Prefrontal circHomer1 regulates synaptic and behavioral adaptations induced by psychostimulants

Prefrontal circHomer1 regulates synaptic and behavioral adaptations induced by psychostimulants | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Prefrontal circHomer1 regulates synaptic and behavioral adaptations induced by psychostimulants Jie Shi, Yun Chen, Zhongyu Zhang, Xianfeng Li, Wenjun Chen, Shihao Huang, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4338599/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 08 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Molecular Psychiatry → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Substance use disorder (SUD) represents a substantial challenge in neuropsychiatric medicine, with the molecular mechanisms underlying its etiology remaining elusive. The molecular underpinnings of SUD suggest a pivotal role for circular RNAs (circRNAs) in its pathophysiology. Herein, we present a study on circHomer1 , a circRNA enriched in neurons, which is abnormal expression upon cocaine exposure. Employing models of repeated cocaine exposure and conditioning place preference (CPP), alongside virus-mediated gene regulation techniques, we revealed the contributory function of circHomer1 in cocaine-induced rewarding effects and synaptic adaptations. We found a notably downregulation of circHomer1 expression in the prelimbic cortex consequent to repeated cocaine exposure in both rat model and patients with cocaine use disorder. Elevation of circHomer1 levels resulted in a pronounced attenuation of cocaine-induced CPP, whereas suppression of circHomer1 expression enhanced the rewarding effects. These outcomes were specifically observed in excitatory neurons, implicating a cell type-specific function of circHomer1 . Furthermore, the restoration of circHomer1 rescued the reduction of mushroom-type dendritic spines and rectified deficits in the frequency of spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents associated with prolonged cocaine exposure. The modulatory actions of circHomer1 on cocaine-induced behavioral and synaptic responses were mediated by the dopamine receptor D1. Intriguingly, the effects of circHomer1 were selective to psychostimulant drugs, with no influence on food or opioid reward. Our findings highlight the significant role of circHomer1 in regulating psychostimulants reward and identify a novel molecular regulator of the actions of psychostimulants on the brain’s reward circuitry, providing a new strategy for treating drug addiction. drug addiction circular RNA circHomer1 prelimbic cortex rewarding effects synaptic plasticity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Introduction Substance use disorder (SUD) is a chronic, relapsing disease in which patients often have uncontrolled and reckless drug abuse [ 1 ]. With the increasing number of drug abusers, drug abuse not only affects the health of individuals but also endangers society and imposes a huge economic burden on the state [ 2 ]. Evidence has revealed that repeated addictive drug exposure leads to enduring cellular, circuits and neuroplasticity alterations in mesocorticolimbic reward system, which includes prefrontal cortex (PFC), nucleus accumbens (NAc) and ventral tegmental area (VTA) [ 3 – 8 ]. Such long-lasting structural and functional modifications are thought to increase sensitivity to the motivational effects of addictive drugs, culminating in a loss of control over intake [ 9 , 10 ]. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), a critical hub for integrating different brain networks involved in reward processing, salience attribution, and inhibitory control, is proposed to precipitate bingeing and relapse, perpetuating the addiction cycle [ 11 – 13 ]. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that complex drug-induced neuroadaptations in mPFC are mediated largely through dynamic regulation of gene expression [ 14 – 16 ]. Epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, and certain types of noncoding RNAs like circRNAs, are known to modulate expression of gene networks in mPFC and other drug reward-associated brain regions, contributing to the drug-induced structural, synaptic, and behavioral plasticity [ 17 – 20 ]. However, the precise molecular mechanisms driving these changes in the mPFC remain unclear. Circular RNAs (circRNAs), vastly conserved non-coding RNAs and naturally occurring in a covalently closed loop structure, are produced by back-splicing [ 21 , 22 ]. Numerous neuronal circRNAs are derived from synaptic gene locus, with expression levels changing in parallel with the synapse formation and neuroplasticity [ 23 ]. Evidence shows that circRNAs, like circHomer1 , may play a key role in various neuropsychiatric disorders [ 24 – 27 ]. CircHomer1 , derived from Homer protein homolog 1 ( Homer1 ), is a neuronal-enriched circRNA abundantly expressed in the frontal cortex [ 28 ]. CircHomer1 knockdown in the mouse orbitofrontal cortex leads to specific deficits in cognitive flexibility [ 28 ]. And its inhibition appears to ameliorate methamphetamine-induced neuronal injury through inhibiting Bbc3 expression in HT-22 cells [ 29 ]. Moreover, circHomer1 regulates the expression of synaptic-related proteins and is involved in synaptic plasticity, learning, and memory, which are abnormal symptoms of patients with SUD [ 28 – 30 ]. Nonetheless, the specific influence of circHomer1 on drug-induced rewarding effects is largely unknown. In this study, we utilized the conditioned place preference (CPP) model, self-administration model, viral-mediated circHomer1 expression, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and patch clamp to investigate the cell type-specific influence of circHomer1 on drug-induced behavioral and synaptic plasticity. We demonstrated that repeated cocaine expression notably downregulated the expression of circHomer1 in the prelimbic cortex (PrL). However, recovering the expression of circHomer1 in the PrL reduced cocaine preference and intake, and repaired the hypoactivity of PrL neuron induced by cocaine. This indicated that circHomer1 is a key modulator for the cocaine responses. Material and methods Animals Male Sprague-Dawley rats (260–280 g) used in this study were obtained from Charles River Co., LTD. (Beijing, China). The rats were housed four to a cage in the animal care facility at a temperature (22°C ~ 24°C)- and humidity (40% ~ 60%)-controlled facility with a reverse 12 h-light/12 h-dark cycle (8:00–20:00) with food and water available ad libitum. The behavioral experiments were conducted during the dark phase of the cycle. All of the procedures were performed in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the experiments were approved by the Biomedical Ethics Committee for Animal Use and Protection of Peking University. Drug treatment Cocaine, methamphetamine, and morphine were purchased from the National Institute for the Control of Pharmaceutical and Biological Products (Beijing, China) and were dissolved in 0.9% physiological saline. SCH23390 (SCH) (D054, Sigma, USA) and raclopride (RAC) (R121, Sigma, USA) were also dissolved in 0.9% physiological saline. Clozapine N-oxide (CNO) (C0832, Merck, USA) was dissolved in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) and then diluted with 0.9% physiological saline. For chronic or acute cocaine exposure, cocaine (10 mg/kg) was administered via intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection respectively for repeated 14 days or one day. For the CPP test, cocaine (10 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg) were intraperitoneally injected, while methamphetamine (1 mg/kg) and morphine (10 mg/kg) were subcutaneously injected. SCH (2.0 µg/0.5 µl/side), RAC (5.0 µg/0.5 µl/side) and CNO (1.5 mg/kg, i.p.) were injected 30 min before cocaine injection. Recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) EGFP-expressing rAAV9 with CMV promoter was used to overexpress circHomer1 (OE- circHomer1 ), while a corresponding inhibitor shRNA was used to knockdown circHomer1 (sh- circHomer1 ). Additionally, EGFP-expressing rAAV9 with CamKⅡ promoter was used to overexpress circHomer1 specifically in excitatory neurons (CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 ). The control vectors used were CMV-GFP, CamKⅡ-GFP, and sh-control. All vectors were provided by Vigene Bioscience, Shandong, China. For chemogenetic experiments, the rAAV9 virus that specifically activates D1 neurons [rAAV-D1-hM3D(Gq)-mCherry-WPREs] was purchased from BrainVTA, Wuhan, China. Stereotaxic microinjection The rats were anesthetized with isoflurane (4–5% for induction, 1–2% for maintenance) and placed in a stereotaxic frame (RWD, Shenzhen, China). The skull of the rat was then exposed and leveled. The rAAV was bilaterally delivered into the prelimbic cortex (PrL) at the following coordinates: anterior-posterior (AP): + 0.30 cm, medio-lateral (ML): ± 0.06 cm, dorso-ventral (DV): − 0.40 cm. The infusion rate was 0.06 µl/min for a total volume of 0.5 µl. The microinjector was left in the place for 10 min after microinjection to allow for the diffusion of the rAAV complexes. After surgery, penicillin sodium (0.02 mg/kg, i.p.) were injected to the rats once daily for five consecutive days to prevent infection. Rats were housed with free access to food and water and provided with standard care. Twenty-one days after surgery, rats that were microinjected with rAAV were used for behavioral tests. Conditioned place preference (CPP) The procedures for CPP training were based on previous studies with minor modifications [ 31 ]. The apparatus for CPP conditioning and testing consisted of three polyvinyl chloride boxes, which were identical except for their floors. The boxes had two large side chambers (27.9 cm long × 21.0 cm wide × 20.9 cm high) with a different type of floor (bar or grid), separated by a smaller chamber (12.1 cm long × 21.0 cm wide × 20.9 cm high with a smooth polyvinyl chloride floor). In each box, the three chambers were separated by manual guillotine doors. Before the CPP training, the rats were handled for seven days to acclimate to the experimenter's touch. To determine baseline preference, rats were placed in the middle chamber and given 15 min to freely explore the three compartments with the door open. A computer recorded the time that each rat spent in each compartment to determine the baseline preference. Rats must spend approximately one-third of their time in each chamber; otherwise they will be excluded. Each rat was trained for 8 consecutive days with alternating injections of drug (cocaine, 10 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg, i.p.; methamphetamine, 1 mg/kg, s.c.; morphine, 10 mg/kg, s.c.) and saline (1 ml/kg, i.p. or s.c.) [ 31 – 33 ]. After each injection, the rats were placed in the corresponding conditioning chambers and then returned to their home cage 45 minutes later. The day after the last conditioning session, all rats were allowed to explore the three compartments freely for 15 min under conditions identical to those described in the baseline test. The CPP score was calculated as the time that each rat spent in the drug-paired chamber minus the time spent in the saline-paired chamber [ 34 ]. For SCH and RAC pre-treatment, guide cannulas (24 gauge; RWD, Shenzhen, China) were bilaterally implanted 1 mm above the PrL. The coordinates for PrL were the following: AP: +0.30 cm, ML: ± 0.06 cm, DV: -0.28 cm; 0.2 µl, 16° angle. SCH/RAC/vehicle was delivered into the PrL 30 min prior to cocaine injection. Other procedures were consistent with those described above. For CNO pre-treatment, CNO (1.5mg/kg) was intraperitoneally injected 30 min before cocaine injection. All other procedures were identical to those described above. Cocaine self-administration procedures The procedures for cocaine self-administration (SA) training were based on previous studies with minor modifications [ 31 ]. Rats were anesthetized with isoflurane (4–5% for induction, 1–2% for maintenance). Catheters were inserted into the right jugular vein with the tip terminating at the opening of the right atrium as previously described. All rats were allowed to recover for 4–5 days after surgery. The operant chambers used (AniLab Software and Instruments) were equipped with two nose poke operandi (ENV-114M; Med Associates) that were 5 cm above the floor of the chambers. Nose pokes in the active operandum led to cocaine infusions that were accompanied by a 5-s tone-light cue. Nose pokes in the inactive operandum were also recorded but had no programmed consequences. The rats were trained to self-administer intravenous cocaine hydrochloride (0.75 mg/kg/infusion) during three 1-h daily sessions separated by 5 min over 7 days. A fixed-ratio one (FR1) reinforcement schedule was used. Each injection was accompanied by the illumination of a cue light above the active nose poke, followed by an additional 20 s timeout period when the cue and house lights were extinguished and additional nose poke responses had no programmed consequence. The number of drug infusions was limited to 20 per h. At the end of the training phase, all rats underwent extinction. The conditions were the same as during training, except that drug was no longer available. The rats were given extinction training until responding on the active nose poke operandum decreased to less than 20% of the mean responding during the last three days of cocaine self-administration for at least two consecutive days. Cocaine induced reinstatement test Before the SA reinstatement test, the rats received a saline (1 ml/kg) or cocaine (10 mg/kg) injection. Conditions during the reinstatement test were the same as those during cocaine self-administration training. RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, and Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) Sample tissues were isolated, and total RNAs were extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Catalog no. 15596–026). RNA concentration and quality were determined using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, USA). 500 ng of total RNA from each sample was reverse transcribed into cDNA using the HiScript II 1st Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (+ gDNA wiper) (Vazyme Biotech, Catalog no. R212-01). The reaction parameters were 25°C for 5 min, 50°C for 50 min and 85°C for 15 s. All cDNA samples were stored at − 20°C for further use. qPCR was performed with SYBR Master Mix (QPK201, TOYOBO, Japan) in a QuantStudio 5 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems) under the following conditions: 95°C for 2 min and 40 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 60°C for 30 s. Relative expression levels were determined using the 2 −ΔΔCt method [ 35 ]. Basescope in situ hybridization To detect the distribution and quantification of circHomer1 in different cells, we customized an RNA probe set that specifically targets the junction sites of circHomer1 . The procedures for Basescope in situ hybridization were based on previous studies with minor modifications [ 36 , 37 ]. Twenty-four hours after the last cocaine injection, the rats were perfused with with 0.1 mol/L phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA; pH 7.4). The brains were then removed and post-fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 24 h. Afterward, the brains were then dehydrated in 30% sucrose (w/v) dissolved in 0.1 mol/L phosphate buffer. The brains were coronally sectioned at 12 µm using a sliding microtome, and five to six sections spanning the rostrocaudal axis of the PrL were collected and stained, with each section being taken from different rats. All sections were washed three times for 5 min each with phosphate buffered saline (0.1 mol/L PBS), and then treated with protease for 10 min. After washing off the protease, we incubated brain sections with the probe sets specifically targeting circHomer1 (Advanced Cell Diagnostics) for 2 h at 40°C in the HybEZ™ oven. Following probe incubation, sections underwent a series of incubations with preamplifier probes, amplifier probes, and fluorescently labeled probes at 40°C. We acquired fluorescent images with a confocal microscope (Sted) using a 40× oil-immersion lens. Fluorescent dot numbers were obtained for each specific probe set (red dots defined as those for circHomer1 ). Immunofluorescence To detect the co-localization of circHomer1 and cell marker, the immunofluorescence based on previous studies with minor modifications was used [ 37 , 38 ]. The sections hybridized with the probe were incubated with the primary antibody in PBST (PBS containing 0.05% Tween-20) with 1% normal goat serum overnight at 4°C. The following primary antibodies were used in our experiments: mouse anti-CamKⅡ (1:100, sc-13141, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), mouse anti-GAD67 (1:100, ab26116, Abcam), mouse anti-NeuN (1:100, MAB377, Millipore), rabbit anti-GFAP (1:500, ab23922, Abcam), and rabbit anti-Iba1 (1:500, ab178847, Abcam). The sections were then washed three times in PBST and incubated with the indicated secondary antibodies for 3 h at room temperature. The following secondary antibodies were used in our experiments: Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG (for GFAP and Iba1, 1:500; ab150077, Abcam), and Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-mouse IgG (for CamKⅡ, GAD67, and NeuN, 1:500; ab150113, Abcam). In order to determine the specificity of CamKⅡ, we utilized Alexa Fluor 594 goat anti-mouse IgG (1:1000; ab150116, Abcam) as the secondary antibody. Finally, after three additional washes with PBST, the sections were mounted on Antifade Mounting Medium (S2110, Solarbio) and imaged using the confocal microscope (Sted). Four to six images were randomly selected from individual animals for counting the co-localization of circHomer1 and cell markers. The co-localization of cells is defined as GFP cell markers surrounded by red circHomer1 dots. Dendritic Spine Counting Coronal sections (60 µm thick) were processed for imaging. All images were acquired at a resolution of 1,024 × 1,024. High-resolution z-stacks of GFP-positive cells were acquired using a 60× oil-immersion lens from each PrL section per rat, with a step size of 1 µm. High-resolution z-stacks of randomly selected secondary or tertiary dendritic branch segments from individual cells were acquired for spine counting. The acquisition was done with a 5× optical zoom for the dendritic branch segments. Four to six pyramidal neurons were randomly selected from each individual animal, and each neuron was scanned for spine counting on 4–6 secondary or tertiary dendrites. Mushroom spines are defined as having a head diameter larger than 0.5 µm and a head-to-neck diameter ratio greater than 1:1 [ 39 ]. Ex vivo electrophysiology The experiments were performed as previously described [ 40 ]. The rats were deeply anesthetized with chloral hydrate and then decapitated. The brains were swiftly extracted and immersed in a frigid cutting solution consisting of the following composition: 87 mM NaCl, 26 mM NaHCO 3 , 3.0 mM KCl, 1.0 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , 1.3 mM MgSO 4 , 1.5 mM CaCl 2 , 20 mM D-glucose, and 75 mM sucrose saturated with a mixture of 95% O 2 and 5% CO 2 . Coronal sections that encompassed the PrL region were delicately sliced at a thickness of 230 µm using a vibratome (Leica VT1200), while being immersed in the same ice-cold cutting solution enriched with 95% O 2 and 5% CO 2 . The slices were subsequently transferred to a specialized incubation chamber, in which they were submerged in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) comprising the following constituents: 124 mM NaCl, 26 mM NaHCO 3 , 3.0 mM KCl, 1.0 mM NaH 2 PO 4 , 1.3 mM MgCl 2 , 2 mM CaCl 2 , and 20 mM D-glucose. This aCSF solution was meticulously saturated with a blend of 95% O 2 and 5% CO 2 , simulating the optimal physiological conditions. Initially, the slices were incubated at a precise temperature of 34°C for a duration of 30 minutes. Subsequently, they were maintained at room temperature for a minimum of an additional 30 minutes before being employed for recording purposes. Each individual slice was carefully transferred to a submerged chamber, where it experienced continual exposure to aCSF that had been thoroughly saturated with a precise blend of 95% O 2 and 5% CO 2 , flowing at a controlled rate of 2 ml/min, regulated by a meticulous flowmeter. Initially, the slice was examined using a 4× objective, facilitating the precise localization of the PrL region, which was identified by its proximity to the forceps minor corpus callosum and the midline. Subsequently, under the illumination of near-infrared light, layer V of the PrL was observed using a high-resolution 40× water-immersion objective. The identification of layer V pyramidal cells was meticulously conducted based on their cellular morphology, size, and distinctive electrophysiological properties. All experimental procedures were meticulously carried out under a controlled temperature of 32°C. For the preparation of electrodes, thick-wall borosilicate glass was skillfully manipulated using a horizontal puller, resulting in electrodes with resistances ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 MΩ. Ensuring optimal electrical connectivity, the seal resistance exceeded the threshold of 1 GΩ. To capture cellular activity at the soma, whole-cell recordings were conducted using the advanced MultiClamp 700B amplifier. For the current-clamp recordings, the finely crafted pipette solution consisted of a precise composition: 120 mM potassium gluconate, 10 mM KCl, 4 mM ATP-Mg, 0.3 mM GTP, 10 mM HEPES, 5 mM Na 2 -phosphocreatine, and 2 mM EGTA (with a pH value of 7.2 and an osmolarity of 270–280 mOsm, achieved through the addition of sucrose). To maintain neuronal membrane potentials around − 60 mV, a gradual current was carefully applied. Series resistance was impeccably compensated for utilizing the bridge circuit integrated within the esteemed MultiClamp 700B amplifier. To evaluate the spike rate, the frequency of spikes was meticulously recorded in discreet 500 ms intervals. These results were then visually represented in relation to the intensity of the applied current. Within 20 seconds of establishing whole-cell configuration, the resting potentials of the neurons were accurately measured. Input resistance was methodically ascertained by administering hyperpolarizing current pulses of either − 50 pA or -100 pA, inducing voltage shifts ranging from 5 to 15 mV below the resting membrane potential. The threshold, a key measurement, was determined as the precise moment when the slope of the rising membrane potential exceeded an impressive rate of 50 mV/ms. Additional measurements such as after-hyperpolarization, half-width, and overshoot were carefully estimated from all action potentials observed during the 200-pA current injection step. To conduct these experiments, the esteemed Clampex program (Molecular Devices) was employed. All data points were keenly digitized at an impressive rate of 20 kHz. For meticulous analysis, the esteemed Clampfit 10.7 software (Molecular Devices) was utilized. Data collection and analysis of human brain circRNA An RNA sequencing raw data involving the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) of patients with cocaine use disorder was obtained from GSE99349 in GEO database ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/ ). The procedures for identifying the expression of circHomer1 were based on our previous study [ 41 ]. In our analysis, we excluded participants with the age over 50 years old to align the human data with the age range of the rats used in our experiments. All including samples were listed in Supplementary Table 1 [ 42 ]. To shed light on the statistical significance of circHomer1 expression, we employed the Fragments Per Kilobase of exon model per Million mapped fragments (FPKM) in each participant as the basis of our rigorous analysis. Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8. Normally distributed data were tested using one-way or two-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc multiple comparison test or unpaired t test for two-group comparisons. Non-normally distributed data were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc multiple comparison test or the Mann Whitney U test for two-group comparisons. The results are expressed as mean ± SEM. P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results 1. CircHomer1 in PrL is required for cocaine-induced rewarding effect CircHomer1 , an extensively preserved circRNA, originates from the exons 2 to 5 of Homer1 through the intricacies of backsplicing ( Supplementary Fig. 1 ). To investigate the role of circHomer1 in response to cocaine, we first examined the changes in the expression of circHomer1 in various brain regions associated with addiction following repeated cocaine exposure (Fig. 1 a). We found that in rats subjected to chronic cocaine exposure, the expression of circHomer1 was substantially decreased in the PrL at 30 min and 24 h after the last cocaine injection (Fig. 1 b). The expression level of circHomer1 in CeA and VTA also significantly diminished, but only at 30 min after the last cocaine injection, not at 24h (Fig. 1 b). While circHomer1 in BLA and NAc core remain unchanged at both timepoint post-injection (Fig. 1 b). These findings indicated that circHomer1 was not specific to the PrL, but was substantially changed in the PrL when rats were repeatedly exposed to cocaine. Additionally, the downregulated expression of circHomer1 in the PrL was confirmed by BaseScope in situ hybridization (Fig. 1 c). Crucially, the expression of circHomer1 was significantly decreased in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) of patients with cocaine use disorder (Fig. 1 d), which mirrors our findings in rat model following chronic cocaine exposure, suggesting that circHomer1 may serve as a pivotal regulatory element in cocaine use disorder across species. To determine the relative Homer1 mRNA changes after chronic cocaine exposure, we measured the expression of total Homer1 mRNA in linear RNA-enriched cDNA samples with specific primers designed to avoid circRNA detection, we found the expression of total Homer1 mRNA was no changes neither in the PrL at 30 min or 24 h after the last cocaine injection ( Supplementary Fig. 2 ). We thus conclude that circHomer1 , but not linear Homer1 mRNA, is notably reduced in the PrL after chronic cocaine exposure. Additionally, we detected the expression of circHomer1 after acute cocaine exposure, we found single cocaine exposure did not change the expression of circHomer1 ( Supplementary Fig. 3 ). The reduction in circHomer1 levels induced by cocaine does not represent a mere pharmacological response, but rather signifies a lasting adaptive alteration within the PrL brought about by prolonged exposure to cocaine. This indicates that the enduring aberrant expression of circHomer1 may be the etiology and pathogenesis of cocaine addiction. Next, we assessed whether manipulating circHomer1 expression in the PrL would impact cocaine-induced CPP. We first employed a recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) with the CMV promoter to overexpress circHomer1 (CMV-OE- circHomer1 ), while using an empty vector (CMV-GFP) as a control. The expression of rAAV-mediated GFP was restricted to the PrL (Fig. 1 e, f). The expression of circHomer1 was markedly increased in the PrL of rats in CMV-OE- circHomer1 group (Fig. 1 g), demonstrated that CMV-OE- circHomer1 induced significant overexpression of circHomer1 . Before cocaine conditioning (baseline), both the CMV-OE- circHomer1 and CMV-GFP injected groups displayed comparable CPP scores, indicating no inherent preference (Fig. 1 h). However, rats in CMV-OE- circHomer1 group showed a significantly decreased cocaine-induced CPP score compared to that of CMV-GFP rats after cocaine conditioning (10 mg/kg) (Fig. 1 h). This findings suggest that overexpression of circHomer1 can mitigate the rewarding effect of cocaine. We then evaluated whether inhibiting circHomer1 expression in the PrL could enhance cocaine-induced CPP. We utilized a rAAV vector with a U6 promoter to express a specific shRNA (sh- circHomer1 ) for targeted knockdown of circHomer1 expression in vivo. A scrambled sequence (sh-control) was used as a control. The expression of circHomer1 was notably decreased in the PrL of sh- circHomer1 group rats (Fig. 1 i), indicating the effectiveness of shRNA-mediated suppression. The rAAV microinjection did not change the preference of the rats, as both groups exhibited similar CPP score in the baseline. Post-cocaine conditioning (5 mg/kg), the sh-control group did not exhibit a place preference for the cocaine-paired compartment (Fig. 1 j). However, the preference for the cocaine-paired compartment was developed in the sh- circHomer1 group rats (Fig. 1 j). These results underscore the importance of circHomer1 in the PrL for cocaine-induced rewarding effects. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that lasting adaptive alteration of circHomer1 expression within the PrL is essential for cocaine-induced rewarding effects. 2. Cocaine modulates circHomer1 expression in excitatory neurons of the PrL To assess the predominant cell types expressing circHomer1 in the PrL, we used the BaseScope technique in conjunction with immunostaining of specific cell markers in naive rats. As shown in Supplementary Fig. 4a and 4b , circHomer1 predominantly co-localized with NeuN, a neuronal marker, but not with glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP, an astrocyte marker) and Iba-1 (a microglia marker) in the PrL, indicating that circHomer1 is primarily located in PrL neurons. Then, we identified the specific types of neurons in which circHomer1 functioned after repeated cocaine exposure using the BaseScope method in conjunction with immunostaining of specific neuronal markers. As shown in Fig. 2 , compared with saline-treated group, repeated cocaine exposure significantly decreased the proportion of circHomer1 co-labeled with CamKII (Fig. 2 c- 2 e), a marker of excitatory neurons, but not GAD67 (a marker of inhibitory neurons) (Fig. 2 f- 2 h) in the PrL. This results suggest that circHomer1 may modulate the rewarding effects of cocaine by acting on excitatory neurons in the PrL region. 3. CircHomer1 in PrL excitatory neurons mediated cocaine-induced rewarding effects To confirm whether circHomer1 in excitatory neurons indeed regulates cocaine-induced conditioning behavior, we utilized a rAAV with CamKⅡ promoter to selectively overexpress circHomer1 in excitatory neurons (CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 ), using an empty vector (CamKⅡ-GFP) as a control. To evaluate the transfection efficiency of rAAV with the CamKⅡ promoter in the PrL, we quantified the co-localization of GFP with the marker of excitatory neurons, CamKⅡ. As shown in Fig. 3 a- 3 c, the rAAV mainly targeted the PrL region, with approximately 98.56% of circHomer1 overexpressed rAAV transfected into excitatory neurons, as indicated by the co-localization of GFP with CamKⅡ. In addition, the expression of circHomer1 was significantly increased in the PrL of CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 group rats (Fig. 3 d). These results demonstrated that the CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 group successfully induced the overexpression of circHomer1 in PrL excitatory neurons. Before cocaine conditioning, the rats in the CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 group and the CamKⅡ-GFP group displayed similar CPP scores in the CPP baseline (Fig. 3 e). After cocaine conditioning, all rats exhibited cocaine-induced CPP, but rats injected with CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 showed a significantly lower cocaine-induced CPP score compared to CamKⅡ-GFP rats (Fig. 3 e). To further assess the role of circHomer1 in excitatory neurons in cocaine addiction-like behavior, we injected CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 or CamKⅡ-GFP into PrL and examined the behavioral effects using an animal model of cocaine SA. Figure 3 f shows the timeline and schematic of the entire cocaine SA procedure. During training cocaine SA, both CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 and CamKⅡ-GFP mice reliably self-administered cocaine at a dose of 0.75 mg/kg/infusion under fixed ratio 1 (Fig. 3 g). However, circHomer1 overexpression significantly decreased the cocaine infusions each day during the training phase (Fig. 3 g). Although the number of active responses was similar overall between groups across the entire extinction phase (Fig. 3 h), CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 group significantly diminished the cocaine-priming-induced cocaine seeking during the reinstatement test but not saline-priming-induced cocaine seeking (Fig. 3 i). Collectively, these findings demonstrate that circHomer1 in the PrL excitatory neurons is necessary for cocaine-induced rewarding effects, highlighting its significance in the development of cocaine addiction. 4. CircHomer1 regulated cocaine-induced synaptic plasticity in excitatory neurons Previous studies have indicated that in vivo knockdown of circHomer1 results in significant changes in the abundance of alternative isoforms, which are associated with synaptic plasticity [ 28 ]. In an attempt to better understand whether circHomer1 rescued cocaine-induced behavioral adaptation through regulating synaptic plasticity, we assessed both the structural and functional plasticity of PrL excitatory neurons. As shown in Fig. 4 a- 4 d, repeated cocaine exposure significantly decreased the density of mushroom dendritic spines in the PrL but not the total dendritic spines. However, the overexpression of circHomer1 rescued this reduction induced by cocaine (Fig. 4 b and 4 d). This suggests that circHomer1 may play a key role in regulating the structural plasticity of excitatory neurons and enhancing the maturation of dendritic spines. Further, we explored functional plasticity using patch-clamp recording. We found that repeated cocaine exposure significantly decreased the frequency of spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic current (sEPSC) without affecting their amplitude. However, overexpression of circHomer1 reversed the decrease in sEPSC frequency (Fig. 4 e- 4 i). Altogether, our results indicate that repeated cocaine exposure damaged the synaptic plasticity and caused the hypoactivity of PrL neuron while circHomer1 negatively regulates the synaptic plasticity. To a certain extent, circHomer1 rectified deficits in synaptic plasticity induced by chronic cocaine exposure to prevent cocaine-induced rewarding effects. 5. Cocaine alters circHomer1 expression via activating dopamine receptor D1 (D1R) Accumulating evidence indicates that D1R and dopamine receptor D2 (D2R) are both essential for the rewarding effects of psychoactive drugs [ 43 ]. We hypothesized that the D1R and D2R may mediate the adaptive changes in circHomer1 expression after cocaine exposure. To test this, we microinjected SCH (a D1R antagonist), RAC (a D2R antagonist), or a vehicle into the PrL prior to the cocaine-context pairing during training (Fig. 5 a). The results revealed that the administration of SCH, but not RAC, resulted in the suppression of cocaine-induced CPP expression in the PrL when compared to the vehicle (Fig. 5 b). To further explore whether dopamine receptors regulate the expression of circHomer1 , we next examined the circHomer1 expression in the PrL after injection of SCH or RAC. We observed that pre-treatment with SCH reversed the downregulation of circHomer1 expression induced by cocaine (Fig. 5 c). However, RAC did not have a significant effect on the altered expression of circHomer1 caused by cocaine (Fig. 5 c). These results indicate that cocaine may reduce circHomer1 expression through activating D1R signaling in the PrL. To discern whether D1R signaling could modulate circHomer1 associated cocaine-induced rewarding effects, we bilaterally expressed hM3Dq, a designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drugs, via D1R promoter-driven rAAV infection, coupled with CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 or CamKⅡ-GFP in the PrL (Fig. 5 d and 5 e). The clozapine N-oxide (CNO, an hM3Dq agonist) was applied to increase PrL D1R neuronal activity via intraperitoneal injection. Activation of PrL D1R neurons with CNO injection in rats subjected to cocaine CPP training intensified cocaine CPP compared with vehicle injection (Fig. 5 f). Additionally, circHomer1 overexpression reversed the increase of cocaine CPP induced by CNO-activated PrL D1R neurons (Fig. 5 f). Collectively, these data indicate that D1R signaling directly or indirectly downregulated the expression of circHomer1 in the PrL after cocaine exposure. Overexpressed circHomer1 disrupts the cocaine rewarding effects induced by activating the PrL D1 neuron. In a way to show, circHomer1 is a key downstream of D1R signaling pathway in cocaine-induced rewarding effects. 6. CircHomer1 modulates the rewarding effects induced by psychostimulants but not food or opioid drugs The above findings figured that circHomer1 in PrL is a regulator of cocaine reward, but its impact on the rewarding effects of natural rewards and other addictive substances remains unclear. To this end, we microinjected CamKⅡ-OE- circHomer1 into the PrL to selectively increase the expression of circHomer1 in PrL excitatory neurons prior to CPP training with methamphetamine, morphine, or food (Fig. 6 a-c). We found that the overexpression of circHomer1 markedly attenuated the rewarding effect induced by methamphetamine (Fig. 6 a). However, overexpressed circHomer1 did not alter the rewarding effect of morphine (Fig. 6 b) and food (Fig. 6 c). These results indicate that circHomer1 in PrL excitatory neurons selectively regulates reward induced by psychostimulants, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, without affecting response to sedatives like morphine or natural rewards. Discussion Our study demonstrated the pivotal role of circHomer1 in modulating behavioral and synaptic responses to drug abuse (Fig. 7 ). Here, we provide novel evidence that circHomer1 is decreased in the PrL following repeated cocaine administration. Furthermore, we show that circHomer1 expression levels are also reduced in the dlPFC of patients with cocaine use disorder (CUD). Using rAAV-regulating the expression of circHomer1 in vivo , we demonstrated that circHomer1 overexpression in the PrL markedly mitigated the cocaine-induced rewarding effects, while diminishing circHomer1 expression in the PrL intensified its rewarding effects. Moreover, we found cocaine caused the hypoactivity in the PrL by decreasing the maturation of mushroom dendritic spines and the frequency of sEPSC, and elevated circHomer1 level rescued the activity of PrL excitatory neuron. The regulatory effects of circHomer1 on cocaine-driven behavioral and synaptic alterations were facilitated through the D1R signaling. Notably, the influence of circHomer1 appeared to be selective to psychostimulants, without affecting rewards associated with food or opioids. CircRNAs are emerging as crucial players in gene regulation, involved in numerous cellular processes, including regulating transcription of their host genes, sponging miRNAs and RNA binding proteins (RBPs), as well as influencing translation [ 22 , 44 ]. The implications of circRNAs in the pathogenesis of neuropsychiatric diseases have been documented [ 37 , 45 – 47 ], but their involvement in SUD remains poorly understood [ 20 , 48 – 50 ]. CircHomer1 , derived from exons 2–5 of the Homer1 longest transcript [ 28 ], is a neuronal-enriched circRNA that has been reported to play a role in a myriad of biological and behavioral functions, including methamphetamine-induced CPP preference [ 51 ], neuronal plasticity [ 23 ], cognitive flexibility and regulating synaptic gene expression [ 28 ]. Previous studies have found that circHomer1 is highly homologous to hsa_circ_0006916 in the human brain, with a conservation rate of 94%. It is also highly homologous to mmu_circ_0000491 in mice, with a conservation rate of 97% [ 23 , 28 , 52 ]. Furthermore, our study revealed a consistent reduction in circHomer1 expression in both the PrL of rats subjected to repeated cocaine administration and the dlPFC of patients with cocaine use disorder. These evidences suggest that circHomer1 may be a key regulator in cocaine addiction, offering potential avenues for clinical applications. Notably, our data imply that the influence of circHomer1 extends beyond cocaine; it also modulates methamphetamine-induced hyper-reward, indicating its broad relevance in the dysfunction induced by various psychostimulants. Future studies are needed to investigate circHomer1 -psychostimulants interactions and identify the potential protein partners of circHomer1 to better understand its gene-targeting mechanisms. Previous studies have found that drug-induced synaptic plasticity may underlie behavioral responses to drugs of abuse in the mPFC and the development of addiction. For example, Huang and his colleagues found that repeated cocaine administration in vivo promoted the induction of long-term potentiation and long-term depression in layer V pyramidal neurons of the mPFC [ 53 , 54 ]. CircHomer1 , which is highly abundant in the mammalian brain and enriched in synaptoneurosomes compared with cytoplasm [ 55 ], is significantly up-regulated in both the neuronal somata and dendrites following a homeostatic downscaling of neuronal activity [ 23 ]. This indicates its critical role in regulating synaptic function. Additionally, circHomer1 has been reported to play important roles in synaptic transmission and synaptic plasticity [ 28 , 56 ], raising the possibility that circHomer1 in PrL might modulate behaviors via regulating synaptic plasticity. This study showed that the densities of mushroom dendritic spines were significantly reduced after cocaine treatment in the PrL of rats, suggesting an attenuated synaptic transmission in the PrL by cocaine treatment. Most importantly, local overexpression of PrL circHomer1 in vivo restored the decreased densities of mushroom dendritic spines. Moreover, overexpressed circHomer1 in PrL excitatory neurons rescued the decreased frequency of sEPSC induced by repeated cocaine exposure. Cocaine administration is known to decrease the neuronal activity in the mPFC, suggesting that cocaine-induced hypofunction of the mPFC may be critically involved in drug-taking behavior [ 57 , 58 ]. Consistent with previous findings, our research indicates that cocaine exposure acts as a catalyst for inducing hypofrontality of PrL (a subregion of mPFC), characterized by a reduced number of mature dendritic spines and decreased frequency of sEPSC. Crucially, restoring circHomer1 levels revives the cocaine-induced hypofunction in the PrL. It is well-documented that D1R and D2R are both essential for the rewarding effects of psychoactive drugs [ 59 , 60 ]. However, evidence shows that activation of D1R in the mPFC is particularly significant in the reinstatement of cocaine seeking and the development of reward-related behavior induced by cocaine, while D2R activation does not have the same effect [ 61 , 62 ]. Subtypes of dopamine receptors exhibit distinct relationships with drug addiction. D1R stimulation in the mPFC is essential for cocaine addiction and is directly associated with the rewarding effects of cocaine[ 63 , 64 ], but the D2R in the mPFC is not as strongly linked to the rewarding effects of abused drugs [ 63 , 65 ]. Additionally, an intra-mPFC injection of a D1R antagonist, but not a D2R antagonist, before the posttest significantly attenuated CPP expression [ 66 , 67 ]. Consistent with these findings, we observed that the administration of D1R antagonists in the PrL reduced cocaine-induced CPP, whereas this effect was not observed with D2R antagonists. Furthermore, we found that the suppression of circHomer1 expression by cocaine could be reversed by D1R antagonists. CircHomer1 overexpression reduced the cocaine CPP induced by chemicogenetic activation of D1R neurons. These evidences suggest that cocaine reduces the expression of circHomer1 in the PrL, possibly through the activation of D1R. Intriguingly, we found that the inactivation of the D2R subtype could also increase the proportion of circHomer1 expression after cocaine exposure (Fig. 5 c). We speculated that beyond the influence of D1R, the D1R-D2R hetero-oligomer may also play a role in regulating circHomer1 expression. In mPFC excitatory neurons, dopamine receptor D1 and D2 subtypes have partially overlapped expressions, indicating that the stably co-expressed D1R and D2R could form a hetero-oligomeric unit [ 68 – 70 ]. This function of the D1R-D2R hetero-oligomer could be blocked by antagonists to either the D1R or D2R, but the signaling pathway could not be activated solely by D1R signaling or D2R signaling [ 69 ]. Given the report that D1R signaling modulates dendritic arborization and dendritic spine density in mPFC excitatory neurons [ 68 , 71 , 72 ], we consider that cocaine reduces the density of mature dendritic spines and the frequency of sEPSC in the PrL possibly through activation of D1R. Furthermore, we propose that the D1R downstream signaling pathway may be involved in regulating this reduction of circHomer1 . The rewarding mechanism of dopaminergic system and its receptors are fundamental to the development and maintenance of drug addiction, relapse after long-time abstinence and compulsive drug-seeking behavior [ 73 – 76 ]. Targeting dopaminergic system to find effective drugs to treat addiction is currently a research focal point. However, neither the agonists nor the antagonists of dopamine (DA) receptors can completely prevent the occurrence of abnormal behavior induced by substance abuse [ 75 , 77 ]. In addition, some agonists of DA receptors may possess addictive properties, while completely blocking DA receptors can lead to emotional and physiological motor abnormalities [ 75 , 77 ]. In the present study, we found that circHomer1 may act as a regulator in the modulation of cocaine- and methamphetamine-induced rewarding effects and synaptic plasticity though D1R signaling, while not affecting natural rewarding processes. It is implied that circHomer1 may be a therapeutic strategy for combating psychostimulants’ addiction. Recent studies have shown that circHomer1 directly bonded to Homer1b mRNA (A transcript of Homer1 ) and inhibited each other’s synaptic localization [ 26 ]. The constitutively expressed Homer1b/c maintains dendritic spine structure and synaptic transmission [ 78 ]. It is tempting to hypothesize that circHomer1 competes with Homer1b regulating cocaine-induced behavior and synaptic adaptation. But, our current study showed that chronic cocaine treatment did not change the total Homer1 mRNA expression. Future work is needed to elucidate the exact molecular mechanisms that could underlie circHomer1 -mediated effects in cocaine-induced rewarding and synaptic plasticity. In summary, our study identifies circHomer1 as a key regulator in the neuronal response to cocaine, with its levels inversely affecting cocaine's rewarding effects and synaptic changes in the prefrontal cortex of rat model and patients with SUD. Specifically, increasing circHomer1 level mitigates psychostimulants-induced behavioral adaptations and restores synaptic integrity in excitatory neurons but not influences the rewarding effects induced by food and opioid. These insights reveal the potentiality of circHomer1 as a novel target for developing addiction treatments, given its selective modulation of psychostimulants rewards without affecting natural rewards. Declarations Acknowledgments This work was supported by several grants from STI2030-Major Projects (2021ZD0202100 and 2021ZD0200800), as well as the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82130040, 82288101, and 32161143022). Conflict of interest The author declares no competing interests. Author contributions: JS, Y-XX and YC conceived and designed the study. YC, ZZ, XL, WC, SH, and GZ performed the experiments. YC, ZZ, YZ, LZ, JS, and Y-XX analyzed and interpreted the data. YC, JS, and Y-XX wrote and revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the final version of the manuscript. References Reid AG, Lingford-Hughes AR, Cancela LM, Kalivas PW. Substance abuse disorders. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;106:419-431. Volkow ND, Blanco C. Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention. World Psychiatry. 2023;22:203-229. Volkow ND, Morales M. The brain on drugs: from reward to addiction. Cell. 2015;162:712-725. Hu H. Reward and Aversion. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2016;39:297-324. Kahlig KM, Binda F, Khoshbouei H, Blakely RD, McMahon DG, Javitch JA et al. Amphetamine induces dopamine efflux through a dopamine transporter channel. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:3495-3500. Boileau I, Dagher A, Leyton M, Welfeld K, Booij L, Diksic M et al. Conditioned dopamine release in humans: A positron emission tomography [11C] raclopride study with amphetamine. J Neurosci. 2007;27:3998-4003. Hedges DM, Obray JD, Yorgason JT, Jang EY, Weerasekara VK, Uys JD et al. Methamphetamine induces dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens through a sigma receptor-mediated pathway. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43:1405-1414. Nestler EJ. Molecular basis of long-term plasticity underlying addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:119-128. Diao ZJ, Di YY, Wu ML, Zhai CY, Kang MS, Li YF et al. Single exposure to cocaine impairs reinforcement learning by potentiating the activity of neurons in the direct striatal pathway in mice. Neurosci Bull. 2021;37:1119-1134. Pulipparacharuvil S, Renthal W, Hale CF, Taniguchi M, Xiao GH, Kumar A et al. Cocaine regulates MEF2 to control synaptic and behavioral plasticity. Neuron. 2008;59:621-633. Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Drug addiction and its underlying neurobiological basis: neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal cortex. Am J Psychiat. 2002;159:1642-1652. Goldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:652-669. Mihindou C, Guillem K, Navailles S, Vouillac C, Ahmed SH. Discriminative inhibitory control of cocaine seeking involves the prelimbic prefrontal cortex. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;73:271-279. Shapiro LP, Pitts EG, Li DC, Barbee BR, Hinton EA, Bassell GJ et al. The PI3-kinase p110β isoform controls severity of cocaine-induced sequelae and alters the striatal transcriptome. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;89:959-969. Wei X, Chang J, Cheng Z, Chen W, Guo H, Liu Z et al. mPFC DUSP1 mediates adolescent cocaine exposure-induced higher sensitivity to drug in adulthood. EMBO Rep. 2023;24:e56981. Ni T, Zhu L, Wang S, Zhu W, Xue Y, Zhu Y et al. Medial prefrontal cortex Notch1 signalling mediates methamphetamine-induced psychosis via Hes1-dependent suppression of GABA B1 receptor expression. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:4009-4022. Xu H, Brown AN, Waddell NJ, Liu X, Kaplan GJ, Chitaman JM et al. Role of long noncoding RNA Gas5 in cocaine action. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;88:758-766. Robison AJ, Nestler EJ. Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction. Nature reviews. Neuroscience. 2011;12:623-637. Feng J, Nestler EJ. Epigenetic mechanisms of drug addiction. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23:521-528. Yu H, Xie B, Zhang J, Luo Y, Galaj E, Zhang X et al. The role of circTmeff-1 in incubation of context-induced morphine craving. Pharmacol Res. 2021;170:105722. Vicens Q, Westhof E. Biogenesis of circular RNAs. Cell. 2014;159:13-14. Mehta SL, Dempsey RJ, Vemuganti R. Role of circular RNAs in brain development and CNS diseases. Prog Neurobiol. 2020;186:101746. You X, Vlatkovic I, Babic A, Will T, Epstein I, Tushev G et al. Neural circular RNAs are derived from synaptic genes and regulated by development and plasticity. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18:603-610. Li TR, Jia YJ, Wang Q, Shao XQ, Lv RJ. Circular RNA: a new star in neurological diseases. Int J Neurosci. 2017;127:726-734. Zhuo CJ, Hou WH, Jiang DG, Tian HJ, Wang LN, Jia F et al. Circular RNAs in early brain development and their influence and clinical significance in neuropsychiatric disorders. Neural Regen Res. 2020;15:817-823. Hafez AK, Zimmerman AJ, Papageorgiou G, Chandrasekaran J, Amoah SK, Lin R et al. A bidirectional competitive interaction between circHomer1 and Homer1b within the orbitofrontal cortex regulates reversal learning. Cell Rep. 2022;38:110282. Urdanoz-Casado A, de Gordoa JSR, Robles M, Acha B, Roldan M, Zelaya MV et al. Gender-dependent deregulation of linear and circular RNA variants of HOMER1 in the entorhinal cortex of Alzheimer's disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:9205. Zimmerman AJ, Hafez AK, Amoah SK, Rodriguez BA, Dell'Orco M, Lozano E et al. A psychiatric disease-related circular RNA controls synaptic gene expression and cognition. Mol Psychiatry. 2020;25:2712-2727. Li J, Sun Q, Zhu S, Xi K, Shi Q, Pang K et al. Knockdown of circHomer1 ameliorates METH-induced neuronal injury through inhibiting Bbc3 expression. Neurosci Lett. 2020;732:135050. Xu K, Zhang Y, Li J. Expression and function of circular RNAs in the mammalian brain. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2021;78:4189-4200. Xue YX, Luo YX, Wu P, Shi HS, Xue LF, Chen C et al. A memory retrieval-extinction procedure to prevent drug craving and relapse. Science. 2012;336:241-245. Bardo MT, Rowlett JK, Harris MJ. Conditioned place preference using opiate and stimulant drugs: a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1995;19:39-51. Zhu L, Wu F, Yan Z, He L, Wang S, Hu H et al. A novel microRNA, novel-m009C, regulates methamphetamine rewarding effects. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:3885-3897. Harris GC, Wimmer M, Aston-Jones G. A role for lateral hypothalamic orexin neurons in reward seeking. Nature. 2005;437:556-559. Yang J, Chen Y, Lu JX, Wang XX, Wang L, Liang JL et al. Identification and characterization of novel fusion genes in prostate cancer by targeted RNA capture and next-generation sequencing. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin. 2018;50:1166-1172. Li Y, Lu X, Nie J, Hu P, Ge F, Yuan TF et al. MicroRNA134 of ventral hippocampus is involved in cocaine extinction-induced anxiety-like and depression-like behaviors in mice. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2020;19:937-950. Xu KY, Zhang Y, Xiong WD, Zhang ZY, Wang ZB, Lv LB et al. CircGRIA1 shows an age-related increase in male macaque brain and regulates synaptic plasticity and synaptogenesis. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3594. Yu ZL, Chen WJ, Zhang LB, Chen Y, Chen WX, Meng SQ et al. Gut-derived bacterial LPS attenuates incubation of methamphetamine craving via modulating microglia. Brain Behav Immun. 2023;111:101-115. Ma H, Li CY, Wang JP, Zhang XC, Li MY, Zhang R et al. Amygdala-hippocampal innervation modulates stress-induced depressive-like behaviors through AMPA receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118. Yu ZL, Han Y, Hu D, Chen N, Zhang ZY, Chen WX et al. Neurocan regulates vulnerability to stress and the anti-depressant effect of ketamine in adolescent rats. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:2522-2532. Chen Y, Li X, Meng S, Huang S, Chang S, Shi J. Identification of functional circRNA-miRNA-mRNA regulatory network in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex neurons of patients with cocaine use disorder. Front Mol Neurosci. 2022;15:839233. Ribeiro EA, Scarpa JR, Garamszegi SP, Kasarskis A, Mash DC, Nestler EJ. Gene network dysregulation in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex neurons of humans with cocaine use disorder. Sci Rep. 2017;7:5412. Ranaldi R. Dopamine and reward seeking: the role of ventral tegmental area. Rev Neurosci. 2014;25:621-630. Li X, Yang L, Chen LL. The biogenesis, functions, and challenges of circular RNAs. Mol Cell. 2018;71:428-442. Dong XJ, Bai YF, Liao ZX, Gritsch D, Liu XL, Wang T et al. Circular RNAs in the human brain are tailored to neuron identity and neuropsychiatric disease. Nat Commun. 2023;14:5327. Yu XY, Bai Y, Han B, Ju MZ, Tang TC, Shen L et al. Extracellular vesicle-mediated delivery of circDYM alleviates CUS-induced depressive-like behaviours. J Extracell Vesicles. 2022;11: e12185. He Y, Jiang L, Liu H, Bu Q, Kuang W, Zhao Y et al. Hippocampal circAnk3 deficiency causes anxiety-like behaviors and social deficits by regulating the miR-7080-3p/IQGAP1 pathway in mice. Biol Psychiatry (in press). Floris G, Gillespie A, Zanda MT, Dabrowski KR, Sillivan SE. Heroin Regulates Orbitofrontal Circular RNAs. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:1453. Yu H, Wen B, Lu Y, Xie B, Yu F, Zhang M et al. The role of circTmeff-1 in morphine addiction memory of mice. Cells. 2023;12. Shen Q, Xie B, Galaj E, Yu H, Li X, Lu Y et al. CircTmeff-1 in the nucleus accumbens regulates the reconsolidation of cocaine-associated memory. Brain Res Bull. 2022;185:64-73. Li J, Shi Q, Wang Q, Tan X, Pang K, Liu X et al. Profiling circular RNA in methamphetamine-treated primary cortical neurons identified novel circRNAs related to methamphetamine addiction. Neurosci Lett. 2019;701:146-153. Glažar P, Papavasileiou P, Rajewsky N. circBase: a database for circular RNAs. RNA. 2014;20:1666-1670. Huang CC, Lin HJ, Hsu KS. Repeated cocaine administration promotes long-term potentiation induction in rat medial prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:1877-1888. Huang CC, Yang PC, Lin HJ, Hsu KS. Repeated cocaine administration impairs group II metabotropic glutamate receptor-mediated long-term depression in rat medial prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2007;27:2958-2968. Rybak-Wolf A, Stottmeister C, Glazar P, Jens M, Pino N, Giusti S et al. Circular RNAs in the mammalian brain are highly abundant, conserved, and dynamically expressed. Mol Cell. 2015;58:870-885. Dell'Orco M, Oliver RJ, Perrone-Bizzozero N. HuD binds to and regulates circular RNAs derived from neuronal development- and synaptic plasticity-associated genes. Front Genet. 2020;11:790. Sun WL, Rebec GV. Repeated cocaine self-administration alters processing of cocaine-related information in rat prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8004-8008. Jentsch JD, Taylor JR. Impulsivity resulting from frontostriatal dysfunction in drug abuse: implications for the control of behavior by reward-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology. 1999;146:373-390. Kharkwal G, Radl D, Lewis R, Borrelli E. Dopamine D2 receptors in striatal output neurons enable the psychomotor effects of cocaine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:11609-11614. Tu GH, Ying L, Ye LZ, Zhao JL, Liu NY, Li J et al. Dopamine D 1 and D 2 receptors differentially regulate Rac1 and Cdc42 signaling in the nucleus accumbens to modulate behavioral and structural plasticity after repeated methamphetamine treatment. Biol Psychiatry. 2019;86:820-835. Gu SM, Cha HJ, Seo SW, Hong JT, Yun J. Dopamine D1 receptor antagonist reduces stimulant-induced conditioned place preferences and dopamine receptor supersensitivity. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2020;393:139-139. Devoto P, Fattore L, Antinori S, Saba P, Frau R, Fratta W et al. Elevated dopamine in the medial prefrontal cortex suppresses cocaine seeking via D1 receptor overstimulation. Addict Biol. 2016;21:61-71. Self DW. Diminished role for dopamine D1 receptors in cocaine addiction? Biol Psychiatry. 2014;76:2-3. Ramoa CP, Doyle SE, Lycas MD, Chernau AK, Lynch WJ. Diminished role of dopamine D1-receptor signaling with the development of an addicted phenotype in rats. Biol Psychiatry. 2014;76:8-14. Collins GT, Woods JH. Drug and reinforcement history as determinants of the response-maintaining effects of quinpirole in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;323:599-605. Cervo L, Samanin R. Effects of dopaminergic and glutamatergic receptor antagonists on the acquisition and expression of cocaine conditioning place preference. Brain Res. 1995;673:242-250. Fumiya Shinohara HK, Masabumi Minami, Katsuyuki Kaneda. The role of dopaminergic signaling in the medial prefrontal cortex for the expression of cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in rats. Biol Pharm Bull. 2017;40:1983-1989. Shinohara R, Taniguchi M, Ehrlich AT, Yokogawa K, Deguchi Y, Cherasse Y et al. Dopamine D1 receptor subtype mediates acute stress-induced dendritic growth in excitatory neurons of the medial prefrontal cortex and contributes to suppression of stress susceptibility in mice. Mol Psychiatry. 2018;23:1717-1730. Rashid AJ, O'Dowd BF, Verma V, George SR. Neuronal, Gq/11-coupled dopamine receptors: an uncharted role for dopamine. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2007;28:551-555. Rashid AJ, So CH, Kong MMC, Furtak T, El-Ghundi M, Cheng R et al. D1-D2 dopamine receptor heterooligomers with unique pharmacology are coupled to rapid activation of Gq/11 in the striatum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:654-659. Khibnik LA, Beaumont M, Doyle M, Heshmati M, Slesinger PA, Nestler EJ et al. Stress and cocaine trigger divergent and cell type-specific regulation of synaptic transmission at single spines in nucleus accumbens. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;79:898-905. Dietz DM, Sun H, Lobo MK, Cahill ME, Chadwick B, Gao V et al. Rac1 is essential in cocaine-induced structural plasticity of nucleus accumbens neurons. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15:891-896. Berridge KC, Robinson TE. What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Res Rev. 1998;28:309-369. Wei C, Han X, Weng DW, Feng QR, Qi XB, Li J et al. Response dynamics of midbrain dopamine neurons and serotonin neurons to heroin, nicotine, cocaine, and MDMA. Cell Discov. 2018;4:60. Samaha AN, Khoo SYS, Ferrario CR, Robinson TE. Dopamine 'ups and downs' in addiction revisited. Trends Neurosci. 2021;44:516-526. Buck SA, Torregrossa MM, Logan RW, Freyberg Z. Roles of dopamine and glutamate co-release in the nucleus accumbens in mediating the actions of drugs of abuse. FEBS J. 2021;288:1462-1474. Kohno M, Dennis LE, McCready H, Hoffman WF. Dopamine dysfunction in stimulant use disorders: mechanistic comparisons and implications for treatment. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:220-229. Sala C, Futai K, Yamamoto K, Worley PF, Hayashi Y, Sheng M. Inhibition of dendritic spine morphogenesis and synaptic transmission by activity-inducible protein Homer1a. J Neurosci. 2003;23:6327-6337. Additional Declarations The authors have declared there is NO conflict of interest to disclose Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterials.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 08 Nov, 2025 Read the published version in Molecular Psychiatry → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: revise 18 Sep, 2024 Review # 2 received at journal 15 Sep, 2024 Reviewer # 2 agreed at journal 28 Aug, 2024 Review # 1 received at journal 24 Jun, 2024 Reviewer # 1 agreed at journal 12 Jun, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 12 Jun, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 29 Apr, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Apr, 2024 First submitted to journal 28 Apr, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4338599","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":313743897,"identity":"a1faaa98-2b30-4207-a828-c6679daf8e4e","order_by":0,"name":"Jie Shi","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6567-8160","institution":"Peking University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jie","middleName":"","lastName":"Shi","suffix":""},{"id":313743898,"identity":"31298f7e-c234-4e39-aad5-1a88bfc4f278","order_by":1,"name":"Yun Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yun","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":313743899,"identity":"5010a85d-3f9f-428f-9e25-5c6d1eecdd5c","order_by":2,"name":"Zhongyu Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhongyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":313743900,"identity":"7df17597-6b07-4986-8ba2-fc6755ba47e9","order_by":3,"name":"Xianfeng Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xianfeng","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":313743901,"identity":"3b46fde4-4bb1-4638-9c84-b2c952bd8a1a","order_by":4,"name":"Wenjun Chen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenjun","middleName":"","lastName":"Chen","suffix":""},{"id":313743902,"identity":"cf05d22b-0a3c-4805-bff9-559f1f0c4648","order_by":5,"name":"Shihao Huang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shihao","middleName":"","lastName":"Huang","suffix":""},{"id":313743903,"identity":"f478a58d-8917-4523-bd8c-c65a74c07829","order_by":6,"name":"Guipeng Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guipeng","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":313743904,"identity":"532c5b06-162e-4619-ac5c-f05d8932df9b","order_by":7,"name":"Zhoulong Yu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhoulong","middleName":"","lastName":"Yu","suffix":""},{"id":313743905,"identity":"2363ada9-b9b4-4b21-ae39-7c80e5797e7e","order_by":8,"name":"Libo Zhang","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6829-1452","institution":"National institute on Drug Dependence and Beijing Key Laboratory of Drug Dependence, Peking University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Libo","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":313743906,"identity":"82d82947-e4e5-4ae4-9783-c7262aaf3829","order_by":9,"name":"Yan-Xue Xue","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yan-Xue","middleName":"","lastName":"Xue","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-04-28 15:40:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4338599/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4338599/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-03301-9","type":"published","date":"2025-11-08T05:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":59965490,"identity":"f740ab34-e405-45f4-826c-2669fc559234","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 01:59:24","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1078429,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e diminished after repeated cocaine exposure and was essential for conditioned place preference induced by cocaine in the prelimbic cortex.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, Timeline of the experiment. The rats were injected intraperitoneally with cocaine for 14 days and were decapitated to detect the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e at 30 min and 24 h after the last cocaine injection. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, The expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in addiction-related brain regions. Top: The expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e at 30 min after the last cocaine injection (Unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, PrL: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 2.944, df = 9, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.016; IL: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 0.322, df = 9, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.755; BLA: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.351, df = 9, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.210; CeA: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 3.341, df = 9, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.009; NAc core: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.115, df = 9, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.294; VTA: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 2.442, df = 9, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.037. saline: n = 6, cocaine: n = 5); bottom: The expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e at 24 h after the last cocaine injection (Unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, PrL: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 3.052, df = 10, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.012; IL: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 1.814, df = 10, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.100; BLA: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 0.927, df = 10, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.376; CeA: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 0.869, df = 10, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.405; NAc core: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 0.580, df = 10, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.575; VTA: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 0.171, df = 10, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.868. saline: n = 6, cocaine: n = 6). \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e, Visualization of the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL at 30 min and 24 h after the last cocaine injection. Red dots indicate expressed \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, while blue dots indicate the location of the cell nucleus. Scale bars: 50 μm. Unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, 30 min: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 4.285, df = 22, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0003; 24 h: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 4.618, df = 26, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001. 30 min: n = 12/group; 24 h: n= 14/group.\u003cstrong\u003e d\u003c/strong\u003e, Decreased expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the dlPFC of patients with cocaine use disorder.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eUnpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 2.205, df = 26, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.037. control: n = 12; CUD: n = 16.\u003cstrong\u003e e\u003c/strong\u003e, Timeline of the CPP. Before cocaine CPP training, the rats were bilaterally microinjected in the PrL with rAAV-CMV-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP to overexpress \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e) or rAAV-U6-shRNA-CMV-GFP to knockdown \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e). Corresponding controls received rAAV CMV-GFP or sh-control. Following the rAAV expression, cocaine at dose of 10 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg was used to explore whether overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e could suppress expression or knockdown of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e could enhance cocaine CPP, respectively. \u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e, GFP fluorescence indicates local expression in the PrL of rats, as visualized under fluorescence microscopy. The injection site of rAAV (left), Scale bars: 2 mm. The expression of rAAV (right), Scale bars: 100 μm. \u003cstrong\u003eg\u003c/strong\u003e, Elevated expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL of rats injected with rAAV-CMV-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP. Unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 5.157, df = 4, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.007. n = 3/group. \u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression resulted in a reduction in cocaine CPP. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of test × the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.319,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.027), the main effect of test (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 38.610, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001) and the main effect of the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.171 \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.029). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for CMV-GFP baseline vs. CMV-GFP test; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.043 for CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e baseline vs. CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test;\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.013 for CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test vs. CMV-GFP test. n = 10/group. \u003cstrong\u003ei\u003c/strong\u003e, The expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e significantly decreased in the PrL of rats injected with rAAV-U6-sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-CMV-GFP. Unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 5.157, df = 4, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.007. n = 3/group. \u003cstrong\u003ej\u003c/strong\u003e, Knockdown of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e enhanced cocaine CPP. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of test × the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 24\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.523,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.027), the main effect of test (F\u003csub\u003e1, 24\u003c/sub\u003e = 30.130, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001) and the main effect of the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 24\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.548, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.124). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.147 for sh-control baseline vs. sh-control test;\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e baseline vs. sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.047 for sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test vs. sh-control test. n = 7/group. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM. *\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, **\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, ***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, ****\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001, #\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05. CPP: conditioned place preference. CUD: cocaine use disorder. FPKM: Fragments Per Kilobase of exon model per Million mapped fragments.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/983772b41bd349d40f9df69a.png"},{"id":59967012,"identity":"5dfb55cc-8403-4ef0-abce-da82dafd665a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 02:15:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2039170,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepeated cocaine exposure selectively reduced \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e expression in excitatory neurons of the PrL.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, Timeline of the experiment. The rats were injected intraperitoneally with cocaine for 14 days and were decapitated to detect the co-localization of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e with cell markers at 24 h after the last cocaine injection. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, The schematic of PrL for detecting the co-localization of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003ewith cell markers. Scale bars: 1 mm. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e, The co-localization of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003ewith CamKII (a marker of excitatory neurons) in the PrL of rats treated with saline or cocaine. White arrows indicate positive staining of biomarkers for excitatory neurons (green), while white triangles indicate colocalization with \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (red) and biomarkers (green). Scale bars: 50 μm. \u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e, Repeated cocaine treatment increased the ratio of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003eand CamKII double-positive cells among \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-positive cells. Unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 4.658, df = 4, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.009. n = 3/group.\u003cstrong\u003e f\u003c/strong\u003e, The co-localization of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003ewith GAD67 (a marker of inhibitory neurons) in the PrL of rats treated with saline or cocaine. White arrows indicate positive staining of biomarkers for inhibitory neurons (green), while white triangles indicate co-localization with \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (red) and biomarkers (green). Scale bars: 50 μm. \u003cstrong\u003eg\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003e, The ratio of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e and GAD67 double-positive cells among \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-positive cells was unchanged. Unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = 0.956, df = 4, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.393. n = 3/group. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM. **\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/48e6fbfc209334d75e62ebe3.png"},{"id":59965498,"identity":"88a1da8b-1ed9-4ad8-a0fc-8177aa81600b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 01:59:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":842054,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e in the PrL excitatory neurons was necessary for cocaine-induced rewarding effects.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, Experimental timeline of the CPP procedure. Before CPP training, the rats were bilaterally microinjected in the PrL with rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP to overexpress \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e), and corresponding rAAV CamKⅡ-GFP was microinjected as a control. After the rAAV was expressed, a dose of 10 mg/kg of cocaine was used to explore whether the specific overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the excitatory neurons could suppressed cocaine CPP expression. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, Illustration of rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP-transfected cell types in the PrL. The GFP shown that the expression of rAAV was restricted in PrL. Left: the injection site of rAAV, Scale bars: 1 mm. Right: rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP-transfected cell types in the PrL. White arrows indicate positive staining of biomarkers for excitatory neurons, Scale bars: 50 μm. Red indicates CamKⅡ-positive neuron, green indicates rAAV-infected cell, and blue indicated DAPI-stained nuclei. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e, Ratio of GFP and CamKⅡ double-positive cells among GFP-positive cells. \u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e, The expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e significantly increased in excitatory neurons of the PrL in rats injected with rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP. Mann Whitney \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e test, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.029. n = 4/group. \u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e, Overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL excitatory neurons decreased cocaine CPP. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of test × the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.411,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.017), the main effect of test (F\u003csub\u003e1, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 116.700, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001) and the main effect of the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.388, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.017). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for CamKⅡ-GFP baseline and CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e baseline compared with CamKⅡ-GFP test and CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test, respectively;\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.006 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test vs. CamKⅡ-GFP test. n = 9/group. \u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e, Experimental timeline of the cocaine self-administration procedure. Three weeks after the injection of rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP or CamKⅡ-GFP in the PrL, the rats were trained to self-administer intravenous injections of cocaine under an FR1 schedule in daily 3-hour sessions until cocaine intake stabilized. Then, the rats were given extinction training until responses of the active nose poke decreased to less than 20% of the mean responding during the last 3 days of cocaine self-administration for at least 2 consecutive days. Last, these rats underwent a saline (1 ml/kg, i.p.) or cocaine (10 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced reinstatement. n = 7/group. \u003cstrong\u003eg\u003c/strong\u003e, The \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression decreased the infusions during daily 3-hour self-administration sessions. Repeated two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of training time × the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e6, 72\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.378,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.891), the main effect of training days (F\u003csub\u003e6, 72\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.475, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.031) and the main effect of the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 12\u003c/sub\u003e = 23.080, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0004). Holm-Sidak's \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.001 for the CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group vs. the CamKⅡ-GFP group on the first day, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.024 on the second day, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.007 on the third day, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.013 on the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days. \u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003e, Active nose pokes responses on the active operandum during the extinction session. Repeated two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of extinction time × the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e11, 132\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.285,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.240), the main effect of extinction days (F\u003csub\u003e11, 132\u003c/sub\u003e = 32.930, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001) and the main effect of the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 12\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.421, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.529).\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eHolm-Sidak's \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.05 for the CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group vs. the CamKⅡ-GFP group on every extinction day. \u003cstrong\u003ei\u003c/strong\u003e, Rats in the CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group showed significantly fewer active nose pokes during cocaine priming. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of priming × the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 24\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.283,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.049), the main effect of priming (F\u003csub\u003e1, 24\u003c/sub\u003e = 15.470, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0006) and the main effect of the viral vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 24\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.341, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.048). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.002 for CamKⅡ-GFP saline priming vs. CamKⅡ-GFP cocaine priming; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.561 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e saline priming vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e cocaine priming; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.034 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e cocaine priming vs. CamKⅡ-GFP cocaine priming. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM. *\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, **\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, ***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, ****\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, #\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, ##\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/f350a0863de3b93359b9139d.png"},{"id":59966412,"identity":"41ec6739-1bed-4b6e-8829-0f0277f135ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 02:07:24","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":253964,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, Timeline of the experiment. The rats underwent stereotactic surgery to infuse rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP or CamKⅡ-GFP into PrL. After three weeks, cocaine (10 mg/kg) or saline i.p. injections commenced, and tissue was collected 24 h after the final injection for analysis of dendritic spines and patch-clamp recording. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, Representative images of dendritic spines in the PrL for each group. White arrowheads indicate mushroom spines. CamKⅡ-GFP-saline: n = 48 dendritic segments from n = 3 rats; CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine: n = 53 dendritic segments from n = 3 rats; CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-cocaine: n = 52 dendritic segments from n = 3 rats. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e, Quantification of the total spines in the PrL. Cocaine did not change the density of the total spines. However, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression increased the density of the total spines. One-way ANOVA: F\u003csub\u003e2, 150\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.341, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001. Tukey's \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.416 for CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine vs. CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.001 for CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-cocaine.\u003cstrong\u003e d\u003c/strong\u003e, Quantification of the mushroom spines in the PrL. Cocaine decreased the density of mushroom spines, and the overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in PrL excitatory neurons reversed the cocaine-induced reduction. Kruskal-Wallis test: \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001. Dunn's \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0308 for CamKⅡ-GFP-saline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-cocaine. \u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e, Representative raw traces of sEPSC from PrL excitatory neurons. CamKⅡ-GFP-saline: n = 15 neurons from n = 3 rats; CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine: n = 14 neurons from n = 3 rats; CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-cocaine: n = 16 neurons from n = 3 rats. \u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003e, Cumulative frequency plots of inter-event intervals and amplitude. \u003cstrong\u003eg\u003c/strong\u003e and\u003cstrong\u003e i\u003c/strong\u003e, The frequency and amplitude of sEPSC in PrL excitatory neurons. The scattergram shows a significant decrease in sEPSC frequency but not amplitude in the CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine group. However, the overexpression of c\u003cem\u003e circHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL excitatory neurons reversed the decrease caused by cocaine. Kruskal-Wallis test: \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for the frequency, Kruskal-Wallis test: \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0003 for the amplitude. Dunn's \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for the frequency of CamKⅡ-GFP-saline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.028 for the frequency of CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-cocaine;\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.171 for the amplitude of CamKⅡ-GFP-saline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine; \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.126 for the amplitude of CamKⅡ-GFP-cocaine vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-cocaine. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM. *\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, ***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, ****\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e regulated cocaine-induced synaptic plasticity in excitatory neurons.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/a130286c6dcd1c7ad2a5d9c4.png"},{"id":59965492,"identity":"bc2cc63e-d15e-45ca-8f41-ac303285d89e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 01:59:24","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":727181,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe cocaine-induced decrease in \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e expression in the PrL was mediated by D1R signaling.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, Timeline of SCH and RAC pre-treatment prior to the cocaine-induced CPP. Vehicle, SCH or RAC was given 30 min prior to saline or cocaine injection on the drug training day. PrL samples for qPCR were collected 24 h after the CPP test. saline-vehicle, n = 8; cocaine-vehicle, n = 8; saline-SCH, n = 7; cocaine-SCH, n = 8; saline-RAC, n = 5; cocaine-RAC, n = 8. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, SCH but not RAC pre-treatment significantly attenuated the CPP expression induced by cocaine. Three-way ANOVA for SCH treatment: the main effect of CPP training (F\u003csub\u003e1, 52\u003c/sub\u003e = 28.780,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001), the main effect of SCH treatment (F\u003csub\u003e1, 52\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.523,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.014), the main effect of cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 52\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.643,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.110), the interaction effect of CPP training × SCH treatment (F\u003csub\u003e1, 52\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.408,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.041), the interaction effect of CPP training × cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 52\u003c/sub\u003e = 8.568,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.005), the interaction of SCH treatment × cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 52\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.952,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.052), the interaction of CPP training × SCH treatment × cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 52\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.114,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.152); Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.751 for saline-vehicle baseline vs. saline-vehicle test, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for cocaine-vehicle baseline vs. cocaine-vehicle test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.988 for saline-SCH baseline vs. saline-SCH test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.239 for cocaine-SCH baseline vs. cocaine-SCH test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.004 for cocaine-vehicle test vs. cocaine-SCH test. Three-way ANOVA for RAC treatment: the main effect of CPP training (F\u003csub\u003e1, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 76.390,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001), the main effect of RAC treatment (F\u003csub\u003e1, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.276,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.138), the main effect of cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 12.590,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0009), the interaction effect of CPP training × RAC treatment (F\u003csub\u003e1, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.555,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.065), the interaction effect of CPP training × cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 24.540,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001), the interaction of RAC treatment × cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.053,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.8194), the interaction of CPP training × RAC treatment × cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 48\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.866,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.357); Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.781 for saline-vehicle baseline vs. saline-vehicle test, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for cocaine-vehicle baseline vs. cocaine-vehicle test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.467 for saline-RAC baseline vs. saline-RAC test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.0001 for cocaine-RAC baseline vs. cocaine-RAC test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.267 for cocaine-vehicle test vs. cocaine-RAC test. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e, SCH rescued the cocaine-induced decrease in the expression of\u003cem\u003e circHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL of rats. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of antagonist × cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e2, 37\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.726,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.079), the main effect of antagonist (F\u003csub\u003e2, 37\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.205, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.023) and the main effect of cocaine (F\u003csub\u003e1, 37\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.204, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.017). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc \u003c/em\u003efor saline vs. cocaine: \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.011 for vehicle,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.990 for SCH, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.327 for RAC; during cocaine treatment: \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.003 for vehicle vs. SCH, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.759 for vehicle vs. RAC. \u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e, Timeline of D1 neurons activation and \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1 \u003c/em\u003eoverexpression prior to the cocaine-induced CPP. The rats underwent stereotactic surgery to infuse rAAV-D1-hM3D(Gq)-mCherry mixed with rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP or CamKⅡ-GFP into the PrL in order to overexpress \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e and activate D1 neurons at the same time. After three weeks, cocaine (5 mg/kg) CPP commenced and CNO was administered 30 min prior to cocaine injection on the drug training day to activate D1 neurons. PrL samples for detecting rAAV expression were collected 24 h after the CPP test. n = 10/ group. \u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e, The schematic of stereotaxic viral injection into the rat’s PrL. The left fluorescent image demonstrates the spread of viral-mediated transgene expression in the PrL. Scale bar: 2 mm. Right fluorescent image is shown to demonstrate the co-expression of rAAV-D1-hM3D(Gq)-mCherry with rAAV-CamKⅡ-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-GFP or CamKⅡ-GFP in PrL excitatory neurons. White arrows indicate positive co-expressed neurons of mCherry and GFP merged. Scale bar: 100 μm. \u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e, Overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e reversed the enhancing effect of activating D1 neurons on cocaine-induced CPP. Three-way ANOVA: the main effect of CPP training (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 129.800,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001), the main effect of virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.854,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.021), the main effect of CNO (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.145,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.152), the interaction effect of CPP training × virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.918,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.013), the interaction effect of CPP training × CNO (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.397,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.533), the interaction of virus vector × CNO (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.481,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.041), the interaction of CPP training × virus vector × CNO (F\u003csub\u003e1, 36\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.515,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.025); Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.0001 for CamKⅡ-GFP-vehicle baseline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP-vehicle test,\u003cem\u003e P \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.0001 for CamKⅡ-GFP-CNO baseline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP-CNO test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.0002 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-vehicle baseline vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-vehicle test,\u003cem\u003e P \u003c/em\u003e= 0.024 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-CNO baseline vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-CNO test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.032 for CamKⅡ-GFP-vehicle test vs. CamKⅡ-GFP-CNO test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.014 for CamKⅡ-GFP-CNO test vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-vehicle test, \u003cem\u003eP \u003c/em\u003e= 0.0003 for CamKⅡ-GFP-CNO test vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-CNO test,\u003cem\u003e P \u003c/em\u003e= 0.938 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-vehicle test vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-CNO test. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM. *\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, ****\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001, #\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05, ##\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, ###\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001. SCH: SCH23390, a D1R antagonist; RAC: raclopride, a D2R antagonist; CNO: clozapine-n-oxide, 1.5 mg/kg.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/a61c7bb7b4a449c82795cf2d.png"},{"id":59966410,"identity":"618e1ed0-71e4-48d5-bb13-917bfcb344e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 02:07:24","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48095,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe influence of \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e is selective for psychostimulants.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e, Overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL excitatory neurons decreased methamphetamine CPP. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of CPP training × virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 10.350,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.003), the main effect of CPP training (F\u003csub\u003e1, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 38.26, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001) and the main effect of virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 32\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.802, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.036). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for CamKⅡ-GFP baseline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP test, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.138 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e baseline vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.003 for CamKⅡ-GFP test vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test. CamKⅡ-GFP, n = 8; CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, n = 10. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression in the PrL excitatory neurons did not suppress morphine-induced rewarding effects. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of CPP training × virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 30\u003c/sub\u003e = 1.363,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.252), the main effect of CPP training (F\u003csub\u003e1, 30\u003c/sub\u003e = 108.900, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001) and the main effect of virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 30\u003c/sub\u003e= 0.478, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.495). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for CamKⅡ-GFP baseline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP test, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e baseline vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.561 for CamKⅡ-GFP test vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test. CamKⅡ-GFP, n = 8; CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, n = 9. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e,\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eOverexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL excitatory neurons did not suppress food-induced natural rewarding effects. Two-way ANOVA: the interaction effect of CPP training × virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 26\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.526,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.475), the main effect of CPP training (F\u003csub\u003e1, 26\u003c/sub\u003e = 47.490, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001) and the main effect of virus vector (F\u003csub\u003e1, 26 \u003c/sub\u003e= 0.047, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e = 0.830). Tukey’s \u003cem\u003epost hoc P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.0014 for CamKⅡ-GFP baseline vs. CamKⅡ-GFP test, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001 for CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e baseline vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test,\u003cem\u003e P\u003c/em\u003e = 0.909 for CamKⅡ-GFP test vs. CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e test. CMV-GFP, n = 7; CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, n = 8. The data are expressed as mean ± SEM. **\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01, ***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.001, ****\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.0001, ##\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/652a64cd9a22a0e18d167930.png"},{"id":59965500,"identity":"9af43eb5-cb11-464d-bf59-025f16cbf76a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 01:59:24","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123356,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSchematic illustration depicting the involvement of \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e in the modulation of psychostimulants-induced behavioral and synaptic responses in the PrL.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e is found to be widely distributed in neurons under physiological conditions (left). However, repeated exposure to psychostimulants has been found to significantly impact the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e by activating the D1R pathway, which results in an intensification of hyper-rewarding behavior, as well as a reduction in mushroom spines and excitatory synaptic transmission in the PrL (meddle). Importantly, the overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e levels suppressed the rewarding effects induced by psychostimulants and the hypoactivity of excitatory neurons in the PrL in response to psychostimulants stimulation (right).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig.7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/5e4f3eb1cd7c03ce3ba9edb5.png"},{"id":95463281,"identity":"a4eec9dc-6ae8-441d-ab11-bc34fdad2ae0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-09 08:06:00","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":6695370,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/23777be3-a637-4048-a83c-dab4881bc07e.pdf"},{"id":59965497,"identity":"afae009f-98b8-4a0b-8359-9516a9853f21","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-10 01:59:24","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1490921,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterials.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4338599/v1/a2e79247a23b73367fa5eca8.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors have declared there is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e conflict of interest to disclose","formattedTitle":"Prefrontal circHomer1 regulates synaptic and behavioral adaptations induced by psychostimulants","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSubstance use disorder (SUD) is a chronic, relapsing disease in which patients often have uncontrolled and reckless drug abuse [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. With the increasing number of drug abusers, drug abuse not only affects the health of individuals but also endangers society and imposes a huge economic burden on the state [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Evidence has revealed that repeated addictive drug exposure leads to enduring cellular, circuits and neuroplasticity alterations in mesocorticolimbic reward system, which includes prefrontal cortex (PFC), nucleus accumbens (NAc) and ventral tegmental area (VTA) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR4 CR5 CR6 CR7\" citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Such long-lasting structural and functional modifications are thought to increase sensitivity to the motivational effects of addictive drugs, culminating in a loss of control over intake [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), a critical hub for integrating different brain networks involved in reward processing, salience attribution, and inhibitory control, is proposed to precipitate bingeing and relapse, perpetuating the addiction cycle [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR12\" citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that complex drug-induced neuroadaptations in mPFC are mediated largely through dynamic regulation of gene expression [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, and certain types of noncoding RNAs like circRNAs, are known to modulate expression of gene networks in mPFC and other drug reward-associated brain regions, contributing to the drug-induced structural, synaptic, and behavioral plasticity [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR18 CR19\" citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the precise molecular mechanisms driving these changes in the mPFC remain unclear.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCircular RNAs (circRNAs), vastly conserved non-coding RNAs and naturally occurring in a covalently closed loop structure, are produced by back-splicing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Numerous neuronal circRNAs are derived from synaptic gene locus, with expression levels changing in parallel with the synapse formation and neuroplasticity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Evidence shows that circRNAs, like \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, may play a key role in various neuropsychiatric disorders [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR25 CR26\" citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, derived from Homer protein homolog 1 (\u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e), is a neuronal-enriched circRNA abundantly expressed in the frontal cortex [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e knockdown in the mouse orbitofrontal cortex leads to specific deficits in cognitive flexibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. And its inhibition appears to ameliorate methamphetamine-induced neuronal injury through inhibiting Bbc3 expression in HT-22 cells [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e regulates the expression of synaptic-related proteins and is involved in synaptic plasticity, learning, and memory, which are abnormal symptoms of patients with SUD [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR29\" citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Nonetheless, the specific influence of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e on drug-induced rewarding effects is largely unknown.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we utilized the conditioned place preference (CPP) model, self-administration model, viral-mediated \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and patch clamp to investigate the cell type-specific influence of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e on drug-induced behavioral and synaptic plasticity. We demonstrated that repeated cocaine expression notably downregulated the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the prelimbic cortex (PrL). However, recovering the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL reduced cocaine preference and intake, and repaired the hypoactivity of PrL neuron induced by cocaine. This indicated that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e is a key modulator for the cocaine responses.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Material and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnimals\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale Sprague-Dawley rats (260\u0026ndash;280 g) used in this study were obtained from Charles River Co., LTD. (Beijing, China). The rats were housed four to a cage in the animal care facility at a temperature (22\u0026deg;C\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;24\u0026deg;C)- and humidity (40% ~ 60%)-controlled facility with a reverse 12 h-light/12 h-dark cycle (8:00\u0026ndash;20:00) with food and water available ad libitum. The behavioral experiments were conducted during the dark phase of the cycle. All of the procedures were performed in accordance with the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the experiments were approved by the Biomedical Ethics Committee for Animal Use and Protection of Peking University.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDrug treatment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCocaine, methamphetamine, and morphine were purchased from the National Institute for the Control of Pharmaceutical and Biological Products (Beijing, China) and were dissolved in 0.9% physiological saline. SCH23390 (SCH) (D054, Sigma, USA) and raclopride (RAC) (R121, Sigma, USA) were also dissolved in 0.9% physiological saline. Clozapine N-oxide (CNO) (C0832, Merck, USA) was dissolved in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) and then diluted with 0.9% physiological saline.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor chronic or acute cocaine exposure, cocaine (10 mg/kg) was administered via intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection respectively for repeated 14 days or one day. For the CPP test, cocaine (10 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg) were intraperitoneally injected, while methamphetamine (1 mg/kg) and morphine (10 mg/kg) were subcutaneously injected. SCH (2.0 \u0026micro;g/0.5 \u0026micro;l/side), RAC (5.0 \u0026micro;g/0.5 \u0026micro;l/side) and CNO (1.5 mg/kg, i.p.) were injected 30 min before cocaine injection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRecombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEGFP-expressing rAAV9 with CMV promoter was used to overexpress \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e), while a corresponding inhibitor shRNA was used to knockdown \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e). Additionally, EGFP-expressing rAAV9 with CamKⅡ promoter was used to overexpress \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e specifically in excitatory neurons (CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e). The control vectors used were CMV-GFP, CamKⅡ-GFP, and sh-control. All vectors were provided by Vigene Bioscience, Shandong, China. For chemogenetic experiments, the rAAV9 virus that specifically activates D1 neurons [rAAV-D1-hM3D(Gq)-mCherry-WPREs] was purchased from BrainVTA, Wuhan, China.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStereotaxic microinjection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe rats were anesthetized with isoflurane (4\u0026ndash;5% for induction, 1\u0026ndash;2% for maintenance) and placed in a stereotaxic frame (RWD, Shenzhen, China). The skull of the rat was then exposed and leveled. The rAAV was bilaterally delivered into the prelimbic cortex (PrL) at the following coordinates: anterior-posterior (AP): + 0.30 cm, medio-lateral (ML): \u0026plusmn; 0.06 cm, dorso-ventral (DV): \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.40 cm. The infusion rate was 0.06 \u0026micro;l/min for a total volume of 0.5 \u0026micro;l. The microinjector was left in the place for 10 min after microinjection to allow for the diffusion of the rAAV complexes. After surgery, penicillin sodium (0.02 mg/kg, i.p.) were injected to the rats once daily for five consecutive days to prevent infection. Rats were housed with free access to food and water and provided with standard care. Twenty-one days after surgery, rats that were microinjected with rAAV were used for behavioral tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConditioned place preference (CPP)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe procedures for CPP training were based on previous studies with minor modifications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. The apparatus for CPP conditioning and testing consisted of three polyvinyl chloride boxes, which were identical except for their floors. The boxes had two large side chambers (27.9 cm long \u0026times; 21.0 cm wide \u0026times; 20.9 cm high) with a different type of floor (bar or grid), separated by a smaller chamber (12.1 cm long \u0026times; 21.0 cm wide \u0026times; 20.9 cm high with a smooth polyvinyl chloride floor). In each box, the three chambers were separated by manual guillotine doors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore the CPP training, the rats were handled for seven days to acclimate to the experimenter's touch. To determine baseline preference, rats were placed in the middle chamber and given 15 min to freely explore the three compartments with the door open. A computer recorded the time that each rat spent in each compartment to determine the baseline preference. Rats must spend approximately one-third of their time in each chamber; otherwise they will be excluded. Each rat was trained for 8 consecutive days with alternating injections of drug (cocaine, 10 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg, i.p.; methamphetamine, 1 mg/kg, s.c.; morphine, 10 mg/kg, s.c.) and saline (1 ml/kg, i.p. or s.c.) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR32\" citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. After each injection, the rats were placed in the corresponding conditioning chambers and then returned to their home cage 45 minutes later. The day after the last conditioning session, all rats were allowed to explore the three compartments freely for 15 min under conditions identical to those described in the baseline test. The CPP score was calculated as the time that each rat spent in the drug-paired chamber minus the time spent in the saline-paired chamber [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor SCH and RAC pre-treatment, guide cannulas (24 gauge; RWD, Shenzhen, China) were bilaterally implanted 1 mm above the PrL. The coordinates for PrL were the following: AP: +0.30 cm, ML: \u0026plusmn; 0.06 cm, DV: -0.28 cm; 0.2 \u0026micro;l, 16\u0026deg; angle. SCH/RAC/vehicle was delivered into the PrL 30 min prior to cocaine injection. Other procedures were consistent with those described above. For CNO pre-treatment, CNO (1.5mg/kg) was intraperitoneally injected 30 min before cocaine injection. All other procedures were identical to those described above.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCocaine self-administration procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe procedures for cocaine self-administration (SA) training were based on previous studies with minor modifications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Rats were anesthetized with isoflurane (4\u0026ndash;5% for induction, 1\u0026ndash;2% for maintenance). Catheters were inserted into the right jugular vein with the tip terminating at the opening of the right atrium as previously described. All rats were allowed to recover for 4\u0026ndash;5 days after surgery. The operant chambers used (AniLab Software and Instruments) were equipped with two nose poke operandi (ENV-114M; Med Associates) that were 5 cm above the floor of the chambers. Nose pokes in the active operandum led to cocaine infusions that were accompanied by a 5-s tone-light cue. Nose pokes in the inactive operandum were also recorded but had no programmed consequences. The rats were trained to self-administer intravenous cocaine hydrochloride (0.75 mg/kg/infusion) during three 1-h daily sessions separated by 5 min over 7 days. A fixed-ratio one (FR1) reinforcement schedule was used. Each injection was accompanied by the illumination of a cue light above the active nose poke, followed by an additional 20 s timeout period when the cue and house lights were extinguished and additional nose poke responses had no programmed consequence. The number of drug infusions was limited to 20 per h. At the end of the training phase, all rats underwent extinction. The conditions were the same as during training, except that drug was no longer available. The rats were given extinction training until responding on the active nose poke operandum decreased to less than 20% of the mean responding during the last three days of cocaine self-administration for at least two consecutive days.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCocaine induced reinstatement test\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore the SA reinstatement test, the rats received a saline (1 ml/kg) or cocaine (10 mg/kg) injection. Conditions during the reinstatement test were the same as those during cocaine self-administration training.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, and Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample tissues were isolated, and total RNAs were extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Catalog no. 15596\u0026ndash;026). RNA concentration and quality were determined using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, USA). 500 ng of total RNA from each sample was reverse transcribed into cDNA using the HiScript II 1st Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (+\u0026thinsp;gDNA wiper) (Vazyme Biotech, Catalog no. R212-01). The reaction parameters were 25\u0026deg;C for 5 min, 50\u0026deg;C for 50 min and 85\u0026deg;C for 15 s. All cDNA samples were stored at \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20\u0026deg;C for further use. qPCR was performed with SYBR Master Mix (QPK201, TOYOBO, Japan) in a QuantStudio 5 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems) under the following conditions: 95\u0026deg;C for 2 min and 40 cycles of 95\u0026deg;C for 30 s, 60\u0026deg;C for 30 s. Relative expression levels were determined using the 2\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;ΔΔCt\u003c/sup\u003e method [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBasescope in situ hybridization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo detect the distribution and quantification of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in different cells, we customized an RNA probe set that specifically targets the junction sites of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e. The procedures for Basescope in situ hybridization were based on previous studies with minor modifications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Twenty-four hours after the last cocaine injection, the rats were perfused with with 0.1 mol/L phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA; pH 7.4). The brains were then removed and post-fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 24 h. Afterward, the brains were then dehydrated in 30% sucrose (w/v) dissolved in 0.1 mol/L phosphate buffer. The brains were coronally sectioned at 12 \u0026micro;m using a sliding microtome, and five to six sections spanning the rostrocaudal axis of the PrL were collected and stained, with each section being taken from different rats. All sections were washed three times for 5 min each with phosphate buffered saline (0.1 mol/L PBS), and then treated with protease for 10 min. After washing off the protease, we incubated brain sections with the probe sets specifically targeting \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (Advanced Cell Diagnostics) for 2 h at 40\u0026deg;C in the HybEZ\u0026trade; oven. Following probe incubation, sections underwent a series of incubations with preamplifier probes, amplifier probes, and fluorescently labeled probes at 40\u0026deg;C. We acquired fluorescent images with a confocal microscope (Sted) using a 40\u0026times; oil-immersion lens. Fluorescent dot numbers were obtained for each specific probe set (red dots defined as those for \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImmunofluorescence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo detect the co-localization of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e and cell marker, the immunofluorescence based on previous studies with minor modifications was used [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. The sections hybridized with the probe were incubated with the primary antibody in PBST (PBS containing 0.05% Tween-20) with 1% normal goat serum overnight at 4\u0026deg;C. The following primary antibodies were used in our experiments: mouse anti-CamKⅡ (1:100, sc-13141, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), mouse anti-GAD67 (1:100, ab26116, Abcam), mouse anti-NeuN (1:100, MAB377, Millipore), rabbit anti-GFAP (1:500, ab23922, Abcam), and rabbit anti-Iba1 (1:500, ab178847, Abcam). The sections were then washed three times in PBST and incubated with the indicated secondary antibodies for 3 h at room temperature. The following secondary antibodies were used in our experiments: Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-rabbit IgG (for GFAP and Iba1, 1:500; ab150077, Abcam), and Alexa Fluor 488 goat anti-mouse IgG (for CamKⅡ, GAD67, and NeuN, 1:500; ab150113, Abcam). In order to determine the specificity of CamKⅡ, we utilized Alexa Fluor 594 goat anti-mouse IgG (1:1000; ab150116, Abcam) as the secondary antibody. Finally, after three additional washes with PBST, the sections were mounted on Antifade Mounting Medium (S2110, Solarbio) and imaged using the confocal microscope (Sted). Four to six images were randomly selected from individual animals for counting the co-localization of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e and cell markers. The co-localization of cells is defined as GFP cell markers surrounded by red \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e dots.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDendritic Spine Counting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoronal sections (60 \u0026micro;m thick) were processed for imaging. All images were acquired at a resolution of 1,024 \u0026times; 1,024. High-resolution z-stacks of GFP-positive cells were acquired using a 60\u0026times; oil-immersion lens from each PrL section per rat, with a step size of 1 \u0026micro;m. High-resolution z-stacks of randomly selected secondary or tertiary dendritic branch segments from individual cells were acquired for spine counting. The acquisition was done with a 5\u0026times; optical zoom for the dendritic branch segments. Four to six pyramidal neurons were randomly selected from each individual animal, and each neuron was scanned for spine counting on 4\u0026ndash;6 secondary or tertiary dendrites. Mushroom spines are defined as having a head diameter larger than 0.5 \u0026micro;m and a head-to-neck diameter ratio greater than 1:1 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEx vivo electrophysiology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiments were performed as previously described [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. The rats were deeply anesthetized with chloral hydrate and then decapitated. The brains were swiftly extracted and immersed in a frigid cutting solution consisting of the following composition: 87 mM NaCl, 26 mM NaHCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, 3.0 mM KCl, 1.0 mM NaH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 1.3 mM MgSO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 1.5 mM CaCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, 20 mM D-glucose, and 75 mM sucrose saturated with a mixture of 95% O\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and 5% CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e. Coronal sections that encompassed the PrL region were delicately sliced at a thickness of 230 \u0026micro;m using a vibratome (Leica VT1200), while being immersed in the same ice-cold cutting solution enriched with 95% O\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and 5% CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e. The slices were subsequently transferred to a specialized incubation chamber, in which they were submerged in artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) comprising the following constituents: 124 mM NaCl, 26 mM NaHCO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, 3.0 mM KCl, 1.0 mM NaH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ePO\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e, 1.3 mM MgCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, 2 mM CaCl\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and 20 mM D-glucose. This aCSF solution was meticulously saturated with a blend of 95% O\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and 5% CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, simulating the optimal physiological conditions. Initially, the slices were incubated at a precise temperature of 34\u0026deg;C for a duration of 30 minutes. Subsequently, they were maintained at room temperature for a minimum of an additional 30 minutes before being employed for recording purposes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach individual slice was carefully transferred to a submerged chamber, where it experienced continual exposure to aCSF that had been thoroughly saturated with a precise blend of 95% O\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and 5% CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, flowing at a controlled rate of 2 ml/min, regulated by a meticulous flowmeter. Initially, the slice was examined using a 4\u0026times; objective, facilitating the precise localization of the PrL region, which was identified by its proximity to the forceps minor corpus callosum and the midline. Subsequently, under the illumination of near-infrared light, layer V of the PrL was observed using a high-resolution 40\u0026times; water-immersion objective. The identification of layer V pyramidal cells was meticulously conducted based on their cellular morphology, size, and distinctive electrophysiological properties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll experimental procedures were meticulously carried out under a controlled temperature of 32\u0026deg;C. For the preparation of electrodes, thick-wall borosilicate glass was skillfully manipulated using a horizontal puller, resulting in electrodes with resistances ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 MΩ. Ensuring optimal electrical connectivity, the seal resistance exceeded the threshold of 1 GΩ. To capture cellular activity at the soma, whole-cell recordings were conducted using the advanced MultiClamp 700B amplifier.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the current-clamp recordings, the finely crafted pipette solution consisted of a precise composition: 120 mM potassium gluconate, 10 mM KCl, 4 mM ATP-Mg, 0.3 mM GTP, 10 mM HEPES, 5 mM Na\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-phosphocreatine, and 2 mM EGTA (with a pH value of 7.2 and an osmolarity of 270\u0026ndash;280 mOsm, achieved through the addition of sucrose). To maintain neuronal membrane potentials around \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;60 mV, a gradual current was carefully applied. Series resistance was impeccably compensated for utilizing the bridge circuit integrated within the esteemed MultiClamp 700B amplifier. To evaluate the spike rate, the frequency of spikes was meticulously recorded in discreet 500 ms intervals. These results were then visually represented in relation to the intensity of the applied current. Within 20 seconds of establishing whole-cell configuration, the resting potentials of the neurons were accurately measured. Input resistance was methodically ascertained by administering hyperpolarizing current pulses of either \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;50 pA or -100 pA, inducing voltage shifts ranging from 5 to 15 mV below the resting membrane potential. The threshold, a key measurement, was determined as the precise moment when the slope of the rising membrane potential exceeded an impressive rate of 50 mV/ms. Additional measurements such as after-hyperpolarization, half-width, and overshoot were carefully estimated from all action potentials observed during the 200-pA current injection step. To conduct these experiments, the esteemed Clampex program (Molecular Devices) was employed. All data points were keenly digitized at an impressive rate of 20 kHz. For meticulous analysis, the esteemed Clampfit 10.7 software (Molecular Devices) was utilized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData collection and analysis of human brain circRNA\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn RNA sequencing raw data involving the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) of patients with cocaine use disorder was obtained from GSE99349 in GEO database (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The procedures for identifying the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e were based on our previous study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. In our analysis, we excluded participants with the age over 50 years old to align the human data with the age range of the rats used in our experiments. All including samples were listed in \u003cb\u003eSupplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. To shed light on the statistical significance of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression, we employed the Fragments Per Kilobase of exon model per Million mapped fragments (FPKM) in each participant as the basis of our rigorous analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 8. Normally distributed data were tested using one-way or two-way ANOVA followed by a \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e multiple comparison test or unpaired \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test for two-group comparisons. Non-normally distributed data were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a \u003cem\u003epost hoc\u003c/em\u003e multiple comparison test or the Mann Whitney \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e test for two-group comparisons. The results are expressed as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SEM. \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 were considered statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cb\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ein PrL is required for cocaine-induced rewarding effect\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, an extensively preserved circRNA, originates from the exons 2 to 5 of \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e through the intricacies of backsplicing (\u003cb\u003eSupplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/b\u003e). To investigate the role of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in response to cocaine, we first examined the changes in the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in various brain regions associated with addiction following repeated cocaine exposure (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea). We found that in rats subjected to chronic cocaine exposure, the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e was substantially decreased in the PrL at 30 min and 24 h after the last cocaine injection (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb). The expression level of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in CeA and VTA also significantly diminished, but only at 30 min after the last cocaine injection, not at 24h (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb). While \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in BLA and NAc core remain unchanged at both timepoint post-injection (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb). These findings indicated that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e was not specific to the PrL, but was substantially changed in the PrL when rats were repeatedly exposed to cocaine. Additionally, the downregulated expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL was confirmed by BaseScope in situ hybridization (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ec). Crucially, the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e was significantly decreased in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) of patients with cocaine use disorder (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ed), which mirrors our findings in rat model following chronic cocaine exposure, suggesting that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e may serve as a pivotal regulatory element in cocaine use disorder across species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the relative \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e mRNA changes after chronic cocaine exposure, we measured the expression of total \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e mRNA in linear RNA-enriched cDNA samples with specific primers designed to avoid circRNA detection, we found the expression of total \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e mRNA was no changes neither in the PrL at 30 min or 24 h after the last cocaine injection (\u003cb\u003eSupplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/b\u003e). We thus conclude that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, but not linear \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e mRNA, is notably reduced in the PrL after chronic cocaine exposure. Additionally, we detected the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e after acute cocaine exposure, we found single cocaine exposure did not change the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cb\u003eSupplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;3\u003c/b\u003e). The reduction in \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e levels induced by cocaine does not represent a mere pharmacological response, but rather signifies a lasting adaptive alteration within the PrL brought about by prolonged exposure to cocaine. This indicates that the enduring aberrant expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e may be the etiology and pathogenesis of cocaine addiction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we assessed whether manipulating \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression in the PrL would impact cocaine-induced CPP. We first employed a recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) with the CMV promoter to overexpress \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e (CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e), while using an empty vector (CMV-GFP) as a control. The expression of rAAV-mediated GFP was restricted to the PrL (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ee, f). The expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e was markedly increased in the PrL of rats in CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eg), demonstrated that CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e induced significant overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e. Before cocaine conditioning (baseline), both the CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e and CMV-GFP injected groups displayed comparable CPP scores, indicating no inherent preference (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eh). However, rats in CMV-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group showed a significantly decreased cocaine-induced CPP score compared to that of CMV-GFP rats after cocaine conditioning (10 mg/kg) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eh). This findings suggest that overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e can mitigate the rewarding effect of cocaine.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe then evaluated whether inhibiting \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression in the PrL could enhance cocaine-induced CPP. We utilized a rAAV vector with a U6 promoter to express a specific shRNA (sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e) for targeted knockdown of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression in vivo. A scrambled sequence (sh-control) was used as a control. The expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e was notably decreased in the PrL of sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group rats (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ei), indicating the effectiveness of shRNA-mediated suppression. The rAAV microinjection did not change the preference of the rats, as both groups exhibited similar CPP score in the baseline. Post-cocaine conditioning (5 mg/kg), the sh-control group did not exhibit a place preference for the cocaine-paired compartment (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ej). However, the preference for the cocaine-paired compartment was developed in the sh-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group rats (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ej). These results underscore the importance of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL for cocaine-induced rewarding effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these findings demonstrate that lasting adaptive alteration of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression within the PrL is essential for cocaine-induced rewarding effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. \u003cb\u003eCocaine modulates\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eexpression in excitatory neurons of the PrL\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the predominant cell types expressing \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL, we used the BaseScope technique in conjunction with immunostaining of specific cell markers in naive rats. As shown in \u003cb\u003eSupplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;4a and 4b\u003c/b\u003e, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e predominantly co-localized with NeuN, a neuronal marker, but not with glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP, an astrocyte marker) and Iba-1 (a microglia marker) in the PrL, indicating that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e is primarily located in PrL neurons. Then, we identified the specific types of neurons in which \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e functioned after repeated cocaine exposure using the BaseScope method in conjunction with immunostaining of specific neuronal markers. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, compared with saline-treated group, repeated cocaine exposure significantly decreased the proportion of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e co-labeled with CamKII (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ec-\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ee), a marker of excitatory neurons, but not GAD67 (a marker of inhibitory neurons) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ef-\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eh) in the PrL. This results suggest that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e may modulate the rewarding effects of cocaine by acting on excitatory neurons in the PrL region.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ein PrL excitatory neurons mediated cocaine-induced rewarding effects\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo confirm whether \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in excitatory neurons indeed regulates cocaine-induced conditioning behavior, we utilized a rAAV with CamKⅡ promoter to selectively overexpress \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in excitatory neurons (CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e), using an empty vector (CamKⅡ-GFP) as a control. To evaluate the transfection efficiency of rAAV with the CamKⅡ promoter in the PrL, we quantified the co-localization of GFP with the marker of excitatory neurons, CamKⅡ. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea-\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ec, the rAAV mainly targeted the PrL region, with approximately 98.56% of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpressed rAAV transfected into excitatory neurons, as indicated by the co-localization of GFP with CamKⅡ. In addition, the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e was significantly increased in the PrL of CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group rats (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ed). These results demonstrated that the CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group successfully induced the overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in PrL excitatory neurons. Before cocaine conditioning, the rats in the CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group and the CamKⅡ-GFP group displayed similar CPP scores in the CPP baseline (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ee). After cocaine conditioning, all rats exhibited cocaine-induced CPP, but rats injected with CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e showed a significantly lower cocaine-induced CPP score compared to CamKⅡ-GFP rats (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ee).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further assess the role of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in excitatory neurons in cocaine addiction-like behavior, we injected CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e or CamKⅡ-GFP into PrL and examined the behavioral effects using an animal model of cocaine SA. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ef shows the timeline and schematic of the entire cocaine SA procedure. During training cocaine SA, both CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e and CamKⅡ-GFP mice reliably self-administered cocaine at a dose of 0.75 mg/kg/infusion under fixed ratio 1 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eg). However, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression significantly decreased the cocaine infusions each day during the training phase (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eg). Although the number of active responses was similar overall between groups across the entire extinction phase (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eh), CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e group significantly diminished the cocaine-priming-induced cocaine seeking during the reinstatement test but not saline-priming-induced cocaine seeking (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ei).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these findings demonstrate that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL excitatory neurons is necessary for cocaine-induced rewarding effects, highlighting its significance in the development of cocaine addiction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eregulated cocaine-induced synaptic plasticity in excitatory neurons\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have indicated that \u003cem\u003ein vivo\u003c/em\u003e knockdown of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e results in significant changes in the abundance of alternative isoforms, which are associated with synaptic plasticity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. In an attempt to better understand whether \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e rescued cocaine-induced behavioral adaptation through regulating synaptic plasticity, we assessed both the structural and functional plasticity of PrL excitatory neurons. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ea-\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ed, repeated cocaine exposure significantly decreased the density of mushroom dendritic spines in the PrL but not the total dendritic spines. However, the overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e rescued this reduction induced by cocaine (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eb and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ed). This suggests that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e may play a key role in regulating the structural plasticity of excitatory neurons and enhancing the maturation of dendritic spines. Further, we explored functional plasticity using patch-clamp recording. We found that repeated cocaine exposure significantly decreased the frequency of spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic current (sEPSC) without affecting their amplitude. However, overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e reversed the decrease in sEPSC frequency (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ee-\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ei).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAltogether, our results indicate that repeated cocaine exposure damaged the synaptic plasticity and caused the hypoactivity of PrL neuron while \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e negatively regulates the synaptic plasticity. To a certain extent, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e rectified deficits in synaptic plasticity induced by chronic cocaine exposure to prevent cocaine-induced rewarding effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e5. Cocaine alters\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eexpression via activating dopamine receptor D1 (D1R)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccumulating evidence indicates that D1R and dopamine receptor D2 (D2R) are both essential for the rewarding effects of psychoactive drugs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. We hypothesized that the D1R and D2R may mediate the adaptive changes in \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression after cocaine exposure. To test this, we microinjected SCH (a D1R antagonist), RAC (a D2R antagonist), or a vehicle into the PrL prior to the cocaine-context pairing during training (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ea). The results revealed that the administration of SCH, but not RAC, resulted in the suppression of cocaine-induced CPP expression in the PrL when compared to the vehicle (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eb). To further explore whether dopamine receptors regulate the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, we next examined the \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression in the PrL after injection of SCH or RAC. We observed that pre-treatment with SCH reversed the downregulation of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression induced by cocaine (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ec). However, RAC did not have a significant effect on the altered expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e caused by cocaine (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ec). These results indicate that cocaine may reduce \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression through activating D1R signaling in the PrL.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo discern whether D1R signaling could modulate \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e associated cocaine-induced rewarding effects, we bilaterally expressed hM3Dq, a designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drugs, via D1R promoter-driven rAAV infection, coupled with CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e or CamKⅡ-GFP in the PrL (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ed and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ee). The clozapine N-oxide (CNO, an hM3Dq agonist) was applied to increase PrL D1R neuronal activity via intraperitoneal injection. Activation of PrL D1R neurons with CNO injection in rats subjected to cocaine CPP training intensified cocaine CPP compared with vehicle injection (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ef). Additionally, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression reversed the increase of cocaine CPP induced by CNO-activated PrL D1R neurons (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ef).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these data indicate that D1R signaling directly or indirectly downregulated the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL after cocaine exposure. Overexpressed \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e disrupts the cocaine rewarding effects induced by activating the PrL D1 neuron. In a way to show, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e is a key downstream of D1R signaling pathway in cocaine-induced rewarding effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e6.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003emodulates the rewarding effects induced by psychostimulants but not food or opioid drugs\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe above findings figured that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in PrL is a regulator of cocaine reward, but its impact on the rewarding effects of natural rewards and other addictive substances remains unclear. To this end, we microinjected CamKⅡ-OE-\u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e into the PrL to selectively increase the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in PrL excitatory neurons prior to CPP training with methamphetamine, morphine, or food (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ea-c). We found that the overexpression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e markedly attenuated the rewarding effect induced by methamphetamine (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ea). However, overexpressed \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e did not alter the rewarding effect of morphine (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eb) and food (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003ec). These results indicate that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in PrL excitatory neurons selectively regulates reward induced by psychostimulants, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, without affecting response to sedatives like morphine or natural rewards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur study demonstrated the pivotal role of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in modulating behavioral and synaptic responses to drug abuse (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Here, we provide novel evidence that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e is decreased in the PrL following repeated cocaine administration. Furthermore, we show that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression levels are also reduced in the dlPFC of patients with cocaine use disorder (CUD). Using rAAV-regulating the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1 in vivo\u003c/em\u003e, we demonstrated that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression in the PrL markedly mitigated the cocaine-induced rewarding effects, while diminishing \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression in the PrL intensified its rewarding effects. Moreover, we found cocaine caused the hypoactivity in the PrL by decreasing the maturation of mushroom dendritic spines and the frequency of sEPSC, and elevated \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e level rescued the activity of PrL excitatory neuron. The regulatory effects of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e on cocaine-driven behavioral and synaptic alterations were facilitated through the D1R signaling. Notably, the influence of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e appeared to be selective to psychostimulants, without affecting rewards associated with food or opioids.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCircRNAs are emerging as crucial players in gene regulation, involved in numerous cellular processes, including regulating transcription of their host genes, sponging miRNAs and RNA binding proteins (RBPs), as well as influencing translation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. The implications of circRNAs in the pathogenesis of neuropsychiatric diseases have been documented [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR46\" citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e], but their involvement in SUD remains poorly understood [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR49\" citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, derived from exons 2\u0026ndash;5 of the \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e longest transcript [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], is a neuronal-enriched circRNA that has been reported to play a role in a myriad of biological and behavioral functions, including methamphetamine-induced CPP preference [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], neuronal plasticity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], cognitive flexibility and regulating synaptic gene expression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Previous studies have found that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e is highly homologous to \u003cem\u003ehsa_circ_0006916\u003c/em\u003e in the human brain, with a conservation rate of 94%. It is also highly homologous to \u003cem\u003emmu_circ_0000491\u003c/em\u003e in mice, with a conservation rate of 97% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, our study revealed a consistent reduction in \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression in both the PrL of rats subjected to repeated cocaine administration and the dlPFC of patients with cocaine use disorder. These evidences suggest that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e may be a key regulator in cocaine addiction, offering potential avenues for clinical applications. Notably, our data imply that the influence of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e extends beyond cocaine; it also modulates methamphetamine-induced hyper-reward, indicating its broad relevance in the dysfunction induced by various psychostimulants. Future studies are needed to investigate \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-psychostimulants interactions and identify the potential protein partners of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e to better understand its gene-targeting mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have found that drug-induced synaptic plasticity may underlie behavioral responses to drugs of abuse in the mPFC and the development of addiction. For example, Huang and his colleagues found that repeated cocaine administration \u003cem\u003ein vivo\u003c/em\u003e promoted the induction of long-term potentiation and long-term depression in layer V pyramidal neurons of the mPFC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, which is highly abundant in the mammalian brain and enriched in synaptoneurosomes compared with cytoplasm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e], is significantly up-regulated in both the neuronal somata and dendrites following a homeostatic downscaling of neuronal activity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. This indicates its critical role in regulating synaptic function. Additionally, \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e has been reported to play important roles in synaptic transmission and synaptic plasticity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e], raising the possibility that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in PrL might modulate behaviors via regulating synaptic plasticity. This study showed that the densities of mushroom dendritic spines were significantly reduced after cocaine treatment in the PrL of rats, suggesting an attenuated synaptic transmission in the PrL by cocaine treatment. Most importantly, local overexpression of PrL \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1 in vivo\u003c/em\u003e restored the decreased densities of mushroom dendritic spines. Moreover, overexpressed \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in PrL excitatory neurons rescued the decreased frequency of sEPSC induced by repeated cocaine exposure. Cocaine administration is known to decrease the neuronal activity in the mPFC, suggesting that cocaine-induced hypofunction of the mPFC may be critically involved in drug-taking behavior [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. Consistent with previous findings, our research indicates that cocaine exposure acts as a catalyst for inducing hypofrontality of PrL (a subregion of mPFC), characterized by a reduced number of mature dendritic spines and decreased frequency of sEPSC. Crucially, restoring \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e levels revives the cocaine-induced hypofunction in the PrL.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is well-documented that D1R and D2R are both essential for the rewarding effects of psychoactive drugs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e]. However, evidence shows that activation of D1R in the mPFC is particularly significant in the reinstatement of cocaine seeking and the development of reward-related behavior induced by cocaine, while D2R activation does not have the same effect [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Subtypes of dopamine receptors exhibit distinct relationships with drug addiction. D1R stimulation in the mPFC is essential for cocaine addiction and is directly associated with the rewarding effects of cocaine[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e], but the D2R in the mPFC is not as strongly linked to the rewarding effects of abused drugs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, an intra-mPFC injection of a D1R antagonist, but not a D2R antagonist, before the posttest significantly attenuated CPP expression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e]. Consistent with these findings, we observed that the administration of D1R antagonists in the PrL reduced cocaine-induced CPP, whereas this effect was not observed with D2R antagonists. Furthermore, we found that the suppression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression by cocaine could be reversed by D1R antagonists. \u003cem\u003eCircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e overexpression reduced the cocaine CPP induced by chemicogenetic activation of D1R neurons. These evidences suggest that cocaine reduces the expression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in the PrL, possibly through the activation of D1R. Intriguingly, we found that the inactivation of the D2R subtype could also increase the proportion of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression after cocaine exposure (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ec). We speculated that beyond the influence of D1R, the D1R-D2R hetero-oligomer may also play a role in regulating \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression. In mPFC excitatory neurons, dopamine receptor D1 and D2 subtypes have partially overlapped expressions, indicating that the stably co-expressed D1R and D2R could form a hetero-oligomeric unit [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR69\" citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]. This function of the D1R-D2R hetero-oligomer could be blocked by antagonists to either the D1R or D2R, but the signaling pathway could not be activated solely by D1R signaling or D2R signaling [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e]. Given the report that D1R signaling modulates dendritic arborization and dendritic spine density in mPFC excitatory neurons [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e], we consider that cocaine reduces the density of mature dendritic spines and the frequency of sEPSC in the PrL possibly through activation of D1R. Furthermore, we propose that the D1R downstream signaling pathway may be involved in regulating this reduction of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe rewarding mechanism of dopaminergic system and its receptors are fundamental to the development and maintenance of drug addiction, relapse after long-time abstinence and compulsive drug-seeking behavior [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR74 CR75\" citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e]. Targeting dopaminergic system to find effective drugs to treat addiction is currently a research focal point. However, neither the agonists nor the antagonists of dopamine (DA) receptors can completely prevent the occurrence of abnormal behavior induced by substance abuse [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]. In addition, some agonists of DA receptors may possess addictive properties, while completely blocking DA receptors can lead to emotional and physiological motor abnormalities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]. In the present study, we found that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e may act as a regulator in the modulation of cocaine- and methamphetamine-induced rewarding effects and synaptic plasticity though D1R signaling, while not affecting natural rewarding processes. It is implied that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e may be a therapeutic strategy for combating psychostimulants\u0026rsquo; addiction. Recent studies have shown that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e directly bonded to \u003cem\u003eHomer1b\u003c/em\u003e mRNA (A transcript of \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e) and inhibited each other\u0026rsquo;s synaptic localization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. The constitutively expressed \u003cem\u003eHomer1b/c\u003c/em\u003e maintains dendritic spine structure and synaptic transmission [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e]. It is tempting to hypothesize that \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e competes with \u003cem\u003eHomer1b\u003c/em\u003e regulating cocaine-induced behavior and synaptic adaptation. But, our current study showed that chronic cocaine treatment did not change the total \u003cem\u003eHomer1\u003c/em\u003e mRNA expression. Future work is needed to elucidate the exact molecular mechanisms that could underlie \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e-mediated effects in cocaine-induced rewarding and synaptic plasticity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, our study identifies \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e as a key regulator in the neuronal response to cocaine, with its levels inversely affecting cocaine's rewarding effects and synaptic changes in the prefrontal cortex of rat model and patients with SUD. Specifically, increasing \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e level mitigates psychostimulants-induced behavioral adaptations and restores synaptic integrity in excitatory neurons but not influences the rewarding effects induced by food and opioid. These insights reveal the potentiality of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e as a novel target for developing addiction treatments, given its selective modulation of psychostimulants rewards without affecting natural rewards.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by several grants from\u0026nbsp;STI2030-Major Projects\u0026nbsp;(2021ZD0202100 and\u0026nbsp;2021ZD0200800), as well as the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82130040, 82288101, and 32161143022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJS, Y-XX and YC conceived and designed the study. YC, ZZ, XL, WC, SH, and GZ performed the experiments. YC, ZZ, YZ, LZ, JS, and Y-XX analyzed and interpreted the data. YC, JS, and Y-XX wrote and revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReid AG, Lingford-Hughes AR, Cancela LM, Kalivas PW. Substance abuse disorders. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;106:419-431.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVolkow ND, Blanco C. Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention. World Psychiatry. 2023;22:203-229.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVolkow ND, Morales M. The brain on drugs: from reward to addiction. Cell. 2015;162:712-725.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu H. Reward and Aversion. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2016;39:297-324.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKahlig KM, Binda F, Khoshbouei H, Blakely RD, McMahon DG, Javitch JA et al. Amphetamine induces dopamine efflux through a dopamine transporter channel. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:3495-3500.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoileau I, Dagher A, Leyton M, Welfeld K, Booij L, Diksic M et al. Conditioned dopamine release in humans: A positron emission tomography [11C] raclopride study with amphetamine. J Neurosci. 2007;27:3998-4003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHedges DM, Obray JD, Yorgason JT, Jang EY, Weerasekara VK, Uys JD et al. Methamphetamine induces dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens through a sigma receptor-mediated pathway. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43:1405-1414.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNestler EJ. Molecular basis of long-term plasticity underlying addiction. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:119-128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiao ZJ, Di YY, Wu ML, Zhai CY, Kang MS, Li YF et al. Single exposure to cocaine impairs reinforcement learning by potentiating the activity of neurons in the direct striatal pathway in mice. Neurosci Bull. 2021;37:1119-1134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePulipparacharuvil S, Renthal W, Hale CF, Taniguchi M, Xiao GH, Kumar A et al. Cocaine regulates MEF2 to control synaptic and behavioral plasticity. Neuron. 2008;59:621-633.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Drug addiction and its underlying neurobiological basis: neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal cortex. Am J Psychiat. 2002;159:1642-1652.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoldstein RZ, Volkow ND. Dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex in addiction: neuroimaging findings and clinical implications. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:652-669.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMihindou C, Guillem K, Navailles S, Vouillac C, Ahmed SH. Discriminative inhibitory control of cocaine seeking involves the prelimbic prefrontal cortex. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;73:271-279.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShapiro LP, Pitts EG, Li DC, Barbee BR, Hinton EA, Bassell GJ et al. The PI3-kinase p110\u0026beta; isoform controls severity of cocaine-induced sequelae and alters the striatal transcriptome. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;89:959-969.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei X, Chang J, Cheng Z, Chen W, Guo H, Liu Z et al. mPFC DUSP1 mediates adolescent cocaine exposure-induced higher sensitivity to drug in adulthood. EMBO Rep. 2023;24:e56981.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNi T, Zhu L, Wang S, Zhu W, Xue Y, Zhu Y et al. Medial prefrontal cortex Notch1 signalling mediates methamphetamine-induced psychosis via Hes1-dependent suppression of GABA\u003csub\u003eB1\u003c/sub\u003e receptor expression. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:4009-4022.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu H, Brown AN, Waddell NJ, Liu X, Kaplan GJ, Chitaman JM et al. Role of long noncoding RNA \u003cem\u003eGas5\u003c/em\u003e in cocaine action. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;88:758-766.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobison AJ, Nestler EJ. Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction. Nature reviews. Neuroscience. 2011;12:623-637.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeng J, Nestler EJ. Epigenetic mechanisms of drug addiction. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013;23:521-528.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu H, Xie B, Zhang J, Luo Y, Galaj E, Zhang X et al. The role of circTmeff-1 in incubation of context-induced morphine craving. Pharmacol Res. 2021;170:105722.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVicens Q, Westhof E. Biogenesis of circular RNAs. Cell. 2014;159:13-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMehta SL, Dempsey RJ, Vemuganti R. Role of circular RNAs in brain development and CNS diseases. Prog Neurobiol. 2020;186:101746.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYou X, Vlatkovic I, Babic A, Will T, Epstein I, Tushev G et al. Neural circular RNAs are derived from synaptic genes and regulated by development and plasticity. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18:603-610.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi TR, Jia YJ, Wang Q, Shao XQ, Lv RJ. Circular RNA: a new star in neurological diseases. Int J Neurosci. 2017;127:726-734.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhuo CJ, Hou WH, Jiang DG, Tian HJ, Wang LN, Jia F et al. Circular RNAs in early brain development and their influence and clinical significance in neuropsychiatric disorders. Neural Regen Res. 2020;15:817-823.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHafez AK, Zimmerman AJ, Papageorgiou G, Chandrasekaran J, Amoah SK, Lin R et al. A bidirectional competitive interaction between circHomer1 and Homer1b within the orbitofrontal cortex regulates reversal learning. Cell Rep. 2022;38:110282.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUrdanoz-Casado A, de Gordoa JSR, Robles M, Acha B, Roldan M, Zelaya MV et al. Gender-dependent deregulation of linear and circular RNA variants of HOMER1 in the entorhinal cortex of Alzheimer\u0026apos;s disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:9205.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimmerman AJ, Hafez AK, Amoah SK, Rodriguez BA, Dell\u0026apos;Orco M, Lozano E et al. A psychiatric disease-related circular RNA controls synaptic gene expression and cognition. Mol Psychiatry. 2020;25:2712-2727.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi J, Sun Q, Zhu S, Xi K, Shi Q, Pang K et al. Knockdown of circHomer1 ameliorates METH-induced neuronal injury through inhibiting Bbc3 expression. Neurosci Lett. 2020;732:135050.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu K, Zhang Y, Li J. Expression and function of circular RNAs in the mammalian brain. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2021;78:4189-4200.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXue YX, Luo YX, Wu P, Shi HS, Xue LF, Chen C et al. A memory retrieval-extinction procedure to prevent drug craving and relapse. Science. 2012;336:241-245.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBardo MT, Rowlett JK, Harris MJ. Conditioned place preference using opiate and stimulant drugs: a meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1995;19:39-51.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu L, Wu F, Yan Z, He L, Wang S, Hu H et al. A novel microRNA, novel-m009C, regulates methamphetamine rewarding effects. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:3885-3897.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris GC, Wimmer M, Aston-Jones G. A role for lateral hypothalamic orexin neurons in reward seeking. Nature. 2005;437:556-559.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang J, Chen Y, Lu JX, Wang XX, Wang L, Liang JL et al. Identification and characterization of novel fusion genes in prostate cancer by targeted RNA capture and next-generation sequencing. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin. 2018;50:1166-1172.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi Y, Lu X, Nie J, Hu P, Ge F, Yuan TF et al. MicroRNA134 of ventral hippocampus is involved in cocaine extinction-induced anxiety-like and depression-like behaviors in mice. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2020;19:937-950.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu KY, Zhang Y, Xiong WD, Zhang ZY, Wang ZB, Lv LB et al. CircGRIA1 shows an age-related increase in male macaque brain and regulates synaptic plasticity and synaptogenesis. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3594.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu ZL, Chen WJ, Zhang LB, Chen Y, Chen WX, Meng SQ et al. Gut-derived bacterial LPS attenuates incubation of methamphetamine craving via modulating microglia. Brain Behav Immun. 2023;111:101-115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa H, Li CY, Wang JP, Zhang XC, Li MY, Zhang R et al. Amygdala-hippocampal innervation modulates stress-induced depressive-like behaviors through AMPA receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu ZL, Han Y, Hu D, Chen N, Zhang ZY, Chen WX et al. Neurocan regulates vulnerability to stress and the anti-depressant effect of ketamine in adolescent rats. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:2522-2532.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen Y, Li X, Meng S, Huang S, Chang S, Shi J. Identification of functional circRNA-miRNA-mRNA regulatory network in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex neurons of patients with cocaine use disorder. Front Mol Neurosci. 2022;15:839233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRibeiro EA, Scarpa JR, Garamszegi SP, Kasarskis A, Mash DC, Nestler EJ. Gene network dysregulation in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex neurons of humans with cocaine use disorder. Sci Rep. 2017;7:5412.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRanaldi R. Dopamine and reward seeking: the role of ventral tegmental area. Rev Neurosci. 2014;25:621-630.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi X, Yang L, Chen LL. The biogenesis, functions, and challenges of circular RNAs. Mol Cell. 2018;71:428-442.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDong XJ, Bai YF, Liao ZX, Gritsch D, Liu XL, Wang T et al. Circular RNAs in the human brain are tailored to neuron identity and neuropsychiatric disease. Nat Commun. 2023;14:5327.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu XY, Bai Y, Han B, Ju MZ, Tang TC, Shen L et al. Extracellular vesicle-mediated delivery of circDYM alleviates CUS-induced depressive-like behaviours. J Extracell Vesicles. 2022;11: e12185.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHe Y, Jiang L, Liu H, Bu Q, Kuang W, Zhao Y et al. Hippocampal circAnk3 deficiency causes anxiety-like behaviors and social deficits by regulating the miR-7080-3p/IQGAP1 pathway in mice. Biol Psychiatry (in press).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFloris G, Gillespie A, Zanda MT, Dabrowski KR, Sillivan SE. Heroin Regulates Orbitofrontal Circular RNAs. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:1453.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu H, Wen B, Lu Y, Xie B, Yu F, Zhang M et al. The role of circTmeff-1 in morphine addiction memory of mice. Cells. 2023;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShen Q, Xie B, Galaj E, Yu H, Li X, Lu Y et al. CircTmeff-1 in the nucleus accumbens regulates the reconsolidation of cocaine-associated memory. Brain Res Bull. 2022;185:64-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi J, Shi Q, Wang Q, Tan X, Pang K, Liu X et al. Profiling circular RNA in methamphetamine-treated primary cortical neurons identified novel circRNAs related to methamphetamine addiction. Neurosci Lett. 2019;701:146-153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlažar P, Papavasileiou P, Rajewsky N. circBase: a database for circular RNAs. RNA. 2014;20:1666-1670.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang CC, Lin HJ, Hsu KS. Repeated cocaine administration promotes long-term potentiation induction in rat medial prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:1877-1888.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang CC, Yang PC, Lin HJ, Hsu KS. Repeated cocaine administration impairs group II metabotropic glutamate receptor-mediated long-term depression in rat medial prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2007;27:2958-2968.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRybak-Wolf A, Stottmeister C, Glazar P, Jens M, Pino N, Giusti S et al. Circular RNAs in the mammalian brain are highly abundant, conserved, and dynamically expressed. Mol Cell. 2015;58:870-885.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDell\u0026apos;Orco M, Oliver RJ, Perrone-Bizzozero N. HuD binds to and regulates circular RNAs derived from neuronal development- and synaptic plasticity-associated genes. Front Genet. 2020;11:790.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun WL, Rebec GV. Repeated cocaine self-administration alters processing of cocaine-related information in rat prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2006;26:8004-8008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJentsch JD, Taylor JR. Impulsivity resulting from frontostriatal dysfunction in drug abuse: implications for the control of behavior by reward-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology. 1999;146:373-390.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKharkwal G, Radl D, Lewis R, Borrelli E. Dopamine D2 receptors in striatal output neurons enable the psychomotor effects of cocaine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:11609-11614.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTu GH, Ying L, Ye LZ, Zhao JL, Liu NY, Li J et al. Dopamine D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e and D\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e receptors differentially regulate Rac1 and Cdc42 signaling in the nucleus accumbens to modulate behavioral and structural plasticity after repeated methamphetamine treatment. Biol Psychiatry. 2019;86:820-835.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGu SM, Cha HJ, Seo SW, Hong JT, Yun J. Dopamine D1 receptor antagonist reduces stimulant-induced conditioned place preferences and dopamine receptor supersensitivity. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2020;393:139-139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDevoto P, Fattore L, Antinori S, Saba P, Frau R, Fratta W et al. Elevated dopamine in the medial prefrontal cortex suppresses cocaine seeking via D1 receptor overstimulation. Addict Biol. 2016;21:61-71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSelf DW. Diminished role for dopamine D1 receptors in cocaine addiction? Biol Psychiatry. 2014;76:2-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamoa CP, Doyle SE, Lycas MD, Chernau AK, Lynch WJ. Diminished role of dopamine D1-receptor signaling with the development of an addicted phenotype in rats. Biol Psychiatry. 2014;76:8-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCollins GT, Woods JH. Drug and reinforcement history as determinants of the response-maintaining effects of quinpirole in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;323:599-605.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCervo L, Samanin R. Effects of dopaminergic and glutamatergic receptor antagonists on the acquisition and expression of cocaine conditioning place preference. Brain Res. 1995;673:242-250.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFumiya Shinohara HK, Masabumi Minami, Katsuyuki Kaneda. The role of dopaminergic signaling in the medial prefrontal cortex for the expression of cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in rats. Biol Pharm Bull. 2017;40:1983-1989.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShinohara R, Taniguchi M, Ehrlich AT, Yokogawa K, Deguchi Y, Cherasse Y et al. Dopamine D1 receptor subtype mediates acute stress-induced dendritic growth in excitatory neurons of the medial prefrontal cortex and contributes to suppression of stress susceptibility in mice. Mol Psychiatry. 2018;23:1717-1730.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRashid AJ, O\u0026apos;Dowd BF, Verma V, George SR. Neuronal, Gq/11-coupled dopamine receptors: an uncharted role for dopamine. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2007;28:551-555.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRashid AJ, So CH, Kong MMC, Furtak T, El-Ghundi M, Cheng R et al. D1-D2 dopamine receptor heterooligomers with unique pharmacology are coupled to rapid activation of Gq/11 in the striatum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:654-659.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhibnik LA, Beaumont M, Doyle M, Heshmati M, Slesinger PA, Nestler EJ et al. Stress and cocaine trigger divergent and cell type-specific regulation of synaptic transmission at single spines in nucleus accumbens. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;79:898-905.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDietz DM, Sun H, Lobo MK, Cahill ME, Chadwick B, Gao V et al. Rac1 is essential in cocaine-induced structural plasticity of nucleus accumbens neurons. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15:891-896.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerridge KC, Robinson TE. What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Res Rev. 1998;28:309-369.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWei C, Han X, Weng DW, Feng QR, Qi XB, Li J et al. Response dynamics of midbrain dopamine neurons and serotonin neurons to heroin, nicotine, cocaine, and MDMA. Cell Discov. 2018;4:60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSamaha AN, Khoo SYS, Ferrario CR, Robinson TE. Dopamine \u0026apos;ups and downs\u0026apos; in addiction revisited. Trends Neurosci. 2021;44:516-526.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuck SA, Torregrossa MM, Logan RW, Freyberg Z. Roles of dopamine and glutamate co-release in the nucleus accumbens in mediating the actions of drugs of abuse. FEBS J. 2021;288:1462-1474.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKohno M, Dennis LE, McCready H, Hoffman WF. Dopamine dysfunction in stimulant use disorders: mechanistic comparisons and implications for treatment. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:220-229.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSala C, Futai K, Yamamoto K, Worley PF, Hayashi Y, Sheng M. Inhibition of dendritic spine morphogenesis and synaptic transmission by activity-inducible protein Homer1a. J Neurosci. 2003;23:6327-6337.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"molecular-psychiatry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"mp","sideBox":"Learn more about [Molecular Psychiatry](http://www.nature.com/mp/)","snPcode":"41380","submissionUrl":"https://mts-mp.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Molecular Psychiatry","twitterHandle":"@molpsychiatry","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"drug addiction, circular RNA, circHomer1, prelimbic cortex, rewarding effects, synaptic plasticity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4338599/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4338599/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSubstance use disorder (SUD) represents a substantial challenge in neuropsychiatric medicine, with the molecular mechanisms underlying its etiology remaining elusive. The molecular underpinnings of SUD suggest a pivotal role for circular RNAs (circRNAs) in its pathophysiology. Herein, we present a study on \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e, a circRNA enriched in neurons, which is abnormal expression upon cocaine exposure. Employing models of repeated cocaine exposure and conditioning place preference (CPP), alongside virus-mediated gene regulation techniques, we revealed the contributory function of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in cocaine-induced rewarding effects and synaptic adaptations. We found a notably downregulation of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression in the prelimbic cortex consequent to repeated cocaine exposure in both rat model and patients with cocaine use disorder. Elevation of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e levels resulted in a pronounced attenuation of cocaine-induced CPP, whereas suppression of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e expression enhanced the rewarding effects. These outcomes were specifically observed in excitatory neurons, implicating a cell type-specific function of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e. Furthermore, the restoration of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e rescued the reduction of mushroom-type dendritic spines and rectified deficits in the frequency of spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents associated with prolonged cocaine exposure. The modulatory actions of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e on cocaine-induced behavioral and synaptic responses were mediated by the dopamine receptor D1. Intriguingly, the effects of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e were selective to psychostimulant drugs, with no influence on food or opioid reward. Our findings highlight the significant role of \u003cem\u003ecircHomer1\u003c/em\u003e in regulating psychostimulants reward and identify a novel molecular regulator of the actions of psychostimulants on the brain’s reward circuitry, providing a new strategy for treating drug addiction.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Prefrontal circHomer1 regulates synaptic and behavioral adaptations induced by psychostimulants","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-10 01:59:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4338599/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"revise","date":"2024-09-18T12:59:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-09-15T14:53:31+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-08-29T03:06:54+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-06-24T17:14:23+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-06-12T23:18:35+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-06-12T19:44:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-04-29T13:12:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-04-29T10:15:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Molecular Psychiatry","date":"2024-04-28T15:36:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"molecular-psychiatry","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"mp","sideBox":"Learn more about [Molecular Psychiatry](http://www.nature.com/mp/)","snPcode":"41380","submissionUrl":"https://mts-mp.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"Molecular Psychiatry","twitterHandle":"@molpsychiatry","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"67caf800-cd2f-4aef-aa8a-2971fb3e171d","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 10th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-09T08:05:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4338599","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-03301-9","journal":{"identity":"molecular-psychiatry","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Molecular Psychiatry"},"publishedOn":"2025-11-08 05:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"November 8th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-10 01:59:19","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41380-025-03301-9","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-03301-9","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4338599","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4338599","identity":"rs-4338599","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}