$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The procedure presented here is an efficient means to manufacture microinjection cannulae and microinjectors that will aid in elucidating the molecular substrates of motivated behavior. This method offers several advantages. First, by manufacturing one’s own implants and microinjectors, novel experimental parameters can be rapidly optimized; i.e., one does not need to wait for custom made components to arrive. Second, due to the small diameter of the cannula, more cannulae can be simultaneously implanted. This shortens the required surgical time, which can improve survivability, and also allows multiple implants per animal. Third, the software used to control the operant chambers readily accommodates progressive ratio schedules since a fixed ratio paradigm can be rapidly converted to a progressive ratio paradigm by simply applying an event transition parameter list that contains the desired reinforcement schedule.
To be broadly useful, a generic microinjection procedure was presented that should be broadly applicable for the microinjection of nearly any reagent currently available. Consequently, we anticipate that this technique will continue to be of similar high utility in the future with minor modification. By changing only a few variables, this approach can be applied to a wide number of reagents. Parameters that would most commonly be manipulated include the length that the microinjector protrudes from the cannula, volume of injection, and rate of injection. For example, one may want the injector to protrude further from the cannula tip to avoid the glial scar that typically forms around chronic implants. Additionally, one may wish to inject a larger volume. For striatal virus microinjections, a volume of 1 μL is typically used and this volume is typically injected over a longer period of time (frequently 7 – 10 min plus 3 – 10 min additional diffusion time) compared to that used for pharmacological reagents (typically 0.3 – 0.5 μL over 2 – 3 min plus 1 – 3 min additional diffusion time). The user should consult the literature and/ or empirically determine the parameters best suited for their needs. Regardless, the success of this procedure is critically dependent upon 4 variables: 1) cannula length, 2) microinjector length, 3) quality of microinjector spray pattern, and 4) the system integrity prior to injection. Because microinjection location is dependent on the depth that the microinjector protrudes from the cannula, it is imperative that both cannulae (Step 1.2.8) and microinjector length (post-bending, Step 2.2.1) are both precisely known and uniform between all subjects. This can easily be controlled by readily rejecting any implement that is not the required length at the final re-measuring. Moreover, the injection location can only be predicted if it occurs immediately beneath the guide cannula. Thus, any microinjector that does not spray a long, fine stream upon testing (Steps 2.4.6) should be rejected. A quality injection is also related to the integrity of the system prior to injection. If after dispensing all water from the injector (prior to filling with reagent) multiple spots are observed on the lab-wipe, then a leak needs to be remedied (Note on Step 2.4.8). Further, if the bubble (Step 2.4.9) that separates the drug from the water in the PE20 tubing is not one, single bubble (after filling the microinjector with reagent), then the injector is partially clogged. This clog could either prevent or divert the injection. This too can be readily remedied (Note on step 2.4.8).
Should one wish to microinject while the animal is in the stereotaxic frame there are three alternatives. First, one could increase the length of the microinjector collar such that it can be held firmly by the stereotaxic manipulator and also extend far enough to allow connection to PE20 tubing. Second, one could temporally implant a cannula and use the standard microinjector presented here. Third, one could use drawn and polished glass pipettes. 16,17
A significant limitation of the procedure presented here is that it is best conducted in well-handled rats that are familiar with the procedure. Rats used for the data described in the results section required no special handling procedures because the same investigator handled the rats on a daily basis for over 2 months. This included daily observation and manipulation of the surgical implant for at least 2 weeks. However, rats can be rapidly habituated by a number of techniques that are used to prior to the pre-pulse inhibition assay, which can be affected by stress. These special habituation techniques have been nicely detailed previously.43 In addition to these procedures, it is advisable that rats be habituated to the microinjection procedure where shortened microinjectors are used during ‘sham’ injections. During these sham injections, it is critical that the microinjector not protrude into the tissue in order to limit tissue damage. In other words, the microinjector should be bent no longer than 14 mm. Thus, the thorough habituation required for optimal implementation of this technique could be viewed as a limitation.
While several behavioral paradigms exist to measure motivation, the progressive ratio is commonly used to quantify the effort that the subject is willing to exert to obtain a reinforcer. The progressive ratio paradigm produces a measure known as breakpoint, which is often defined as the maximal number of lever presses in the last completed ratio; i.e., maximal responding that generated a reinforcer.21 The progressive ratio is sensitive to reinforcer magnitude. For example, higher cocaine (or sucrose) doses produce a higher breakpoint and lower cocaine (or sucrose) doses yield a lower breakpoint.21,22 Accordingly, breakpoint is a routinely used proxy for motivation and/or reinforcing efficacy.21,23-26 Because the intention of the breakpoint is to determine when the animal stops responding, an important parameter of the progressive ratio paradigm is session length. Finite session lengths can put a false cap on breakpoint values and this can be exacerbated by pre-treatments that abnormally decrease the rate of self-administration or that increase post-reinforcement pausing. This confound can be overcome by any number of approaches; e.g., sessions that terminate when the animal has withheld responding by some multiple of the average inter-infusion interval.44 A more commonly applied variant of this approach is to terminate sessions once responding has been withheld by some empirically determined value that is held constant across subjects. We have provided the method to apply this approach in Step 4.4.9.11.