatory synapse. Neuron 31, 247–260 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Borkar, C. D. & Fadok, J. P. A novel Pavlovian fear conditioning paradigm to study freezing and flight behavior. J. Vis. Exp. https://doi.org/10.3791/61536 (2021).

  22. Anderson, D. J. & Adolphs, R. A framework for studying emotions across species. Cell 157, 187–200 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Fadok, J. P., Markovic, M., Tovote, P. & Lüthi, A. New perspectives on central amygdala function. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 49, 141–147 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dumont, É. C., Martina, M., Samson, R. D., Drolet, G. & Paré, D. Physiological properties of central amygdala neurons: species differences. Eur. J. Neurosci. 15, 545–552 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Duvarci, S., Popa, D. & Paré, D. Central amygdala activity during fear conditioning. J. Neurosci. 31, 289–294 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Li, J. N. & Sheets, P. L. The central amygdala to periaqueductal gray pathway comprises intrinsically distinct neurons differentially affected in a model of inflammatory pain. J. Physiol. 596, 6289–6305 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rizvi, T. A., Ennis, M., Behbehani, M. M. & Shipley, M. T. Connections between the central nucleus of the amygdala and the midbrain periaqueductal gray: topography and reciprocity. J. Comp. Neurol. 303, 121–131 (1991).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tovote, P. et al. Midbrain circuits for defensive behaviour. Nature 534, 206–212 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bandler, R. & Carrive, P. Integrated defence reaction elicited by excitatory amino acid microinjection in the midbrain periaqueductal grey region of the unrestrained cat. Brain Res. 439, 95–106 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Behbehani, M. M. Functional characteristics of the midbrain periaqueductal gray. Prog. Neurobiol. 46, 575–605 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Keifer, O. P., Hurt, R. C., Ressler, K. J. & Marvar, P. J. The physiology of fear: reconceptualizing the role of the central amygdala in fear learning. Physiology 30, 389–401 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ressler, R. L. & Maren, S. Synaptic encoding of fear memories in the amygdala. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 54, 54–59 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kong, M. S. & Zweifel, L. S. Central amygdala circuits in valence and salience processing. Behav. Brain Res. 410, 113355 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Li, H. et al. Experience-dependent modification of a central amygdala fear circuit. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 332–339 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Hunt, S., Sun, Y., Kucukdereli, H., Klein, R. & Sah, P. Intrinsic circuits in the CeL. eNeuro 4, e0367-16.2017 (2017).

  36. Viviani, D. et al. Oxytocin selectively gates fear responses through distinct outputs from the central amygdala. Science 333, 104–107 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Massi, L. et al. Disynaptic specificity of serial information flow for conditioned fear. Sci. Adv. 9, eabq1637 (2023).

  38. Assareh, N., Sarrami, M., Carrive, P. & McNally, G. P. The organization of defensive behavior elicited by optogenetic excitation of rat lateral or ventrolateral periaqueductal gray. Behav. Neurosci. 130, 406–414 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yu, H. et al. Periaqueductal gray neurons encode the sequential motor program in hunting behavior of mice. Nat. Commun. 12, 6523 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. La-Vu, M. Q. et al. Sparse genetically defined neurons refine the canonical role of periaqueductal gray columnar organization. Elife 11, e77115 (2022).

  41. Evans, D. A. et al. A synaptic threshold mechanism for computing escape decisions. Nature 558, 46–76 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wang, W. et al. Dorsal premammillary projection to periaqueductal gray controls escape vigor from innate and conditioned threats. Elife 10, e69178 (2021).

  43. Tovote, P., Fadok, J. P. & Lüthi, A. Neuronal circuits for fear and anxiety. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 16, 317–331 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Quirk, G. J., Likhtik, E., Pelletier, J. G. & Paré, D. Stimulation of medial prefrontal cortex decreases the responsiveness of central amygdala output neurons. J. Neurosci. 23, 8800–8807 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bukalo, O. et al. Prefrontal inputs to the amygdala instruct fear extinction memory formation. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500251 (2015).

  46. Hersman, S., Allen, D., Hashimoto, M., Brito, S. I. & Anthony, T. E. Stimulus salience determines defensive behaviors elicited by aversively conditioned serial compound auditory stimuli. Elife 9, e53803 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Dong, P. et al. A novel cortico-intrathalamic circuit for flight behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 941–949 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Totty, M. S. et al. Behavioral and brain mechanisms mediating conditioned flight behavior in rats. Sci. Rep. 11, 8215 (2021).

  49. Soudais, C., Laplace-Builhe, C., Kissa, K. & Kremer, E. J. Preferential transduction of neurons by canine adenovirus vectors and their efficient retrograde transport in vivo. FASEB J. 15, 2283–2285 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Resendez, S. L. et al. Visualization of cortical, subcortical and deep brain neural circuit dynamics during naturalistic mammalian behavior with head-mounted microscopes and chronically implanted lenses. Nat. Protoc. 11, 566–597 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Corder, G. et al. An amygdalar neural ensemble that encodes the unpleasantness of pain. Science 363, 276–281 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ghosh, K. K. et al. Miniaturized integration of a fluorescence microscope. Nat. Methods 8, 871–878 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Parker, J. G. et al. Diametric neural ensemble dynamics in parkinsonian and dyskinetic states. Nature 557, 177–182 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen, C. et al. Astrocytes amplify neuronal dendritic volume transmission stimulated by norepinephrine. Cell Rep. 29, 4349–4361 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Ahanonu for providing MATLAB codes and assistance with calcium imaging data analysis; and R. Mostany and S. Yun for help in standardization of calcium imaging and data analysis. This work was supported by the Louisiana Board of Regents through the Board of Regents support fund (LEQSF(2018-21)-RD-A-17) to J.P.F., the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01MH122561 to J.P.F. and R01MH119283 to J.G.T., and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01NS122840 to J.G.P. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Chandrashekhar D. Borkar, Claire E. Stelly, Maria Dorofeikova, Alexis Resendez & Jonathan P. Fadok

  2. Tulane Brain Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Chandrashekhar D. Borkar, Claire E. Stelly, Xin Fu, Maria Dorofeikova, Quan-Son Eric Le, Rithvik Vutukuri, Catherine Vo, Alex Walker, Samhita Basavanhalli, Anh Duong, Erin Bean, Alexis Resendez, Jeffrey G. Tasker & Jonathan P. Fadok

  3. Department of Psychological Sciences, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Claire E. Stelly

  4. Neuroscience Program, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Xin Fu, Quan-Son Eric Le, Rithvik Vutukuri, Catherine Vo, Alex Walker, Samhita Basavanhalli, Anh Duong & Erin Bean

  5. Department of Neuroscience, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jones G. Parker

  6. Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Jeffrey G. Tasker

Authors
  1. Chandrashekhar D. Borkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire E. Stelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xin Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Dorofeikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Quan-Son Eric Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rithvik Vutukuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Catherine Vo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alex Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Samhita Basavanhalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Anh Duong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Erin Bean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alexis Resendez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jones G. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jeffrey G. Tasker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Jonathan P. Fadok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization—C.D.B. and J.P.F.; formal analysis—C.D.B., C.E.S., X.F., M.D., Q.-S.E.L., R.V., C.V., A.W., S.B., A.D., E.B., A.R., J.G.P. and J.P.F.; funding acquisition—J.P.F.; investigation—C.D.B., C.E.S., X.F. and Q.-S.E.L.; methodology—C.D.B., M.D., C.E.S., J.G.T. and J.P.F.; project administration and supervision—C.D.B., J.P.F. and J.G.T.; resources—J.P.F. and J.G.T.; visualization—C.D.B., C.E.S., M.D., X.F. and J.P.F.; writing, original draft—C.D.B. and J.P.F.; writing, review and editing—C.D.B., C.E.S., X.F., J.G.T., J.G.P. and J.P.F.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan P. Fadok.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Avishek Adhikari, Larry Zweifel and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 (Data related to Fig. 1): Neuroanatomy of the DP-CeA pathway.

a, Top, Number of CeA-projecting mPFC cells across the antero-posterior axis. Bottom, Schematic of coronal sections showing the density of beads in DP on anterio-posterior scale. The coronal sections were adapted from the Allen Brain Atlas (Allen Institute for Brain Science). b, The layer-wise distribution of bead+ cells in the DP that project to CeA and/or DMH (N = 6 mice; two-way ANOVA, layer x group, F(4, 45) = 10.15, p < 0.0001; Bonferroni’s post-hoc test, *p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 (DMH vs CeA), ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001 (vs overlay). c, Total number of bead+ cells across groups (N = 6 mice per group; 3-4 slices per group; one-way ANOVA, F(3, 22) = 2.819, p = 0.0626). d, Freezing of cFos groups on FC2 (N = 6 mice per group; one-way ANOVA for tone (F(2, 15) = 9.367, p = 0.0023) and white noise (WN; F(2, 15) = 22.68, p < 0.0001); Bonferroni’s post-hoc test). e, Flight scores of cFos groups on FC2 (N = 6 mice per group; one-way ANOVA for tone (F(2, 15) = 3.60, p = 0.052) and WN (F(2, 15) = 18.52, p < 0.0001); Bonferroni’s post-hoc test). Data in b-e represented as means ± s.e.m. Two-sided statistical tests were used. ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 2 (Data related to Fig. 2): Calcium imaging during pre-conditioning.

a-b, Trial-wise and average freezing of mice from calcium imaging experiments during preconditioning session (N = 6 mice; paired t-test, t = 0.3051, df = 5, p = 0.77). c-d, Trial-wise and average flight score of mice from calcium imaging experiments during preconditioning session (N = 6 mice; paired t-test, t = 0.6565, df = 5, p = 0.54). e, Speed and neuronal activity during the last trial of preconditioning session (n = 221 cells from 6 mice). f, Average speed and neuronal activity during each trial of preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods (n = 221 cells from 6 mice). g, Spearman correlation of speed and neuronal activity from all trials (10 s each epoch of preSCS, tone, WN and post cue, each point represents one sec; n = 221 cells from 6 mice; r = −0.1232, 95% CI: −0.2774 to 0.03724, p = 0.12). h, Average Z-score of the DP-to-CeA population during the preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods (n = 221 cells from 6 mice; ordinary one-way ANOVA, F(3, 20) = 1.965, p = 0.15). i, Average Z-scores of individual mice during preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods (N = 6 mice). j, Z-scores of individual neurons during the last trial of preconditioning (n = 221 cells from 6 mice, one-way ANOVA, F(3, 880) = 21.43, P < 0.0001; Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test). Data in a-f and j represented as means ± s.e.m. Violin plots in h indicate median, interquartile range, and the distribution of individual data points. Two-sided statistical tests were used. ****p < 0.0001.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 3 (Data related to Fig. 2): Calcium imaging in the high-threat and low-threat contexts.

a, Freezing behaviour in the high-threat context (N = 6 mice; paired t-test, t = 4.744, df=5). b, Flight scores in the high-threat context. (N = 6 mice; paired t-test, t = 3.650, df=5). c, left, Average speed and neuronal activity during each trial of the preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods in the high-threat context (n = 273 cells from 6 mice). right, Spearman correlation of speed and neuronal activity from the last 3 trials (preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue epochs, each point represents data from 1 s; n = 273 cells from 6 mice; r = 0.5187, 95% CI: 0.3696 to 0.6417, p < 0.0001). d, Speed and neuronal activity aligned to the onset of flight bouts during WN in the high-threat context (n = 273 cells from 6 mice). e, Speed and neuronal activity aligned to the onset of freezing bouts during WN in the high-threat context (n = 273 cells from 6 mice). f, Spearman correlation plot for speed and Z-score from the identified freezing bouts (each dot represents values at each sec of the bouts, r = 0.657, 95% CI = −0.02019 to 0.1662, p = 0.175). g, left Z-scores of individual mice during preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods, across all trials (N = 6 mice; one-way ANOVA, F(3, 20) = 9.331, P = 0.0005; Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test). right, Z-scores of individual mice during first versus last 2 footshock periods (paired t-test, t = 0.2289, df = 11, each dot represents an individual mouse during a single trial). h, The Z-scores of individual neurons during preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods, from the last trial in the high-threat context (n = 273 cells from 6 mice, one-way ANOVA, F(3, 1112) = 59.01, P < 0.0001; Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test). i, Freezing in the low-threat context (N = 6 mice; paired t-test, t = 3.424, df = 5). j, Flight scores in the low-threat context. (N = 6 mice; paired t-test, t = 2.889, df = 5). k, left, Change in average speed and neuronal activity during preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods in the low-threat context over 4 trials (n = 273 cells from 6 mice). right, Spearman correlation of speed and neuronal activity from all recall trials in the low-threat context (preSCS, tone, WN and post cue epochs, each point represents 1 s of data; n = 273 cells from 6 mice; r = −0.07152, 95% CI: −0.2526 to 0.1144, p = 0.43). l, Speed and neuronal activity aligned to the onset of flight bouts during WN in the low-threat context (n = 273 cells from 6 mice). m, Speed and neuronal activity aligned to the onset of freezing bouts during WN in the low-threat context (n = 273 cells from 6 mice). n, Spearman correlation of speed and neuronal activity from freezing bouts (n = 273 cells from 6 mice; each point represents one sec of data, r = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.02337 to 0.1669, P = 0.058). o, Population activity from individual mice during preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods, across all trials (N = 6 mice; one-way ANOVA, F(3,20) = 0.3923, P = 0.75). p, Neuronal activity of individual neurons during preSCS, tone, WN and post-cue periods, from the last trial in the low-threat context (n = 273 cells from 6 mice; one-way ANOVA, F(3,1008) = 5.566, P = 0.0009; Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test). q, Z-scores of individual mice during context exposure (first 3 min baseline period) in high threat versus low-threat context (N = 6 mice; paired t-test, t = 2.705, df=5). Data in a-c, d-e, h-k, l-m, and p represented as means ± s.e.m. Violin plots in g indicate median, interquartile range, and the distribution of individual data points. Two-sided statistical tests were used. ****P < 0.0001, ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 4 (Data related Fig. 4): Optogenetic inhibition of the DP-CEA pathway.

a, Intersectional approach used for optogenetic terminal inhibition of the DP-to-CeA neuronal projections. The image was adapted from the Allen Brain Atlas (Allen Institute for Brain Science). b, Experimental timeline. c-e, Effect of optogenetic inhibition on centre time (c), centre entries (d), and distance travelled (e) in the OFT (EYFP N = 9 mice, eNpHR N = 9 mice; unpaired t-test, t = 2.357, df = 16; t = 2.813, df = 16; and t = 0.7250, df = 16, respectively). f-h, Effect of optogenetic inhibition on EYFP (N = 9) and eNpHR (N = 9) mice in the high-threat context on f, freezing (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney), g, flight (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney), and h, speed during WN (Paired t-test t = 3.497, df=8, p = 0.0081). i-k, Effect of optogenetic inhibition in EYFP (N = 9) and eNpHR (N = 9) groups in the low-threat context on i, freezing (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney, n.s.), j, flight (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney) and k, speed during WN in the eNpHR group (Paired t-test, t = 2.619, df=8, p = 0.307). Data in c-e represented as mean ± s.e.m. Data in f-k represented as mean with individual data points. Two-sided statistical tests were used. **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 5 (Data related Fig. 4): Non-cell type specific stimulation of the DP-CEA pathway.

a, Intersectional approach used to target optogenetic stimulation to DP-to-CeA terminals. The image was adapted from the Allen Brain Atlas (Allen Institute for Brain Science). b-c, Effect of optogenetic stimulation on OFT centre time (b) and centre entries (c) in EYFP (N = 10) and ChR2 (N = 9) groups (Unpaired t-test, n.s., t = 0.3950, df = 17, and t = 1.001, df = 17, respectively). d, Effects of optogenetic stimulation on real-time place avoidance in EYFP (10 Hz, N = 5) and ChR2 (10 Hz, N = 5; 20 Hz, N = 4) groups (One-way ANOVA F(2, 11) = 0.73, p = 0.502). e-f, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 10) and ChR2 (N = 9) groups in the high-threat context on e, freezing (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney, n.s.) and f, flight (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney, n.s.). g-h, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 10) and ChR2 (N = 9) groups in the low-threat context on g, freezing (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney, n.s.) and h, flight (LED-on vs LED-off, Mann-Whitney, n.s.). i-j, Freezing (i) and flight scores (j) during optogenetic stimulation during day 3 at different stimulation frequencies and shock intensities (at 0.6 mA – 10 Hz, N = 9; 15 Hz, N = 3; at 0.9 mA – 20 Hz, N = 5; two-way ANOVA (for % freezing, Stimulation frequency x Shock intensity, F(6, 56) = 0.76, p = 0.601, Stimulation frequency, F(2, 56) = 1.10, p = 0.339, Shock intensity, F(3, 56) = 8.37, p = 0.0001; for flight, Stimulation frequency x Shock intensity, F(6, 56) = 4.42, p = 0.001, Shock intensity, F(3, 56) = 6.66, p = 0.001; Bonferroni’s post hoc test (tone/WN ON vs OFF non-significant). Data represented as mean ( ± s.e.m. in b-d and with individual data points in i-j). Two-sided statistical tests were used.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 6 (Data related Fig. 4): Stimulation of the DP-CEA pathway using a CaMKII promotor.

a, Viral injection strategy for optogenetic terminal stimulation of DP-to-CeA neuronal projections. The image was adapted from the Allen Brain Atlas (Allen Institute for Brain Science). b-c, Schematic (b) and results (c) of real-time place aversion (RTPA) in EYFP (20 Hz, N = 5) and ChR2 (20 Hz, N = 5) groups (Unpaired t-test, t = 3.191, df = 8). The image in b was created with BioRender.com. d-e, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 5) and ChR2 (N = 5) groups in the high-threat context on d, freezing (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, n.s.) and e, flight scores (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, n.s.). f-g, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 5) and ChR2 (N = 5) groups in the low-threat context on f, freezing (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, n.s.) and g, flight scores (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, n.s.). Data represented as mean ± s.e.m. in c and with individual data points in d-g. Two-sided statistical tests were used. *P < 0.05.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 7 (Data related Fig. 4): Optogenetic stimulation of the Vglut1 + DP-CEA pathway.

a, Viral injection strategy for optogenetic terminal stimulation of DP-to-CeA neuronal projections. b-c, Schematic (b) and real-time place aversion (RTPA) performance (c) from EYFP (N = 6) and ChR2 (N = 8) groups (unpaired t-test, EYFP (t = 1.974, df = 5, P = 0.10), ChR2 (t = 7.339, df = 7). The image in b was created with BioRender.com. d-e, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 6) and ChR2 (N = 8) groups in the high-threat context on d, freezing during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, ChR2, t = 3.650, df = 7) and e, flight during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, ChR2, t = 1.077, df = 7, P = 0.31). f-g, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 6) and ChR2 (N = 8) groups in the low-threat context on f, freezing during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, ChR2, t = 3.748, df = 7) and g, flight score during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, ChR2, t = 2.211, df=7, P = 0.06). h, Example fibre placements over the CeA for the eNpHR groups (N = 9). i, Example fibre placements over the CeA for the ChR2 groups (N = 9). Box and whisker plots in c indicate median, interquartile range, and min. to max. of the distribution, crosses indicate means. Data in d-g represented as mean with individual data points. Two-sided statistical tests were used. ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01. The images in a,h,i were adapted from the Allen Brain Atlas (Allen Institute for Brain Science).

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 8 (Data related Fig. 4): Optogenetic stimulation of the Vglut2 + DP-CEA pathway.

a, Viral injection strategy for optogenetic terminal stimulation of DP-to-CeA neuronal projections). The image was adapted from the Allen Brain Atlas (Allen Institute for Brain Science). b, Experimental timeline. c, Real-time place aversion (RTPA) performance of EYFP (N = 13) and ChR2 (N = 17) groups (paired t-test, EYFP (t = 0.2167, df = 12, P = 0.83), ChR2 (t = 4.713, df = 17). d-e, Effect of optogenetic excitation on OFT centre time (d) and number of entries into the centre zoneI) in EYFP (N = 11) and ChR2 (N = 10) groups (unpaired t-test, t = 3.288, df=19). f-g, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 13) and ChR2 (N = 17) groups in the high-threat context on f, freezing during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, ChR2) and g, flight during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, Wilcoxon -test, ChR2, P = 0.07). h, Comparison of flight scores in the LED-on condition between EYFP control and ChR2 groups (Mann Whitney test, P = 0. 0.0349). i-j, Effect of optogenetic excitation in EYFP (N = 6) and ChR2 (N = 10) groups in the low-threat context on i, freezing during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, ChR2, t = 7.135, df = 9) and j, flight scores during WN (LED-on vs LED-off, paired t-test, ChR2, t = t = 2.717, df = 9). Box and whisker plots in c indicate median, interquartile range, and min. to max. of the distribution, crosses indicate means. Data in d-e and h represented as mean ± s.e.m, and as mean with individual data points in f,g,i,j. Two-sided statistical tests were used. ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 9 (Data related to Fig. 5): Optogenetically evoked responses in central amygdala neurons.

a, Schematic of targeting strategy. b, DP terminals in CeM near SOM+ (left) and CRH+ (right) cells at 20x and 40x magnification. c, Strategy for recording light-evoked synaptic input from DP to SOM+ or CRH+ neurons from CeM (top) and CeL (bottom) regions. d, Representative evoked synaptic responses in CeM SOM+ and CRH+ cells by photostimulation of DP axonal fibres in voltage-clamp. e, Photostimulation of axonal fibres did not evoke responses in CeL neurons. f, Average amplitude of evoked EPSCs in CRH+ neurons (N = 10 cells from 3 mice) and SOM+ (N = 13 cells from 3 mice) at −70 mV (unpaired Student’s t-test, t = 0.4879, df = 21, p = 0.63). g, Amplitudes of evoked EPSCs in CRH+ (N = 4 cells from 3 mice) and SOM+ (N = 3 cells from 2 mice) neurons at −70 mV, before and after application of DNQX. h, Average amplitude of evoked EPSCs in CeM (N = 23 cells from 6 mice) and CeL neurons (N = 5 cells from 2 mice). i, The amplitude of disynaptic IPSCs evoked by ChR2 stimulation of DP terminals in CRH+ (N = 7 cells from 3 mice) and SOM+ (N = 11 cells from 2 mice; unpaired Student’s t-test, t(16) = 0.055; p = 0.96) neurons at –50 mV. j, The firing properties of DP-targeted CeM neurons. Data in f,h,i represented as mean ± s.e.m. Two-sided statistical tests were used. ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 10 (Data related to Fig. 5): Brain regions targeted by CeM neurons receiving DP innervation.

a, Representative image showing ChR2 injection targeting in the DP. b-c, Representative images showing targeting of red beads to the b, dorsal (dl/l PAG) and c, ventrolateral (vlPAG) periaqueductal gray regions for electrophysiological recordings of PAG-projecting CeM neurons. d, Representative expression of EYFP in the DP of a C57BL/6 J mouse injected with AAV1-cre-EYFP. e, Cre-dependent mCherry expression in the CeM of the same mouse. f-l, mCherry+ terminals of CeM neurons innervated by the DP project to insular cortex (f), nucleus accumbens (Acb, g), substantia innominata (SI, h), periventricular thalamus (PVT, i), lateral hypothalamus (LH, j), ventral tegmental area (VTA, k), and retrorubral field (RRF, l).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion (a discussion of the role of the medial subdivision of the CeA in approach and avoidance behaviour).

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Source data

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borkar, C.D., Stelly, C.E., Fu, X. et al. Top-down control of flight by a non-canonical cortico-amygdala pathway. Nature 625, 743–749 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06912-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06912-w

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing