首页 » 文章 » 文章详细信息
Neural Plasticity Volume 2016 ,2016-12-14
Coordinated Plasticity between Barrel Cortical Glutamatergic and GABAergic Neurons during Associative Memory
Research Article
Fenxia Yan 1 Zilong Gao 2 Pin Chen 1 Li Huang 1 Dangui Wang 2 Na Chen 2 Ruixiang Wu 1 Jing Feng 2 Shan Cui 2 Wei Lu 3 Jin-Hui Wang 1 , 2 , 3
Show affiliations
DOI:10.1155/2016/5648390
Received 2016-07-05, accepted for publication 2016-11-09, Published 2016-11-09
PDF
摘要

Neural plasticity is associated with memory formation. The coordinated refinement and interaction between cortical glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons remain elusive in associative memory, which we examine in a mouse model of associative learning. In the mice that show odorant-induced whisker motion after pairing whisker and odor stimulations, the barrel cortical glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons are recruited to encode the newly learnt odor signal alongside the innate whisker signal. These glutamatergic neurons are functionally upregulated, and GABAergic neurons are refined in a homeostatic manner. The mutual innervations between these glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons are upregulated. The analyses by high throughput sequencing show that certain microRNAs related to regulating synapses and neurons are involved in this cross-modal reflex. Thus, the coactivation of the sensory cortices through epigenetic processes recruits their glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons to be the associative memory cells as well as drive their coordinated refinements toward the optimal state for the storage of the associated signals.

授权许可

Copyright © 2016 Fenxia Yan et al. 2016
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

图表

Glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortex respond to the odor signal (OS) and whisker signal (WS) after their pairing. Cellular activities were detected by imaging Ca2+ signals under a two-photon microscope in control ( n = 7 ) and CR-formation mice ( n = 7 ), in which glutamatergic neurons were genetically labeled by YFP and GABAergic neurons were labeled by GFP. (a) Left panel shows the images of the glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from a CR-formation mouse. Right panel shows the neurons in response to WS and/or OS, which are defined as Δ F larger than 2.5-fold of standard deviation of baseline values. The neurons labeled by red are WS/OS-responsive cells. The neurons labeled by blue respond to WS. The neurons labeled by yellow respond to OS. (b) Left panel shows the images of glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from an unpaired control mouse. Right panel illustrates the neurons labeled by blue in response to WS. In (a)~(b), the glutamatergic neurons are marked as triangles and GABAergic neurons are marked as circles. (c) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from glutamatergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). (d) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from GABAergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from an unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). The calibration bars are 40%    Δ F / F and 20 seconds.

Glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortex respond to the odor signal (OS) and whisker signal (WS) after their pairing. Cellular activities were detected by imaging Ca2+ signals under a two-photon microscope in control ( n = 7 ) and CR-formation mice ( n = 7 ), in which glutamatergic neurons were genetically labeled by YFP and GABAergic neurons were labeled by GFP. (a) Left panel shows the images of the glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from a CR-formation mouse. Right panel shows the neurons in response to WS and/or OS, which are defined as Δ F larger than 2.5-fold of standard deviation of baseline values. The neurons labeled by red are WS/OS-responsive cells. The neurons labeled by blue respond to WS. The neurons labeled by yellow respond to OS. (b) Left panel shows the images of glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from an unpaired control mouse. Right panel illustrates the neurons labeled by blue in response to WS. In (a)~(b), the glutamatergic neurons are marked as triangles and GABAergic neurons are marked as circles. (c) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from glutamatergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). (d) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from GABAergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from an unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). The calibration bars are 40%    Δ F / F and 20 seconds.

Glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortex respond to the odor signal (OS) and whisker signal (WS) after their pairing. Cellular activities were detected by imaging Ca2+ signals under a two-photon microscope in control ( n = 7 ) and CR-formation mice ( n = 7 ), in which glutamatergic neurons were genetically labeled by YFP and GABAergic neurons were labeled by GFP. (a) Left panel shows the images of the glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from a CR-formation mouse. Right panel shows the neurons in response to WS and/or OS, which are defined as Δ F larger than 2.5-fold of standard deviation of baseline values. The neurons labeled by red are WS/OS-responsive cells. The neurons labeled by blue respond to WS. The neurons labeled by yellow respond to OS. (b) Left panel shows the images of glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from an unpaired control mouse. Right panel illustrates the neurons labeled by blue in response to WS. In (a)~(b), the glutamatergic neurons are marked as triangles and GABAergic neurons are marked as circles. (c) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from glutamatergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). (d) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from GABAergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from an unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). The calibration bars are 40%    Δ F / F and 20 seconds.

Glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortex respond to the odor signal (OS) and whisker signal (WS) after their pairing. Cellular activities were detected by imaging Ca2+ signals under a two-photon microscope in control ( n = 7 ) and CR-formation mice ( n = 7 ), in which glutamatergic neurons were genetically labeled by YFP and GABAergic neurons were labeled by GFP. (a) Left panel shows the images of the glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from a CR-formation mouse. Right panel shows the neurons in response to WS and/or OS, which are defined as Δ F larger than 2.5-fold of standard deviation of baseline values. The neurons labeled by red are WS/OS-responsive cells. The neurons labeled by blue respond to WS. The neurons labeled by yellow respond to OS. (b) Left panel shows the images of glutamatergic neurons (yellow) and GABAergic neurons (green) in the barrel cortex from an unpaired control mouse. Right panel illustrates the neurons labeled by blue in response to WS. In (a)~(b), the glutamatergic neurons are marked as triangles and GABAergic neurons are marked as circles. (c) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from glutamatergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). (d) shows the digitized Ca2+ signals recorded from GABAergic neurons in response to WS versus OS from an unpaired control mouse (left panel) and CR-formation mouse (right). The calibration bars are 40%    Δ F / F and 20 seconds.

The number of dendrites and the head of the spines on barrel cortical glutamatergic neurons are upregulated after associative leaning. (a) shows the branches of the secondary processes appear denser in CR-formation mouse (right panel) than controls (left). (b) shows the comparisons of primary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; p = 0.3 , n = 25 ). (c) shows the comparisons of the secondary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; asterisk, p < 0.05 , n = 25 ). (d) The spine volume appears larger and the spine length is shorter on CR-formation neurons (right panel) than controls (left). (e)~(f) show the comparisons of spine widths (e) and lengths (f) from CR-formations (red bar, n = 1162 ) and controls (Con; blue bar, n = 1273 ). The spine head tends to be large and the spine length tends to be short (three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The number of dendrites and the head of the spines on barrel cortical glutamatergic neurons are upregulated after associative leaning. (a) shows the branches of the secondary processes appear denser in CR-formation mouse (right panel) than controls (left). (b) shows the comparisons of primary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; p = 0.3 , n = 25 ). (c) shows the comparisons of the secondary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; asterisk, p < 0.05 , n = 25 ). (d) The spine volume appears larger and the spine length is shorter on CR-formation neurons (right panel) than controls (left). (e)~(f) show the comparisons of spine widths (e) and lengths (f) from CR-formations (red bar, n = 1162 ) and controls (Con; blue bar, n = 1273 ). The spine head tends to be large and the spine length tends to be short (three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The number of dendrites and the head of the spines on barrel cortical glutamatergic neurons are upregulated after associative leaning. (a) shows the branches of the secondary processes appear denser in CR-formation mouse (right panel) than controls (left). (b) shows the comparisons of primary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; p = 0.3 , n = 25 ). (c) shows the comparisons of the secondary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; asterisk, p < 0.05 , n = 25 ). (d) The spine volume appears larger and the spine length is shorter on CR-formation neurons (right panel) than controls (left). (e)~(f) show the comparisons of spine widths (e) and lengths (f) from CR-formations (red bar, n = 1162 ) and controls (Con; blue bar, n = 1273 ). The spine head tends to be large and the spine length tends to be short (three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The number of dendrites and the head of the spines on barrel cortical glutamatergic neurons are upregulated after associative leaning. (a) shows the branches of the secondary processes appear denser in CR-formation mouse (right panel) than controls (left). (b) shows the comparisons of primary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; p = 0.3 , n = 25 ). (c) shows the comparisons of the secondary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; asterisk, p < 0.05 , n = 25 ). (d) The spine volume appears larger and the spine length is shorter on CR-formation neurons (right panel) than controls (left). (e)~(f) show the comparisons of spine widths (e) and lengths (f) from CR-formations (red bar, n = 1162 ) and controls (Con; blue bar, n = 1273 ). The spine head tends to be large and the spine length tends to be short (three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The number of dendrites and the head of the spines on barrel cortical glutamatergic neurons are upregulated after associative leaning. (a) shows the branches of the secondary processes appear denser in CR-formation mouse (right panel) than controls (left). (b) shows the comparisons of primary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; p = 0.3 , n = 25 ). (c) shows the comparisons of the secondary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; asterisk, p < 0.05 , n = 25 ). (d) The spine volume appears larger and the spine length is shorter on CR-formation neurons (right panel) than controls (left). (e)~(f) show the comparisons of spine widths (e) and lengths (f) from CR-formations (red bar, n = 1162 ) and controls (Con; blue bar, n = 1273 ). The spine head tends to be large and the spine length tends to be short (three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The number of dendrites and the head of the spines on barrel cortical glutamatergic neurons are upregulated after associative leaning. (a) shows the branches of the secondary processes appear denser in CR-formation mouse (right panel) than controls (left). (b) shows the comparisons of primary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; p = 0.3 , n = 25 ). (c) shows the comparisons of the secondary processes per apical dendrite in CR-formation (gray bar, n = 20 neurons) and controls (white; asterisk, p < 0.05 , n = 25 ). (d) The spine volume appears larger and the spine length is shorter on CR-formation neurons (right panel) than controls (left). (e)~(f) show the comparisons of spine widths (e) and lengths (f) from CR-formations (red bar, n = 1162 ) and controls (Con; blue bar, n = 1273 ). The spine head tends to be large and the spine length tends to be short (three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

Excitatory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) were recorded on the pyramidal neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −70 mV) in presence of 10 μM bicuculline. (a) shows sEPSCs recorded on the neurons in control (dark-blue trace in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). Bottom traces are the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 20 pA, 1 second (top) and 30 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sEPSC amplitudes from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 16 ) and CR-formation neurons (dark-red symbols, n = 15 ). (c) illustrates cumulative probability versus inter-sEPSC intervals from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 16 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 15 ).

Excitatory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) were recorded on the pyramidal neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −70 mV) in presence of 10 μM bicuculline. (a) shows sEPSCs recorded on the neurons in control (dark-blue trace in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). Bottom traces are the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 20 pA, 1 second (top) and 30 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sEPSC amplitudes from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 16 ) and CR-formation neurons (dark-red symbols, n = 15 ). (c) illustrates cumulative probability versus inter-sEPSC intervals from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 16 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 15 ).

Excitatory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) were recorded on the pyramidal neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −70 mV) in presence of 10 μM bicuculline. (a) shows sEPSCs recorded on the neurons in control (dark-blue trace in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). Bottom traces are the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 20 pA, 1 second (top) and 30 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sEPSC amplitudes from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 16 ) and CR-formation neurons (dark-red symbols, n = 15 ). (c) illustrates cumulative probability versus inter-sEPSC intervals from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 16 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 15 ).

The capability to encode spikes on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. The spikes were induced by depolarization pulse under voltage-clamp recording on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) Traces illustrate depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from control (blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (c) shows spikes per second versus normalized stimuli from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (d) Traces show the measurements of spike refractory periods on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formations (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (f) shows the threshold potential versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ).

The capability to encode spikes on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. The spikes were induced by depolarization pulse under voltage-clamp recording on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) Traces illustrate depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from control (blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (c) shows spikes per second versus normalized stimuli from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (d) Traces show the measurements of spike refractory periods on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formations (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (f) shows the threshold potential versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ).

The capability to encode spikes on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. The spikes were induced by depolarization pulse under voltage-clamp recording on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) Traces illustrate depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from control (blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (c) shows spikes per second versus normalized stimuli from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (d) Traces show the measurements of spike refractory periods on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formations (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (f) shows the threshold potential versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ).

The capability to encode spikes on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. The spikes were induced by depolarization pulse under voltage-clamp recording on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) Traces illustrate depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from control (blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (c) shows spikes per second versus normalized stimuli from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (d) Traces show the measurements of spike refractory periods on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formations (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (f) shows the threshold potential versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ).

The capability to encode spikes on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. The spikes were induced by depolarization pulse under voltage-clamp recording on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) Traces illustrate depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from control (blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (c) shows spikes per second versus normalized stimuli from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (d) Traces show the measurements of spike refractory periods on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formations (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (f) shows the threshold potential versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ).

The capability to encode spikes on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. The spikes were induced by depolarization pulse under voltage-clamp recording on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) Traces illustrate depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from control (blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (c) shows spikes per second versus normalized stimuli from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (d) Traces show the measurements of spike refractory periods on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formations (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ). (f) shows the threshold potential versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 20 ).

Inhibitory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents (sIPSCs) were recorded on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −65 mV) in presence of 10 μM CNQX and 40 μM D-AP5. (a) Traces show sIPSCs recorded on the neurons from controls (dark-blue in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). The bottom traces present the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 25 pA, 1 second (top) and 100 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sIPSC amplitudes from CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ) and control (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ). (c) shows cumulative probability versus inter-sIPSC intervals from CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ) and controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ).

Inhibitory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents (sIPSCs) were recorded on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −65 mV) in presence of 10 μM CNQX and 40 μM D-AP5. (a) Traces show sIPSCs recorded on the neurons from controls (dark-blue in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). The bottom traces present the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 25 pA, 1 second (top) and 100 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sIPSC amplitudes from CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ) and control (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ). (c) shows cumulative probability versus inter-sIPSC intervals from CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ) and controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ).

Inhibitory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical pyramidal neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents (sIPSCs) were recorded on glutamatergic neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −65 mV) in presence of 10 μM CNQX and 40 μM D-AP5. (a) Traces show sIPSCs recorded on the neurons from controls (dark-blue in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). The bottom traces present the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 25 pA, 1 second (top) and 100 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sIPSC amplitudes from CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ) and control (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ). (c) shows cumulative probability versus inter-sIPSC intervals from CR-formations (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ) and controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ).

The processes of GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortices increase after pairing WS and OS. (a)~(b) illustrate that process branches appear denser in CR-formations (a) than controls (b). (c) Primary processes per GABAergic neuron are higher in CR-formation mice (gray bar, n = 43 ) than controls (white, n = 40 ; asterisk, p < 0.05 ). (d) The secondary process branches per neuron are higher in CR-formation (gray bar) than control mice (white bar, three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The processes of GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortices increase after pairing WS and OS. (a)~(b) illustrate that process branches appear denser in CR-formations (a) than controls (b). (c) Primary processes per GABAergic neuron are higher in CR-formation mice (gray bar, n = 43 ) than controls (white, n = 40 ; asterisk, p < 0.05 ). (d) The secondary process branches per neuron are higher in CR-formation (gray bar) than control mice (white bar, three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The processes of GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortices increase after pairing WS and OS. (a)~(b) illustrate that process branches appear denser in CR-formations (a) than controls (b). (c) Primary processes per GABAergic neuron are higher in CR-formation mice (gray bar, n = 43 ) than controls (white, n = 40 ; asterisk, p < 0.05 ). (d) The secondary process branches per neuron are higher in CR-formation (gray bar) than control mice (white bar, three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

The processes of GABAergic neurons in the barrel cortices increase after pairing WS and OS. (a)~(b) illustrate that process branches appear denser in CR-formations (a) than controls (b). (c) Primary processes per GABAergic neuron are higher in CR-formation mice (gray bar, n = 43 ) than controls (white, n = 40 ; asterisk, p < 0.05 ). (d) The secondary process branches per neuron are higher in CR-formation (gray bar) than control mice (white bar, three asterisks, p < 0.001 ).

Excitatory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical GABAergic neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) were recorded on the GFP-labeled GABAergic neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −65 mV) in presence of 10 μM bicuculline. (a) shows sEPSCs recorded on the neurons from controls (dark-blue in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). The bottom traces are the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 30 pA, 1 second (top) and 90 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sEPSC amplitudes from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 12 ). (c) shows cumulative probability versus inter-sEPSC intervals from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ).

Excitatory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical GABAergic neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) were recorded on the GFP-labeled GABAergic neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −65 mV) in presence of 10 μM bicuculline. (a) shows sEPSCs recorded on the neurons from controls (dark-blue in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). The bottom traces are the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 30 pA, 1 second (top) and 90 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sEPSC amplitudes from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 12 ). (c) shows cumulative probability versus inter-sEPSC intervals from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ).

Excitatory synaptic transmission on barrel cortical GABAergic neurons increases after pairing WS and OS. Spontaneous excitatory postsynaptic currents (sEPSCs) were recorded on the GFP-labeled GABAergic neurons in cortical slices under voltage-clamp (holding potential at −65 mV) in presence of 10 μM bicuculline. (a) shows sEPSCs recorded on the neurons from controls (dark-blue in left panel) and CR-formation (dark-red in right). The bottom traces are the expanded waveforms selected from top traces. Calibration bars are 30 pA, 1 second (top) and 90 ms (bottom). (b) shows cumulative probability versus sEPSC amplitudes from control (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 12 ). (c) shows cumulative probability versus inter-sEPSC intervals from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 12 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 12 ).

The ability to encode spikes in barrel cortical GABAergic neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spikes were induced by depolarization pulses under voltage-clamp recording on the GABAergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) illustrates depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (c) illustrates spikes per second versus normalized stimuli (input-output) from control (dark-blue symbol, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 22 ). (d) shows the measurement of spike refractory periods on the neurons from control (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation mice (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (f) illustrates threshold potentials versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ).

The ability to encode spikes in barrel cortical GABAergic neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spikes were induced by depolarization pulses under voltage-clamp recording on the GABAergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) illustrates depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (c) illustrates spikes per second versus normalized stimuli (input-output) from control (dark-blue symbol, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 22 ). (d) shows the measurement of spike refractory periods on the neurons from control (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation mice (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (f) illustrates threshold potentials versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ).

The ability to encode spikes in barrel cortical GABAergic neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spikes were induced by depolarization pulses under voltage-clamp recording on the GABAergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) illustrates depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (c) illustrates spikes per second versus normalized stimuli (input-output) from control (dark-blue symbol, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 22 ). (d) shows the measurement of spike refractory periods on the neurons from control (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation mice (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (f) illustrates threshold potentials versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ).

The ability to encode spikes in barrel cortical GABAergic neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spikes were induced by depolarization pulses under voltage-clamp recording on the GABAergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) illustrates depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (c) illustrates spikes per second versus normalized stimuli (input-output) from control (dark-blue symbol, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 22 ). (d) shows the measurement of spike refractory periods on the neurons from control (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation mice (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (f) illustrates threshold potentials versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ).

The ability to encode spikes in barrel cortical GABAergic neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spikes were induced by depolarization pulses under voltage-clamp recording on the GABAergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) illustrates depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (c) illustrates spikes per second versus normalized stimuli (input-output) from control (dark-blue symbol, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 22 ). (d) shows the measurement of spike refractory periods on the neurons from control (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation mice (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (f) illustrates threshold potentials versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ).

The ability to encode spikes in barrel cortical GABAergic neurons decreases after pairing WS and OS. Spikes were induced by depolarization pulses under voltage-clamp recording on the GABAergic neurons in cortical slices. (a) illustrates depolarization-induced spikes on the neurons from controls (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (b) shows interspike intervals for spikes 1~2 to spikes 4~5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (c) illustrates spikes per second versus normalized stimuli (input-output) from control (dark-blue symbol, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red, n = 22 ). (d) shows the measurement of spike refractory periods on the neurons from control (dark-blue trace) and CR-formation (dark-red). (e) shows refractory periods versus spikes 1 to 4 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation mice (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ). (f) illustrates threshold potentials versus spikes 1 to 5 from controls (dark-blue symbols, n = 21 ) and CR-formation (dark-red symbols, n = 22 ).

Mutual innervation between excitatory and inhibitory neurons is upregulated after associative learning. (a) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled apical dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from controls. (b) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from CR-formation. White arrows indicate their termination. (c) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on each GABAergic neuron in control (white bar) and CR-formation (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 43 ). (d) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm GFP-labeled dendrite of GABAergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, three asterisks, p < 0.001 , n = 26 ). (e) shows GFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm YFP-labeled apical dendrite of glutamatergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 19 ).

Mutual innervation between excitatory and inhibitory neurons is upregulated after associative learning. (a) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled apical dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from controls. (b) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from CR-formation. White arrows indicate their termination. (c) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on each GABAergic neuron in control (white bar) and CR-formation (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 43 ). (d) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm GFP-labeled dendrite of GABAergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, three asterisks, p < 0.001 , n = 26 ). (e) shows GFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm YFP-labeled apical dendrite of glutamatergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 19 ).

Mutual innervation between excitatory and inhibitory neurons is upregulated after associative learning. (a) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled apical dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from controls. (b) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from CR-formation. White arrows indicate their termination. (c) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on each GABAergic neuron in control (white bar) and CR-formation (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 43 ). (d) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm GFP-labeled dendrite of GABAergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, three asterisks, p < 0.001 , n = 26 ). (e) shows GFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm YFP-labeled apical dendrite of glutamatergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 19 ).

Mutual innervation between excitatory and inhibitory neurons is upregulated after associative learning. (a) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled apical dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from controls. (b) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from CR-formation. White arrows indicate their termination. (c) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on each GABAergic neuron in control (white bar) and CR-formation (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 43 ). (d) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm GFP-labeled dendrite of GABAergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, three asterisks, p < 0.001 , n = 26 ). (e) shows GFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm YFP-labeled apical dendrite of glutamatergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 19 ).

Mutual innervation between excitatory and inhibitory neurons is upregulated after associative learning. (a) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled apical dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from controls. (b) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on a GFP-labeled GABAergic neuron (left panel) and its process (middle) as well as GFP-labeled axon terminals on YFP-labeled dendrite of a glutamatergic neuron (right) from CR-formation. White arrows indicate their termination. (c) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals on each GABAergic neuron in control (white bar) and CR-formation (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 43 ). (d) shows YFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm GFP-labeled dendrite of GABAergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, three asterisks, p < 0.001 , n = 26 ). (e) shows GFP-labeled axon terminals per 100 μm YFP-labeled apical dendrite of glutamatergic neurons in controls (white bar) and CR-formations (gray, two asterisks, p < 0.01 , n = 19 ).

The coordinated recruitment and refinement of barrel cortical glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons set up their function state for information storage. (a) In addition to receiving whisker signal from the thalamus, associative memory cells in the barrel cortex receive odor signal from the piriform cortex after associative learning. In the glutamatergic neurons (orange), their dendritic spines are enriched, their excitatory synaptic transmissions are upregulated, and their receiving of inhibitory synaptic transmission is downregulated for their recruitments to be associative memory cells. The innervations from GABAergic axons are increased, such that the glutamatergic neurons are not overexcited. In the GABAergic neurons (green), their processes are enriched, their receptive fields of excitatory synaptic transmission are enhanced, and their innervation from the excitatory neurons is increased. Their synaptic outputs are decreased. The GABAergic neurons are homeostasis by coordinating their subcellular compartments. (b) An upregulation in the ratio of the excitatory synapses to the inhibitory synapses drives the digital spike encoding at the excitatory neurons over the threshold (out of “functional silence”) into an optimal state for the recruitment and refinement of associative memory cells. The extreme weakness of inhibitory synapses pushes these neurons to be overexcited for strong memory with no recognition. The curve of digital spikes is simulated based on our data, in which the normalized stimulations are integrated by the ratio of excitatory synapses to inhibitory synapses.

The coordinated recruitment and refinement of barrel cortical glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons set up their function state for information storage. (a) In addition to receiving whisker signal from the thalamus, associative memory cells in the barrel cortex receive odor signal from the piriform cortex after associative learning. In the glutamatergic neurons (orange), their dendritic spines are enriched, their excitatory synaptic transmissions are upregulated, and their receiving of inhibitory synaptic transmission is downregulated for their recruitments to be associative memory cells. The innervations from GABAergic axons are increased, such that the glutamatergic neurons are not overexcited. In the GABAergic neurons (green), their processes are enriched, their receptive fields of excitatory synaptic transmission are enhanced, and their innervation from the excitatory neurons is increased. Their synaptic outputs are decreased. The GABAergic neurons are homeostasis by coordinating their subcellular compartments. (b) An upregulation in the ratio of the excitatory synapses to the inhibitory synapses drives the digital spike encoding at the excitatory neurons over the threshold (out of “functional silence”) into an optimal state for the recruitment and refinement of associative memory cells. The extreme weakness of inhibitory synapses pushes these neurons to be overexcited for strong memory with no recognition. The curve of digital spikes is simulated based on our data, in which the normalized stimulations are integrated by the ratio of excitatory synapses to inhibitory synapses.

通讯作者

Jin-Hui Wang.Department of Pathophysiology, Bengbu Medical College, Anhui 233000, China, bbmc.edu.cn;State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China, ucas.ac.cn;School of Pharmacy, Qingdao University, 38 Dengzhou, Shandong 266021, China, qdu.edu.cn.jhw@ibp.ac.cn

推荐引用方式

Fenxia Yan,Zilong Gao,Pin Chen,Li Huang,Dangui Wang,Na Chen,Ruixiang Wu,Jing Feng,Shan Cui,Wei Lu,Jin-Hui Wang. Coordinated Plasticity between Barrel Cortical Glutamatergic and GABAergic Neurons during Associative Memory. Neural Plasticity ,Vol.2016(2016)

您觉得这篇文章对您有帮助吗?
分享和收藏
0

是否收藏?

参考文献
[1] R. Ge, H. Qian, N. Chen, J.-H. Wang. et al.(2014). Input-dependent subcellular localization of spike initiation between soma and axon at cortical pyramidal neurons. Molecular Brain.7(1, article 26). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[2] R. Ge, H. Qian, J.-H. Wang. (2011). Physiological synaptic signals initiate sequential spikes at soma of cortical pyramidal neurons. Molecular Brain.4(1, article no. 19). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[3] A. Xu, S. Cui, J. Wang. (2015). Incoordination among subcellular compartments is associated with depression-like behavior induced by chronic mild stress. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology.19(5). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[4] N. M. Weinberger. (2007). Associative representational plasticity in the auditory cortex: a synthesis of two disciplines. Learning and Memory.14(1-2):1-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[5] D. J. Margolis, H. Lütcke, K. Schulz, F. Haiss. et al.(2012). Reorganization of cortical population activity imaged throughout long-term sensory deprivation. Nature Neuroscience.15(11):1539-1546. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[6] N. G. Jones, I. Kemenes, G. Kemenes, P. R. Benjamin. et al.(2003). A persistent cellular change in a single modulatory neuron contributes to associative long-term memory. Current Biology.13(12):1064-1069. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[7] U. R. Karmarkar, Y. Dan. (2006). Experience-dependent plasticity in adult visual cortex. Neuron.52(4):577-585. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[8] V. Bracha, S. Zbarska, K. Parker, A. Carrel. et al.(2009). The cerebellum and eye-blink conditioning: learning versus network performance hypotheses. Neuroscience.162(3):787-796. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[9] B. M. Hooks, C. Chen. (2007). Critical periods in the visual system: changing views for a model of experience-dependent plasticity. Neuron.56(2):312-326. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[10] S. Maren. (2008). Pavlovian fear conditioning as a behavioral assay for hippocampus and amygdala function: cautions and caveats. European Journal of Neuroscience.28(8):1661-1666. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[11] J. Yu, H. Qian, J.-H. Wang. (2012). Upregulation of transmitter release probability improves a conversion of synaptic analogue signals into neuronal digital spikes. Molecular Brain.5(1, article 26). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[12] L. B. Burhans, C. Smith-Bell, B. G. Schreurs. (2008). Conditioning-specific reflex modification of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response and heart rate: behavioral rules, neural substrates, and potential applications to posttraumatic stress disorder. Behavioral Neuroscience.122(6):1191-1206. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[13] H. A. Lechner, D. A. Baxter, J. H. Byrne. (2000). Classical conditioning of feeding in Aplysia: I. Behavioral analysis. Journal of Neuroscience.20(9):3369-3376. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[14] J.-H. Wang, D. Wang, J. Zhao, Z. Gao. et al.(2013). Neurons in barrel cortex turn into processing whisker and odor signals: a novel form of associative learning. Society for Neuroscience.653. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[15] G. Neves, S. F. Cooke, T. V. P. Bliss. (2008). Synaptic plasticity, memory and the hippocampus: a neural network approach to causality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.9(1):65-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[16] J. H. Wang, D. Wang, Z. Gao, N. Chen. et al.(2016). Both glutamatergic and gabaergic neurons are recruited to be associative memory cells. Biophysical Journal.110(3, S1):481a. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[17] N. Chen, S. Chen, Y. Wu, J. Wang. et al.(2006). The refractory periods and threshold potentials of sequential spikes measured by whole-cell recording. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.340(1):151-157. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[18] B. E. McKay, R. W. Turner. (2005). Physiological and morphological development of the rat cerebellar Purkinje cell. Journal of Physiology.567(3):829-850. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[19] D. S. Woodruff-Pak, J. F. Disterhoft. (2008). Where is the trace in trace conditioning?. Trends in Neurosciences.31(2):105-112. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[20] W. Lu, B. Wen, F. Zhang, J.-H. Wang. et al.(2014). Voltage-independent sodium channels emerge for an expression of activity-induced spontaneous spikes in GABAergic neurons. Molecular Brain.7(1, article 38). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[21] N. Chen, J. Yu, H. Qian, R. Ge. et al.(2010). Axons amplify somatic incomplete spikes into uniform amplitudes in mouse cortical pyramidal neurons. PLoS ONE.5(7). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[22] D. L. Glanzman. (1995). The cellular basis of classical conditioning in Aplysia californica—it's less simple than you think. Trends in Neurosciences.18(1):30-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[23] C. F. Stevens. (2004). Presynaptic function. Current Opinion in Neurobiology.14(3):341-345. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[24] J. DeFelipe, P. L. López-Cruz, R. Benavides-Piccione. (2013). New insights into the classification and nomenclature of cortical GABAergic interneurons. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.14(3):202-216. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[25] A. J. Silva. (2003). Molecular and cellular cognitive studies of the role of synaptic plasticity in memory. Journal of Neurobiology.54(1):224-237. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[26] J. Yu, H. Qian, N. Chen, J.-H. Wang. et al.(2011). Quantal glutamate release is essential for reliable neuronal encodings in cerebral networks. PLoS ONE.6(9). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[27] E. S. Nikitin, D. V. Vavoulis, I. Kemenes, V. Marra. et al.(2008). Persistent sodium current is a nonsynaptic substrate for long-term associative memory. Current Biology.18(16):1221-1226. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[28] H. T. Blair, G. E. Schafe, E. P. Bauer, S. M. Rodrigues. et al.(2001). Synaptic plasticity in the lateral amygdala: a cellular hypothesis of fear conditioning. Learning and Memory.8(5):229-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[29] D. J. Cai, D. Aharoni, T. Shuman, J. Shobe. et al.(2016). A shared neural ensemble links distinct contextual memories encoded close in time. Nature.534(7605):115-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[30] T. V. P. Bliss, G. L. Collingridge. (1993). A synaptic model of memory: long-term potentiation in the hippocampus. Nature.361(6407):31-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[31] C. Rosselet, M. Fieschi, S. Hugues, I. Bureau. et al.(2011). Associative learning changes the organization of functional excitatory circuits targeting the supragranular layers of mouse barrel cortex. Frontiers in Neural Circuits.4, article 126. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[32] R. D. Hawkins. (1984). A cellular mechanism of classical conditioning in Aplysia. Journal of Experimental Biology.112:113-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[33] K. Fox. (2009). Experience-dependent plasticity mechanisms for neural rehabilitation in somatosensory cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.364(1515):369-381. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[34] T. C. M. Bienvenu, D. Busti, P. J. Magill, F. Ferraguti. et al.(2012). Cell-type-specific recruitment of amygdala interneurons to hippocampal theta rhythm and noxious stimuli in vivo. Neuron.74(6):1059-1074. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[35] W. Xu, T. C. Südhof. (2013). A neural circuit for memory specificity and generalization. Science.339(6125):1290-1295. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[36] G. A. Ascoli, L. Alonso-Nanclares, S. A. Anderson. (2008). Petilla terminology: nomenclature of features of GABAergic interneurons of the cerebral cortex. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience.9(7):557-568. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[37] H. Kasai, M. Fukuda, S. Watanabe, A. Hayashi-Takagi. et al.(2010). Structural dynamics of dendritic spines in memory and cognition. Trends in Neurosciences.33(3):121-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[38] A. C. W. Weeks, S. Connor, R. Hinchcliff, J. C. LeBoutillier. et al.(2007). Eye-blink conditioning is associated with changes in synaptic ultrastructure in the rabbit interpositus nuclei. Learning and Memory.14(6):385-389. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[39] J. J. Letzkus, S. B. E. Wolff, E. M. M. Meyer, P. Tovote. et al.(2011). A disinhibitory microcircuit for associative fear learning in the auditory cortex. Nature.480(7377):331-335. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[40] K. Ma, L. Guo, A. Xu, S. Cui. et al.(2016). Molecular mechanism for stress-induced depression assessed by sequencing miRNA and mRNA in medial prefrontal cortex. PLoS One.11(7). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[41] H. Kasai, M. Matsuzaki, J. Noguchi, N. Yasumatsu. et al.(2003). Structure-stability-function relationships of dendritic spines. Trends in Neurosciences.26(7):360-368. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[42] J.-H. Wang, J. Wei, X. Chen, J. Yu. et al.(2008). Gain and fidelity of transmission patterns at cortical excitatory unitary synapses improve spike encoding. Journal of Cell Science.121(17):2951-2960. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[43] N. Chen, X. Chen, J.-H. Wang. (2008). Homeostasis established by coordination of subcellular compartment plasticity improves spike encoding. Journal of Cell Science.121(17):2961-2971. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[44] N. Chen, X. Chen, J. Yu, J. Wang. et al.(2006). After-hyperpolarization improves spike programming through lowering threshold potentials and refractory periods mediated by voltage-gated sodium channels. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.346(3):938-945. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[45] I. V. Viskontas. (2008). Advances in memory research: single-neuron recordings from the human medial temporal lobe aid our understanding of declarative memory. Current Opinion in Neurology.21(6):662-668. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[46] J. H. Byrne. (1987). Cellular analysis of associative learning. Physiological Reviews.67(2):329-439. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[47] G. Paxinos, C. Watson. (2005). The Mouse Brain: In Stereotaxic Coordinates. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[48] X. Liu, S. Ramirez, P. T. Pang, C. B. Puryear. et al.(2012). Optogenetic stimulation of a hippocampal engram activates fear memory recall. Nature.484(7394):381-385. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[49] K. Takehara-Nishiuchi, B. L. McNaughton. (2008). Spontaneous changes of neocortical code for associative memory during consolidation. Science.322(5903):960-963. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[50] I. Ehrlich, Y. Humeau, F. Grenier, S. Ciocchi. et al.(2009). Amygdala inhibitory circuits and the control of fear memory. Neuron.62(6):757-771. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[51] A. E. Dityatev, V. Y. Bolshakov. (2005). Amygdala, long-term potentiation, and fear conditioning. Neuroscientist.11(1):75-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[52] D. W. Wesson, T. N. Donahou, M. O. Johnson, M. Wachowiak. et al.(2008). Sniffing behavior of mice during performance in odor-guided tasks. Chemical Senses.33(7):581-596. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[53] D. Wang, J. Zhao, Z. Gao, N. Chen. et al.(2015). Neurons in the barrel cortex turn into processing whisker and odor signals: a cellular mechanism for the storage and retrieval of associative signals. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience.9, article 320. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[54] M. Zhang, F. S. Hung, Y. Zhu, Z. Xie. et al.(2004). Calcium signal-dependent plasticity of neuronal excitability developed postnatally. Journal of Neurobiology.61(2):277-287. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[55] J. H. Wang, N. Chen, Z. Gao, B. Wen. et al.(2014). Upregulation of glutamatergic receptor-channels is associated with cross-modal reflexes encoded in barrel cortex and piriform cortex. Biophysical Journal.106(2, article 191a). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[56] H.-C. Pape, D. Pare. (2010). Plastic synaptic networks of the amygdala for the acquisition, expression, and extinction of conditioned fear. Physiological Reviews.90(2):419-463. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[57] M. S. Fanselow, A. M. Poulos. (2005). The neuroscience of mammalian associative learning. Annual Review of Psychology.56:207-234. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[58] K. M. Christian, R. F. Thompson. (2003). Neural substrates of eyeblink conditioning: acquisition and retention. Learning and Memory.10(6):427-455. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[59] R. S. Zucker, W. G. Regehr. (2002). Short-term synaptic plasticity. Annual Review of Physiology.25:355-405. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[60] J.-H. Wang, P. Kelly. (2001). Calcium-calmodulin signalling pathway up-regulates glutamatergic synaptic function in non-pyramidal, fast spiking rat hippocampal CA1 neurons. Journal of Physiology.533(2):407-422. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[61] K. Ma, A. Xu, S. Cui, M. Sun. et al.(2016). Impaired GABA synthesis, uptake and release are associated with depression-like behaviors induced by chronic mild stress. Translational Psychiatry.6(10):e910. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[62] C. E. J. Cheetham, S. J. Barnes, G. Albieri, G. W. Knott. et al.(2012). Pansynaptic enlargement at adult cortical connections strengthened by experience. Cerebral Cortex.24(2):521-531. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[63] J. Zhao, D. Wang, J.-H. Wang. (2012). Barrel cortical neurons and astrocytes coordinately respond to an increased whisker stimulus frequency. Molecular Brain.5(1, article no. 12). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[64] E. Yaksi, R. W. Friedrich. (2006). Reconstruction of firing rate changes across neuronal populations by temporally deconvolved Ca imaging. Nature Methods.3(5):377-383. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[65] J. Wei, M. Zhang, Y. Zhu, J.-H. Wang. et al.(2004). Ca—calmodulin signalling pathway up-regulates GABA synaptic transmission through cytoskeleton-mediated mechanisms. Neuroscience.127(3):637-647. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[66] A. Lansner. (2009). Associative memory models: from the cell-assembly theory to biophysically detailed cortex simulations. Trends in Neurosciences.32(3):178-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[67] N. Chen, Y. Zhu, X. Gao, S. Guan. et al.(2006). Sodium channel-mediated intrinsic mechanisms underlying the differences of spike programming among GABAergic neurons. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.346(1):281-287. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[68] J.-H. Wang. (2003). Short-term cerebral ischemia causes the dysfunction of interneurons and more excitation of pyramidal neurons in rats. Brain Research Bulletin.60(1-2):53-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[69] H. Li, M. A. Penzo, H. Taniguchi, C. D. Kopec. et al.(2013). Experience-dependent modification of a central amygdala fear circuit. Nature Neuroscience.16(3):332-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[70] E. A. Wasserman, R. R. Miller. (1997). What's elementary about associative learning?. Annual Review of Psychology.48:573-607. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[71] A. Holtmaat, K. Svoboda. (2009). Experience-dependent structural synaptic plasticity in the mammalian brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.10(9):647-658. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[72] F. Zhang, B. Liu, Z. Lei, J.-H. Wang. et al.(2012). MGluR1,5 activation improves network asynchrony and GABAergic synapse attenuation in the amygdala: implication for anxiety-like behavior in DBA/2 mice. Molecular Brain.5(1, article no. 20). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[73] N. M. Weinberger. (2004). Specific long-term memory traces in primary auditory cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.5(4):279-290. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[74] G. Zhang, Z. Gao, S. Guan, Y. Zhu. et al.(2013). Upregulation of excitatory neurons and downregulation of inhibitory neurons in barrel cortex are associated with loss of whisker inputs. Molecular Brain.6(1):2. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[75] J. J. Perkowski, G. G. Murphy. (2011). Deletion of the mouse homolog of KCNAB2, a gene linked to monosomy 1p36, results in associative memory impairments and amygdala hyperexcitability. Journal of Neuroscience.31(1):46-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[76] R. C. Honey, M. Good. (2000). Associative components of recognition memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology.10(2):200-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[77] L. G. Reijmers, B. L. Perkins, N. Matsuo, M. Mayford. et al.(2007). Localization of a stable neural correlate of associative memory. Science.317(5842):1230-1233. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[78] B. Ye, L. Huang, Z. Gao, P. Chen. et al.(2012). The functional upregulation of piriform cortex is associated with cross-modal plasticity in loss of whisker tactile inputs. PLoS ONE.7(8). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[79] M. Davis, W. A. Falls, S. Campeau, M. Kim. et al.(1993). Fear-potentiated startle: a neural and pharmacological analysis. Behavioural Brain Research.58(1-2):175-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[80] S. Frey, J. U. Frey. (2008). ‘Synaptic tagging’ and ‘cross-tagging’ and related associative reinforcement processes of functional plasticity as the cellular basis for memory formation. Progress in Brain Research.169:117-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[81] H. Ni, L. Huang, N. Chen, F. Zhang. et al.(2010). Upregulation of barrel GABAergic neurons is associated with cross-modal plasticity in olfactory deficit. PLoS ONE.5(10). DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
[82] E. G. Harlow, S. M. Till, T. A. Russell, L. S. Wijetunge. et al.(2010). Critical Period Plasticity Is Disrupted in the Barrel Cortex of Fmr1 Knockout Mice. Neuron.65(3):385-398. DOI: 10.1016/j.tins.2008.12.002.
文献评价指标
浏览 131次
下载全文 21次
评分次数 0次
用户评分 0.0分
分享 0次