4.7 Article

A Metaplasticity-Like Mechanism Supports the Selection of Fear Memories: Role of Protein Kinase A in the Amygdala

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 32, 期 23, 页码 7843-7851

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0939-12.2012

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R37 MH047840, F32 MH090700]
  2. Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (National Science Foundation) [IBN-987675]
  3. National Center for Research Resources [P51RR165]
  4. Office of Research Infrastructure Programs/OD [P510D11132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How the brain determines which memories are selected for long-term storage is critical for a full understanding of memory. One possibility is that memories are selected based on the history of activity and current state of neurons within a given memory circuit. Many in vitro studies have demonstrated metaplasticity-like effects whereby prior neuronal activity can affect the ability of cells to express synaptic plasticity in the future; however, the significance of these findings to memory is less clear. Here we show in rats that a single pairing of a light with shock, insufficient to support either short- or long-term fear memory, primes future learning such that another trial delivered within a circumscribed time window lasting from similar to 60 min to 3 d results in the formation of a long-lasting and robust fear memory. Two adequately spaced training trials support long-term fear memory only if the two trials are signaled by the same cue. Furthermore, although a single training trial does not support formation of an observable fear memory, it does result in the phosphorylation of several targets of protein kinase A (PKA) in the amygdala. Accordingly, blocking PKA signaling in the amygdala before the first training trial completely prevents the ability of that trial to facilitate the formation of long-term fear memory when a second trial is delivered 24 h later. These findings may provide insight into how memories are selected for long-term storage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据