Cited by 300Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Molecular genetic analysis of synaptic plasticity, activity-dependent neural development, learning, and memory in the mammalian brain

Chen, Chong, Tonegawa, Susumu·1997·Annual Review of Neuroscience

Abstract

▪ Abstract Recently, dozens of mutant mice generated with gene targeting or transgenic technologies have been shown to exhibit a distinct set of impairments in the brain and behavior. In this review, we discuss how studies of mutant mice have helped elucidate the mechanisms that underlie synaptic plasticity and the relationship of these synaptic mechanisms to the activity-dependent phase of neural development and learning and memory. We focus on the recent progress in the analysis of whisker-related pattern formation, elimination of climbing fibers, long-term potentiation, long-term depression, and various learning and memory tasks in mutant mice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.neuro.20.1.157

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?

  • Previous studies found a correlated impairment in Scc-CA1 LTP and spatial memory.

    “These studies found a correlated impairment in Scc-CA1 LTP and spatial memory (but see Conquet et al., 1994).”
  • The only exceptional case, the mGluR1 mutant mice, is complicated by the fact that two groups have generated and analyzed these mutants independently and have obtained opposing results.

    “It is important to point out that the only exceptional case, namely that of the mGluR1 mutant mice, is complicated by the fact that two groups have generated and analyzed these mutants independently and have obtained opposing results (Aiba et al., 1994; Conquet et al., 1994; Chen and Tonegawa, 1997).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, C., & Tonegawa, S.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Neuroscience
Published
1997-03
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
157-184
ISSN
  • 0147-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4126
OpenAlex
W2164790343
Cited by
300
References
13
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS32925, R01NS032925)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
synaptic plasticity, learning and memory, mouse mutants, gene targeting, transgenic mice, long-term potentiation, long-term depression
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Learning, Memory, Molecular Biology, Neuronal Plasticity, Presynaptic Terminals, 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