4.4 Article

Differential sensitivity of three forms of hippocampal synaptic potentiation to depotentiation

Journal

MOLECULAR BRAIN
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13041-019-0451-6

Keywords

Long-term potentiation; Depotentiation; Hippocampus

Categories

Funding

  1. Brain Canada Foundation through the Canada Brain Research Fund
  2. Health Canada
  3. MRC
  4. ERC
  5. Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) Foundation grant
  6. EJLB-CIHR Michael Smith Chair in Neurosciences and Mental Health
  7. Canada Research Chair
  8. CIHR operating grants [CIHR66975, 84256]
  9. National Honor Scientist Program of the National Research Foundation - Korea government [2012R1A3A1050385]
  10. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A3A1050385] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Theta-burst stimulation (TBS) induces short-term potentiation (STP) plus two types of transcriptionally-independent forms of long-term potentiation (LTP), termed LTP1 and LTP2. We have compared the susceptibility of these three types of synaptic plasticity to depotentiation, induced by low frequency stimulation (LFS; 2Hz for 10min) at the Schaffer collateral-commissural pathway in area CA1 of adult rat hippocampal slices. In interleaved experiments, STP and LTP were induced by three episodes of either compressed or spaced TBS (cTBS or sTBS). LFS had a more pronounced effect on the LTP induced by the cTBS. One traditional interpretation of these results is a difference in the time-dependent immunity against depotentiation. We suggest an alternative explanation: LFS rapidly reverses STP to reveal a slowly developing LTP. The cTBS protocol induces LTP1 that is moderately sensitive to depotentiation. The sTBS induces an additional component of LTP (LTP2) that is resistant to depotentiation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available