Reconsolidation of a Long-Term Memory in<i>Lymnaea</i>Requires New Protein and RNA Synthesis and the Soma of Right Pedal Dorsal 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reconsolidation of a long-term memory (LTM) in the snail Lymnaea stagnalis can be disrupted by cooling, an RNA synthesis blocker (actinomycin D), and by specifically ablating the soma of a cell we know is a site of LTM consolidation (right pedal dorsal 1, RPeD1). Aerial respiratory behavior was conditioned operantly by applying a gentle tactile stimulus to the pneumostome area (the respiratory orifice) every time the snail began to open its pneumostome to perform aerial respiration. This resulted in a reduction of this behavior while leaving cutaneous respiration intact. One week after training one-half of the animals received a memory reactivation session, which was similar to the original training (i.e., animals received reinforcement). All animals then received 1 hr of cooling, an injection of actinomycin D or saline, or the soma ablation procedure. This was followed by a test for savings 4 hr or 4 d later, which was also similar to the original training. Only those animals that received both the memory reactivation session and the treatment showed memory impairment during the test for savings. That is, the impairment was contingent on memory reactivation. These data indicate that reconsolidation requires both new RNA and protein synthesis to stabilize a reactivated memory, and it demonstrates that the soma of RPeD1, a cell that we have shown previously to be required in the consolidation of an LTM, is necessary for reconsolidation. These data suggest that the critical molecular processes occurring during both consolidation and reconsolidation transpire in the same cell in Lymnaea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".