4.2 Article

Cortical gene transcription response patterns to water maze training in aged mice

期刊

BMC NEUROSCIENCE
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2202-12-63

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Aging
  2. Ford Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The hippocampus mediates the acquisition of spatial memory, but the memory trace is eventually transferred to the cortex. We have investigated transcriptional activation of pathways related to cognitive in the cortex of the aged mouse by analyzing gene expression following water maze training. Results: We identified genes that were differentially responsive in aged mice with accurate spatial performance during probe trials or repeated swimming sessions, relative to home cage conditions. Effective learners exhibited significantly greater activation of several pathways, such as the mitogen-activated protein kinase and insulin receptor signaling pathways, relative to swimmers. The genes encoding activity-related cytoskeletal protein (Arc) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were upregulated in proficient learners, relative to swimmers and home cage controls, while the gene encoding Rho GTPase activating protein 32 (GRIT) was downregulated. We explored the regulation of Arc, BDNF, and GRIT expression in greater morphological detail using in situ hybridization. Recall during probe trials enhanced Arc expression across multiple cortical regions involved in the cognitive component of water maze learning, while BDNF expression was more homogeneously upregulated across cortical regions involved in the associational and sensorimotor aspects of water maze training. In contrast, levels of GRIT expression were uniformly reduced across all cortical regions examined. Conclusions: These results suggest that cortical gene transcription is responsive to learning in aged mice that exhibit behavioral proficiency, and support a distributed hypothesis of memory storage across multiple cortical compartments.

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

4.2
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