PreprintCited by 129Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research

Differential Induction of Long-Term Synaptic Facilitation by Spaced and Massed Applications of Serotonin at Sensory Neuron Synapses of Aplysia californica

Open access
Mauelshagen, Juliane, Sherff, Carolyn M., Carew, Thomas J.·1998·Learning & Memory

Abstract

Serotonin (5HT)-induced facilitation of synaptic transmission from tail sensory neurons (SNs) to motor neurons (MNs) in the marine mollusc Aplysia provides a cellular model of short- and long-term memory for behavioral sensitization of the tail withdrawal reflex. Synaptic facilitation at these synapses occurs in three temporal phases: short-term (STF, lasting minutes), intermediate-term (ITF, lasting more than an hour), and long-term (LTF, lasting >24 hr). STF, ITF, and LTF differ in their induction requirements: A single brief exposure of 5HT induces STF, whereas five applications are required for ITF and LTF. Moreover, STF and LTF can be induced independently. Different forms of memory often show differential sensitivity to the pattern of training trials. To begin to explore this effect at a cellular level, we examined ITF and LTF induced by one of two patterns of 5HT application: a spaced pattern (five 5-min exposures with an interval of 15 min) or a massed pattern (one continuous 25-min application). The spaced and massed patterns both induced ITF; however, spaced 5HT application was significantly more reliable at inducing LTF than was massed application. Thus, whereas induction of ITF and LTF require similar amounts of 5HT, the cellular mechanisms underlying the induction of LTF are more sensitive to the pattern of the induction trials. In the massed group, further analysis revealed a relationship between the expression of ITF and the subsequent expression of LTF, suggesting that these two processes may be mechanistically related.

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/lm.5.3.246

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 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?

  • Spaced training leads to improved memory in invertebrates such as Aplysia californica, Drosophila melanogaster and bees, and in rodents and non-human primates.

    “Spaced training also leads to improved memory in invertebrates, such as the mollusk Aplysia californica11–14, Drosophila melanogaster15,16 and bees17, and in rodents18,19 and non-human primates20,21.”
  • The massed protocol result is consistent with data that massed 5-HT application fails to produce LTF.

    “The simulations determined that, of these protocols, a massed protocol (FIG. 4b) produced the lowest peak value of inducer, consistent with data that massed 5-HT application fails to produce LTF14.”
  • A massed training protocol (25 min continuous 5-HT) produced significantly less LTF than a spaced protocol (five 5-min pulses of 5-HT).

    “However, the model described in Fig. 1a was also compatible with previous empirical results in which a massed training protocol (25 min continuous 5-HT) produced significantly less LTF than a spaced protocol (five, 5-min pulses of 5-HT)29.”

    From Computational design of enhanced learning protocols (2012) · cites this paper as [29]

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: 2

  1. Rosenzweig, M. and E.L. Bennett. 1984. Direct processes and modulatory influences in the stages of memory formation. In Neurobiology of learning and memory (ed. G. Lynch, J.L. McGaugh, and N.M. Weinberger), pp. 263-288.
  2. Squire, L.R. 1987. Memory and brain Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mauelshagen, J., Sherff, C. M., & Carew, T. J.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
1998-07-01
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
246-256
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2175525622
Cited by
129
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH41083, R01MH041083, R37MH041083, N01 MH012004)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Keywords
serotonin, short-term facilitation, Aplysia californica, tail withdrawal reflex, behavioral sensitization, synaptic plasticity
MeSH terms
Animals, Aplysia, Motor Neurons, Neuronal Plasticity, Neurons, Afferent, Probability, Reflex, Serotonin, Synapses, Excitatory Postsynaptic Potentials

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