1.Thus, if ES were to selectively (relative to IS) activate PL output to the DRN, then the presence of control would inhibit DRN 5-HT activity, leading CP-673451 order to the differential activation by stressors of differing controllability. This model is schematized in Fig. 2. Here, a number of stress-responsive structures drive the DRN without regard to stressor controllability. The DRN is a point of convergence, summing the inputs and projecting to regions that are the proximate mediators of the behavioral changes. Importantly, the DRN itself is under top–down inhibitory control from the mPFC, with the descending activation being triggered by the

presence of behavioral control. Over the past several years we have collected a large amount of evidence in support of this model. To summarize: 1) Clearly, this Lumacaftor cost model requires that the presence of control activate mPFC PL pyramidal neurons that project to the DRN. To evaluate this possibility Baratta et al. (2009) injected the retrograde tracer FluoroGold into the mid/caudal DRN in order to label PL cells that project to the DRN. Then, subjects received ES, yoked IS, or no shock, and then Fos was examined in the PL. ES, relative to IS, did indeed induce Fos in FluoroGold labeled cells, thus directly demonstrating that control activates

PL neurons that project to the DRN. 2) The buffering effect of control should require activation of the mPFC-to-DRN pathway (see Fig. 1). The projecting pyramidal neurons are under GABAergic inhibition (see Fig. 3), and so GABA agonists would inhibit the glutamatergic pyramidal output neurons. Thus, to examine this prediction, the GABA agonist muscimol or vehicle was microinjected in vmPFC before exposure to ES, yoked IS, or no shock, with

separate experiments examining either the DRN 5-HT activation produced by the stressors or the later behavioral sequelae such as shuttlebox escape learning deficits and reduced juvenile social investigation. Inactivation of PL output during stressor exposure completed prevented the protective effects of control, both neurochemically and Thalidomide behaviorally (Amat et al., 2005). That is, ES now led to the same behavioral changes and DRN 5-HT activation as did IS. It is important to note that the ES subjects performed the wheel turn escape response in an unimpaired manner. Thus, they turned the wheel, terminated the tailshocks, but this was of no benefit if the mPFC was inhibited. Of course, simply inhibiting the mPFC in the absence of shock had no effect at all. 3) The buffering effects of control should be mimicked by simply exogenously activating mPFC ouput during exposure to uncontrollable stressors. To examine this possibility Amat et al. (Amat et al., 2008) microinjected the GABA antagonist picrotoxin to activate the pyramidal output cells during ES, IS, or no shock. Activating the mPFC during the stressor duplicated the effects of control. Now, IS produced neither DRN 5-HT activation nor shuttlebox deficits and reduced social investigation.