Take a look at the Recent articles

5-HT2A antagonist MDL100907 showed inconsistent effect on decision-making during reward-guided behavior

Mizuhiki T

Doctoral Program in Kansei, Behavioral and Brain Science, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

E-mail : bhuvaneswari.bibleraaj@uhsm.nhs.uk

Akizawa F

Doctoral Program in Kansei, Behavioral and Brain Science, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

Setogawa T

Doctoral Program in Kansei, Behavioral and Brain Science, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

Takafuji M

Doctoral Program in Kansei, Behavioral and Brain Science, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

Shidara M

Doctoral Program in Kansei, Behavioral and Brain Science, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

DOI: 10.15761/JSIN.1000200

Article
Article Info
Author Info
Figures & Data

Abstract

We investigated whether the 5-HT2A antagonist, MDL100907, affected the decision-making during reward guided behavior. Three rhesus monkeys underwent intramuscular injection of MDL100907, then performed decision-making schedule task. In this task, the monkey was required to choose one of two options of different reward value which were consisted of a combination of different amount of workload and liquid reward. The error rate, the reaction time, and the choice probability between two options did not show consistent changes by MDL100907 among monkeys. We speculate that 5-HT2A is not the receptor type to affect the reward-based decision-making, or a wide distribution of 5-HT2A on cortex lead to inconsistent effects on the specific behavioral parameters among subjects.

Key words

serotonin, 5-HT2A, reward, monkey, MDL100907, decision-making

Introduction

The ascending serotonergic pathway that originates from dorsal raphe nucleus (DR) innervates whole forebrain and regulates the broad range of cognitive functions. The relation between reward-guided behavior and serotonergic function has been extensively explored. Many researchers pointed out that serotonin concentration in the brain affects discounting of the reward value which is determined by the delay or workload toward the reward and the amount of reward [1-5]. The diversity in serotonin receptor subtypes and their anatomical distributions complicate the understanding of serotonergic roles. Among 14 receptor subtypes, the ones that are most involved in reward-guided behavior still remain uncertain. Here we hypothesized that 5-HT2A subtype might be involved in the reward-guided behavior because this type of receptor is widely and densely expressed in the neocortex [6,7]. Converging evidences suggest that the subdivisions of the frontal cortex are implicated in the reward value calculation. Several parts of the frontal cortex are the essential elements in one of the basal ganglia thalamocortical loops, which is necessary to generate behavior in response to emotionally or motivationally salient stimuli [8]. Therefore, the pharmacological manipulation on 5-HT2A possibly alters the reward guided behavior. To investigate this hypothesis, we injected 5-HT2A selective antagonist MDL100907 intramuscularly to the rhesus monkeys, immediately before they began to perform a decision-making schedule task and examined the effect on choice and reward schedule task execution.

Materials and methods

We used three rhesus monkeys (monkey H: ~7.3 kg, monkey P: ~6.4 kg, monkey Y: ~11.4 kg). The experiments were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Tsukuba, and were conducted in strict accordance with the guidelines for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the University of Tsukuba.

In the drug condition, the monkeys underwent intramuscular injection of 1ml solution of MDL100907 at the dose of 0.002mg/kg. A PET research showed that about 50% of 5-HT2A in monkey brain was occupied at this dose [9]. In the control condition, 1ml of vehicle was injected. The experiment was continued two weeks, and the drug condition and control condition were performed on every alternate day (In 1st week, Mon: control, Tue: drug, Wed: control, Thurs: drug. In 2nd week, Tue: control, Wed: drug, Thurs: control, Fri: drug). The decision-making schedule task was begun 15 min after the injection. The task was composed of two parts: a decision-making part and a reward schedule part [10]. Briefly, the monkey sat in a primate chair of which three touch-sensitive bars were attached to the front panel. These bars were referred to as the center bar, and the right and the left choice bars. When the monkey touched the center bar, the decision-making part started. Two white rectangle cues were presented on CRT display as the choice options. The length and the brightness of the cues indicated the amount of workload (1, 2, 3, or 4 repeats of simple visual discriminations) and reward (1, 2, 3, or 4 drops of water; 1drop = 0.15ml), respectively. From these 4×4=16 different combinations of workload and reward, the computer randomly picked up two cues and presented to the monkey. Accordingly, 16C2=120 different pairs existed. To make a decision, the monkey was required to touch either the right or the left choice bar that was on the same side as the chosen cue 150-3000ms after the onset of the cues. All the behavioral responses outside 150–3000ms were counted as an error. After the choice was successfully performed, the reward schedule part began. The monkey had to perform the repeats of red-green color discriminations they chose, to earn the promised reward. If the monkey failed to respond within 1 sec after the onset of green color, the trial was scored as an error and the failed trial was repeated until successfully done.

The “R” statistical programming language was used for all analyses. We identified the day in which the monkey earned the least number of the drop of reward. For other days, we collected the behavioral data before accumulated number of the drop of earned reward reached the least number. Using those data, the reaction time was examined as the time from visual target presentation to the onset of behavioral response, and the error rate was calculated as the ratio of error and performed total trials.

We calculated the percentage of chosen options across all 120 combinations of reward schedules. For analyzing the choice behavior, we used the same model as in Setogawa, et al. (2018). That is, the subjective reward value of the choice targets is discounted by workload which is consisted of physical effort and delay in our task. Our previous report [11] showed that the subjective reward value, v, is discounted exponentially:

          (1)

where r is number of reward drop, k is discounting rate, and D is the number of visual discriminations. Based on the differences in the subjective reward value between two options, the chosen side is determined through the following sigmoidal function;

        (2)

where vleft and vright are the value of the left and right targets, respectively, a determines the steepness, and p is the choice probability. Using the “optim” in the “R”, the discount rate k was estimated from four days control condition. Assuming the k as an innate discount rate, we tested whether the probability of chosen cues was different between the drug and the control conditions. We performed a logistic regression analysis using a generalized linear model (GLM) with a binomial link function.

       (3)

The dependent variable y is binary (0/1); the choice of left or right. The predictor variable xvalue is the difference in value between the left and the right cue, and xcondition is the vehicle or the drug condition.

Results

First, we examined the behavior during decision-making part. The number of successful vs failed choices were 482 vs 88, 1066 vs 65, and 240 vs 24 in monkey Y, H, and P, respectively, in the drug condition. In the control condition, those numbers were 468 vs 19, 1059 vs 51, and 245 vs 9, respectively (Figure 1 and Table 1). The whole error rate was calculated from those numbers. Though the whole error rate in two monkeys were significantly larger in drug condition (χ2 test; χ2=37.2, p~0 in monkey Y, χ2=5.78, p=0.024 in monkey P, corrected with FDR), the remaining one monkey was not (χ2 test; χ2=1.29, p=0.26). We did not find consistent change in the error rate of each error subtype (early error, bar error, late error), too (Table 1). As for the reaction time, the movement when the left side cue was chosen and when the right-side cue was chosen was different. Therefore, we sorted the reactions in the decision-making part based on the chosen side and compared them between two conditions. We did not find consistent results among three monkeys (Table 2).

Figure 1. The error rate in the decision-making part. Vertical axis shows the error rate. Horizontal axis labels the drug and control conditions (shown as “ant.” and “cont.”) in each monkey. The error type was indicated by different gray level. We defined the “early error” as the bar touch before 150 msec after the cues were presented. The “bar error” was twice or more bar touches, and/or the touch to two or more bars. The “late error” was the no-touch to the choice bar within 3000 msec after the presentation of the cues. The asterisk shows significant level in p value (** : p<0.01, * :p<0.05). All p values were corrected with FDR

Table 1. Error rate of each error type in decision-making part. Early error: the bar touch before 150 msec after the cues were presented, bar error: twice or more bar touches, and/or the touch to two or more bars, late error: no-touch to the choice bar within 3000 m sec after the presentation of the cues (** : p<0.01)

Monkey

Error type

Antagonist

Control

χ2

p

Y

early error

18/570

2/487

9.25

0.0035 **

 

bar error

30

14

3.18

0.075

 

late error

36

1

27.25

~0 **

H

early error

28/1131

15/1110

3.19

0.22

 

bar error

28

23

0.25

0.70

 

late error

4

2

0.15

0.70

P

early error

19/264

3/254

10.01

0.0045 **

 

bar error

4

5

0.003

1

 

late error

1

1

~0

1

Table 2. Reaction time in the decision-making part (** : p<0.01)

Choosing the left side bar               

Choosing the right side bar

Monkey

Antagonist

Control

t

p

Antagonist

Control

t

p

Y

900ms

778ms

6.25

~0 **

893ms

776ms

5.03

~0 **

H

648

641

0.85

0.40

760

775

1.37

0.17

P

603

628

0.93

0.40

640

698

2.03

0.066

Though the discounting rate among all monkeys seemed to increase in drug condition (left side columns in Table 3), this did not give rise to consistent change in the choice probability. In the decision-making part, the choice probability, in only one monkey (Y), significantly altered in the drug condition. Remaining two did not show significant changes (right side columns in Table 3). The results were inconsistent among the monkeys.

Table 3. Choice behavior fit by stochastic models (** : p<0.01)

 

fit by “optim”

GLM

 

Antagonist

Control

 

 

Monkey

k

a

k

a

z

P

Y

0.651

6.10

0.450

5.74

3.052

0.00227 **

H

0.548

9.24

0.514

10.23

1.28

0.20

P

0.750

11.98

0.610

10.94

0.315

0.753

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next, we examined the behavioral parameters during the schedule part. In the drug condition, the number of successful and failed visual discrimination trials used for the analyses in the reward schedule part were 958 vs 31, 2149 vs 105, and 471 vs 131 for monkey Y, H, and P, respectively. In the control condition, those numbers were 958 vs 31, 2123 vs 148, and 476 vs 101, respectively. The whole error rate and the error rate of each error type were shown in figure 2 and table 4. Two monkey showed significant differences in whole error rates between the drug and the control conditions. However, one of them showed larger error rate in the control condition (monkey H; 0.0468 vs 0.065 in the drug and the control conditions, χ2-test; χ2=6.86, p=0.013, FDR correction) and the other showed larger error rate in the drug condition (monkey Y; 0.15 vs 0.031 in the drug and the control conditions, χ2-test; χ2=85, p~0, with FDR correction). The remaining one monkey did not show significant differences (monkey P; 0.22 vs 0.18 in the drug and the control conditions, χ2-test; χ2=3.1, p∽0.08, with FDR correction). Taken together with the change in the error rate of each error subdivision (Table 4), we conclude that the drug did not generate consistent changes among three monkeys.

Figure 2. The error rate in the reward schedule part. The axes labels are same as in Figure 1. The “early error” in the reward schedule part was the bar-release earlier than 150 msec after the presentation of green color. The “bar error” was the touches to left and/or right bars. The “late error” was not releasing the bar within 1000 msec after the presentation of green color. The significant level was indicated by asterisk (**: p<0.01, *: p<0.05)

Table 4. Error rate of each error type in reward schedule part. Early error: bar-release earlier than 150 msec after the presentation of green color, bar error: touches to left and/or right bars, late error: not releasing the bar within 1000 msec after the presentation of green color (** : p<0.01)

Monkey

error type

antagonist

control

χ2

p

 

Y

early error

21/1093

18/989

~0

0.99

 

bar error

70

8

43.5

~0 **

 

late error

73

5

53.2

~0 **

H

early error

55/2244

46/2271

0.75

0.58

 

bar error

23

73

25.0

~0 **

 

late error

27

29

0.008

0.93

P

early error

117/602

58/577

19.79

~0 **

 

bar error

1

6

2.47

0.12

 

late error

13

37

12.1

~0 **

For the reaction time in the reward schedule part, two monkeys showed significantly larger and smaller reaction times in the drug condition than in the control conditions, and one monkey did not show significant change. Therefore, the results were inconsistent among monkeys (Table 5).

Table 5. Reaction time in the reward schedule part (** : p<0.01)

Monkey

Antagonist

Control

t

p

Y

415ms

391ms

4.93

~0 **

H

444

451

1.93

0.053

P

420

451

3.41

0.001 **

Discussion

We investigated whether the monkey behavior during performing the decision-making schedule task was affected by the administration of 5-HT2A antagonist MDL100907. The results indicate that intramuscular injection of MDL100907 did not show consistent effect on behavioral parameters both during choice and reward schedule execution among monkeys. There are a few possibilities for these results. Firstly, 5-HT2A is not the receptor type for this role. Because there are many receptor types, it is not surprising that other receptor types such as 5-HT1A or 5-HT4 might be important. Secondly, wide distribution of 5-HT2A in the brain might counteract each other if each specific part of the brain has different role by 5HT2A. The 5-HT2A is exclusively expressed in broad area of neocortex [7]. The clinical symptoms such as anxiety, aggression and hallucinations are possibly related with 5-HT2A activation [12]. Functionally, the 5-HT2A is implicated in emotion, emotion related memory, learning, and food intake [13,14]. Taken together, the cortices excitability involved in broad functions seems to be regulated by the 5-HT2A activity. Thus, antagonism to this receptor might interfere with various steps in the decision-making during reward-guided behavior, hence, did not show consistent changes if strength of each process is different among individual monkeys. Further complication derives from the fact that 5-HT acts on major dopaminergic pathways and 5-HT2A facilitate dopamine release [15]. Injecting MDL100907 to the specific part of the brain, especially one narrow part of reward-related areas such as striatum, would be necessary to examine the role of 5-HT2A on the reward-based decision-making.

Conclusion

Using three rhesus monkeys, we investigated the effect of 5-HT2A antagonist, MDL100907, during performing the reward-based decision-making schedule task. Any of the following task performances, error rates, reaction time, discount rate and probability of choice, did not show a consistent change by the administration of MDL100907. Though the 5-HT2A receptor is distributed in almost entire part of the neocortex and has a role to regulate cortical excitability in various mental functions, reward value discounting or schedule task execution in our task paradigm did not seem to be the main role of this receptor type.

Acknowledgements

T.M. and F.A. equally contributed to this work. F.A., T.M., and M.S. designed the experiment. F.A., T.M., T.S., and M.T. performed experiment. T.M. analyzed behavioral and pharmacological data. T.M. wrote the manuscript. T.M., T.S., and M.S. discussed the data and revised the manuscript.

Financial competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Funding information

This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (15J00709) (F.A.); Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas-System study on higher-order brain functions- from MEXT of Japan (17022052) (M.S.) and KAKENHI (22300138, 25282246, 16H03301) (M.S.); KAKENHI (26119504) (T.M.).

Author contribution

FA and TM contributed equally to this work. FA, TM, and MS designed the experiment. FA, TS, TM, and MT performed experiment. FA and TM analyzed behavioral and pharmacological data. FA, TM, and MS wrote the manuscript and created all figures. FA, TM, TS, and MS discussed the data.

References

  1. Doya K (2008) Modulators of decision making. Nat Neurosci 11: 410-416.
  2. Green L, Fristoe N, Myerson J (1994) Temporal discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychon Bull Rev 1: 383-389.
  3. Mazur JE (1987) An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: Commons ML, Mazur JE, Nevin JA, Rachlin H (eds) Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: The Effect of Delay and of Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value, 5. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, PP: 55-73.
  4. Bizot J, Le Bihan C, Puech AJ, Hamon M, Thiébot M (1999) Serotonin and tolerance to delay of reward in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 46: 400-412.
  5. Wogar MA, Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E (1993) Effect of lesions of the ascending 5-hydroxytryptaminergic pathways on choice between delayed reinforcers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 111: 239-243.
  6. Yates JR, Perry JL, Meyer AC, Gipson CD, Charnigo R, et al. (2014) Role of medial prefrontal and orbitofrontal monoamine transporters and receptors in performance in an adjusting delay discounting procedure. Brain Res 1574: 26-36.
  7. Beliveau V, Ganz M, Feng L, Ozenne B, Hojgaard L, et al. (2017) A high-resolution in vivo atlas of the human brain’s serotonin system. J Neurosci 37: 120-128.
  8. Heimer L, Switzer RD, Van Hoesen GW (1982) Ventral striatum and ventral pallidum. Components of the motor system?  Trends Neurosci 5: 83-87.
  9. Hori Y, Nagai Y, Oh-Nishi A, Kikuchi E, Suhara T, et al. (2017) Distinct roles of serotonergic receptor subtypes in value-based decision-making in monkeys: a behavioral pharmacological study with PET imaging. Neuroscience meeting, Washington DC.
  10. Setogawa T, Mizuhiki T, Matsumoto N, Akizawa F, Shidara M (2014) Self-choice enhances value in reward-seeking in primates. Neurosci Res 80: 45-54.
  11. Setogawa T, Mizuhiki T, Matsumoto N, Akizawa F, Kuboki R, Richmond BJ, et al. (2018) Neurons in the monkey orbitofrontal cortex mediate reward value computation and decision-making. Commun Biol 2: 126.
  12. Lambe EK, Aghajanian GK (2006) Electrophysiology of 5-HT2A Receptors and Relevance for Hallucinogen and Atypical Antipsychotic Drug Actions. In: Roth BL (eds) The Serotonin Receptors. Humana Press.
  13. Herth MM, Knudsen MG (2018) PET Imaging of the 5-HT2A Receptor System: A Tool to Study the Receptor’s In Vivo Brain Function. ­In: Guiard PB, Di Giovanni G (eds) 5-HT2A Receptors in the Central Nervous System. Humana Press.
  14. Gorwood P, Lanfumey L, Viltart O, Ramoz N (2018) 5-HT2A Receptors in Eating Disorders. ­In: Guiard PB, Di Giovanni G (eds) 5-HT2A Receptors in the Central Nervous System. Humana Press.
  15. Alex KD, Pehek EA (2007) Pharmacologic mechanisms of serotonergic regulation of dopamine neurotransmission. Pharmacol Ther 113: 296-320.

Editorial Information

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Rajendra Badgaiyan
Dr. Kenneth Blum

Article Type

Research Article

Publication history

Received date: May 01, 2018
Accepted date: May 21, 2018
Published date: May 24, 2018

Copyright

© 2018 Mizuhiki T. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation

Mizuhiki T, Akizawa F, Setogawa T, Takafuji M and Shidara M (2018) 5-HT2A antagonist MDL100907 showed inconsistent effect on decision-making during reward-guided behavior. J Syst Integr Neurosci 4: DOI: 10.15761/JSIN.1000200

Corresponding author

Munetaka Shidara

Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Doctoral Program in Kansei, Behavioral and Brain Science, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan

E-mail : bhuvaneswari.bibleraaj@uhsm.nhs.uk

Figure 1. The error rate in the decision-making part. Vertical axis shows the error rate. Horizontal axis labels the drug and control conditions (shown as “ant.” and “cont.”) in each monkey. The error type was indicated by different gray level. We defined the “early error” as the bar touch before 150 msec after the cues were presented. The “bar error” was twice or more bar touches, and/or the touch to two or more bars. The “late error” was the no-touch to the choice bar within 3000 msec after the presentation of the cues. The asterisk shows significant level in p value (** : p<0.01, * :p<0.05). All p values were corrected with FDR

Figure 2. The error rate in the reward schedule part. The axes labels are same as in Figure 1. The “early error” in the reward schedule part was the bar-release earlier than 150 msec after the presentation of green color. The “bar error” was the touches to left and/or right bars. The “late error” was not releasing the bar within 1000 msec after the presentation of green color. The significant level was indicated by asterisk (**: p<0.01, *: p<0.05)

Table 1. Error rate of each error type in decision-making part. Early error: the bar touch before 150 msec after the cues were presented, bar error: twice or more bar touches, and/or the touch to two or more bars, late error: no-touch to the choice bar within 3000 m sec after the presentation of the cues (** : p<0.01)

Monkey

Error type

Antagonist

Control

χ2

p

Y

early error

18/570

2/487

9.25

0.0035 **

 

bar error

30

14

3.18

0.075

 

late error

36

1

27.25

~0 **

H

early error

28/1131

15/1110

3.19

0.22

 

bar error

28

23

0.25

0.70

 

late error

4

2

0.15

0.70

P

early error

19/264

3/254

10.01

0.0045 **

 

bar error

4

5

0.003

1

 

late error

1

1

~0

1

Table 2. Reaction time in the decision-making part (** : p<0.01)

Choosing the left side bar               

Choosing the right side bar

Monkey

Antagonist

Control

t

p

Antagonist

Control

t

p

Y

900ms

778ms

6.25

~0 **

893ms

776ms

5.03

~0 **

H

648

641

0.85

0.40

760

775

1.37

0.17

P

603

628

0.93

0.40

640

698

2.03

0.066

Table 3. Choice behavior fit by stochastic models (** : p<0.01)

 

fit by “optim”

GLM

 

Antagonist

Control

 

 

Monkey

k

a

k

a

z

P

Y

0.651

6.10

0.450

5.74

3.052

0.00227 **

H

0.548

9.24

0.514

10.23

1.28

0.20

P

0.750

11.98

0.610

10.94

0.315

0.753

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Error rate of each error type in reward schedule part. Early error: bar-release earlier than 150 msec after the presentation of green color, bar error: touches to left and/or right bars, late error: not releasing the bar within 1000 msec after the presentation of green color (** : p<0.01)

Monkey

error type

antagonist

control

χ2

p

 

Y

early error

21/1093

18/989

~0

0.99

 

bar error

70

8

43.5

~0 **

 

late error

73

5

53.2

~0 **

H

early error

55/2244

46/2271

0.75

0.58

 

bar error

23

73

25.0

~0 **

 

late error

27

29

0.008

0.93

P

early error

117/602

58/577

19.79

~0 **

 

bar error

1

6

2.47

0.12

 

late error

13

37

12.1

~0 **

Table 5. Reaction time in the reward schedule part (** : p<0.01)

Monkey

Antagonist

Control

t

p

Y

415ms

391ms

4.93

~0 **

H

444

451

1.93

0.053

P

420

451

3.41

0.001 **