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.

The central amygdala controls learning in the lateral amygdala

Abstract

Experience-driven synaptic plasticity in the lateral amygdala is thought to underlie the formation of associations between sensory stimuli and an ensuing threat. However, how the central amygdala participates in such a learning process remains unclear. Here we show that PKC-δ-expressing central amygdala neurons are essential for the synaptic plasticity underlying learning in the lateral amygdala, as they convey information about the unconditioned stimulus to lateral amygdala neurons during fear conditioning.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: PKC-δ+ CeL neurons are required for the plasticity underlying learning in the LA.
Fig. 2: CS and US responses in PKC-δ+ CeL neurons during fear conditioning.
Fig. 3: PKC-δ+ CeL neurons are required for the US responses of LA neurons.

References

  1. 1.

    Herry, C. & Johansen, J. P. Encoding of fear learning and memory in distributed neuronal circuits. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1644–1654 (2014).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Penzo, M. A., Robert, V. & Li, B. Fear conditioning potentiates synaptic transmission onto long-range projection neurons in the lateral subdivision of central amygdala. J. Neurosci. 34, 2432–2437 (2014).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Penzo, M. A. et al. The paraventricular thalamus controls a central amygdala fear circuit. Nature 519, 455–459 (2015).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Goosens, K. A. & Maren, S. Pretraining NMDA receptor blockade in the basolateral complex, but not the central nucleus, of the amygdala prevents savings of conditional fear. Behav. Neurosci. 117, 738–750 (2003).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wilensky, A. E., Schafe, G. E., Kristensen, M. P. & LeDoux, J. E. Rethinking the fear circuit: the central nucleus of the amygdala is required for the acquisition, consolidation, and expression of Pavlovian fear conditioning. J. Neurosci. 26, 12387–12396 (2006).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Yu, K., Garcia da Silva, P., Albeanu, D. F. & Li, B. Central amygdala somatostatin neurons gate passive and active defensive behaviors. J. Neurosci. 36, 6488–6496 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ciocchi, S. et al. Encoding of conditioned fear in central amygdala inhibitory circuits. Nature 468, 277–282 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Roesch, M. R., Esber, G. R., Li, J., Daw, N. D. & Schoenbaum, G. Surprise! Neural correlates of Pearce-Hall and Rescorla-Wagner coexist within the brain. Eur. J. Neurosci 35, 1190–1200 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Balleine, B. W. & Killcross, S. Parallel incentive processing: an integrated view of amygdala function. Trends Neurosci. 29, 272–279 (2006).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Nabavi, S. et al. Engineering a memory with LTD and LTP. Nature 511, 348–352 (2014).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Haubensak, W. et al. Genetic dissection of an amygdala microcircuit that gates conditioned fear. Nature 468, 270–276 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Han, S., Soleiman, M. T., Soden, M. E., Zweifel, L. S. & Palmiter, R. D. Elucidating an affective pain circuit that creates a threat memory. Cell 162, 363–374 (2015).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sato, M. et al. The lateral parabrachial nucleus is actively involved in the acquisition of fear memory in mice. Mol. Brain 8, 22 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Chen, T. W. et al. Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity. Nature 499, 295–300 (2013).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fenno, L. E. et al. Targeting cells with single vectors using multiple-feature Boolean logic. Nat. Methods 11, 763–772 (2014).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Johansen, J. P., Tarpley, J. W., LeDoux, J. E. & Blair, H. T. Neural substrates for expectation-modulated fear learning in the amygdala and periaqueductal gray. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 979–986 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McNally, G. P., Johansen, J. P. & Blair, H. T. Placing prediction into the fear circuit. Trends Neurosci. 34, 283–292 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Belova, M. A., Paton, J. J., Morrison, S. E. & Salzman, C. D. Expectation modulates neural responses to pleasant and aversive stimuli in primate amygdala. Neuron 55, 970–984 (2007).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Taniguchi, H. et al. A resource of Cre driver lines for genetic targeting of GABAergic neurons in cerebral cortex. Neuron 71, 995–1013 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Madisen, L. et al. A toolbox of Cre-dependent optogenetic transgenic mice for light-induced activation and silencing. Nat. Neurosci. 15, 793–802 (2012).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    He, M. et al. Cell-type-based analysis of microRNA profiles in the mouse brain. Neuron 73, 35–48 (2012).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Murray, A. J. et al. Parvalbumin-positive CA1 interneurons are required for spatial working but not for reference memory. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 297–299 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zeng, W. B. et al. Anterograde monosynaptic transneuronal tracers derived from herpes simplex virus 1 strain H129. Mol. Neurodegener 12, 38 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bru, T., Salinas, S. & Kremer, E. J. An update on canine adenovirus type 2 and its vectors. Viruses 2, 2134–2153 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Stephenson-Jones, M. et al. A basal ganglia circuit for evaluating action outcomes. Nature 539, 289–293 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Beier, K. T. et al. Circuit architecture of VTA dopamine neurons revealed by systematic input-output mapping. Cell 162, 622–634 (2015).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Clem, R. L. & Huganir, R. L. Calcium-permeable AMPA receptor dynamics mediate fear memory erasure. Science 330, 1108–1112 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Zhang, F., Wang, L. P., Boyden, E. S. & Deisseroth, K. Channelrhodopsin-2 and optical control of excitable cells. Nat. Methods 3, 785–792 (2006).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Chow, B. Y. et al. High-performance genetically targetable optical neural silencing by light-driven proton pumps. Nature 463, 98–102 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vardy, E. et al. A new DREADD facilitates the multiplexed chemogenetic interrogation of behavior. Neuron 86, 936–946 (2015).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Zhou, P. et al. Efficient and accurate extraction of in vivo calcium signals from microendoscopic video data. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07266 (2016).

  34. 34.

    Pnevmatikakis, E. A. et al. Simultaneous denoising, deconvolution, and demixing of calcium imaging data. Neuron 89, 285–299 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ragan, T. et al. Serial two-photon tomography for automated ex vivo mouse brain imaging. Nat. Methods 9, 255–258 (2012).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kim, Y. et al. Whole-brain mapping of neuronal activity in the learned helplessness model of depression. Front. Neural Circuits 10, 3 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G.D. Stuber for helping with the in vivo imaging experiments. We thank G.D. Stuber and J. Johansen for critically reading an earlier version of the manuscript, G.-R. Hwang for technical assistance and members of the Li laboratory for helpful discussions. This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01MH101214, B.L.), Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0015/2016, B.L.), NARSAD (23169, B.L., and 21227, S.A.), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81428010, B.L. and M.H., and 91432106, M.H.), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2016M590316, L.G.), Louis Feil Trust (B.L.), the Stanley Family Foundation (B.L.), Simons Foundation (344904, B.L.) and Wodecroft Foundation (to B.L.).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

K.Y. and B.L. conceived and designed the study. K.Y., S.A., X.Z. and H.S. conducted experiments (X.Z. performed the experiments in which LA neurons were imaged; S.A. and H.S. performed the experiments in which synaptic plasticity in LA neurons was examined; K.Y. conducted most of the remaining experiments). K.Y., X.Z., S.A. and H.S. analyzed data. C.R., L.F. and K.D. developed the intersectional viral strategy and provided critical reagents. F.Z. and M.-H.L. developed the H129-G4 viral system and performed the anterograde tracing with it. L.G. and M.H. performed imaging with the STPT. P.Z. and L.P. developed and assisted with the imaging analysis methods (CNMF and CNMF-E). B.L. wrote the paper with inputs from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bo Li.

Ethics declarations

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–18

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Supplementary Video 1

Extraction of the spatial and temporal components of neuronal activity from GCaMP6 signals in PKC-(+ CeL neurons imaged through GRIN lenses.Shown are videos of GCaMP6 signals from PKC-(+ CeL neurons in a representative mouse undergoing fear conditioning. These videos are short clips of movies stitched together, with each clip representing a trial (the onset of which is denoted by each of the solid black lines in the bottom right panel). These videos are played in synchrony, and represent the following contents: “raw data”, GCaMP6 signals without any processing; “background”, the background components in the raw data approximated with our model; “raw–background”, the remaining signals after subtraction of the background from the raw data; “denoised”, the denoised and deconvolved spatiotemporal activity for each neuron obtained from the “raw–background” signals using the CNMF-E; “residual”, the remaining signals. In the “denoised” video, the contours of 5 representative neurons are traced and numbered. The temporal activities of these 5 neurons are displayed in the bottom right panel, in which the moving line indicates the passage of time synchronized with all the videos; the stationary solid black lines denote the onsets of trials (and thus the junctions between the short movie clips); the dashed blue lines denote the onsets of CS; and the dashed red lines denote the onsets of US. Neurons #1-3 are shock-responsive neurons, whereas neurons #4 & 5 only show spontaneous activities. Of note, these denoised and deconvolved signals from adjacent neurons (e.g., #2 and #4) are easily separable. The scale bar beside each of the videos denotes (F values. See Methods for a more detailed description

Supplementary Video 2

Extraction of the spatial and temporal components of neuronal activity from GCaMP6 signals in LA neurons imaged through GRIN lenses. Description: Shown are videos of GCaMP6 signals from LA neurons in a representative mouse receiving tail shocks. These videos are short clips of movies stitched together, with each clip representing a trial (the onset of which is denoted by each of the solid black lines in the bottom right panel). These videos are played in synchrony, and represent the following contents: “raw data”, GCaMP6 signals without any processing; “background”, the background components in the raw data approximated with our model; “raw–background”, the remaining signals after subtraction of the background from the raw data; “denoised”, the denoised and deconvolved spatiotemporal activity for each neuron obtained from the “raw–background” signals using the CNMF-E; “residual”, the remaining signals. In the “denoised” video, the contours of 3 representative neurons are traced and numbered. The temporal activities of these 3 neurons are displayed in the bottom right panel, in which the moving line indicates the passage of time synchronized with all the videos; the stationary solid black lines denote the onsets of trials (and thus the junctions between the short movie clips); and the dashed red lines denote the onsets of shocks. Neurons #1 & 2 are shock-responsive neurons, whereas neurons #3 only shows spontaneous activities. Of note, these denoised and deconvolved signals from adjacent neurons are easily separable. For example, the signals from neuron #1 & 2 are not contaminated by signals from the adjacent neurons, which have high levels of spontaneous activities. The scale bar beside each of the videos denotes (F values. See Methods for a more detailed description.Shown are videos of GCaMP6 signals from LA neurons in a representative mouse receiving tail shocks. These videos are short clips of movies stitched together, with each clip representing a trial (the onset of which is denoted by each of the solid black lines in the bottom right panel). These videos are played in synchrony, and represent the following contents: “raw data”, GCaMP6 signals without any processing; “background”, the background components in the raw data approximated with our model; “raw–background”, the remaining signals after subtraction of the background from the raw data; “denoised”, the denoised and deconvolved spatiotemporal activity for each neuron obtained from the “raw–background” signals using the CNMF-E; “residual”, the remaining signals. In the “denoised” video, the contours of 3 representative neurons are traced and numbered. The temporal activities of these 3 neurons are displayed in the bottom right panel, in which the moving line indicates the passage of time synchronized with all the videos; the stationary solid black lines denote the onsets of trials (and thus the junctions between the short movie clips); and the dashed red lines denote the onsets of shocks. Neurons #1 & 2 are shock-responsive neurons, whereas neurons #3 only shows spontaneous activities. Of note, these denoised and deconvolved signals from adjacent neurons are easily separable. For example, the signals from neuron #1 & 2 are not contaminated by signals from the adjacent neurons, which have high levels of spontaneous activities. The scale bar beside each of the videos denotes (F values. See Methods for a more detailed description

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, K., Ahrens, S., Zhang, X. et al. The central amygdala controls learning in the lateral amygdala. Nat Neurosci 20, 1680–1685 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-017-0009-9

Download citation

Further reading

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