Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Cellular/Molecular

Mu Opioid Receptors Acutely Regulate Adenosine Signaling in Striatal Glutamate Afferents

Sweta Adhikary, Elizabeth R. Jaeckel and William T. Birdsong
Journal of Neuroscience 23 March 2022, 42 (12) 2404-2417; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1039-21.2022
Sweta Adhikary
1Vollum Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, 97229
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth R. Jaeckel
2Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William T. Birdsong
2Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for William T. Birdsong
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Activation of both µ opioid receptor and adenosine A1 receptor leads to inhibition of thalamo-striatal oEPSCs. A, An acute mouse brain slice example of overlaid brightfield and epifluorescent images showing the viral injection site (Mthal; left) and the axonal projections (Striatum; right). B, Schematic showing the locations of both A1Rs and MORs in the thalamo-striatal synapse. C, Representative oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and reversal by naloxone (1 μm; gray label). D, Representative oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by CPA (1 μm; orange label), and over-reversal by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). E, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells treated with morphine, followed by naloxone (dark circles; n = 8 cells, 4 mice), and for cells treated with CPA, followed by DPCPX (clear circles; n = 7 cells, 6 mice). F, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in baseline condition, after morphine perfusion, followed by naloxone (morphine: 0.80 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0002; naloxone: 0.98 ± 0.01 fraction of baseline, p = 0.002, n = 8 cells, 4 mice, F(2,14) = 17.29, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). G, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in baseline condition, after CPA perfusion, followed by DPCPX (CPA 0.37 ± 0.04 fraction of baseline, p < 0.0001; DPCPX: 1.3 ± 0.08 fraction of baseline, p < 0.0001, n = 7 cells, 6 mice, F(2,12) = 87.95, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Morphine inhibits adenosine tone in the thalamo-striatal synapse by activating MORs. A, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). B, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and lack of facilitation by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). C, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX (dark circles; n = 10 cells, 7 mice), and for cells superperfused with morphine and then DPCPX (clear circle; n = 6 cells, 4 mice). D, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control and after DPCPX (1.3 ± 0.06 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0003, n = 10 cells, 7 mice, t(9) = 5.752, ratio paired t test). E, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, after morphine superperfusion, and after DPCPX superperfusion. Morphine significantly inhibited oEPSC amplitude (morphine 0.78 ± 0.03 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0011; DPCPX: 0.77 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.04, and 0.99 ± 0.06 fraction of morphine, p = 0.84, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, F(2,10) = 14.00, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). F, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices from global MOR KO mice. G, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), lack of inhibition by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices from global MOR KO mice. H, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX (dark circles; n = 8 cells, 5 mice), and for cells superperfused with morphine and then DPCPX (clear circle; n = 6 cells, 3 mice). I, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control and after DPCPX (1.37 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0001, n = 8 cells, 5 mice, t(7) = 8.273, ratio paired t test). J, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, after morphine superperfusion, and after DPCPX superperfusion. Morphine did not inhibit oEPSC amplitude (morphine: 1.0 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.9863), and there was facilitation by DPCPX in the presence of morphine (1.4 ± 0.07 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0006, 1.3 ± 0.09 fraction morphine, p = 0.0008, n = 6 cells, 3 mice, F(2,12) = 17.46, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Morphine inhibits adenosine signaling via a cAMP-dependent mechanism. A, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by adenosine (100 μm; yellow label), washout of adenosine (gray label), and facilitation of oEPSC by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label) in naive conditions. B, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by adenosine (100 μm; yellow label), washout of adenosine (gray label), and lack of facilitation of oEPSC by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label) in slices preincubated in Ro-20-1724. C, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with adenosine followed by washout and then DPCPX in naive slices (dark circles, n = 6 cells, 4 mice) and in slices preincubated in Ro-20-1724 (n = 6 cells, 4 mice). D, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude for naive slices in baseline condition, after adenosine superperfusion, followed by a washout and then DPCPX. Adenosine significantly reduced oEPSC amplitude in naive slices, and DPCPX significantly facilitated oEPSC in these slices (adenosine 0.44 ± 0.07 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0094; washout: 1.0 ± 0.05 of baseline, p = 0.999, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, F(3,17) = 13.51, repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). E, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude for slices incubated in Ro-20-1724 in baseline condition, after adenosine superperfusion, followed by a washout and then DPCPX. Adenosine significantly reduced oEPSC amplitude in these slices (adenosine 0.52 ± 0.08 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0001; washout: 0.87 ± 0.06 of baseline, p = 0.0001, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, F(3,17) = 13.51, repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test), but DPCPX did not significantly facilitate oEPSCs in these slices (DPCPX: 0.96 ± 0.10 fraction of baseline, p = 0.8755, repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). F, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in control slices. G, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices preincubated in CGS21680. H, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices preincubated in SKF81290. I, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX in control condition (dark circles; n = 7 cells, 5 mice), for cells preincubated in SKF81290 (clear circles; n = 7 cells, 6 mice), and for cells preincubated in CGS21680 (gray circles; n = 6 cells, 4 mice). J, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, in slices preincubated in SKF81297, and CGS21680. The increase in amplitude induced by DPCPX was significantly higher in slices treated with SKF89217 (DPCPX 1.6 ± 0.11 fraction of baseline, p = 0.003) and in slices treated with CGS21680 (p < 0.001, F(5,32) = 32.24, one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test) compared with control slices. Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Inhibition of adenosine signaling by opioids is reversible. A, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by ME (1 μm; pink label), lack of facilitation by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), and an over-reversal of oEPSC after ME washout (gray label). B, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with ME, followed by DPCPX in the presence of ME, and then a washout of ME, but not DPCPX (n = 6 cells, 4 mice). C, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in baseline condition, after ME superperfusion, followed by DPCPX, and a washout of ME, but not DPCPX (ME 0.67 ± 0.03 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0002; DPCPX 0.56 ± 0.03 fraction of baseline, p < 0.0001; DPCPX 0.84 ± 0.05 fraction of ME, p = 0.2867, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, F(3,15) = 78.77, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    DORs and KORs do not mediate inhibition of adenosine signaling. A, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), lack of inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by deltorphin (300 nm; pink label), and facilitation by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). B, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), lack of inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by U69593 (1 μm; pink label), and facilitation by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). C, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with deltorphin (black circles), followed by DPCPX (n = 6 cells, 3 mice), and for cells superperfused with U69 (clear circles), followed by DPCPX (n = 6 cells, 4 mice). D, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in baseline condition, after deltorphin superperfusion, followed by DPCPX (deltorphin: 1.0 ± 0.04 fraction of baseline, p = 0.90; DPCPX: 1.42 ± 0.07 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0002, and 1.40 ± fraction of deltorphin, p = 0.0004, n = 6 cells, 3 mice, F(2,10) = 24.60, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). E, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in baseline condition, after U69593 superperfusion, followed by DPCPX (U69593: 1.02 ± 0.06 fraction of baseline, p = 0.9670; DPCPX: 1.6 ± 0.09 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0051, and 1.6 ± 0.13 fraction of U69593, p = 0.0035, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, F(2,10) = 12.24, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Presynaptic A1Rs and MORs inhibit thalamo-striatal oEPSCs. A, Representative traces of paired oEPSCs evoked by two optical stimuli (1 ms duration, 50 ms interval, 470 nm LED, cyan lines) from medial thalamic axons under baseline conditions (black) and in the presence of CPA (1 μm, orange) demonstrating a decrease in current amplitude. Right, oEPSCs from left normalized to the peak amplitude of the first oEPSC of the pair to demonstrate PPR between baseline and CPA conditions. B, Summary PPR data under baseline conditions and in the presence of CPA (1 μm) as in A, calculated as the peak amplitude of the second oEPSC/peak amplitude of first oEPSC (p = 0.027, n = 6 cells, 6 mice, t(7) = 3.085, ratio paired t test). C, Representative oEPSCs as in A, evoked under baseline conditions (black) and in the presence of DPCPX (200 nm, blue) plotted as absolute amplitude (left) or normalized to the peak of the first oEPSC (right). D, Summary PPR under baseline conditions and in the presence of DPCPX (200 nm) as in B (p = 0.020, n = 10 cells, 8 mice, t(9) = 2.836, ratio paired t test, n = 10 cells, 8 mice). E, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by DAMGO (1 μm; pink label), and reversal by naloxone (1 μm; gray label) in control mice expressing MORs in presynaptic terminals. F, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), lack of inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by DAMGO (1 μm; pink label), and no effect of naloxone (1 μm; gray label) in mice lacking MORs in presynaptic terminals. G, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DAMGO followed by naloxone in control mice (dark circles, n = 8 cells, 4 mice) and in mice lacking MORs in presynaptic terminals (clear circles, n = 7 cells, 6 mice). H, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in for control mice in baseline condition, after DAMGO superperfusion, followed by naloxone (DAMGO: 0.39 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p < 0.0001; naloxone: 0.80 ± 0.06 of baseline, n = 8 cells, 4 mice, F(2,14) = 29.9, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). I, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude for presynaptic MOR KO mice in baseline condition, after DAMGO perfusion, followed by naloxone (DAMGO: 0.99 ± 0.02 fraction of baseline, p = 0.6023; naloxone: 0.92 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.14, n = 7 cells, 6 mice, F(2,12) = 2.08, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Presynaptic MORs do not mediate morphine inhibition of tonic A1R activation. A, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label) in mice lacking MORs in presynaptic terminals. B, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), lack of inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and lack of facilitation by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). C, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX (dark circles; n = 8 cells, 4 mice), and for cells superperfused with morphine and then DPCPX (clear circle; n = 6 cells, 4 mice). D, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control and after DPCPX (1.3 ± 0.07 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0012, n = 8 cells, 4 mice, t(7) = 5.225, ratio paired t test). E, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, after morphine superperfusion, followed by DPCPX. Morphine did not inhibit oEPSC amplitude (morphine: 1.0 ± 0.07 fraction of baseline, p = 0.9935), and there was no facilitation by DPCPX in the presence of morphine (1.0 ± 0.07 fraction of baseline, p = 0.9119, and 1.0 ± 0.09 fraction of morphine, p = 0.9513, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, F(2,10) = 0.09141, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance. F, Representative oEPSCs evoked under baseline conditions (black), in the presence of DPCPX (200 nm, blue), and in the presence of the A2AR antagonist SCH58261 (100 nm) + DPCPX (gray). G, Experiment time course of averaged oESPCs across all cells under baseline conditions (black), in the presence of DPCPX (200 nm, blue bar), and in the presence of the A2AR antagonist SCH58261 (100 nm) + DPCPX (gray bar). H, Summary data plotting average peak amplitude for each cell under baseline, DPCPX, and DPCPX + SCH as in E and F (p = 0.008, F(1.77,12.37) = 7.702 repeated-measures one way ANOVA; p = 0.027 DPCPX vs baseline; p = 0.133 DPCPX + SCH vs baseline Tukey's multiple comparison, n = 8 cells, 5 mice).

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    MORs in D1R-expressing MSNs, but not D2R-expressing MSNs, regulate tonic A1R activation. A, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (100 nm; blue label, mice lacking MORs in D2R-expressing MSNs). B, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and lack of facilitation by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label) in mice lacking MORs in D2R-expressing MSNs. C, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX (dark circles; n = 6 cells, 4 mice), and for cells superperfused with morphine and then DPCPX (clear circle; n = 6 cells, 4 mice). D, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control and after DPCPX (DPCPX: 1.3 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0049, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, t(5) = 4.787, ratio paired t test). E, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, after morphine superperfusion, and after DPCPX superperfusion. Morphine significantly inhibited oEPSC amplitude (morphine: 0.76 ± 0.03 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0001), but there was no facilitation by DPCPX in the presence of morphine (DPCPX: 0.75 ± 0.02 fraction of baseline, and 0.99 ± 0.04 fraction of morphine, p = 0.9969, n = 6 cells, 4 mice, F(2,10) = 30.38, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). F, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices from mice lacking MORs from D1R-expressing MSNs. G, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices from mice lacking MORs from D1R-expressing MSNs. H, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX (dark circles; n = 5 cells, 3 mice), and for cells superperfused with morphine and then DPCPX (clear circle; n = 5 cells, 3 mice). I, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control and after DPCPX (DPCPX: 1.4 ± 0.09 fraction of baseline, p = 0.006, n = 5 cells, 3 mice, t(4) = 5.253, ratio paired t test). J, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, after morphine superperfusion, and after DPCPX superperfusion. Morphine inhibited oEPSC amplitude (morphine 0.72 ± 0.04 fraction of baseline, p = 0.013), and there was facilitation by DPCPX in the presence of morphine (1.14 ± 0.06 fraction of baseline, p = 0.06 and 1.51 ± 0.08 fraction of morphine, p = 0.0001, 5 cells, 3 mice, F(3,12) = 25.36, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Naloxone caused an over-reversal of oEPSC amplitude (1.30 ± 0.03 fraction of baseline, p = 0.004). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance. K, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices from mice with a partial MOR KO from D1R-expressing MSNs. L, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), inhibition by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label), in slices from mice with a partial MOR knockdown from D1R-expressing MSNs. M, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX (dark circles; n = 3 cells, 2 mice), and for cells superperfused with morphine and then DPCPX, followed by naloxone (clear circle; n = 3 cells, 2 mice). N, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control and after DPCPX (1.38 ± 0.22 fraction of baseline, p < 0.001, n = 6 cells, 5 mice, t(5) = 4.466, ratio paired t test). O, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, after morphine superperfusion, after DPCPX superperfusion, and after naloxone superperfusion. Morphine inhibited oEPSC amplitude (morphine: 0.70 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0003), and there was facilitation by DPCPX in the presence of morphine (DPCPX: 0.91 ± 0.06 fraction of baseline, p = 0.39, and 1.34 ± 0.06 fraction of morphine, p = 0.0086, 6 cells, 4 mice, F(3,15) = 27.12, repeated-measures one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Naloxone caused an over-reversal of oEPSC amplitude (1.2 ± 0.05 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0224). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    Summary data comparing DPCPX response in the absence and presence of morphine in mice across all genotypes. Ratio of DPCPX facilitation compared with baseline and in morphine condition in WT mice, mice lacking MORs in presynaptic thalamic terminals, postsynaptic D1R-expressing MSNs, and D2R-expressing genotypes. There was no difference in DPCPX responses across genotypes in baseline condition, but mice lacking MORs in D1R-positive MSNs had a higher facilitation by DPCPX in morphine condition compared with WT mice, mice lacking MORs in presynaptic thalamic terminals, and postsynaptic D2R-expressing MSNs (p = 0.03 compared with WT, p = 0.04 compared with presynaptic MOR KOs, and p = 0.03 compared with MOR KO in D2R-positive MSNs, one-way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Morphine regulates adenosine release in opioid-insensitive cortico-striatal circuit. A, An acute mouse brain slice example of overlaid brightfield and epifluorescent images showing the viral injection site (ACC; left) and the axonal projections recording site (Striatum; right). B, Schematic showing the locations of MORs and A1Rs in the cortico-striatal synapse. C, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label) and facilitation of oEPSC amplitude by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). D, Representative traces of oEPSCs evoked by 470 nm light (black label), lack of inhibition of oEPSC amplitude by morphine (1 μm; pink label), and lack of facilitation by DPCPX (200 nm; blue label). E, Plot of the time course of normalized oEPSC amplitude for cells superperfused with DPCPX (dark circles; n = 7 cells, 4 mice), and for cells superperfused with morphine and then DPCPX (clear circle; n = 6 cells, 5 mice). F, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control and after DPCPX (DPCPX: 1.42 ± 0.13 fraction of baseline, p = 0.0084, ratio paired t test). G, Mean summary data of normalized oEPSC amplitude in control, after morphine superperfusion, and after DPCPX superperfusion. Morphine did not inhibit oEPSC amplitude, and there was no facilitation by DPCPX in the presence of morphine (morphine: 1.08 ± 0.14 fraction of baseline, p = 0.9595; DPCPX: 0.99 ± 0.03 of baseline, p = 0.9593, and 0.99 ± 0.03 fraction of morphine, p = 0.9835, repeated-measures ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test). Line and error bars represent mean ± SEM. *Statistical significance.

  • Figure 11.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 11.

    Summary diagram of potential mechanism of morphine-mediated inhibition of tonic adenosine A1R signaling. Tonic A1R activation is able to inhibit glutamate release from MOR-expressing medial thalamic terminals and MOR-lacking ACC terminals in dorsomedial striatum. Morphine activation of MORs on D1-expressing MSNs decreases extracellular adenosine by inhibition of AC, which decreases extracellular striatal adenosine concentration, thereby decreasing A1R activation (and presumably A2AR activation) in a paracrine manner. Created using www.biorender.com.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 42 (12)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 42, Issue 12
23 Mar 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Mu Opioid Receptors Acutely Regulate Adenosine Signaling in Striatal Glutamate Afferents
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Mu Opioid Receptors Acutely Regulate Adenosine Signaling in Striatal Glutamate Afferents
Sweta Adhikary, Elizabeth R. Jaeckel, William T. Birdsong
Journal of Neuroscience 23 March 2022, 42 (12) 2404-2417; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1039-21.2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Mu Opioid Receptors Acutely Regulate Adenosine Signaling in Striatal Glutamate Afferents
Sweta Adhikary, Elizabeth R. Jaeckel, William T. Birdsong
Journal of Neuroscience 23 March 2022, 42 (12) 2404-2417; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1039-21.2022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • adenosine
  • opioids
  • striatum
  • synaptic transmission
  • thalamus

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • Muscarinic Acetylcholine M2 Receptors Regulate Lateral Habenula Neuron Activity and Control Cocaine Seeking Behavior
  • Sensorimotor Cortex GABA Moderates the Relationship between Physical Exertion and Assessments of Effort
  • Dual leucine zipper kinase regulates Dscam expression through a non-canonical function of the cytoplasmic poly(A)-binding protein
Show more Research Articles

Cellular/Molecular

  • Dual leucine zipper kinase regulates Dscam expression through a non-canonical function of the cytoplasmic poly(A)-binding protein
  • Selective ablation of Sod2 in astrocytes induces sex-specific effects on cognitive function, D-serine availability, and astrogliosis
  • Role of Voltage-Gated K+ Channels and K2P Channels in Intrinsic Electrophysiological Properties and Saltatory Conduction at Nodes of Ranvier of Rat Lumbar Spinal Ventral Nerves
Show more Cellular/Molecular
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.