Skip to main content
Fig. 5 | Journal of Neuroinflammation

Fig. 5

From: NLRP3 deficiency decreases alcohol intake controlling anxiety-like behavior via modification of glutamatergic transmission in corticostriatal circuits

Fig. 5

NLPR3 deficiency reduced anxiety-like behavior and modified the glutamatergic transmission to striatal neurons. A Experimental timeline showing the DID + gavage paradigm, optogenetic induction of LTP, behavior and electrophysiology procedures. B Schematic diagram of virus injection and optical fiber implantation. C Sample image of virus expression in the mPFC (left) and projection in the striatum (right). Scale bar = 100 μm. D Left, schematic diagram of open field test after LTP induction. Middle, high frequency stimulation protocol (100 pulses, 50 Hz). oHFS: optical high-frequency stimulation. Right, NLRP3 KO + alcohol mice with light-induced LTP spent less time in the center than NLRP3 KO + alcohol mice with no LTP. *p < 0.05 vs WT + alcohol group, #p < 0.05 vs NLRP3 KO + alcohol group, one-way ANOVA, n = 12 mice (WT + Alcohol), 11 mice (NLRP3 KO + Alcohol) and 11 mice (NLRP3 KO + Alcohol + LTP). E Left, sample traces showing light stimulation of paired-pulse ratios (PPR) in striatal neurons. Right, analysis of the paired-pulse ratios detected in three groups. **p < 0.01 vs WT + alcohol group, ##p < 0.01 vs NLRP3 KO + alcohol group. F Left, sample traces showing light stimulation of NMDAR/AMPAR ratio in striatal neurons of three group mice. Right, analysis of the NMDAR/AMPAR ratios. The NMDAR/AMPAR ratio increased in NLRP3 KO with LTP induction compared to NLRP3 KO mice without optogenetic induction of LTP. ***p < 0.001 vs WT + alcohol group, #p < 0.05 vs NLRP3 KO + alcohol group. G Left, sample traces showing light stimulation input–output curves (I/O) of AMPAR-EPSCs in three groups. Right, analysis of the amplitudes of AMPAR-EPSCs in each group. The AMPAR-EPSCs I/O was rescued by LTP compared to NLRP3 KO + alcohol group. **p < 0.01, ##p < 0.01. One-way ANOVA in E–G; n = 10–16 neurons from each group in E–G. Data are presented as mean ± SEM

Back to article page