Cited by 67Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research

Transient Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Activation Is Confined to a Narrow Temporal Window Required for the Induction of Two-Trial Long-Term Memory in Aplysia

Open access
Philips, Gary T., Tzvetkova, Ekaterina I., Carew, Thomas J.·2007·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Although it is commonly appreciated that spaced training is superior to massed training in memory formation, the molecular mechanisms underlying this feature of memory are largely unknown. We previously described the selective benefit of multiple spaced (vs massed) training trials in the induction of long-term memory (LTM) for sensitization in Aplysia californica. We now report that LTM can be induced with only two spaced training trials [tail shocks (TSs)] when the second TS is administered 45 min after the first. In contrast, spacing intervals of 15 and 60 min are ineffective. This surprisingly narrow permissive training window for two-trial LTM is accompanied by an equally narrow window of transient mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation, a necessary signaling molecule for LTM induction, at 45 min after a single TS. Thus, the transient recruitment of MAPK following a single TS may provide a narrow molecular window for two-trial LTM formation.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.4262-07.2007

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • The 45-minute optimum for LTS in Aplysia californica was associated with activation of MAPK.

    “The 45-minute optimum was associated with activation of MAPK.”
  • Following either a single 5-HT pulse or a single electric shock, MAPK activation peaked at or near 45 minutes post-trial; thus, a 45-minute interval might optimally reinforce the effects of MAPK.

    “Following either a single 5-HT pulse or a single electric shock, MAPK activation peaked at or near 45 minutes post-trial12,66; thus, a 45-minute interval might optimally reinforce the effects of MAPK.”
  • In Aplysia californica, when two electric shocks were given to induce LTS, maximal LTS was produced when the inter-stimulus interval was 45 minutes; LTS was not produced with intervals of 15 or 60 minutes.

    “In experiments with A. californica, when two electric shocks were given to induce LTS, maximal LTS was produced when the inter-stimulus interval was 45 minutes. LTS was not produced with intervals of 15 or 60 minutes66.”
  • ERK is activated more slowly, with maximal activation about 45 min after a single trial.

    “In contrast, ERK is activated more slowly with maximal activation occurring about 45 min after a single trial7.”

    From Computational design of enhanced learning protocols (2012) · cites this paper as [7]

  • The non-uniform distribution of interstimulus intervals in the Enhanced protocol was in marked contrast to the fixed intervals used in previous protocols for behavioral training in Aplysia.

    “Interestingly, the non-uniform distribution of ISIs in the Enhanced protocol was in marked contrast to the fixed intervals used in previous protocols for behavioral training in Aplysia6,7,10.”

    From Computational design of enhanced learning protocols (2012) · cites this paper as [7]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Philips, G. T., Tzvetkova, E. I., & Carew, T. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Image and Pervasive Access Laboratory (SG)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2007-12-12
Volume
27
Issue
50
Pages
13701-13705
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1963487641
Cited by
67
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0444762)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH041083)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Keywords
mitogen-activated protein kinase, long-term memory, spaced training, massed training, sensitization, Aplysia californica, tail shock, temporal window, synaptic plasticity
MeSH terms
Animals, Aplysia, Behavior, Animal, Electroshock, Enzyme Activation, Memory, Neurons, Afferent, Physical Stimulation, Time Factors, Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases

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