MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132963230

Manipulating a "cocaine-cue engram" in mice

2017· dissertation· W7132963230 on OpenAlexafffund
Hwa‐Lin Hsiang

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2017
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCREBMemory consolidationEngramNeuronal memory allocationConditioned place preferencePopulationAmygdalaBiological neural networkTranscription factor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experience with drugs of abuse (such as cocaine) produces powerful, long-lasting memories that may be key in the development and persistence of drug addiction. The neural mechanisms that mediate how and where these cocaine-cue memories are encoded, consolidated, and stored in the brain are unknown. Here we used cocaine-induced conditioned place preference to examine the precise neural circuits that support a cocaine-cue memory (cocaine-cue “memory trace” or “engram”) in mice. We found that a small population of neurons (~10%) in the lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA) was recruited at the time of cocaine-conditioning to become part of the cocaine-cue engram supporting that memory. Moreover, neurons with increased levels of the transcription factor CREB (cAMP response element-binding protein) were preferentially recruited or allocated to the cocaine-cue engram. Pre-test ablation or silencing of neurons overexpressing CREB (but not a similar number of LA neurons not allocated to the cocaine-cue memory engram) disrupted the expression of a previously acquired cocaine-cue memory, suggesting that neurons overexpressing CREB become critical nodes in the LA of what is likely a larger (perhaps brain-wide) cocaine-cue engram. Previous research has suggested that coordinated post-encoding reactivation of neurons within an engram or cell assembly is crucial for memory consolidation (Marr, 1971; Buzsáki, 1989; Wilson McNaughton, 1994; McClelland et al., 1995; Girardeau et al., 2009; Dupret et al., 2010; Carr et al., 2011). Consistent with this, we also found that post-training suppression or non-discriminate activation of CREB overexpressing neurons impaired consolidation of the cocaine-cue memory. We also showed that these neurons were important for the reinstatement of a cocaine-cue memory. Following extinction of a cocaine-cue memory, re-exposure to cocaine may reinstate the original memory (Brown et al., 2010; Bilbao et al., 2008; Mueller Stewart, 2000). These results suggest that those neurons that are initially important in a cocaine-cue memory continue to be important to that memory, even following extinction. Finally, we found that in the LA, neurons that have relatively higher levels of neuronal excitability are more likely to be recruited to an engram supporting a cocaine-cue memory. Together, these findings reveal mechanisms underlying how and where drug memories are encoded and stored in the brain.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.009

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→