4.6 Article

Selective Disruption of Perineuronal Nets in Mice Lacking Crtl1 is Sufficient to Make Fear Memories Susceptible to Erasure

期刊

MOLECULAR NEUROBIOLOGY
卷 60, 期 7, 页码 4105-4119

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12035-023-03314-x

关键词

Perineuronal nets (PNNs); Chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs); Fear conditioning; Fear extinction; Pupillometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to store, retrieve, and extinguish memories of adverse experiences is essential for animal survival. Recent studies suggest that the aggregation of CSPGs into PNNs regulates the boundaries of the critical period for fear extinction. The presence of PNNs in the adult brain may be responsible for the appearance of persistent fear memories.
The ability to store, retrieve, and extinguish memories of adverse experiences is an essential skill for animals' survival. The cellular and molecular factors that underlie such processes are only partially known. Using chondroitinase ABC treatment targeting chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs), previous studies showed that the maturation of the extracellular matrix makes fear memory resistant to deletion. Mice lacking the cartilage link protein Crtl1 (Crtl1-KO mice) display normal CSPG levels but impaired CSPG condensation in perineuronal nets (PNNs). Thus, we asked whether the presence of PNNs in the adult brain is responsible for the appearance of persistent fear memories by investigating fear extinction in Crtl1-KO mice. We found that mutant mice displayed fear memory erasure after an extinction protocol as revealed by analysis of freezing and pupil dynamics. Fear memory erasure did not depend on passive loss of retention; moreover, we demonstrated that, after extinction training, conditioned Crtl1-KO mice display no neural activation in the amygdala (Zif268 staining) in comparison to control animals. Taken together, our findings suggest that the aggregation of CSPGs into PNNs regulates the boundaries of the critical period for fear extinction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据