Cited by 50Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

Hippocampal c-Fos activation in normal and LPA1-null mice after two object recognition tasks with different memory demands

Castilla-Ortega, Estela, Pedraza, Carmen, Chun, Jerold, Fonseca, Fernando Rodríguez de, Estivill-Torrús, Guillermo, Santín, Luis J.·2012·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

Normal and LPA₁-null mice, that have well reported hippocampal deficits, were assessed in an episodic-like what-when-where memory task or in a comparable task designed to test memory for familiar objects and locations by discriminating them from novels. Both genotypes performed the novelty recognition task but failed to learn the what-when-where task. However, normal mice showed what-when memory that was impaired in nulls. Each task elicited a different pattern of c-Fos expression. In normal mice, the what-when-where task induced more hippocampal c-Fos activation in the CA1 area than the novelty-based task, correlating with the what-when memory. LPA₁-null mice displayed a basal c-Fos hyperactivity in the hippocampus and in the medial prefrontal cortex, which was regulated differently by the two behavioural tasks employed. Both tasks were matched in exploratory behaviour and c-Fos activation in stress-related brain areas for both genotypes. This study shows that the what-when-where memory task differs from a comparable novelty-based task in both the learning demands and the neuronal correlates. Moreover, results also stress the role of the LPA₁ receptor in hippocampal functioning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.04.018

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Castilla-Ortega, E., Pedraza, C., Chun, J., Fonseca, F. R. D., Estivill-Torrús, G., & Santín, L. J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Málaga (ES)
  • Scripps Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Santín, Luis J.
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
232
Issue
2
Pages
400-405
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2151082833
Cited by
50
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
LPA1 receptor, c-Fos activation, hippocampus, episodic-like memory, novelty recognition, object recognition, CA1, medial prefrontal cortex, memory demand
MeSH terms
Animals, Exploratory Behavior, Hippocampus, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Tissue Distribution, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos, Mice, Knockout, Recognition, Psychology, Receptors, Lysophosphatidic Acid, Mice, Memory, Episodic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review