Competition between engrams influences fear memory formation and recall - PubMed (original) (raw)
. 2016 Jul 22;353(6297):383-7.
doi: 10.1126/science.aaf0594.
Chen Yan 1, Valentina Mercaldo 1, Hwa-Lin Liz Hsiang 1, Sungmo Park 1, Christina J Cole 1, Antonietta De Cristofaro 2, Julia Yu 2, Charu Ramakrishnan 3, Soo Yeun Lee 3, Karl Deisseroth 3, Paul W Frankland 4, Sheena A Josselyn 4
Affiliations
- PMID: 27463673
- PMCID: PMC6737336
- DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf0594
Competition between engrams influences fear memory formation and recall
Asim J Rashid et al. Science. 2016.
Abstract
Collections of cells called engrams are thought to represent memories. Although there has been progress in identifying and manipulating single engrams, little is known about how multiple engrams interact to influence memory. In lateral amygdala (LA), neurons with increased excitability during training outcompete their neighbors for allocation to an engram. We examined whether competition based on neuronal excitability also governs the interaction between engrams. Mice received two distinct fear conditioning events separated by different intervals. LA neuron excitability was optogenetically manipulated and revealed a transient competitive process that integrates memories for events occurring closely in time (coallocating overlapping populations of neurons to both engrams) and separates memories for events occurring at distal times (disallocating nonoverlapping populations to each engram).
Copyright © 2016, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Figures
Fig. 1.. Events occurring closely in time are coallocated to overlapping engrams, and memories become linked.
(A) Mice distinguish conditioned stimuli (CS1, CS2), freezing more in response to trained, than untrained, auditory CS. ANOVA: Train-CS × Test-CS, F(1,12) = 44.29, *P < 0.001. Means ± SEM. n = 7 mice per group. *P < 0.05. (B) Event 2 memory was enhanced if event 1 (CS1+shock) occurred within a short intertraining interval (ITI). Enhancement was not due to CS1 alone or immediate shock (Imm shock) during event 1; F(8,142) = 17.03, *P < 0.001. n = 56 for CS1 alone (see fig. S1A), n = 5 to 16 for other groups. n.s., not statistically different. (C) Engrams for events with a 6-hour (but not 24-hour) ITI coallocated to overlapping LA neurons; F(3,8) = 119.01, *P < 0.001. (Right) Coallocation in 6-hour, but not 24-hour, ITI. arc+ (CS2 reexposure, red), homer1a+ (h1a+, CS1 reexposure, green) neurons, 4´,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI; blue, nuclear stain). Scale bar, 20 μm. n = 3 mice per group. (D) Extinguishing event 2 memory also decreased event 1 memory if a 6-hour (but not 24-hour) ITI was used. Group × CS-Freezing, F(2,50) = 12.53, *P < 0.001. n = 12 mice, 6-hour, 24-hour groups; n = 4 mice, control group.
Fig. 2.. Engram interaction may be governed by neuronal CREB function and excitability.
(A) (Top) Fear conditioning transiently increases the percentage of LA neurons with activated CREB (pCREB) relative to home-cage (HC), CS alone (6h), or immediate shock (6h, Imm shock); F(6,21) = 12.53, *P < 0.001. (Bottom) Left panel: LA. Scale bar, 400 μm. Right panels: pCREB staining, Scale bar, 25 μm. n = 3 to 5 mice per group. (B) Schematic of hypothesized engram interaction. Event 1 transiently increases CREB function and excitability in a population of LA neurons (purple). If event 2 occurs when these neurons have elevated CREB and excitability (6h), then engrams are coal-located, memories are linked (purple+orange neurons), and event 2 memory is enhanced. If event 2 occurs later (24h), neurons activated by event 1 are no longer more excitable (perhaps they are in a “refractory-like period”), engrams are disallocated to nonoverlapping neurons, and memories are distinct.
Fig. 3.. Bidirectionally manipulating excitability to force coallocation or disallocation reveals competition governing engram interaction.
(A) HSV-NpACY was used to excite (ChR2) and inhibit (NpHR3.0) the same neurons. (Bottom) Yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) expression. LA, lateral amygdala; BA, basal amygdala. Scale bars, 400 μm (left), 150 μm (right). (B) Exciting HSV-NpACY neurons immediately (but not 24 hours) before event 1 [blue light (BL+)] allocates them to the engram; inhibiting them [red light (RL+)] during the test decreased CS freezing versus no red light (RL−). There was no effect of inhibiting random neurons (BL−). Group × Test condition, F(3,28) = 17.41, *P < 0.001. n = 7 to 9 mice for all groups. (C) Exciting neurons before event 1 (BL+) allocates them to event 1 engram (*P < 0.001) and coallocates them to event 2, if event 2 occurs 6 hours, but not 24 hours, later. (D) Exciting the same neurons before event 2 (24h/BL+, yellow circle) forces coallocation, F(2,20) = 17.91, *P < 0.001. n = 8 for 6-hour, n = 7 for 24-hour, and n = 8 for 24-hour/BL+ groups. (E) Exciting neurons before event 1, but inhibiting them during event 2 (RL+, yellow circle), impairs event 2 memory, if event 2 occurred 6 hours, but not 24 hours, later. F(1,16) = 5.63, *P < 0.05. n = 7 for 24-hour and n = 11 for 6-hour groups.
Fig. 4.. Competition-mediating engram interaction depends on excitation-inhibition.
(A) Fear conditioning transiently increases perisomatic PV immunolabeling (green) surrounding LA principal neurons relative to home-cage (HC), CS alone (6h), or immediate shock (6h, Imm shock); *P < 0.001. (Right) High or low perisomatic PV, with or without DAPI-labeled nuclei (blue, perisomatic region outlined). Scale bar, 10 μm. _n_ = 3 mice per group. Arrows indicate perisomatic PV immunolabel in example cells designated “high PV”or “low PV.”(**B**) Event 2 memory is impaired (Fig. 3E) if events are separated by 6 hours and neurons allocated to event 1 are silenced (RL+) during event 2. Inhibiting PV interneurons (hM4Di+CNO) permits event 2 memory formation, group difference only, _F_(3,23) = 22.61, *_P_ < 0.001. (Right) HSV-NpACY (YFP, green), AAV-hM4Di (mCherry, red). Scale bar, 200 μm. _n_ = 4 to 8 mice for all groups. (**C**) HSV-infected neurons inhibited (RL+) during event 1 are not allocated to event 1 engram; *_P_ > 0.05. Exciting these neurons before event 2 (BL+) allocates them to event 2 engram, F(1,7) = 51.02, *P < 0.001. n = 8 mice. (D) Event 2 memory is enhanced if CS1 is recalled 6 hours, but not 24 hours, before event 2; F(2,29) = 5.28, *P < 0.05. n = 8 to 12 mice for all groups.
Comment in
- Neuroscience: Memories linked within a window of time.
Eichenbaum H. Eichenbaum H. Nature. 2016 Aug 25;536(7617):405-7. doi: 10.1038/536405a. Nature. 2016. PMID: 27558060 No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Selective erasure of a fear memory.
Han JH, Kushner SA, Yiu AP, Hsiang HL, Buch T, Waisman A, Bontempi B, Neve RL, Frankland PW, Josselyn SA. Han JH, et al. Science. 2009 Mar 13;323(5920):1492-6. doi: 10.1126/science.1164139. Science. 2009. PMID: 19286560 - Dynamic and selective engrams emerge with memory consolidation.
Tomé DF, Zhang Y, Aida T, Mosto O, Lu Y, Chen M, Sadeh S, Roy DS, Clopath C. Tomé DF, et al. Nat Neurosci. 2024 Mar;27(3):561-572. doi: 10.1038/s41593-023-01551-w. Epub 2024 Jan 19. Nat Neurosci. 2024. PMID: 38243089 Free PMC article. - The role of neuronal excitability, allocation to an engram and memory linking in the behavioral generation of a false memory in mice.
Lau JMH, Rashid AJ, Jacob AD, Frankland PW, Schacter DL, Josselyn SA. Lau JMH, et al. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2020 Oct;174:107284. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2020.107284. Epub 2020 Aug 1. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2020. PMID: 32745601 Free PMC article. - Synaptic Plasticity, Engrams, and Network Oscillations in Amygdala Circuits for Storage and Retrieval of Emotional Memories.
Bocchio M, Nabavi S, Capogna M. Bocchio M, et al. Neuron. 2017 May 17;94(4):731-743. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.03.022. Neuron. 2017. PMID: 28521127 Review. - Memory Allocation: Mechanisms and Function.
Josselyn SA, Frankland PW. Josselyn SA, et al. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2018 Jul 8;41:389-413. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-080317-061956. Epub 2018 Apr 25. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2018. PMID: 29709212 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Reactivation-dependent transfer of fear memory between contexts requires M1 muscarinic receptor stimulation in dorsal hippocampus of male rats.
Abouelnaga KH, Huff AE, Jardine KH, O'Neill OS, Winters BD. Abouelnaga KH, et al. Learn Mem. 2024 Oct 9;31(9):a054039. doi: 10.1101/lm.054039.124. Print 2024 Sep. Learn Mem. 2024. PMID: 39384429 Free PMC article. - Sex and the facilitation of cued fear by prior contextual fear conditioning in rats.
Vazquez K, Cole KE, Parsons RG. Vazquez K, et al. Learn Mem. 2024 Sep 26;31(9):a054010. doi: 10.1101/lm.054010.124. Print 2024 Sep. Learn Mem. 2024. PMID: 39327023 - Memory engram stability and flexibility.
Zaki Y, Cai DJ. Zaki Y, et al. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2024 Sep 18. doi: 10.1038/s41386-024-01979-z. Online ahead of print. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2024. PMID: 39300271 Review. - The Role of Intrinsic Plasticity in Engram Physiology and Temporal Memory Linking.
Peregrim W, O'Leary T. Peregrim W, et al. J Neurosci. 2024 Sep 11;44(37):e1160242024. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1160-24.2024. J Neurosci. 2024. PMID: 39261012 Review. No abstract available. - Synaptic rearrangement of NMDA receptors controls memory engram formation and malleability in the cortex.
Bessières B, Dupuis J, Groc L, Bontempi B, Nicole O. Bessières B, et al. Sci Adv. 2024 Aug 30;10(35):eado1148. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ado1148. Epub 2024 Aug 30. Sci Adv. 2024. PMID: 39213354 Free PMC article.
References
- Josselyn SA, Köhler S, Frankland PW, Nat. Rev. Neurosci 16, 521–534 (2015). - PubMed
- Tonegawa S, Liu X, Ramirez S, Redondo R, Neuron 87, 918–931 (2015). - PubMed
- LeDoux JE, Annu. Rev. Neurosci 23, 155–184 (2000). - PubMed
- Maren S, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci 985, 106–113 (2003). - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources