Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Morphine withdrawal recruits lateral habenula cytokine signaling to reduce synaptic excitation and sociability

Nature Neuroscience volume 22, pages 1053–1056 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The lateral habenula encodes aversive stimuli contributing to negative emotional states during drug withdrawal. Here we report that morphine withdrawal in mice leads to microglia adaptations and diminishes glutamatergic transmission onto raphe-projecting lateral habenula neurons. Chemogenetic inhibition of this circuit promotes morphine withdrawal-like social deficits. Morphine withdrawal-driven synaptic plasticity and reduced sociability require tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) release and neuronal TNF receptor 1 activation. Hence, habenular cytokines control synaptic and behavioral adaptations during drug withdrawal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: MORwd-driven projection-specific synaptic depression in the LHb.
Fig. 2: Cytokine signaling in the LHb for MORwd plasticity.
Fig. 3: TNF-R1 requirements for MORwd-driven synaptic and behavioral adaptations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Goeldner, C. et al. Biol. Psychiatry 69, 236–244 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lutz, P. E. et al. Neuropsychopharmacology 39, 2694–2705 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Meye, F. J., Trusel, M., Soiza-Reilly, M. & Mameli, M. Pharm. Biochem. Behav. 162, 87–93 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Margolis, E. B. & Fields, H. L. PLoS One 11, e0159097 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang, J. et al. Neurosci. Lett. 653, 64–70 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Valentinova, K. & Mameli, M. Cell Rep. 16, 2298–2307 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pollak Dorocic, I. et al. Neuron 83, 663–678 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lewitus, G. M. et al. Neuron 90, 483–491 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell, L. A., Avdoshina, V., Rozzi, S. & Mocchetti, I. Brain Behav. Immun. 34, 130–140 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Michaud, M. et al. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 14, 877–882 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Probert, L. Neuroscience 302, 2–22 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nie, X. et al. Neuron 99, 464–479.e7 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hutchinson, M. R. et al. Brain Behav. Immun. 22, 1178–1189 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Patel, A., Siegel, A. & Zalcman, S. S. Brain Behav. Immun. 24, 1276–1280 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. He, P., Liu, Q., Wu, J. & Shen, Y. FASEB J. 26, 334–345 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stellwagen, D., Beattie, E. C., Seo, J. Y. & Malenka, R. C. J. Neurosci. 25, 3219–3228 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kane, M. J. et al. PLoS One 7, e48975 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lecca, S. et al. eLife 6, e30697 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Matthews, G. A. et al. Cell 164, 617–631 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank F.J. Meye and the Mameli Laboratory for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by funds from the ERC StG SalienSy 335333 and the SNSF (31003A) to M.M. They also thank D. Szymkowski for the donation of XENP1595, and G. Kollias and H. Strubbe for the use and breeding of the Tnfr1fl/fl mouse line.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Kristina Valentinova and Anna Tchenio.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Fundamental Neuroscience, The University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Kristina Valentinova, Anna Tchenio, Massimo Trusel, Joseph A. Clerke, Arnaud L. Lalive, Andrea Volterra & Manuel Mameli

  2. Department of Physiology, The University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Kristina Valentinova

  3. Department of Basic Neuroscience, The University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Stamatina Tzanoulinou & Camilla Bellone

  4. Department of Physiology, The University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Alessandro Matera & Rosa C. Paolicelli

  5. Inserm, UMR-S 839, Paris, France

    Imane Moutkine, Luc Maroteaux & Manuel Mameli

Authors
  1. Kristina Valentinova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Tchenio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Massimo Trusel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joseph A. Clerke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arnaud L. Lalive
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stamatina Tzanoulinou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alessandro Matera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Imane Moutkine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Luc Maroteaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Rosa C. Paolicelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andrea Volterra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Camilla Bellone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Manuel Mameli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

K.V., A.T. and M.M. performed and analyzed the ex vivo recordings and behavior experiments. A.L.L. and J.A.C. contributed to the ex vivo recordings. M.T., I.M. and L.M. performed the molecular biology experiments. C.B. and S.T. provided support for the behavioral experiments. A.M. and R.C.P. analyzed the microglia morphology. A.V. provided conceptual and experimental input related to TNF-α signaling and the Tnfr1fl/fl mice. K.V. and M.M. conceptualized, designed the study and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Mameli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Journal peer review information: Nature Neuroscience thanks David Stellwagen and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 MORwd induces postsynaptic depression of AMPAR-mediated neurotransmission in medial LHb.

(a) Left: sample traces, box and scatter plots of sEPSCs amplitudes recorded in LatLHb (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 9/3; gray) versus NP-MORwd (ncells/mice = 9/4; orange), two-sided t-test,, t16 = 0.098, P = 0.923). Right: same but sEPSCs were recorded in MedLHb (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 9/4; black) versus NP- MORwd (ncells/mice = 9/5; red), two-sided t-test, t16 = 3.493, **P = 0.003). (b) Left: sample traces, box and scatter plots of sEPSCs frequencies recorded in LatLHb (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 9/4, gray) versus NP-MORwd (ncells/mice = 9/4, orange), two-sided t-test,, t16 = 1.331, P = 0.202). Right: same but sEPSCs were recorded in MedLHb (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 9/5, black) versus NP-MORwd (ncells/mice = 9/4,red), two-sided t-test, t16 = 0.161, P = 0.874). (c) Recording map color-coded for the value of AMPAR:NMDAR ratios recorded throughout the LHb. Lighter colors indicate smaller AMPAR:NMDAR ratios, while darker colors represent high AMPAR:NMDAR ratio. (d) Top: Sample traces and normalized EPSC versus pulse number plots recorded at 5, 10 and 20 Hz in LatLHb (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 10/2, gray) versus NP-MORwd (ncells/mice = 10/3, orange), 5 Hz interaction factor F(4, 36) = 0.227, P = 0.921; 10 Hz interaction factor F(4,36) = 0.251, P = 0.907; 20Hz interaction factor F(4,36) = 0.573, P = 0.683 two-way ANOVA Repeated Measures). Bottom: same but in MedLHb (ncells/mice = 10/3, saline+naloxone (black) versus NP- MORwd (red), 5Hz interaction factor F(4,36) = 0.1.183, P = 0.334; 10Hz interaction factor F(4,36) = 1.171, P=0.34; 20Hz interaction factor F(4,36) = 0.88, P = 0.485 two-way ANOVA Repeated Measures). (e) Spontaneous withdrawal timeline. AMPAR:NMDAR ratios from MedLHb 1 h, 10, 20 or 30 days post-saline or MOR (saline 1 h and 10 days pooled (nmice/cells = 6/22; black) versus MORwd 1 h (nmice/cells = 5/11; open red) and MOR 10 (nmice/cells = 3/12), 20 (nmice/cells = 3/11) and 30 days withdrawal (nmice/cells = 3/11; red), F(4, 62) = 3.90 one-way ANOVA, **P = 0.007). (f) Example of peak-scaled NSFA of MedLHb neurons in the saline- and NP-MORwd group. Pooled data for conductance (γ) and number of channels (N) open at the peak together with amplitude versus N of channels and conductance plots (Saline+naloxone, ncells/mice = 5/4; MORwd, ncells/mice = 8/5; N of channels, two-sided t-test, t11 = 5.67, ***P = 0.0001, r2(N-Channels) = 0.416; *P = 0.017; Conductance, t11 = 0.006, P = 0.99, r2(Conductance) = 0.03, P = 0.55). (g) Left: sample traces, box and scatter plots for rectification index calculated from AMPAR EPSCs recorded at -70, 0 and 40 mV in LatLH (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 9/7, gray) versus NP- MORwd (ncells/mice = 10/7, orange), two-sided t-test, t17 = 0.210, P = 0.836). Right same but recordings in MedLHb (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 12/8, black) versus NP- MORwd (ncells/mice = 9/5, red), two-sided t-test, t19 = 1.292, P = 0.212). (h) Sample traces, box and scatter plots of AMPAR:NMDAR ratios recorded in MedLHb via 405 nm laser-assisted uncaging of MNI-glutamate, 500 μM (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 8/2, black) versus NP-MORwd (ncells/mice = 10/3, red), two-sided t-test, t16 = 3.521, **P = 0.003). Bottom right: Absolute AMPAR versus absolute NMDAR uncaging-evoked current plots from saline+naloxone (open black circles) or NP-MORwd mice (open red circles). The mean with S.E.M. AMPA and NMDA currents are shown with black and red filled circles for saline versus MORwd respectively (saline+naloxone versus NP-MORwd: AMPA, two-sided t-test, t16 = 3.536, **P = 0.003; NMDA, two-sided t-test, t16 = 0.195, P = 0.848). Data are presented as box plots 10–90 percentiles and scatter.

Supplementary Figure 2 TNFα levels in the LHb increase following spontaneous MORwd.

(a) TNFα (cyan) and DAPI (magenta) immunostaining in slices from saline-treated, (b) MOR-treated (sacrificed 1 h after the last MOR injection) and (c) animals in spontaneous MORwd (10–13 days post last MOR injection). (d) Normalized LHb TNFα optical density in saline (black), MOR (open red) and spontaneous MORwd (red) (nmice = 8, saline (black) versus MOR (open red) versus spontaneous MORwd (red), F(2,20) = 7.7 one-way ANOVA, **P = 0.003). Data are presented as box plots 10–90 percentiles with median and scatter.

Supplementary Figure 3 TNFα signaling is necessary and sufficient for MORwd-induced plasticity.

(a) Spontaneous MORwd protocol, sample traces, box and scatter plots for AMPAR:NMDAR ratios recorded in MedLHb slices incubated with (+) or without (–) exogenous TNFα from spontaneous MORwd mice (10 days). (MORwd -TNFα (red) versus +TNFα (pink), ncells/mice = 9/4, two-sided t-test, t16 = 0.986, P = 0.339). (b) MedLHb AMPAR:NMDAR ratios from saline or MPLA-injected MOR-treated mice (MOR/saline (nmice/cells = 3/10; shaded blue) versus MOR/MPLA (nmice/cells = 4/11; dark blue), two-sided t-test, t19 = 3.070, **P = 0.006). (c) Sample traces, time versus amplitude plot and bar graphs showing the effect of MPLA (1 μg/ml) on AMPAR-EPSCs (MOR (nmice/cells = 4/11 ; 63.93 ± 7.06%; open red), NP-MORwd (nmice/cells = 3/10 cells; 91.63 ± 8.86%; filled red), MOR versus NP-MORwd, two-sided t-test, t19 = 2.419, *P = 0.026). Data of this panel are represented as mean and sem. (d) Sample traces, time versus amplitude plot and bar graphs showing the effect of MPLA (1 μg/ml) on evoked AMPAR-EPSCs (baseline (1) vs 30 min post-MPLA (2)) recorded in LatLHb (open orange) or MedLHb (open red) in slices obtained from morphine-treated animals (ncells/mice=8/4, morphine LatLHb 103.98 ± 10.13; ncells/mice = 11/5, morphine MedLHb 63.31 ± 7.06%; morphine LatLHb versus morphine MedLHb, two-sided t-test, t17 = 3.406, **P = 0.003). Note that the data set for MedLHb is the same as in c and is used for comparison. Data are presented as mean and SEM. (e) Sample traces, time versus amplitude plot and bar graph showing the effect of MPLA (1 μg/ml) on evoked AMPAR-EPSCs (baseline (1) vs 30 min post-MPLA (2)) in the presence of TNFα dominant negative peptide (XENP1595, 6mg/1ml) recorded in MedLHb in slices obtained from morphine-treated animals (ncells/mice = 7/2, 98.88 ± 8.23 %, two-sided t-test, t-test, t6 = 0.073, P = 0.944). Data are presented with mean and SEM. (f) NP-MORwd protocol with dominant-negative TNFα (XENP1595, 30 mg/kg) pretreatment, sample traces, box and scatter plots for AMPAR:NMDAR ratios recorded in MedLHb (saline+naloxone (ncells/mice = 10/3, black) versus NP-MORwd (ncells/mice = 12/3, green), two-sided t-test, t-test, t20 = 0.165, P = 0.871). Data are presented as box plots 10–90 percentiles and scatter.

Supplementary Figure 4 Behavioral assessment of MORwd.

(a) Box and scatter plot showing the percent time spent in the compartment containing the social stimulus for C57Bl6 mice (N = 22 mice/group, saline+naloxone (black) versus NP-MORwd (red), two-sided t-test, t42 = 2.401, *P = 0.021). (b) Box and scatter plot showing the percent time spent in the compartment containing the object stimulus for C57Bl6 mice (N = 22 mice/group, saline+naloxone (black) versus NP-MORwd (red), two-sided t-test, t42 = 2.465, *P = 0.02). (c) Box and scatter plot showing the percent time spent in the central compartment for C57Bl6 mice (N = 22 mice/group, saline+naloxone (black) versus NP-MORwd (red), two-sided t-test, t42 = 1.186, P = 0.242). (d) Box and scatter plot showing locomotor activity during social preference test for C57Bl6 mice (N = 22 mice/group, saline+naloxone (black) versus NP-MORwd (red), two-sided t-test, t42 = 2.621, *P = 0.012). (e) Box and scatter plot showing the percent time spent in the compartment containing the social stimulus for TNF-R1fl/fl mice (AAV-Control: 58.02 ± 2.96% saline+naloxone (Nmice = 20, black) versus 40.45 ± 5.08% NP-MORwd (Nmice = 23, red); AAV-Cre: 54.41 ± 3.15% saline (Nmice = 13, open gray) versus 64.52 ± 5.94 % NP-MORwd (Nmice = 13, open pink), interaction factor F(1,65) = 8.591 two-way ANOVA, **P = 0.005). (f) Box and scatter plot showing the percent time spent in the compartment containing the object stimulus for TNF-R1fl/fl mice (N of mice same as panel e. AAV-Control: 26.42 ± 2.47 % saline+naloxone (black) versus 30.9 ± 4.79% NP-MORwd (red); AAV-Cre: 31.19 ± 2.07% saline+naloxone (open gray) versus 20.7 ± 4.13 % NP-MORwd (open pink), interaction factor F(1,65) = 4.136 two-way ANOVA, *P = 0.046). (g) Box and scatter plot showing the percent time spent in the central compartment for TNF-R1fl/fl mice (N of mice same as panel e. AAV-Control: 15.38 ± 3.08% saline+naloxone (black) versus 27.82 ± 4.98% NP-MORwd (red); AAV-Cre: 14.23 ± 2.9 % saline+naloxone (open gray) versus 14.62 ± 3.08% NP-MORwd (open pink), interaction factor F(1,65) = 1.748 two-way ANOVA, P = 0.191). (h) Box and scatter plot showing number of exploration bouts of TNF-R1fl/fl with the juvenile (N of mice same as panel e. AAV-Control: 56 ± 3.51 saline+naloxone (black) versus 39.30 ± 4.8 NP-MORwd (red); AAV-Cre: 50.38 ± 3.78 saline+naloxone (open gray) versus 57.15 ± 7.01 NP-MORwd (open pink), interaction factor F(1.65) = 5.519 two-way ANOVA, *P = 0.022). (i) Box and scatter plot showing number of exploration bouts of TNF-R1fl/fl with the object (N of mice is the same as panel e. AAV-Control: 26.9 ± 1.88 saline+naloxone (black) versus 23.35 ± 2.13 NP-MORwd (red); AAV-Cre: 28.08 ± 2.01 saline+naloxone (open gray) versus 21.69 ± 3.16 NP-MORwd (open pink), interaction factor F(1.65) = 0.361, P = 0.55). (j) Box and scatter plot showing locomotor activity during social preference test for TNF-R1fl/fl mice (N of mice is the same as panel e. AAV-Control: 28.13 ± 1.35 m saline+naloxone (black) versus 33.8 ± 5.59 m NP-MORwd (red); AAV-Cre: 23.78 ± 1.47m saline+naloxone (open gray) versus 40.17 ± 7.11 m NP-MORwd (open pink), interaction factor F(1,65) = 1.224 two-way ANOVA, P = 0.273). Data are presented as box plots 10–90 percentiles with median and scatter.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valentinova, K., Tchenio, A., Trusel, M. et al. Morphine withdrawal recruits lateral habenula cytokine signaling to reduce synaptic excitation and sociability. Nat Neurosci 22, 1053–1056 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0421-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0421-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing