PreprintCited by 7

Identification of a Novel Retrieval-Dependent Memory Process in the Crab Neohelice granulata

Merlo, Santiago A., Santos, Maria J., Pedreira, Maria E., Merlo, Emiliano·2019

Abstract

Fully consolidated associative memories may be altered by alternative retrieval dependent memory processes. While a brief exposure to the conditioned stimulus (CS) can trigger reconsolidation of the original memory, a prolonged CS exposure will trigger memory extinction. The conditioned response is maintained after reconsolidation, but is inhibited after extinction, presumably by the formation of a new inhibitory memory trace. In rats and humans, it has been shown that CS exposure of intermediate duration leave the memory in an insensitive or limbo state. Limbo is characterised by the absence of reconsolidation or extinction. Here we investigated the evolutionary conserved nature of limbo using a contextual Pavlovian conditioning (CPC) memory paradigm in the crab Neohelice granulata . In animals with fully consolidated CPC memory, systemic administration of the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide after 1 CS presentation disrupted the memory, presumably by interfering with memory reconsolidation. The same intervention given after 320 CSs prevented CPC memory extinction. Cycloheximide had no behavioural effect when administered after 80 CS presentations, a protocol that failed to extinguish CPC memory. Also, we observed that a stronger CPC memory engaged reconsolidation after 80 CS instead of limbo, indicating that memory strength affects the parametrical conditions to engage either reconsolidation or limbo. Altogether, these results indicate that limbo is an evolutionary conserved memory process segregating reconsolidation from extinction in the number of CSs space. Limbo appears as an intrinsic component of retrieval dependent memory processing, with a key function in the transition from memory maintenance to inhibition. Author statement (CRediT Roles): Santiago A. Merlo: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jimena Santos: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Maria Eugenia Pedreira: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Emiliano Merlo: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2019.12.19.881128

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]17. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3d ed.). Oxford,: Clarendon Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Merlo, S. A., Santos, M. J., Pedreira, M. E., & Merlo, E.
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2019-12-19
References
0
Type
Preprint

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