Developmental emergence of persistent memory for contextual and auditory fear in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to generate memories that persist throughout a lifetime (that is, memory persistence) emerges in early development across species. Although it has been shown that persistent fear memories emerge between late infancy and adolescence in mice, it is unclear exactly when this transition takes place, and whether two major fear conditioning tasks, contextual and auditory fear, share the same time line of developmental onset. Here, we compared the ontogeny of remote contextual and auditory fear in C57BL/6J mice across early life. Mice at postnatal day (P)15, 21, 25, 28, and 30 underwent either contextual or auditory fear training and were tested for fear retrieval 1 or 30 d later. We found that mice displayed 30-d memory for context- and tone-fear starting at P25. We did not find sex differences in the ontogeny of either type of fear memory. Furthermore, 30-d contextual fear retrieval led to an increase in the number of c-Fos positive cells in the prelimbic region of the prefrontal cortex only at an age in which the contextual fear memory was successfully retrieved. These data delineate a precise time line for the emergence of persistent contextual and auditory fear memories in mice and suggest that the prelimbic cortex is only recruited for remote memory recall upon the onset of memory persistence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".