Activation of LVGCCs and CB1 receptors required for destabilization of reactivated contextual fear memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that inhibiting protein synthesis shortly after reactivation impairs the subsequent expression of a previously consolidated fear memory. This has suggested that reactivation returns a memory to a labile state and that protein synthesis is required for the subsequent restabilization of memory. While the molecular mechanisms underlying the restabilization of reactivated memories are being uncovered, those underlying the initial destabilization are not known at all. Using a contextual fear conditioning paradigm in mice, here we show that LVGCCs or CB1 receptors in hippocampus are required for the initial destabilization of reactivated memory. Either pharmacological blockade of hippocampal protein synthesis or genetic disruption of CREB-dependent transcription disrupts memory restabilization following reactivation. However, these effects were completely blocked when mice were treated with inhibitors of either LVGCCs or CB1 receptors, indicating that LVGCCs or CB1 receptors are required for the initial destabilization of reactivated memory. In control experiments, we show that blockade of LVGCCs or CB1 receptors does not interfere with the ability of ANI to block protein synthesis, or with the ability of ANI to impair initial consolidation. These experiments begin to reveal mechanisms underlying the destabilization of previously consolidated memories following reactivation and indicate the importance of activation of LVGCCs and CB1 in this process.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".