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
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • 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
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

The Angiotensin Antagonist Losartan Modulates Social Reward Motivation and Punishment Sensitivity via Modulating Midbrain-Striato-Frontal Circuits

Xinqi Zhou, Ting Xu, Yixu Zeng, Ran Zhang, Ziyu Qi, Weihua Zhao, Keith M. Kendrick and Benjamin Becker
Journal of Neuroscience 18 January 2023, 43 (3) 472-483; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1114-22.2022
Xinqi Zhou
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
2Institute of Brain and Psychological Sciences, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu, 610066, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xinqi Zhou
Ting Xu
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yixu Zeng
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ran Zhang
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ziyu Qi
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Weihua Zhao
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Keith M. Kendrick
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Benjamin Becker
1The Center of Psychosomatic Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Center for Mental Health, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, MOE Key Laboratory for Neuroinformation, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Benjamin Becker
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Social deficits and dysregulations in dopaminergic midbrain-striato-frontal circuits represent transdiagnostic symptoms across psychiatric disorders. Animal models suggest that interactions between the dopamine (DA) and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may modulate learning and reward-related processes. The present study therefore examined the behavioral and neural effects of the Angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) antagonist losartan on social reward and punishment processing in humans. A preregistered randomized double-blind placebo-controlled between-subject pharmacological design was combined with a social incentive delay (SID) functional MRI (fMRI) paradigm during which subjects could avoid social punishment or gain social reward. Healthy volunteers received a single-dose of losartan (50 mg, n = 43, female = 17) or placebo (n = 44, female = 20). We evaluated reaction times (RTs) and emotional ratings as behavioral and activation and functional connectivity as neural outcomes. Relative to placebo, losartan modulated the reaction time and arousal differences between social punishment and social reward. On the neural level the losartan-enhanced motivational salience of social rewards was accompanied by stronger ventral striatum-prefrontal connectivity during reward anticipation. Losartan increased the reward-neutral difference in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and attenuated VTA associated connectivity with the bilateral insula in response to punishment during the outcome phase. Thus, losartan modulated approach-avoidance motivation and emotional salience during social punishment versus social reward via modulating distinct core nodes of the midbrain-striato-frontal circuits. The findings document a modulatory role of the renin-angiotensin system in these circuits and associated social processes, suggesting a promising treatment target to alleviate social dysregulations.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Social deficits and anhedonia characterize several mental disorders and have been linked to the midbrain-striato-frontal circuits of the brain. Based on initial findings from animal models we here combine the pharmacological blockade of the Angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) via losartan with functional MRI (fMRI) to demonstrate that AT1R blockade enhances the motivational salience of social rewards and attenuates the negative impact of social punishment via modulating the communication in the midbrain-striato-frontal circuits in humans. The findings demonstrate for the first time an important role of the AT1R in social reward processing in humans and render the AT1R as promising novel treatment target for social and motivational deficits in mental disorders.

  • dopamine
  • losartan
  • social reward
  • striatum
  • ventral tegmental area

Introduction

Adaptive processing of social feedback is vital for interpersonal functioning and mental health. According to the Research Domain Criteria framework dysregulations in these domains (social communication and reward/loss evaluation) and their underlying neural processes contribute to the development and maintenance of psychiatric disorders (Cuthbert and Insel, 2013). These domains may represent a transdiagnostic treatment target with the potential to improve social functioning. Dysregulations in midbrain-striato-prefrontal circuits have been increasingly established as a core pathogenic mechanism across psychiatric disorders (Russo and Nestler, 2013; Fenster et al., 2018). Human and animal studies suggest that this circuitry is involved in social reward and punishment processing (Dölen et al., 2013; Hung et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2021). Dopamine (DA) and its interactions with other neurotransmitter systems such as oxytocin play an important role in modulating social reward and punishment in these circuits (Nawijn et al., 2017; C. Grimm et al., 2021). However, direct pharmacological modulation of the DA systems commonly results in negative side effects (Pessiglione et al., 2006; O. Grimm et al., 2021) and effects of intranasal oxytocin are modulated by personal and contextual factors, including, e.g., sex, anxiety or social context (Bartz et al., 2011; Ma et al., 2018; Xin et al., 2020; Quintana et al., 2021). This poses a challenge for the clinical utility of these strategies.

Recent pharmacological studies in healthy humans have demonstrated that targeting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) via the Angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) antagonist losartan (an approved treatment for hypertension) can modulate reward, threat processing and learning and memory in the absence of negative side effects (Marvar et al., 2014; Reinecke et al., 2018; Pulcu et al., 2019; F. Zhou et al., 2019; Swiercz et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2022; R. Zhang et al., 2022). Earlier animal models suggest an interaction between the RAS and the central DA system, including a dense expression of RAS receptors in midbrain-striato-prefrontal circuits (Chai et al., 2000) and functionally significant Angiotensin II receptors located presynaptically on dopaminergic neurons (Mendelsohn et al., 1993; Brown et al., 1996). Losartan induced concentration-dependent inhibition of dopamine release via inactivation of AT1R (Narayanaswami et al., 2013), but also enhanced dopamine D1 receptor signaling which may contribute to both its effects on hypertension (D. Li et al., 2012) and reward-related processes (Maul et al., 2005; Hosseini et al., 2009). Together, the available evidence suggests that targeting the RAS via losartan may represent a promising candidate to modulate neural processing in midbrain-striatal-prefrontal circuits which mediate earlier stages of social and nonsocial reward processing to improve behavioral adaption (Izuma et al., 2008; Wake and Izuma, 2017; Gu et al., 2019; C. Grimm et al., 2021; Martins et al., 2021). Initial evidence for this strategy in humans comes from a recent study that demonstrated that a single dose of 50-mg losartan can modulate feedback-dependent learning in healthy individuals such that losartan enhanced the difference between loss and reward feedback learning rates and suppressed loss learning rates (Pulcu et al., 2019). While direct DA-mediated mechanisms of losartan cannot be interfered, it is conceivable that interactions between the RAS and the DA system may underly a modulation of the midbrain-striato-prefrontal circuits and associated functions such as reward-punishment balance.

We combined a preregistered randomized double-blind between-group placebo-controlled pharmacological experiment with a social incentive delay (SID) functional MRI (fMRI) paradigm (Nawijn et al., 2017) to examine whether social reward and punishment processing can be modulated by losartan, thus bridging the translational gap between animal models and human research as well as to determine losartan's clinical potential. Behavioral indices reflecting motivation and subsequent emotional impact of social feedback, neural indices during reward and punishment anticipation and outcome served as primary outcomes. Based on previous findings we hypothesized that losartan would (1) enhance differential processing of reward and punishment on the behavioral level (Pulcu et al., 2019), which on the neural level would be reflected in (2) enhanced differential activiation and connectivity in midbrain (i.e. ventral tegmental area, VTA), striatal and frontal circuits during social reward-punishment processing.

Materials and Methods

Design and participants

Ninety healthy participants (age range 18–27 years) were recruited for the randomized placebo-controlled between-subject pharmacological fMRI study which encompassed a single-dose administration of 50-mg losartan or placebo losartan or placebo tablets and subsequent administration of a social incentive delay fMRI paradigm (SID) with a demonstrated sensitivity to capture pharmacological modulations (Nawijn et al., 2017). A between-subject design was chosen to control for potential carry-over effects related to the repeated administration of the fMRI paradigm. All participants were free of a current or history of psychiatric or medical disorders as well as current and regular medication use. The present study thus represents a proof-of-concept trial examining whether losartan can modulate social reward and punishment processing on the behavioral and neural level. While this design in healthy subjects limits direct conclusions with respect to the effects in patients with mental disorders or effects on psychiatric symptoms, the pharmacological imaging approach provides an elegant strategy to promote a neurofunctional characterization of novel pharmacological strategies (Nathan et al., 2014; Wandschneider and Koepp, 2016) and can facilitate translational progress (for losartan, see also Stout and Risbrough, 2019). Further exclusion criteria for the participants included color blindness; systolic/diastolic blood pressure >130/90 or <90/60 mmHg; any endocrinological abnormalities or contraindications for losartan administration and MRI. Participants were asked to abstain from caffeinated drinks on the day of the assessment (e.g., coffee, tea, energy beverages).

Two participants were excluded because their baseline blood pressure was outside our predefined criteria, one participant was excluded because of technical failure during MRI acquisition. N = 87 subjects (N = 43, 26 males, losartan; N = 44, 24 males, placebo; Table 1) were included in the final analyses. Given the complexity of the modeling and fMRI analyses the sample size was based on recent between-subject pharmacological studies employing samples of 30–45 subjects to determine behavioral and neural effects of losartan (F. Zhou et al., 2019; Shkreli et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2022; R. Zhang et al., 2022).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Participant demographics and control measures

Pharmacological and experimental procedure

Participants were stratified for sex and randomly allocated to treatment. Treatment was packed in identical capsules, counterbalanced across sexes and dispensed by an independent researcher. To reduce potential confounding effects of early life stress (Birn et al., 2017), impulsiveness, sensitivity to punishment and reward on reward-related neural processing the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; e.g., “Not enough to eat”), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS; e.g., “I plan tasks carefully”), and Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ, “Do you often refrain from doing something because you are afraid of it being illegal”) were administered at baseline (Fig. 1A; Barratt, 1959; Torrubia et al., 2001; Bernstein et al., 2003). Given that after oral administration losartan peak plasma levels are reached after 90 min with a terminal elimination half-life ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 h (Ohtawa et al., 1993; Lo et al., 1995; Sica et al., 2005) the experimental paradigm started 90 min after treatment (see also Mechaeil et al., 2011; F. Zhou et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2022; R. Zhang et al., 2022). Losartan rapidly crosses the blood-brain barrier (Z. Li et al., 1993; Culman et al., 1999) and while effects at central receptors have been observed after 30 min after, i.e., administration effects on cardiovascular indices only become apparent after 3 h (Ohtawa et al., 1993; Pulcu et al., 2019; F. Zhou et al., 2019). To further control for potential confounding effects of losartan on cardiovascular activity blood pressure and heart rate were assessed before drug administration, as well as before and after the SID fMRI paradigm (Fig. 1A). To control for nonspecific affective effects of losartan the affective state of participants was tracked throughout the experiment via the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Positive and Negative Affective Scale (PANAS) which were administered before drug administration, at the time of peak plasma concentrations and after the experiment (Spielberger et al., 1983; Watson et al., 1988). The subsequent affective impact of losartan-induced changes on social feedback processing was assessed via ratings of the cues before treatment, after fMRI, and following feedback stimuli after fMRI (Fig. 1A). After the entire experiment, participants were asked to guess the treatment they received.

Written informed consent was obtained, the study was approved by the local institutional ethics committee, all procedures followed the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures were preregistered (NCT04604756; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04604756). In the preregistration modulatory effects on the VTA-striato-frontal brain activity served as primary outcomes while effects on the behavioral level served as secondary outcomes. The analyses on the network level were not preregistered and are thus exploratory in nature.

Social incentive delay task

We employed a validated social incentive delay (SID) fMRI paradigm (Nawijn et al., 2017). The paradigm presents condition-specific cues (positive, negative, neutral) which signal that a social reward can be obtained or a social punishment can be avoided (anticipation). Next, participants undergo a reaction time (RT) task which is followed by the presentation of a possibility-dependent social reward, punishment or neutral feedback (outcome; Fig. 1B,C). Participants received task instructions and a practice session before the formal experiment. During the practice session, all participants were informed about the types of outcomes that might be presented and that the corresponding outcome might or might not occur (no information on the probability was provided). During the formal paradigm 27 trials for reward and punishment conditions, and 18 trials for the neutral condition were presented (pseudo-randomized). Each trial started with presentation of a geometric cue indicating the trial type (circle: reward, triangle: punishment, and square: neutral; Fig. 1C). After a delay, the target was presented in the center of the screen and participants were required to press a button as fast as possible. Responses within target presentation time represented hits while omissions or responses outside of target presentation time represented misses. To facilitate a balanced and sufficient number of trials to support a robust analysis on the neural level the number of trials for each outcome was adopted by means of an adaptive algorithm. To this end, trial-wise reaction times (RTs) were recorded in real-time and employed to adjust the duration of the next target presentation to the individual performance. To this end, individual RTs were used to tailor the duration of target presentation to individual performance. The total duration consisted of the baseline time (500 ms) and a change time based on the adaptive algorithm that was initially evaluated in an independent sample with comparable demographic characteristic. If the response time of the participant exceeded the target time on a given trial for the reward condition the duration of the next target in the reward condition was increased by 60 ms, in case the participant responded in time the duration of the next trial was decreased by 40 ms. For the punishment condition an increase of 20 ms or a decrease of 70 ms was employed. The individual adaptation in terms of increasing or decreasing the target duration times allowed to yield approximately 66.7% of reward-cue and punishment-cue trials being followed by social reward or punishment, respectively. This resulted in a performance-dependent sufficient number of reward (hit) feedback trials (±18) and punishment (miss) feedback trials (±18) for further analyses. The target was followed by an adaptive intertrial interval and presentation of the condition-dependent and performance-dependent outcome. In the social reward condition hits resulted in rewarding social feedback, i.e., a smiling person in thumbs-up pose, while misses resulted in neutral feedback, i.e., scrambled picture of the person. In the social punishment condition hits allowed avoidance of social punishment (neutral feedback), while misses resulted in social punishment feedback, i.e., a person with a contemptuous look in thumbs-down pose. For neutral trials, both hits and misses resulted in neutral feedback. The experimental materials for the outcome were initially collected and rated by an independent sample. To further explore the subsequent emotional effects of the paradigm participants rated perceived arousal, likeability, dislikeability, intensity, valence of cues and outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale after the fMRI session (Fig. 1A). In line with previous studies (Cremers et al., 2014; Nawijn et al., 2017), scrambled pictures were used as neutral outcomes to provide a close match in the perceptual features of the stimuli and control for potential differences in the salience of social and nonsocial stimuli.

Behavioral analysis

To maintain the trial-specific information of the SID task and increase sensitivity, a linear mixed model (R package 'lme4') was used with condition (social reward, punishment, neutral) and treatment (losartan, placebo) as two fixed factors and subject as random factor to account for individual adaptations of reaction time windows. Trials with no responses and RTs ±3 SD on the individual level were removed.

Treatment effects on emotional perception ratings of cues and outcomes were examined with separate ANOVA and liner mixed models. The ANOVA on the affective ratings of the cues was conducted employing the R package 'afex' (https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex) with condition (reward, punishment, and neutral) and time (before and after experiment) as within-subject factors, and treatment (losartan and placebo) as between-subjects factor. To match the RT analysis and enhance the sensitivity a liner mixed model was used to analyze the ratings of outcome cues with condition (social reward, social punishment, and neutral control) and treatment (losartan and placebo) as fixed factors and subject as a random factor.

MRI data acquisition and preprocessing

MRI data were acquired using a 3.0 Tesla GE MR750 system (General Electric Medical System). T1-weight high-resolution anatomic images were acquired with a spoiled gradient echo pulse sequence, repetition time (TR) = 6 ms, echo time (TE) = 2 ms, flip angle = 12°, field of view (FOV) = 256 × 256 mm, acquisition matrix = 256 × 256, slice thickness = 1 mm, voxel size = 1 × 1 × 1 mm. Functional data were acquired using a T2*-weight echo planar imaging (EPI) sequence with the following parameters: TR = 2000 ms, TE = 30 ms, flip angle = 90°, acquisition matrix = 64 × 64, slice thickness = 3 mm, and 39 slices with an interleaved ascending order. Head movements were minimized by using comfortable head cushions. For each participant 318 volumes were collected.

Preprocessing was fully implemented in fMRIPrep 20.2.1 (RRID:SCR_016216; Esteban et al., 2019), which is based on Nipype 1.5.1 (RRID:SCR_002502; Gorgolewski et al., 2011), except for smoothing with a Gaussian kernel at full width at half maximum (FWHM, 8 × 8×8 mm) conducted in SPM12 (Welcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK; www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm; Friston et al., 1994). For details about fMRIPrep steps, please see the following two sections.

Anatomical data preprocessing

A total of T1-weighted (T1w) images were found within the input BIDS dataset. The T1-weighted (T1w) image was corrected for intensity nonuniformity (INU) with N4BiasFieldCorrection (Tustison et al., 2010), distributed with ANTs 2.3.3 (RRID:SCR_004757), and used as T1w-reference throughout the workflow. The T1w-reference was then skull-stripped with a Nipype implementation of the antsBrainExtraction.sh workflow (from ANTs), using OASIS30ANTs as target template. Brain tissue segmentation of CSF, white matter (WM), and gray matter (GM) was performed on the brain-extracted T1w using fast (FSL 5.0.9, RRID:SCR_002823; Y. Zhang et al., 2001). Brain surfaces were reconstructed using recon-all (FreeSurfer 6.0.1, RRID:SCR_001847), and the brain mask estimated previously was refined with a custom variation of the method to reconcile ANTs-derived and FreeSurfer-derived segmentations of the cortical gray matter of Mindboggle (RRID:SCR_002438; Klein et al., 2017). Volume-based spatial normalization to the standard space (MNI152NLin6Asym) was performed through nonlinear registration with antsRegistration (ANTs 2.3.3), using brain-extracted versions of both T1w reference and the T1w template. The following templates were selected for spatial normalization: FSL's MNI ICBM 152 nonlinear sixth Generation Asymmetric Average Brain Stereotaxic Registration Model (RRID:SCR_002823; TemplateFlow ID: MNI152NLin6Asym; Evans et al., 2012).

Functional data preprocessing

For each of the two BOLD runs found per subject (across all tasks and sessions), the following preprocessing was performed. First, a reference volume and its skull-stripped version were generated using a custom methodology of fMRIPrep. Susceptibility distortion correction (SDC) was omitted. The BOLD reference was then co-registered to the T1w reference using bbregister (FreeSurfer) which implements boundary-based registration (Greve and Fischl, 2009). Co-registration was configured with six degrees of freedom. Head-motion parameters with respect to the BOLD reference (transformation matrices, and six corresponding rotation and translation parameters) are estimated before any spatiotemporal filtering using mcflirt (FSL 5.0.9; Jenkinson et al., 2002). BOLD runs were slice-time corrected using 3dTshift from AFNI 20160207 (RRID:SCR_005927; Cox and Hyde, 1997). The BOLD time-series (including slice-timing correction when applied) were resampled onto their original, native space by applying the transforms to correct for head-motion. These resampled BOLD time-series will be referred to as preprocessed BOLD in original space, or just preprocessed BOLD. The BOLD time-series were resampled into several standard spaces, correspondingly generating the following spatially-normalized, preprocessed BOLD runs: MNI152NLin6Asym. First, a reference volume and its skull-stripped version were generated using a custom methodology of fMRIPrep. The head-motion estimates calculated in the correction step were placed within the corresponding confounds file. The confound time series derived from head motion estimates and global signals were expanded with the inclusion of temporal derivatives and quadratic terms for each (Satterthwaite et al., 2013). All resamplings can be performed with a single interpolation step by composing all the pertinent transformations (i.e., head-motion transform matrices, susceptibility distortion correction when available, and co-registrations to anatomic and output spaces). Gridded (volumetric) resamplings were performed using antsApplyTransforms (ANTs), configured with Lanczos interpolation to minimize the smoothing effects of other kernels (Lanczos, 1964). Nongridded (surface) resamplings were performed using mri_vol2surf (FreeSurfer).

Many internal operations of fMRIPrep use Nilearn 0.6.2 (RRID:SCR_001362; Abraham et al., 2014), mostly within the functional processing workflow. For more details of the pipeline, see the section corresponding to workflows in fMRIPrep's documentation.

Individual-level and group-level BOLD fMRI analyses

On the first-level the SID task was modeled employing the hemodynamic response function (HRF) and corresponding derivatives on the onsets of the experimental conditions, i.e., cue, target, and outcome. The three different types of anticipation were modeled according to the cues signaling a potential social reward, social punishment, and neutral outcome. In line with previous studies the cue and subsequent delay were modeled as anticipation period (Rademacher et al., 2010; Lawn et al., 2020; D. Zhang et al., 2020; Faulkner et al., 2021). In line with the potential response pattern of the participants, five different types of outcome were modeled, including reward or neutral feedback in reward trials, punishment or neutral feedback in punishment trials, and neutral feedback in neutral trials. Additional confound regressors in the SPM statistical model included target responses and head motion as defined by six rigid movement parameters from the motion correction.

On the group level effects of treatment were examined employing mixed ANOVA analyses with the factors (condition, treatment) for each phase. Based on our a priori regional-specific hypotheses atlas-based masks for the ventral striatum, dorsal striatum, and ventral tegmental area (VTA) were selected as regions of interest (ROIs). The striatal masks were created based on the brainnetome atlas that used a connectivity-based parcellation framework which integrates information from both anatomic and functional connections (Fan et al., 2016). We employed corresponding striatal masks from this atlas in our previous studies examining striatal alterations in addiction (X. Zhou et al., 2019, 2020) and pharmacological modulation of intrinsic striatal networks (Zhao et al., 2019). To facilitate a precise mapping of small regions such as the VTA we used a recently published probabilistic atlas that capitalized on ultra-high field 7 T MRI to generate anatomically precise VTA maps (Trutti et al., 2021).

Exploratory functional connectivity analysis

No effect of condition was observed during anticipation in our a priori defined network encompassing the VS/DS/VTA (Fig. 2). To determine the social reward-punishment networks, we next examined neural activity during receipt of feedback [reward+punishment–neutral] in the entire sample. Results revealed that social feedback induced stronger activity in regions involved in salience, value and social processes, including insula, striatum, dorsal medial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), and occipital lobe (Fig. 2C).

Based on our a priori regional hypotheses, combined with the a priori defined VS/DS/VTA masks and neural activity during receipt of feedback, three peak coordinates (VS: [22/−6/−10], DS: [−14/−2/−8], VTA: [10/−14/−12]) were identified to construct spherical seeds with 6 mm radius which served as seeds for the generalized psychophysiological interactions (gPPI) analysis (McLaren et al., 2012). The extracted BOLD time series from the subregion-specific seeds were treated as main physiological factors in the gPPI first level design matrix. In line with the BOLD level analysis session-specific regressors for the experimental conditions (reward, punishment) and identical control regressors were additionally included in the first level design matrix and motion parameters were included to improve motion control. Treatment effects were determined by comparing the seed-region-specific connectivity maps by means of mixed ANOVA analyses with the factors (condition, treatment) on the whole brain level (separately for each phase). To further disentangle significant interaction effects parameter estimates were extracted from regions exhibiting significant interaction effects involving treatment.

Thresholding

ROI analyses were conducted in the R package 'afex,' and the statistical significance level set to p < 0.05. On the whole-brain level an initial cluster-forming threshold was set to voxel level p < 0.001, and statistical significance was determined via cluster-level inference and familywise error (FWE) control for multiple comparisons with pFWE < 0.05 (Slotnick, 2017).

Data availability

Unthresholded group-level statistical maps are available via the OSF (https://osf.io/mnda4/). Other data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Results

Participants

Treatment groups (losartan, n = 43; placebo, n = 44) exhibited comparable sociodemographic and psychometric characteristics (Table 1). During the experiment no differences in baseline assessments or changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and emotional state were observed between the treatment groups and total guess accuracy was 52.87%, together arguing against the impact of potential confounders and unspecific effects of losartan.

Affective impact of the experimental manipulation

With respect to cue ratings, the ANOVA revealed significant main effects of arousal (time, F(1,84) = 17.04, p < 0.001; condition, F(1.94,162.62) = 13.58, p < 0.001), likeability (time, F(1,84) = 17.04, p < 0.001; condition, F(1.87,157.23) = 13.58, p < 0.001), dislikeability (condition, F(1.93,162.09) = 15.98, p < 0.001), intensity (time, F(1,84) = 35.85, p < 0.001; condition, F(1.97,165.82) = 10.42, p < 0.001), valence (condition, F(1.97,165.56) = 18.27, p < 0.001), and interaction effects of condition and time on likeability (F(1.94,163.02) = 6.37, p = 0.002) and dislikeability (F(1.95,163.92) = 3.22, p = 0.044). No significant treatment main or interaction effects were observed on cue ratings. The significant effect of time indicated that the experiment successfully induced stimulus-outcome associations.

Losartan effects on reaction time and affective response to outcome stimuli

The linear mixed model revealed a significant interaction effect (F(2,5984) = 3.706, p = 0.025; Fig. 1D; Table 2) between condition and treatment on reaction times indicating that losartan induced significantly stronger differences between social punishment versus social reward as compared with placebo (t(1997) = 2.679, p = 0.007), reflecting a possibility of losartan mediated the approach-avoidance motivation of social feedback. The main effects of treatment and condition were not significant.

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

Schematic depiction of the experimental protocols and the experimental paradigm. A, The entire experimental procedure encompassed baseline assessment, drug administration, assessments before fMRI (corresponding to estimated peak plasma levels) and after fMRI acquisition. BP = blood pressure, HR = heart rate, LT = losartan, PLC = placebo, STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. B, Schematic representation of the trial structure in the SID paradigm. Each trial started with a 500-ms cue presentation (circle, reward trial; square, neutral trials, and triangle, punishment trials) followed by a delay (jittered between 1000 and 3000 ms). Next, the target appeared with a duration adjusted to the individual response time. After an interstimulus interval (ISI; 2000 ms, target duration), the outcome was presented for 1500 ms, followed by an intertrial interval (ITI) with a duration jittered between 1000 and 3000 ms. C, Cues and corresponding outcomes (for display only) per trial type. By means of an adaptive algorithm that increased or decreased target durations, the rate of reward and punishment feedback was adapted across subjects. This ensured that 66.7% of reward-cue and punishment-cue trials were followed by social reward or punishment, respectively. The neutral cue was always followed by neutral feedback. Estimated marginal mean and stand error of reaction time (D), arousal rating (E), and dislikeability rating (F) are presented. * and ** denote relevant significant post hoc differences at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Losartan effects on reaction time and affective response to outcome stimuli

Examining effects of the experimental manipulation and treatment on the affective evaluation by means of a linear mixed model revealed a significant condition main (F(2,1997) = 404.983, p < 0.0001; Fig. 1E) and condition times treatment interaction effect (F(2,1997) = 4.914, p = 0.007) on arousal ratings for outcomes. Post hoc analyses showed that losartan increased the reward-punishment difference (t(1997) = 2.390, p = 0.017) and decreased punishment-neutral difference (t(1997) = −2.952, p = 0.003) relative to placebo. With respect to dislikeability ratings for the outcomes, a linear mixed model revealed significant condition main (F = 633.848, p < 0.0001; Fig. 1F), and condition times treatment interaction effects (F = 3.413, p = 0.033). Post hoc tests showed that losartan increased the punishment-neutral difference (t(1997) = 2.597, p = 0.0095) relative to placebo. No significant treatment main or interaction effects were observed on other outcome ratings (see Table 2).

Losartan effects on neural activation during anticipation and outcome phase

No significant main or interaction effects of treatment were observed in the a priori ROI analyses on extracted parameter estimates during anticipation. An exploratory whole-brain analysis confirmed the lack of significant treatment main and interaction effects (at pFWE < 0.05). During the outcome phase a significant treatment times condition effect was observed in the VTA (F(2,163) = 3.24, p = 0.0435), reflecting that losartan significantly increased the difference between reward and neutral (t(85) = 2.407, p = 0.0172) as well as between reward and punishment (t(85) = 1.924, p = 0.056, marginal significant). For significant main effects of condition during the anticipation and outcome phase at whole-brain level, see Figure 2 and Table 3.

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

Brain activity during the Social Incentive Delay (SID) task. A, shows the main condition effect during the anticipation phase. B, shows the main condition effect during the outcome phase. C, shows the neural activity during the receipt of social feedback [reward + punishment - neutral]. Activation maps are displayed at a whole-brain cluster level pFWE < 0.05 (initial cluster forming threshold uncorrected p < 0.001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Brain activity during SID task

Losartan effects on VS-networks during anticipation

On the network level significant interaction effects between condition and treatment were found for the VS during anticipation but for the VTA during the outcome phase (all findings passed whole-brain pFWE < 0.05; Fig. 3; Table 4). Subsequent Post hoc tests revealed that losartan significantly modulated VS-middle frontal gyrus (MFG) connectivity during neutral-punishment (t(85) = 2.541, p = 0.0119), punishment-reward (t(85) = −3.910, p = 0.0001), and between social reward feedback (t(85) = 2.451, p = 0.0151) processes, with the effects being driven by enhanced coupling during social reward anticipation.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Functional connectivity results

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

Effects of losartan on the network level. A, Seeds of interest, i.e., VS and VTA. B, Regions exhibiting significant conditions times treatment interaction effects during anticipation and outcome phases. C, Post hoc tests on extracted parameters from each significant cluster. VS = ventral striatum VTA = ventral tegmental area, SFG = superior frontal gyrus, MFG = middle frontal gyrus, LT = losartan, PLC = placebo, *, **, ***, and **** denote relevant significant post hoc differences at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.0001, respectively.

Losartan effects on VTA-networks during outcome

In contrast, losartan specifically modulated VTA-networks during outcome, such that losartan modulated VTA-insula (left) connectivity during the neutral-punishment pattern (t(85) = 2.613, p = 0.0098), the punishment-reward pattern (t(85) = −4.671, p < 0.0001), the neutral-reward pattern (t(85) = −2.059, p = 0.0410), and within social punishment (t(85) = −2.012, p = 0.0456) and social reward (t(85) = 3.128, p = 0.002) respectively. In addition, losartan modulated both VTA-insula (right) and VTA-SFG connectivity for neutral-punishment(t(85) = 5.023, p < 0.0001; t(85) = −3.127, p = 0.0021) and punishment-reward patterns (t(85) = −3.683, p = 0.0003; t(85) = 4.368, p < 0.0001; Fig. 3C). Losartan also changed VTA-insula (right) connectivity in social punishment (t(85) = −2.512, p = 0.0128) and neutral (t(85) = 3.13, p = 0.002), VTA-superior frontal gyrus (SFG) connectivity in social punishment (t(85) = 3.613, p = 0.0004). A direct comparison between treatments revealed consistent effects of losartan on processing of social punishment feedback, such that it decreased VTA communication with the bilateral insula, yet enhanced VTA communication with the SFG.

Discussion

The present pharmacological fMRI trial aimed to determine whether targeting the RAS system via losartan can modulate social reward and punishment processing via modulating VTA-striatal-frontal circuits. On the behavioral level losartan modulated the motivational significance of social reward and punishment during anticipation while affecting the subsequent affective evaluation of social stimuli. On the neural level the enhanced motivational significance was reflected by increased coupling between the VS and MFG during anticipation of social rewards. During the outcome phase losartan enhanced neural signals of the reward-neutral difference in the VTA while attenuating VTA-insula communication and concomitantly enhancing VTA-SFG communication during social punishment. Notably, several of our preregistered predictions with respect to a losartan-induced modulation of regional brain activity during the anticipation and outcome of social reward and punishment were not confirmed (except effects on the VTA). Instead, the results from the exploratory network level analyses provided a more complex picture of the regulatory effects of losartan on VTA-striato-frontal communication during reward-related processes. Together, these findings provide first insights into the regulatory role of the renin-angiotensin system on meso-striato-cortical pathways that may underly effects in the domain of punishment and reward processing.

On the behavioral level losartan modulated the motivational significance and arousal experience for social punishment relative to social reward feedback, an effect that was mainly driven by prolonged reaction times during anticipation of and subsequently reduced arousal reaction toward social punishment stimuli. These findings partly align with observations in previous studies, such that following losartan healthy subjects perceived loss outcomes as being less informative resulting in an attenuated loss learning rate (Pulcu et al., 2019), and exhibited accelerated extinction, and decreased autonomous arousal, neural fear expression and an attenuated memory advantage for negative material (F. Zhou et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2022; R. Zhang et al., 2022). Together, these observations indicate that losartan may attenuate the impact of negative information thus promoting a relative higher influence of anticipatory motivation and postencounter learning toward positive information.

On the neural level, the modulation of the approach-avoidance motivation between negative and positive social information was accompanied by a modulation of VS-frontal circuits, such that losartan reduced VS-MFG connectivity during anticipation of social punishment but increased connectivity in this circuit during anticipation of social reward. Convergent evidence suggests that the VS plays a key role in dopamine-mediated anticipatory and motivational processes (Izuma et al., 2008; Gu et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2021). While the present study did not find a direct association between VS functional connectivity and behavior previous studies suggest that the pathways between the VS and frontal regions are critically involved in associated social processes including motivational and reinforcing aspects of social interactions (Murugan et al., 2017; Modi and Sahin, 2019). In patients with marked social impairments pharmacological modulation of the coupling between VS and MFG has been associated with improved computation of future positive social outcomes (I. Gordon et al., 2016; Greene et al., 2018), and effects on this circuit may thus reflect a potential mechanism via which losartan can increase social motivation.

In contrast to the modulation of VS-centered circuits during the anticipation stage, losartan specifically modulated VTA activity as well as its connectivity with insular and frontal regions during the outcome phase. During the social feedback presentation stage losartan increased the differential processing of rewarding feedback from both, negative as well as neutral feedback in the VTA. The VTA represents a pivotal node in dopamine-modulated reward processing and learning circuits (Averbeck and Costa, 2017; Sharpe et al., 2017; C. Grimm et al., 2021) and together with the amygdala drives dopaminergic signaling in response to social stimuli (Modi and Sahin, 2019; C. Grimm et al., 2021), suggesting that losartan rendered positive social signals as more salient. In contrast, losartan specifically decreased coupling of the VTA with the bilateral mid-posterior insula in response to social punishment. The insula plays a key role in salience and interoceptive information processing, with the mid-posterior insula being involved in representing the intensity of aversive experiences (Uddin, 2015; F. Zhou et al., 2020). This suggests that losartan may have attenuated the aversive emotional impact of negative social feedback on the insula leading to lower arousal ratings for the negative social stimuli following the experiment.

From a functional neuroanatomy perspective losartan modulated neural activity and connectivity of distinct key nodes of the midbrain-striatal system during different aspects of social feedback processing. Thus, VS connectivity was specifically affected during anticipation while VTA networks (networks) were modulated during outcome. This dissociation aligns with the distinct functions of these core nodes in feedback-associated social and nonsocial processes (X. Zhou et al., 2019; E.M. Gordon et al., 2021; Suzuki et al., 2021). The VTA encompasses the majority of dopaminergic cell bodies and is strongly involved in predicting outcomes including social error signals and guiding flexible adaptation (Birn et al., 2017; Hétu et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2019; C. Grimm et al., 2021), whereas the VS which receives dopaminergic projections from the VTA, is strongly involved in appetitive motivation and reward-expectation for both social and nonsocial feedback (Gu et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2021) while the DS is stronger involved in learning, action initiation, and habit formation (Klugah-Brown et al., 2020; Suzuki et al., 2021). Although most of these functions encompass social as well as nonsocial processes, their critical role in reward and punishment processing critically influences social behavior (Murugan et al., 2017; Modi and Sahin, 2019; Zhang and Gläscher, 2020). The process-specific effects of losartan on distinct nodes may reflect that the RAS plays a complex role in regulating social reward and punishment processes.

Social deficits such as decreased social motivation or a hypersensitivity to social punishment represent a core symptom across several mental disorders, including depression (Russo and Nestler, 2013; D. Zhang et al., 2020), social anxiety disorder (Cremers et al., 2014), post-traumatic stress disorder (Fenster et al., 2018), autism spectrum disorder (Delmonte et al., 2013), and schizophrenia (Mow et al., 2020). Together with accumulating evidence from previous studies (Reinecke et al., 2018; Pulcu et al., 2019; F. Zhou et al., 2019), our findings suggest that losartan may have a promising potential to enhance social motivation to obtain rewards while decreasing sensitivity to punishment in social contexts and attenuate these dysregulations in patient populations.

Findings and interpretation need to be considered within the context of limitations. First, research in humans has only recently begun to explore the role of the renin-angiotensin system in cognitive, emotional and reward-related processes and the underlying neurobiological mechanisms (Reinecke et al., 2018; F. Zhou et al., 2019). An overarching framework of the regulatory role of the renin-angiotensin system in these domains is therefore currently lacking which limits the mechanistic interpretation of the present findings. Second, the proof-of-concept study was conducted in healthy individuals. Together with animal and population based studies pharmacological imaging studies in healthy subjects represent important steps to determine the translational potential of losartan (e.g., see also Marvar et al., 2014; F. Zhou et al., 2019; Seligowski et al., 2021). However, it is still possible that the novel strategy fails in patients (Stein et al., 2021) or effects are overshadowed by strong expectancy effects (Torregrossa, 2021). Effects in patients and on the symptomatic level thus need to be systematically examined. Third, given that our present study is the first to examine losartan effects on social reward we focused on a single dose. Although the findings may provide indirect support for a RAS and DA system interaction the lack of direct measures of DA functioning limit conclusions in this respect. Chronic and dose-dependent effects of losartan on midbrain-striatal-frontal circuits [see Kou et al. (2022) for acute vs chronic effects of a neuropeptide] as well as alternative mechanisms such as systemic effects of losartan on lipid and glucose metabolism (Schupp et al., 2006) remain to be addressed in future studies. Fourth, an additional analysis found that the guess accuracy for the correct treatment was significantly higher in the placebo group, which indicates that most of participants were considering to be under placebo. Although an additional analysis did not reveal interaction effects between treatment guess and treatment the high rates of placebo treatment expectation in both groups may have led to an attenuation of the treatment effects. Finally, we focused on social reward processing which may be more relevant for the clinical application and may have a higher ecological validity. Although some initial studies indicate that losartan may affect reward and punishment processing in monetary reinforcement learning paradigms (Pulcu et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2022), future studies are required to investigate whether the effects generalize to nonsocial feedback in incentive delay paradigms and to other types of natural rewards.

In conclusion, the present findings demonstrate that targeting the RAS via losartan modulates the VTA-striatal-frontal circuits during social feedback processing. Losartan modulated the motivational significance of social reward versus punishment feedback and concomitantly modulated the VS-prefrontal pathways. During the outcome phase losartan attenuated VTA-insula coupling during social punishment suggesting attenuated sensitivity to social punishment. Together with the excellent safety profile of losartan the findings may suggest a therapeutic property to enhance social motivation and attenuate the impact of negative social feedback.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC) Grants 82271583 and 32250610208, the Ministry of Science and Technology Brain Project 2022ZD0208500 (MOST2030), and the National Key Research and Development Program Grant 2018YFA0701400 of China.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Benjamin Becker at ben_becker{at}gmx.de

SfN exclusive license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abraham A,
    2. Pedregosa F,
    3. Eickenberg M,
    4. Gervais P,
    5. Mueller A,
    6. Kossaifi J,
    7. Gramfort A,
    8. Thirion B,
    9. Varoquaux G
    (2014) Machine learning for neuroimaging with scikit-learn. Front Neuroinform 8:14. doi:10.3389/fninf.2014.00014 pmid:24600388
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Averbeck BB,
    2. Costa VD
    (2017) Motivational neural circuits underlying reinforcement learning. Nat Neurosci 20:505–512. doi:10.1038/nn.4506 pmid:28352111
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Barratt ES
    (1959) Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomotor efficiency. Percept Mot Skills 9:191–198. doi:10.2466/pms.1959.9.3.191
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Bartz JA,
    2. Zaki J,
    3. Bolger N,
    4. Ochsner KN
    (2011) Social effects of oxytocin in humans: context and person matter. Trends Cogn Sci 15:301–309. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.002 pmid:21696997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bernstein DP,
    2. Stein JA,
    3. Newcomb MD,
    4. Walker E,
    5. Pogge D,
    6. Ahluvalia T,
    7. Stokes J,
    8. Handelsman L,
    9. Medrano M,
    10. Desmond D,
    11. Zule W
    (2003) Development and validation of a brief screening version of the childhood trauma questionnaire. Child Abuse Negl 27:169–190. doi:10.1016/s0145-2134(02)00541-0 pmid:12615092
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Birn RM,
    2. Roeber BJ,
    3. Pollak SD
    (2017) Early childhood stress exposure, reward pathways, and adult decision making. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:13549–13554. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708791114 pmid:29203671
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Brown DC,
    2. Steward LJ,
    3. Ge J,
    4. Barnes NM
    (1996) Ability of angiotensin II to modulate striatal dopamine release via the AT1 receptor in vitro and in vivo. Br J Pharmacol 118:414–420. doi:10.1111/j.1476-5381.1996.tb15418.x pmid:8735646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Chai SY,
    2. Bastias MA,
    3. Clune EF,
    4. Matsacos DJ,
    5. Mustafa T,
    6. Lee JH,
    7. McDowall SG,
    8. Mendelsohn FAO,
    9. Albiston AL,
    10. Paxinos G
    (2000) Distribution of angiotensin IV binding sites (AT4 receptor) in the human forebrain, midbrain and pons as visualised by in vitro receptor autoradiography. J Chem Neuroanat 20:339–348. doi:10.1016/S0891-0618(00)00112-5 pmid:11207430
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Cox RW,
    2. Hyde JS
    (1997) Software tools for analysis and visualization of fMRI data. NMR Biomed 10:171–178. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1492(199706/08)10:4/5<171::AID-NBM453>3.0.CO;2-L
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Cremers HR,
    2. Veer IM,
    3. Spinhoven P,
    4. Rombouts SA,
    5. Roelofs K
    (2014) Neural sensitivity to social reward and punishment anticipation in social anxiety disorder. Front Behav Neurosci 8:439. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00439 pmid:25601830
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Culman J,
    2. von Heyer C,
    3. Piepenburg B,
    4. Rascher W,
    5. Unger T
    (1999) Effects of systemic treatment with irbesartan and losartan on central responses to angiotensin II in conscious, normotensive rats. Eur J Pharmacol 367:255–265. doi:10.1016/s0014-2999(98)00983-2 pmid:10079000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Cuthbert BN,
    2. Insel TR
    (2013) Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med 11:126. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-126 pmid:23672542
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Delmonte S,
    2. Gallagher L,
    3. O'Hanlon E,
    4. McGrath J,
    5. Balsters JH
    (2013) Functional and structural connectivity of frontostriatal circuitry in. Front Hum Neurosci 7:430. pmid:23964221
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Dölen G,
    2. Darvishzadeh A,
    3. Huang KW,
    4. Malenka RC
    (2013) Social reward requires coordinated activity of nucleus accumbens oxytocin and serotonin. Nature 501:179–184. doi:10.1038/nature12518 pmid:24025838
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Esteban O,
    2. Markiewicz CJ,
    3. Blair RW,
    4. Moodie CA,
    5. Isik AI,
    6. Erramuzpe A,
    7. Kent JD,
    8. Goncalves M,
    9. DuPre E,
    10. Snyder M,
    11. Oya H,
    12. Ghosh SS,
    13. Wright J,
    14. Durnez J,
    15. Poldrack RA,
    16. Gorgolewski KJ
    (2019) fMRIPrep: a robust preprocessing pipeline for functional MRI. Nat Methods 16:111–116. doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0235-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Evans AC,
    2. Janke AL,
    3. Collins DL,
    4. Baillet S
    (2012) Brain templates and atlases. Neuroimage 62:911–922. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.024 pmid:22248580
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Fan L,
    2. Li H,
    3. Zhuo J,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Wang J,
    6. Chen L,
    7. Yang Z,
    8. Chu C,
    9. Xie S,
    10. Laird AR,
    11. Fox PT,
    12. Eickhoff SB,
    13. Yu C,
    14. Jiang T
    (2016) The human brainnetome atlas: a new brain atlas based on connectional architecture. Cereb Cortex 26:3508–3526. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw157 pmid:27230218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Faulkner ML,
    2. Momenan R,
    3. Leggio L
    (2021) A neuroimaging investigation into the role of peripheral metabolic biomarkers in the anticipation of reward in alcohol use. Drug Alcohol Depend 221:108638. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108638 pmid:33667782
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Fenster RJ,
    2. Lebois LAM,
    3. Ressler KJ,
    4. Suh J
    (2018) Brain circuit dysfunction in post-traumatic stress disorder: from mouse to man. Nat Rev Neurosci 19:535–551. doi:10.1038/s41583-018-0039-7 pmid:30054570
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Friston KJ,
    2. Jezzard P,
    3. Turner R
    (1994) Analysis of functional MRI time-series. Hum Brain Mapp 1:153–171. doi:10.1002/hbm.460010207
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Gordon EM,
    2. Laumann TO,
    3. Marek S,
    4. Newbold DJ,
    5. Hampton JM,
    6. Seider NA,
    7. Montez DF,
    8. Nielsen AM,
    9. Van AN,
    10. Zheng A,
    11. Miller R,
    12. Siegel JS,
    13. Kay BP,
    14. Snyder AZ,
    15. Greene DJ,
    16. Schlaggar BL,
    17. Petersen SE,
    18. Nelson SM,
    19. Dosenbach NUF
    (2021) Human fronto-striatal connectivity is organized into discrete functional subnetworks. bioRxiv 439415. doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.12.439415.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Gordon I,
    2. Jack A,
    3. Pretzsch CM,
    4. Vander Wyk B,
    5. Leckman JF,
    6. Feldman R,
    7. Pelphrey KA
    (2016) Intranasal oxytocin enhances connectivity in the neural circuitry supporting social motivation and social perception in children with autism. Sci Rep 6:35054. doi:10.1038/srep35054 pmid:27845765
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Gorgolewski K,
    2. Burns CD,
    3. Madison C,
    4. Clark D,
    5. Halchenko YO,
    6. Waskom ML,
    7. Ghosh SS
    (2011) Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in python. Front Neuroinform 5:13. doi:10.3389/fninf.2011.00013 pmid:21897815
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Greene RK,
    2. Spanos M,
    3. Alderman C,
    4. Walsh E,
    5. Bizzell J,
    6. Mosner MG,
    7. Kinard JL,
    8. Stuber GD,
    9. Chandrasekhar T,
    10. Politte LC,
    11. Sikich L,
    12. Dichter GS
    (2018) The effects of intranasal oxytocin on reward circuitry responses in children with autism spectrum disorder. J Neurodev Disord 10:12. doi:10.1186/s11689-018-9228-y pmid:29587625
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Greve DN,
    2. Fischl B
    (2009) Accurate and robust brain image alignment using boundary-based registration. Neuroimage 48:63–72. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.060 pmid:19573611
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Grimm C,
    2. Balsters JH,
    3. Zerbi V
    (2021) Shedding light on social reward circuitry: (un)common blueprints in humans and rodents. Neuroscientist 27:159–183. doi:10.1177/1073858420923552 pmid:32507096
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Grimm O,
    2. Nägele M,
    3. Küpper-Tetzel L,
    4. de Greck M,
    5. Plichta M,
    6. Reif A
    (2021) No effect of a dopaminergic modulation fMRI task by amisulpride and L-DOPA on reward anticipation in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 238:1333–1342. doi:10.1007/s00213-020-05693-8 pmid:33140215
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Gu R,
    2. Huang W,
    3. Camilleri J,
    4. Xu P,
    5. Wei P,
    6. Eickhoff SB,
    7. Feng C
    (2019) Love is analogous to money in human brain: coordinate-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses of social and monetary reward anticipation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 100:108–128. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.017 pmid:30807783
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Hétu S,
    2. Luo Y,
    3. D'Ardenne K,
    4. Lohrenz T,
    5. Montague PR
    (2017) Human substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area involvement in computing social error signals during the ultimatum game. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 12:1972–1982. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx097 pmid:28981876
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Hosseini M,
    2. Alaei HA,
    3. Havakhah S,
    4. Neemati Karimooy HA,
    5. Gholamnezhad Z
    (2009) Effects of microinjection of angiotensin II and captopril to VTA on morphine self-administration in rats. Acta Biol Hung 60:241–252. doi:10.1556/ABiol.60.2009.3.1 pmid:19700383
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Hung LW,
    2. Neuner S,
    3. Polepalli JS,
    4. Beier KT,
    5. Wright M,
    6. Walsh JJ,
    7. Lewis EM,
    8. Luo L,
    9. Deisseroth K,
    10. Dölen G,
    11. Malenka RC
    (2017) Gating of social reward by oxytocin in the ventral tegmental area. Science 357:1406–1411. doi:10.1126/science.aan4994 pmid:28963257
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Izuma K,
    2. Saito DN,
    3. Sadato N
    (2008) Processing of social and monetary rewards in the human striatum. Neuron 58:284–294. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.020 pmid:18439412
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Jenkinson M,
    2. Bannister P,
    3. Brady M,
    4. Smith S
    (2002) Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage 17:825–841. doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 pmid:12377157
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Klein A,
    2. Ghosh SS,
    3. Bao FS,
    4. Giard J,
    5. Häme Y,
    6. Stavsky E,
    7. Lee N,
    8. Rossa B,
    9. Reuter M,
    10. Chaibub Neto E,
    11. Keshavan A
    (2017) Mindboggling morphometry of human brains. PLoS Comput Biol 13:e1005350. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005350 pmid:28231282
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Klugah-Brown B,
    2. Di X,
    3. Zweerings J,
    4. Mathiak K,
    5. Becker B,
    6. Biswal B
    (2020) Common and separable neural alterations in substance use disorders: a coordinate-based meta-analyses of functional neuroimaging studies in humans. Hum Brain Mapp 41:4459–4477. doi:10.1002/hbm.25085 pmid:32964613
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Kou J,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Zhou F,
    4. Gao Z,
    5. Yao S,
    6. Zhao W,
    7. Li H,
    8. Lei Y,
    9. Gao S,
    10. Kendrick KM,
    11. Becker B
    (2022) Anxiolytic effects of chronic intranasal oxytocin on neural responses to threat are dose-frequency dependent. Psychother Psychosom 91:253–264. doi:10.1159/000521348 pmid:35086102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Lanczos C
    (1964) Evaluation of noisy data. J Soc Ind Appl Math B Numer Anal 1:76–85. doi:10.1137/0701007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Lawn W,
    2. Hill J,
    3. Hindocha C,
    4. Yim J,
    5. Yamamori Y,
    6. Jones G,
    7. Walker H,
    8. Green SF,
    9. Wall MB,
    10. Howes OD,
    11. Curran HV,
    12. Freeman TP,
    13. Bloomfield MA
    (2020) The acute effects of cannabidiol on the neural correlates of reward anticipation and feedback in healthy volunteers. J Psychopharmacol 34:969–980. doi:10.1177/0269881120944148 pmid:32755273
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Li Z,
    2. Bains JS,
    3. Ferguson AV
    (1993) Functional evidence that the angiotensin antagonist losartan crosses the blood-brain barrier in the rat. Brain Res Bull 30:33–39. doi:10.1016/0361-9230(93)90036-b pmid:8420632
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Li D,
    2. Scott L,
    3. Crambert S,
    4. Zelenin S,
    5. Eklöf AC,
    6. Di Ciano L,
    7. Ibarra F,
    8. Aperia A
    (2012) Binding of losartan to angiotensin AT1 receptors increases dopamine D1 receptor activation. J Am Soc Nephrol 23:421–428. doi:10.1681/ASN.2011040344 pmid:22193384
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Lo MW,
    2. Goldberg MR,
    3. McCrea JB,
    4. Lu H,
    5. Furtek CI,
    6. Bjornsson TD
    (1995) Pharmacokinetics of losartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, and its active metabolite EXP3174 in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther 58:641–649. doi:10.1016/0009-9236(95)90020-9 pmid:8529329
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Ma X,
    2. Zhao W,
    3. Luo R,
    4. Zhou F,
    5. Geng Y,
    6. Xu L,
    7. Gao Z,
    8. Zheng X,
    9. Becker B,
    10. Kendrick KM
    (2018) Sex- and context-dependent effects of oxytocin on social sharing. Neuroimage 183:62–72. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.004 pmid:30086408
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Martins D,
    2. Rademacher L,
    3. Gabay AS,
    4. Taylor R,
    5. Richey JA,
    6. Smith DV,
    7. Goerlich KS,
    8. Nawijn L,
    9. Cremers HR,
    10. Wilson R,
    11. Bhattacharyya S,
    12. Paloyelis Y
    (2021) Mapping social reward and punishment processing in the human brain: a voxel-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging findings using the social incentive delay task. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 122:1–17. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.12.034 pmid:33421544
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Marvar PJ,
    2. Goodman J,
    3. Fuchs S,
    4. Choi DC,
    5. Banerjee S,
    6. Ressler KJ
    (2014) Angiotensin type 1 receptor inhibition enhances the extinction of fear memory. Biol Psychiatry 75:864–872. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.08.024 pmid:24094510
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Maul B,
    2. Krause W,
    3. Pankow K,
    4. Becker M,
    5. Gembardt F,
    6. Alenina N,
    7. Walther T,
    8. Bader M,
    9. Siems WE
    (2005) Central angiotensin II controls alcohol consumption via its AT1 receptor. FASEB J 19:1474–1481. doi:10.1096/fj.05-3742com pmid:16126915
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. McLaren DG,
    2. Ries ML,
    3. Xu G,
    4. Johnson SC
    (2012) A generalized form of context-dependent psychophysiological interactions (gPPI): a comparison to standard approaches. Neuroimage 61:1277–1286. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.068 pmid:22484411
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Mechaeil R,
    2. Gard P,
    3. Jackson A,
    4. Rusted J
    (2011) Cognitive enhancement following acute losartan in normotensive young adults. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 217:51–60. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2257-9 pmid:21484242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Mendelsohn FA,
    2. Jenkins TA,
    3. Berkovic SF
    (1993) Effects of angiotensin II on dopamine and serotonin turnover in the striatum of conscious rats. Brain Res 613:221–229. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(93)90902-Y pmid:7514480
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Modi ME,
    2. Sahin M
    (2019) A unified circuit for social behavior. Neurobiol Learn Mem 165:106920. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2018.08.010 pmid:30149055
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Mow JL,
    2. Gandhi A,
    3. Fulford D
    (2020) Imaging the “social brain” in schizophrenia: a systematic review of neuroimaging studies of social reward and punishment. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 118:704–722. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.08.005 pmid:32841653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Murugan M,
    2. Jang HJ,
    3. Park M,
    4. Miller EM,
    5. Cox J,
    6. Taliaferro JP,
    7. Parker NF,
    8. Bhave V,
    9. Hur H,
    10. Liang Y,
    11. Nectow AR,
    12. Pillow JW,
    13. Witten IB
    (2017) Combined social and spatial coding in a descending projection from the prefrontal cortex. Cell 171:1663–1677.e16. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.002 pmid:29224779
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Narayanaswami V,
    2. Somkuwar SS,
    3. Horton DB,
    4. Cassis LA,
    5. Dwoskin LP
    (2013) Angiotensin AT1 and AT2 receptor antagonists modulate nicotine-evoked [3H]dopamine and [3H]norepinephrine release. Biochem Pharmacol 86:656–665. doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2013.06.025 pmid:23831951
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Nathan PJ,
    2. Phan KL,
    3. Harmer CJ,
    4. Mehta MA,
    5. Bullmore ET
    (2014) Increasing pharmacological knowledge about human neurological and psychiatric disorders through functional neuroimaging and its application in drug discovery. Curr Opin Pharmacol 14:54–61. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2013.11.009 pmid:24565013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Nawijn L,
    2. van Zuiden M,
    3. Koch SB,
    4. Frijling JL,
    5. Veltman DJ,
    6. Olff M
    (2017) Intranasal oxytocin increases neural responses to social reward in post-traumatic stress disorder. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 12:212–223. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw123 pmid:27614769
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Ohtawa M,
    2. Takayama F,
    3. Saitoh K,
    4. Yoshinaga T,
    5. Nakashima M
    (1993) Pharmacokinetics and biochemical efficacy after single and multiple oral administration of losartan, an orally active nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist, in humans. Br J Clin Pharmacol 35:290–297. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.1993.tb05696.x pmid:8471405
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Pessiglione M,
    2. Seymour B,
    3. Flandin G,
    4. Dolan RJ,
    5. Frith CD
    (2006) Dopamine-dependent prediction errors underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans. Nature 442:1042–1045. doi:10.1038/nature05051 pmid:16929307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Pulcu E,
    2. Shkreli L,
    3. Holst CG,
    4. Woud ML,
    5. Craske MG,
    6. Browning M,
    7. Reinecke A
    (2019) The effects of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan on appetitive versus aversive learning: a randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry 86:397–404. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.04.010 pmid:31155138
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Quintana DS,
    2. Lischke A,
    3. Grace S,
    4. Scheele D,
    5. Ma Y,
    6. Becker B
    (2021) Advances in the field of intranasal oxytocin research: lessons learned and future directions for clinical research. Mol Psychiatry 26:80–91. doi:10.1038/s41380-020-00864-7 pmid:32807845
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Rademacher L,
    2. Krach S,
    3. Kohls G,
    4. Irmak A,
    5. Gründer G,
    6. Spreckelmeyer KN
    (2010) Dissociation of neural networks for anticipation and consumption of monetary and social rewards. Neuroimage 49:3276–3285. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.089 pmid:19913621
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Reinecke A,
    2. Browning M,
    3. Klein Breteler J,
    4. Kappelmann N,
    5. Ressler KJ,
    6. Harmer CJ,
    7. Craske MG
    (2018) Angiotensin regulation of amygdala response to threat in high-trait-anxiety individuals. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging 3:826–835. doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2018.05.007 pmid:29980493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Russo SJ,
    2. Nestler EJ
    (2013) The brain reward circuitry in mood disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:609–625. doi:10.1038/nrn3381 pmid:23942470
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Satterthwaite TD,
    2. Elliott MA,
    3. Gerraty RT,
    4. Ruparel K,
    5. Loughead J,
    6. Calkins ME,
    7. Eickhoff SB,
    8. Hakonarson H,
    9. Gur RC,
    10. Gur RE,
    11. Wolf DH
    (2013) An improved framework for confound regression and filtering for control of motion artifact in the preprocessing of resting-state functional connectivity data. Neuroimage 64:240–256. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.08.052 pmid:22926292
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Schupp M,
    2. Lee LD,
    3. Frost N,
    4. Umbreen S,
    5. Schmidt B,
    6. Unger T,
    7. Kintscher U
    (2006) Regulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma activity by losartan metabolites. Hypertension 47:586–589. doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000196946.79674.8b pmid:16365190
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Seligowski AV,
    2. Duffy LA,
    3. Merker JB,
    4. Michopoulos V,
    5. Gillespie CF,
    6. Marvar PJ,
    7. Stein MB,
    8. Ressler KJ
    (2021) The renin-angiotensin system in PTSD: a replication and extension. Neuropsychopharmacology 46:750–755. doi:10.1038/s41386-020-00923-1 pmid:33318633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Sharpe MJ,
    2. Chang CY,
    3. Liu MA,
    4. Batchelor HM,
    5. Mueller LE,
    6. Jones JL,
    7. Niv Y,
    8. Schoenbaum G
    (2017) Dopamine transients are sufficient and necessary for acquisition of model-based associations. Nat Neurosci 20:735–742. doi:10.1038/nn.4538 pmid:28368385
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Shkreli L,
    2. Woud ML,
    3. Ramsbottom R,
    4. Rupietta AE,
    5. Waldhauser GT,
    6. Kumsta R,
    7. Reinecke A
    (2020) Angiotensin involvement in trauma processing-exploring candidate neurocognitive mechanisms of preventing post-traumatic stress symptoms. Neuropsychopharmacology 45:507–514. doi:10.1038/s41386-019-0553-y pmid:31655485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Sica DA,
    2. Gehr TW,
    3. Ghosh S
    (2005) Clinical pharmacokinetics of losartan. Clin Pharmacokinet 44:797–814. doi:10.2165/00003088-200544080-00003 pmid:16029066
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Slotnick SD
    (2017) Cluster success: fMRI inferences for spatial extent have acceptable false-positive rates. Cogn Neurosci 8:150–155. doi:10.1080/17588928.2017.1319350 pmid:28403749
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Spielberger C,
    2. Goruch R,
    3. Lushene R,
    4. Vagg P,
    5. Jacobs G
    (1983) Manual for the state-trait inventory STAI (form Y1-Y2). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  70. ↵
    1. Stein MB, et al
    . (2021) Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the angiotensin receptor antagonist losartan for posttraumatic stress disorder. Biol Psychiatry 90:473–481. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.05.012 pmid:34275593
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Stout DM,
    2. Risbrough VB
    (2019) Angiotensin II signaling and fear extinction: translational evidence and novel receptor targets. Biol Psychiatry 86:874–876. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.09.026 pmid:31753101
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Suzuki S,
    2. Lawlor VM,
    3. Cooper JA,
    4. Arulpragasam AR,
    5. Treadway MT
    (2021) Distinct regions of the striatum underlying effort, movement initiation and effort discounting. Nat Hum Behav 5:378–388. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00972-y pmid:33230282
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Swiercz AP,
    2. Iyer L,
    3. Yu Z,
    4. Edwards A,
    5. Prashant NM,
    6. Nguyen BN,
    7. Horvath A,
    8. Marvar PJ
    (2020) Evaluation of an angiotensin Type 1 receptor blocker on the reconsolidation of fear memory. Transl Psychiatry 10:363. doi:10.1038/s41398-020-01043-6 pmid:33110066
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Torregrossa MM
    (2021) Failure of losartan in a clinical trial for posttraumatic stress disorder: lack of efficacy or spotlight on the power of placebo? Biol Psychiatry 90:432–433. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.07.009 pmid:34503672
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Torrubia R,
    2. Ávila C,
    3. Moltó J,
    4. Caseras X
    (2001) The sensitivity to punishment and sensitivity to reward questionnaire (SPSRQ) as a measure of Gray's anxiety and impulsivity dimensions. Pers Individ Dif 31:837–862. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00183-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. ↵
    1. Trutti AC,
    2. Fontanesi L,
    3. Mulder MJ,
    4. Bazin PL,
    5. Hommel B,
    6. Forstmann BU
    (2021) A probabilistic atlas of the human ventral tegmental area (VTA) based on 7 Tesla MRI data. Brain Struct Funct 226:1155–1167. doi:10.1007/s00429-021-02231-w pmid:33580320
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Tustison NJ,
    2. Avants BB,
    3. Cook PA,
    4. Zheng Y,
    5. Egan A,
    6. Yushkevich PA,
    7. Gee JC
    (2010) N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 29:1310–1320. doi:10.1109/TMI.2010.2046908 pmid:20378467
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Uddin LQ
    (2015) Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction. Nat Rev Neurosci 16:55–61. doi:10.1038/nrn3857 pmid:25406711
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Wake SJ,
    2. Izuma K
    (2017) A common neural code for social and monetary rewards in the human striatum. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 12:1558–1564. doi:10.1093/scan/nsx092 pmid:28985408
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Wandschneider B,
    2. Koepp MJ
    (2016) Pharmaco fMRI: determining the functional anatomy of the effects of medication. Neuroimage Clin 12:691–697. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.10.002 pmid:27766202
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Watson D,
    2. Clark LA,
    3. Tellegen A
    (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:1063–1070. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 pmid:3397865
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Xin F,
    2. Zhou X,
    3. Dong D,
    4. Zhao Z,
    5. Yang X,
    6. Wang Q,
    7. Gu Y,
    8. Kendrick KM,
    9. Chen A,
    10. Becker B
    (2020) Oxytocin differentially modulates amygdala responses during top-down and bottom-up aversive anticipation. Adv Sci (Weinh) 7:2001077. doi:10.1002/advs.202001077 pmid:32832361
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Xu T,
    2. Zhou X,
    3. Jiao G,
    4. Zeng Y,
    5. Zhao W,
    6. Li J,
    7. Yu F,
    8. Zhou F,
    9. Yao S,
    10. Becker B
    (2022) Angiotensin antagonist inhibits preferential negative memory encoding via decreasing hippocampus activation and its coupling with the amygdala. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging 7:970–978.
    OpenUrl
  84. ↵
    1. Zhang L,
    2. Gläscher J
    (2020) A brain network supporting social influences in human decision-making. Sci Adv 6:eabb4159. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb4159 pmid:32875112
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    1. Zhang D,
    2. Shen J,
    3. Bi R,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Zhou F,
    6. Feng C,
    7. Gu R
    (2020) Differentiating the abnormalities of social and monetary reward processing associated with depressive symptoms. Psychol Med 52:2080–2094.
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Zhang R,
    2. Zhao W,
    3. Qi Z,
    4. Xu T,
    5. Zhou F,
    6. Becker B
    (2022) Angiotensin II regulates the neural expression of subjective fear in humans - precision pharmaco-neuroimaging approach. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. Advance online publication. Retrieved Sep 26, 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2022.09.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. ↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Brady M,
    3. Smith S
    (2001) Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:45–57. doi:10.1109/42.906424 pmid:11293691
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Zhao Z,
    2. Ma X,
    3. Geng Y,
    4. Zhao W,
    5. Zhou F,
    6. Wang J,
    7. Markett S,
    8. Biswal BB,
    9. Ma Y,
    10. Kendrick KM,
    11. Becker B
    (2019) Oxytocin differentially modulates specific dorsal and ventral striatal functional connections with frontal and cerebellar regions. Neuroimage 184:781–789. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.067 pmid:30266264
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Zhou F,
    2. Geng Y,
    3. Xin F,
    4. Li J,
    5. Feng P,
    6. Liu C,
    7. Zhao W,
    8. Feng T,
    9. Guastella AJ,
    10. Ebstein RP,
    11. Kendrick KM,
    12. Becker B
    (2019) Human extinction learning is accelerated by an angiotensin antagonist via ventromedial prefrontal cortex and its connections with basolateral amygdala. Biol Psychiatry 86:910–920. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.07.007 pmid:31471037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Zhou F,
    2. Li J,
    3. Zhao W,
    4. Xu L,
    5. Zheng X,
    6. Fu M,
    7. Yao S,
    8. Kendrick KM,
    9. Wager TD,
    10. Becker B
    (2020) Empathic pain evoked by sensory and emotional-communicative cues share common and process-specific neural representations. Elife 9:e56929. doi:10.7554/eLife.56929
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. ↵
    1. Zhou X,
    2. Zimmermann K,
    3. Xin F,
    4. Zhao W,
    5. Derckx RT,
    6. Sassmannshausen A,
    7. Scheele D,
    8. Hurlemann R,
    9. Weber B,
    10. Kendrick KM,
    11. Becker B
    (2019) Cue reactivity in the ventral striatum characterizes heavy cannabis use, whereas reactivity in the dorsal striatum mediates dependent use. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging 4:751–762. doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.04.006 pmid:31204249
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Zhou X,
    2. Wu R,
    3. Liu C,
    4. Kou J,
    5. Chen Y,
    6. Pontes HM,
    7. Yao D,
    8. Kendrick KM,
    9. Becker B,
    10. Montag C
    (2020) Higher levels of (internet) gaming disorder symptoms according to the WHO and APA frameworks associate with lower striatal volume. J Behav Addict 9:598–605. doi:10.1556/2006.2020.00066 pmid:33010145
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 43 (3)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 43, Issue 3
18 Jan 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (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.
The Angiotensin Antagonist Losartan Modulates Social Reward Motivation and Punishment Sensitivity via Modulating Midbrain-Striato-Frontal Circuits
(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
The Angiotensin Antagonist Losartan Modulates Social Reward Motivation and Punishment Sensitivity via Modulating Midbrain-Striato-Frontal Circuits
Xinqi Zhou, Ting Xu, Yixu Zeng, Ran Zhang, Ziyu Qi, Weihua Zhao, Keith M. Kendrick, Benjamin Becker
Journal of Neuroscience 18 January 2023, 43 (3) 472-483; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1114-22.2022

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
The Angiotensin Antagonist Losartan Modulates Social Reward Motivation and Punishment Sensitivity via Modulating Midbrain-Striato-Frontal Circuits
Xinqi Zhou, Ting Xu, Yixu Zeng, Ran Zhang, Ziyu Qi, Weihua Zhao, Keith M. Kendrick, Benjamin Becker
Journal of Neuroscience 18 January 2023, 43 (3) 472-483; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1114-22.2022
Twitter logo Facebook 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

  • dopamine
  • losartan
  • social reward
  • striatum
  • ventral tegmental area

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

  • The Functional Anatomy of Nociception: Effective Connectivity in Chronic Pain and Placebo Response
  • Complex Impact of Stimulus Envelope on Motor Synchronization to Sound
  • The Molecular Substrates of Second-Order Conditioned Fear in the Basolateral Amygdala Complex
Show more Research Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Regional Excitatory–Inhibitory Balance Relates to Self-Reference Effect on Recollection via the Precuneus/Posterior Cingulate Cortex–Medial Prefrontal Cortex Connectivity
  • Attention Alters Population Spatial Frequency Tuning
  • Complex Impact of Stimulus Envelope on Motor Synchronization to Sound
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • 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 Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 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.