Increasing CRTC1 Function in the Dentate Gyrus during Memory Formation or Reactivation Increases Memory Strength without Compromising Memory Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory stabilization following encoding (synaptic consolidation) or memory reactivation (reconsolidation) requires gene expression and protein synthesis (Dudai and Eisenberg, 2004; Tronson and Taylor, 2007; Nader and Einarsson, 2010; Alberini, 2011). Although consolidation and reconsolidation may be mediated by distinct molecular mechanisms (Lee et al., 2004), disrupting the function of the transcription factor CREB impairs both processes (Kida et al., 2002; Mamiya et al., 2009). Phosphorylation of CREB at Ser133 recruits CREB binding protein (CBP)/p300 coactivators to activate transcription (Chrivia et al., 1993; Parker et al., 1996). In addition to this well known mechanism, CREB regulated transcription coactivators (CRTCs), previously called transducers of regulated CREB (TORC) activity, stimulate CREB-mediated transcription, even in the absence of CREB phosphorylation. Recently, CRTC1 has been shown to undergo activity-dependent trafficking from synapses and dendrites to the nucleus in excitatory hippocampal neurons (Ch'ng et al., 2012). Despite being a powerful and specific coactivator of CREB, the role of CRTC in memory is virtually unexplored. To examine the effects of increasing CRTC levels, we used viral vectors to locally and acutely increase CRTC1 in the dorsal hippocampus dentate gyrus region of mice before training or memory reactivation in context fear conditioning. Overexpressing CRTC1 enhanced both memory consolidation and reconsolidation; CRTC1-mediated memory facilitation was context specific (did not generalize to nontrained context) and long lasting (observed after virally expressed CRTC1 dissipated). CREB overexpression produced strikingly similar effects. Therefore, increasing CRTC1 or CREB function is sufficient to enhance the strength of new, as well as established reactivated, memories without compromising memory quality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".