Skip to main content

Week 4: Memory traces


The two articles included this week continue our discussion of the nature of memory trace formation by exploring the role of the lateral amygdala in fear memories. Han et al followed up on a previous study done in their lab in which they found that lateral amygdala (LA) neurons which have increased levels of the CREB transcription factor were preferentially activated by auditory fear memory training. In this follow up study, they wanted to identify more specifically the neurons involved in the formation of the fear memory trace. By selectively inducing apoptosis in CREB-overexpressing vs control LA neurons, they supported the conclusion that levels of CREB dictate which neurons are recruited into a memory trace regardless of behavior. While this was an interesting finding, it is also important to take note of how they designed their experimental vs control groups. They chose a group of LA neurons that are “not preferentially activated by fear testing”. However, it seems like this is quite a vague set of criteria to include for a control. It also begs the question of whether this is the most representative control criteria because this description does not seem to allow for quantifiable data. I am not sure if this may have been included in supplemental methods or results, but it may have been worth defining a threshold for what the researchers consider “preferential activation” of the LA neurons. Another limitation is that the Han et al article does not describe in detail the specific techniques they defined with the “fear testing”, but it seems like this is expanded upon by the Yiu et al article, which is quite helpful. The Yiu et al article also expands on the finding that LA neurons are involved in fear memory traces by exploring the strength of the memory trace. They found that neuronal excitability during encoding determines the strength of the memory formation. This was a very interesting finding because it allows for future studies to explore this in a clinical context, such as PTSD or other memory-related disorders.  

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 ...

Gut-brain axis

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 ...

Ramirez et al.: 2013 and 2015 Papers

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...