Blocking Memory Reconsolidation Reverses Memory-Associated Changes in Glutamate Receptor Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been reported that consolidated memories can return to a labile state when reactivated and undergo a process of re-storage, termed reconsolidation, required for later recall. We investigated memory for a nonassociative learning task (habituation) and found that memory for this task also undergoes reconsolidation after recall. To investigate reconsolidation, we first demonstrated that adult Caenorhabditis elegans are capable of reliable memory 48 h after habituation training (p < 0.05). When heat shock was administered immediately after a reminder, response magnitudes of trained animals matched response levels of untrained animals: the inhibitory effects of heat shock on protein synthesis disrupted memory reconsolidation. Pharmacological blockade of non-NMDA-type glutamate receptors during reminder also eliminated 48 h retention. When expression levels of a specific glutamate receptor subunit (GLR-1) (40% homology to mammalian AMPA-type glutamate receptors) (Hart et al., 1995; Maricq et al., 1995) were measured 48 h after training, there was a significant decrease in trained compared with untrained controls. If trained worms were given a reminder followed immediately by heat shock, the effect of training on GLR-1 levels was reversed. From these studies, we conclude that both the behavioral expression of long-term memory for habituation and a cellular correlate of that memory (the alteration in expression levels of GLR-1) in C. elegans can be altered after retrieval. Furthermore, conditions that impair memory consolidation similarly disrupt memory reconsolidation, suggesting that similar mechanisms are involved.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".