Activation of Group II Metabotropic Glutamate Receptors in the Basolateral Amygdala Inhibits Reward Seeking Triggered by Discriminative Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reward-associated cues are essential in guiding reward-seeking behaviours. These cues include conditioned stimuli (CSs) which occur following seeking actions and indicate reward delivery, and discriminative stimuli (DSs) which occur response-independently and signal reward availability. Metabotropic group II glutamate (mGlu 2/3 ) receptors in the basolateral amygdala (BLA) modulate CS-guided reward seeking; however, their role in DS effects is unknown. We first developed a procedure to assess DS and CS effects on reward seeking in the same subjects within the same test session. Female and male rats first self-administered sucrose during sessions where discriminative stimuli signaled periods of sucrose availability (DS+) and unavailability (DS-). During DS+ presentations, active lever presses produced sucrose paired with a CS+. During DS-presentations, active lever presses produced a CS- and no sucrose. Across 14 sessions, rats learned to load up on sucrose during DS+ presentation and inhibit responding during DS-presentation. We then compared the effects of intra-BLA microinfusions of the mGlu 2/3 receptor agonist LY379268 on cue-evoked sucrose seeking during an extinction test (no sucrose) where the DSs and CSs were presented response-independently. Before test, rats received intra-BLA microinjections of artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) or LY379268. Under aCSF, only the DS+ and DS+CS+ combined triggered increases in reward-seeking behaviour. The CS+ alone was ineffective. Intra-BLA LY379268 reduced sucrose seeking triggered by the DS+ and DS+CS+ combination. Thus, using a new procedure to test reward seeking induced by DSs and CSs, we show that BLA mGlu 2/3 receptor activity mediates the conditioned incentive motivational effects of reward predictive DSs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".