A team of neuroscientists has identified processes the brain undergoes to distinguish real and present dangers from those linked to past experiences in mice. The findings, which appear in the journal Nature, have implications for our understanding of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)--an affliction marked by the inability to distinguish between past and present dangers or to recognize "safe" situations.
"Memories of a traumatic episode can last for a long time," says the paper's senior author. "But we are able to use such memories selectively: to predict and respond to a subsequent, related danger while also recognizing when threats do not exist. This is especially important for survival behavior in an uncertain environment such as a conflict zone or at times of social unrest."
"This has significant implications for memory disorders such as PTSD, where patients have difficulty distinguishing between safety and threat cues," adds lead author.
Learning to identify and appropriately respond to cues in an uncertain environment is crucial for animal survival, the researchers note. Specifically, cues that reliably predict danger prompt behaviors such as freezing in order to escape detection. However, along with the threat-predicting cues, an uncertain environment can present cues that predict safety--or, specifically, lack of danger. Animals, then, need to respond to the threat-predicting cue with defensive behaviors and, conversely, to safety cues by ceasing a threat response and resuming normal behaviors.
In the Nature study, the scientists sought to identify the cellular molecules, or substrates, for long-term storage of threat and safety-cue-associated memories.
It has been long established that a region of the brain, the amygdala, plays a fundamental role in the processing and storing of emotion-related information. Less understood, however, are the cellular engines and architecture that underlie it--specifically, the identity of cell types that store cue-related information and allow animals to respond appropriately even after considerable time has elapsed after the initial threat exposure.
Also well understood are the formation and consolidation of long-lasting memories, which occur through changes in the cellular landscape of proteins--a dynamic that captures significant features of an event, in part by synthesis of new proteins.
In the new work, the scientists aimed to better understand these mechanisms by disrupting key steps in protein synthesis in specific cell types--a maneuver that would reveal their significance. This procedure allowed the researchers to identify key players in this intricate process.
To do so, they examined and perturbed the assembly of two protein complexes that are crucial for the synthesis of new proteins. The first protein complex contains eIF2, which is involved in adding the first amino acid to a protein being synthesized. The second protein complex contains eIF4E, which binds to the protected 'cap' of messenger RNA that is necessary for them to be translated into protein. Notably, they found that protein synthesis in specific inhibitory neurons in the amygdala--Somatostatin-expressing neurons--is crucial for storing information about the cued threat whereas protein synthesis in PKCδ-expressing neurons is necessary for storing complementary information about safety cues.
Activity in these populations of neurons was previously shown to occur in processing threat-related cues; however, this is the first study to connect the necessity of new protein synthesis in these neurons to the stabilization of long-term emotional memories.
In a related study also appearing in this issue of Nature, researchers looked at eIF2 in different types of neurons as well. They found that increasing the eIF2 protein complex in Somatostatin-expressing inhibitory neurons, which results in increased protein synthesis, boosts the consolidation of long-term memory.
Together, both studies illuminate previously unknown ways the eIF2 protein complex calibrates the strength of fearful memories.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2793-8
How the brain separates present from past dangers
- 884 views
- Added
Edited
Latest News
TB blood test which could d…
By newseditor
Posted 27 Mar
Propionate supplementation…
By newseditor
Posted 27 Mar
Role of human Kallistatin i…
By newseditor
Posted 26 Mar
Addressing both flu and COV…
By newseditor
Posted 26 Mar
How the brain senses body p…
By newseditor
Posted 26 Mar
Other Top Stories
Plasma treatment for strong adhesion without adhesives
Read more
"Scavenger" Molecule Prevents Nerve Agent Poisoning in Animals
Read more
Social interactions reduce feeding behavior!
Read more
Mosquitoes can hear up to 10 meters away
Read more
Brain's response to texture
Read more
Protocols
All-optical presynaptic pla…
By newseditor
Posted 23 Mar
Epigenomic tomography for p…
By newseditor
Posted 20 Mar
A mouse DRG genetic toolkit…
By newseditor
Posted 17 Mar
An optogenetic method for t…
By newseditor
Posted 13 Mar
Profiling native pulmonary…
By newseditor
Posted 08 Mar
Publications
Integrated plasma proteomic…
By newseditor
Posted 27 Mar
APP antisense oligonucleoti…
By newseditor
Posted 27 Mar
Targeting Erbin-mitochondri…
By newseditor
Posted 27 Mar
Regulation of Zbp1 by miR-9…
By newseditor
Posted 27 Mar
Pain-free oral delivery of…
By newseditor
Posted 27 Mar
Presentations
Hydrogels in Drug Delivery
By newseditor
Posted 12 Apr
Lipids
By newseditor
Posted 31 Dec
Cell biology of carbohydrat…
By newseditor
Posted 29 Nov
RNA interference (RNAi)
By newseditor
Posted 23 Oct
RNA structure and functions
By newseditor
Posted 19 Oct
Posters
A chemical biology/modular…
By newseditor
Posted 22 Aug
Single-molecule covalent ma…
By newseditor
Posted 04 Jul
ASCO-2020-HEALTH SERVICES R…
By newseditor
Posted 23 Mar
ASCO-2020-HEAD AND NECK CANCER
By newseditor
Posted 23 Mar
ASCO-2020-GENITOURINARY CAN…
By newseditor
Posted 23 Mar