Threlfell et al. (2012) also demonstrated that optical stimulation of thalamic projections to ChIs could mimic the effect of direct activation of ChIs, raising the remarkable possibility that the thalamic intralaminar nuclei can control DA release—a situation they are well positioned to do, given their sensitivity to salient stimuli (Matsumoto selleck chemicals llc et al., 2001). The paper in Cell Reports by Cheer’s group ( Cachope et al., 2012) describes a very similar
scenario in the ventral striatum-nucleus accumbens (NAc). In addition to showing that optogenetic stimulation of a population of ChIs induces DA release in slices of the NAc, Cachope et al. show that the same thing happens in vivo. One apparent point of divergence with the Threlfell et al. work is the
inferred role of glutamate. Threlfell et al. found no effect of glutamate receptor antagonists on the ChI-induced DA release, but Cheer’s group did find a partial reduction in release with the antagonism of AMPA receptors. They linked this to the recently described corelease of glutamate and ACh by ChIs ( Higley et al., 2011). However, because this release is rapidly LY294002 cell line lost at the normal spiking rates of ChIs, its enhancement of DA release would be limited to rebound spiking after a long pause. How does Threlfell et al.’s discovery change our understanding of the striatum? First, their work has vindicated the findings of the French group led by Glowinski, who emphasized intrastriatal
control of DA release decades ago but who had few adherents. Clearly, DA release is not driven solely by the substantia nigra. Quite remarkably, even the thalamus can drive DA release in the striatum through the mechanism that Cragg and colleagues have outlined. almost Moreover, the model that DA and ACh simply oppose one another—as in the feud metaphor—needs to be fundamentally revised. A revision doesn’t mean, however, that these two neurotransmitters are bosom buddies. DA does suppress ACh release, even if the converse is not true. Moreover, there is still compelling evidence that DA and ACh can have opposed effects on striatal physiology. For example, the induction of long-term depression at corticostriatal synapses of principal spiny projection neurons (SPNs) is promoted by an elevation in DA and a fall in ACh (Bagetta et al., 2011 and Wang et al., 2006). In indirect pathway SPNs that express D2 DA receptors, DA clearly depresses intrinsic excitability, and ACh increases it through activation of M1 muscarinic receptors (Gerfen and Surmeier, 2010). In direct pathway SPNs that express D1 DA receptors, the situation appears to be more nuanced by the coexpression of M1 and M4 muscarinic receptors. In vitro studies of ACh regulation of DA have been plagued by the difficulty in selectively stimulating particular microcircuits. When and where you stimulate matters, as shown by both Threlfell et al. and Cachope et al.