Cited by 331Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

The late maintenance of hippocampal LTP: Requirements, phases, ‘synaptic tagging’, ‘late-associativity’ and implications

Reymann, Klaus G., Frey, Julietta U.·2007·Neuropharmacology

Abstract

Our review focuses on the mechanisms which enable the late maintenance of hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP; >3h), a phenomenon which is thought to underlie prolonged memory. About 20 years ago we showed for the first time that the maintenance of LTP - like memory storage--depends on intact protein synthesis and thus, consists of at least two temporal phases. Here we concentrate on mechanisms required for the induction of the transient early-LTP and of the protein synthesis-dependent late-LTP. Our group has shown that the induction of late-LTP requires the associative activation of heterosynaptic inputs, i.e. the synergistic activation of glutamatergic and modulatory, reinforcing inputs within specific, effective time windows. The induction of late-LTP is characterized by novel, late-associative properties such as 'synaptic tagging' and 'late-associative reinforcement'. Both phenomena require the associative setting of synaptic tags as well as the availability of plasticity-related proteins (PRPs) and they are restricted to functional dendritic compartments, in general. 'Synaptic tagging' guarantees input specificity and thus the specific processing of afferent signals for the establishment of late-LTP. 'Late-associative reinforcement' describes a process where early-LTP by the co-activation of modulatory inputs can be transformed into late-LTP in activated synapses where a tag is set. Recent evidence from behavioral experiments, which studied processes of emotional and cognitive reinforcement of LTP, point to the physiological relevance of the above mechanisms during cellular and system's memory formation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2006.07.026

Cites

9 of 9 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reymann, K. G., & Frey, J. U.
Affiliations
Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology (DE)
Corresponding author
Frey, Julietta U.
Venue
Neuropharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
24-40
ISSN
0028-3908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012417073
Cited by
331
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 16
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
hippocampal long-term potentiation, synaptic tagging, protein synthesis-dependent memory, glutamatergic input, dendritic compartments, memory formation, emotional reinforcement
MeSH terms
Animals, Hippocampus, Models, Neurological, Synapses, Time Factors, Long-Term Potentiation

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