On 2017 Jun 14, Kay Tye commented:

We would like to make a clarification regarding the following sentences addressing the impact of previous social experience or social history on DRN DA dynamics across multiple stimuli:

In reference to the fiber photometry signals in response to a number of stimuli, Cho and colleagues stated that “These findings did not vary with subject social history, as similar patterns of DRNDA activation were seen in group-housed mice (Figures S2J–S2L)” and “DRNDA activation by a wide variety of rewarding and aversive stimuli, both social and non-social, occurred irrespective of the subject’s social history, as the stimulus-evoked change in DRNDA fluorescence was not influenced by chronic separation from cage-mates (Figures S2J–S2M).”

However, with respect to the presentation of a social stimulus, Cho and colleagues report a similar trend as Matthews and colleagues, albeit one that was not statistically significant:

In Matthews et al., Cell (2016) the experiments in Figure 2 showed a significantly greater DRN DA fiber photometry signal (GCaMP6m in TH::Cre male mice) in response to a juvenile male when subjects were acutely (24 hours) single-housed than when group-housed (n=9, within-subject comparison). PMID: 26871628

In Cho et al., Neuron (2017) the experiments in Figure S2J showed a non-significant trend reflecting a greater mean DRN DA fiber photometry signal (GCaMP6f in TH::Cre male mice) in response to an adult female when subjects were chronically single-housed (at least 4 weeks, standard for sleep studies; n=7) versus group-housed mice(n=4, between-subjects comparison).

Examining the impact of social stimuli on DRN DA activity was not the focus of the study by Cho and colleagues. Further, as stated in the discussion of Cho and colleagues, a number of experimental parameters such as the nature of social target (male exposed to juvenile vs. female), isolation paradigms (acute vs. chronic) and optical fiber tip location differed between these studies (please see the publications for details). Nonetheless, the experiments related to social behavior in these two studies produce largely consistent results.

This post was composed by Kay M. Tye, a corresponding author of the Matthews and colleagues study, following discussion with and approval from Viviana Gradinaru, the corresponding author of the Cho and colleagues study.

On 2017 Jun 14, Kay Tye commented:

We would like to make a clarification regarding the following sentences addressing the impact of previous social experience or social history on DRN DA dynamics across multiple stimuli:

In reference to the fiber photometry signals in response to a number of stimuli, Cho and colleagues stated that “These findings did not vary with subject social history, as similar patterns of DRNDA activation were seen in group-housed mice (Figures S2J–S2L)” and “DRNDA activation by a wide variety of rewarding and aversive stimuli, both social and non-social, occurred irrespective of the subject’s social history, as the stimulus-evoked change in DRNDA fluorescence was not influenced by chronic separation from cage-mates (Figures S2J–S2M).”

However, with respect to the presentation of a social stimulus, Cho and colleagues report a similar trend as Matthews and colleagues, albeit one that was not statistically significant:

In Matthews et al., Cell (2016) the experiments in Figure 2 showed a significantly greater DRN DA fiber photometry signal (GCaMP6m in TH::Cre male mice) in response to a juvenile male when subjects were acutely (24 hours) single-housed than when group-housed (n=9, within-subject comparison). PMID: 26871628

In Cho et al., Neuron (2017) the experiments in Figure S2J showed a non-significant trend reflecting a greater mean DRN DA fiber photometry signal (GCaMP6f in TH::Cre male mice) in response to an adult female when subjects were chronically single-housed (at least 4 weeks, standard for sleep studies; n=7) versus group-housed mice(n=4, between-subjects comparison).

Examining the impact of social stimuli on DRN DA activity was not the focus of the study by Cho and colleagues. Further, as stated in the discussion of Cho and colleagues, a number of experimental parameters such as the nature of social target (male exposed to juvenile vs. female), isolation paradigms (acute vs. chronic) and optical fiber tip location differed between these studies (please see the publications for details). Nonetheless, the experiments related to social behavior in these two studies produce largely consistent results.

This post was composed by Kay M. Tye, a corresponding author of the Matthews and colleagues study, following discussion with and approval from Viviana Gradinaru, the corresponding author of the Cho and colleagues study.