Journal Logo

Cellular, Molecular and Developmental Neuroscience

The protective role of Neuregulin1-ErbB4 signaling in a chronic social defeat stress model

Wang, Wenjuana,,b; Qiao, Yonga; Qu, Huiyingb; Zhu, Linb; Mu, Linlinb; Li, Chunyuea; Fang, Jieb; Lian, Honga

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/WNR.0000000000001464
  • Open

Abstract

Introduction

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is an intractable psychiatric disease. Approximately 17% of the world population is suffering from this disease [1,2]. The MDD age distribution study demonstrated that MDD is equally common for people from the full age span [3]. The major MDD symptoms include long-term depressed mood, anhedonia, insomnia, and an increased risk of suicides [4]. Despite numerous studies focusing on this debilitating disorder, the detailed MDD mechanism remains unclear. However, genetic factors and stress are considered to increase the risk of MDD development [5–8]. Over the recent decades, neuroimaging studies showed reduced volume of the mPFC and hippocampus in patients with depression [9] and postmortem studies revealed a significantly decreased number of synapses in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) of depressed patients [10]. Rodent-model studies demonstrated that chronic stress decreases the number of neurons and glial cells in the hippocampus and PFC [11]. Synaptogenesis is affected by multiple factors, including neurotrophic factors and inflammatory cytokines [12]. Many studies demonstrated that the neurotrophic factor expression levels are important for defining the depression intensity [13,14]. For example, decreased expression levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) are found in the PFC and hippocampus of patients with depression [6,15,16]. Stress-induced structural brain changes in depressed patients may be due to the reduced expression levels of neurotrophic and growth factors, as these factors are important for synaptic formation [17].

Neuregulin1 (NRG1) is an endogenous neurotrophic factor that exerts synaptic transmission and suppresses the long-term potentiation through the tyrosine kinase ErbB4 receptor [18,19]. NRG1 and ErbB4 are highly expressed in the cortex and hippocampus regions in the brain [20]. Besides, NRG1-ErbB4 signaling has been reported to participate in synaptic plasticity and neuron survival [21–23]. Previous studies have demonstrated that NRG1 participates in the development of mental disorders [6]. Moreover, the NRG1 and ErbB4 brain expression levels are significantly altered in subjects with affective disorders [24]. Furthermore, recent studies demonstrated that the mRNA expression levels of the NRG1 are altered in the peripheral mononuclear cells of patients with depression [25]. In a rat model of depression using a chronic unpredictable mild stress protocol in which rats went through a serial of stressors such as immobilization and food/water deprivation, the expression levels of NRG1 in the hippocampus region and plasma were shown to be changed [26]. These data suggest that NRG1-ErbB4 signaling may be closely associated with depression, but the exact contribution of the NRG1-ErbB4 pathway in human depression is still unclear.

In the present study, we chose the chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) model to investigate the role of the NRG1-ErbB4 pathway in depression. The results showed a significant decrease in the NRG1 and ErbB4 protein expression levels in the mPFC and hippocampus of CSDS mice. NRG1 lateral ventricle administration was able to reverse depression behavior of the CSDS mice. Thus, the NRG1-ErbB4 signaling pathway might play a vital role in depression, and, therefore, become a potential target for the development of new antidepressants.

Materials and methods

Animals

C57BL/6J male mice (8 weeks old, 18–22 g) were purchased from the Animal Core Facility of Zhejiang University. CD1 mice (8–12 weeks old, 22–28 g) were purchased from the Charis River. All mice were maintained in the Animal Core Facility of Zhejiang University under pathogen-free conditions with ad libitum access to food and water and with a 12-h light-dark cycle (lights on at 8:00 a.m. and off at 8:00 p.m.). All animal experimental protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Zhejiang University and were in compliance with the institutional guidelines.

Reagents and antibodies

Rabbit anti-NRG1 (ab53104), rabbit anti-phospho-ErbB4 (ab109273), and rabbit anti-ErbB4 (ab32375) were purchased from Abcam (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA). Rabbit anti-GAPDH (5174) was purchased from Cell Signaling Technology (Beverly, Massachusetts, USA). Recombinant Human Neuregulin-1/Heregulin-b1 (CYT-733) was purchased from ProSpec (Hamada, Israel).

Chronic social defeat stress paradigm

The CSDS paradigm was implemented as described previously [27]. At the beginning of the experiment, CD1 male mice were monitored for 3 days to evaluate their aggressive characteristics. After that, male C57BL6/j mice from the experimental group were placed one by one into the cage to an aggressive CD1 mouse for 5–10 min, where they were attacked by the CD1 mouse. Then, the C57BL6/j and the CD1 mice were separated and maintained in two cages for 24 h with a perforated plexiglass barrier between the two cages. Mice from the control group were housed in the same conditions, with C57BL6/j and CD1 mice separated by a perforated plexiglass partition, which did not allow any physical or sensory contact. After completing 10-days CSDS, the mice performed behavioral tests.

Behavioral tests

Before all behavioral testing, mice were handled and acclimated to the testing room for 1 h. All behavioral tests were performed during the light period, avoiding the 1-h period right before and after the lights were turned on and off. After CSDS, mice performed the sucrose preference test, social contact test, and tail suspension test, with at least a 24-h interval between the tests.

Sucrose preference test

First, mice practiced with two 50-mL kettles filled with drinking water for 48 h. After that, one of the kettles was replaced with a kettle with 1% sucrose instead of drinking water. During the training, the positions of the kettles were changed every 12 h to avoid side preference development. After the training was completed, mice were water-deprived for 24 h. Then, the two kettles with water or sucrose were weighed 1 h after the formal test began, and sucrose preference was calculated as the consumed sucrose divided by the total consumed volume of both water and sucrose.

Tail suspension test

The mice were suspended by their tails using a plastic clip, 60 cm above the surface. After a 1-min adaptation time, the mice were recorded on video for the next 5 min, and the time they spent motionless was quantified.

Intracerebral infusions

The mice were anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital (50 mg/kg) via intraperitoneal injection and placed in a stereotaxic apparatus (RWD, Shenzhen, China). Using a dental drill, the stainless-steel guide cannulas were placed into the lateral ventricle with the following coordinates: 1.0 mm beside the sagittal seam, posterior 0.22 mm and ventral 2.5 mm, according to The Mouse Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates [28]. The guide cannulas were secured in place with glass ionomer cement; incisions were fixed and covered with glass ionomer cement as well. The behavioral tests were performed 7 days after the surgery. The mice were infused with NRG1 at a flow rate of 1 µL/min for 2 min, and the final concentration of NRG1 was 100 nM.

Western blotting

Mice were anesthetized and perfused through the heart with 0.9% NaCl to clear blood proteins. The mice’s brains were removed to ice-cold 0.9% NaCl solution, where the hippocampus and PFC regions were dissected under a stereoscope. Then, the hippocampus and PFC were homogenized in 1 mL of radioimmunoprecipitation assay lysis buffer and centrifuged at 12 000g for 5 min at 4°C. The supernatants were diluted in loading buffer and boiled at 95°C for 10 min. The proteins were subjected to 10% SDS-PAGE and transferred to a polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Millipore, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA) at 120 V within 2 h. The membranes were blocked with 5% BSA in PBS and incubated with the primary antibody for 16–18 h at 4°C. Then, the membranes were washed with PBST (0.05% Tween-20 in PBS) and incubated with the HRP-conjugated secondary antibody for 2 h. Finally, the membranes were washed with PBST and immunodetected with enhanced chemiluminescence reagents (Pierce ECL substrate, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 18.0 software. The data are shown as the mean ± SEM. Statistical differences were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or two-way ANOVA for multiple groups. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The chronic social defeat stress model establishment and behavioral test analysis

Among different depression-like behavior models, the CSDS paradigms have been widely used to explore the detailed mechanisms underlying depression-like behaviors [29,30]. In the present study, C57bl/6J male mice were subjected to a 10-day-long social defeat, followed by the social interaction test, sucrose preference test, and tail suspension test used to evaluate the depression-like behaviors. In the social interaction test, the time spent in the interaction zone significantly decreased in the susceptible group compared to the control and resilient groups [Fig. 1b, F (2, 109) = 6.544, P < 0.0021]. However, the time spent in the corner zone was increased in the susceptible group compared to the control and resilient groups [Fig. 1c, F (2, 108) = 14.69, P < 0.0001]. Social interaction and corner-zone ratio showed that mice from the susceptible group spent less time interacting with the CD1 mouse, whereas mice in the control group performed similarly to the resilient group [Fig. 1d, F (2, 55) = 10.81, P = 0.0001; Fig. 1e, F (2, 55) = 15.32, P < 0.0001]. In the sucrose preference test, mice from the susceptible group showed declined sucrose preference compared to the control and resilient groups [Fig. 1F, F (2, 57) = 13.57, P < 0.0001]. In the tail suspension test, the immobility time was increased for mice from the susceptible group [Fig. 1g, F (2, 25) = 1.457, P = 0.2519].

Fig. 1
Fig. 1:
The CSDS model establishment and behavior tests analysis. (a) Schematic diagram of the 10-day CSDS procedure, followed by the social interaction test and subsequent behavioral test. (b) For the social interaction test, the time spent in the interaction zone is significantly increased in the control (n = 20) and resilient groups (n = 18) but decreased in the susceptible group (n = 20). (c) The time spent in the corner zone is decreased in the control (n = 20) but increased in the susceptible group (n = 20). (d–e) Social interaction and corner ratio in control (n = 20), resilient (n = 18), and susceptible (n = 20) groups. (f) Sucrose preference for control (n = 20), resilient (n = 18), and susceptible (n = 20) groups. (g) Immobility time for control (n = 20), resilient (n = 18), and susceptible (n = 20) groups. All data are shown as the mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. CSDS, chronic social defeat stress.

These results indicated that the CSDS model is well-established and clearly shows depression-like behavior.

Reduced Neuregulin1 and ErbB4 expression levels in the medial prefrontal cortex of the chronic social defeat stress mice

A neuroimaging study showed decreased mPFC volume in patients with depression [5]. To investigate the relationship between the NRG1 and ErbB4 expression levels and depression-like behavior, we evaluated the NRG1 and ErbB4 protein expression levels in the mPFC (Fig. 2a). Compared to the control and resilient groups, in mice from the susceptible group NRG1 protein expression level was significantly decreased [Fig. 2b, F (2, 11) = 13.86, P = 0.0010]. In addition, the protein expression level of phosphorylated ErbB4 in the mPFC region of mice from the susceptible group was decreased [Fig. 2c, F (2, 11) = 6.905, P = 0.0114; Fig. 2d, F (2, 13) = 4.807, P = 0.0274; Fig. 2e, F (2, 11) = 0.7599, P = 0.4908]. Compared to the control group, the protein expression level of phosphorylated ErbB4 in the resilient group was decreased as well (Fig. 2c). The results above demonstrated that the NRG1 and ErbB4 expression levels in the CSDS mice mPFC were decreased.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2:
Reduced NRG1-ErbB4 expression levels in the CSDS mice mPFC. After 10-day CSDS training, the NRG1 and ErbB4 protein expression levels in mPFC for mice from all groups were measured by western blot. The protein levels of NRG1 (a, b) were significantly lower in the susceptible group but did not change in the control and resilient groups. Western blot analysis of the phosphorylated and total ErbB4 levels in mPFC (a) revealed that the ErbB4 expression levels (c–e) were significantly decreased for the resilient and susceptible groups; n = 10 mice per group. Data are shown as the mean ± SEM *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. CSDS, chronic social defeat stress; mPFC, medial prefrontal cortex; NRG1, Neuregulin1.

Decreased Neuregulin1 and ErbB4 protein expression levels in the chronic social defeat stress mice hippocampus

A rodent study showed that chronic stress affects hippocampus neurons, decreasing their size, length, and number and significantly inhibiting neurogenesis [31]. We speculated that neurotrophic factor NRG1 and its receptor ErbB4 in the hippocampus might play an important role in developing MDD via decreased neurogenesis. We compared the NRG1 and ErbB4 protein expression levels in the hippocampus between mice from the control, resilient, and susceptible groups (Fig. 3a). Similar to the mPFC, in the hippocampus region, the NRG1 protein expression level was significantly lower in mice from the susceptible group [Fig. 3b, F (2, 11) = 6.24, P = 0.0154]. However, no significant difference between the NRG1 expression levels in control and resilient groups was observed (Fig. 3b). Furthermore, the phosphorylated ErbB4 protein expression levels between the three groups were not significantly different [Fig. 3c, F (2, 11) = 0.7473, P = 0.4962; Fig. 3d, F (2, 13) = 0.3804, P = 0.6910; Fig. 3e, F (2, 11) = 1.009, P = 0.3673].

Fig. 3
Fig. 3:
The NRG1 and ErbB4 protein expression levels in the CSDS mice hippocampus.After 10-day CSDS training, the hippocampus NRG1 and ErbB4 protein expression levels were measured by western blot for mice from each group. The protein levels of NRG1 (a, b) were significantly lower in the susceptible group, with no changes in the control and resilient groups. Western blot analysis of hippocampus phosphorylated and total ErbB4 levels (a) showed no changes in the ErbB4 expression levels (c–e) for the resilient and susceptible groups; n = 10 mice per group. Data are shown as the mean ± SEM *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. CSDS, chronic social defeat stress; NRG1, Neuregulin1.

Increased Neuregulin1 levels in the brain can recover depression behavior

To determine the exact relationship between the NRG1-ErbB4 pathway and depression, we performed intraventricular ACSF or NRG1 injections for the control, resilient, and susceptible groups. Before the injections, the mice were evaluated in the social interaction test. Compared to the control group, the social interaction ratio was significantly decreased in mice from the resilient and susceptible groups, while the corner ratio was increased in the susceptible group only [Fig. 4b, F (2, 60) = 36.6, P < 0.0001; Fig. 4d, F (2, 60) = 14.17, P < 0.0001]. However, 1 h after the NRG1 injection, the social interaction ratio of mice from the susceptible group was notably increased, and the corner ratio was significantly decreased compared to the ACSF treatment [Fig. 4c, F (2, 60) = 5.131, P = 0.0088; Fig. 4e, F (2, 60) = 4.257, P = 0.0187]. These results indicated that NRG1 intraventricular injection plays a role in ameliorating depression behavior, but this effect may be time-dependent.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4:
Elevated NRG1 level can rescue depression-related behaviors. (a) Experimental timeline: 10-day CSDS procedure followed by the NRG1 intraventricular injection and the social interaction test. (b–g) After 10-day CSDS, the social interaction behavioral test was performed at three different time points in the absence or presence of the ACSF/NRG1 intraventricular injection. CSDS, chronic social defeat stress; NRG1, Neuregulin1.

Discussion

A recent genomic study showed that NRG1-ErbB4 signaling may play an important role in schizophrenia, MDD, and bipolar disorder [32]. Our previous study revealed that NRG1-ErbB4 expression is significantly decreased in the brains of symptomatic epilepsy patients [33]. Moreover, the ErbB4 knockout mice showed decreased activity-dependent GABAergic FS-PN transmission, which may underlie the etiology of schizophrenia disorders [34]. The relationship between epilepsy and MDD is complex and bidirectional. Some studies showed that epilepsy patients are at greater risk of developing depression, and depression patients have a higher risk of developing epilepsy [35,36]. Thus, we hypothesized that the NRG1-ErbB4 pathway may play an important role in depression. In our present study, we demonstrated that the NRG1 and Erb4 protein expression levels are significantly reduced in the mPFC and hippocampus of the CSDS mice. Moreover, increasing the brain NRG1 protein level could rescue the CSDS mice depression behavior. These results suggest that the expression levels of NRG1 and ErbB4 play an essential role in MDD.

Several previous studies have shown that volume alterations in the PFC and hippocampus brain regions are highly related to MDD [37–39]. The atrophy of the PFC and hippocampus structures may be due to the decreased expression levels of neurotrophic factors, and the neurotrophic role of antidepressants could reverse neuron loss and atrophy [40]. Most studies focus on the BDNF, demonstrating that acute or chronic stress model could decrease its expression level in the PFC and hippocampus and decrease the peripheral serum BDNF level [15,41].

The NRG1 and ErbB4 expression levels were decreased in the serum of depressed mice [27]. Likewise, the present results clearly show that the NRG1 protein expression level is significantly decreased in the mPFC and hippocampus regions of CSDS mice. Thus, we hypothesized that the ErbB4 receptor stimulation by its natural ligand NRG1 may play an important role in depression.

Our previous studies have demonstrated that intracerebral infusion of NRG1 can rescue epilepsy-related symptoms. In the CSDS model, NRG1 intracerebral treatment can significantly rescue depression-related behavior. However, the NRG1 and ErbB4 expression profiles were unknown, and the effect of the hippocampus and mPFC NRG1-ErbB4 signaling on depression was unclear as well. It was demonstrated on hippocampal slices that the NRG1 treatment can significantly disrupt 2-arachidonoylglycerol signaling and affect long-term depression, while the aberrant NRG1 level can alter endocannabinoid signaling in brain stress circuitry [42]. Whether in the present CSDS model the aberrant NRG1-ErbB4 signaling affects endocannabinoid signaling or synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus remains unclear and requires detailed investigation.

Conclusion

In the CSDS model, the NRG1 and ErbB4 expression levels are significantly decreased in both mPFC and hippocampus regions. Meanwhile, NRG1 intracerebral infusion treatment of CSDS mice can significantly rescue depression-related behaviors. Our study demonstrates for the first time the protective role of the NRG1-ErbB4 signaling in a depression model and provides a new perspective on the treatment of depression.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation (grant number: LY17C090004) and the Natural Science Foundation of Bengbu Medical College (grant number: BYKF1819).

W.W.J. and L.H. conceived and designed the study. W.W.J., Q.Y., L.H., L.C.Y. and Q.H.Y. performed the experiments. W.W.J., Z.L., M.L.L. and L.C.Y. wrote the paper. W.W.J., L.H., Q.Y., Z.L., M.L.L., L.C.Y. and Q.H.Y. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

The animal experiments were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Zhejiang University and conducted in accordance with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Kupfer DJ, Frank E, Phillips ML. Major depressive disorder: new clinical, neurobiological, and treatment perspectives. Lancet. 2012; 379:1045–1055
2. Malhi GS, Mann JJ. Depression. Lancet. 2018; 392:2299–2312
3. Kessler RC, Angermeyer M, Anthony JC, DE Graaf R, Demyttenaere K, Gasquet I, et al. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry. 2007; 6:168–176
4. Nestler EJ, Barrot M, DiLeone RJ, Eisch AJ, Gold SJ, Monteggia LM. Neurobiology of depression. Neuron. 2002; 34:13–25
5. Berton O, Nestler EJ. New approaches to antidepressant drug discovery: beyond monoamines. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006; 7:137–151
6. Krishnan V, Nestler EJ. The molecular neurobiology of depression. Nature. 2008; 455:894–902
7. Uchida S, Hara K, Kobayashi A, Otsuki K, Yamagata H, Hobara T, et al. Epigenetic status of Gdnf in the ventral striatum determines susceptibility and adaptation to daily stressful events. Neuron. 2011; 69:359–372
8. Bagot RC, Labonté B, Peña CJ, Nestler EJ. Epigenetic signaling in psychiatric disorders: stress and depression. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2014; 16:281–295
9. Savitz J, Drevets WC. Bipolar and major depressive disorder: neuroimaging the developmental-degenerative divide. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009; 33:699–771
10. Kang HJ, Voleti B, Hajszan T, Rajkowska G, Stockmeier CA, Licznerski P, et al. Decreased expression of synapse-related genes and loss of synapses in major depressive disorder. Nat Med. 2012; 18:1413–1417
11. Morrison JH, Baxter MG. The ageing cortical synapse: hallmarks and implications for cognitive decline. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012; 13:240–250
12. Duman RS, Aghajanian GK. Synaptic dysfunction in depression: potential therapeutic targets. Science. 2012; 338:68–72
13. Schmidt HD, Duman RS. The role of neurotrophic factors in adult hippocampal neurogenesis, antidepressant treatments and animal models of depressive-like behavior. Behav Pharmacol. 2007; 18:391–418
14. Patapoutian A, Reichardt LF. Trk receptors: mediators of neurotrophin action. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001; 11:272–280
15. Bocchio-Chiavetto L, Bagnardi V, Zanardini R, Molteni R, Nielsen MG, Placentino A, et al. Serum and plasma BDNF levels in major depression: a replication study and meta-analyses. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2010; 11:763–773
16. Dwivedi Y. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor: role in depression and suicide. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2009; 5:433–449
17. Jourdi H, Hsu YT, Zhou M, Qin Q, Bi X, Baudry M. Positive AMPA receptor modulation rapidly stimulates BDNF release and increases dendritic mRNA translation. J Neurosci. 2009; 29:8688–8697
18. Mei L, Xiong WC. Neuregulin 1 in neural development, synaptic plasticity and schizophrenia. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008; 9:437–452
19. Law AJ, Shannon Weickert C, Hyde TM, Kleinman JE, Harrison PJ. Neuregulin-1 (NRG-1) mRNA and protein in the adult human brain. Neuroscience. 2004; 127:125–136
20. Yau HJ, Wang HF, Lai C, Liu FC. Neural development of the neuregulin receptor ErbB4 in the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus: preferential expression by interneurons tangentially migrating from the ganglionic eminences. Cereb Cortex. 2003; 13:252–264
21. Huang YZ, Won S, Ali DW, Wang Q, Tanowitz M, Du QS, et al. Regulation of neuregulin signaling by PSD-95 interacting with ErbB4 at CNS synapses. Neuron. 2000; 26:443–455
22. Li Y, Xu Z, Ford GD, Croslan DR, Cairobe T, Li Z, Ford BD. Neuroprotection by Neuregulin-1 in a rat model of permanent focal cerebral ischemia. Brain Res. 2007; 1184:277–283
23. Pitcher GM, Beggs S, Woo RS, Mei L, Salter MW. ErbB4 is a suppressor of long-term potentiation in the adult hippocampus. Neuroreport. 2008; 19:139–143
24. Bertram I, Bernstein HG, Lendeckel U, Bukowska A, Dobrowolny H, Keilhoff G, et al. Immunohistochemical evidence for impaired neuregulin-1 signaling in the prefrontal cortex in schizophrenia and in unipolar depression. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007; 1096:147–156
25. Belzeaux R, Formisano-Tréziny C, Loundou A, Boyer L, Gabert J, Samuelian JC, et al. Clinical variations modulate patterns of gene expression and define blood biomarkers in major depression. J Psychiatr Res. 2010; 44:1205–1213
26. Dang R, Cai H, Zhang L, Liang D, Lv C, Guo Y, et al. Dysregulation of Neuregulin-1/ErbB signaling in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus of rats exposed to chronic unpredictable mild stress. Physiol Behav. 2016; 154:145–150
27. Berton O, McClung CA, Dileone RJ, Krishnan V, Renthal W, Russo SJ, et al. Essential role of BDNF in the mesolimbic dopamine pathway in social defeat stress. Science. 2006; 311:864–868
28. Paxinos G, Franklin K. The mouse brain in stereotaxic coordinates: compact. 2004, Amsterdam, Boston: Elsevier Academic Press. Pazos A, Cortes R, Palacios JM. Thyrotropin-releasing hormone receptor binding sites: autoradiographic distribution in the rat and guinea pig brain. J Neurochem 1985; 45:1448–1463
29. Shen CJ, Zheng D, Li KX, Yang JM, Pan HQ, Yu XD, et al. Cannabinoid CB1 receptors in the amygdalar cholecystokinin glutamatergic afferents to nucleus accumbens modulate depressive-like behavior. Nat Med. 2019; 25:337–349
30. Jiang C, Lin WJ, Sadahiro M, Labonté B, Menard C, Pfau ML, et al. VGF function in depression and antidepressant efficacy. Mol Psychiatry. 2018; 23:1632–1642
31. MacQueen G, Frodl T. The hippocampus in major depression: evidence for the convergence of the bench and bedside in psychiatric research? Mol Psychiatry. 2011; 16:252–264
32. Wen Z, Chen J, Khan RA, Song Z, Wang M, Li Z, et al. Genetic association between NRG1 and schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder in Han Chinese population. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2016; 171B:468–478
33. Zhu JM, Li KX, Cao SX, Chen XJ, Shen CJ, Zhang Y, et al. Increased NRG1-ErbB4 signaling in human symptomatic epilepsy. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:141
34. Yang JM, Zhang J, Chen XJ, Geng HY, Ye M, Spitzer NC, et al. Development of GABA circuitry of fast-spiking basket interneurons in the medial prefrontal cortex of erbb4-mutant mice. J Neurosci. 2013; 33:19724–19733
35. Kanner AM. Depression and epilepsy: a bidirectional relation? Epilepsia. 2011; 52Suppl 121–27
36. Kanner AM. Mood disorder and epilepsy: a neurobiologic perspective of their relationship. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2008; 10:39–45
37. Kempton MJ, Salvador Z, Munafò MR, Geddes JR, Simmons A, Frangou S, Williams SC. Structural neuroimaging studies in major depressive disorder. Meta-analysis and comparison with bipolar disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011; 68:675–690
38. Schmaal L, Veltman DJ, van Erp TG, Sämann PG, Frodl T, Jahanshad N, et al. Subcortical brain alterations in major depressive disorder: findings from the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder Working Group. Mol Psychiatry. 2016; 21:806–812
39. Schmaal L, Hibar DP, Sämann PG, Hall GB, Baune BT, Jahanshad N, et al. Cortical abnormalities in adults and adolescents with major depression based on brain scans from 20 cohorts worldwide in the ENIGMA Major Depressive Disorder Working Group. Mol Psychiatry. 2017; 22:900–909
40. Levy MJF, Boulle F, Steinbusch HW, van den Hove DLA, Kenis G, Lanfumey L. Neurotrophic factors and neuroplasticity pathways in the pathophysiology and treatment of depression. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2018; 235:2195–2220
41. Duman RS, Monteggia LM. A neurotrophic model for stress-related mood disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2006; 59:1116–1127
42. Clarke DJ, Stuart J, McGregor IS, Arnold JC. Endocannabinoid dysregulation in cognitive and stress-related brain regions in the Nrg1 mouse model of schizophrenia. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2017; 72:9–15
Keywords:

chronic social defeat stress; hippocampus; medial prefrontal cortex; NRG1-ErbB4

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.