MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CCAAT Enhancer Binding Protein δ Plays an Essential Role in Memory Consolidation and Reconsolidation

2013· article· en· W2143733252 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amy A. Arguello, Xiaojing Ye, Ozlem Bozdagi, Gabriella Pollonini, Sophie Tronel, Dhananjay Bambah-Mukku, George W. Huntley, Daniela Platano, Cristina M. Alberini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthYork University
KeywordsMemory consolidationAmygdalaNeuroscienceCcaat-enhancer-binding proteinsLong-term potentiationLong-term memoryHippocampal formationImmediate early geneTranscription factorEnhancerBiologyHippocampusGene expressionCell biologyPsychologyGeneNuclear proteinGeneticsReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A newly formed memory is temporarily fragile and becomes stable through a process known as consolidation. Stable memories may again become fragile if retrieved or reactivated, and undergo a process of reconsolidation to persist and strengthen. Both consolidation and reconsolidation require an initial phase of transcription and translation that lasts for several hours. The identification of the critical players of this gene expression is key for understanding long-term memory formation and persistence. In rats, the consolidation of inhibitory avoidance (IA) memory requires gene expression in both the hippocampus and amygdala, two brain regions that process contextual/spatial and emotional information, respectively; IA reconsolidation requires de novo gene expression in the amygdala. Here we report that, after IA learning, the levels of the transcription factor CCAAT enhancer binding protein δ (C/EBPδ) are significantly increased in both the hippocampus and amygdala. These increases are essential for long-term memory consolidation, as their blockade via antisense oligodeoxynucleotide-mediated knockdown leads to memory impairment. Furthermore, C/EBPδ is upregulated and required in the amygdala for IA memory reconsolidation. C/EBPδ is found in nuclear, somatic, and dendritic compartments, and a dendritic localization of C/EBPδ mRNA in hippocampal neuronal cultures suggests that this transcription factor may be translated at synapses. Finally, the induction of long-term potentiation at CA3-CA1 synapses by tetanic stimuli in acute slices, a cellular model of long-term memory, leads to an accumulation of C/EBPδ in the nucleus. We conclude that the transcription factor C/EBPδ plays a critical role in memory consolidation and reconsolidation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207