MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Blocking Synaptic Removal of GluA2-Containing AMPA Receptors Prevents the Natural Forgetting of Long-Term Memories

2016· article· en· W2304552143 on OpenAlexafffund
Paola V. Migues, Lidong Liu, Georgina E. B. Archbold, Einar Örn Einarsson, Jacinda Wong, Kyra Bonasia, Seung‐Hyun Ko, Yu Tian Wang, Oliver Hardt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoConcordia UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome TrustHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAMPA receptorBlocking (statistics)NeuroscienceForgettingTerm (time)ReceptorLong-term depressionBiologyPsychologyGlutamate receptorComputer scienceComputer networkCognitive psychologyPhysicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neurobiological processes underpinning the natural forgetting of long-term memories are poorly understood. Based on the critical role of GluA2-containing AMPA receptors (GluA2/AMPARs) in long-term memory persistence, we tested in rats whether their synaptic removal underpins time-dependent memory loss. We found that blocking GluA2/AMPAR removal with the interference peptides GluA23Y or G2CT in the dorsal hippocampus during a memory retention interval prevented the normal forgetting of established, long-term object location memories, but did not affect their acquisition. The same intervention also preserved associative memories of food-reward conditioned place preference that would otherwise be lost over time. We then explored whether this forgetting process could play a part in behavioral phenomena involving time-dependent memory change. We found that infusing GluA23Y into the dorsal hippocampus during a 2 week retention interval blocked generalization of contextual fear expression, whereas infusing it into the infralimbic cortex after extinction of auditory fear prevented spontaneous recovery of the conditioned response. Exploring possible physiological mechanisms that could be involved in this form of memory decay, we found that bath application of GluA23Y prevented depotentiation, but not induction of long-term potentiation, in a hippocampal slice preparation. Together, these findings suggest that a decay-like forgetting process that involves the synaptic removal of GluA2/AMPARs erases consolidated long-term memories in the hippocampus and other brain structures over time. This well regulated forgetting process may critically contribute to establishing adaptive behavior, whereas its dysregulation could promote the decline of memory and cognition in neuropathological disorders. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The neurobiological mechanisms involved in the natural forgetting of long-term memory and its possible functions are not fully understood. Based on our previous work describing the role of GluA2-containing AMPA receptors in memory maintenance, here, we tested their role in forgetting of long-term memory. We found that blocking their synaptic removal after long-term memory formation extended the natural lifetime of several forms of memory. In the hippocampus, it preserved spatial memories and inhibited contextual fear generalization; in the infralimbic cortex, it blocked the spontaneous recovery of extinguished fear. These findings suggest that a constitutive decay-like forgetting process erases long-term memories over time, which, depending on the memory removed, may critically contribute to developing adaptive behavioral responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations158
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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