4.8 Article

Novelty exposure overcomes foot shock-induced spatial-memory impairment by processes of synaptic-tagging in rats

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1114198109

Keywords

memory rescue; memory reinforcement; novelty exploration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Novelty processing can transform short-term into long-term memory. We propose that this memory-reinforcing effect of novelty could be explained by mechanisms outlined in the synaptic tagging hypothesis. Initial short-term memory is sustained by a transient plasticity change at activated synapses and sets synaptic tags. These tags are later able to capture and process the plasticity-related proteins (PRPs), which are required to transform a short-term synaptic change into a long-term one. Novelty is involved in inducing the synthesis of PRPs [Moncada D, et al. (2011) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 12937-12936], which are then captured by the tagged synapses, consolidating memory. In contrast to novelty, stress can impair learning, memory, and synaptic plasticity. Here, we address questions as to whether novelty-induced PRPs are able to prevent the loss of memory caused by stress and if the latter would not interact with the tag-setting process. We used water-maze (WM) training as a spatial learning paradigm to test our hypothesis. Stress was induced by a strong foot shock (FS; 5 x 1 mA, 2 s) applied 5 min after WM training. Our data show that FS reduced long-term but not short-term memory in the WM paradigm. This negative effect on memory consolidation was time- and training-dependent. Interestingly, novelty exposure prevented the stress-induced memory loss of the spatial task and increased BDNF and Arc expression. This rescuing effect was blocked by anisomycin, suggesting that WM-tagged synapses were not reset by FS and were thus able to capture the novelty-induced PRPs, reestablishing FS-impaired long-term memory.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available