4.2 Article

De Novo Protein Synthesis of Syntaxin-1 and Dynamin-1 in Long-Term Memory Formation Requires CREB1 Gene Transcription in Lymnaea stagnalis

期刊

BEHAVIOR GENETICS
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 680-693

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10519-010-9374-9

关键词

Aversive operant conditioning; Memory consolidation; Presynaptic; Protein expression; dsRNA inhibition; Freshwater pond snail

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [MOP62738]
  2. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consolidation of aversive operant conditioning into long-term memory (LTM) requires CREB-dependent de novo protein synthesis. The newly synthesized proteins are distributed to the synapses in neurons that are involved in memory formation and storage. Accumulating evidence indicates that the presynaptic release mechanisms also play a role in long-term synaptic plasticity. Our understanding of whether the presynaptic proteins undergo de novo synthesis during long-term memory formation is limited. In this study, we investigated the involvement of syntaxin-1, a presynaptic exocytotic protein, and dynamin-1, an endocytotic protein, in the formation of long-term memory. We took advantage of a well-established aversive operant conditioning model of aerial respiratory behavior in the fresh water pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis, and demonstrated that the LTM formation is associated with increased expression of syntaxin-1 and dynamin-1, coincident with elevated levels of CREB1. Partial knockdown of CREB1 gene by double stranded RNA inhibition (dsRNAi) prior to operant conditioning prevented snails from memory consolidation, and reduced the expression of syntaxin-1 and dynamin-1 at both mRNA and protein levels. These findings suggest that CREB1-mediated gene expression is required for the LTM-induced up-regulation of synaptic proteins, syntaxin-1 and dynamin-1, in L. stagnalis. Our study thus offers new insights into the molecular mechanisms that mediate CREB1-dependent long-term memory formation.

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

4.2
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