Cited by 293Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory Processes and Influences

Chemogenetic Interrogation of a Brain-wide Fear Memory Network in Mice

Open access
Vetere, Gisella, Kenney, Justin W., Tran, Lina M., Xia, Frances, Steadman, Patrick E., Parkinson, John, Josselyn, Sheena A., Frankland, Paul W.·2017·Neuron

Abstract

Behavior depends on coordinated activity across multiple brain regions. Within such networks, highly connected hub regions are assumed to disproportionately influence behavioral output, although this hypothesis has not been systematically evaluated. Previously, by mapping brain-wide expression of the activity-regulated gene c-fos, we identified a network of brain regions co-activated by fear memory. To test the hypothesis that hub regions are more important for network function, here, we simulated node deletion in silico in this behaviorally defined functional network. Removal of high degree nodes produced the greatest network disruption (e.g., reduction in global efficiency). To test these predictions in vivo, we examined the impact of post-training chemogenetic silencing of different network nodes on fear memory consolidation. In a series of independent experiments encompassing 25% of network nodes (i.e., 21/84 brain regions), we found that node degree accurately predicted observed deficits in memory consolidation, with silencing of highly connected hubs producing the largest impairments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.03.037

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Sample sizes were initially determined based on prior work using social interaction and intrinsic physiology, and no formal statistical methods were used to pre-determine sample sizes.

    “Sample sizes were initially determined based on prior work using social interaction54,65 and intrinsic physiology62, no formal statistical methods were used to pre-determine sample sizes.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vetere, G., Kenney, J. W., Tran, L. M., Xia, F., Steadman, P. E., Parkinson, J., Josselyn, S. A., & Frankland, P. W.
Affiliations
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Frankland, Paul W.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
94
Issue
2
Pages
363-374.e4
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2605615531
Cited by
293
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 3
FWCI
14.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (FDN143227, MOP74650)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) (RGPIN-2014-06664)
  • Human Frontiers Science Program (LT000759/2014)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
fear memory, memory consolidation, hub regions, node degree, network efficiency, chemogenetic silencing, Fos expression, network disruption, node removal
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Brain Mapping, Conditioning, Psychological, Fear, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Memory, Nerve Net, Mice

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