Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Comparative mRNA profile analysis from NAc of adolescent male mice after binge-like alcohol exposure eliciting deficits in context fear extinction learning

Abstract

Introduction

Stressor-related disorders frequently co-occur with alcohol use disorder (AUD). This necessitates an understanding of the physiological and genetic factors contributing to this relationship. Binge drinking is the most common method of alcohol consumption among adolescent males and significantly increases the risk of developing comorbid stressor-related disorders and AUD. In experiments modeling the effects of a single binge-like alcohol exposure in male adolescent mice, we observed a clear deficit in context extinction learning. This exposure led to a significant initial increase in subsequent voluntary drinking on day one, as measured by the every-other-day (EOD) two-bottle choice drinking assay, which normalized thereafter.

Methods

For this study we performed an mRNASeq analysis of mice nucleus accumbens (NAc), a region intricately involved in regulating both aversive contextual fear responses and reward, after EOD to profile the differential expression of mRNAs within this region. We also used immunohistochemistry of coronal brain slices to characterize expression of proteins associated with stress-related disorders and molecular alcohol tolerance, such as FKBP5, GSK3ß, and ß-catenin, within the striatum, nucleus accumbens (NAc), hippocampus, and basolateral amygdala (BLA).

Results

Comparative mRNA profile analysis reveals significant long-term changes in gene expression induced by binge-like alcohol exposure, even 30 days after the initial exposure. Immunohistochemistry showed a full recovery of previously observed altered levels of target proteins prior to EOD.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the temporal activation of specific gene subsets plays a crucial role in the comorbidity of AUD and stressor-related diseases. Understanding these mechanisms can help develop more effective, integrated treatment approaches to improve outcomes for affected individuals.

Introduction

Alcohol is one of the most widely consumed drugs among adolescents in the United States. Binge drinking is the most common method of consuming alcohol among them [1]. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) defines binge alcohol drinking as the practice of consuming 5 or more drinks on an occasion for men or 4 or more drinks on an occasion for women. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [2] defines it as a pattern of drinking alcohol that brings blood alcohol concentration to 0.08 percent. A binge on alcohol can occur over hours, last up to several days, or in the event of extended use, even weeks, and is linked to stress-related disorder [35]. Binge drinking during early adolescence is related to a higher risk for AUD and more mood and stress symptoms including stress-related disorders later in life [6,7]. However, not much is understood about the factors that increase the risk of developing these conditions and even less about the neuronal, molecular, and genetic mechanisms underlying these comorbidities.

The nucleus accumbens is a functionally central structure between the amygdala, basal ganglia, mesolimbic dopaminergic regions, mediodorsal thalamus, and prefrontal cortex, it appears to play a modulative role in the flow of the information from the amygdaloid complex to these regions [810]. This makes it an important circuit involved in the intersection between AUD and stress-related disorders. It is further linked to psychiatric disorders such as, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, and stress-related disorders, along with its well-known role in addiction [1119]. Seminal studies also show involement of Wnt signaling in VS/NAc using models of depressive behavior [19,20], and aversive/rewarding behavior [19,2126], demonstrating a shared region specific dysregulation of β-catenin expression across the reward pathway, especially the VS/NAc were it appears to facilitate resilience to acute stresors [27].

Our previous study on the effect of binge-like alcohol exposure prior to extinction highlighted risks for specific patterns of alcohol consumption linked to the development of stress-related disorders in adolescents [22]. These changes in behavior coincided with a decrease in FKBP5, GSK-3β, and β-catenin in the hippocampus, amygadala, and VS/NAc of the ethanol exposed mice [22]. This is consistent with our current understanding of the effects of binge-like drinking which states that at the molecular level, the binge-like exposure elicits molecular alcohol tolerance within the striatum is associated to the activation of the Wnt/β-catenin canonical signaling pathway causing persistent internalization of alcohol-sensitive large-conductance voltage- and calcium-activated channel (BK) isoform [20,22,28].

Our current study examines the protein expression of these Wnt-signaling regulators (FKBP5, GSK3β, and β-catenin) within the nucleus accumbens (NAc), hippocampus, and basolateral amygdala after EOD (Fig 1). Therefore, we report expression profiles, 28 days after extinction training, thus, representing long-term changes in response to SEE exposure. The mRNASeq analysis also indicates widespread changes in transcriptome profile within the NAc. This includes dysregulation of mRNA previously associated with trauma and stressor-related disorders [2933] and persistent changes due to drug and alcohol exposure [3441]. The study aims to identify convergences in gene expression profiles, potentially revealing key comorbidity pathways that sustain cellular and circuit adaptations, thereby laying the foundation for disease development. Understanding these changes can help efficiently target preventive measures, identify crucial behavioral risk factors, and design urgently needed treatments for trauma and stressor-related disorders, particularly when associated with alcohol consumption.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Schematic representation of methodology.

(A) Behavioral fear conditioning paradigm with flowchart detailing the timing of the behavioral trials. (B) Simplified immunohistology protocol. (C) Simplified mRNA-seek protocol.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.g001

Materials and methods

Subjects

C57BL/6J adolescent (P30-P45) male mice (Jackson Laboratories, MO) were used, 120–140 mice were individually housed in ventilated cages fitted with steel lids, filter tops, and with unrestricted access to food and water on a 12/12-hour light/dark cycle. At all times, animals were treated in accordance with the National Institutes of Health, Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals [39,42]. Mice were handled and housed in accordance with the standards established by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus and the National Institutes of Health. All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

Contextual fear conditioning

Fear conditioning trials were performed in a training cage [17 cm (w) x 17 cm (d) x 25 cm (h)] equipped with stainless-steel shocking grids connected to a precision feedback current-regulated shocker. Contextual fear conditioning and extinction were performed during the animal’s light cycle in a training cage within a sound attenuating chamber minimizing travel of ultrasonic vocalizations and fear-related pheromones (Stoelting Co, IL). Home cage conditions were carefully chosen and carried out consistently to minimize the negative impact on context fear conditioning learning as in [43]. Behavior, tracking, and freezing of the animal were recorded by low-light video cameras and ANY-maze software (Stoelting Co, IL). Stimulus (shock) presentation was automated by ANY-maze software. The cages were cleaned with 70% isopropyl alcohol before and after each experiment. Also, mice were tested in the same chamber using the same context in every trial. Before the mice passed through any behavior test, they had a period of 45–60 minutes for acclimation. Protocol followed closely that described in [44]. Briefly, mice were placed in the above-mentioned chamber and received one 2-second, 0.7mA foot shock 136 seconds into the trial. The trial total time was 228 seconds. After each trial they were returned to their home cages with water and food ad libitum (Fig 1A).

Single Episode Ethanol (SEE) exposure

Prior to SEE mice were equally distributed by weight and freezing behavior learning during the Contextual Fear Conditioning phase, between the saline N = 26 (control group) and ethanol group N = 28. One of the main limitations in the study of binge drinking is that animal models will not voluntarily drink the necessary amount to reach the required blood alcohol concentrations (0.08%) [1]. To ensure mice achieve the appropriately high concentration of blood ethanol concentrations mice received six intraperitoneal injections (i.p.) of 20% EtOH v/v with saline solution using a 26.5-gauge needle evenly spaced over 6 hours, after contextual fear conditioning trials (Fig 1A), as previously described [25]. The first injection was at an EtOH concentration of 1.8 g/kg, and the subsequent five injections were at a concentration of 1.2 g/kg. After each injection, mice were placed back in their housing and carefully monitored. Blood alcohol concentrations are known to return to naïve levels after 3hr withdrawal [25].

Contextual fear extinction

Previous studies demonstrated that differences in context fear extinction can be observed after 3 trials, with a single shock in each trial [22,44]. Context fear extinction trials were performed in a designated chamber with Context A, without the administration of the shock (the same context as the conditioning). During extinction trials, mice remained in the chambers for 3.8 minutes (228 seconds) and then returned to their home cages. They received three extinction trials in total (Fig 1A).

Two-bottle choice, every-other-day drinking

For the EOD protocol, 30 animals (Ethanol: N = 16, Saline: N = 14) were selected from the previous cohort to continue the experiment. Two bottles were prepared for each mouse: Bottle 1 contained a 20% EtOH v/v H₂O solution, and Bottle 2 contained H₂O. Each solution was transferred into 50-mL polystyrene centrifuge tubes, sealed with rubber stoppers, and fitted with straight stainless steel sipper tubes. The tubes were placed in the steel lids of the cages, equipped with filter tops, and positioned equidistantly. The solutions were replenished every four days on designated Choice Days during which the positions of the bottles were alternated to prevent side bias. Between Choice Days, the experimental bottles were removed, and each cage was provided with a single standard drinking water bottle supplied by the Animal Resource Center of the University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus.

The complete EOD protocol lasted 27 days, consisting of 14 Choice Days and 13 No-Choice Days. The first day following the extinction trials was designated as Choice Day 1. Body weights of the mice were recorded every 72 hours, while ethanol and water intake values were measured every 24 hours to the nearest 0.2 mL. These data were used to calculate self-administered ethanol doses (g/kg), water consumption (mL), and the relative preference for ethanol (20% ethanol intake/total fluid intake) (Fig 1A, 2A). Mice were euthanized 24 hours after completing the EOD protocol.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Two bottle choice every other day drinking task – EOD.

(A) Diagram displaying simplified EOD paradigm. (B-D) Line graphs detailing drinking pattern during first seven EOD Choice Days measuring; EtOH consumption (B), Water consumption (C), and EtOH preference (D). (E-G) Bar graphs quantifying the total average EtOH consumption (g/kg), Water consumption (mL) and EtOH preference (20% ethanol intake/total fluid intake) for all 14 Choice days. Statistical significance was determined using One-way ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni test * p ≤ 0.05 in the line graphs. Students t-test was used to determine changes in the average consumption (Bar Graphs) * p ≤ 0.05. Data presented as mean and SEM.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.g002

Paraffin embedding

After euthanasia, a total of 6 brains (N = 3 Ethanol, N = 3 Saline – Three brain slices (replicates) per brain of each region were assayed for a total of 9 slices per treatment) brains were fixed using Paraformaldehyde 4% solution in PBS (CAS 30525-89-4) using cardiac perfusion under xylazine/ketamine cocktail anesthesia. After fixation, brain tissue was dehydrated using 50, 75, 95, 100% ethanol solution (Sigma Aldrich CAS 64-17-5) and xylene (Sigma Aldrich 1082984007), immersed in paraffin (Thermo Scientific 22-900-701) at 60°C for 12 hours (paraffin was changed every 4 hours) using the protocol stated in Zhanmu O et al., 2019 [45]. After dehydration and paraffin immersion, brain tissue was embedded in paraffin blocks using Epredia™ HistoStar™ Embedding Workstation (Cat. No. A81000002) and were left at 4°C until used (Fig 1B).

Immunohistochemistry

After paraffin embedding brains were sliced using a fully motorized rotary microtome (Leica, RM2250), and slices of the dorsal hippocampus (dHPC), basolateral amygdala (BLA), and nucleus accumbens core (VS/NAc) brain tissue were collected (5-μm-thick). After all brain slices were made, they were deparaffinized and rehydrated as seen in Zaqout et al., 2020 [46]. For permeabilization slides were given 2 washes with PBS 1X (2 min), then one wash with PBS 1X (10 min), and finally 2 washes with PBS/Gelatin/Triton 0.25% (10 min). Slides then underwent blocking with a 5% BSA solution for 1 hour. After blocking were incubated with primary antibodies for FKBP5 (1:500) (Invitrogen 711292), ß-catenin (1:200) (ab32572), GSK-3ß (1:500) (ab93926) and NeuN (1:500) (ab104224 & ab177487) overnight. The next day slices were washed twice with PBS 1X (10 min), then one wash with PBS/gelatin/triton 0.25% (10 min). They were then incubated with secondary antibodies, Goat Anti-Mouse Alexa Fluor 488 (ab150113), Goat Anti-Rabbit Alexa Fluor 488 (150077), mounting medium with DAPI (ab104139), Goat Anti-Mouse Alexa Fluor 594 (ab150116) and Goat Anti-Rabbit Alexa Fluor 594 (ab150080). The dilution used for all secondary antibodies was 1:500.

Confocal microscopy acquisition and analysis

FKBP5, ß-catenin, and GSK-3ß expressions were measured by a tissue’s fluorescence intensity and were viewed using Nikon Instruments A1 Confocal Laser Microscope using a 10X magnification and analyzed with Nikon Nis Element Advance Research program using the maximum intensity projection (MIP) on all images (Fig 1B).

Brain region isolation and RNA extraction

For bioinformatics analysis, a cohort of animals was selected, and following the completion of behavioral testing, these mice were euthanized by rapid cervical dislocation. The brains were removed, placed in a cold matrix, and coronally sliced. 2 mm brain slices containing the ventral and dorsal striatum were isolated. Subsequently, a 0.84 mm diameter stainless steel micropunch was used to remove bilateral samples from the NAc core of each C57BL/6 mouse (18 mice total) which were placed into 1.5-ml tubes. Tissue punch samples were immediately snap-frozen, and then stored at −80°C. RNA extraction was done by placing samples into ice-cold TRI reagent, 1 ml per 50–100 mg of tissue of TRIzol reagent (Sigma-Aldrich). Total RNA was extracted following the manufacturer’s instructions (mRNeasy Micro Kit; QIAGEN). RNA was quantified by UV spectrometry with a NanoDropTM UV-Vis Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, United States). Total RNA was shipped to Psomagen Laboratories where mRNA was further isolated and processed with the highest standards to determine the quality of samples for subsequent RNA sequencing.

RNA sequencing

For library construction, mRNA was extracted from each sample and underwent quality control (QC). Qualified samples proceeded to library construction. The sequencing library was prepared by random fragmentation of the DNA or cDNA sample, followed by 5’ and 3’ adapter ligation. Alternatively, “tagmentation” combines the fragmentation and ligation reactions into a single step increasing the efficiency of the library preparation process. Adapter-ligated fragments are then PCR amplified and gel purified. For cluster generation, the library was loaded into a flow cell where fragments were captured on a lawn of surface-bound oligos complementary to the library adapters. Each fragment is then amplified into distinct, clonal clusters through bridge amplification. When cluster generation is complete, the templates are processed for sequencing. We utilized Illumina SBS technology allowing for a reversible terminator-based method that detects single bases as they are incorporated into DNA template strands. As all 4 reversible, terminator-bound dNTPs are present during each sequencing cycle, natural competition minimizes incorporation bias and greatly reduces raw error rates. The result was highly accurate base-by-base sequencing that virtually eliminates sequence-context-specific errors, even within repetitive sequence regions and homopolymers.

Raw data

Sequencing data is converted into raw data for the analysis. The Illumina sequencer generates raw images utilizing sequencing control software for system control and base calling through an integrated primary analysis software called RTA (Real Time Analysis). The BCL (base calls) binary is converted into FASTQ utilizing the illumina package bcl2fastq. Adapters are not trimmed away from the reads. The total number of bases, reads, GC (%), Q20 (%), and Q30 (%) are calculated for the 6 samples. For example, in NAcCore-Control-1, 98,998,428 reads are produced, and total read bases are 14.9G bp. The GC content (%) is 51.23% and Q30 is 93.41%. Note: N = 3 NAc core control and N = 3 experimental. Each N contains the NAc core tissue punches from 3 mice for a total of 9 tissue punches per N.

Phred quality score

Samples were processed for quality control using a Phred quality score that numerically expresses the accuracy of each nucleotide. A higher Q number signifies higher accuracy. For example, if Phred assigns a quality score of 30 to a base, the chances of having base call errors are 1 in 1000. Phred Quality Score Q is calculated with −10log10P, where P is the probability of an erroneous base. These tests were performed using an independent agency and according to strict guidelines (Psomagen, MD).

Bioinformatics—Differential gene expressions analysis

The paired sequence reads for control and EtOH samples were inspected for quality and trimmed using the Trim Reads tool from the CLC Genomics Workbench® software version 22.0.5, using a quality trimming score of 0.05. The bioinformatics analysis was performed to identify Differential Expressed Genes (DEGs) across groups using the bioinformatics software, CLC Genomics Workbench®. The reference genome was the Mouse (Mus musculus) reference genome GRCm39.104 acquired from CLC Reference Sets and Ensembl data repository, including genome annotations. The statistical analysis was performed using the option “Differential Expression in Two Groups” from the CLC Genomics Workbench® with the “TMM normalization” method, as a parameter. The final DEGs were considered as these genes with a Fold change (FC) ≥ |2| and p-value ≤ 0.05.

Gene functional, pathway and network analyses

The list of DEGs from the statistical analysis was used as input for the gene enrichment and interaction network analysis for the Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB v7.1) and Ingenuity Pathway Analysis Software [47]. The MSigDB was used to identify Gene Ontologies (GOs) and pathways using as an input the up and down-regulated genes altered by candesartan and vehicle after TBI at 3 dpi in the hippocampus. GO function analysis and pathways were identified using a Fisher’s exact test with a false discovery rate of less than 0.05. Secondly, the DEGs were annotated using the Ensemble Accession identification during the IPA enrichment analysis. An Ingenuity CORE analysis was performed for the enrichment, and identification of the canonical pathways, and diseases/functions associated with the DEGs. As a result, we considered those canonical pathways and diseases/functions with p-values ≤ 0.05. In addition, interaction networks associated with alcohol, drug dependencies, and trauma and stressor-related disorder were performed using the IPA software and the DGEs as input.

The Gene-Gene interaction networks were generated by selecting only the differentially expressed genes of this analysis. The criteria to observe Gene-Gene interactions was to only identify annotated protein interactions between the differentially expressed genes, the genes with the highest number of interactions were at the center of the network. The Pathway-Gene interaction network was generated by selecting enriched pathways of importance for our hypothesis associated with drug and alcohol dependence. A total of 7 pathways were considered of highest importance based on enrichment p-value, and number of genes associated per each pathway. The causal network between trauma and stressor-related disorder, stress-related disorder, and drug and alcohol dependence were generated by using the Ingenuity Pathway Knowledgebase search engine. The keywords used to search for matching terms were “Drug Dependence”, “Alcohol dependence”, “Anxiety” and stress-related disorders, under ontological categories of “Organismal Injury and Abnormalities”, “Psychological disorders”, and “Neurological Diseases”, under Ingenuity Knowledgebase Content Version: 73620684 (Release Date: 2022-03-12).

Statistics

Statistical analysis for behavior and immunohistochemistry was generated using GraphPad Prism 7.01 and using repeated measures two-way ANOVA or mixed model followed by a Bonferroni multiple comparison test. The confidence level was set to 0.05 (p-value), and all results are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean [47]. Significances of these tests are displayed as indicated: * p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001 and **** p ≤ 0.0001.

Ethics statement

The methods used in this study were approved in writing by the University of Puerto Rico’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) IACUC as Protocol A830117- Effects of Alcohol Molecular Tolerance on Fear Extinction.

Results

Two bottle choice every other day drinking

Mice underwent EOD to determine the effects of binge-like alcohol exposure on voluntary drinking. No significant differences were observed in average ethanol drinking between binge drinking and control mice over the 7 drinking days, two weeks total (Fig 2E). However, there was a significant increase in overall drinking on the first trial day, mixed model (REML) and Bonferroni’s test showed higher drinking in binge drinking animals as opposed to controls p < 0.05 (Fig 2B) suggesting binge-like alcohol exposure may induce early increased ethanol intake. Interestingly, water consumption was also found to be significantly increased in the ethanol group on average (Fig 2F), Student’s t-test showed p < 0.05. This result was caused primarily by a significant increase in water consumption on trial days 5 and 7 for ethanol exposed mice, mixed model (REML) and Bonferroni’s test showed p < 0.05 (Fig 2C). This increase in water consumption may be the result of increased withdrawal symptoms [48]. When evaluating ethanol preference, no significant changes were observed on average (Fig 2G) between control and ethanol exposed. Increased ethanol preference was only observed within the control group on trial days 1 and 5, mixed model (REML), and Bonferroni’s test showed p < 0.05 (Fig 2D). The differences on day one are likely caused by the novelty effect as control animals had not previously been exposed to ethanol.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC)

Upon completion of the behavioral paradigms, IHC was performed on a subset of mice to assess changes in β-catenin and regulatory proteins GSK-3β and FKBP5 [49,50] (Fig 3A). This was done to detect changes in β-catenin-induced development of molecular alcohol tolerance in several reward system-related regions such as the striatum, basolateral amygdala, and hippocampus [20,21] (Fig 3B). Mean intensity of β-catenin, FKBP5, and GSK-3β showed no significant differences in the dorsal hippocampus, basolateral amygdala, dorso-lateral striatum, dorso-ventral striatum, NAc core, or NAc shell (Fig 3 C–E). This suggests that while binge-like alcohol exposure can affect context extinction learning behavior, specific changes in protein expression may be limited to early time windows and have the potential to fully recover over time.

thumbnail
Fig 3. Relative expression of EtOH-impacted proteins in key reward circuit areas.

(A) Diagram detailing simplified paradigm for immunohistochemistry. (B) Examples of immunohistochemical images (hippocampus) for ethanol and control groups. (C-E) Bar graphs showing the relative |expression of alcohol-associated genes (GSK-3β, β-catenin and, FKBP5) in various reward circuit-associated regions including dorsal hippocampus, basolateral amygdala, dorso-lateral striatum, dorso-ventral straitum, NAc Core and NAc Shell.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.g003

Differential gene expression analysis

A total of 524 genes were determined to be statistically differentially expressed out of a total of 18,092 genes examined. Of these, 153 genes were up-regulated, and 371 were down-regulated (Fig 4A). The top 40 most significant genes included two potassium channel proteins, the upregulation of KCNG3 gene (potassium voltage-gated channel modifier subfamily G member 3) whose functions include, neurotransmitter release, heart rate regulation, insulin secretion, neuronal excitability, epithelial electrolyte transport, smooth muscle contraction, and cell volume control; and the downregulation of KCNJ13, a member of the inwardly rectifying potassium channel family. Other genes notably associated with epigenetic regulation include the upregulation of the H4 clustered histone 13 [51] and downregulation of H2A clustered histone 11, both replication-dependent histones. G-protein associated proteins are strongly represented such as the GPR39 gene (G protein-coupled receptor 39) involved in, zinc-dependent signaling in epithelial tissue in intestines, prostate, salivary gland secretion and pathophysiology of depression [52].

thumbnail
Fig 4. Differential gene expression and cellular components associated with differentially expressed genes.

(A) Volcano plot displaying the p-value of the differentially expressed genes, statistical cutoff established as (Log2 FC [1]; -log10 p value = 1.3). (B) Graph representing the top 20 significantly impacted Cellular Components containing differentially expressed genes, sorted by number of genes, and statistical significance with a p-value of p < 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.g004

Gene functional, pathway and network analyses

As a result of the GO function analysis, three separate groups were created. The first group was associated with “Cellular Components” where the top 20 terms of GO included genes from our DEGs are shown in Fig 4B. Some of the most relevant terms included “cell periphery”, “intrinsic component of plasma membrane” and “integral component of plasma membrane” as well as terms associated with molecular alcohol tolerance such as “ion channel complex” and “transmembrane transporter complex”. The second group was related to “Biological Process” where the top 20 terms of GO functional analysis included “ion transport” with more than 50 DEGs from our list and p-value < 0.01, “transmembrane transport”, “cation transport”, “ion transmembrane transport”, as can be seen in Fig 4B.

The gene ontology associated with biological process (Fig 5) showed the single highest significance is ion binding closely followed by specifically, cation binding and metal ion binding [5355]. These correlate well with the gene ontology associated with molecular function data highlighting binding of ions and metals as the most significant (Fig 3C). Known correlates for cation binding within the nucleus accumbens (NAc) include dopamine binding [5661] and drugs of abuse such as cocaine [61]. The NAc is 95% composed of medium spiny neurons (MSNs), that are typically divided into those that express dopamine receptor D1 (D1R, D1-MSNs), and those that express dopamine receptor D2 (D2R, D2-MSNs) [62] with evidence supporting the expression of the D3 [63], D4 and D5 receptors [64,65]. The regulation of downstream events after specific dopamine receptor activation within the NAc is critical in determining reward versus aversive responses [6668]. Furthermore, binding of magnesium ions is an important regulatory element in alcohol molecular tolerance of BK channels [6973]. For a review of other ions and metals affected by alcohol exposure see [74].

thumbnail
Fig 5. Pathways significantly impacted by alcohol exposure.

Graph representing upregulated or downregulated (blue) pathways ordered by p-value and displaying the number of differentially expressed genes (right-hand side of each column).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.g005

Pathways like phagosome formation, protein-coupled receptor signaling, and CREB signaling in neurons have been associated with ethanol consumption within the Nucleus accumbens (NAc) (Fig 5) [75,76]. Ethanol exposure and consumption have been shown to lead to apoptosis and autophagy in macrophages of rats. Ethanol has been further related to the suppression of the phagosomal adhesion maturation process, leading to bacterial phagocytosis [75]. There is also clear evidence of changes associated with G-protein expression in response to alcohol exposure. Chronic alcohol drinking has been related to the hypermethylation and downregulation of the G-protein coupled receptor 39 (GPR39) gene [77]. The role of this gene is crucial in the encoding of the Zn2+-binding metabotropic receptor which is known for the modulation of inhibitory and excitatory processes in neurotransmitters, altering the balance of diseases like AUD [78]. Studies have investigated the potential use of a GPR39 agonist for the reduction of alcohol consumption in a preclinical rodent model. Their results showed a mechanism for the agonist in which the increase in alcohol consumption was prevented and decreased drinking in mice after acute administration of it, which could occur by the processes of excitatory neurons in the NAc. Furthermore, the activation of Protein Kinase A and its subunits in the NAc and Ventral tegmental area within the brain are due to the consumption and exposure of addicting drugs like nicotine and ethanol. Research by Pandey and colleagues showed that the NAc and the CREB signaling has a role in Ethanol drinking behaviors which could affect positively and negatively due to the influence of alcohol use and abuse [79]. Also, these results provide novel evidence that decreased CREB signaling expression in neurons may regulate alcohol-drinking behaviors via the decreased expression of NPY in the NAc shell [80].

Gene interactions

The Gene-Gene Network generated using Ingenuity Knowledgebase was divided into three clusters (Fig 6), based on direct interactions between the genes. Genes interacting within network-II include the genes OPRM1, CDH1, PCDHGB1, and TRIM54, as predominant based on Ingenuity knowledge base [Refseq entry 4988, Oct 2013, and Uniprot accession P35372], Highlighted is the Mu-Type Opioid receptor (OPRM1) which is the principal target of endogenous opioid peptides and opioid analgesic agents such as beta-endorphin and enkephalins. This receptor also has an important role in dependence to other drugs of abuse, such as nicotine, cocaine, and alcohol via its modulation of the dopamine system. The gene Protocadherin gamma subfamily B1 (PCDHGB1) [Refseq entry 56104, Jul 2008, and Uniprot accession Q9Y5G3] belongs to the neural cadherin-like cell adhesion proteins, these proteins may play a critical role in the establishment and function of specific cell-cell connections in the brain. The gene Cadherin-1 (CDH1) [Refseq entry 999, Nov 2015, Uniprot accession P12830] is a member of the calcium-dependent cell adhesion proteins [81]. According to Cheon and colleagues, CDH1 is involved in mechanisms regulating cell-cell adhesions, mobility, and proliferation of epithelial cells. The Gene Tripartite motif-containing protein 54 (TRIM54) [Refseq entry 57159, Jul 2008, Uniprot accession Q9BYV2], which, in conjunction with RNF28, and RNF29 form heterodimers that may be important for the regulation of titin kinase and microtubule-dependent signal pathways in striated muscles.

thumbnail
Fig 6. The Gene-Gene Networks.

The networks were generated using Ingenuity Knowledgebase which divided gene interactions into three clusters designated networks I-III, based on direct interactions between the genes differentially regulated by SEE exposure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.g006

The Pathway-Gene interaction network was generated by considering the top three most enriched pathways based on an enrichment threshold of p-value ≤ 0.05. These pathways include G protein-coupled receptor signaling, CREB signaling in neurons, and phagosome formation. Additionally, two more pathways were included in this network: the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway and the dopamine-DARP32 feedback in the cAMP signaling pathway (Table 1; S1–S9 Figs; S1–S9 Tables) [82]. The gene OPRM1 was identified in correlation with annotations related to drug and alcohol dependencies [83,84] and gender differences in response to binge drinking in adolescent mice [8587]. Notably, it is linked specifically to the development of trauma and stressor-related behaviors and ethanol consumption in mice [88]. Annotations from the Ingenuity knowledge base suggest that mutations at positions 118A > G (rs1799971) may increase susceptibility to drug and alcohol dependence [89]. This finding has also been observed in recent pharmacogenetic studies involving the variant rs1799971 from OPRM1 [8992]. The Functions-Genes interaction network between trauma and stress-related disorders (Fig 7) was similarly generated by considering terms from the Ingenuity Knowledge Base associated with trauma and stress-related disorders. This network incorporates several highlighted genes from the gene interaction analysis.

thumbnail
Table 1. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control Wnt-associated genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.t001

thumbnail
Fig 7. Differentially expressed genes related to anxiety and addiction.

Diagram listing genes associated with anxiety and addiction displaying a link through the OPRM1 gene. A total of eight genes were identified interacting with trauma and stressor-related by causation (AGER; TRPC5; SLC17A7; UCN; PTPRN2; CHRNA7; CNGA2 and MAS1) [93], and four genes were found associated with trauma and stressor-related behavior (CNR2; UCN; PTPRN2 and CORT) [94,95].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.g007

Differentially expressed genes related to anxiety and addiction were diagramed using ingenuity pathway (Fig 7). The diagram lists genes associated with anxiety and addiction displaying a link through the OPRM1 gene. A total of eight genes were identified interacting with trauma and stressor-related by causation (AGER; TRPC5; SLC17A7; UCN; PTPRN2; CHRNA7; CNGA2 and MAS1) [93], and four genes were found associated with trauma and stressor-related behavior (CNR2; UCN; PTPRN2 and CORT) [94,95]. The results from the network suggest most of the causal interactions are by knockout studies in mice. Annotations between anxiety and the gene AGER, suggest that 129S1/SvImJ mutant of the Trpc5 gene in mice (allele Trpc5tm1.1Clph/Y, by Knockout), decreases anxiety in mouse [96]. Knockout of the gene AGER in mice suggests a decrease in anxiety in mice [97]. Knockout of the gene SLC17A7 in mice suggests an increase of anxiety in mice 129 * C57BL/6N SLC17A7 mutant mouse [98]. Knockout of the gene CORT in mice increases anxiety-like behavior [99]. Knockout of the gene PTPRN2 in mice increases anxiety-like behavior [100]. In lateral septum from male rats infusion of the UCN gene increases anxiety-like behavior [101]. Knockout of the gene CHRNA7 in129S7/SvEvBrd * C57BL/6J mouse cells, suggests a decrease in anxiety [102]. Knockout of the gene MAS1 in 129P2/OlaHsd mouse cells, suggests an increase in anxiety [103]. In male mice, blockade of CNR2 protein by AM630 increases anxiety-like behavior by male mice that is decreased by mutant mouse Fmr1 gene by knockout [104].

Discussion

Comparative transcriptomics is essential in understanding comorbid diseases such as Alcohol Use Disorder [105] and stress-related disorders because it enables researchers to identify common molecular pathways and gene expression profiles impacted during disease development within specific brain regions. The convergent genes may contribute to the development and maintenance of each disorder and their comorbidity. Comparative studies can also identify biomarkers indicative of susceptibility to AUD, stress-related disorders, or both. These biomarkers are useful for early diagnosis, monitoring disease progression, and evaluating treatment effectiveness. Additionally, longitudinal transcriptomic studies can provide insights into how gene expression changes over time in response to stress, alcohol exposure, or treatment. These and future approaches are designed to enhance our understanding of the progression of comorbid AUD and stress-related disorders, identify critical windows for intervention, and inform the development of personalized therapeutics. Our results observed early β-catenin dependent BK surface expression redistribution after binge-like alcohol exposure, linked to fear-extinction deficits [20]. These changes are presumed to be a part of a chain reaction leading to long-term gene expression changes most likely via TCF/LEF transcriptionally regulated genes. It also provides evidence that a single session of binge drinking, prior to fear extinction, is sufficient to chart a distinct profile of long-term transcriptional changes unique from those observed with EOD alcohol exposure only.

Voluntary drinking and molecular alcohol tolerance

During every-other-day drinking (EOD) observations, differences were notable on the first-choice day. On this day, we observed a significant increase in ethanol consumption, a non-significant trend towards increased water consumption, and a decreased ethanol preference in the binge-like alcohol group compared to saline controls. The increase in EtOH consumption on Day 1 is unlikely to be attributed to freezing levels during conditioning, as these were comparable between treatment groups, as previously reported. Furthermore, open field tests assessing anxiety during conditioning and extinction trials revealed no differences in center vs. periphery time or locomotion [22]. Additionally, extinction deficits do not reliably predict increased alcohol consumption in mice [106]. Instead, the novelty effect likely influenced changes in preference, as control mice had not been previously exposed to ethanol [106109]. Interestingly, delays in auditory fear extinction have been linked to increased alcohol consumption but only in female rats [107]. Future experiments will allow us to elucidate this possibility. However, it is also possible that frequency and/or strength of the single foot shock per trial may not be able to elicit the levels of anxiety that could be linked to augmented voluntary consumption [108,110112]. Interstingly, the exception was water consumption, which significantly increased in the ethanol group on days 5 and 7 in mice SEE treated, which may have resulted from a counteractive measure in response to increased EtOH exposure. These differences, along with the trend on day one, may have contributed to a significant increase in average water consumption linked to withdrawal symptoms [48]. This is consistent with some of the differentially expressed genes found in the bioinformatic analysis [113115]. Linking voluntary drinking to known changes in Wnt/β-catenin activation in response to binge-like alcohol exposure, we measured protein expression via immunohistochemistry analysis. We examined differences in the expression of β-catenin and some of its regulatory proteins to determine if the mechanism of early molecular alcohol tolerance [20,21] was present. The lack of clear behavioral voluntary drinking differences despite molecular changes could stem from the complexity of the relationship between molecular alterations and behavior, the limitations of the experimental paradigm, or compensatory mechanisms in response to ethanol exposure. These molecular changes can further be the bases for future susceptibility to stress and/or alcohol-related behaviors. Further analysis or adjustments to the experimental design may help clarify these observations and highlight behavioral impacts due to SEE. For example, it has yet to be determined if any of these will impact alcohol consumption under repeated exposure [116] or increase the probability of dependence in adulthood [117]. Future studies will further analyze other protein targets which could mediate the effects of binge-like alcohol expousure on extinction and/or alcohol consumption through opioid signaling [118], cannabinoid signaling [119121] and dopamine receptors such as the D1-receptor [122124].

Long-term alcohol and plasticity

In terms of our bioinformatic analysis, a large subset of the over 200 differentially expressed mRNA’s are known to be associated with long-term alcohol exposure [38]. This includes several GPCR’s (ADGRF4, ADGRG5, GPR39…) which are known to play roles in the development of withdrawal and relapse and whose expression impacts alcohol consumption [77,125]. Unsurprisingly GPCR signaling were significantly altered, being the second most prevalent with 23 genes many of which (APCY9, CREB313, SHC3) which are themselves associated with AUD [126128]. One notable finding was an increase in phosphodiesterase 2A (PDE2A) whose inhibition was shown to attenuate AUD induced by stress-related disorders suggesting that binge drinking during fear-conditioning could create vulnerabilities for future chronic drinking [129]. We also found increased Hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor (HCAR) expression, a G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) which binds to lactic acid. HCAR is known to increase β-catenin expression in a zebrafish model suggesting a connection to the molecular alcohol tolerance hypothesis which requires β-catenin signaling [130]. These results are not unexpected, as numerous studies have provided evidence of the roles of GPCRs in addictive behaviors [131]. Multiple alcohol-associated genes not related to GPCR signaling (AP1G2, CNR2, ITGA10, ITGA2, ITGAE, MYO5C, NMUR2…) are found in to be differentially expressed. These genes were entwined with alcohol during multiple processes such as development, drug seeking, and drug taking [132138]. As animals from all groups underwent chronic drinking this suggests that binge-like alcohol exposure administered prior to extinction of fear conditioning could predispose mice to drinking by way of aberrant synaptic trafficking. This represents the long-term effect of neurochemical changes that caused changes in behavior a month prior. Interestingly the PLA2G4B gene was found to be increased as it had previously been observed during binge drinking suggesting it may serve as a marker weeks after the binge event itself [139]. Some of our other most significantly impacted pathways, CREB signaling formation with 22 genes and Breast Cancer regulation with 20 genes, had a high degree of overlap with GPCR signaling. As GPCR’s are known for directly regulating CREB through cAMP and PKA this result is not unexpected [140]. The only nonoverlapping gene was CACNA1 which is itself differently expressed in the mouse amygdala after chronic alcohol [141]. The same can be said for breast cancer regulation where GPCR’s are one of the most studied genes involved in tumorigenesis and one of the most promising targets for treatment-resistant triple negative breast cancers [142]. We found only one non-overlapping gene PPP1R3A whose involvement in PIP makes a prominent target for addictive behavior in the accumbens [143], but also a potential regulator of BK channel activity [144]. GPCRs are known to play key roles in the development of synaptic plasticity suggesting binge-like drinking could be disrupting these learning processes [145].

We also found a large group of genes associated with alcohol-linked diseases (CR2, GRPR, MYH6, SCARA5….). These genes, known to play roles in liver and heart conditions associated with AUD [146149] were present in multiple pathways. Perhaps the most prominent example of overlapping genes was the subset of differentially regulated collagens (COL11A1, COL16A1, COL22A1, COL24A1, COL27A1, COL2A1, COL5A1, COL5A3, COL6A1, COL6A6, COL7A1, COL9A1) as these were present in multiple pathways such as the Collagen biosynthesis, Collagen degradation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Idiopathic Signaling Pathway, Wound Healing Signaling Pathway, GP6 Signaling Pathway, and Hepatic Fibrosis/ Hepatic Stellate Cell Activation pathways. Chronic alcohol is known to impact the expression of collagen in the amygdala and across the body due to alcohol-related fibrosis [141]. This further strengthens the claim that binge-like drinking can worsen negative outcomes in alcohol-associated diseases.

Wnt signaling and molecular alcohol tolerance

Because Wnt-signaling is necessary for rapid molecular alcohol tolerance [20,21,25] we looked at potentially dysregulated genes associated to this pathway (Fig 6,7). While we found few genes suggesting this connection we did identify some key changes in the synaptogenesis signaling pathways which had several dysregulated cadherin genes (CDH1, CDH17, CDH19, CDH22) these genes have all been associated to Wnt signaling and E-Cadherin in particular is well known prevent internalization of β-Catenin suggesting alteration in Wnt signaling persist long past their role in early alcohol molecular tolerance [150152]. It also possessed a reduction of SNY3 which could suggest an increase in BK activity [153]. The Calcium signaling pathway was also notable as changes in intracellular calcium could affect BK channel signaling. Here we found 2 dysregulated SERCA pumps (ATP2A1, ATP2B3) which could impact ER calcium however they are regulated in opposite directions making it difficult to assess the nature of the impact [154]. We also found dysregulated transient receptor potential cation channels (Trpc2, TRPC5, TRPM8) but they differed in their directionality [155]. Other genes include a group of potential BK channels regulators (SNA12, TNFSF13, and NOX1) suggesting an alteration in BK signaling [156158], ITPR1 can also increase β-catenin signaling which could allude to a connection with molecular alcohol tolerance [159], and AANAT which is linked to BK activity [160].

Fear and stressors

Interestingly The opioid signaling pathway revealed a small group of genes associated with fear and anxiety (ADCY9, ITPR1) which could alter fear response and be responsible for the previously observed extinction deficits [161,162]. CHRM5, a gene thought to control the duration of dopamine release from the VTA was also found to be dysregulated which suggests a possible desensitization to dopamine takes place [163]. Perhaps the most important gene from the opioid pathway was OPRM1 which is known to modulate the hedonic effects of alcohol in humans [164], and alter how Pavlovian stimuli affect dopamine signaling [165].

Translational relevance

Overall, our findings indicate that binge-like alcohol exposure impairs extinction learning, alters early drinking behaviors, and disrupts multiple neuronal pathways, independently of the mechanisms underlying early molecular alcohol tolerance. These results could lead to the identification of key molecular players, and previously unidentified molecular pathways relevant to the study of AUD. Transcriptomics can be easily translated to human models and represents an important bridge between pre and post clinical research [166]. In fact, post-mortem studies in humans with AUD have shown promising overlap with preclinical transcriptomics [167]. Similar is the case for stress-related disorders [168]. As such this could be relevant for guiding potential clinical research. This study allows for a deeper insight into changes in mRNA expression profiles as a result of both binge-like alcohol exposure and it effects on extinction learning. While we are currently focusing on male C57BL/6 mice due to the clear effects of alcohol exposure we will be evaluating the changes in female mice in future studies [22].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of e-cadherin associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed E-Cadherin associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s001

(TIF)

S1 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of e-cadherin associated genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s002

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of opioid signaling associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed opioid signaling associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s003

(TIF)

S2 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of opioid signaling genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s004

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of calcium signaling associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed calcium signaling associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s005

(TIF)

S3 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of calcium signaling genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s006

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of collagen biosynthesis associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed collagen biosynthesis associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s007

(TIF)

S4 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of ethanol exposure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s008

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of GP6 associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed GP6 associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s009

(TIF)

S5 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of GP6 signaling genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s010

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of CREB signaling associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed CREB signaling associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s011

(TIF)

S6 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of CREB signaling genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s012

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of GPCR signaling associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed GPCR signaling associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s013

(TIF)

S7 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of GPCR signaling genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s014

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of synaptogenesis associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed synaptogenesis associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s015

(TIF)

S8 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of synaptogenesis associated genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s016

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Differential expression analysis EtOH vs. Control of dopamine signaling associated genes.

Diagram representing differentially expressed dopamine signaling associated genes and their known/predicted interactions sorted by cellular location. Figures produced from QIAGEN IPA software – open-access CC-BY 4.0 license for purposes of publication.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s017

(TIF)

S9 Table. Examples of differentially expressed EtOH vs. Control of dopamine signaling genes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322576.s018

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Neuro Electrophysiology and Imaging Facility (NIEF), with special appreciation to Dr. Dina Bracho for her technical assistance with confocal imaging and data analysis. We also extend our gratitude to Dr. Christian Bravo, Professor at the University of Puerto Rico Department of Psychiatry, for his valuable insight and guidance.

References

  1. 1. Chung T, Creswell KG, Bachrach R, Clark DB, Martin CS. Adolescent Binge Drinking. Alcohol Res. 2018;39(1):5–15. pmid:30557142
  2. 2. Hingson RW, Zha W, White AM. Drinking beyond the binge threshold: predictors, consequences, and changes in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(6):717–27.
  3. 3. Cisler JM, Amstadter AB, Begle AM, Resnick HS, Danielson CK, Saunders BE, et al. PTSD symptoms, potentially traumatic event exposure, and binge drinking: a prospective study with a national sample of adolescents. J Anxiety Disord. 2011;25(7):978–87. pmid:21783340
  4. 4. Crabbe JC, Schlumbohm JP, Hack W, Barkley-Levenson AM, Metten P, Lattal KM. Fear conditioning in mouse lines genetically selected for binge-like ethanol drinking. Alcohol. 2016;52:25–32. pmid:27139234
  5. 5. Debell F, Fear NT, Head M, Batt-Rawden S, Greenberg N, Wessely S, et al. A systematic review of the comorbidity between PTSD and alcohol misuse. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014;49(9):1401–25. pmid:24643298
  6. 6. Fortier CB, Whitworth JW, Fonda JR, Currao A, Beck BM, Levin L. Early Adolescent Binge Drinking Increases Risk of Psychopathology in Post-9/11 Veterans and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Exacerbates Symptom Severity. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2021;56(1):116–24.
  7. 7. Jones SA, Lueras JM, Nagel BJ. Effects of binge drinking on the developing brain. Alcohol Res. 2018;39(1):87–96.
  8. 8. Yang F-C, Liang KC. Interactions of the dorsal hippocampus, medial prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens in formation of fear memory: difference in inhibitory avoidance learning and contextual fear conditioning. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2014;112:186–94. pmid:23891992
  9. 9. Dutta S, Beaver J, Halcomb CJ, Jasnow AM. Dissociable roles of the nucleus accumbens core and shell subregions in the expression and extinction of conditioned fear. Neurobiol Stress. 2021;15:100365. pmid:34355048
  10. 10. Yu YH, Lim YS, Ou CY, Chang KC, Tsai AC, Chang FC, et al. The Medial Prefrontal Cortex, Nucleus Accumbens, Basolateral Amygdala, and Hippocampus Regulate the Amelioration of Environmental Enrichment and Cue in Fear Behavior in the Animal Model of PTSD. Behav Neurol. 2022;2022:7331714. pmid:35178125
  11. 11. Flores-Dourojeanni JP, van Rijt C, van den Munkhof MH, Boekhoudt L, Luijendijk MCM, Vanderschuren L. Temporally Specific Roles of Ventral Tegmental Area Projections to the Nucleus Accumbens and Prefrontal Cortex in Attention and Impulse Control. J Neurosci. 2021;41(19).
  12. 12. Mavridis I. The role of the nucleus accumbens in psychiatric disorders. Psychiatriki. 2015;25(4):282–94. pmid:26709994
  13. 13. Oldehinkel M, Beckmann CF, Pruim RHR, van Oort ESB, Franke B, Hartman CA, et al. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder symptoms coincide with altered striatal connectivity. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2016;1(4):353–63. pmid:27812554
  14. 14. Mukherjee P, Vilgis V, Rhoads S, Chahal R, Fassbender C, Leibenluft E, et al. Associations of Irritability With Functional Connectivity of Amygdala and Nucleus Accumbens in Adolescents and Young Adults With ADHD. J Atten Disord. 2022;26(7):1040–50. pmid:34724835
  15. 15. Park Y-S, Sammartino F, Young NA, Corrigan J, Krishna V, Rezai AR. Anatomic Review of the Ventral Capsule/Ventral Striatum and the Nucleus Accumbens to Guide Target Selection for Deep Brain Stimulation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:1–10. pmid:30790738
  16. 16. Lopez-Sosa F, Reneses B, Sanmartino F, Galarza-Vallejo A, Garcia-Albea J, Cruz-Gomez AJ, et al. Nucleus Accumbens Stimulation Modulates Inhibitory Control by Right Prefrontal Cortex Activation in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Cereb Cortex. 2021;31(5):2742–58. pmid:33406245
  17. 17. Zhou C, Xue C, Chen J, Amdanee N, Tang X, Zhang H, et al. Altered Functional Connectivity of the Nucleus Accumbens Network Between Deficit and Non-deficit Schizophrenia. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:704631. pmid:34658949
  18. 18. Tendilla-Beltrán H, Coatl-Cuaya H, Meneses-Prado S, Vázquez-Roque RA, Brambila E, Tapia-Rodríguez M, et al. Neuroplasticity and inflammatory alterations in the nucleus accumbens are corrected after risperidone treatment in a schizophrenia-related developmental model in rats. Schizophr Res. 2021;235:17–28. pmid:34298239
  19. 19. Asim M, Hao B, Waris A, Liang Y-M, Wang X-G. Ketamine attenuates the PTSD-like effect via regulation of glutamatergic signaling in the nucleus accumbens of mice. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2022;120:103723. pmid:35351607
  20. 20. Velazquez-Marrero C, Burgos A, Garcia JO, Palacio S, Marrero HG, Bernardo A. Alcohol Regulates BK Surface Expression via Wnt/beta-Catenin Signaling. J Neurosci. 2016;36(41):10625–39.
  21. 21. Bian S, Bai JP, Chapin H, Le Moellic C, Dong H, Caplan M. Interactions between beta-catenin and the HSlo potassium channel regulates HSlo surface expression. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28264.
  22. 22. Cardona-Jordan KM, Lay-Rivera XX, Cartagena-Lopez E, Bracho-Rincon DL, Gonzalez-Bermejo R, Alvarado-Monefeldt GL. Sex Differences in Contextual Extinction Learning After Single Binge-Like EtOH Exposure in Adolescent C57BL/6J Mice. bioRxiv. 2024.
  23. 23. Dias C, Feng J, Sun H, Shao NY, Mazei-Robison MS, Damez-Werno D, et al. β-catenin mediates stress resilience through Dicer1/microRNA regulation. Nature. 2014;516(7529):51–5. pmid:25383518
  24. 24. Gao H, Chen D, Liu X, Wu M, Mi J, Wang W. Polymorphisms and expression of the WNT8A gene in Hirschsprung’s disease. Int J Mol Med. 2013;32(3):647–52. pmid:23836442
  25. 25. Velázquez-Marrero C, Wynne P, Bernardo A, Palacio S, Martin G, Treistman SN. The relationship between duration of initial alcohol exposure and persistence of molecular tolerance is markedly nonlinear. J Neurosci. 2011;31(7):2436–46. pmid:21325511
  26. 26. Wilkinson MB, Dias C, Magida J, Mazei-Robison M, Lobo M, Kennedy P, et al. A Novel Role of the WNT-Dishevelled-GSK3β Signaling Cascade in the Mouse Nucleus Accumbens in a Social Defeat Model of Depression. Journal of Neuroscience. 2011;31(25).
  27. 27. Muhie S, Gautam A, Meyerhoff J, Chakraborty N, Hammamieh R, Jett M. Brain transcriptome profiles in mouse model simulating features of post-traumatic stress disorder. Mol Brain. 2015;8:14. pmid:25888136
  28. 28. Teo CH, Soga T, Parhar IS. Brain Beta-Catenin Signalling During Stress and Depression. Neurosignals. 2018;26(1):31–42.
  29. 29. Carvalho FR, Nobrega CDR, Martins AT. Mapping gene expression in social anxiety reveals the main brain structures involved in this disorder. Behav Brain Res. 2020;394:112808.
  30. 30. Descalzi G, Mitsi V, Purushothaman I, Gaspari S, Avrampou K, Loh Y-HE, et al. Neuropathic pain promotes adaptive changes in gene expression in brain networks involved in stress and depression. Sci Signal. 2017;10(471):eaaj1549. pmid:28325815
  31. 31. Liu J, Dietz K, Hodes GE, Russo SJ, Casaccia P. Widespread transcriptional alternations in oligodendrocytes in the adult mouse brain following chronic stress. Dev Neurobiol. 2018;78(2):152–62. pmid:28884925
  32. 32. Shen EY, Jiang Y, Javidfar B, Kassim B, Loh Y-HE, Ma Q, et al. Neuronal Deletion of Kmt2a/Mll1 Histone Methyltransferase in Ventral Striatum is Associated with Defective Spike-Timing-Dependent Striatal Synaptic Plasticity, Altered Response to Dopaminergic Drugs, and Increased Anxiety. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(13):3103–13. pmid:27485686
  33. 33. Westbrook RF, Good AJ, Kiernan MJ. Microinjection of morphine into the nucleus accumbens impairs contextual learning in rats. Behav Neurosci. 1997;111(5):996–1013. pmid:9383520
  34. 34. Huggett SB, Ikeda AS, Yuan Q, Benca-Bachman CE, Palmer RHC. Genome- and transcriptome-wide splicing associations with alcohol use disorder. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):3950. pmid:36894673
  35. 35. Imperio CG, McFalls AJ, Colechio EM, Masser DR, Vrana KE, Grigson PS, et al. Assessment of individual differences in the rat nucleus accumbens transcriptome following taste-heroin extended access. Brain Res Bull. 2016;123:71–80. pmid:26733446
  36. 36. Li X, Xie B, Lu Y, Yang H, Wang J, Yu F, et al. Transcriptomic Analysis of Long Non-coding RNA-MicroRNA-mRNA Interactions in the Nucleus Accumbens Related to Morphine Addiction in Mice. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:915398. pmid:35722589
  37. 37. Lodha J, Brocato ER, Nash M, Marcus MM, Pais AC, Pais AB, et al. Adolescent social housing protects against adult emotional and cognitive deficits and alters the PFC and NAc transcriptome in male and female C57BL/6J mice. Front Neurosci. 2023;17:1287584. pmid:38130694
  38. 38. Morud J, Ashouri A, Larsson E, Ericson M, Söderpalm B. Transcriptional profiling of the rat nucleus accumbens after modest or high alcohol exposure. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0181084. pmid:28715440
  39. 39. van den Oord EJCG, Xie LY, Zhao M, Aberg KA, Clark SL. A single-nucleus transcriptomics study of alcohol use disorder in the nucleus accumbens. Addict Biol. 2023;28(1):e13250. pmid:36577731
  40. 40. Vornholt E, Drake J, Mamdani M, McMichael G, Taylor ZN, Bacanu S-A, et al. Network preservation reveals shared and unique biological processes associated with chronic alcohol abuse in NAc and PFC. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243857. pmid:33332381
  41. 41. Zhang Y, Crofton EJ, Fan X, Li D, Kong F, Sinha M, et al. Convergent transcriptomics and proteomics of environmental enrichment and cocaine identifies novel therapeutic strategies for addiction. Neuroscience. 2016;339:254–66. pmid:27717806
  42. 42. Clark. A Gruide for the Use and Care of Laboratory Animals. DC: Washington. 1996.
  43. 43. Matsuda S. Importance of home cage condition for contextual fear memory, fear extinction and spontaneous recovery: Cage size and bedding material. Neurosci Lett. 2023;804:137204. pmid:36966963
  44. 44. McKay BM, Matthews EA, Oliveira FA, Disterhoft JF. Intrinsic neuronal excitability is reversibly altered by a single experience in fear conditioning. J Neurophysiol. 2009;102(5):2763–70.
  45. 45. Zhanmu O, Zhao P, Yang Y, Yang X, Gong H, Li X. Maintenance of fluorescence during paraffin embedding of fluorescent protein-labeled specimens. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:752.
  46. 46. Zaqout S, Becker LL, Kaindl AM. Immunofluorescence Staining of Paraffin Sections Step by Step. Front Neuroanat. 2020;14:582218.
  47. 47. Dias C, Feng J, Sun H, Shao NY, Mazei-Robison MS, Damez-Werno D, et al. β-catenin mediates stress resilience through Dicer1/microRNA regulation. Nature. 2014;516(7529):51–5. pmid:25383518
  48. 48. Essig CF, Lam RC. Convulsions and hallucinatory behavior following alcohol withdrawal in the dog. Arch Neurol. 1968;18(6):626–32. pmid:5690103
  49. 49. Liu C, Li Y, Semenov M, Han C, Baeg GH, Tan Y, et al. Control of beta-catenin phosphorylation/degradation by a dual-kinase mechanism. Cell. 2002;108(6):837–47. pmid:11955436
  50. 50. Gassen NC, Hartmann J, Schmidt MV, Rein T. FKBP5/FKBP51 enhances autophagy to synergize with antidepressant action. Autophagy. 2015;11(3):578–80. pmid:25714272
  51. 51. Yu L, Ji T, Liao W, Xu Y, Fang Y, Zhu Q, et al. H4-methylation regulators mediated epitranscriptome patterns and tumor microenvironment infiltration characterization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Epigenetics. 2023;15(1):43. pmid:36932439
  52. 52. Xu Y, Barnes AP, Alkayed NJ. Role of GPR39 in Neurovascular Homeostasis and Disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(15).
  53. 53. Janowsky A, Berger P, Vocci F, Labarca R, Skolnick P, Paul SM. Characterization of sodium-dependent [3H]GBR-12935 binding in brain: a radioligand for selective labelling of the dopamine transport complex. J Neurochem. 1986;46(4):1272–6. pmid:3081686
  54. 54. Kogias G, Zheng F, Kalinichenko LS, Kornhuber J, Alzheimer C, Mielenz D, et al. Swiprosin1/EFhd2 is involved in the monoaminergic and locomotor responses of psychostimulant drugs. J Neurochem. 2020;154(4):424–40. pmid:31943210
  55. 55. Yamamoto M, Pohli S, Durany N, Ozawa H, Saito T, Boissl KW, et al. Increased levels of calcium-sensitive adenylyl cyclase subtypes in the limbic system of alcoholics: evidence for a specific role of cAMP signaling in the human addictive brain. Brain Res. 2001;895(1–2):233–7. pmid:11259782
  56. 56. Tupala E, Tiihonen J. Striatal dopamine D1 receptors in type 1 and 2 alcoholics measured with human whole hemisphere autoradiography. Brain Res. 2005;1031(1):20–9. pmid:15621009
  57. 57. Tupala E, Hall H, Mantere T, Räsänen P, Särkioja T, Tiihonen J. Dopamine receptors and transporters in the brain reward circuits of type 1 and 2 alcoholics measured with human whole hemisphere autoradiography. Neuroimage. 2003;19(1):145–55. pmid:12781734
  58. 58. Liu Y, Jean-Richard-Dit-Bressel P, Yau JO, Willing A, Prasad AA, Power JM. The mesolimbic dopamine activity signatures of relapse to alcohol-seeking. J Neurosci. 2020;40(33):6409–27.
  59. 59. Gremel CM, Cunningham CL. Effects of disconnection of amygdala dopamine and nucleus accumbens N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors on ethanol-seeking behavior in mice. Eur J Neurosci. 2010;31(1):148–55. pmid:20092560
  60. 60. Zocchi A, Girlanda E, Varnier G, Sartori I, Zanetti L, Wildish GA, et al. Dopamine responsiveness to drugs of abuse: A shell-core investigation in the nucleus accumbens of the mouse. Synapse. 2003;50(4):293–302. pmid:14556234
  61. 61. Hitzemann R, Hitzemann B, Rivera S, Gatley J, Thanos P, Shou LLS, et al. Dopamine D2 receptor binding, Drd2 expression and the number of dopamine neurons in the BXD recombinant inbred series: genetic relationships to alcohol and other drug associated phenotypes. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(1):1–11. pmid:12543998
  62. 62. Soares-Cunha C, Coimbra B, Domingues AV, Vasconcelos N, Sousa N, Rodrigues AJ. Nucleus accumbens microcircuit underlying D2-MSN-driven increase in motivation. eNeuro. 2018;5(2).
  63. 63. Schwartz JC, Griffon N, Diaz J, Levesque D, Sautel F, Sokoloff P, et al. The D3 receptor and its relevance in psychiatry. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;10 Suppl 3:15–20. pmid:8866761
  64. 64. Tarazi FI, Campbell A, Yeghiayan SK, Baldessarini RJ. Localization of dopamine receptor subtypes in corpus striatum and nucleus accumbens septi of rat brain: comparison of D1-, D2-, and D4-like receptors. Neuroscience. 1998;83(1):169–76.
  65. 65. Bhatia A, Lenchner JR, Saadabadi A. Biochemistry, Dopamine Receptors. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls. 2022.
  66. 66. Koob GF. Neural mechanisms of drug reinforcement. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1992;654:171–91. pmid:1632582
  67. 67. Koob GF, Weiss F. Neuropharmacology of cocaine and ethanol dependence. Recent Dev Alcohol. 1992;10:201–33. pmid:1350359
  68. 68. Lajtha A, Sershen H. Heterogeneity of reward mechanisms. Neurochem Res. 2010;35(6):851–67. pmid:20012687
  69. 69. Hopf FW. Commentary: alcohol depletion of magnesium: a new mechanism for tolerance to alcohol activation of BK channels?. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(11):2095–6. pmid:26332707
  70. 70. Marrero HG, Treistman SN, Lemos JR. Ethanol effect on BK channels is modulated by magnesium. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(9):1671–9.
  71. 71. Liu C, Cheng Y, Guo Y, Qian H. Magnesium-L-threonate alleviate colonic inflammation and memory impairment in chronic-plus-binge alcohol feeding mice. Brain Res Bull. 2021;174:184–93. pmid:34144203
  72. 72. Romani AMP. Magnesium homeostasis and alcohol consumption. Magnes Res. 2008;21(4):197–204. pmid:19271417
  73. 73. Sarai M, Tejani AM, Chan AHW, Kuo IF, Li J. Magnesium for alcohol withdrawal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(6):CD008358. pmid:23740536
  74. 74. Baj J, Flieger W, Teresinski G, Buszewicz G, Sitarz R, Forma A, et al. Magnesium, calcium, potassium, sodium, phosphorus, selenium, zinc, and chromium levels in alcohol use disorder: a review. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6).
  75. 75. Karavitis J, Murdoch EL, Deburghgraeve C, Ramirez L, Kovacs EJ. Ethanol suppresses phagosomal adhesion maturation, Rac activation, and subsequent actin polymerization during FcγR-mediated phagocytosis. Cell Immunol. 2012;274(1–2):61–71. pmid:22381996
  76. 76. Betsuyaku T, Eid N, Ito Y, Tanaka Y, Otsuki Y, Kondo Y. Ethanol enhances thymocyte apoptosis and autophagy in macrophages of rat thymi. Histol Histopathol. 2017;32(9):963–75. pmid:28026004
  77. 77. Cuzon Carlson VC, Ford MM, Carlson TL, Lomniczi A, Grant KA, Ferguson B, et al. Modulation of Gpr39, a G-protein coupled receptor associated with alcohol use in non-human primates, curbs ethanol intake in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44(6):1103–13. pmid:30610192
  78. 78. Inoue Y, Yao L, Hopf FW, Fan P, Jiang Z, Bonci A. Nicotine and ethanol activate protein kinase A synergistically via G(i) betagamma subunits in nucleus accumbens/ventral tegmental cocultures: the role of dopamine D(1)/D(2) and adenosine A(2A) receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;322(1):23–9.
  79. 79. Pandey SC. The gene transcription factor cyclic AMP-responsive element binding protein: role in positive and negative affective states of alcohol addiction. Pharmacol Ther. 2004;104(1):47–58. pmid:15500908
  80. 80. Misra K, Pandey SC. The decreased cyclic-AMP dependent-protein kinase A function in the nucleus accumbens: a role in alcohol drinking but not in anxiety-like behaviors in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31(7):1406–19. pmid:16192983
  81. 81. Cheon MG, Son YW, Lee JH, Jang HH, Chung YS. Mts1 Up-regulation is Associated With Aggressive Pathological Features in Thyroid Cancer. Cancer Genomics Proteomics. 2019;16(5):369–76.
  82. 82. Ruegsegger GN, Toedebusch RG, Childs TE, Grigsby KB, Booth FW. Loss of Cdk5 function in the nucleus accumbens decreases wheel running and may mediate age-related declines in voluntary physical activity. Journal of Physiology. 2017;595(1):363–84.
  83. 83. Gasparyan A, Navarrete F, Manzanares J. The administration of sertraline plus naltrexone reduces ethanol consumption and motivation in a long-lasting animal model of post-traumatic stress disorder. Neuropharmacology. 2021;189:108552. pmid:33819457
  84. 84. Viudez-Martínez A, García-Gutiérrez MS, Navarrón CM, Morales-Calero MI, Navarrete F, Torres-Suárez AI, et al. Cannabidiol reduces ethanol consumption, motivation and relapse in mice. Addict Biol. 2018;23(1):154–64. pmid:28194850
  85. 85. Viudez-Martínez A, García-Gutiérrez MS, Manzanares J. Gender differences in the effects of cannabidiol on ethanol binge drinking in mice. Addict Biol. 2020;25(3):e12765. pmid:31074060
  86. 86. Bellia F, Fernández MS, Fabio MC, Pucci M, Pautassi RM, D’Addario C. Selective alterations in endogenous opioid system genes expression in rats selected for high ethanol intake during adolescence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;212:108025. pmid:32442753
  87. 87. Wang J, Cheng Y, Wang X, Roltsch Hellard E, Ma T, Gil H, et al. Alcohol Elicits Functional and Structural Plasticity Selectively in Dopamine D1 Receptor-Expressing Neurons of the Dorsomedial Striatum. J Neurosci. 2015;35(33):11634–43. pmid:26290240
  88. 88. García-Gutiérrez MS, Navarrete F, Laborda J, Manzanares J. Deletion of Dlk1 increases the vulnerability to developing anxiety-like behaviors and ethanol consumption in mice. Biochem Pharmacol. 2018;158:37–44. pmid:30268817
  89. 89. Zhang H, Luo X, Kranzler HR, Lappalainen J, Yang B-Z, Krupitsky E, et al. Association between two mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) haplotype blocks and drug or alcohol dependence. Hum Mol Genet. 2006;15(6):807–19. pmid:16476706
  90. 90. Bart G, Kreek MJ, Ott J, LaForge KS, Proudnikov D, Pollak L, et al. Increased attributable risk related to a functional mu-opioid receptor gene polymorphism in association with alcohol dependence in central Sweden. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30(2):417–22. pmid:15525999
  91. 91. Crist RC, Berrettini WH. Pharmacogenetics of OPRM1. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2014;123:25–33.
  92. 92. Crist RC, Reiner BC, Berrettini WH. A review of opioid addiction genetics. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;27:31–5. pmid:30118972
  93. 93. Riccio A, Li Y, Moon J, Kim K-S, Smith KS, Rudolph U, et al. Essential role for TRPC5 in amygdala function and fear-related behavior. Cell. 2009;137(4):761–72. pmid:19450521
  94. 94. Souza-Moreira L, Morell M, Delgado-Maroto V, Pedreno M, Martinez-Escudero L, Caro M. Paradoxical effect of cortistatin treatment and its deficiency on experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. J Immunol. 2013;191(5):2144–54.
  95. 95. Walther T, Balschun D, Voigt JP, Fink H, Zuschratter W, Birchmeier C, et al. Sustained long term potentiation and anxiety in mice lacking the Mas protooncogene. J Biol Chem. 1998;273(19):11867–73. pmid:9565612
  96. 96. Miller M, Wu M, Xu J, Weaver D, Li M, Zhu MX. High-throughput screening of TRPC channel ligands using cell-based assays. In: Zhu MX. TRP Channels. Boca Raton (FL). 2011.
  97. 97. Harris HE, Raucci A. Alarmin(g) news about danger: workshop on innate danger signals and HMGB1. EMBO Rep. 2006;7(8):774–8. pmid:16858429
  98. 98. Pereda D, Pardo MR, Morales Y, Dominguez N, Arnau MR, Borges R. Mice lacking chromogranins exhibit increased aggressive and depression-like behaviour. Behav Brain Res. 2015;278:98–106. pmid:25257107
  99. 99. Pedreño M, Morell M, Robledo G, Souza-Moreira L, Forte-Lago I, Caro M, et al. Adrenomedullin protects from experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis at multiple levels. Brain Behav Immun. 2014;37:152–63. pmid:24321213
  100. 100. Nishimura T, Kubosaki A, Ito Y, Notkins AL. Disturbances in the secretion of neurotransmitters in IA-2/IA-2beta null mice: changes in behavior, learning and lifespan. Neuroscience. 2009;159(2):427–37. pmid:19361477
  101. 101. Bakshi VP, Newman SM, Smith-Roe S, Jochman KA, Kalin NH. Stimulation of lateral septum CRF2 receptors promotes anorexia and stress-like behaviors: functional homology to CRF1 receptors in basolateral amygdala. J Neurosci. 2007;27(39):10568–77. pmid:17898228
  102. 102. Marubio LM, Paylor R. Impaired passive avoidance learning in mice lacking central neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Neuroscience. 2004;129(3):575–82. pmid:15541879
  103. 103. Kostenis E, Milligan G, Christopoulos A, Sanchez-Ferrer CF, Heringer-Walther S, Sexton PM, et al. G-protein-coupled receptor Mas is a physiological antagonist of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. Circulation. 2005;111(14):1806–13. pmid:15809376
  104. 104. Busquets-Garcia A, Gomis-González M, Guegan T, Agustín-Pavón C, Pastor A, Mato S, et al. Targeting the endocannabinoid system in the treatment of fragile X syndrome. Nat Med. 2013;19(5):603–7. pmid:23542787
  105. 105. McCauley JL, Killeen T, Gros DF, Brady KT, Back SE. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders: Advances in Assessment and Treatment. Clin Psychol. 2012;19(3).
  106. 106. Pelloux Y, Costentin J, Duterte-Boucher D. Differential involvement of anxiety and novelty preference levels on oral ethanol consumption in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2015;232(15):2711–21. pmid:25761842
  107. 107. Plaza W, Gaschino F, Gutierrez C, Santibañez N, Estay-Olmos C, Sotomayor-Zárate R, et al. Pre- and postnatal alcohol exposure delays, in female but not in male rats, the extinction of an auditory fear conditioned memory and increases alcohol consumption. Dev Psychobiol. 2020;62(4):519–31. pmid:31564064
  108. 108. Ciccocioppo R, Angeletti S, Weiss F. Long-lasting resistance to extinction of response reinstatement induced by ethanol-related stimuli: role of genetic ethanol preference. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2001;25(10):1414–9. pmid:11696659
  109. 109. Lattal KM. Effects of ethanol on encoding, consolidation, and expression of extinction following contextual fear conditioning. Behav Neurosci. 2007;121(6):1280–92. pmid:18085881
  110. 110. Lattal MK. Effects of ethanol on encoding, consolidation, and expression of extinction following contextual fear conditioning. Behavioral neuroscience. 2007;121(6).
  111. 111. Skelly MJ, Chappell AE, Carter E, Weiner JL. Adolescent social isolation increases anxiety-like behavior and ethanol intake and impairs fear extinction in adulthood: Possible role of disrupted noradrenergic signaling. Neuropharmacology. 2015;97:149–59. pmid:26044636
  112. 112. Grizzell AJ, Vanbaelinghem M, Westerman J, Saddoris MP. Voluntary alcohol consumption during distinct phases of adolescence differentially alters adult fear acquisition, extinction and renewal in male and female rats. Stress. 2023;26(1).
  113. 113. Crabbe JC. Alcohol and genetics: new models. Am J Med Genet. 2002;114(8):969–74. pmid:12457395
  114. 114. Warden AS, Mayfield RD. Gene expression profiling in the human alcoholic brain. Neuropharmacology. 2017;122.
  115. 115. Krishnan HR, Zhang H, Chen Y, Bohnsack JP, Shieh AW, Kusumo H, et al. Unraveling the epigenomic and transcriptomic interplay during alcohol-induced anxiolysis. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27(11):4624–32. pmid:36089615
  116. 116. Winkler GA, Grahame NJ. Home cage voluntary alcohol consumption increases binge drinking without affecting abstinence-related depressive-like behaviors or operant responding in crossed high alcohol-preferring mice (cHAPs). Alcohol. 2024;116.
  117. 117. Pajser A, Breen M, Fisher H, Pickens CL. Individual differences in conditioned fear are associated with levels of adolescent/early adult alcohol consumption and instrumental extinction. Behav Brain Res. 2018;349:145–57. pmid:29694912
  118. 118. Bloodgood DW, Hardaway JA, Stanhope CM, Pati D, Pina MM, Neira S, et al. Kappa opioid receptor and dynorphin signaling in the central amygdala regulates alcohol intake. Mol Psychiatry. 2021;26(6):2187–99. pmid:32099099
  119. 119. Balla A, Dong B, Shilpa BM, Vemuri K, Makriyannis A, Pandey SC, et al. Cannabinoid-1 receptor neutral antagonist reduces binge-like alcohol consumption and alcohol-induced accumbal dopaminergic signaling. Neuropharmacology. 2018;131:200–8.
  120. 120. Figueiredo A, Cheer JF. Endocannabinoid regulation of hippocampus-dependent memory. Exp Neurol. 2023;364:114384. pmid:36934867
  121. 121. Segev A, Korem N, Mizrachi Zer-Aviv T, Abush H, Lange R, Sauber G, et al. Role of endocannabinoids in the hippocampus and amygdala in emotional memory and plasticity. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(10):2017–27. pmid:29977073
  122. 122. Gilpin NW, Koob GF. Neurobiology of alcohol dependence: focus on motivational mechanisms. Alcohol Res Health. 2008;31(3):185–95.
  123. 123. Ji X, Saha S, Kolpakova J, Guildford M, Tapper AR, Martin GE. Dopamine Receptors Differentially Control Binge Alcohol Drinking-Mediated Synaptic Plasticity of the Core Nucleus Accumbens Direct and Indirect Pathways. J Neurosci. 2017;37(22):5463–74. pmid:28473645
  124. 124. Kolpakova J, van der Vinne V, Gimenez-Gomez P, Le T, Martin GE. Binge alcohol drinking alters the differential control of cholinergic interneurons over nucleus accumbens D1 and D2 medium spiny neurons. Front Cell Neurosci. 2022;16:1010121. pmid:36589290
  125. 125. Neasta J, Darcq E, Jeanblanc J, Carnicella S, Ben Hamida S. GPCR and Alcohol-Related Behaviors in Genetically Modified Mice. Neurotherapeutics. 2020;17(1):17–42. pmid:31919661
  126. 126. Montoya-Durango D, Walter MN, Rodriguez W, Wang Y, Chariker JH, Rouchka EC, et al. Dysregulated Cyclic Nucleotide Metabolism in Alcohol-Associated Steatohepatitis: Implications for Novel Targeted Therapies. Biology (Basel). 2023;12(10):1321. pmid:37887031
  127. 127. Larson EB, Graham DL, Arzaga RR, Buzin N, Webb J, Green TA, et al. Overexpression of CREB in the nucleus accumbens shell increases cocaine reinforcement in self-administering rats. J Neurosci. 2011;31(45):16447–57. pmid:22072694
  128. 128. Morozova TV, Mackay TFC, Anholt RRH. Genetics and genomics of alcohol sensitivity. Mol Genet Genomics. 2014;289(3):253–69. pmid:24395673
  129. 129. Pan X, Chen L, Shan C, Cai L, Wang Y, Chen Y. Inhibition of phosphodiesterase 2 ameliorates post-traumatic stress-induced alcohol intake disorder by regulating cAMP/cGMP signaling. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;25(11):936–45.
  130. 130. Longhitano L, Vicario N, Tibullo D, Giallongo C, Broggi G, Caltabiano R, et al. Lactate Induces the Expressions of MCT1 and HCAR1 to Promote Tumor Growth and Progression in Glioblastoma. Front Oncol. 2022;12:871798. pmid:35574309
  131. 131. Johnson KA, Lovinger DM. Presynaptic G Protein-Coupled Receptors: Gatekeepers of Addiction?. Front Cell Neurosci. 2016;10:264.
  132. 132. Dao NC, Brockway DF, Suresh Nair M, Sicher AR, Crowley NA. Somatostatin neurons control an alcohol binge drinking prelimbic microcircuit in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2021;46(11):1906–17. pmid:34112959
  133. 133. Guardia CM, De Pace R, Mattera R, Bonifacino JS. Neuronal functions of adaptor complexes involved in protein sorting. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2018;51:103–10. pmid:29558740
  134. 134. Garcia-Gutierrez MS, Navarrete F, Gasparyan A, Navarro D, Morcuende A, Femenia T. Role of Cannabinoid CB2 Receptor in Alcohol Use Disorders: From Animal to Human Studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(11).
  135. 135. Garcia-Keller C, Neuhofer D, Bobadilla AC, Spencer S, Chioma VC, Monforton C. Extracellular Matrix Signaling Through beta3 Integrin Mediates Cocaine Cue-Induced Transient Synaptic Plasticity and Relapse. Biol Psychiatry. 2019;86(5):377–87.
  136. 136. Higuera-Matas A, Montoya GL, Coria SM, Miguéns M, García-Lecumberri C, Ambrosio E. Differential gene expression in the nucleus accumbens and frontal cortex of lewis and Fischer 344 rats relevant to drug addiction. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2011;9(1):143–50. pmid:21886580
  137. 137. Robinson SL, Thiele TE. The Role of Neuropeptide Y (NPY) in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Disorders. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2017;136:177–97. pmid:29056151
  138. 138. Vallöf D, Kalafateli AL, Jerlhag E. Brain region-specific neuromedin U signalling regulates alcohol-related behaviours and food intake in rodents. Addict Biol. 2020;25(3):e12764. pmid:31069918
  139. 139. Stacey D, Lourdusamy A, Ruggeri B, Maroteaux M, Jia T, Cattrell A, et al. A translational systems biology approach in both animals and humans identifies a functionally related module of accumbal genes involved in the regulation of reward processing and binge drinking in males. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2016;41(3):192–202. pmid:26679926
  140. 140. Ahmed MB, Alghamdi AAA, Islam SU, Lee JS, Lee YS. cAMP Signaling in Cancer: A PKA-CREB and EPAC-Centric Approach. Cells. 2022;11(13).
  141. 141. Kisby BR, Farris SP, McManus MM, Varodayan FP, Roberto M, Harris RA, et al. Alcohol Dependence in Rats Is Associated with Global Changes in Gene Expression in the Central Amygdala. Brain Sci. 2021;11(9):1149. pmid:34573170
  142. 142. Lappano R, Jacquot Y, Maggiolini M. GPCR Modulation in Breast Cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(12).
  143. 143. Ferreira M, Beullens M, Bollen M, Van Eynde A. Functions and therapeutic potential of protein phosphatase 1: Insights from mouse genetics. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res. 2019;1866(1):16–30. pmid:30056088
  144. 144. Vaithianathan T, Bukiya A, Liu J, Liu P, Asuncion-Chin M, Fan Z, et al. Direct regulation of BK channels by phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate as a novel signaling pathway. J Gen Physiol. 2008;132(1):13–28. pmid:18562499
  145. 145. Rozenfeld E, Tauber M, Ben-Chaim Y, Parnas M. GPCR voltage dependence controls neuronal plasticity and behavior. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):7252. pmid:34903750
  146. 146. Li H, Chen X, Xu J, Zhu L, Li C, Sun X. GRP/GRPR enhances alcohol-associated liver injury through the IRF1-mediated Caspase-1 inflammasome and NOX2-dependent ROS pathway. Hepatology. 2024;79(2):392–408.
  147. 147. Mazzocca A, Dituri F, De Santis F, Filannino A, Lopane C, Betz RC, et al. Lysophosphatidic acid receptor LPAR6 supports the tumorigenicity of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2015;75(3):532–43. pmid:25589345
  148. 148. Mouton AJ, Ninh VK, El Hajj EC, El Hajj MC, Gilpin NW, Gardner JD. Exposure to chronic alcohol accelerates development of wall stress and eccentric remodeling in rats with volume overload. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2016;97:15–23. pmid:27107489
  149. 149. Zhou Y, Yuan G, Zhong F, He S. Roles of the complement system in alcohol-induced liver disease. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2020;26(4):677–85. pmid:33053939
  150. 150. Nelson WJ, Nusse R. Convergence of Wnt, beta-catenin, and cadherin pathways. Science. 2004;303(5663):1483–7. pmid:15001769
  151. 151. Wang Y, Shek FH, Wong KF, Liu LX, Zhang XQ, Yuan Y, et al. Anti-cadherin-17 antibody modulates beta-catenin signaling and tumorigenicity of hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e72386. pmid:24039755
  152. 152. Zhang X, Yang Y, Xia Q, Song H, Wei R, Wang J, et al. Cadherin 22 participates in the self-renewal of mouse female germ line stem cells via interaction with JAK2 and β-catenin. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2018;75(7):1241–53. pmid:29063123
  153. 153. Brenes O, Vandael DHF, Carbone E, Montarolo PG, Ghirardi M. Knock-down of synapsin alters cell excitability and action potential waveform by potentiating BK and voltage-gated Ca(2+) currents in Helix serotonergic neurons. Neuroscience. 2015;311:430–43. pmid:26522789
  154. 154. Britzolaki A, Saurine J, Klocke B, Pitychoutis PM. A Role for SERCA Pumps in the Neurobiology of Neuropsychiatric and Neurodegenerative Disorders. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1131:131–61. pmid:31646509
  155. 155. Weaver AK, Olsen ML, McFerrin MB, Sontheimer H. BK channels are linked to inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate receptors via lipid rafts: a novel mechanism for coupling [Ca(2+)](i) to ion channel activation. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(43):31558–68. pmid:17711864
  156. 156. Hermann A, Sitdikova GF, Weiger TM. Oxidative Stress and Maxi Calcium-Activated Potassium (BK) Channels. Biomolecules. 2015;5(3):1870–911.
  157. 157. Hou S, Vigeland LE, Zhang G, Xu R, Li M, Heinemann SH, et al. Zn2+ activates large conductance Ca2+-activated K+ channel via an intracellular domain. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(9):6434–42. pmid:20037152
  158. 158. Zyrianova T, Lopez B, Liao A, Gu C, Wong L, Ottolia M, et al. BK Channels Regulate LPS-induced CCL-2 Release from Human Pulmonary Endothelial Cells. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2021;64(2):224–34. pmid:33217242
  159. 159. Rharass T, Lemcke H, Lantow M, Kuznetsov SA, Weiss DG, Panáková D. Ca2+-mediated mitochondrial reactive oxygen species metabolism augments Wnt/β-catenin pathway activation to facilitate cell differentiation. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(40):27937–51. pmid:25124032
  160. 160. Lee S-Y, Choi B-H, Hur E-M, Lee J-H, Lee S-J, Lee CO, et al. Norepinephrine activates store-operated Ca2+ entry coupled to large-conductance Ca2+-activated K+ channels in rat pinealocytes. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2006;290(4):C1060-6. pmid:16282194
  161. 161. Bravo-Rivera C, Sotres-Bayon F. From Isolated Emotional Memories to Their Competition During Conflict. Front Behav Neurosci. 2020;14:36. pmid:32226364
  162. 162. Chung S, Kim IH, Lee D, Park K, Kim JY, Lee YK, et al. The role of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate 3-kinase A in regulating emotional behavior and amygdala function. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23757. pmid:27053114
  163. 163. Anney RJL, Lotfi-Miri M, Olsson CA, Reid SC, Hemphill SA, Patton GC. Variation in the gene coding for the M5 muscarinic receptor (CHRM5) influences cigarette dose but is not associated with dependence to drugs of addiction: evidence from a prospective population based cohort study of young adults. BMC Genet. 2007;8:46. pmid:17608938
  164. 164. Ray LA, Bujarski S, MacKillop J, Courtney KE, Monti PM, Miotto K. Subjective response to alcohol among alcohol-dependent individuals: effects of the μ-opioid receptor (OPRM1) gene and alcoholism severity. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):E116-24. pmid:23240711
  165. 165. Sebold M, Garbusow M, Cerci D, Chen K, Sommer C, Huys QJ, et al. Association of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism and Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer: Clinical relevance for alcohol dependence. J Psychopharmacol. 2021;35(5):566–78.
  166. 166. Zhang L, Chen D, Song D, Liu X, Zhang Y, Xu X, et al. Clinical and translational values of spatial transcriptomics. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):111. pmid:35365599
  167. 167. Yakovleva T, Bazov I, Watanabe H, Hauser KF, Bakalkin G. Transcriptional control of maladaptive and protective responses in alcoholics: a role of the NF-κB system. Brain Behav Immun. 2011;25 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S29-38. pmid:21195164
  168. 168. Girgenti MJ, Wang J, Ji D, Cruz DA, Traumatic Stress Brain Research Group, Stein MB, et al. Transcriptomic organization of the human brain in post-traumatic stress disorder. Nat Neurosci. 2021;24(1):24–33. pmid:33349712