LTP in hippocampal area CA1 is induced by burst stimulation over a broad frequency range centered around delta

Long-term potentiation (LTP) is typically studied using either continuous high-frequency stimulation or theta burst stimulation. Previous studies emphasized the physiological relevance of theta frequency; however, synchronized hippocampal activity occurs over a broader frequency range. We therefore tested burst stimulation at intervals from 100 msec to 20 sec (10 Hz to 0.05 Hz). LTP at Schaffer collateral–CA1 synapses was obtained at intervals from 100 msec to 5 sec, with maximal LTP at 350–500 msec (2–3 Hz, delta frequency). In addition, a short-duration potentiation was present over the entire range of burst intervals. We found that N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptors were more important for LTP induction by burst stimulation, but L-type calcium channels were more important for LTP induction by continuous high-frequency stimulation. NMDA receptors were even more critical for short-duration potentiation than they were for LTP. We also compared repeated burst stimulation with a single primed burst. In contrast to results from repeated burst stimulation, primed burst potentiation was greater when a 200-msec interval (theta frequency) was used, and a 500-msec interval was ineffective. Whole-cell recordings of postsynaptic membrane potential during burst stimulation revealed two factors that may determine the interval dependence of LTP. First, excitatory postsynaptic potentials facilitated across bursts at 500-msec intervals but not 200-msec or 1-sec intervals. Second, synaptic inhibition was suppressed by burst stimulation at intervals between 200 msec and 1 sec. Our data show that CA1 synapses are more broadly tuned for potentiation than previously appreciated.Long-term potentiation (LTP) is used as a model for studying synaptic events during learning and memory (Bliss and Collingridge 1993; Morris 2003; Lynch 2004). At most synapses, LTP is triggered by postsynaptic Ca²⁺ influx through N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) glutamate receptors (Collingridge et al. 1983; Harris et al. 1984; Herron et al. 1986) and, under some conditions, through L-type voltage-gated Ca²⁺ channels (Grover and Teyler 1990, 1994; Morgan and Teyler 1999). LTP was discovered in the dentate gyrus (Bliss and Lomo 1973) following several seconds of 10–100 Hz stimulation of the perforant path. Since then, many LTP studies have used similar long, high-frequency stimulation (HFS) protocols, most typically 100 Hz, 1 sec (Bliss and Collingridge 1993). Although effective, HFS does not resemble physiological patterns of activity (Albensi et al. 2007). Patterned stimulation resembling physiological activity, in particular theta burst stimulation, is also effective for LTP induction (Larson et al. 1986; Staubli and Lynch 1987; Capocchi et al. 1992; Nguyen and Kandel 1997). Theta burst stimulation consists of short bursts (4–5 stimuli at 100 Hz) repeated at 5 Hz, which lies within the hippocampal theta frequency range (4–12 Hz) (Bland 1986; Buzsáki 2002). Primed burst stimulation, another form of patterned stimulation, involves delivery of a priming stimulus followed by a single short burst (Larson and Lynch 1986; Rose and Dunwiddie 1986). The temporal requirements for primed burst LTP are quite precise (Diamond et al. 1988; Greenstein et al. 1988; Larson and Lynch 1989): Intervals less than 140 msec or greater than 200 msec are ineffective.The mechanisms underlying theta frequency-dependent LTP have been studied primarily using the primed burst protocol (Larson and Lynch 1986, 1988, 1989; Pacelli et al. 1989; Davies and Collingridge 1996). Activation of GABA_B autoreceptors during the priming stimulus suppresses GABA release during the following burst (Davies et al. 1990; Lambert and Wilson 1994; Olpe et al. 1994), allowing greater postsynaptic depolarization (Larson and Lynch 1986; Pacelli et al. 1989) and more effective NMDA receptor activation (Davies and Collingridge 1996). Consequently, temporal requirements for primed burst potentiation match the time course of GABA_B autoreceptor-mediated suppression of GABA release (Davies et al. 1990; Davies and Collingridge 1993; Mott et al. 1993).Besides theta, hippocampal activity is observed at other frequencies, notably sharp waves (0.01–5 Hz) (Buzsáki 1986, 1989; Suzuki and Smith 1987) and low-frequency oscillations (≤1 Hz) (Wolansky et al. 2006; Moroni et al. 2007). These lower frequencies dominate during slow wave sleep (Buzsáki 1986; Suzuki and Smith 1987; Wolansky et al. 2006; Moroni et al. 2007), and contribute to hippocampal memory processing (Buzsáki 1989; Pennartz et al. 2002). While synchronized population activity over frequencies from <1 Hz to 12 Hz is associated with hippocampal memory function, previous LTP studies have focused on theta. We therefore investigated burst stimulation at frequencies from 0.05 Hz to 10 Hz. We found that CA1 synapses potentiate to some degree over this entire range and that maximal potentiation occurs around delta frequency rather than theta.     

Stimulation of the lateral geniculate,superior colliculus,or visual cortex is sufficient for eyeblink conditioning in rats

The role of the cerebellum in eyeblink conditioning is well established. Less work has been done to identify the necessary conditioned stimulus (CS) pathways that project sensory information to the cerebellum. A possible visual CS pathway has been hypothesized that consists of parallel inputs to the pontine nuclei from the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), superior colliculus (SC), pretectal nuclei, and visual cortex (VCTX) as reported by Koutalidis and colleagues in an earlier paper. The following experiments examined whether electrical stimulation of neural structures in the putative visual CS pathway can serve as a sufficient CS for eyeblink conditioning in rats. Unilateral stimulation of the ventral LGN (Experiment 1), SC (Experiment 2), or VCTX (Experiment 3) was used as a CS paired with a periorbital shock unconditioned stimulus. Stimulation was delivered to the hemisphere contralateral to the conditioned eye. Rats in all experiments were given five 100-trial sessions of paired or unpaired eyeblink conditioning with the stimulation CS followed by three paired sessions with a light CS. Stimulation of each visual area when paired with the unconditioned stimulus supported acquisition of eyeblink conditioned responses (CRs) and substantial savings when switched to a light CS. The results provide evidence for a unilateral parallel visual CS pathway for eyeblink conditioning that includes the LGN, SC, and VCTX inputs to the pontine nuclei.Pavlovian eyeblink (eyelid closure and nictitating membrane movement) conditioning is established by pairing a conditioned stimulus (CS), usually a tone or light, with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that elicits the eyeblink reflex. The eyeblink conditioned response (CR) emerges over the course of paired training, occurs during the CS, and precedes the US (Gormezano et al. 1962; Schneiderman et al. 1962). Neurobiological investigations of Pavlovian eyeblink conditioning have primarily focused on the cerebellum, which is the site of memory formation and storage (Thompson 2005). The anterior interpositus nucleus is necessary for acquisition and retention of the eyeblink CR (Lavond et al. 1985; Krupa and Thompson 1997; Freeman Jr. et al. 2005; Thompson 2005; Ohyama et al. 2006). Lobule HVI and the anterior lobe of the cerebellar cortex (lobules I–V) contribute to acquisition, retention, and timing of the CR (McCormick and Thompson 1984; Perrett et al. 1993; Perrett and Mauk 1995; Attwell et al. 1999, 2001; Medina et al. 2000; Nolan and Freeman Jr. 2005; Nolan and Freeman 2006). The brainstem nuclei that comprise the proximal ends of the CS and US input pathways to the cerebellum have also been identified.The pontine nuclei (PN) and inferior olive (IO) receive CS and US information, respectively, and are the primary sensory relays into the interpositus nucleus and cerebellar cortex (Thompson 2005). Conditioned stimulus information converges in the PN, which receives projections from lower brainstem, thalamus, and cerebral cortex (Glickstein et al. 1980; Brodal 1981; Schmahmann and Pandya 1989; Knowlton et al. 1993; Campolattaro et al. 2007). The lateral pontine nuclei (LPN) are the sources of auditory CS information projected into the cerebellum. Lesions of the LPN block CR retention to a tone CS, but have no effect on CRs to a light CS (Steinmetz et al. 1987). Thus, CS inputs from different sensory modalities may be segregated at the level of the PN. Neurons in the PN project CS information into the contralateral cerebellum via mossy fibers in the middle cerebellar peduncle that synapse primarily on granule cells in the cerebellar cortex and on neurons in the deep nuclei (Bloedel and Courville 1981; Brodal 1981; Steinmetz and Sengelaub 1992). Stimulation of the PN acts as a supernormal CS supporting faster CR acquisition than conditioning with peripheral stimuli (Steinmetz et al. 1986, 1989; Rosen et al. 1989; Steinmetz 1990; Tracy et al. 1998; Freeman Jr. and Rabinak 2004). The primary focus of these experiments was to investigate the most proximal components of the CS pathway in eyeblink conditioning. There has been less emphasis on identifying the critical CS pathways that project information to the PN.Recent studies using lesions, inactivation, stimulation, and neural tract tracing have provided evidence that the auditory CS pathway that is necessary for acquisition and retention of eyeblink conditioning is comprised of converging inputs to the medial auditory thalamic nuclei (MATN), and a direct ipsilateral projection from the MATN to the PN (Halverson and Freeman 2006; Campolattaro et al. 2007; Freeman et al. 2007; Halverson et al. 2008). Unilateral lesions of the MATN, contralateral to the conditioned eye, block acquisition of eyeblink CRs to a tone CS but have no effect on conditioning with a light CS (Halverson and Freeman 2006). Inactivation of the MATN with muscimol blocks acquisition and retention of CRs to an auditory CS, and decreases metabolic activity in the PN (Halverson et al. 2008). The MATN has a direct projection to the PN and stimulation of the MATN supports rapid CR acquisition (Campolattaro et al. 2007). Our current model of the auditory CS pathway consists of converging inputs to the MATN, and direct unilateral thalamic input to the PN (Halverson et al. 2008).Less work has been done to identify the visual CS pathway necessary for eyeblink conditioning. A possible parallel visual CS pathway has been hypothesized, which includes parallel inputs to different areas of the PN from the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), superior colliculus (SC), visual cortex (VCTX), and pretectal nuclei (Koutalidis et al. 1988). In the Koutalidis et al. study, lesions of the LGN, SC, VCTX, or pretectal nuclei alone had only a partial effect on CR acquisition with a light CS. Lesions of any two of these structures together produced a more severe impairment on acquisition and combined lesions of all of these areas completely blocked CR acquisition to a light CS (Koutalidis et al. 1988). Each visual area investigated in the Koutalidis et al. study has a direct projection to the PN that could be important for eyeblink conditioning. The ventral LGN projects to the medial, and to a lesser extent, the lateral PN (Graybiel 1974; Wells et al. 1989). The superficial, intermediate, and deep layers of SC send projections to both the dorsomedial and dorsolateral PN (Redgrave et al. 1987; Wells et al. 1989). The VCTX has a direct projection to the rostral and lateral portions of the PN (Glickstein et al. 1972; Baker et al. 1976; Mower et al. 1980; Wells et al. 1989). The pretectal nuclei also have a direct projection to both the medial and lateral PN (Weber and Harting 1980; Wells et al. 1989). However, stimulation of the anterior pretectal nucleus is not an effective CS for eyeblink conditioning (Campolattaro et al. 2007). The failure to establish conditioning with stimulation of the anterior pretectal nucleus as a CS suggests that there may be differences in the efficacy of the various visual inputs to the PN for cerebellar learning. The following experiments investigated the sufficiency of stimulation of the LGN, SC, or primary VCTX as a CS for eyeblink conditioning in rats.     

Impact of predatory threat on fear extinction in Lewis rats

Humans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are deficient at extinguishing conditioned fear responses. A study of identical twins concluded that this extinction deficit does not predate trauma but develops as a result of trauma. The present study tested whether the Lewis rat model of PTSD reproduces these features of the human syndrome. Lewis rats were subjected to classical auditory fear conditioning before or after exposure to a predatory threat that mimics a type of traumatic stress that leads to PTSD in humans. Exploratory behavior on the elevated plus maze 1 wk after predatory threat exposure was used to distinguish resilient vs. PTSD-like rats. Properties of extinction varied depending on whether fear conditioning and extinction occurred before or after predatory threat. When fear conditioning was carried out after predatory threat, PTSD-like rats showed a marked extinction deficit compared with resilient rats. In contrast, no differences were seen between resilient and PTSD-like rats when fear conditioning and extinction occurred prior to predatory threat. These findings in Lewis rats closely match the results seen in humans with PTSD, thereby suggesting that studies comparing neuronal interactions in resilient vs. at-risk Lewis rats might shed light on the causes and pathophysiology of human PTSD.Following a severe traumatic event, some individuals manifest a syndrome, known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), characterized by repeated painful recollection of the trauma, avoidance of trauma reminders, intrusive thoughts, startle, hyperarousal, and disturbed sleep. Lifetime prevalence of PTSD ranges from 1.4% to 11.2% in representative samples (Afifi et al. 2010). Review of heritability studies indicate that there is a significant genetic component to PTSD (Nugent et al. 2008) as shared genes explain approximately 25%–38% of variability in PTSD symptom clusters and total symptoms (Afifi et al. 2010). Moreover, PTSD heritability coincides with that of other psychiatric conditions such as generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and depression (Chantarujikapong et al. 2001; Fu et al. 2007), suggesting that these disorders gain expression through common biological pathways.Although our understanding of PTSD has improved recently, we still have a limited grasp of the factors that predispose some to be at risk for PTSD, as well as those contributing to PTSD expression following trauma. In part, this situation results from the ethical limitations associated with human studies. For example, humans cannot be randomly assigned to trauma, and, importantly, the invasive techniques required to study the pathophysiology of PTSD can be used only in animals. Thus, a promising approach toward understanding the underlying pathophysiology of PTSD would be to study the disease in a valid animal model of the human syndrome.Fortunately, much work has already been performed to define an animal model of PTSD that reproduces the salient features of the human syndrome (see Adamec et al. 2006; Cohen et al. 2006a; Siegmund and Wotjak 2006). The most promising research has focused on the impact of exposing rodents to species-relevant threatening stimuli that mimic the kind of life-and-death circumstances that precipitates PTSD in humans. Indeed, rodents exposed to predators or their odor develop long-lasting (3 wk or more) manifestations of anxiety as seen in a variety of behavioral assays including the elevated plus maze (EPM), social interaction test, and acoustic startle (Adamec and Shallow 1993; Blanchard et al. 2003; Adamec et al. 2006). The inherent strength of this species-relevant stimulus was demonstrated in studies where predator odor served as an unconditioned stimulus to support cued or contextual fear conditioning (Blanchard et al. 2001; McGregor et al. 2002). As is the case with human PTSD, differential vulnerability to predatory threat was also observed in rodents. In one study, for instance, the propensity of different strains of rats to develop extreme behavioral manifestations of anxiety (EBMAs) as a result of predatory threat has been characterized, revealing that a much higher proportion (50%) of Lewis rats (an inbred strain) develops EBMAs as a result of an intense predatory threat compared with 10% of Fisher rats and 20% of Sprague–Dawley rats (Cohen et al. 2006b).Although these results are promising, it remains unclear whether Lewis rats also exhibit traits that parallel the pathophysiology of human PTSD. One such factor, thought to play a particularly critical role in the persistence of PTSD, is a compromised ability to extinguish fear memories (for review, see Quirk and Mueller 2008). Two main lines of evidence support this notion. First, in functional imaging studies, the brain structures that normally support fear expression and extinction (for review, see Pape and Pare 2010) show abnormal activity patterns in PTSD (Rauch et al. 2006; Shin et al. 2006; Bremner et al. 2008; Milad et al. 2009). Second, several studies have reported that individuals with PTSD are deficient at extinguishing classically conditioned fear responses (Orr et al. 2000; Peri et al. 2000; Blechert et al. 2007; Milad et al. 2008, 2009). Of particular interest, a study of identical twins discordant for trauma exposure has revealed that this extinction deficit was not a pre-existing condition but developed as a result of trauma (Milad et al. 2008). Given the possibility that an inability to extinguish fear might contribute to the maintenance of PTSD, we therefore tested whether Lewis rats reproduced the properties of extinction seen in human PTSD.     

Beta-adrenergic receptor activation during distinct patterns of stimulation critically modulates the PKA-dependence of LTP in the mouse hippocampus

Activation of β-adrenergic receptors (β-ARs) enhances hippocampal memory consolidation and long-term potentiation (LTP), a likely mechanism for memory storage. One signaling pathway linked to β-AR activation is the cAMP-PKA pathway. PKA is critical for the consolidation of hippocampal long-term memory and for the expression of some forms of long-lasting hippocampal LTP. How does β-AR activation affect the PKA-dependence, and persistence, of LTP elicited by distinct stimulation frequencies? Here, we use in vitro electrophysiology to show that patterns of stimulation determine the temporal phase of LTP affected by β-AR activation. In addition, only specific patterns of stimulation recruit PKA-dependent LTP following β-AR activation. Impairments of PKA-dependent LTP maintenance generated by pharmacologic or genetic deficiency of PKA activity are also abolished by concurrent activation of β-ARs. Taken together, our data show that, depending on patterns of synaptic stimulation, activation of β-ARs can gate the PKA-dependence and persistence of synaptic plasticity. We suggest that this may allow neuromodulatory receptors to fine-tune neural information processing to meet the demands imposed by numerous synaptic activity profiles. This is a form of “metaplasticity” that could control the efficacy of consolidation of hippocampal long-term memories.The hippocampus importantly contributes to memory function in the mammalian brain (Zola-Morgan et al. 1986; Eichenbaum et al. 1990; Otto and Eichenbaum 1992; Phillips and LeDoux 1992; Remondes and Schuman 2004). It has reciprocal connections with numerous cortical areas, including those responsible for high-level integration of spatial and contextual data from the external environment (Lavenex and Amaral 2000). As such, the hippocampus is well positioned to receive and survey a broad range of information and select behaviorally salient data for long-term storage. Activity-dependent enhancement of hippocampal synaptic strength can store information carried in patterns of afferent neural activity (Bliss and Collingridge 1993; Moser et al. 1998; Nathe and Frank 2003; Whitlock et al. 2006). Substantial evidence suggests that long-term potentiation (LTP) of synaptic strength plays important roles in the formation of long-term memory (LTM) (Doyere and Laroche 1992; Bourtchuladze et al. 1994; Abel and Lattal 2001; Genoux et al. 2002). As such, mechanistic studies of LTP have shed valuable light on how the mammalian brain stores new information.The hippocampus receives dense noradrenergic projections from the locus coeruleus, a brain structure that can influence many vital brain functions, including attention, sleep, arousal, mood regulation, learning, and memory (Berridge and Waterhouse 2003). Both α- and β-adrenergic receptor subtypes are present on hippocampal neurons (Morrison and Foote 1986; Berridge and Waterhouse 2003), and noradrenaline (NA) acts on hippocampal β-adrenergic receptors (β-ARs) to facilitate the retention and recall of memory (Izquierdo et al. 1998; Ji et al. 2003; Murchison et al. 2004). In humans, stimulation of the noradrenergic neuromodulatory system enhances memory for emotional stimuli, and inhibition of β-ARs prevents this memory enhancement (Cahill et al. 1994; van Stegeren et al. 1998; O’Carroll et al. 1999).Consistent with the notion that selective enhancement of LTM may occur following β-AR activation, stimulation of β-ARs can also facilitate the persistence of LTP. In areas CA3 and CA1, β-AR activation facilitates the induction of long-lasting LTP when paired with certain patterns of electrical stimulation (Huang and Kandel 1996; Gelinas and Nguyen 2005). However, the mechanisms by which different patterns of stimulation control synaptic responsiveness to β-AR activation are unclear.β-ARs couple to guanine-nucleotide-binding regulatory Gs proteins to stimulate adenylyl cyclase activity and increase intracellular cAMP (Seeds and Gilman 1971; Maguire et al. 1977). A main target of cAMP signaling is activation of cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA), a kinase that is required for some forms of long-lasting LTP and for consolidation of hippocampal LTM (Frey et al. 1993; Abel et al. 1997; Nguyen and Woo 2003). Interestingly, the PKA-dependence of hippocampal LTP displays plasticity: Specific temporal patterns of synaptic stimulation, such as repeated and temporally spaced 100-Hz stimulation, elicit LTP that requires PKA for its expression (Woo et al. 2003). Also, spatial “enrichment” can increase the PKA-dependence of LTP in mice, and this is correlated with improved hippocampal memory function (Duffy et al. 2001). However, it is unclear whether activation of β-ARs can critically gate the PKA-dependence of LTP. In this study, we examine the effects of β-AR activation on LTP generated by various patterns of afferent stimulation in area CA1 of the hippocampus, and we determine the role of PKA in these β-AR-modulated forms of LTP.     

Odor-specific habituation arises from interaction of afferent synaptic adaptation and intrinsic synaptic potentiation in olfactory cortex

Segmentation of target odorants from background odorants is a fundamental computational requirement for the olfactory system and is thought to be behaviorally mediated by olfactory habituation memory. Data from our laboratory have shown that odor-specific adaptation in piriform neurons, mediated at least partially by synaptic adaptation between the olfactory bulb outputs and piriform cortex pyramidal cells, is highly odor specific, while that observed at the synaptic level is specific only to certain odor features. Behavioral data show that odor habituation memory at short time constants corresponding to synaptic adaptation is also highly odor specific and is blocked by the same pharmacological agents as synaptic adaptation. Using previously developed computational models of the olfactory system we show here how synaptic adaptation and potentiation interact to create the observed specificity of response adaptation. The model analyzes the mechanisms underlying the odor specificity of habituation, the dependence on functioning cholinergic modulation, and makes predictions about connectivity to and within the piriform neural network. Predictions made by the model for the role of cholinergic modulation are supported by behavioral results.Filtering sensory input is critical for information processing tasks such as background segmentation, and shifting processing power away from redundant, stable, or repetitive stimuli toward dynamic, novel stimuli. A critical aspect of this filtering however, is stimulus specificity. Under most circumstances it may be most beneficial to selectively filter the redundant stimulus, while maintaining responsiveness to different, though perhaps highly similar stimuli.In the olfactory system, short-term habituation to stable or repeated odorants involves a metabotropic glutamate receptor (mGluR)-dependent depression of afferent synapses to the piriform cortex (Best and Wilson 2004). Blockade of group III mGluR receptors prevents cortical adaptation odors (Best and Wilson 2004), and reduces short-term habituation of odor-evoked reflexes (Best et al. 2005) and odor investigation (Yadon and Wilson 2005; Bell et al. 2008; McNamara et al. 2008). This short-term habituation is highly odor specific, with minimal cross-adaptation of piriform cortical single-unit responses or cross-habituation of behavioral responses to similar odors, including between mixtures and their components (Wilson 2000; Cleland et al. 2002). Interestingly, there is an experience-dependent component to short-term habituation odor specificity. The odor specificity is most pronounced for familiar odors, with very brief (<20 sec) exposure to odors producing more generalization, and longer exposures (>50 sec) sufficient to permit strong odor specificity in cortex adaptation (Wilson 2003).The homosynaptic nature of afferent synaptic depression underlying cortical adaptation (Wilson 1998; Best and Wilson 2004) may contribute to this odor specificity. However, the experience dependence suggests that there may be an additional process involved. In fact, theoretical views of piriform cortical function suggest that the cortex learns previous patterns of input via potentiation of intracortical association fiber synapses (Hasselmo et al. 1990; Barkai et al. 1994; Haberly 2001; Linster et al. 2003). This autoassociative process essentially creates a template of previous network activity, against which new input patterns can be compared, allowing enhanced discrimination between similar patterns, as well as completion of degraded patterns (Barkai et al. 1994; Barnes et al. 2008). In support of this hypothesis, previous work has demonstrated that disruption of normal synaptic potentiation in association fiber synapses through blockade of cholinergic muscarinic receptors (Patil et al. 1998; Linster et al. 2003), reduces odor specificity of cortical adaptation (Wilson 2001b), prevents the effects of odor experience on subsequent behavioral cross-habituation (Fletcher and Wilson 2002), and disrupts odor discrimination (Linster et al. 2001).The present series of studies further explored the role of combined afferent synaptic depression and intracortical association fiber synaptic potentiation on the specificity of cortical adaptation and odor habituation. Using a computational model of the olfactory system (Linster et al. 2007), the results suggest that activity-dependent association fiber plasticity is necessary to account for the specificity of odor habituation. Furthermore, in behavioral experiments blockade of cholinergic muscarinic receptors during habituation enhances generalization of odor habituation, consistent with the modeling and with previous electrophysiological results.     

Ventral lateral geniculate input to the medial pons is necessary for visual eyeblink conditioning in rats

The conditioned stimulus (CS) pathway that is necessary for visual delay eyeblink conditioning was investigated in the current study. Rats were initially given eyeblink conditioning with stimulation of the ventral nucleus of the lateral geniculate (LGNv) as the CS followed by conditioning with light and tone CSs in separate training phases. Muscimol was infused into the medial pontine nuclei (MPN) after each training phase to examine conditioned response (CR) retention to each CS. The spread of muscimol infusions targeting the MPN was examined with fluorescent muscimol. Muscimol infusions into the MPN resulted in a severe impairment in retention of CRs with the LGNv stimulation and light CSs. A less severe impairment was observed with the tone CS. The results suggest that CS information from the LGNv and light CSs is relayed to the cerebellum through the MPN. Retrograde tracing with fluoro-gold (FG) showed that the LGNv and nucleus of the optic tract have ipsilateral projections to the MPN. Unilateral inputs to the MPN from the LGNv and nucleus of the optic tract may be part of the visual CS pathway that is necessary for visual eyeblink conditioning.The neural substrates of associative motor learning have been studied extensively using eyeblink conditioning (Christian and Thompson 2003; Thompson 2005). Eyeblink conditioning is typically established by pairing a tone or light conditioned stimulus (CS) with an unconditioned stimulus (US) that elicits the eyeblink reflex. An eyeblink conditioned response (CR) emerges over the course of paired training, and the peak of eyelid closure occurs at the onset time of the US. Results from experiments using temporary lesions of the cerebellar deep nuclei or cerebellar cortex indicate that the anterior interpositus nucleus and cerebellar cortex are necessary for acquisition, expression, and extinction of eyeblink conditioning (Krupa et al. 1993; Hardiman et al. 1996; Krupa and Thompson 1997; Garcia and Mauk 1998; Medina et al. 2001; Bao et al. 2002; Freeman et al. 2005a). Blocking cerebellar output with inactivation of the superior cerebellar peduncle, red nucleus, or brainstem motor nuclei selectively blocks CR expression but not acquisition, providing further evidence that learning occurs in the cerebellum (Chapman et al. 1990; Krupa et al. 1993, 1996; Krupa and Thompson 1995).Sensory stimuli from every modality are sent to the pontine nuclei (PN), which receive projections from the lower brainstem, thalamus, and cerebral cortex (Glickstein et al. 1980; Brodal 1981; Mihailoff et al. 1989; Schmahmann and Pandya 1989; Wells et al. 1989; Knowlton et al. 1993; Campolattaro et al. 2007). Neurons in the PN project CS information to the cerebellum via mossy fibers in the middle cerebellar peduncle that synapse on granule cells in the cerebellar cortex and on neurons in the interpositus nucleus (Bloedel and Courville 1981; Brodal 1981; Steinmetz and Sengelaub 1992; Mihailoff 1993). Lesions of the middle cerebellar peduncle impair eyeblink conditioning with auditory, somatosensory, and visual CSs (Lewis et al. 1987). Bilateral electrolytic lesions of the dorsolateral and lateral pontine nuclei (LPN) block retention of CRs to an auditory CS but have no effect on light-elicited CRs (Steinmetz et al. 1987). Inactivation of the contralateral LPN blocks CRs to a tone CS but not to lateral reticular nucleus stimulation in rabbits (Bao et al. 2000). Moreover, stimulation of the LPN or middle cerebellar peduncle is a sufficient CS for eyeblink conditioning (Steinmetz et al. 1986, 1987; Tracy et al. 1998; Bao et al. 2000; Freeman and Rabinak 2004; Freeman et al. 2005b; Campolattaro and Freeman 2008). The findings from the lesion, inactivation, and stimulation studies provide evidence that the PN is the proximal part of the CS pathway for cerebellar learning. These studies also indicate that the LPN is the primary source of auditory CS input to the cerebellum.Only a few studies have examined the visual CS pathway necessary for eyeblink conditioning. The dorsal and ventral divisions of the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus (LGNd, LGNv), pretectal nuclei, visual cortex (VCTX), and superior colliculus (SC) comprise a hypothesized parallel visual CS pathway for eyeblink conditioning (Koutalidis et al. 1988). Combined lesions of all of these visual areas completely block acquisition, lesions of two visual areas produce a partial impairment, and lesions in one visual area do not impair CR acquisition (Koutalidis et al. 1988). Stimulation of the VCTX, SC, and LGNv support eyeblink conditioning, and each of these structures has a direct unilateral projection to the PN that could be important for eyeblink conditioning (Halverson et al. 2009). The lesion and stimulation studies provide evidence that structures in the hypothesized visual CS pathway are independently capable of supporting conditioning. An important aspect of the visual CS pathway proposed in the Koutalidis et al. (1988) study is distributed projections of each visual area to different regions of the PN. The important projections were hypothesized to be from the VCTX to the rostral portion of the PN, from both the SC and pretectal nuclei to the dorsolateral PN, and the LGNv projection to the medial pontine nuclei (MPN) (Koutalidis et al. 1988). Lesions of the VCTX were substituted for LGN lesions in the Koutalidis et al. (1988) study due to technical problems with animal survival. The LGNv projection to the MPN was therefore not examined in their combined lesion group. Stimulation of the anterior pretectal nucleus is not a sufficient CS to support eyeblink conditioning (Campolattaro et al. 2007). The direct PN projection from the VCTX is not necessary for CR retention to a light CS, as lesions do not prevent eyeblink conditioning to a light CS in dogs or monkeys (Hilgard and Marquis 1935, 1936). Moreover, lesions of the entire cerebral cortex do not prevent acquisition or retention of delay eyeblink conditioning to a tone or light CS in rabbits (Oakley and Russell 1972, 1977). The LGNv and SC, therefore, are likely sources of visual input to the PN that is necessary for eyeblink conditioning.The current experiment investigated whether information from the LGNv and a visual CS (light) share similar inputs into the MPN and whether those inputs are different from an auditory CS. The visual projections to the MPN were also investigated with the retrograde tracer fluoro-gold (FG) to identify structures that may be involved with the relay of CS information during eyeblink conditioning. In the conditioning experiment, rats received three phases of training, with each phase consisting of three acquisition sessions followed by a muscimol infusion into the MPN, and then a saline recovery session. Each rat received unilateral stimulation of the LGNv (contralateral to the trained eye) during phase 1 of training followed by either a tone or light CS in phases 2 and 3 (order of stimulus presentation was counterbalanced). One group received LGNv stimulation in phase 1 followed by a light CS in phase 2, and a tone CS in phase 3 (SLT). The other group received the tone CS in phase 2, and light CS in phase 3 (STL).     

Recognition memory: Adding a response deadline eliminates recollection but spares familiarity

A current controversy in memory research concerns whether recognition is supported by distinct processes of familiarity and recollection, or instead by a single process wherein familiarity and recollection reflect weak and strong memories, respectively. Recent studies using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses in an animal model have shown that manipulations of the memory demands can eliminate the contribution of familiarity while sparing recollection. Here it is shown that a different manipulation, specifically the addition of a response deadline in recognition testing, results in the opposite performance pattern, eliminating the contribution of recollection while sparing that of familiarity. This dissociation, combined with the earlier findings, demonstrates that familiarity and recollection are differentially sensitive to specific memory demands, strongly supporting the dual process view.Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis holds the promise of dissecting the contributions to recognition memory of episodic recollection and familiarity (Yonelinas 2001), and this method can be applied equally well to examine these memory processes in animals as well as humans (Fortin et al. 2004; Sauvage et al. 2008). According to the dual process model, recollection is indexed by the asymmetry of the ROC function whereas familiarity is measured by the degree of curvilinearity of that function, and correspondingly, these two parameters can vary independently (Yonelinas 2001). However, there is controversy about this interpretation of ROC components. Some have argued that the asymmetry and curvilinearity of the ROC function both reflect the strength of memories mediated by a single process (Wixted 2007), and correspondingly, these components of the ROC increase or decrease together in stronger or weaker memories, respectively (Squire et al. 2007).A resolution of this controversy can be advanced by examining whether the ROC asymmetry and curvilinearity are independently influenced by task manipulations that favor either recollection or familiarity, consistent with dual process theory, or instead are similarly influenced by conditions that affect memory strength. Recent data from an animal model of recognition have shown that adding a demand for remembering associations between independent stimuli eliminates the ROC curvilinearity without affecting the asymmetry, consistent with the dual process view (Sauvage et al. 2008; for discussion of associative recognition, see Mayes et al. 2007). However, in order to provide compelling evidence of independence of the two ROC components, it is also critical to show that other memory demands that favor familiarity produce the opposite pattern, elimination of the ROC asymmetry while sparing its curvilinearity. Together these findings would constitute a double dissociation between the two parameters of the ROC function that cannot be explained by a single process theory.As originally conceived in models proposed in the 1970s, familiarity is characterized as a perceptually driven, pattern matching process that is completed rapidly, whereas recollection is characterized as a conceptually driven, organizational process that requires more time (Mandler 1972; Atkinson and Juola 1973, 1974; for reviews, see Yonelinas 2002; Mandler 2008). Consistent with this view, the results of several studies that employ response deadlines in the test phase report that familiarity is more rapid than recollection. For example, forcing people to make speeded recognition responses has little effect on simple yes–no recognition but strikingly reduces performance when subjects must remember where or when an item was studied (Yonelinas and Jacoby 1994; Gronlund et al. 1997; Hintzman et al. 1998). Other studies that require subjects to oppose familiarity and recollection reveal a two-component temporal function that includes a rapidly available familiarity process and a slower recollective process (Dosher 1984; Gronlund and Ratcliff 1989; Hintzman and Curran 1994; McElree et al. 1999). In addition, studies that measure brain evoked response potentials (ERPs) have revealed two distinct ERP modulations commonly observed during recognition: a mid-frontal negativity onsetting about 400 msec after stimulus onset that is associated with familiarity, and a parietally distributed positivity beginning about 500 msec after stimulus onset that is associated with recollection (Smith 1993; Duzel et al. 1997; Curran 2004; Duarte et al. 2006; Woodruff et al. 2006; but see Voss and Paller 2009).Dual process theory predicts that applying an appropriate early response deadline should allow sufficient time for contribution of familiarity but not that of recollection, and so should reduce the ROC asymmetry while sparing its curvilinearity, opposite to the already observed effects of associative memory demands that favor recollection (Sauvage et al. 2008). Confirmation of this prediction combined with the previous findings of the opposite effects in associative recognition would constitute a double dissociation between the features of recollection and familiarity. This result would therefore strongly support the conclusion that the asymmetry and curvilinearity are independent parameters of the ROC function that are differentially linked to features of recollection and familiarity, respectively.     

Trace and contextual fear conditioning require neural activity and NMDA receptor-dependent transmission in the medial prefrontal cortex

The contribution of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) to the formation of memory is a subject of considerable recent interest. Notably, the mechanisms supporting memory acquisition in this structure are poorly understood. The mPFC has been implicated in the acquisition of trace fear conditioning, a task that requires the association of a conditional stimulus (CS) and an aversive unconditional stimulus (UCS) across a temporal gap. In both rat and human subjects, frontal regions show increased activity during the trace interval separating the CS and UCS. We investigated the contribution of prefrontal neural activity in the rat to the acquisition of trace fear conditioning using microinfusions of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA_A) receptor agonist muscimol. We also investigated the role of prefrontal N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor-mediated signaling in trace fear conditioning using the NMDA receptor antagonist 2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid (APV). Temporary inactivation of prefrontal activity with muscimol or blockade of NMDA receptor-dependent transmission in mPFC impaired the acquisition of trace, but not delay, conditional fear responses. Simultaneously acquired contextual fear responses were also impaired in drug-treated rats exposed to trace or delay, but not unpaired, training protocols. Our results support the idea that synaptic plasticity within the mPFC is critical for the long-term storage of memory in trace fear conditioning.The prefrontal cortex participates in a wide range of complex cognitive functions including working memory, attention, and behavioral inhibition (Fuster 2001). In recent years, the known functions of the prefrontal cortex have been extended to include a role in long-term memory encoding and retrieval (Blumenfeld and Ranganath 2006; Jung et al. 2008). The prefrontal cortex may be involved in the acquisition, expression, extinction, and systems consolidation of memory (Frankland et al. 2004; Santini et al. 2004; Takehara-Nishiuchi et al. 2005; Corcoran and Quirk 2007; Jung et al. 2008). Of these processes, the mechanisms supporting the acquisition of memory may be the least understood. Recently, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been shown to be important for trace fear conditioning (Runyan et al. 2004; Gilmartin and McEchron 2005), which provides a powerful model system for studying the neurobiological basis of prefrontal contributions to memory. Trace fear conditioning is a variant of standard “delay” fear conditioning in which a neutral conditional stimulus (CS) is paired with an aversive unconditional stimulus (UCS). Trace conditioning differs from delay conditioning by the addition of a stimulus-free “trace” interval of several seconds separating the CS and UCS. Learning the CS–UCS association across this interval requires forebrain structures such as the hippocampus and mPFC. Importantly, the mPFC and hippocampus are only necessary for learning when a trace interval separates the stimuli (Solomon et al. 1986; Kronforst-Collins and Disterhoft 1998; McEchron et al. 1998; Takehara-Nishiuchi et al. 2005). This forebrain dependence has led to the hypothesis that neural activity in these structures is necessary to bridge the CS–UCS temporal gap. In support of this hypothesis, single neurons recorded from the prelimbic area of the rat mPFC exhibit sustained increases in firing during the CS and trace interval in trace fear conditioning (Baeg et al. 2001; Gilmartin and McEchron 2005). Similar sustained responses are not observed following the CS in delay conditioned animals or unpaired control animals. This pattern of activity is consistent with a working memory or “bridging” role for mPFC in trace fear conditioning, but it is not clear whether this activity is actually necessary for learning. We address this issue here using the γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA_A) receptor agonist muscimol to temporarily inactivate cellular activity in the prelimbic mPFC during the acquisition of trace fear conditioning.The contribution of mPFC to the long-term storage (i.e., 24 h or more) of trace fear conditioning, as opposed to a strictly working memory role (i.e., seconds to minutes), is a matter of some debate. Recent reports suggest that intact prefrontal activity at the time of testing is required for the recall of trace fear conditioning 2 d after training (Blum et al. 2006a), while mPFC lesions performed 1 d after training fail to disrupt the memory (Quinn et al. 2008). The findings from the former study may reflect a role for prelimbic mPFC in the expression of conditional fear rather than memory storage per se (Corcoran and Quirk 2007). However, blockade of the intracellular mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascade during training impairs the subsequent retention of trace fear conditioning 48 h later (Runyan et al. 2004). Activation of the MAPK signaling cascade can result in the synthesis of proteins necessary for synaptic strengthening, providing a potential mechanism by which mPFC may participate in memory storage. To better understand the nature of the prefrontal contribution to long-term memory, more information is needed about fundamental plasticity mechanisms in this structure. Dependence on N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors (NMDAR) is a key feature of many forms of long-term memory, both in vitro and in vivo. The induction of long-term potentiation (LTP) in the hippocampus, a cellular model of long-term plasticity and information storage, requires NMDAR activation (Reymann et al. 1989). Genetic knockdown or pharmacological blockade of NMDAR-mediated neurotransmission in the hippocampus impairs several forms of hippocampus-dependent memory, including trace fear conditioning (Tonegawa et al. 1996; Huerta et al. 2000; Quinn et al. 2005), but it is unknown if activation of these receptors is necessary in the mPFC for the acquisition of trace fear conditioning. Data from in vivo electrophysiology studies have shown that stimulation of ventral hippocampal inputs to prelimbic neurons in mPFC produces LTP, and the induction of prefrontal LTP depends upon functional NMDARs (Laroche et al. 1990; Jay et al. 1995). If the role of mPFC in trace fear conditioning goes beyond simply maintaining CS information in working memory, then activation of NMDAR may be critical to memory formation. We test this hypothesis by reversibly blocking NMDAR neurotransmission with 2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid (APV) during training to examine the role of prefrontal NMDAR to the acquisition of trace fear conditioning.Another important question is whether mPFC contributes to the formation of contextual fear memories. Fear to the training context is acquired simultaneously with fear to the auditory CS in both trace and delay fear conditioning. Conflicting reports in the literature suggest the role of mPFC in contextual fear conditioning is unclear. Damage to ventral areas of mPFC prior to delay fear conditioning has failed to impair context fear acquisition (Morgan et al. 1993). Prefrontal lesions incorporating dorsal mPFC have in some cases been reported to augment fear responses to the context (Morgan and LeDoux 1995), while blockade of NMDAR transmission has impaired contextual fear conditioning (Zhao et al. 2005). Post-training lesions of mPFC impair context fear retention (Quinn et al. 2008) in trace and delay conditioning. Contextual fear responses were assessed in this study to determine the contribution of neuronal activity and NMDAR-mediated signaling in mPFC to the acquisition of contextual fear conditioning.     

The role of amygdala nuclei in the expression of auditory signaled two-way active avoidance in rats

Using a two-way signaled active avoidance (2-AA) learning procedure, where rats were trained in a shuttle box to avoid a footshock signaled by an auditory stimulus, we tested the contributions of the lateral (LA), basal (B), and central (CE) nuclei of the amygdala to the expression of instrumental active avoidance conditioned responses (CRs). Discrete or combined lesions of the LA and B, performed after the rats had reached an asymptotic level of avoidance performance, produced deficits in the CR, whereas CE lesions had minimal effect. Fiber-sparing excitotoxic lesions of the LA/B produced by infusions of N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) also impaired avoidance performance, confirming that neurons in the LA/B are involved in mediating avoidance CRs. In a final series of experiments, bilateral electrolytic lesions of the CE were performed on a subgroup of animals that failed to acquire the avoidance CR after 3 d of training. CE lesions led to an immediate rescue of avoidance learning, suggesting that activity in CE was inhibiting the instrumental CR. Taken together, these results indicate that the LA and B are essential for the performance of a 2-AA response. The CE is not required, and may in fact constrain the instrumental avoidance response by mediating the generation of competing Pavlovian responses, such as freezing.Early studies of the neural basis of fear often employed avoidance conditioning procedures where fear was assessed by measuring instrumental responses that reduced exposure to aversive stimuli (e.g., Weiskrantz 1956; Goddard 1964; Sarter and Markowitsch 1985; Gabriel and Sparenborg 1986). Despite much research, studies of avoidance failed to yield a coherent view of the brain mechanisms of fear. In some studies, a region such as the amygdala would be found to be essential and in other studies would not. In contrast, rapid progress in understanding the neural basis of fear and fear learning was made when researchers turned to the use of Pavlovian fear conditioning (Kapp et al. 1984, 1992; LeDoux et al. 1984; Davis 1992; LeDoux 1992; Cain and Ledoux 2008a). It is now well established from such studies that specific nuclei and subnuclei of the amygdala are essential for the acquisition and storage of Pavlovian associative memories about threatening situations (LeDoux 2000; Fanselow and Gale 2003; Maren 2003; Maren and Quirk 2004; Schafe et al. 2005; Davis 2006).Several factors probably contributed to the fact that Pavlovian conditioning succeeded where avoidance conditioning struggled. First, avoidance conditioning has long been viewed as a two-stage learning process (Mowrer and Lamoreaux 1946; Miller 1948b; McAllister and McAllister 1971; Levis 1989; Cain and LeDoux 2008b). In avoidance learning, the subject initially undergoes Pavlovian conditioning and forms an association between the shock and cues in the apparatus. The shock is an unconditioned stimulus (US) and the cues are conditioned stimuli (CS). Subsequently, the subject learns the instrumental response to avoid the shock. Further, the “fear” aroused by the presence of the CS motivates learning of the instrumental response. Fear reduction associated with successful avoidance has even been proposed to be the event that reinforces avoidance learning (e.g., Miller 1948b; McAllister and McAllister 1971; Cain and LeDoux 2007). Given that Pavlovian conditioning is the initial stage of avoidance conditioning, as well as the source of the “fear” in this paradigm, it would be more constructive to study the brain mechanisms of fear through studies of Pavlovian conditioning rather than through paradigms where Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning are intermixed. Second, avoidance conditioning was studied in a variety of ways, but it was not as well appreciated at the time as it is today; that subtle differences in the way tasks are structured can have dramatic effects on the brain mechanisms required to perform the task. There was also less of an appreciation for the detailed organization of circuits in areas such as the amygdala. Thus, some avoidance studies examined the effects of removal of the entire amygdala or multiple subdivisions (for review, see Sarter and Markowitsch 1985). Finally, fear conditioning studies typically involved a discrete CS, usually a tone, which could be tracked from sensory processing areas of the auditory system to specific amygdala nuclei that process the CS, form the CS–US association, and control the expression of defense responses mediated by specific motor outputs. In contrast, studies of avoidance conditioning often involved diffuse cues, and the instrumental responses used to indirectly measure fear were complex and not easily mapped onto neural circuits.Despite the lack of progress in understanding the neural basis of avoidance responses, this behavioral paradigm has clinical relevance. For example, avoidance behaviors provide an effective means of dealing with fear in anticipation of a harmful event. When information is successfully used to avoid harm, not only is the harmful event prevented, but also the fear arousal, anxiety, and stress associated with such events; (Solomon and Wynne 1954; Kamin et al. 1963). Because avoidance is such a successful strategy to cope with danger, it is used extensively by patients with fear-related disorders to reduce their exposure to fear- or anxiety-provoking situations. Pathological avoidance is, in fact, a hallmark of anxiety disorders: In avoiding fear and anxiety, patients often fail to perform normal daily activities (Mineka and Zinbarg 2006).We are revisiting the circuits of avoidance conditioning from the perspective of having detailed knowledge of the circuit of the first stage of avoidance, Pavlovian conditioning. To most effectively take advantage of Pavlovian conditioning findings, we have designed an avoidance task that uses a tone and a shock. Rats were trained to shuttle back and forth in a runway in order to avoid shock under the direction of a tone. That is, the subjects could avoid a shock if they performed a shuttle response when the tone was on, but received a shock if they stayed in the same place (two-way signaled active avoidance, 2-AA). While the amygdala has been implicated in 2-AA (for review, see Sarter and Markowitsch 1985), the exact amygdala nuclei and their interrelation in a circuit are poorly understood.We focused on the role of amygdala areas that have been studied extensively in fear conditioning: the lateral (LA), basal (B), and central (CE) nuclei. The LA is widely thought to be the locus of plasticity and storage of the CS–US association, and is an essential part of the fear conditioning circuitry. The basal amygdala, which receives inputs from the LA (Pitkänen 2000), is not normally required for the acquisition and expression of fear conditioning (Amorapanth et al. 2000; Nader et al. 2001), although it may contribute under some circumstances (Goosens and Maren 2001; Anglada-Figueroa and Quirk 2005). The B is also required for the use of the CS in the motivation and reinforcement of responses in other aversive instrumental tasks (Killcross et al. 1997; Amorapanth et al. 2000). The CE, through connections to hypothalamic and brainstem areas (Pitkänen 2000), is required for the expression of Pavlovian fear responses (Kapp et al. 1979, 1992; LeDoux et al. 1988; Hitchcock and Davis 1991) but not for the motivation or reinforcement of aversive instrumental responses (Amorapanth et al. 2000; LeDoux et al. 2009). We thus hypothesized that damage to the LA or B, but not to the CE, would interfere with the performance of signaled active avoidance.     

The amygdala is not necessary for unconditioned stimulus inflation after Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats

The basolateral complex (BLA) and central nucleus (CEA) of the amygdala play critical roles in associative learning, including Pavlovian conditioning. However, the precise role for these structures in Pavlovian conditioning is not clear. Recent work in appetitive conditioning paradigms suggests that the amygdala, particularly the BLA, has an important role in representing the value of the unconditioned stimulus (US). It is not known whether the amygdala performs such a function in aversive paradigms, such as Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats. To address this issue, Experiments 1 and 2 used temporary pharmacological inactivation of the amygdala prior to a US inflation procedure to assess its role in revaluing shock USs after either overtraining (Experiment 1) or limited training (Experiment 2), respectively. Inactivation of the BLA or CEA during the inflation session did not affect subsequent increases in conditioned freezing observed to either the tone conditioned stimulus (CS) or the conditioning context in either experiment. In Experiment 3, NBQX infusions into the BLA impaired the acquisition of auditory fear conditioning with an inflation-magnitude US, indicating that the amygdala is required for associative learning with intense USs. Together, these results suggest that the amygdala is not required for revaluing an aversive US despite being required for the acquisition of fear to that US.Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats is a behavioral model used to investigate the neurobiology underlying the development and maintenance of fear learning and memory (Grillon et al. 1996; LeDoux 1998, 2000; Bouton et al. 2001; Maren 2001b, 2005; Kim and Jung 2006). In this model, an innocuous conditioned stimulus (CS), such as a tone, is paired with an aversive unconditioned stimulus (US), such as a footshock. After one or more pairings, the rat learns that the CS predicts the US. As a consequence, CS presentations alone elicit a conditioned fear response (CR), which includes increases in heart rate, arterial blood pressure, hypoalgesia, potentiated acoustic startle, stress hormone release, and freezing (somatomotor immobility).The amygdala has been identified as one of the major regions in which fear memories are encoded and stored. Within the amygdala, the basolateral complex of the amygdala (BLA; consisting of the lateral, basolateral, and basomedial nuclei) and the central nucleus of the amygdala (CEA) receive convergent CS and US information and are involved in the acquisition of fear memories (LeDoux 1998, 2000; Fendt and Fanselow 1999; Davis and Whalen 2001; Maren 2001b; Schafe et al. 2001; Fanselow and Gale 2003; Wilensky et al. 2006; Zimmerman et al. 2007). In addition, the CEA has an important role in the expression of fear CRs (Fendt and Fanselow 1999; LeDoux 2000; Davis and Whalen 2001; Maren 2001b; Fanselow and Gale 2003). In support of this, many studies have shown that either permanent or temporary lesions of the BLA or CEA prevent the acquisition and/or expression of fear memories (Helmstetter 1992; Helmstetter and Bellgowan 1994; Campeau and Davis 1995; Maren et al. 1996a,b; Killcross et al. 1997; Muller et al. 1997; Walker and Davis 1997; Cousens and Otto 1998; Maren 1998, 1999, 2001a,b; Wilensky et al. 1999, 2000, 2006; Goosens and Maren 2001, 2003; Nader et al. 2001; Fanselow and Gale 2003; Gale et al. 2004; Koo et al. 2004; Zimmerman et al. 2007).In addition to its role in encoding CS–US associations during conditioning, recent work suggests that the amygdala is also involved in representing properties of the US itself. For example, temporary or permanent lesions of the BLA reduce both decrements in conditioned responding after devaluation of a food US (Hatfield et al. 1996; Killcross et al. 1997; Blundell et al. 2001; Balleine et al. 2003; Everitt et al. 2003; Pickens et al. 2003; Holland 2004) and increments in conditional responding after inflation of a shock US (Fanselow and Gale 2003). Moreover, recent electrophysiological studies in primates indicate that amygdala neurons represent the value of both aversive and appetitive outcomes (Paton et al. 2006; Belova et al. 2007, 2008; Salzman et al. 2007). These studies suggest that one function of the BLA is to represent specific properties of biologically significant events, such as the food or shock USs that are typically used in Pavlovian conditioning paradigms. By this view, the BLA may represent specific sensory properties of USs that shape the nature of learned behavioral responses to the US (Balleine and Killcross 2006) and allow CSs to gain access to the incentive value of the US (Everitt et al. 2003).In contrast to this view, we recently reported that rats with neurotoxic BLA lesions exhibit normal US revaluation after Pavlovian fear conditioning (Rabinak and Maren 2008). In this study, auditory fear conditioning (75 CS–US trials) with a moderate footshock (1 mA) was followed by several exposures (five US-alone trials) to an intense footshock (3 mA) during an inflation session. Both intact rats and rats with BLA lesions exhibit a robust increase in conditional freezing to the auditory CS during a subsequent retention test (Rabinak and Maren 2008). Control experiments suggested that this was due to a revaluation of the US with which the CS was associated, rather than nonassociative sensitization of fear engendered by exposure to intense shock. These data reveal that the BLA may not be necessary for representing properties of shock USs during Pavlovian fear conditioning. To address these issues further, we have examined the consequence of reversible pharmacological manipulations of the amygdala during US inflation on conditional fear responses established with either extensive or limited training.     

The NMDA antagonist MK-801 disrupts reconsolidation of a cocaine-associated memory for conditioned place preference but not for self-administration in rats

Recent research suggests that drug-related memories are reactivated after exposure to environmental cues and may undergo reconsolidation, a process that can strengthen memories. Conversely, reconsolidation may be disrupted by certain pharmacological agents such that the drug-associated memory is weakened. Several studies have demonstrated disruption of memory reconsolidation using a drug-induced conditioned place preference (CPP) task, but no studies have explored whether cocaine-associated memories can be similarly disrupted in cocaine self-administering animals after a cocaine priming injection, which powerfully reinstates drug-seeking behavior. Here we used cocaine-induced CPP and cocaine self-administration to investigate whether the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist (+)-5methyl-10,11-dihydro-5H-dibenzo[a,d]cyclohepten-5,10-imine maleate (MK-801) given just prior to reactivation sessions would suppress subsequent cocaine-primed reinstatement (disruption of reconsolidation). Systemic injection of MK-801 (0.05 or 0.20 mg/kg administered intraperitoneally) in rats just prior to reactivation of the cocaine-associated memory in the CPP context attenuated subsequent cocaine-primed reinstatement, while no disruption occurred in rats that did not receive reactivation in the CPP context. However, in rats trained to self-administer cocaine, systemic administration of MK-801 just prior to either of two different types of reactivation sessions had no effect on subsequent cocaine-primed reinstatement of lever-pressing behavior. Thus, systemic administration of MK-801 disrupted the reconsolidation of a cocaine-associated memory for CPP but not for self-administration. These findings suggest that cocaine-CPP and self-administration do not use similar neurochemical processes to disrupt reconsolidation or that cocaine-associated memories in self-administering rats do not undergo reconsolidation, as assessed by lever-pressing behavior under cocaine reinstatement conditions.The ability to disrupt previously consolidated memories in a reactivation-dependent manner is thought to be due to the disruption of a memory reconsolidation process. This disruption of reconsolidation has been observed in a wide variety of tasks and species (Nader et al. 2000b; Sara 2000; Alberini 2005; Riccio et al. 2006). Early reconsolidation experiments primarily focused on aversive learning paradigms, with an emphasis on disruption of reconsolidation as a potential treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (Misanin et al. 1968; Nader et al. 2000a; Debiec and Ledoux 2004; Brunet et al. 2008). Only more recently have investigators demonstrated that appetitive memories also undergo reconsolidation; most, but not all (Yim et al. 2006), studies found a disruption of expression for the drug-associated memory, suggesting the potential to target the reconsolidation process as a treatment for drug addiction (Lee et al. 2005; Miller and Marshall 2005; Milekic et al. 2006; Valjent et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007; Kelley et al. 2007; Sadler et al. 2007; Fricks-Gleason and Marshall 2008; Milton et al. 2008a, b).Miller and Marshall (2005) showed that reconsolidation of cocaine conditioned place preference (CPP) in the rat could be disrupted by either pre- or post-treatment of a phosphorylation inhibitor of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (1/2) (ERK) in a reactivation-dependent manner. Other studies have shown that protein synthesis inhibitors (Milekic et al. 2006), a matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) inhibitor (Brown et al. 2007), a β-noradrenergic receptor antagonist (Bernardi et al. 2006; Robinson and Franklin 2007a; Fricks-Gleason and Marshall 2008), and an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist (Kelley et al. 2007; Sadler et al. 2007) can also disrupt the reconsolidation of drug-associated CPP memories. Studies by Lee and colleagues have shown that Zif268 antisense oligodeoxynucleotide infused into the basolateral amygdala prior to reactivation of memory for a cocaine-associated cue (the conditioned stimulus or CS) disrupts the ability of cocaine-associated cues to establish subsequent acquisition of a new instrumental response (Lee et al. 2005), and the ability of a drug-associated cue to induce relapse under a second-order schedule (Lee et al. 2006a). Thus, cocaine-associated memories appear to undergo reconsolidation in both Pavlovian and operant conditioning paradigms.Relapse to drug-seeking or drug-taking behavior can occur after re-exposure to three types of stimuli: the drug itself, drug-associated contextual and discrete cues, and stress; and all of these may promote relapse in humans (for review, see Epstein et al. 2006). Only a few CPP studies (Valjent et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2007) and no self-administration studies to our knowledge have tested whether the drug-associated memory can be rendered susceptible to disruption by pharmacological agents such that subsequent cocaine-primed reinstatement is suppressed. This drug-primed effect is observed in humans, producing relapse (Ludwig et al. 1974; Jaffe et al. 1989), and in rats, producing robust reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior in both CPP and self-administration tasks (McFarland and Ettenberg 1997; McFarland and Kalivas 2001; Sanchez and Sorg 2001; Kalivas and McFarland 2003). The development of a treatment strategy that makes use of the reconsolidation process will ultimately need to be powerful enough to diminish drug-seeking behavior in the presence of sizable doses of the drug itself. Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to determine whether drug-primed reinstatement could be suppressed in rats that have the memory reactivated in the presence of a pharmacological agent in cocaine self-administering rats. Since we previously have demonstrated the ability to disrupt cocaine-primed reinstatement only in animals in which the memory was reactivated using cocaine-induced CPP, we also tested the extent to which the same parameters used to disrupt reconsolidation in a cocaine-induced CPP task would disrupt reconsolidation in a cocaine self-administration task under conditions of drug-induced reinstatement.To examine this question, we chose the noncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist (+)-5-methyl-10,11-dihydro-5H-dibenzo[a,d]cyclohepten-5,10-imine maleate (MK-801). MK-801 has been shown to disrupt reconsolidation of spatial tasks (Przybyslawski and Sara 1997), fear tasks (Lee et al. 2006b), amphetamine-induced CPP (Sadler et al. 2007), cocaine-induced CPP (Kelley et al. 2007), and sucrose self-administration (Lee and Everitt 2008). Importantly, the two studies examining CPP using MK-801 did not explore whether MK-801 suppressed drug-seeking behavior in a manner that was dependent on whether the memory was reactivated, leaving open the possibility that it was not a reconsolidation process that was disrupted by MK-801.Here we demonstrate that MK-801 injected prior to cocaine-primed reinstatement of CPP disrupted subsequent cocaine-primed reinstatement of CPP, and this disruption was dependent on CPP contextual reactivation since injection of MK-801 and cocaine in the home cage did not disrupt subsequent cocaine-primed reinstatement of CPP. However, drug-seeking behavior in animals trained for cocaine self-administration was not disrupted when rats were reactivated under the same parameters that disrupted cocaine-induced CPP or when rats were given a reactivation session identical to their self-administration sessions. We thus demonstrate for the first time that memories associated with cocaine-induced CPP and cocaine self-administration are not similarly susceptible to disruption by MK-801.     

Post-retrieval disruption of a cocaine conditioned place preference by systemic and intrabasolateral amygdala β2- and α1-adrenergic antagonists

Previous work has demonstrated post-retrieval impairment in associative learning paradigms, including those mediated by drugs of abuse, using nonspecific β-adrenergic receptor (β-AR) antagonists. Remarkably little is known about the role of the specific β-AR subtypes, or other adrenergic receptors, in these effects. The current study examined the effects of β₁ and β₂, as well as α₁-adrenergic receptor antagonism following retrieval of a cocaine conditioned place preference (CPP). We found that rats administered the β₂ antagonist ICI 118,551 (8 mg/kg intraperitoneal [IP]) or the α₁ antagonist prazosin (1 mg/kg IP) following a drug-free test for CPP showed attenuated preference during a subsequent test, while the β₁ antagonist betaxolol (5 or 10 mg/kg IP) and a lower dose of prazosin (0.3 mg/kg IP) had no effect. Furthermore, post-test microinfusion of ICI 118,551 (6 nmol/side) or prazosin (0.5 nmol/side) into the basolateral amygdala (BLA) also impaired a subsequent preference. Systemic or intra-BLA ICI 118,551 or prazosin administered to rats in their home cages, in the absence of a preference test, had no effect on CPP 24 h later. ICI 118,551 also attenuated the FOS response in the BLA induced by the CPP test. These results are the first to demonstrate a role for α₁- and β₂-specific adrenergic mechanisms in post-retrieval memory processes. These systemic and site-specific injections, as well as the FOS immunohistochemical analyses, implicate the importance of specific noradrenergic signaling mechanisms within the BLA in post-retrieval plasticity.Substantial evidence indicates that information acquired during a learning event is initially plastic, at which time memory retention can be disrupted, but is strengthened by a time-dependent consolidation process (McGaugh 2000). Recent work has focused on retrieval-induced plasticity, a process by which changes in the retention of previously acquired information are possible. The notion of reconsolidation, one theoretical mechanism by which such changes may occur, suggests that a retrieved memory enters a labile state and is vulnerable to disruption (Sara 2000; Nader 2003). Although the theoretical mechanisms underlying reconsolidation remain unclear, the behavioral effects have been demonstrated across many different learning paradigms using a variety of pharmacological manipulations (for review, see Tronson and Taylor 2007; Diergaarde et al. 2008). Studies with aversive and appetitive preparations, including drug reward-mediated learning, have demonstrated that the noradrenergic system is important for these post-retrieval memory processes (Przybyslawski et al. 1999; Debiec and Ledoux 2004; Bernardi et al. 2006; Diergaarde et al. 2006; Robinson and Franklin 2007; Abrari et al. 2008; Fricks-Gleason and Marshall 2008; Milton et al. 2008). For example, using an animal model of cocaine-conditioned behaviors, Bernardi et al. (2006) demonstrated that systemic post-retrieval administration of propranolol impaired a subsequent conditioned place preference (CPP), suggesting that β-adrenergic receptors (β-ARs) play an important role in processes occurring following drug memory retrieval.However, most of what is known about the noradrenergic system in the memory processes that follow cued reminder trials comes from studies that use nonspecific β-AR antagonists, such as propranolol. As a consequence, several issues regarding ARs and post-retrieval memory processes remain unresolved. First, because propranolol has affinity for both β₁- and β₂-AR subtypes, it is unclear which subtype mediates these effects. To date, no studies have examined reconsolidation-like impairments using subtype-specific β-AR antagonists, which is important because more specific medications may be equally efficacious with less adverse effects. Second, no studies to date have examined α-ARs regarding a potential role in reconsolidation-like effects. α-ARs—specifically α₁-ARs—have a demonstrated role in memory consolidation (Ferry et al. 1999a,b) and may also mediate post-retrieval processes. Third, although the BLA has had a demonstrated role in reconsolidation-like effects in numerous studies, the behavioral conditions during retrieval of drug-associated memories leading to gene expression within the basolateral amygdala (BLA) have not clearly been defined. Specifically, in the CPP paradigm used here, it is unclear whether exposure to a cocaine cue alone will induce gene expression or whether a preference for the drug-associated environment needs to be expressed for BLA involvement (Franklin and Druhan 2000; Miller and Marshall 2005).Understanding the role of specific adrenergic receptors in mediating post-retrieval memory processes is particularly important in drug-induced CPP. In humans, drug-associated stimuli can facilitate drug use (Gawin 1991; See 2005) or precipitate relapse following abstinence (O''Brien et al. 1992). Thus, pharmacotherapies targeting these memory processes would benefit from a clearer understanding of the specific receptors that mediate behavioral effects (Taylor et al. 2009).Here, we first examined the effects of systemic post-test β₁-, β₂-, and α₁-AR antagonism on cocaine CPP. We then focused on the BLA due to its involvement in reconsolidation-like effects in drug learning paradigms (e.g., Lee et al. 2005), employing microinfusions of AR antagonists and measuring FOS immunoreactivity (FOS-IR) to examine the BLA as a potential site of AR-mediated impairments.     

Extinction circuits for fear and addiction overlap in prefrontal cortex

Extinction is a form of inhibitory learning that suppresses a previously conditioned response. Both fear and drug seeking are conditioned responses that can lead to maladaptive behavior when expressed inappropriately, manifesting as anxiety disorders and addiction, respectively. Recent evidence indicates that the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) is critical for the extinction of both fear and drug-seeking behaviors. Moreover, a dorsal-ventral distinction is apparent within the mPFC, such that the prelimbic (PL-mPFC) cortex drives the expression of fear and drug seeking, whereas the infralimbic (IL-mPFC) cortex suppresses these behaviors after extinction. For conditioned fear, the dorsal-ventral dichotomy is accomplished via divergent projections to different subregions of the amygdala, whereas for drug seeking, it is accomplished via divergent projections to the subregions of the nucleus accumbens. Given that the mPFC represents a common node in the extinction circuit for these behaviors, treatments that target this region may help alleviate symptoms of both anxiety and addictive disorders by enhancing extinction memory.Emotional memories, both in the aversive and appetitive domains, are important for guiding behavior. Regulating the expression of these memories is critical for mental health. Extinction of classical conditioning is one form of emotion regulation that is easily modeled in animals. In the aversive domain, a conditioned stimulus (CS) is typically paired with a shock, while in the appetitive domain, a CS is paired with the availability of food or drug reward. Repeated presentation of the CS in the absence of the reinforcer leads to extinction of conditioned fear or drug-seeking behaviors. In recent years, there have been great advances in our understanding of the neural circuitry responsible for this form of inhibitory learning (for reviews, see Cammarota et al. 2005; Maren 2005; Myers and Davis 2007; Quirk and Mueller 2008). The prefrontal cortex has been strongly implicated in fear expression (Powell et al. 2001; Vidal-Gonzalez et al. 2006; Corcoran and Quirk 2007) and fear extinction (Herry and Garcia 2002; Milad and Quirk 2002; Gonzalez-Lima and Bruchey 2004; Hugues et al. 2004; Burgos-Robles et al. 2007; Hikind and Maroun 2008; Lin et al. 2008; Mueller et al. 2008; Sotres-Bayon et al. 2008), and more recently, in expression of drug seeking after extinction (Peters et al. 2008a,b). These findings are consistent with a well-documented role of the prefrontal cortex in executive function and emotional regulation (Miller 2000; Fuster 2002; Quirk and Beer 2006; Sotres-Bayon et al. 2006).In this review, we propose that the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) regulates the expression of both fear and drug memories after extinction, through divergent projections to the amygdala and nucleus accumbens, respectively. Extinction failure in the aversive domain can lead to anxiety disorders (Delgado et al. 2006; Milad et al. 2006), while extinction failure in the appetitive domain can lead to relapse in addicted subjects (Kalivas et al. 2005; Garavan and Hester 2007). A common neural circuit for extinction of fear and drug memories would suggest shared mechanisms and treatment strategies across both domains.     

The basolateral amygdala and nucleus accumbens core mediate dissociable aspects of drug memory reconsolidation

A distributed limbic-corticostriatal circuitry is implicated in cue-induced drug craving and relapse. Exposure to drug-paired cues not only precipitates relapse, but also triggers the reactivation and reconsolidation of the cue-drug memory. However, the limbic cortical-striatal circuitry underlying drug memory reconsolidation is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the involvement of the nucleus accumbens core and the basolateral amygdala in the reconsolidation of a cocaine-conditioned stimulus-evoked memory. Antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (ASO) were infused into each structure to knock down the expression of the immediate-early gene zif268, which is known to be required for memory reconsolidation. Control infusions used missense oligodeoxynucleotides (MSO). The effects of zif268 knockdown were measured in two complementary paradigms widely used to assess the impact of drug-paired CSs upon drug seeking: the acquisition of a new instrumental response with conditioned reinforcement and conditioned place preference. The results show that both intranucleus accumbens core and intrabasolateral amygdala zif268 ASO infusions at memory reactivation impaired the reconsolidation of the memory underlying a cocaine-conditioned place preference. However, knockdown of zif268 in the nucleus accumbens at memory reactivation had no effect on the memory underlying the conditioned reinforcing properties of the cocaine-paired CS measured subsequently, and this is in contrast to the marked impairment observed previously following intrabasolateral amygdala zif268 ASO infusions. These results suggest that both the basolateral amygdala and nucleus accumbens core are key structures within limbic cortical-striatal circuitry where reconsolidation of a cue-drug memory occurs. However reconsolidation of memory representations formed during Pavlovian conditioning are differentially localized in each site.Through Pavlovian association with the effects of addictive drugs, a conditioned stimulus (CS) acquires both general motivational and sensory-specific conditioned reinforcing properties (Everitt et al. 2000). These associations contribute to the high likelihood of relapse in addicted individuals, yet the extinction of drug CSs by nonreinforced exposure has proved to be of limited therapeutic utility (Conklin and Tiffany 2002). In abstinent humans, drug CSs evoke salient and persistent memories of drug-taking experiences, inducing craving and relapse (Childress et al. 1988; O''Brien et al. 1992), while in animals they also precipitate relapse to, or reinstatement of, drug-seeking behavior (de Wit and Stewart 1981; Meil and See 1996; Fuchs et al. 1998; Weiss 2000). Thus, disrupting drug-related memories might significantly diminish relapse propensity on subsequent exposure to drug-paired CSs, and thereby promote abstinence.Exposure to a drug-associated CS also triggers a process of memory reconsolidation, which restabilizes the reactivated and labile memory (Nader 2003). While reconsolidation may adaptively update memories (Dudai 2006; Hupbach et al. 2007; Rossato et al. 2007; Lee 2009), its disruption may reduce the impact of intrusive or aberrant memories on behavior subsequently (Lee et al. 2005, 2006; Brunet et al. 2008; Kindt et al. 2009; Taubenfeld et al. 2009). The reconsolidation of CS–cocaine memories has been shown to depend upon protein synthesis and expression of the plasticity-associated immediate-early gene, zif268, in the basolateral amygdala (BLA), since zif268 knockdown at memory reactivation disrupted the acquired conditioned reinforcing properties of the CS measured in drug-seeking tasks days or weeks later (Lee et al. 2005, 2006).Although the BLA has an established role in CS-drug memory reconsolidation, it remains unclear whether other sites within limbic cortical-ventral striatal circuitry participate in this process. The nucleus accumbens core (AcbC) is a primary candidate, as zif268 is up-regulated in the AcbC as well as in the BLA following exposure to cocaine CSs (Thomas et al. 2003). Furthermore, the AcbC, which is strongly implicated in Pavlovian influences on drug seeking and relapse (Cardinal et al. 2002; Kalivas and McFarland 2003), has been shown to be a site where the reconsolidation of a drug conditioned place preference (CPP) memory can be disrupted (Miller and Marshall 2005).Given the evidence of increased zif268 expression in the AcbC following CS-drug memory reactivation, we investigated its requirement in the reconsolidation of cocaine-associated memories. To address this issue, we employed two different but complementary paradigms widely used to measure the conditioned effects of CSs associated with drugs of abuse: the acquisition of a new instrumental response with conditioned reinforcement (ANR) and CPP. These procedures have been used successfully to investigate the mechanisms underlying the reconsolidation of appetitive Pavlovian memories, but it is likely that they depend upon different associative mechanisms (Everitt et al. 1991; White and McDonald 1993) that in turn depend upon different neural loci within limbic cortical-striatal circuitry (Cardinal et al. 2002). Therefore, to enable a full comparison with the functional involvement of the BLA, we investigated the necessity for BLA zif268 expression in drug memory reconsolidation as assessed in the CPP paradigm.     

Prenatal choline availability alters the context sensitivity of Pavlovian conditioning in adult rats

The effects of prenatal choline availability on Pavlovian conditioning were assessed in adult male rats (3–4 mo). Neither supplementation nor deprivation of prenatal choline affected the acquisition and extinction of simple Pavlovian conditioned excitation, or the acquisition and retardation of conditioned inhibition. However, prenatal choline availability significantly altered the contextual control of these learned behaviors. Both control and choline-deprived rats exhibited context specificity of conditioned excitation as exhibited by a loss in responding when tested in an alternate context after conditioning; in contrast, choline-supplemented rats showed no such effect. When switched to a different context following extinction, however, both choline-supplemented and control rats showed substantial contextual control of responding, whereas choline-deficient rats did not. These data support the view that configural associations that rely on hippocampal function are selectively sensitive to prenatal manipulations of dietary choline during prenatal development.There is increasing evidence that variations in maternal dietary choline intake during the second half of pregnancy cause structural, biochemical, and physiological changes in basal forebrain neurons and their projections to the hippocampal complex as well as long-term cognitive changes in the offspring (e.g., Meck and Williams 2003; McCann et al. 2006; Meck et al. 2008). We know, for instance, that the adult offspring of pregnant rats supplemented with 4.5 times the amount of choline in the standard laboratory diet display improved memory capacity and precision on the radial-arm maze (e.g., Meck et al. 1988, 1989; Meck and Williams 1997b, 1999; Tees 1999a), Morris water maze (e.g., Tees 1999b; Tees and Mohammadi 1999; Yang et al. 2000; Brandner 2002), as well as facilitation of sustained attention and interval timing (e.g., Meck and Williams 1997a, c; Mohler et al. 2001; Cheng et al. 2006, 2008a, b; Cheng and Meck 2007) compared with offspring of dams fed a standard diet. Choline deficiency during the same developmental time frame, embryonic days (ED) 12–17, results in impaired performance on some, but not all, of these behavioral measures (e.g., Meck and Williams 1999, 2003). Furthermore, perinatal choline supplementation can alter behavior following a variety of developmental disorders, including the alleviation of abnormalities associated with fetal alcohol syndrome in rats (Thomas et al. 2000, 2004, 2007; Wagner and Hunt 2006), attenuation of some of the motor deficits observed in a Mecp21^lox mouse model of Rett syndrome (Nag and Berger-Sweeney 2007), and the improvement of sensory gating in a DBA/2 mouse model of schizophrenia that exhibits reduced numbers of hippocampal a7 nicotinic receptors (Stevens et al. 2008).These choline-induced alterations in cognitive function are accompanied by changes in the size and shape of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons (e.g., Williams et al. 1998; McKeon-O’Malley et al. 2003); modifications in acetylcholine turnover and choline transporter expression in the septum and hippocampus (Cermak et al. 1999; Mellott et al. 2007b); modulation of hippocampal neurogenesis, gene expression, phospholipase D activity, NGF levels, and MAPK and CREB activation (e.g., Holler et al. 1996; Sandstrom et al. 2002; Mellott et al. 2004, 2007a; Glenn et al. 2007); changes in dendritic fields and spine density in CA1 and dentate gyrus (DG) regions of the hippocampus (Meck et al. 2008); as well as modification of the neuropathological response to status epilepticus (e.g., Holmes et al. 2002; Wong-Goodrich et al. 2008a) and thresholds for eliciting long-term potentiation (LTP) in the hippocampus (Pyapali et al. 1998; Jones III et al. 1999). Together, these findings suggest that alterations in choline availability during early development may have specific impact on the ontogeny and later functioning of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons as well as efferent neurons involved in hippocampal LTP (Montoya et al. 2000). These findings also predict that behaviors that rely on the hippocampus are likely to be most affected by this dietary manipulation.Although choline is well known as the precursor for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, it may be especially crucial to young or developing mammals for a number of other reasons (see Blusztajn and Wurtman 1983; Blusztajn 1998; Zeisel 2000, 2004, 2005). It is the precursor of certain phospholipids (e.g., phosphatidylcholine, sphingomyelin, and plasmenylcholine), which constitute the bulk of phospholipids in all biological membranes. Thus, there may be a particularly high demand for choline during prenatal and neonatal periods associated with rapid neurogenesis and synaptogenesis. Choline can also be enzymatically oxidized to betaine (mostly in peripheral tissues) and the methyl groups of betaine can then be used to resynthesize methionine from homocysteine. Changes in methionine availability alter the methylation of regulatory sequences of genes and of histones, leading to alterations in the patterns of gene expression (e.g., Waterland and Michels 2007; Nafee et al. 2008). Choline is also the precursor of two signaling molecules, platelet-activating factor, and sphingosylphosphorylcholine. Changes in choline availability may also alter membrane synthesis, methylation, and signaling broadly throughout the brain and periphery as well as more restricted effects on cholinergic neuronal pathways (e.g., Zeisel and Blusztajn 1994; Meck and Williams 2003).One common distinction in the Pavlovian-conditioning literature is between tasks that are sensitive to manipulation of the hippocampal formation from those that are not (e.g., Ross et al. 1984; Meck 1988; Schmajuk and Buhusi 1997; Holland et al. 1999). For example, simple excitatory Pavlovian conditioning is typically found to be unaffected by lesions of the hippocampus, while conditional discriminations in which animals must rely on combinations of predictive cues to respond correctly are disrupted by hippocampal damage (e.g., Jarrard and Davidson 1990, 1991). If prenatal choline availability is altering the development of cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain that project to the hippocampus (see Meck and Williams 2003), our dietary manipulation might only be expected to affect conditioning tasks that require hippocampal involvement, not relatively simple tasks such as excitatory conditioning which do not rely on the hippocampus (e.g., Green and Woodruff-Pak 2000).In the current series of experiments, we examined the effects of prenatal choline supplementation and deficiency using a series of appetitive Pavlovian-conditioning tasks, all of which require associative learning. Our rationale was to determine whether variations in choline availability during prenatal development altered the learning of a simple association between the conditioned (CS) and unconditioned (US) stimuli (e.g., noise → food sequence), or if the dietary manipulation primarily affected conditioning tasks that require more complex relational processing and intact septal-hippocampal function (e.g., context A = tone → food; context B = noise → no food).In order to assess the importance of prenatal choline availability on associative learning, we investigated basic aspects of appetitive Pavlovian conditioning, i.e., conditioned excitation and extinction (e.g., Pavlov 1927) in experiment 1. In this paradigm, rats first receive repeated trials in which the CS occurs just before the presentation of the US, i.e., in a noise → food sequence. During this initial phase of training, the rat develops an increasing tendency to perform the conditioned response (CR) in the presence of the CS indicating that it expects the occurrence of the US. Typically, the probability of the CR increases in a negatively accelerating fashion until it reaches an asymptotic level. If the CS is then repeatedly presented in the absence of the reinforcing US (i.e., noise → no food), then the CR gradually declines; this is referred to as extinction of the CR (Gallistel and Gibbon 2000).One behavioral phenomenon that has been shown to be sensitive to hippocampal manipulation is the discriminative use of contextual cues to control conditioned responding (e.g., Holland and Bouton 1999). Typically, when CS-US pairings occur in one training environment or context, there is a small loss of responding to the CS if it is subsequently presented to the animal in the presence of a different set of contextual cues (e.g., Lovibond et al. 1984; Hall and Honey 1990; Honey et al. 1990; Kaye and Mackintosh 1990). However, this typical decrement in responding with a context switch is not observed in rats with electrolytic or aspiration lesions of the hippocampus (e.g., Good et al. 1997).In order to assess the effects of prenatal choline availability on contextual control of conditioned responding, we employed a renewal design (e.g., Bouton and Bolles 1979) in experiment 2. In this design, rats receive conditioning in one physical context (context A) prior to extinction in either the same context or a context different from that in which they received the initial CS-US pairings (context B). Finally, all of the rats are retested in the original conditioning context (i.e., context A). Bouton and colleagues (e.g., Bouton and Bolles 1979; Frohardt et al. 2000) have found that when rats that are conditioned in context A followed by extinction training in context B are later returned to the original training context for the final testing phase, they show a substantial recovery of the initial CR. Presumably, stimuli contained within the original training context act as reminder cues in this ABA condition, retrieving the memory for the initial acquisition phase (A) of the experiment during the final test phase as opposed to the more recent extinction phase (B). Rats in the AAA condition have no effective cues to discriminate the different phases of the experiment and as a consequence cannot selectively retrieve a specific memory from the sequence. In contrast, test session responding for the ABA condition should be more similar to the low levels observed at the end of the initial extinction phase due to the availability of differential contextual cues. This renewal design is particularly useful in that it provides for the potential to observe treatment effects in both the extinction and the renewal test phases of the experiment. Specifically, either the loss of responding with a context switch during extinction or the response recovery in the renewal test (or both) may be affected by prenatal choline availability. More importantly, those two effects may be due to either the same mechanism (e.g., processing of contextual stimuli) or two different mechanisms (e.g., context conditioning and memory retrieval)—potentially resulting in nonlinear effects of prenatal choline availability across the two experimental phases.A second basic type of associative learning, conditioned inhibition, in which the animal learns to predict the absence of an important event, was described by Pavlov (1927). A typical conditioned-inhibition task consists of training with two types of intermixed trials: On reinforced trials, one CS is followed by reinforcement (e.g., noise → food). On other trials, the same CS is paired with a second stimulus in the absence of the reinforcement (i.e., light/noise → no food). It is presumed that under these training conditions animals learn that the noise predicts the occurrence of the food, while light, the “conditioned inhibitor,” comes to predict the absence of food. That is, light “inhibits” the learned response to noise alone.A relatively small number of studies have examined the neural substrates of inhibitory learning. Aspiration lesions of the hippocampus, for example, impaired a relatively complex phenomenon called “blocking” of excitatory conditioning, but not the learning of conditioned inhibition (e.g., Solomon 1977; Chan et al. 2001). These data suggest that the hippocampal complex is not required for learning conditioned inhibition. Thus, in order to further assess whether prenatal choline availability affects basic associative learning, experiment 3 was designed to evaluate conditioned inhibition in supplemented (SUP), deficient (DEF), and control (CON) rats. In this experiment, rats were given randomly mixed presentations of reinforced and nonreinforced trial types. As training proceeds, the rats should learn to respond more on reinforced trials than on nonreinforced trials. After acquisition of the discrimination, the rats were presented with a retardation test phase in which the inhibitory light CS was paired with food. Rescorla (1969) described this retardation test as one of the critical measures of conditioned inhibition. Presumably, if the CS is a true inhibitor and predicts the absence of reinforcement at the outset of the retardation test, then acquisition of conditioned responding to the cue should be relatively slow during this phase of testing. Consequently, tests of conditioned inhibition should distinguish among prenatal choline treatment groups if inhibitory mechanisms are strengthened or weakened by prenatal choline availability.     

Physiological effects of enriched environment exposure and LTP induction in the hippocampus in vivo do not transfer faithfully to in vitro slices

A number of experimental paradigms use in vitro brain slices to test for changes in synaptic transmission and plasticity following a behavioral manipulation. For example, a number of previous studies have reported a variety of effects of environmental enrichment (EE) exposure on field potential responses in hippocampal slices, but in no study was is it known what changes had been elicited in vivo. In the present study, we recorded from the hippocampus in vivo while rats underwent a brief period of EE. There was no detectable EE-induced change in synaptic efficacy in the dentate gyrus in vivo, but there was an increase in cellular excitability. In slices prepared from the same animals, we failed to observe any evidence of the excitability increase. We next tested whether LTP induction in vivo was better preserved in vitro. However, when slices from these rats were examined, there was no observable change in perforant path synaptic strength, although there was a modest increase in excitability that correlated with the increased excitability observed in vivo. These findings suggest that synaptic changes induced in vivo either are not preserved faithfully or are difficult to detect in hippocampal slices, while changes in cellular excitability are better preserved.Exposure to an enriched environment (EE) can improve performance on a variety of hippocampus-dependent memory tasks in both normal (Kempermann et al. 1997; Duffy et al. 2001; Teather et al. 2002; Schrijver et al. 2004; Irvine and Abraham 2005) and disease model (Ohlsson and Johansson 1995; Young et al. 1999; Jankowsky et al. 2005; Lazarov et al. 2005; Nithianantharajah and Hannan 2006; Laviola et al. 2008) animals. Previous studies attempting to understand the physiological changes that mediate these effects have yielded mixed results, which may in part be due to the variability in enrichment paradigms used in different laboratories, but which may also be due to the method used to measure hippocampal physiology.Traditionally, researchers have studied the effects of EE using ex vivo brain slices. Such studies have sometimes reported an increase in synaptic strength following enrichment (Green and Greenough 1986; Foster et al. 1996; Foster and Dumas 2001), but a lack of a change has also been observed (Duffy et al. 2001; Feng et al. 2001; Parsley et al. 2007). The ex vivo approach is predicated on the assumption that EE (or other behavioral) treatment induces changes in neural function that are of sufficient magnitude and extent that they will still be present when the brain is removed and studied in vitro. However, there could be many hidden effects of slice preparation (Kirov et al. 2004) that change or obscure effects occurring in vivo.In a previous study, we were surprised to find few effects of a 3-mo EE treatment on hippocampal synaptic function and plasticity when assessed in vitro (Eckert et al. 2010), despite our having observed with in vivo recordings substantial effects with shorter periods of EE exposure (Irvine and Abraham 2005; Irvine et al. 2006). We therefore considered the possibility that effects measured electrophysiologically in vivo may not be readily detectable in vitro. Testing this hypothesis requires studying the same animals in vivo and in vitro, a control procedure we are not aware of having been reported previously in the literature. In the present study, we examined whether the effects of EE or LTP induction in vivo could be detected in hippocampal slices taken from the same animals. We failed to detect any of the in vivo changes, except for a modest increase in cellular excitability following LTP.