Savings memory is accompanied by transcriptional changes that persist beyond the decay of recall

Evidence of Active-Forgetting Mechanisms? Blocking Arachidonic Acid Release May Slow Forgetting of Sensitization in Aplysia

Long-term sensitization in Aplysia is accompanied by a persistent up-regulation of mRNA encoding the peptide neurotransmitter Phe-Met-Arg-Phe-amide (FMRFa), a neuromodulator that opposes the expression of sensitization through activation of the arachidonic acid second-messenger pathway. We completed a preregistered test of the hypothesis that FMRFa plays a critical role in the forgetting of sensitization. Aplysia received long-term sensitization training and were then given whole-body injections of vehicle (N = 27), FMRFa (N = 26), or 4-bromophenacylbromide (4-BPB; N = 31), a phospholipase inhibitor that prevents the release of arachidonic acid. FMRFa produced no changes in forgetting. 4-BPB decreased forgetting measured 6 d after training [d s = 0.55 95% CI(0.01, 1.09)], though the estimated effect size is uncertain. Our results provide preliminary evidence that forgetting of sensitization may be a regulated, active process in Aplysia, but could also indicate a role for arachidonic acid in stabilizing the induction of sensitization.

DNA methylation inhibition participates in the anterograde amnesia key mechanism through the suppression of the transcription of genes involved in memory formation in grape snails

The study of the amnesia mechanisms is of both theoretical and practical importance. The mechanisms of anterograde amnesia are the least studied, due to the lack of an experimental model that allows studying this amnesia type molecular and cellular mechanisms. Previously, we found that conditional food aversion memory reconsolidation impairment in snails by NMDA glutamate receptor antagonists led to the amnesia induction, in the late stages of which (>10 days) repeated training did not cause long-term memory formation. In the same animals, long-term memory aversion to a new food type was formed. We characterized this amnesia as specific anterograde amnesia. In the present work we studied the role of epigenetic DNA methylation processes as well as protein and mRNA synthesis in the mechanisms of anterograde amnesia and memory recovery. DNMT methyltransferase inhibitors (iDNMT: zebularine, RG108 (N-Phthalyl-1-tryptophan), and 5-AZA (5-Aza-2'-deoxycytidine)) were used to alter DNA methylation. It was found that in amnesic animals the iDNMT administration before or after shortened repeated training led to the rapid long-term conditional food aversion formation (Ebbinghaus saving effect). This result suggests that amnestic animals retain a latent memory, which is the basis for accelerated memory formation during repeated training. Protein synthesis inhibitors administration (cycloheximide) before or immediately after repeated training or administration of RNA synthesis inhibitor (actinomycin D) after repeated training prevented memory formation under iDNMT action. The earlier protein synthesis inhibitor effect suggests that the proteins required for memory formation are translated from the pre-existing, translationally repressed mRNAs. Thus, we have shown for the first time that the anterograde amnesia key mechanism is DNMT-dependent suppression of the transcription of genes involved in memory mechanisms. Inhibition of DNMT during repeated training reversed these genes expression blockade, opening access to them by transcription factors synthesized during training from the pre-existing mRNAs.

Protein synthesis inhibitor administration before a reminder caused recovery from amnesia induced by memory reconsolidation impairment with NMDA glutamate receptor antagonist

Memory recovery in amnestic animals is one of the most poorly studied processes. In this paper, we examine the role of protein synthesis and a reminder in the mechanisms of amnesia and memory recovery in grape snails trained to conditioned food aversion. Amnesia was induced by the impairment of memory reconsolidation using NMDA (N-methyl d-aspartate) glutamate receptor antagonists. In an early stage of amnesia (day 3), injections of protein synthesis inhibitors into animals combined with a reminder by a conditioned stimulus (CS) led to the recovery of aversive reactions to its presentation. Two types of changes in reactions to CS were revealed. In most animals, a persistent recovery of memory retrieval was found that lasted for at least 10 days. In other snails, aversive responses to CS persisted for 24 h. Isolated injections of inhibitors, injections of inhibitors and a reminder by the learning environment (without presenting a CS), usage of a differentiating stimulus instead of a CS, or inhibitor injections after the reminder did not affect the development of amnesia. The administration of protein synthesis inhibitors and a reminder in the late period after amnesia induction (10 days) did not affect its development or caused a short-term memory recovery. We suggest that amnesia is an active process that develops over time. The reminder induces the reactivation of the amnesia process dependent on protein synthesis, while the administration of protein synthesis inhibitors leads to the impairment of amnesia reactivation and recovery of the state formed before amnesia induction (i.e., recovery of conditioned food aversion memory).

Registered Report: Transcriptional Analysis of Savings Memory Suggests Forgetting is Due to Retrieval Failure

There is fundamental debate about the nature of forgetting: some have argued that it represents the decay of the memory trace, others that the memory trace persists but becomes inaccessible because of retrieval failure. These different accounts of forgetting lead to different predictions about savings memory, the rapid re-learning of seemingly forgotten information. If forgetting is because of decay, then savings requires re-encoding and should thus involve the same mechanisms as initial learning. If forgetting is because of retrieval failure, then savings should be mechanistically distinct from encoding. In this registered report, we conducted a preregistered and rigorous test between these accounts of forgetting. Specifically, we used microarray to characterize the transcriptional correlates of a new memory (1 d after training), a forgotten memory (8 d after training), and a savings memory (8 d after training but with a reminder on day 7 to evoke a long-term savings memory) for sensitization in Aplysia californica (n = 8 samples/group). We found that the reactivation of sensitization during savings does not involve a substantial transcriptional response. Thus, savings is transcriptionally distinct relative to a newer (1-d-old) memory, with no coregulated transcripts, negligible similarity in regulation-ranked ordering of transcripts, and a negligible correlation in training-induced changes in gene expression (r = 0.04 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.12, 0.20]). Overall, our results suggest that forgetting of sensitization memory represents retrieval failure.

Transcriptional changes before and after forgetting of a long-term sensitization memory in Aplysia californica

Most long-term memories are forgotten, becoming progressively less likely to be recalled. Still, some memory fragments may persist, as savings memory (easier relearning) can be detected long after recall has become impossible. What happens to a memory trace during forgetting that makes it inaccessible for recall and yet still effective to spark easier re-learning? We are addressing this question by tracking the transcriptional changes that accompany learning and then forgetting of a long-term sensitization memory in the tail-elicited siphon withdrawal reflex of Aplysia californica. First, we tracked savings memory. We found that even though recall of sensitization fades completely within 1 week of training, savings memory is still detectable at 2 weeks post training. Next, we tracked the time-course of regulation of 11 transcripts we previously identified as potentially being regulated after recall has become impossible. Remarkably, 3 transcripts still show strong regulation 2 weeks after training and an additional 4 are regulated for at least 1 week. These long-lasting changes in gene expression always begin early in the memory process, within 1 day of training. We present a synthesis of our results tracking gene expression changes accompanying sensitization and provide a testable model of how sensitization memory is forgotten.

The New Statistics for Neuroscience Majors: Thinking in Effect Sizes

An ongoing reform in statistical practice is to report and interpret effect sizes. This paper provides a short tutorial on effect sizes and some tips on how to help your students think in terms of effect sizes when analyzing data. An effect size is just a quantitative answer to a research question. Effect sizes should always be accompanied by a confidence interval or some other means of expressing uncertainty in generalizing from the sample to the population. Effect sizes are best interpreted in raw scores, but can also be expressed in standardized terms; several popular standardized effect score measures are explained and compared. Reporting and interpreting effect sizes has several benefits: it focuses on the practical significance of your findings, helps make clear the remaining uncertainty in your findings, fosters better planning for subsequent experiments, fosters meta-analytic thinking, and can help focus efforts on protocol optimization. You can help your students start to think in effect sizes by giving them tools to visualize and translate between different effect size measures, and by tasking them to build a 'library' of effect sizes in a research field of interest.