Dopaminergic Enhancement of Striatal Response to Reward in Major Depression Roee Admon, Ph.D., Roselinde H. Kaiser, Ph.D., Daniel G. Dillon, Ph.D., Miranda Beltzer, B.S., Franziska Goer, B.S., David P. Olson, M.D., Ph.D., Gordana Vitaliano, M.D., Diego A. Pizzagalli, Ph.D. Objective: Major depressive disorder is characterized by reduced reward-related striatal activation and dysfunctional reward learning, putatively reflecting decreased dopami- nergic signaling. The goal of this study was to test whether a pharmacological challenge designed to facilitate dopami- nergic transmission can enhance striatal responses to reward and improve reward learning in depressed individuals. Method: In a double-blind placebo-controlled design, 46 unmedicated depressed participants and 43 healthy control participants were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or a single low dose (50 mg) of the D 2 /D 3 receptor antagonist amisulpride, which is believed to in- crease dopamine signaling through presynaptic autoreceptor blockade. To investigate the effects of increased dopami- nergic transmission on reward-related striatal function and behavior, a monetary incentive delay task (in con- junction with functional MRI) and a probabilistic reward learning task were administered at absorption peaks of amisulpride. Results: Depressed participants selected previously rewarded stimuli less frequently than did control participants, indicating reduced reward learning, but this effect was not modulated by amisulpride. Relative to depressed participants receiving placebo (and control participants receiving amisulpride), depressed participants receiving amisulpride exhibited in- creased striatal activation and potentiated corticostriatal func- tional connectivity between the nucleus accumbens and the midcingulate cortex in response to monetary rewards. Stronger corticostriatal connectivity in response to rewards predicted better reward learning among depressed individuals receiving amisulpride as well as among control participants receiving placebo. Conclusions: Acute enhancement of dopaminergic trans- mission potentiated reward-related striatal activation and corticostriatal functional connectivity in depressed individ- uals but had no behavioral effects. Taken together, the results suggest that targeted pharmacological treatments may normalize neural correlates of reward processing in de- pression; despite such acute effects on neural function, behavioral modification may require more chronic exposure. This is consistent with previous reports that antidepressant effects of amisulpride in depression emerged after sustained administration. Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174:378–386; doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16010111 Major depressive disorder is a highly prevalent psychiatric condition characterized by blunted reward processing and diminished positive affect (1). Preclinical research has shown that phasic dopamine signaling, particularly in the striatum, constitutes an important neural mediator of reward-related behaviors, including reinforcement learning (2, 3) and in- centive motivation (4). Functional MRI (fMRI) studies in humans have corroborated the central role of striatal function in reinforcement learning (5) and reward processing (6) and demonstrated that these striatal functions are disrupted in depression (7, 8). Accordingly, reduced striatal dopamine functioning is believed to play a key role in the pathophysiology of depression, particularly in the context of impaired reward processing and reward learning (9–11). fMRI studies have further suggested that reward dysfunction in depression is related to disrupted corticostriatal functional connectivity (12, 13), consistent with the notion that altered communication among dopamine-rich striatal regions and cortical regulatory systems is an important substrate of depression (14). Despite theories implicating striatal dopamine dysfunc- tion in depression, it is unknown whether an acute manip- ulation thought to transiently increase dopamine signaling might normalize reward processing in depression. In healthy individuals, studies combining fMRI with acute pharmaco- logically induced dopaminergic enhancements have shown increased reward-related striatal responses and improved reward learning relative to placebo (15–17). For instance, acute administration of amisulpride (200 mg) improved healthy participants’ ability to select the better of two re- warding options, purportedly by enhancing reinforcement learning signals in the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (15). However, no study to date has tested whether 378 ajp.psychiatryonline.org Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017 ARTICLES
25
Embed
Dopaminergic Enhancement of Striatal Response to Reward …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Dopaminergic Enhancement of Striatal Response toReward in Major DepressionRoee Admon, Ph.D., Roselinde H. Kaiser, Ph.D., Daniel G. Dillon, Ph.D., Miranda Beltzer, B.S., Franziska Goer, B.S.,David P. Olson, M.D., Ph.D., Gordana Vitaliano, M.D., Diego A. Pizzagalli, Ph.D.
Objective: Major depressive disorder is characterized byreduced reward-related striatal activation and dysfunctionalreward learning, putatively reflecting decreased dopami-nergic signaling. The goal of this study was to test whethera pharmacological challenge designed to facilitate dopami-nergic transmission can enhance striatal responses to rewardand improve reward learning in depressed individuals.
Method: In a double-blind placebo-controlled design,46 unmedicated depressed participants and 43 healthycontrol participants were randomly assigned to receiveeither placebo or a single low dose (50 mg) of the D2/D3
receptor antagonist amisulpride, which is believed to in-crease dopamine signaling through presynaptic autoreceptorblockade. To investigate the effects of increased dopami-nergic transmission on reward-related striatal functionand behavior, a monetary incentive delay task (in con-junction with functional MRI) and a probabilistic rewardlearning task were administered at absorption peaks ofamisulpride.
Results:Depressed participants selected previously rewardedstimuli less frequently than did control participants, indicatingreduced reward learning, but this effect was not modulated
by amisulpride. Relative to depressed participants receivingplacebo (and control participants receiving amisulpride),depressed participants receiving amisulpride exhibited in-creased striatal activation and potentiated corticostriatal func-tional connectivity between the nucleus accumbens and themidcingulate cortex in response tomonetary rewards. Strongercorticostriatal connectivity in response to rewards predictedbetter reward learning among depressed individuals receivingamisulpride as well as among control participants receivingplacebo.
Conclusions: Acute enhancement of dopaminergic trans-mission potentiated reward-related striatal activation andcorticostriatal functional connectivity in depressed individ-uals but hadnobehavioral effects. Taken together, the resultssuggest that targeted pharmacological treatments maynormalize neural correlates of reward processing in de-pression; despite such acute effects on neural function,behavioralmodificationmay requiremore chronic exposure.This is consistent with previous reports that antidepressanteffects of amisulpride in depression emerged after sustainedadministration.
Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174:378–386; doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16010111
Major depressive disorder is a highly prevalent psychiatriccondition characterized by blunted reward processing anddiminished positive affect (1). Preclinical research has shownthat phasic dopamine signaling, particularly in the striatum,constitutes an important neural mediator of reward-relatedbehaviors, including reinforcement learning (2, 3) and in-centive motivation (4). Functional MRI (fMRI) studies inhumans have corroborated the central role of striatal functionin reinforcement learning (5) and reward processing (6) anddemonstrated that these striatal functions are disrupted indepression (7, 8). Accordingly, reduced striatal dopaminefunctioning isbelievedtoplayakeyrole in thepathophysiologyof depression, particularly in the context of impaired rewardprocessing and reward learning (9–11). fMRI studies havefurther suggested that reward dysfunction in depression isrelated to disrupted corticostriatal functional connectivity
(12, 13), consistentwith thenotion that altered communicationamong dopamine-rich striatal regions and cortical regulatorysystems is an important substrate of depression (14).
Despite theories implicating striatal dopamine dysfunc-tion in depression, it is unknown whether an acute manip-ulation thought to transiently increase dopamine signalingmight normalize reward processing in depression. In healthyindividuals, studies combining fMRI with acute pharmaco-logically induced dopaminergic enhancements have shownincreased reward-related striatal responses and improvedreward learning relative to placebo (15–17). For instance,acute administration of amisulpride (200 mg) improvedhealthy participants’ ability to select the better of two re-warding options, purportedly by enhancing reinforcementlearning signals in the striatum and ventromedial prefrontalcortex (15). However, no study to date has tested whether
378 ajp.psychiatryonline.org Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017
pharmacologically induced enhancement of dopaminergictransmission can improve reward learning or striatal activityand corticostriatal connectivity in response to reward indepression.
To address these important gaps in the literature, we con-ducted a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled studyintegrating neural and behavioral measures of reward pro-cessing in conjunction with a dopamine pharmacologicalchallenge.To this end, 46unmedicateddepressed individualsand 43 healthy control subjects were randomly assigned toreceive either placebo or a single low dose (50 mg) of theD2/D3 receptor antagonist amisulpride, which has a par-ticularly high affinity for mesolimbic pathways and is be-lieved to increase dopaminergic transmission by means ofpresynaptic D2/D3 autoreceptor blockade (18, 19) (see also theSupplementary Methods section in the data supplement thataccompanies the online edition of this article). After adminis-tration of amisulpride or placebo, participants underwentfMRIscanningduringamonetary incentivedelay task involvinganticipation and receipt of monetary rewards and penalties (7).After the scan, participants completed a probabilistic selectiontask that separately measured the ability to learn from rewardsor penalties (20). We selected a 50-mg dose in light of previousreports that a (sustained) 50-mg dosage of amisulpride hasantidepressant and antianhedonic effects in depressive disor-ders (21, 22) and in order to avoid postsynaptic blockade (23),with the goal of maximizing the likelihood of autoreceptoreffects. We hypothesized that this pharmacological manipu-lation would be associated with increased striatal response toreward and improved reward learning, and that such effectswould be largest among depressed individuals.
METHOD
ParticipantsParticipants were recruited from the Boston metropolitancommunity. The depressed and control groups were matchedfor age, gender, ethnicity, and years of education (Table 1).Inclusion criteria restricted recruitment to right-handed in-dividuals 18–45 years of agewith no contraindications toMRI,no lifetime substance dependence, no past-year substanceabuse, and no serious medical conditions. For the depressiongroup, participantshad tohave a diagnosis ofmajor depressivedisorder according to the Structured Clinical Interview forDSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders (SCID) (24). Exclusion criteriafor the depressed group included use of any psychotropicmedication in the past 2 weeks (6 weeks for fluoxetine,6 months for dopaminergic drugs or antipsychotics) and apsychiatric history of other major axis I disorders. For thecontrol group, inclusion criteria included medication-freestatus for at least 3 weeks, absence of current or past psy-chiatric illnesses (based on the SCID interview), and absenceof first-degree familial psychiatric illness. Participants re-ceived $15/hour in compensation plus earnings in the fMRItask. All participants provided written informed consent to aprotocol approved by Partners Human Research Committee.
ProcedureParticipants first completed a clinical evaluation to determineeligibility (based on the SCID interview) and self-report mea-sures of depression and anhedonia (Table 1; see also the Sup-plementary Methods section in the online data supplement).Eligible participants were invited to take part in the neuro-imaging session, and those who participated were randomlyassigned to receive amisulpride or placebo under double-blindconditions. Pharmacokinetic data indicate that plasma con-centration of amisulpride has two peaks, approximately 1–1.5hours and 2.5 hours after administration (18, 19). Therefore,the study physician administered either amisulpride or placeboat the beginning of the neuroimaging session, and fMRI scan-ning of the monetary incentive delay task started 1 hour afteramisulpride or placebo administration to coincidewith thefirstplasma concentration peak. The probabilistic selection taskwasadministered after scan completion, approximately 2.5 hoursafteramisulprideorplaceboadministration, tocoincidewiththesecond plasma concentration peak. Heart rate, blood pressure,andsideeffectswereassessedbythestudyphysicianthroughoutthe session (Figure 1).
fMRI TaskThe monetary incentive delay task involves anticipation andreceipt of monetary rewards and penalties, which have beenshown to elicit robust striatal response in healthy individ-uals (25). Previous studies using this task have revealed re-duced striatal activation and reduced corticostriatal functionalconnectivity in depressed compared with healthy adultsduring anticipation and receipt of monetary reward (7, 26),making it well suited for the present study (see the Sup-plementary Methods section in the data supplement).
Behavioral TaskAprobabilistic selection taskwas used to probe learning frompositive and negative feedback (20). In the learning phase,participants repeatedly viewed threepairs of stimuli (AB,CD,and EF) and had to integrate feedback over several trials tolearn which stimulus in each pair was rewarded most con-sistently. In the test phase, themost reliably rewarded (A) andpenalized (B) stimuli were presented in conjunction with allother stimuli (e.g., AC, AD, AE, AF); participants’ ability to“choose A” or to “avoid B” were used as measures of rewardor penalty learning, respectively (see the SupplementaryMethods section in the data supplement).
MRI Acquisition ParametersThe MRI acquisition parameters are described in the Sup-plementary Methods section of the data supplement.
fMRI Data AnalysisfMRI data were preprocessed using SPM12 (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/). Preprocessing included co-registration of functional and anatomical images, segmen-tation, nonlinear volume-based spatial normalization (usingMontreal Neurological Institute [MNI] space), and spatial
Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017 ajp.psychiatryonline.org 379
smoothing with a Gaussian filter (6 mm full width at halfmaximum).
Hemodynamic responses weremodeled using a canonicalhemodynamic response function thatwas convolvedwith theonset times of task regressors in order to compute a generallinear model at the single-subject level. The general linearmodel included nine task-related regressors: three cues(reward, penalty, no incentive), the target, and five outcomes(win [reward outcome following reward cue], no win [no-change outcome following reward cue], loss [penalty out-come following penalty cue], no loss [no-change outcomefollowing penalty cue], and no change [no-change outcomefollowing no-incentive cue]). The general linear model alsoincludedhigh-pass temporalfiltering (0.008Hz), seven rigid-body movement parameters, nuisance regressors account-ing for no-response trials, and outlier time points (see theSupplementary Methods section in the data supplement).
To test a priori hypotheses regarding striatal responsesto reward (7), we conducted a region-of-interest analysis inwhich activations (beta weights) were extracted from ana-tomical masks of the caudate, the nucleus accumbens, andthe putamen for each participant and for each task regressor(relative tobaseline).Toavoid anybiases,masksweredefinedusing amanually segmentedMNI-152 brain and implementedas overlays on the SPM12 canonical brain (see Figure S1 in thedata supplement; see also reference 27). Activations reportedthroughout the analyses were quantified by averaging betaweights fromallvoxelswithinamask.Exploratorywholebrain
analyseswerealsoconducted (see theSupplementaryMethodsand Results sections of the data supplement).
Psychophysiological interaction analyses were performedto examine the effects of reward and penalty outcomes onstriatal functional connectivity. Because hemispheric effectson task activation were nonsignificant, striatal masks werecollapsed across hemispheres, yielding three bilateral seeds(caudate, nucleus accumbens, putamen). Analyses retainedthe subject-level general linear models described above,adding regressors corresponding to the seed timecourse andthe interaction of the seed time course with the task con-dition of interest (separately for reward and penalty out-come). Single-subject connectivity maps for the interactionbetween each seed time course and the regressor of interestwere entered into second-level whole brain random-effectsanalysis. Effects were thresholded at a peak p value of,0.001,whole brain family-wise error corrected to p,0.05 at thecluster level.
Statistical AnalysisThe methods for statistical analysis are detailed in the Sup-plementary Methods section of the online data supplement.
RESULTS
Behavioral ResultsAccuracy in “choose A” and “avoid B” trials of the proba-bilistic selection task test phase were used as measures of
TABLE 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Participants in a Study of Dopaminergic Enhancement of Striatal Response toReward in Major Depressiona
a The depression and control groups were matched for age, gender, ethnicity, and years of education. All participants were right-handed, per inclusion criteria.b Maineffectofdiagnosis ina factorial analysisofvariancewithdiagnosis (depressedversuscontrolgroup)anddrug (amisulprideversusplacebo)asbetween-subjectvariables. No effects of drug or diagnosis-by-drug interactions were significant.
380 ajp.psychiatryonline.org Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017
DOPAMINERGIC ENHANCEMENT OF STRIATAL RESPONSE TO REWARD IN DEPRESSION
reward and penalty learning, respectively. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with learning type(“choose A” and “avoid B” accuracy) as the within-subjectvariable and diagnosis (depressed versus control group) anddrug (amisulpride versus placebo) as between-subject vari-ables revealed no significant main effects or interactions(see Figure S2A in the online data supplement). Because theprimary focus of this study was reward processing, we alsoperformed analyses that separately probed group differencesin reward learning (which may be driven by a mixture ofreward responsiveness and learning ability) and penaltylearning (whichmaybedrivenby bothpenalty sensitivity andlearning ability). Factorial ANOVAs were conducted sepa-rately with either reward or penalty learning (i.e., accuracyin “choose A” and “avoid B” trials, respectively) as the de-pendent variable and diagnosis (depressed versus controlgroup) and drug (amisulpride versus placebo) as between-subject variables.For reward learning, therewasamaineffectof diagnosis (F=6.28, df=1, 75, p=0.014), due to reduced re-ward learning in the depressed compared with the controlgroup. No significant group differences in penalty learningwere observed. Thus, depressed participants exhibited im-paired reward learning, but not penalty learning, relative tocontrol participants, and this impairmentwas not affected by
drug administration. Nevertheless, the lack of a significanttype-by-diagnosis interaction (“choose A” and “avoid B”accuracy; depressed versus control group) in the repeated-measures ANOVA precludes any strong inferences aboutthe specificity of these findings. No other significant effectsof diagnosis or drug emerged across behavioral analyses ofeither experimental task (see the Supplementary Resultssection of the data supplement).
Striatal Response to CuesA repeated-measures ANOVA was performed for eachstriatal region with the following factors: hemisphere (leftversus right) and cue (reward, penalty, no-incentive) aswithin-subject variables and diagnosis (depressed versuscontrol group) and drug (amisulpride versus placebo) asbetween-subject variables. These analyses revealed a maineffect of cue in all three regions (caudate: F=56.55, df=2, 170,p,0.001; nucleus accumbens: F=61.33, df=2, 170, p,0.001;putamen: F=40.31, df=2, 170, p,0.001). Consistent withprevious studies (7), post hoc analyses indicated that thiseffect was driven by increased striatal responses to rewardcues, followed by penalty cues, followed by no-incentive cues(see Figure S3 in the data supplement). Relevant to the studyhypotheses, a diagnosis-by-drug interaction also emerged for
FIGURE 1. Procedure and Timeline for a Study of Dopaminergic Enhancement of Striatal Response to Reward in Major Depressiona
Functional scan: monetary incentive
delay task
90
Anatomicalscan
Drug administration
15
Practice monetaryincentive delay
task
+$
$2
Measure heart rate, blood pressure,
and side effects
Probabilisticselection task
Measure heartrate and blood
pressure
+
+$
$2
30 60 750
Scan start
110
Scan end
170 210180
Session end
220
Correct
Measure heart rate, blood pressure,
and side effects
aOn arrival to the scanning session, participants completed a pre-MRI safety screening form and provided a urine sample for drug testing and forpregnancy testing in female participants. Participants’heart rate and bloodpressurewere thenmeasured by the study physician. Next, the studyphysician administered a capsule of either amisulpride or placebo (participantswere randomly assigned to receive double-blind amisulpride orplacebo). Participants thenwaited for 1 hour in a quiet room to allow amisulpride plasma concentration to reach its first peak. During thewaitingperiod, participants practiced the monetary incentive delay task. Forty-five minutes after drug administration, the study physician measuredparticipants’ heart rate and blood pressure again, and participants completed a questionnaire on drug side effects. Next, participantscompleted anMRI scan (approximately 1.5 hours) that included structural scans and a functional scanwhile completing themonetary incentivedelay task. After the scan, and approximately 2.5 hours after drug administration, participants completed the probabilistic selection task(administered to coincide with the second peak in amisulpride plasma concentration). After participants completed the probabilistic selectiontask, the study physician once again assessed their heart rate, blood pressure, and side effects. Participants were then debriefed, paid, anddischarged.
Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017 ajp.psychiatryonline.org 381
all regions (caudate: F=9.65, df=1, 85, p=0.003; putamen:F=5.84, df=1, 85, p=0.018; the interaction fell short of statis-tical significance for the nucleus accumbens: F=3.35, df=1, 85,p=0.071). These effects were driven by increased striatalresponse to cues (regardless of cue type) in depressed par-ticipants receiving amisulpride relative to depressed par-ticipants receiving placebo (caudate: p=0.022; nucleusaccumbens: p=0.036; putamen: p=0.049) and relative tocontrol participants receiving amisulpride (caudate: p=0.017;the interaction fell short of statistical significance for thenucleus accumbens: p=0.063). Together, these results in-dicate that amisulpride enhanced striatal responses to cues,regardless of cue valance, in depressed but not healthyparticipants (Figure 2A).
Striatal Response to OutcomesA repeated-measures ANOVA was performed for eachstriatal region with the following factors: hemisphere (leftversus right) and outcome (reward outcome versus penaltyoutcome) as within-subject variables and diagnosis (de-pressed versus control group) and drug (amisulpride ver-sus placebo) as between-subject variables. These analysesrevealed a main effect of outcome in the nucleus accumbens(F=11.30, df=1, 85, p=0.001) related to greater nucleus ac-cumbens activation to rewards than to penalties acrossparticipants. Critically, all three striatal regions showed anoutcome-by-diagnosis-by-drug interaction (caudate: F=4.64,df=1, 85, p=0.034; putamen: F=6.73, df=1, 85, p=0.011; theinteraction fell short of statistical significance for the nucleusaccumbens: F=3.17, df=1, 85, p=0.078). As shown in Figure 2B,amisulpride administration in depressed participants en-hanced striatal response to reward outcomes relative toplacebo administration (nucleus accumbens: p=0.007;putamen: p=0.050) and relative to amisulpride administra-tion in control participants (caudate: p=0.044; putamen:p=0.003). Nucleus accumbens response to reward outcomewas also greater in control participants receiving placebothan in depressed participants receiving placebo (p=0.026).In contrast, no significant group differences emerged instriatal response to penalty outcome (Figure 2C). In sum,amisulpride selectively enhanced striatal response to rewardoutcomes, but not penalty outcomes, in depressed (but nothealthy) participants.
Striatal Connectivity in Response to OutcomesWhole-brain psychophysiological interaction analyses wereconducted to separately investigate the effects of reward andpenalty outcomes on striatal functional connectivity. Awholebrain diagnosis-by-drug ANOVA (depressed versus controlgroup; amisulpride versus placebo) revealed no significantgroup differences for striatal connectivity in response toreward or penalty outcomes at peak p,0.001, whole brainfamily-wise error corrected p,0.05. Next, striatal connec-tivity at the whole brain level was investigated across theentire sample (N=89). These analyses revealed that in re-sponse to reward but not penalty outcomes, participants
exhibited increased functional connectivity bilaterally be-tween the caudate and a region (k=22 voxels) of the dorsalanterior cingulate cortex, as well as bilaterally between thenucleus accumbens and a region (k=13 voxels) of the mid-cingulate cortex (Figure 3A; see also Table S1 in the datasupplement). Post hoc analyses were conducted to investi-gate whether depression or amisulpride moderated thesereward-related corticostriatal connectivity patterns. To thisend, caudate–dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and nucleusaccumbens–midcingulate cortex connectivity values wereextractedandusedas thedependentvariables inmixed-effectANOVAs with diagnosis (depressed versus control group)and drug (amisulpride versus placebo) as between-subjectvariables. For both analyses investigating caudate–dorsalanterior cingulate cortex as well as nucleus accumbens–midcingulate cortex connectivity, significant diagnosis-by-drug interactions emerged (F=4.26, df=1, 85, p=0.043,and F=6.25, df=1, 85, p=0.015, respectively). Post hoc anal-yses revealed that control participants receiving placeboexhibited stronger reward-related caudate–dorsal ante-rior cingulate cortex functional connectivity relative toall three other groups (all p values, ,0.033) (Figure 3B).With regard to nucleus accumbens–midcingulate cortexfunctional connectivity, both control participants receivingplacebo and depressed participants receiving amisulprideshowed stronger connectivity than depressed participantsreceiving placebo (p=0.037 and p=0.022, respectively)(Figure 3C).
Striatal Connectivity During Reward Outcomes andReward LearningGiven the observed effects of amisulpride on nucleusaccumbens–midcingulate cortex functional connectivity indepressed participants, multiple regression analyses wereconducted to investigate the relationship between reward-related nucleus accumbens–midcingulate cortex connectiv-ity and reward learning. Specifically, diagnosis (depressedgroup coded as +1, control group as 21), drug (amisulpridecoded as +1, placebo as 21), reward learning (“choose A”accuracy from the probabilistic selection task), and theirinteractions were regressed on reward-related nucleusaccumbens–midcingulate cortex functional connectivity.The results revealed a significant diagnosis-by-drug-by-reward learning interaction (F=5.76, df=1, 67, p=0.019).Post hoc simple regression analyses within each grouprevealed positive relationships between reward learningand reward-related nucleus accumbens–midcingulatecortex functional connectivity in depressed participantsreceiving amisulpride (r=0.65, p=0.003) and in controlparticipants receiving placebo (r=0.54, p=0.029), but notin depressed participants receiving placebo (r=20.24,p=0.35) or control participants receiving amisulpride (r=0.08,p=0.74) (Figure 4). These results indicate that amisulprideadministration enhanced nucleus accumbens–midcingulatecortex functional connectivity in response to reward outcomeindepressed individuals toa level comparable to that exhibited
382 ajp.psychiatryonline.org Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017
DOPAMINERGIC ENHANCEMENT OF STRIATAL RESPONSE TO REWARD IN DEPRESSION
by healthy subjects receiving placebo. Furthermore, the mag-nitude of nucleus accumbens–midcingulate cortex functionalconnectivity during reward outcome for both depressed indi-viduals receiving amisulpride and control participants receiv-ing placebo was positively associated with reward learning inthe behavioral probabilistic selection task.
DISCUSSION
Major depression is a debilitating psychiatric disordercharacterized by high rates of relapse and recurrence. Dis-covering treatment tools that target putative mechanisms ofillness in depression—such as blunted response to reward—is therefore a key clinical priority. Findings from this proof-
of-mechanism study suggest that an acute pharmacologicalchallenge transiently increased striatal response to rewardamong adults with major depressive disorder, putativelyvia enhancement of dopaminergic transmission owing toautoreceptor blockade. Specifically, depressed participantsreceiving amisulpride exhibited increased striatal activity inresponse to cues, and increased striatal activity and corti-costriatal functional connectivity in response to rewardoutcomes. Furthermore, stronger corticostriatal functionalconnectivity between the nucleus accumbens and the mid-cingulate cortex in depressed participants who receivedamisulpride was associated with better reward learningperformance, a pattern similar to that observed in healthycontrol subjects receiving placebo. Together, these results
FIGURE 2. Striatal Response to Cues and Outcomes in Depressed Individuals and Healthy Control Subjects With and WithoutDopaminergic Enhancementa
Depressed Group Control GroupDepressed Group Control Group
Placebo Amisulpride
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2*
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
*
A. Striatal Response to (All) Cues
*
*
Depressed Group Control Group
*
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
*
*
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
*
*
B. Striatal Response to Reward Outcomes C. Striatal Response to Penalty Outcomes
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
–0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
Cau
dat
e A
ctiv
atio
n (β
)N
ucl
eus
Acc
um
ben
s A
ctiv
atio
n (β
)P
uta
men
Act
ivat
ion
(β)
Nu
cleu
s A
ccu
mb
ens
Act
ivat
ion
(β)
Pu
tam
en A
ctiv
atio
n (β
)
Nu
cleu
s A
ccu
mb
ens
Act
ivat
ion
(β)
Pu
tam
en A
ctiv
atio
n (β
)
Cau
dat
e A
ctiv
atio
n (β
)
Cau
dat
e A
ctiv
atio
n (β
)
a In panel A, striatal response to cues, across all types, was greater in depressed participants receiving amisulpride comparedwith depressed participantsreceiving placebo (caudate: p=0.022; nucleus accumbens: p=0.036; putamen: p=0.049), as well as compared with healthy control participantsreceiving amisulpride (caudate: p=0.017; the group difference in nucleus accumbens fell short of statistical significance: p=0.063). In panel B, striatalresponse to reward outcomes was greater in depressed participants receiving amisulpride compared with depressed participants receiving placebo(nucleus accumbens, p=0.007; putamen, p=0.050), as well as comparedwith control participants receiving amisulpride (caudate, p=0.044; putamen,p=0.003); nucleus accumbens activation in response to rewardoutcomewas also higher in control participants receivingplacebo relative todepressedparticipants receiving placebo (p=0.026). In panel C, striatal response to penalty outcomes did not differ significantly across groups and there was noconsistent pattern across regions in the penalty condition.
*p,0.05.
Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017 ajp.psychiatryonline.org 383
provide converging evidence for abnormalities in neuralreward systems in depression and highlight the potential oftargeted pharmacological treatments to normalize rewardprocessing in depression.
Extensive preclinical research has emphasized the keyrole of striatal dopamine signaling in mediating reward-related behaviors (2–4) and has postulated links betweenreduced striatal dopamine function and blunted rewardprocessing and reinforcement learning in depression (9, 10).Interestingly, previous research indicates that dopamine dif-ferentially mediates anticipatory and consummatory phasesof reward processing (28) and thus may uniquely affect theirputative dysfunction in anhedonia and depression (29). Insupport of this idea, we observed that acute administrationof amisulpride enhanced striatal response to cues regardlessof valence (e.g., signaling potential rewards, penalties, or null
outcomes), yet in response to outcomes, striatal enhancementwas selective to reward.
In addition to increasing striatal activity in response torewards, enhancement of dopamine signaling in depressedindividuals was also associated with amplified functionalconnectivity between the striatum and areas of the mid-cingulate cortex. This finding is consistent with a modelin which abnormal coordinated activity among large-scalebrain circuits, including corticostriatal pathways, is central tothe pathophysiology of depression (30, 31). Critically, thosedepressed individuals who exhibited the strongest nucleusaccumbens–midcingulate cortex connectivity in responseto rewards after amisulpride administration also exhibitedbetter reward learning inan independentbehavioral task, andthis pattern was not found among depressed individualswho received placebo. Of relevance to the present findings,
FIGURE 3. Striatal Connectivity in Response to Reward Outcomes in Depressed Individuals and Healthy Control Subjects With andWithout Dopaminergic Enhancementa
Depressed Group Control GroupDepressed Group Control Group0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
C. Nucleus Accumbens-Midcingulate CortexB. Caudate-Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex
A. Striatal Connectivity During Reward Outcomes
x=6
t=8
t=8
Co
nn
ect
ivit
y (β
)
Co
nn
ecti
vity
(β)Placebo
Amisulpride
**
*
*
a InpanelA,whole-brainpsychophysiological interactionanalyses revealed increased functional connectivitybilaterallybetweenthecaudateandregionsof the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (yellow) and bilaterally between the nucleus accumbens and regions of the midcingulate cortex (green) inresponse to reward outcomes across the entire sample at peak p,0.001, family-wise error corrected p,0.05. No changes in striatal connectivity werefound in response to penalty outcomes. In panel B, caudate–dorsal anterior cingulate cortex functional connectivity was significantly higher in controlparticipants receiving placebo relative to all other groups (all p values ,0.033). In panel C, nucleus accumbens–midcingulate cortex functionalconnectivity was significantly higher in both control participants receiving placebo and depressed participants receiving amisulpride than in depressedparticipants receiving placebo (p=0.037 and p=0.022, respectively).
384 ajp.psychiatryonline.org Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017
DOPAMINERGIC ENHANCEMENT OF STRIATAL RESPONSE TO REWARD IN DEPRESSION
increased functional con-nectivity has been observedbetween midcingulate andstriatal regions (and the insula)during learning (32), support-ing the importance of thiscorticostriatal subcircuit indopamine-mediated function-ing. Coordination betweendopamine-rich areas of thestriatumandmidline regionsinvolved in processing be-havioral salience may there-fore be an important dimensionof healthy reinforcement learn-ing, and dopamine enhance-ment may help to regulate thisfunctional circuit in depres-sion. In fact, given preclinicalevidence that amisulpride hasa particularly high affinity formesolimbic pathways (18, 19),one may speculate that amisulpride may enhance striatalfunction by affecting regulatory mechanisms beyond thestriatum, and in particular in regions of the mesocorticolimbicpathway that communicate with the striatum via dopa-minergic signaling to enable reward motivation and re-inforcement learning (29). Thus, while in the present studywe investigated the effects of amisulpride on striatal func-tioning, other brain systems that have exhibited abnormalactivity or functional connectivity in depression (e.g., pre-frontal cortex) may be important targets of dopaminemanipulation.
Several additional questions remain open for future in-vestigation. First, evidence from preclinical studies linkingreinforcement learning and motivation with phasic dopa-mine signaling in the striatum suggests that amisulprideenhancement of reward processing in depressed individualsmost likely occurs via increased phasic dopamine signaling(2–4). Nevertheless, the mechanisms by which amisulpridemay act to enhance striatal response to reward are complexand may involve modifications of phasic and tonic levels ofdopamine, as well as of additional neurotransmitters (33, 34).Additional research, especially in humans, investigating theeffects of amisulpride on tonic and phasic dopamine releaseis needed. A second area for future investigation is motivatedby differences between our findings and the results of pre-vious investigations in which dopaminergic manipulation inhealthy individuals resulted in better reward learning andincreased striatal activity. Themodest amisulpride dose usedin the present study (50mg as opposed to 200mg and 400mgin past studies [15, 35]) may have contributed to these dis-crepancies. We selected a 50-mg dose based on animal workshowing that low doses of amisulpride potentiate striataldopamine release, have strong hedonic effects, and increasethe incentive value of environmental cues (18, 19). In
humans, a 50-mg dose of amisulpride has been associatedwith reduced blockade of postsynaptic D2/D3 receptorin comparison to higher doses of 200–400 mg (23), in-creasing the likelihood of presynaptic effects. Perhapsmoreimportantly, (sustained) 50-mg amisulpride dosing has beenshown to have antidepressant and antianhedonic effects indepressive disorders (21, 22), suggesting that the presentpharmacological manipulation may preferentially benefitdepressed individuals as compared with healthy subjects.Nevertheless, while the pharmacological manipulation en-hanced striatal function in depressed individuals, it had nosuch effect on behavior (i.e., reward learning). One po-tential reason for this could relate to the fact that we ad-ministered only a single dose of the drug. Thus, while thedrug may have an immediate effect on neural function,modifying behavior may require longer and more chronicexposure. In support of this idea, antidepressant effectsof amisulpride among depressed individuals have beenobserved after sustained (but not acute) administration(21, 22).
In conclusion, in depressed individuals, but not healthysubjects, acute pharmacological challenge transiently in-creased striatal activity and corticostriatal functional con-nectivity in response to rewards, putatively via enhancementof dopaminergic transmission. These findings suggest thatan acute pharmacological manipulation believed to increasedopamine transmission may help normalize reward pro-cessing in depressed individuals through the enhancementof key corticostriatal mechanisms.
AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
From the Center for Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Research and theMcLean Imaging Center, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass.; and the De-partment of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
FIGURE4. RewardLearningandNucleusAccumbens–MidcingulateCortex FunctionalConnectivity inDepressed Individuals and Healthy Control Subjects With and Without Dopaminergic Enhancementa
Reward Learning
–1
0
1
2
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Depressed Group
–1
0
1
2
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Reward Learning
Control Group
Co
nn
ect
ivit
y (β
)
Co
nn
ect
ivit
y (β
)
Placebo Amisulpride
a Regression analyses revealed positive relationships between reward learning and reward-related nucleusaccumbens–midcingulate cortex functional connectivity in depressed participants receiving amisulpride(r=0.65, p=0.003) and healthy control participants receiving placebo (r=0.54, p=0.029), but not in depressedparticipants receiving placebo (r=20.24, p=0.354) or control participants receiving amisulpride (r=0.08,p=0.740). Reward learning refers to “choose A” accuracy from the probabilistic selection task.
Am J Psychiatry 174:4, April 2017 ajp.psychiatryonline.org 385
Presentedat theannualAnxietyandDepressionConferenceof theAnxietyand Depression Association of America, Miami, April 9–12, 2015.
SupportedbyNIMHR01grantsMH068376andMH101521 toDr.Pizzagalli.Dr. Admon was supported by a Brain and Behavior Research FoundationYoung Investigator Award and an Adam Corneel Young InvestigatorAward.Dr. KaiserandDr.DillonweresupportedbyNIMHgrantsF32MH106262and K99MH094438, respectively.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01253421.
Dr. Dillon has served as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Vitaliano has equityownership in EXQOR Technologies. Dr. Pizzagalli has received honorariaor consulting fees from Akili Interactive Labs, BlackThorn Therapeutics,Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, and Pfizer. The other authors report nofinancial relationships with commercial interests.
Received Jan. 26, 2016; revisions received April 15 and June 29, 2016;accepted Aug. 16, 2016; published online Oct. 24, 2016.
4. BerridgeKC:Thedebate overdopamine’s role in reward: the case forincentive salience. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2007; 191:391–431
5. Chase HW, Kumar P, Eickhoff SB, et al: Reinforcement learningmodels and their neural correlates: an activation likelihood esti-mationmeta-analysis. CognAffect BehavNeurosci 2015; 15:435–459
6. Haber SN, Knutson B: The reward circuit: linking primate anatomyand human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010; 35:4–26
7. Pizzagalli DA, Holmes AJ, Dillon DG, et al: Reduced caudate andnucleus accumbens response to rewards in unmedicated individualswith major depressive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2009; 166:702–710
8. Chen C, Takahashi T, Nakagawa S, et al: Reinforcement learning indepression: a review of computational research. Neurosci BiobehavRev 2015; 55:247–267
9. Dunlop BW, Nemeroff CB: The role of dopamine in the patho-physiology of depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64:327–337
10. Nestler EJ, Carlezon WA Jr: The mesolimbic dopamine rewardcircuit in depression. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 59:1151–1159
11. Admon R, Pizzagalli DA: Dysfunctional reward processing in de-pression. Curr Opin Psychol 2015; 4:114–118
12. Admon R, Pizzagalli DA: Corticostriatal pathways contribute to thenatural time course of positive mood. Nat Commun 2015; 6:10065
13. Heller AS, Johnstone T, Shackman AJ, et al: Reduced capacity tosustain positive emotion in major depression reflects diminishedmaintenance of fronto-striatal brain activation. Proc Natl Acad SciUSA 2009; 106:22445–22450
14. Russo SJ, Nestler EJ: The brain reward circuitry in mood disorders.Nat Rev Neurosci 2013; 14:609–625
15. JochamG,KleinTA,UllspergerM:Dopamine-mediatedreinforcementlearning signals in the striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortexunderlie value-based choices. J Neurosci 2011; 31:1606–1613
16. Pessiglione M, Seymour B, Flandin G, et al: Dopamine-dependentprediction errors underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans.Nature 2006; 442:1042–1045
17. Chowdhury R, Guitart-Masip M, Lambert C, et al: Dopamine re-stores reward prediction errors in old age. Nat Neurosci 2013; 16:648–653
18. Schoemaker H, Claustre Y, Fage D, et al: Neurochemical charac-teristics of amisulpride, an atypical dopamine D2/D3 receptor an-tagonist with both presynaptic and limbic selectivity. J PharmacolExp Ther 1997; 280:83–97
19. Coukell AJ, Spencer CM, Benfield P: Amisulpride: a review of itspharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeuticefficacy in the management of schizophrenia. CNS Drugs 1996; 6:237–256
20. Frank MJ, Seeberger LC, O’Reilly RC: By carrot or by stick: cog-nitive reinforcement learning in parkinsonism. Science 2004; 306:1940–1943
21. Amore M, Jori MC, AMISERT Investigators: Faster response onamisulpride 50 mg versus sertraline 50–100 mg in patients withdysthymia or double depression: a randomized, double-blind, par-allel group study. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2001; 16:317–324
22. Cassano GB, Jori MC, AMIMAJOR Group, et al: Efficacy and safetyof amisulpride 50mg versus paroxetine 20mg inmajor depression: arandomized, double-blind, parallel group study. Int Clin Psycho-pharmacol 2002; 17:27–32
23. la Fougère C,Meisenzahl E, Schmitt G, et al: D2 receptor occupancyduring high- and low-dose therapy with the atypical antipsychoticamisulpride: a 123I-iodobenzamide SPECT study. J NuclMed 2005;46:1028–1033
24. First BM, Spitzer LR, GibbonM, et al: Structured Clinical InterviewforDSM-IV-TRAxis IDisorders, ResearchVersion.NewYork,NewYork State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research, 2002
25. Knutson B, Westdorp A, Kaiser E, et al: fMRI visualization of brainactivity during a monetary incentive delay task. Neuroimage 2000;12:20–27
26. AdmonR,NickersonLD,DillonDG, et al:Dissociable cortico-striatalconnectivity abnormalities in major depression in response tomonetary gains and penalties. Psychol Med 2015; 45:121–131
27. AdmonR,HolsenLM,AizleyH, et al: Striatalhypersensitivityduringstress in remitted individuals with recurrent depression. Biol Psy-chiatry 2015; 78:67–76
29. Treadway MT, Zald DH: Reconsidering anhedonia in depression:lessons from translational neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2011; 35:537–555
30. Marchetti I, Koster EH, Sonuga-Barke EJ, et al: The default modenetwork and recurrent depression: a neurobiological model ofcognitive risk factors. Neuropsychol Rev 2012; 22:229–251
31. Kaiser RH, Andrews-Hanna JR, Wager TD, et al: Large-scale net-work dysfunction in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis ofresting-state functional connectivity. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72:603–611
Data supplement for Admon et al.,Dopaminergic Enhancement of Striatal Response to Reward in Major Depression. Am J Psychiatry (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16010111)
Supplementary Methods
Participants and Procedure: General exclusion criteria for all participants included: pregnancy,
use of oral contraceptives or hormone therapy in the previous six months, a serious or unstable
medical illness (e.g., cardiovascular, hepatic, renal, respiratory, endocrine, neurologic or
hematologic disease), history of seizure disorder, history of cocaine or stimulant use (e.g.,
amphetamine, cocaine, methamphetamine), history of dopaminergic drug use (including
methylphenidate), history or current diagnosis of dementia, or a score of < 26 on the Mini
Mental Status Examination (1), or a history of adverse drug reactions or allergy to amisulpride.
Failure to meet standard MRI safety requirements, renal insufficiency, clinical or laboratory
evidence of hypothyroidism, severe concussion, or loss of consciousness longer than two
minutes also resulted in exclusion. Exclusion criteria specific to depressed participants included:
suicidal ideation, any psychotropic medication in the past two weeks (six weeks for fluoxetine;
six months for dopaminergic drugs or neuroleptics), a lifetime history of electroconvulsive
therapy, and a history or current diagnosis of any of the following DSM-IV psychiatric illnesses: