Skip to main content

Paper Response #3: Memory Engrams

By

WEEK 4: Feb. 3 Papers (Ramirez et. al, 2013 and 2015)

Both of Ramirez’s papers examine the effects of optogenetically reactivating dentate gyrus (DG) memory engram cells, but in different contexts and for very different purposes. 

In the 2013 paper, Ramirez and his team identified DG engram cells in mice that were activated during exploration of a neutral environment, and reactivated them during fear conditioning in a different context to create a new, false memory in the hippocampus. As a result, the mice learned to associate the neutral environment with the negatively salient stimulus (foot shock) they experienced during fear conditioning, despite never having been exposed to said stimulus in the neutral environment. A false memory had now been created in the mice’s hippocampi of experiencing pain and fear in a context where they had not experienced these things, thus combining two separate memories and eliciting an observable behavioral fear response (freezing). 

This study moves us closer to understanding the mechanisms by which false memories are created in humans, an area of great interest in both psychiatry and the fields of criminal justice and law enforcement, as false memories in witness statements are not uncommon but can be highly problematic and complicate investigations. However, as mice cannot verbally communicate with us, we are left with many questions about the shape these artificially created memories take. Do mice really “remember” these experiences that never happened in a conscious way, or are their behavioral fear responses merely the result of neuronal impulses with no emotional association or mental representation beyond self-preservation and instinct? Additionally, this paper raises questions about the practical implications of creating new memories beyond simply furthering our understanding of how false memories work. If the spread of misinformation is already an issue in our society today, how much worse would it be if others could generate false memories in our brains at will? Could this technique be modified to be used medically, perhaps to help patients with dementia and related disorders recover memories? The ethical ramifications of all of this would be complex to navigate.

Conversely, in the 2015 paper, Ramirez and his team reversed depression-related behaviors in mice that had been induced by stress by reactivating DG engram cells that had previously been active during a positive experience. This also rescued neurogenesis. Importantly, the beneficial effects of reactivating engram cells associated with a positive memory were mediated by the DG-Basolateral Amygdala (BLA)-Nucleus Accumbens (NAcc) pathway, and inhibiting the DG-Medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC)-NAcc pathway did not interfere with this rescue process. 

The results of the 2015 study have more clear real-world applications, namely as a potential treatment for depression that has the benefit of being fast-acting. It is clear to see that Ramirez built on his 2013 research on memory engram cells and further developed it while exploring a completely new angle. It would be interesting to see what other memory-related avenues of research could be opened by examining and manipulating DG engram cells further, like for example intentionally erasing memories instead of creating new ones. 

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