Extended Data Fig. 7: Food-port entries during training with BLA→DMS manipulations and devaluation probe tests.
From: A dual-pathway architecture for stress to disrupt agency and promote habit
(a-b) Optogenetic inactivation of BLA→DMS projections at reward during instrumental learning. (a) Food-port entries across training. 2-way ANOVA: Training: F(2.03, 38.55) = 3.30, P = 0.05; Virus: F(1, 19) = 0.14, P = 0.71; Training x Virus: F(3, 57) = 0.43, P = 0.73. (b) Food-port entry rates during devaluation probe tests. 2-way ANOVA: Stress x Value: F(1, 19) = 4.38, P = 0.05; Stress: F(1, 19) = 0.47, P = 0.50; Value: F(1, 19) = 0.39, P = 0.54. eYFP N = 10 (5 males), Arch N = 11 (5 male) mice. (c-d) Optogenetic activation of BLA→DMS projections during post-stress instrumental learning. (c) Food-port entry rate across training. 3-way ANOVA: Training: F(2.5, 82.82) = 6.47, P = 0.001; Stress: F(1, 33) = 3.78, P = 0.06; Virus: F(1, 33) = 0.02, P = 0.89; Training x Stress: F(3, 99) = 0.67, P = 0.57; Training x Virus: F(3, 99) = 0.45, P = 0.72; Stress x Virus: F(1, 33) = 2.18, P = 0.15; Training x Stress x Virus: F(3, 99) = 0.26, P = 0.86. (d) Food-port entry rate during the devaluation probe tests. 3-way ANOVA: Value: F(1, 33) = 15.65, P = 0.0004; Stress: F(1, 33) = 0.23, P = 0.63; Virus: F(1, 33) = 0.20, P = 0.65; Value x Stress: F(1, 33) = 2.75, P = 0.11; Value x Virus: F(1, 33) = 0.09, P = 0.76; Virus x Stress: F(1, 33) = 0.17, P = 0.68; Value x Stress x Virus: F(1, 33) = 1.73, P = 0.20. Control, Value: F(1, 16) = 12.42, P = 0.003; Virus: F(1, 16) = 0.0007, P = 0.98; Value x Virus: F(1, 16) = 0.40, P = 0.53. Stress, Value: F(1, 17) = 3.46, P = 0.08; Virus: F(1, 17) = 0.45, P = 0.51; Value x Virus: F(1, 17) = 1.71, P = 0.21. Control eYFP N = 11 (7 male), Control ChR2 N = 7 (4 males), Stress eYFP N = 9 (2 male), Stress ChR2 N = 10 Stress (3 male) mice. (e-f) Chemogenetic activation of BLA→DMS projections during post-stress instrumental learning. (e) Food-port entry rate across training. 3-way ANOVA: Training: F(2.55, 84.12) = 1.64, P = 0.19; Stress: F(1, 33) = 0.05, P = 0.95; Virus: F(1, 33) = 0.08, P = 0.78; Training x Stress: F(3, 99) = 0.16, P = 0.92; Training x Virus: F(3, 99) = 0.21, P = 0.89; Stress x Virus: F(1, 33) = 0.02, P = 0.89; Training x Stress x Virus: F(3, 99) = 3.07, P = 0.03. (f) Food-port entry rate during the devaluation probe test. Planned comparisons 2-sided t-test valued v. devalued, Control mCherry: t(20) = 1.88, P = 0.07, 95% CI −0.21 − 5.41; Control hM3Dq: t(10) = 1.32, P = 0.20, 95% CI −1.40 − 6.54; Stress mCherry: t(16) = 0.75, P = 0.46, 95% CI −2.04 − 4.44; Stress hM3Dq: t(18) = 3.36, P = 0.002, 95% CI 2.01 − 8.16. Control mCherry N = 12 (7 male), Stress mCherry N = 9 (5 male), Stress hM3Dq N = 10 Stress (5 male) mice. Males = solid lines, Females = dashed lines. Data presented as mean +/− SEM. **P < 0.01, corrected for multiple comparisons.
