Skip to main content

Week 4 Memory Engrams

By
            After reading both research papers, it is unclear to me what the clinical significance is. I understand that the 10% of LA neurons that had more excitability before fear training were significantly more likely to be allocated into the memory trace and enhance memory formation. However, in all cases, the excitability of the neurons was artificial, whether it be due to optogenetics or a CNO injection. In the discussion of the second paper, it was said that endogenous changes in intrinsic excitability are linked to learning. There was one sentence that alluded to what is possibly happening naturally. Do we endogenously express varying levels of CREB in our LA neurons, and whichever ones are randomly excited at the moment right before an experience get allocated into the memory trace? What are the endogenous changes in excitability and how does this paper relate to them? It was also determined that expressing Kir2.1, which decreases excitability, did not affect memory formation. So, animals without this increase in excitability performed similar to the control. Doesn’t this show that we don’t need excitable neurons to form normal fear memories?
            In the first paper, a fear memory was erased via apoptosis. In an ideal world, this would be extremely relevant if we could, for example, erase the fear memory of a trauma. I’d be curious about the overlap if researchers increased CREB with one technique, fear conditioned with one tone, and then increased CREB via another technique to fear condition with another tone. Since only about 10% of LA neurons are recruited for one fear memory trace, there must be some overlap with fear memories, given how many people have. If this is the case, there would be no way to erase one fear memory without disrupting several others. So again, I do not see the clinical significance. We seemingly cannot decrease fear and I can’t imagine a scenario where we would want an increased fear memory as opposed to a normal fear memory.

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

Gut-brain axis

By
This weeks papers Reber et al. 2016 and Buffington et al. 2016 present a super interesting look into the gut-brain axis. Regarding both of these papers, it was amazing to see how potent favorable or unfavorable gut microbiome compositions are in affecting neuronal signaling and overall behavior. Reber et al. shows how immunoregulatory immunization with specifically heat killed M.vaccae can serve as a protective factor against chronic subordinate stress induce colotis as well as behavioral symptoms due to chronic stress as such. Interestringly, this paper depleted regulatory T cell activity via the anti CD25 antibody in order to show that the antiinflammatory mechanism induced by m vaccae immunization is depented on the secondary regulatory mechanisms offered by Treg proliferation and signaling. But, when T reg signaling was removed, this did not seem to cause a significant change in behavior . Therefore, this begs the consideration of what othe rmechanisms may be at play in order ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ramirez et al.: 2013 and 2015 Papers

By
In these papers, Ramirez et al. strive to understand how memory encoding via optogenetic manipulation of engram-bearing cells in the hippocampus, specifically the dentate gyrus, can affect an animal’s response to a stressful context.  The first paper, published in 2013, was crucial to the field as it introduced this very exciting technique; in this paper, Ramirez et al. use tet-tag to manipulate brain circuity and establish associations between two contexts. Throughout the paper, this is referred to as “false memories.” Using these artificial memories, the investigators are able to manipulate the animal’s fear response in a specific context. Specifically, after the animals are conditioned to a repeated fearful stimulus (a foot shock, in context B), activation of the involved DG cells in a different context (context A’) will also initiate a fear response (in absence of any foot shock). In this experiment, the false memory is used to create an unnatural fear association in a given...
Post a Comment
Read more