Linking new information to a reactivated memory requires consolidation and not reconsolidation mechanisms

A new memory is initially labile and becomes stabilized through a process of consolidation, which depends on gene expression. Stable memories, however, can again become labile if reactivated by recall and require another phase of protein synthesis in order to be maintained. This process is known as reconsolidation. The functional significance of the labile phase of reconsolidation is unknown; one hypothesis proposes that it is required to link new information with reactivated memories. Reconsolidation is distinct from the initial consolidation, and one distinction is that the requirement for specific proteins or general protein synthesis during the two processes occurs in different brain areas. Here, we identified an anatomically distinctive molecular requirement that doubly dissociates consolidation from reconsolidation of an inhibitory avoidance memory. We then used this requirement to investigate whether reconsolidation and consolidation are involved in linking new information with reactivated memories. In contrast to what the hypothesis predicted, we found that reconsolidation does not contribute to the formation of an association between new and reactivated information. Instead, it recruits mechanisms similar to those underlying consolidation of a new memory. Thus, linking new information to a reactivated memory is mediated by consolidation and not reconsolidation mechanisms.     

Proteolysis of proBDNF is a key regulator in the formation of memory

It is essential to understand the molecular processes underlying long-term memory to provide therapeutic targets of aberrant memory that produce pathological behaviour in humans. Under conditions of recall, fully-consolidated memories can undergo reconsolidation or extinction. These retrieval-mediated memory processes may rely on distinct molecular processes. The cellular mechanisms initiating the signature molecular events are not known. Using infusions of protein synthesis inhibitors, antisense oligonucleotide targeting brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) mRNA or tPA-STOP (an inhibitor of the proteolysis of BDNF protein) into the hippocampus of the awake rat, we show that acquisition and extinction of contextual fear memory depended on the increased and decreased proteolysis of proBDNF (precursor BDNF) in the hippocampus, respectively. Conditions of retrieval that are known to initiate the reconsolidation of contextual fear memory, a BDNF-independent memory process, were not correlated with altered proBDNF cleavage. Thus, the processing of BDNF was associated with the acquisition of new information and the updating of information about a salient stimulus. Furthermore, the differential requirement for the processing of proBDNF by tPA in distinct memory processes suggest that the molecular events actively engaged to support the storage and/or the successful retrieval of memory depends on the integration of ongoing experience with past learning.     

Molecular mechanisms of fear learning and memory

Pavlovian fear conditioning is a particularly useful behavioral paradigm for exploring the molecular mechanisms of learning and memory because a well-defined response to a specific environmental stimulus is produced through associative learning processes. Synaptic plasticity in the lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA) underlies this form of associative learning. Here, we summarize the molecular mechanisms that contribute to this synaptic plasticity in the context of auditory fear conditioning, the form of fear conditioning best understood at the molecular level. We discuss the neurotransmitter systems and signaling cascades that contribute to three phases of auditory fear conditioning: acquisition, consolidation, and reconsolidation. These studies suggest that multiple intracellular signaling pathways, including those triggered by activation of Hebbian processes and neuromodulatory receptors, interact to produce neural plasticity in the LA and behavioral fear conditioning. Collectively, this body of research illustrates the power of fear conditioning as a model system for characterizing the mechanisms of learning and memory in mammals and potentially for understanding fear-related disorders, such as PTSD and phobias.     

Molecular mechanisms of memory acquisition, consolidation and retrieval

Memory is often considered to be a process that has several stages, including acquisition, consolidation and retrieval. Memory can be modified further through reconsolidation and performance can change during extinction trials while the original memory remains intact. Recent studies of the molecular basis of these processes have found that many signaling molecules are involved in several stages of memory but, in some cases, molecular pathways may be selectively recruited only during certain stages of memory.     

The role of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors in memory consolidation and reconsolidation in the passive avoidance task in 1-day-old chicks

Although reconsolidation of memory after reminder does not seem to be the simple reiteration of the sequential stages occurring during memory consolidation, both phenomena probably employ similar mechanisms including activation of glutamate receptors and protein synthesis. It is known that group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) are involved in memory consolidation and modulation of protein synthesis. The aim of present study was to investigate the role of mGluR5 in memory consolidation and reconsolidation and to determine whether inhibition of these receptors may affect protein synthesis in these processes. The one-trial passive avoidance task on chicks was used as the experimental model of learning. Injection of the mGluR5 antagonist MPEP into a specific chick brain region IMM resulted in amnesia, provided the injection was made either shortly before or after training, or approximately 4 h after training. This amnesia was permanent, resembling the effects of protein synthesis inhibitors. MPEP injection immediately after reminder resulted in only a transient amnesia revealed 1h later. Increased expression of Zif/268 and c-Fos proteins 2 h after initial training was abolished bilaterally in chicks injected with MPEP. Injection of MPEP immediately after reminder did not inhibit c-Fos and Zif/268 expression, on the contrary, their expression was increased, specifically in left IMM and was similar to that observed after initial training. These results show that at least in the chick model mGluR5 play an important role in both consolidation and reconsolidation of memory but the mechanisms triggered by their activation in these processes differ. It is suggested that Ca(2+) signal derived from mGluR5 stimulation is necessary for complete memory consolidation, whereas during reconsolidation other mGluR5 triggered mechanisms of protein synthesis activation and regulation may be involved.     

Persistence of long-term memory storage requires a late protein synthesis- and BDNF- dependent phase in the hippocampus

Persistence is the most characteristic attribute of long-term memory (LTM). To understand LTM, we must understand how memory traces persist over time despite the short-lived nature and rapid turnover of their molecular substrates. It is widely accepted that LTM formation is dependent upon hippocampal de novo protein synthesis and Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) signaling during or early after acquisition. Here we show that 12 hr after acquisition of a one-trial associative learning task, there is a novel protein synthesis and BDNF-dependent phase in the rat hippocampus that is critical for the persistence of LTM storage. Our findings indicate that a delayed stabilization phase is specifically required for maintenance, but not formation, of the memory trace. We propose that memory formation and memory persistence share some of the same molecular mechanisms and that recurrent rounds of consolidation-like events take place in the hippocampus for maintenance of the memory trace.     

Rites of passage of the engram: reconsolidation and the lingering consolidation hypothesis

Memory consolidation refers to the progressive stabilization of items in long-term memory as well as to the memory phase(s) during which this stabilization takes place. The textbook account is that, for each item in memory, consolidation starts and ends just once. In recent years, however, the notion that memories reconsolidate upon their reactivation and hence regain sensitivity to amnestic agents has been revitalized. This issue is of marked theoretical and clinical interest. Here we review the recent literature on reconsolidation and infer, on the basis of the majority of the data, that blockade of reconsolidation does not induce permanent amnesia. Further, in several systems, reconsolidation occurs only in relatively fresh memories. We propose a framework model, which interprets reconsolidation as a manifestation of lingering consolidation, rather than recapitulation of a process that had already come to a closure. This model reflects on the nature of consolidation in general and makes predictions that could guide further research.     

The labile nature of consolidation theory

'Consolidation' has been used to describe distinct but related processes. In considering the implications of our recent findings on the lability of reactivated fear memories, we view consolidation and reconsolidation in terms of molecular events taking place within neurons as opposed to interactions between brain regions. Our findings open up a new dimension in the study of memory consolidation. We argue that consolidation is not a one-time event, but instead is reiterated with subsequent activation of the memories.     

Acute BDNF Treatment Upregulates GluR1-SAP97 and GluR2-GRIP1 Interactions: Implications for Sustained AMPA Receptor Expression

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) plays several prominent roles in synaptic plasticity and in learning and memory formation. Reduced BDNF levels and altered BDNF signaling have been reported in several brain diseases and behavioral disorders, which also exhibit reduced levels of AMPAr subunits. BDNF treatment acutely regulates AMPA receptor expression and function, including synaptic AMPAr subunit trafficking, and implicates several well defined signaling molecules that are required to elicit long term potentiation and depression (LTP and LTD, respectively). Long term encoding of synaptic events, as in long term memory formation, requires AMPAr stabilization and maintenance. However, factors regulating AMPAr stabilization in neuronal cell membranes and synaptic sites are not well characterized. In this study, we examine the effects of acute BDNF treatment on levels of AMPAr-associated scaffolding proteins and on AMPAr subunit-scaffolding protein interactions. We also examine the effects of BDNF-dependent enhanced interactions between AMPAr subunits with their specific scaffolding proteins on the accumulation of both types of proteins. Our results show that acute BDNF treatment upregulates the interactions between AMPAr subunits (GluR1 and GluR2) with their scaffold proteins SAP97 and GRIP1, respectively, leading to prolonged increased accumulation of both categories of proteins, albeit with distinct mechanisms for GluR1 and GluR2. Our findings reveal a new role for BDNF in the long term maintenance of AMPA receptor subunits and associated scaffolding proteins at synapses and further support the role of BDNF as a key regulator of synaptic consolidation. These results have potential implications for recent findings implicating BDNF and AMPAr subunits in various brain diseases and behavioral disorders.     

Reconsolidation and the Dynamic Nature of Memory

Memory reconsolidation is the process in which reactivated long-term memory (LTM) becomes transiently sensitive to amnesic agents that are effective at consolidation. The phenomenon was first described more than 50 years ago but did not fit the dominant paradigm that posited that consolidation takes place only once per LTM item. Research on reconsolidation was revitalized only more than a decade ago with the demonstration of reconsolidation in a well-defined behavioral protocol (auditory fear conditioning in the rat) subserved by an identified brain circuit (basolateral amygdala). Since then, reconsolidation has been shown in many studies over a range of species, tasks, and amnesic agents, and cellular and molecular correlates of reconsolidation have also been identified. In this review, I will first define the evidence on which reconsolidation is based, and proceed to discuss some of the conceptual issues facing the field in determining when reconsolidation does and does not occur. Last, I will refer to the potential clinical implications of reconsolidation.Learning and memory are commonly depicted as going through a set of phases. There is the learning or encoding phase, in which information is acquired, by stabilization phase, in which specific mechanisms are engaged to stabilize initially unstable new information (referred to as synaptic consolidation) (Glickman 1961; McGaugh 1966), the “storage” or maintenance phase, during which other mechanisms are involved to maintain the memory, and the retrieval phase, in which specific mechanisms permit a memory to be retrieved (Miller and Springer 1973; Spear 1973). For a long time, from a neurobiological perspective, only acquisition and memory stabilization (Martin et al. 2000; Kandel 2001; Dudai 2004) were considered to be active phases, in the sense that neurons had to perform certain computations or synthesize new RNA and proteins for these phases of memory processing to be performed successfully. After acquisition and stabilization, all other phases were implicitly thought by many to be passive readout of changes in the circuits mediating the long-term memory (LTM). However, the picture has now changed and the maintenance of memory is portrayed as an active process. One of the reasons for this change is the demonstration that a consolidated LTM can become susceptible to disruption and restoration, a process termed “reconsolidation” (Spear 1973; Nader et al. 2000; Sara 2000). There are now detailed molecular and cellular models of this time-dependent active memory phase.This review will first describe the logic of the findings that brought the existence of the consolidation process to light. I will then describe how we concluded that a consolidated memory undergoes reconsolidation in a well-defined behavioral protocol (auditory fear conditioning in the rat). I will then refer to the range of species, tasks, and treatments in which reconsolidation have been reported. One aspect of reconsolidation that has attracted experimental attention involves the finding that there seem to be conditions that facilitate, inhibit, or even prevent reconsolidation from occurring. I present an approach that could help to identify such conditions. Last, I will discuss potential clinical implications of reconsolidation.     

A distinct role for norepinephrine in memory retrieval

A role for norepinephrine in learning and memory has been elusive and controversial. A longstanding hypothesis states that the adrenergic nervous system mediates enhanced memory consolidation of emotional events. We tested this hypothesis in several learning tasks using mutant mice conditionally lacking norepinephrine and epinephrine, as well as control mice and rats treated with adrenergic receptor agonists and antagonists. We find that adrenergic signaling is critical for the retrieval of intermediate-term contextual and spatial memories, but is not necessary for the retrieval or consolidation of emotional memories in general. The role of norepinephrine in retrieval requires signaling through the beta(1)-adrenergic receptor in the hippocampus. The results demonstrate that mechanisms of memory retrieval can vary over time and can be different from those required for acquisition or consolidation. These findings may be relevant to symptoms in several neuropsychiatric disorders as well as the treatment of cardiac failure with beta blockers.     

Reconsolidation: the advantage of being refocused

Ample evidence suggests that upon their retrieval, items in long-term memory enter a transient special state, in which they might become prone to change. The process that generates this state is dubbed 'reconsolidation'. The dominant conceptual framework in this revitalized field of memory research focuses on whether reconsolidation resembles consolidation, which is the process that converts an unstable short-term memory trace into a more stable long-term trace. However, this emphasis on the comparison of reconsolidation to consolidation deserves reassessment. Instead, the phenomenon of reconsolidation, irrespective of its relevance to consolidation, provides a unique opportunity to tap into the molecular, cellular and circuit correlates of memory persistence and retrieval, of which we currently know only little.     

BDNF Activates mTOR to Regulate GluR1 Expression Required for Memory Formation

Background

The mammalian target of Rapamycin (mTOR) kinase plays a key role in translational control of a subset of mRNAs through regulation of its initiation step. In neurons, mTOR is present at the synaptic region, where it modulates the activity-dependent expression of locally-translated proteins independently of mRNA synthesis. Indeed, mTOR is necessary for different forms of synaptic plasticity and long-term memory (LTM) formation. However, little is known about the time course of mTOR activation and the extracellular signals governing this process or the identity of the proteins whose translation is regulated by this kinase, during mnemonic processing.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Here we show that consolidation of inhibitory avoidance (IA) LTM entails mTOR activation in the dorsal hippocampus at the moment of and 3 h after training and is associated with a rapid and rapamycin-sensitive increase in AMPA receptor GluR1 subunit expression, which was also blocked by intra-hippocampal delivery of GluR1 antisense oligonucleotides (ASO). In addition, we found that pre- or post-training administration of function-blocking anti-BDNF antibodies into dorsal CA1 hampered IA LTM retention, abolished the learning-induced biphasic activation of mTOR and its readout, p70S6K and blocked GluR1 expression, indicating that BDNF is an upstream factor controlling mTOR signaling during fear-memory consolidation. Interestingly, BDNF ASO hindered LTM retention only when given into dorsal CA1 1 h after but not 2 h before training, suggesting that BDNF controls the biphasic requirement of mTOR during LTM consolidation through different mechanisms: an early one involving BDNF already available at the moment of training, and a late one, happening around 3 h post-training that needs de novo synthesis of this neurotrophin.

Conclusions/Significance

In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that: 1) mTOR-mediated mRNA translation is required for memory consolidation during at least two restricted time windows; 2) this kinase acts downstream BDNF in the hippocampus and; 3) it controls the increase of synaptic GluR1 necessary for memory consolidation.     

Removing pathogenic memories

Experimental research examining the neural bases of nondeclarative memory has offered intriguing insight into how functional and dysfunctional implicit learning affects the brain. Long-term modifications of synaptic transmission, in particular, are currently considered the most plausible mechanism underlying memory trace encoding and compulsions, addiction, anxiety, and phobias. Therefore, an effective psychotherapy must be directed to erase maladaptive implicit memories and aberrant synaptic plasticity. This article describes the neurobiological bases of pathogenic memory disruption to provide some insight into how psychotherapy works. At least two mechanisms of unwanted memory erasing appear to be implicated in the effects of psychotherapy: inhibition of memory consolidation/reconsolidation and extinction. Behavioral evidence demonstrated that these two ways to forget are profoundly distinct in nature, and it is increasingly clear that their cellular, synaptic, and molecular underpinnings are different. Accordingly, the blockade of consolidation/reconsolidation erases memories by reversing the plasticity associated with memory maintenance, whereas extinction is a totally new form of plasticity that, similar to the plasticity underlying the old memory, requires protein synthesis-dependent synaptic remodeling.