Talk:Substantia nigra

MPTP is formed during MPP and/or meperidine formation right? why credit that to heroin - Cocoapunk

=Sex as a reward= I do not know any experimental protocole using sex as a reward, restricted in monkeys to food and drink --Gerard.percheron 15:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)gerard.percheron


 * This is in the 'function' section which I originally wrote as an attempt to relate what is know from the lab to the real world. Food and sex were the two examples that I could think of that I thought most readers would regard as rewarding. JeremyA 22:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you misunderstand the statement. The release of dopamine causes a pleasurable euphoric feeling.  Dopamine is a physiologic reward for certain things i.e. sex and food.  --Drewlew (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Images at bottom, first row, fourth image with subtitle "Coronal section through mid-brain.": isn't that transverse? I just compared with the following image which is similar and said to be transverse. Could please someone check who has experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.123.135 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

merge suggestion
I was wondering if the pars compacta and pars reticulata articles be merged into this Kpmiyapuram (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I would advise against this. They may be anatomically related but within the circuitry of the basal ganglia (and generally) they serve very different functions. One (SNpc) provides a dopaminergic projections to the striatum (and limbic areas), whereas the other acts in the role of an output nuclei within the basal ganglia, similar to the globus pallidus internus. So, in the interests of clarity and ease of understanding then surely keep them apart! Joel 21:16, 25 May 2009 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.12.195 (talk)

No, as they are two very distinctive brain regions and separation of articles only emphasizes that. As it has been 2 years since last statement in the discussion, I have removed the merge statement. --TamCaP (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment for WikiProject Neuroscience
The article is tremendously improved. I would say it is C class at the moment, with a pretty straightforward route to B class, and strong potential for GA (but that's a separate process).

Problems and suggestions:


 * 1) I think "black" isn't the right word, it's really just sort of dark.
 * 2) It needs to be made clearer that SNc and SNr are functionally completely distinct. The common element of the name has the unfortunate effect of making you think that they are two parts of the same thing, but really they're two completely different things that lie side by side.  I would actually favor, after the lead, splitting the article into two parts, for SNc and SNr, at the highest level -- but I recognize that there are other valid ways to handle this.
 * 3) A circuit diagram showing the basic components of the basal ganglia would be extremely helpful. I see this as essential for getting to B.
 * 4) It ought to be explained that the SNr has a functional resemblance to the GPi, and that the two of them together place a blanket inhibition on a large number of motor systems, and that the basal ganglia activate behaviors by releasing them from this tonic inhibition.
 * 5) Should have some explanation of the direct and indirect pathways.
 * 6) Should point out that SNc is functionally similar to VTA, both dopaminergic, one projecting to ventral striatum which is involved in behavior-switching at a cognitive level, the other involved in behavior switching at a motor level. Drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine affect both areas but their addictive effects are due mainly to the actions in VTA.
 * 7) Could perhaps talk about LTP of the corticostriatal projections which is controlled by dopaminergic input from SNc, and the idea that this is the cellular mechanism for reward learning.
 * 8) Regarding SNc, it would be nice to give an overview of the Wolfram Schultz story.
 * 9) Might be helpful in explaining Parkinson's disease to say that dopamine sort of sets the threshold for behavior activation -- high dopamine means easy activation, low dopamine means it takes more "effort".
 * 10) Might also be worth saying that loss of neurons in SNc is a normal part of aging, and is partly implicated in the slowness and lack of expressiveness that we see in the elderly. It has been speculated that everybody would eventually become Parkinsonian if they lived long enough.

I'm sure there are other things, but these are the main suggestions I have at the moment. I'll also try to help out with this article to the extent that I can. Once again, it's already a very useful article, and a tremendous advance on what came before it. (Maybe I should explain that I sort of "stepped in" at WikiProject Neuroscience a couple of months ago because nobody else was doing anything there, and there isn't really anything "official" about this assessment or the feedback I'm giving -- wouldn't want to operate under false pretenses.) Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Connection to Melanin Theory
I'd like to note that the Substantia nigra plays a role in the pseudoscience of Melanin theory. Should that be addressed here? --Pstanton 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs here. No reason to draw attention to such an idiotic idea, unless it's a lot more notable than it looks. Looie496 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

new edit
An IP editor has just made a large edit to the article apparently in a serious effort to improve it, but left it in an incoherent state. I'm going to revert the edit, but I'm not hostile to these sorts of changes -- please feel free to revert back if you're going to continue to work on the article. Also please use edit summaries for your edits, especially when making large changes to an article. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "dopamine is the critical neurotransmitter for reward"
I'm an ordinary person with Parkinson's Disease. In my reading, I get the impression that the statement is considered simplistic and slightly erroneous; dopamine affects motivation rather than reward. I daren't edit the article, so it would be nice if that statement could be reviewed just in case. Someone talked about this here, but 10 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.132.82 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Motivation is actually a component of reward, but more generally, dopamine mediates the integration of virtually all reward signals in the brain. It is not independently responsible for reward cognition though, it just plays a central role in mediating all of them.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 13:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In the introduction: [the pars compacta supplies] the striatum with dopamine
"The pars compacta serves mainly as a projection to the basal ganglia circuit, supplying the striatum with dopamine."

This is a bugbear I have had for 10 years now, ever since I started my psychology degree. When sources talk about "supplying [X brain area] with dopamine", what do they actually mean? Do they mean that the neurons in the substantia nigra generate loads of dopamine and somehow transfer it to neurons in, e.g. the striatum, so that they can release it from *their* terminal boutons, or do they simply mean that the communication from the substantia nigra to the striatum is dopaminergic? I ask because I suspect it is the latter, but the image that this phrase conjures up in my mind is of the former, so if this is the case, I would propose changing the phrasing to something a bit clearer, despite being aware that this phrasing is standard and commonplace. Anditres (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)