Skip to main content

Blog 4: Recruiting neurons to a memory trace

By

The papers this week discuss how a small population of lateral amygdala (LA) neurons are preferentially activated by fear memory expression, plus what factor(s) contribute to these neurons being recruited to the memory engram. Although both papers were quite interesting, I found myself puzzled by some of the specific experimental design choices. Beyond this, I also felt like there are several qualifiers to the researchers’ conclusions that left me intrigued but skeptical for how these findings can become clinically relevant.

Namely, what exactly is the relevance in the strength difference of an auditory fear memory? Han et al (2009) frequently referred to their findings in the contexts of “a weak memory” versus “a strong memory” or even “an intense protocol” without much further explanation. Even when Yiu et al (2014) talked about the effects of two different excitatory (dnKCNQ2) and inhibitory (Kir2.1) K+ channels, they specifically mention the use of weak auditory fear conditioning. My best response is that there simply exists some threshold for the intensity of the foot shock in order to elicit a baseline fear/freezing response that was determined and validated in previous studies. However, Han et al (2009) drew one conclusion that the reversal of CREB-enhanced memory was not due to memory extinction because their control groups froze robustly - yet they did not include any measure of baseline freezing. They also only used male mice, which is in (amazing) contrast to Yiu et al (2014) who used both male and female mice and reported that they saw no difference in baseline (pre-tone) freezing.

Another, but related, question I noted was in regard to general behavioral measures of fear other than freezing (or darting in females). Yiu et al (2014) did a control experiment looking for baseline levels of anxiety-like behavior through the elevated plus maze and open field test, and although I do agree this is absolutely relevant to fear measures, I cannot help but feel like the strokes being made are too broad from one thing to the next. Specifically, I’m not convinced that Yiu et al (2014) observing increased freezing in hM3Dq + CMO animals is enough to say that it "enhances memory formation." What it is actually telling, I am not quite sure. I feel as though there needs to be more confirming evidence outside of just freezing levels in this select population of neurons to indicate that a memory was truly formed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gut-Brain Interactions: Buffington et al, Reber et al 2016

By
April 13 Papers (Buffington et. al, Reber et. al) I found this week’s papers to be quite novel in that they both proposed potential treatments for neurodevelopmental or psychiatric disorders that target bacterial or microbial abnormalities and how these give rise to certain behavioral and physical symptoms associated with the disorders. I thought this was a very unusual yet interesting approach, and as I have not previously studied the gut-brain axis, these papers offered me a fresh perspective on researching psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. They were also unconventional in their focus of the physical symptoms that often accompany mental disorders, as this is not something that I have seen many other papers touch upon very much. Particularly, I was surprised by the Reber et al paper’s focus on the link between psychiatric disorders and inflammation in organs other than the brain, such as the colon, and the Buffington et al paper’s description of a relationship between ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Buffington et al. and Reber et al.: Gut-Brain Interactions

By
While I have not encountered a lot of gut-brain interaction literature yet. I found each paper unique and fascinating. Reber et al felt inaccessible for me. I felt like I didn’t understand what the goal of the paper really was and why they did the tests that they did. It seems like most of their relevant information got shoved into numerous supplementary figures and their behavior was quite difficult to follow. Multiple sections of their paper were supported with data found entirely in supplementary figures, which makes it difficult to follow the same conclusions. I have a few issues with the behavior they chose and because of this, I struggle to find driving conclusions from their work. I don’t understand why the CSC was not only the prior stressor but was also the acute stress condition both groups faced. To me, I feel like it would have made more sense to have the CSC be the prior stressor and then judge the effect on social behavior with maybe a three choice chamber test or te...
Post a Comment
Read more

Buffington et al (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

By
This week's articles were about the role of the gut-brain axis in neurodevelopment and stress. Reber and colleagues used a heat-killed version of the bacteria, M. vaccae, as a type of vaccine and found that administration to mouse models resulted in decreased response to chronic stress, prevented colitis related to stress, and reduced measures of anxiety. Reber et al. also used the inactivated M. vaccae in a mouse model of IBD and found that the bacteria prevented stress-induce flare-ups of colitis, but that this could be reversed by removing T cells. Buffington and colleagues instead examined the role of gut microbiota in maternal high-fat diets (MHFD) in the neurodevelopment and social behaviors of their offspring. Buffington et al. found that housing MHFD rats with the offspring of regular diet (MRD) rats prevented social deficits in their offspring. They also found that this co-housing arrangement prevented an imbalance in the gut bacteria Reber and colleagues' findings w...
Post a Comment
Read more