NMDA receptor ablation in medial prefrontal cortex disrupts value updating and reward history integration
Knep, E.; Velosa, A.; Mueller, D.; Chen, C. S.; Vinogradov, S.; Chafee, M.; Ebitz, B.; Heilbronner, S.; Rothwell, P. E.; Grissom, N.
Show abstract
Schizophrenia, a serious mental illness, is associated with evidence of NMDA receptor (NMDAR) dysfunction and characterized by cognitive impairments that reflect impaired value updating and feedback-driven control; however the cellular and circuit-level mechanisms underlying these disruptions remain unclear. Here we test how NMDA receptor (NMDAR) signaling in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) contributes to adaptive decision-making by combining targeted genetic ablation in mice and systemic pharmacology. Using a CRISPR-Cas9 approach to eliminate the obligate GluN1 subunit, we induced spatially confined NMDAR hypofunction in mPFC and compared its effects to systemic pharmacological blockade with the NMDAR antagonist MK-801 during performance of a touchscreen-based restless bandit task. Prefrontal NMDAR ablation impaired value discrimination, weakened the use of negative feedback, and reduced mutual information between recent outcomes and current choices, indicating disrupted reward-history integration. Reinforcement-learning models incorporating a choice-kernel term best captured behavior and revealed that NMDAR ablation selectively dampened learning and choice-history parameters governing flexible updating. Systemic MK-801 produced broad impairments in control animals, reducing accuracy, mutual information, and outcome sensitivity, yet exerted only modest additional effects after NMDAR ablation, suggesting that prefrontal NMDAR loss occluded much of the pharmacological disruption. Simulations using fitted RLCK parameters reproduced these patterns, showing convergent flattening of choice dynamics under MK-801 and persistent deficits in GluN1 ablated animals. Together, these findings demonstrate that prefrontal NMDAR signaling is necessary for effective value updating and feedback-driven learning, and that its loss recapitulates core features of systemic NMDAR hypofunction. This work establishes a mechanistic bridge between localized cortical glutamatergic dysfunction and the reinforcement-learning disturbances characteristic of schizophrenia.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Dorsomedial striatal neuroinflammation causes excessive goal-directed action control by disrupting astrocyte function 95%
- Operant self-stimulation of thalamic terminals in the dorsomedial striatum is constrained by metabotropic glutamate receptor 2 95%
- Galanin receptor 1 expressing neurons in hippocampal-prefrontal circuitry modulate goal directed attention and impulse control 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Supramammillary neurons projecting to the septum regulate dopamine and motivation for environmental interaction 95%
- Reward integration in prefrontal-cortical and ventral-hippocampal nucleus accumbens inputs cooperatively modulates engagement 95%
- Drug Reinforcement Impairs Cognitive Flexibility by Inhibiting Striatal Cholinergic Neurons 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- A bidirectional corticoamygdala circuit for the encoding and retrieval of detailed reward memories 95%
- Patchy Striatonigral Neurons Modulate Locomotor Vigor in Response to Environmental Valence 95%
- Mixed representations of choice direction and outcome by GABA/glutamate cotransmitting neurons in the entopeduncular nucleus 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prefrontal cortical dynorphin peptidergic transmission constrains threat-driven behavioral and network states 94%
- Projection-Targeted Photopharmacology Reveals Distinct Anxiolytic Roles for Presynaptic mGluR2 in Prefrontal- and Insula-Amygdala Synapses 94%
- A global dopaminergic learning rate enables adaptive foraging across many options 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.