Skip to main content

Fear memories and CREB

By
In order for a fear memory to encoded, neurons must be recruited to a trace or engram in which become responsible not just for encoding that memory but in subsequent recall. It is speculated currently what determines a neurons affinity to be recruited as such. Both papers from Sheena Josselyn’s lab present convincing evidence of a mechanism behind the likelihood of a fear memory to be encoded. Through both inhibition of the CREB transcription factor, it is implicated that a higher expression of this transcription factor that is responsive to Ca2+/cAMP binding. 
In the first paper, Han et al. 2009, a tool is established to selectively kill lateral amygdala neurons in order to erase a fear memory. While this is substantially shown given the lower freezing recall after erasure. But, the data does not necessarily conclude how this model may affect encoding. As these neurons were only killed after the fear memory was encoded, it is possible that they are only responsible for the retrieval through the lateral amygdala. As much communication is bidirectional in the lateral amygdala, it might be interesting to see if they are responsible for the initial encoding as well. For example, If these neurons were selectively killed before the training, they might show the same decreased recall affect, implicating them in the true scope of the memory. It is also interesting that all the DTR mice had a much lower freezing percentage at baseline before the tone plays. This might be indicative of some secondary effects of the vector or just bad sampling of mice. 
With respect to the next paper, Yiu et al 2014, the study aims to narrow on this overexpression of CREB’s ability to more selectively recruit neurons into a memory trace. It is clearly seen that CREB increases a neurons excitability and memory retrieval of a fearful stimulus. Interestingly, this population of LA neurons that over-expressed CREB were only a very small percentage. It is possible that these neurons are selective towards even subtypes of fear. To test this, it would be enlightening to see if the effect of CREB excitability in this subpopulation creates a reproducible effect in other contexts of fear. If so, then this finding has huge implications in overall brain functionality when responding to stress and recruiting cells to create memories. 
            

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