Skip to main content

Fear Memory Traces, Han & Yiu


Similar to the Ramirez papers studying memory engrams, the papers by Han et al and Yiu et al studied memory traces related to fear. However, Han and Yiu specifically studied fear memories in the amygdala rather than the hippocampus. Specifically, Han and Yiu studied the lateral amygdala (LA) and the transcription factor CREB in auditory fear conditioning. Han’s paper, published in 2009, answered the question, “is CREB necessary in creating a fear memory trace?” Yiu’s paper, published in 2014, built off of Han’s paper to answer the questions, “are certain neurons in the LA responsible for creating a fear memory trace? If so, by what mechanism?”

The Han paper, in my opinion, was pretty straightforward and gave good insight about CREB and its function in the LA. To put it simply, Han et al reported that, without CREB, the LA cannot form a fear memory. The techniques used were clean, and the results of inactivating neurons overexpressing CREB showed robust effects on freezing. Though Yiu et al were working on a related topic, their techniques relied heavily on transgene expression through viral vectors. Although Yiu et al saw robust effects with their methods, the complex experimental techniques always make me skeptical until another project is able to reproduce their effects. Additionally, the use of specific transcription factors like CREB and specific ion channels (both naturally occurring and transgenic, i.e., KCNQ2, KCNQ3, and dnKCNQ2) may show effects in mice as model organisms, but may not translate to human physiology. For these reasons, I am not completely convinced by the results reported by the Yiu paper.

The Han and Yiu papers both thoroughly studied the LA with respect to the formation and retention of a fear memory trace. Although they showed specific molecular mechanisms underlying these fear memories, their focused attention on the LA makes me wonder what the roles of the other subdivisions of the amygdala are. The Yiu paper includes the central and basal amygdala (CeA and BA, respectively) in their experiments, but show that they are not involved in enhancing a fear memory like the LA. Does this imply that the CeA and BA are involved in emotions other than fear? The amygdala is typically implicated in fear-related behaviors, but is it possible that the CeA and BA discretely contribute to behaviors related to other emotions such as happiness and sadness? I think these would be interesting topics to explore more.

One (very random) thing that I noticed about the Yiu paper was how quickly it was accepted for publication after being submitted—22 days! Does this mean that this is accepted as a new standard of truth for the formation of fear memories in rodents? Maybe the publication process does not depend on the dates listed on the paper, but if the paper truly was published 22 days after submission, I’m very impressed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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 ...

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

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...

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

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...