Outcome-Locked Cholinergic Signaling Suppresses Prefrontal Encoding of Stimulus Associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acetylcholine (ACh) is thought to control arousal, attention, and learning by slowly modulating cortical excitability and plasticity. Recent studies, however, discovered that cholinergic neurons emit precisely timed signals about the aversive outcome at millisecond precision. To investigate the functional relevance of such phasic cholinergic signaling, we manipulated and monitored cholinergic terminals in the mPFC while male mice associated a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with mildly aversive eyelid shock (US) over a short temporal gap. Optogenetic inhibition of cholinergic terminals during the US promoted the formation of the CS–US association. On the contrary, optogenetic excitation of cholinergic terminals during the US blocked the association formation. The bidirectional behavioral effects paralleled the corresponding change in the expression of an activity-regulated gene, c-Fos in the mPFC. In contrast, optogenetic inhibition of cholinergic terminals during the CS impaired associative learning, whereas their excitation had marginal effects. In parallel, photometric recording from cholinergic terminals in the mPFC revealed strong innate phasic responses to the US. With subsequent CS–US pairings, cholinergic terminals weakened the responses to the US while developing strong responses to the CS. The across-session changes in the CS- and US-evoked terminal responses were correlated with associative memory strength. These findings suggest that phasic cholinergic signaling in the mPFC exerts opposite effects on aversive associative learning depending on whether it is emitted by the outcome or the cue. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTDrugs compensating for the decline of acetylcholine (ACh) are used for cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer's disease. However, their beneficial effects are limited, demanding new strategies based on better understandings of how ACh modulates cognition. Here, we report that by manipulating ACh signals in the mPFC, we can control the strength of aversive associative learning in mice. Specifically, the suppression of ACh signals during an aversive outcome facilitated its association with a preceding cue. In contrast, the suppression of ACh signals during the cue impaired learning. Considering that this paradigm depends on the brain regions affected in Alzheimer's disease, our findings indicate that precisely timed control of ACh signals is essential to refine ACh-based strategies for cognitive enhancement.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".