Memory Destabilization Research Articles

Differential involvement of nucleus tractus solitarius projections and locus coeruleus projections to the basolateral amygdala in morphine-associated memory destabilization

Drug-related memory can be transiently destabilized by memory retrieval, after which memories are reconsolidated. Neurons in the basolateral amygdala (BLA) that are activated by emotional information may be one of the key mechanisms underlying this destabilization. However, the specific neural circuits underlying this destabilization process remain unknown. Because BLA receives noradrenergic inputs from the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS) and locus coeruleus (LC), we studied the role of afferent projections into the BLA in the destabilization of morphine self-administration memory in rats. We first showed that morphine (unconditioned stimulus, US) + morphine-associated conditioned stimuli (CS) exposure, rather than CS exposure alone, destabilized morphine self-administration memory. Then, we measured projection-specific activation after the US + CS or CS retrieval test using c-fos (activity marker)-labeling in projection areas. Compared with CS exposure, we found that US + CS exposure induced more neuronal activation in the BLA and NTS but not in the LC. Next, we determined the effects of chemogenetic inactivation or activation of NTS or LC projections to BLA (NTS → BLA or LC → BLA) on this destabilization. We found that NTS → BLA, but not LC → BLA inactivation during memory retrieval, prevented memory destabilization induced by US + CS exposure. Furthermore, NTS → BLA, but not LC → BLA activation during CS retrieval induced destabilization. Thus, our results identify a specific neural circuit underlying the transformation of a stable opiate-associated memory into an unstable memory and subsequently guide reconsolidation.

Muscarinic (M1 ) cholinergic receptor activation within the dorsal hippocampus promotes destabilization of strongly encoded object location memories.

Following the initial consolidation process, memories can become reactivated by exposure to a reminder of the original learning event. This can lead to the memory becoming destabilized and vulnerable to disruption or other forms of modification. The memory must then undergo the protein-synthesis dependent process of reconsolidation in order to be retained. However, older and/or stronger memories resist destabilization, but can become labile when reactivated in the presence of salient novelty. We have implicated the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, acting at M1 muscarinic cholinergic receptors (mAChRs) within perirhinal cortex (PRh), in novelty-induced destabilization of remote object memories. It remains unclear, however, whether mAChRs are involved in destabilization of other forms of memory. We hypothesized that the role of M1 mAChRs previously demonstrated for PRh-dependent object memory would extend to hippocampus-dependent spatial memory. Using the object location (OL) task, which relies on the dorsal hippocampus (dHPC), we showed that (a) reactivation-dependent reconsolidation of OL memories requires protein synthesis within the dHPC; (b) destabilization of relatively weak OL memories depends on M1 mAChR activation within the dHPC; (c) salient novelty during reactivation promotes destabilization of resistant strongly encoded OL memories; (d) novelty-induced destabilization of strong OL memories requires activation of mAChRs within the dHPC; and (e) M1 mAChR activation within the dHPC in the absence of novelty during memory reactivation mimics the effect of novelty, destabilizing strongly encoded OL memories. These results implicate ACh acting at M1 mAChRs in the destabilization of dHPC-dependent spatial memories, demonstrating generalizability of this cholinergic function beyond memory for object identity. These findings therefore enhance our understanding of the dynamics of long-term memory storage and suggest implications for the treatment of human conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and aging, which are characterized by behavioral and mnemonic inflexibility.

Lack of Effect of Propranolol on the Reconsolidation of Conditioned Fear Memory due to a Failure to Engage Memory Destabilisation

The prospect of exploiting memory reconsolidation to treat mental health disorders has received great research interest, particularly following demonstrations that the β-adrenergic receptor antagonist propranolol, which is safe for use in humans, can disrupt the reconsolidation of pavlovian conditioned fear memories. However, recent studies have failed to replicate the effects of propranolol on fear memory reconsolidation, and have questioned whether treatments based upon reconsolidation blockade would be robust enough for clinical translation. It remains possible, though, that studies reporting no effect of propranolol on memory reconsolidation could be due to a failure to engage the memory destabilisation process, which is necessary for the memory to become susceptible to disruption with amnestic agents. Demonstrating that memory destabilisation has not been engaged is challenging when only using behavioural measures, but there are molecular correlates of memory destabilisation that can be used to determine whether memory lability has been induced. Here, we attempted to replicate the classic finding that systemic administration of propranolol disrupts the reconsolidation of a pavlovian auditory fear memory. Following a failure to replicate, we manipulated the parameters of the memory reactivation session to enhance prediction error in an attempt to overcome the boundary conditions of reconsolidation. On finding no disruption of memory despite these manipulations, we examined the expression of the post-synaptic density protein Shank in the basolateral amygdala. Degradation of Shank has been shown to correlate with the induction of memory lability, but we found no effect on Shank expression, consistent with the lack of observed behavioural effects.

Nitric Oxide Is Required for Labilization (destabilization) of Contextual Memory in Rats

Nitric Oxide Is Required for Labilization (destabilization) of Contextual Memory in Rats

Memory destabilization during reconsolidation: a consequence of homeostatic plasticity?

Remembering is not a static process: When retrieved, a memory can be destabilized and become prone to modifications. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of brain regions, but the neuronal mechanisms that rule memory destabilization and its boundary conditions remain elusive. Using two distinct computational models that combine Hebbian plasticity and synaptic downscaling, we show that homeostatic plasticity can function as a destabilization mechanism, accounting for behavioral results of protein synthesis inhibition upon reactivation with different re-exposure times. Furthermore, by performing systematic reviews, we identify a series of overlapping molecular mechanisms between memory destabilization and synaptic downscaling, although direct experimental links between both phenomena remain scarce. In light of these results, we propose a theoretical framework where memory destabilization can emerge as an epiphenomenon of homeostatic adaptations prompted by memory retrieval.

Activation of CB1 pathway in the perirhinal cortex is necessary but not sufficient for destabilization of contextual fear memory in rats

According to the reconsolidation theory, memories can be modified through the destabilization-reconsolidation process. The rodent perirhinal cortex (PER; Brodmann areas 35 and 36) critically participates in the process of fear conditioning. Previous studies showed that some of the parahippocampal regions are critical for contextual fear memory reconsolidation. In our research, through a three-day paradigm of CFC, we showed that protein synthesis in PER of rats is required for memory reconsolidation, and activation of CB1 pathway is necessary but not sufficient in inducing memory destabilization. This result underlines parahippocampal regions in destabilization and reconsolidation process of fear memory besides amygdala and hippocampus.

Effects of prediction error and acute stress on retrieval-extinction of fear memories of different strengths

<p id="p00005">Under the framework of Reconsolidation Interference of conditioned fear memory, Prediction Error (PE) has been demonstrated as a necessary condition of memory destabilization. However, the role of PE in destabilizing fear memories of different strengths is unclear. The degree of PE that is needed to effectively reactivate fear memories may be dependent on the strength of memory. It is unknown whether the PE used to reactivate weak memories is also effective in destabilizing stronger memories. Memory strength was proved to be an important boundary condition of memory reconsolidation; however, explorations of solutions to overcome the boundary are rare. Among factors that are possible to help to overcome the boundary condition, the effects of stress hormones are worth exploring. However, the manipulation of memory strength in human laboratory studies has not been well developed. Thus, the present study has three main aims: (1) to test the effect of fear memory strength in a human laboratory setting based on previous results in animal studies; (2) to examine the effect of PE during reactivation on destabilizing different strength memories and (3) to test the possible influence of post-reactivation exogenous stress to the retrieval-extinction of fear memories. <p id="p00010">These results indicate that PE used to destabilize weak memories is insufficient to destabilize strong memories; and that post-reactivation acute stress cannot nullify this deficit which is due to boundary conditions (e.g., strength). We discuss possible interpretations of these results and the implications for the translation of retrieval-extinction to clinical practice. <p id="p00015">The three days retrieval-extinction paradigm was adopted in the present study. We manipulated memory strength through two kinds of acquisition procedures on the first day, which varied the predictability of the unconditioned stimulus (US) occurrence after the conditioned stimulus (CS). Twenty-four hours later, a reminder containing a single PE was used to reactivate memories, which was followed by a stress task (Social Evaluate Cold Pressor test, SECPT) or not before extinction. After 24 hours, a test of spontaneous recovery and reinstatement was utilized to measure the return of fear in each condition. All participants were divided into three conditions: CS-Predictable US_no Stress Group, CS-Unpredictable US_no Stress Group and the CS-Unpredictable US_Stress Group. Skin conductance response (SCR) and fear-potentiated startle response (FPS) were used as measurements of conditioned fear. <p id="p00020">The results showed that there was a relatively stronger increase in fear response (SCR) from Day 1 to Day 2 in the CS-Unpredictable US condition than the CS-Predictable US condition, which may suggest a difference in memory strength between conditions. And for the weak fear memory (CS-predictable US), the reactivation that involved a single PE and was followed by extinction training prevented the spontaneous recovery, especially on the SCR measurement. On the other hand, in the enhanced memory condition (CS-unpredictable US), the extinguished memory returned in the memory test on the third day, which suggests a failure of memory destabilization. Furthermore, when the post-reactivation acute stress task was adopted in the enhanced memory condition, the return of fear further increased, compared with the no stress manipulation conditions.

Memory Destabilization and Reconsolidation Dynamically Regulate the PKMζ Maintenance Mechanism.

Useful memory must balance between stability and malleability. This puts effective memory storage at odds with plasticity processes, such as reconsolidation. What becomes of memory maintenance processes during synaptic plasticity is unknown. Here we examined the fate of the memory maintenance protein PKMζ during memory destabilization and reconsolidation in male rats. We found that NMDAR activation and proteasome activity induced a transient reduction in PKMζ protein following retrieval. During reconsolidation, new PKMζ was synthesized to re-store the memory. Failure to synthesize new PKMζ during reconsolidation impaired memory but uninterrupted PKMζ translation was not necessary for maintenance itself. Finally, NMDAR activation was necessary to render memories vulnerable to the amnesic effect of PKMζ-antisense. These findings outline a transient disruption and renewal of the PKMζ memory maintenance mechanism during plasticity. We argue that dynamic changes in PKMζ protein levels can serve as an exemplary model of the molecular changes underlying memory destabilization and reconsolidation.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Maintenance of long-term memory relies on the persistent activity of PKMζ. However, after retrieval, memories can become transiently destabilized and must be reconsolidated within a few hours to persist. During this period of plasticity, what happens to maintenance processes, such as those involving PKMζ, is unknown. Here we describe dynamic changes to PKMζ expression during both destabilization and reconsolidation of auditory fear memory in the amygdala. We show that destabilization induces a NMDAR- and proteasome-dependent loss of synaptic PKMζ and that reconsolidation requires synthesis of new PKMζ. This work provides clear evidence that memory destabilization disrupts ongoing synaptic maintenance processes which are restored during reconsolidation.

D-Aspartate consumption selectively promotes intermediate-term spatial memory and the expression of hippocampal NMDA receptor subunits

d-Aspartate (d-Asp) and d-serine (d-Ser) have been proposed to promote early-phase LTP in vitro and to enhance spatial memory in vivo. Here, we investigated the behavioural effects of chronic consumption of d-Asp and d-Ser on spatial learning of mice together with the expression of NMDA receptors. We also studied the alterations of neurogenesis by morphometric analysis of bromo-deoxyuridine incorporating and doublecortin expressing cells in the hippocampus. Our results specify a time period (3–4 h post-training), within which the animals exposed to d-Asp (but not d-Ser) show a more stable memory during retrieval. The cognitive improvement is due to elimination of transient bouts of destabilization and reconsolidation of memory, rather than to enhanced acquisition. d-Asp also protracted reversal learning probably due to reduced plasticity. Expression of GluN1 and GluN2A subunits was elevated in the hippocampus of d-Asp (but not d-Ser) treated mice. d-Asp or d-Ser did not alter the proliferation of neuronal progenitor cells in the hippocampus. The observed learning-related changes evoked by d-Asp are unlikely to be due to enhanced proliferation and recruitment of new neurones. Rather, they are likely associated with an upregulation of NMDA receptors, as well as a reorganization of receptor subunit assemblies in existing hippocampal/dentate neurons.

Stress-induced resistance to fear memory destabilization is associated with an impairment of Lys-48-linked protein polyubiquitination in the Basolateral Amygdala: Influence of D-cycloserine

The destabilization/reconsolidation process can be triggered by memory recall, allowing consolidated memories to be modified. We have previously reported that stress prior to fear conditioning induces memories that exhibit resistance to the engagement of some molecular events associated with the destabilization/reconsolidation process. Here, we evaluated whether stress could affect the expression of Lys-48 polyubiquitinated proteins within the basolateral amygdala complex, a phenomenon crucially linked to memory destabilization. As expected, a post-recall increase of Lys-48 polyubiquitinated proteins in control animals was observed; however, this phenomenon was prevented by stress exposure before fear conditioning. On the other hand, pre-recall administration of D-cycloserine -a positive modulator of NMDA sites capable of reverting memory resistance to pharmacological interference-, facilitated the increase of Lys-48 polyubiquitinated proteins in stressed animals. In conclusion, the protein polyubiquitination-dependent destabilization is impaired after the recall of stress-induced resistant memories, with D-cycloserine restoring such molecular event. Hence, the present report contributes to further characterize the neurobiological events associated with stress-induced memory resistance as well as to corroborate the connection between glutamatergic signaling, protein degradation and memory destabilization in stress-induced resistant memories.

Destabilizing Different Strengths of Fear Memories Requires Different Degrees of Prediction Error During Retrieval.

Reactivation of consolidated memories can induce a labile period, in which these reactivated memories might be susceptible to change and need reconsolidation. Prediction error (PE) has been recognized as a necessary boundary condition for memory destabilization. Moreover, memory strength is also widely accepted as an essential boundary condition to destabilize fear memory. This study investigated whether different strengths of conditioned fear memories require different degrees of PE during memory reactivation in order for the memories to become destabilized. Here, we assessed the fear-potentiated startle and skin conductance response, using the post-retrieval extinction procedure. A violation of expectancy (PE) was induced during retrieval to reactivate enhanced (unpredictable-shock) or ordinary (predictable-shock) fear memories that were established the day before. Results showed that a PE retrieval before extinction can prevent the return of predictable-shock fear memory but cannot prevent the return of unpredictable-shock fear memory, indicating that a single PE is insufficient to destabilize enhanced fear memory. Therefore, we further investigated whether increasing the degree of PE could destabilize enhanced fear memory using different retrieval strategies (multiple PE retrieval and unreinforced CS retrieval). We found that spontaneous recovery of enhanced fear memory was prevented in both retrieval strategies, but reinstatement was only prevented in the multiple PE retrieval group, suggesting that a larger amount of PE is needed to destabilize enhanced fear memory. The findings suggest that behavioral updating during destabilization requires PE, and the degree of PE needed to induce memory destabilization during memory retrieval depends on the strength of fear memory. The study indicates that memory reconsolidation inference can be used to destabilize stronger memories, and the findings shed lights on the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorders and anxiety disorders.

GluN2B and GluN2A-containing NMDAR are differentially involved in extinction memory destabilization and restabilization during reconsolidation

Extinction memory destabilized by recall is restabilized through mTOR-dependent reconsolidation in the hippocampus, but the upstream pathways controlling these processes remain unknown. Hippocampal NMDARs drive local protein synthesis via mTOR signaling and may control active memory maintenance. We found that in adult male Wistar rats, intra dorsal-CA1 administration of the non-subunit selective NMDAR antagonist AP5 or of the GluN2A subunit-containing NMDAR antagonist TCN201 after step down inhibitory avoidance (SDIA) extinction memory recall impaired extinction memory retention and caused SDIA memory recovery. On the contrary, pre-recall administration of AP5 or of the GluN2B subunit-containing NMDAR antagonist RO25-6981 had no effect on extinction memory recall or retention per se but hindered the recovery of the avoidance response induced by post-recall intra-CA1 infusion of the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin. Our results indicate that GluN2B-containing NMDARs are necessary for extinction memory destabilization whereas GluN2A-containing NMDARs are involved in its restabilization, and suggest that pharmacological modulation of the relative activation state of these receptor subtypes around the moment of extinction memory recall may regulate the dominance of extinction memory over the original memory trace.

Fluctuating NMDA Receptor Subunit Levels in Perirhinal Cortex Relate to Their Dynamic Roles in Object Memory Destabilization and Reconsolidation.

Reminder cues can destabilize consolidated memories, rendering them modifiable before they return to a stable state through the process of reconsolidation. Older and stronger memories resist this process and require the presentation of reminders along with salient novel information in order to destabilize. Previously, we demonstrated in rats that novelty-induced object memory destabilization requires acetylcholine (ACh) activity at M1 muscarinic receptors. Other research predominantly has focused on glutamate, which modulates fear memory destabilization and reconsolidation through GluN2B- and GluN2A-containing NMDARs, respectively. In the current study, we demonstrate the same dissociable roles of GluN2B- and N2A-containing NMDARs in perirhinal cortex (PRh) for object memory destabilization and reconsolidation when boundary conditions are absent. However, neither GluN2 receptor subtype was required for novelty-induced destabilization of remote, resistant memories. Furthermore, GluN2B and GluN2A subunit proteins were upregulated selectively in PRh 24 h after learning, but returned to baseline by 48 h, suggesting that NMDARs, unlike muscarinic receptors, have only a temporary role in object memory destabilization. Indeed, activation of M1 receptors in PRh at the time of reactivation effectively destabilized remote memories despite inhibition of GluN2B-containing NMDARs. These findings suggest that cholinergic activity at M1 receptors overrides boundary conditions to destabilize resistant memories when other established mechanisms are insufficient.

Postreactivation mifepristone impairs generalization of strongly conditioned contextual fear memories.

The efficacy of pharmacological disruption of fear memory reconsolidation depends on several factors, including memory strength and age. We built on previous observations that systemic treatment with the nootropic nefiracetam potentiates cued fear memory destabilization to facilitate mifepristone-induced reconsolidation impairment. Here, we applied nefiratecam and mifepristone to strongly conditioned, 1-wk-old contextual fear memories in male rats. Unexpectedly, the combined treatment did not result in impairment of contextual fear expression. However, mifepristone did reduce freezing to a novel context. These observations suggest that strong and established contextual fear memories do undergo destabilization without the need for pharmacological facilitation, and that impairments in strong context fear memory reconsolidation can manifest as a reduction in generalization.

Apparent reconsolidation interference without generalized amnesia

Memories remain dynamic after consolidation, and when reactivated, they can be rendered vulnerable to various pharmacological agents that disrupt the later expression of memory (i.e., amnesia). Such drug-induced post-reactivation amnesia has traditionally been studied in AAA experimental designs, where a memory is initially created for a stimulus A (be it a singular cue or a context) and later reactivated and tested through exposure to the exact same stimulus. Using a contextual fear conditioning procedure in rats and midazolam as amnestic agent, we recently demonstrated that drug-induced amnesia can also be obtained when memories are reactivated through exposure to a generalization stimulus (GS, context B) and later tested for that same generalization stimulus (ABB design). However, this amnestic intervention leaves fear expression intact when at test animals are instead presented with the original training stimulus (ABA design) or a novel generalization stimulus (ABC design). The underlying mechanisms of post-reactivation memory malleability and of MDZ-induced amnesia for a generalization context remain largely unknown. Here, we evaluated whether, like typical CS-mediated (or AAA) post-reactivation amnesia, GS-mediated (ABB) post-reactivation amnesia displays key features of a destabilization-based phenomenon. We first show that ABB post-reactivation amnesia is critically dependent on prediction error at the time of memory reactivation and provide evidence for its temporally graded nature. In line with the known role of GluN2B-NMDA receptor activation in memory destabilization, we further demonstrate that pre-reactivation administration of ifenprodil, a selective antagonist of GluN2B-NMDA receptors, prevents MDZ-induced ABB amnesia. In sum, our data reveal that ABB MDZ-induced post-reactivation amnesia exhibits the hallmark features of a destabilization-dependent phenomenon. Implication of our findings for a reconsolidation-based account of post-reactivation amnesia are discussed.

Retrieval-Dependent Mechanisms Affecting Emotional Memory Persistence: Reconsolidation, Extinction, and the Space in Between.

Maladaptive emotional memories contribute to the persistence of many mental health disorders, and therefore the prospect of disrupting these memories to produce long-term reductions in relapse is of great clinical appeal. Reducing the impact of maladaptive emotional memories on behaviour could be achieved by two retrieval-dependent manipulations that engage separate mnemonic processes: “reconsolidation disruption” and “extinction enhancement.” Extinction occurs during a prolonged re-exposure session in the absence of the expected emotional outcome and is widely accepted as reflecting the formation of a new, inhibitory memory that prevents behavioural expression of the original trace. Reconsolidation, by contrast, involves the destabilisation of the original memory, allowing for subsequent updating and restabilisation in specific brain regions, unless the re-stabilization process is prevented through specific pharmacological or behavioural interventions. Both destabilisation of the original memory and memory extinction require that re-exposure induces prediction error—a mismatch between what is expected and what actually occurs—but the parameters that allow reconsolidation and extinction to occur, and control the transition between them, have not been well-characterised. Here, we review what is known about the induction of memory destabilisation and extinction, and the transition period that separates these mnemonic processes, drawing on preclinical and clinical examples. A deeper understanding of the processes that determine the alternative routes to memory persistence or inhibition is critical for designing new and more reliable clinical treatments targeting maladaptive emotional memories.

Taking advantage of fear generalization-associated destabilization to attenuate the underlying memory via reconsolidation intervention

Upon retrieval, an aversive memory can undergo destabilization and reconsolidation. A traumatic-like memory, however, may be resistant to this process. The present study sought to contribute with a strategy to overcome this potential issue by investigating whether generalized fear retrieval is susceptible to destabilization-reconsolidation that can be pharmacologically modified. We hypothesized that exposure to a context that elicits moderate generalization levels would allow a malleable memory state. We developed a fear conditioning protocol in context A (cxt-A) paired with yohimbine administration to promote significant fear to a non-conditioned context B (cxt-B) in rats, mimicking the enhanced noradrenergic activity reported after traumatic events in humans. Next, we attempted to impair the reconsolidation phase by administering clonidine (CLO) immediately after exposure to cxt-A, cxt-B, or a third context C (cxt-C) neither conditioned nor generalized. CLO administered post-cxt-B exposure for two consecutive days subsequently resulted in decreased freezing levels in cxt-A. CLO after cxt-B only once, after cxt-A or cxt-C in two consecutive days, or independently of cxt-B exposures did not affect fear in a later test. A 6-h-delay in CLO treatment post-cxt-B exposures produced no effects, and nimodipine administered pre-cxt-B exposures precluded the CLO action. We then quantified the Egr1/Zif268 protein expression following cxt-B exposures and CLO treatments. We found that these factors interact to modulate this memory destabilization-reconsolidation mechanism in the basolateral amygdala but not the dorsal CA1 hippocampus. Altogether, memory destabilization can accompany generalized fear expression; thus, we may exploit it to potentiate reconsolidation blockers' action.

Thalamic nucleus reuniens regulates fear memory destabilization upon retrieval

The neural circuit supporting aversive memory destabilization after retrieval includes the hippocampus, amygdala, and medial prefrontal cortex. The nucleus reuniens (NR) contributes to the functional interaction of these brain regions relevant to cognitive processing. However, the direct participation of this thalamic subregion in memory destabilization is yet to be investigated. The present study addressed this question in contextually fear-conditioned rats. Pre-reactivation infusion of the GABAA receptor agonist muscimol, the protein degradation inhibitor clasto-lactacystin β-lactone (β-lac), or the glutamate N2B-containing NMDA receptors antagonist ifenprodil into the NR prevented the post-reactivation amnestic effects of both locally infused anisomycin and systemically administered clonidine. In either case, the results suggest a significant disruption in memory destabilization. It is noteworthy that these pharmacological interventions induced no changes in expression or contextual specificity of the memory. Moreover, omitting memory reactivation precluded the muscimol, β-lac, and ifenprodil effects on destabilization and the anisomycin and clonidine effects on reconsolidation. We also quantified the Egr1/Zif268-expressing neurons to investigate the effects of muscimol-induced NR inactivation on the activity-related plasticity locally, and in other brain regions supporting fear memory destabilization-reconsolidation. Relative to controls, there were reduced values in the NR, the dorsal CA1 hippocampus, the prelimbic cortex, and the infralimbic cortex. In contrast, increases happened in the ventral CA1 hippocampus and the basolateral amygdala. These results suggest that NR has a circuit-level influence on this process. Together, present findings demonstrate how the NR can regulate contextual fear memory destabilization upon retrieval.

Effects of cycloheximide on recent and remote appetitive odor discrimination memory in rats

A variety of reconsolidation boundary conditions exist for the destabilization of memory, including memory strength, prediction error, trace dominance, and memory age. The vast majority of studies examining boundary conditions have employed aversive tasks. The current study expands the literature on reconsolidation boundary conditions by employing an appetitive odor discrimination task and a delay that exceeds those used in past studies (i.e., 72 days). Rats were trained to dig in cups of scented sand to retrieve a sweet cereal reward. One day (Recent) or 72 days (Remote) following acquisition, rats received a single reactivation trial that included a prediction error (in the form of a non-reinforced trial), followed by intraperitoneal administration of the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide (CHX; 1 mg/kg) or a saline control (SAL). One week later, rats completed a single non-reinforced test trial. Results showed that rats in the Remote condition took longer to dig than those in the Recent condition; additionally, CHX disrupted memory for digging behavior at significant levels in both the Recent and Remote conditions. Results are consistent with a small number of studies using non-aversive tasks, as well as a large number of studies using aversive tasks, demonstrating that recent and remote memories are vulnerable to the effects of an amnesic agent after sufficient reactivation.

Cross-Frequency Phase-Amplitude Coupling between Hippocampal Theta and Gamma Oscillations during Recall Destabilizes Memory and Renders It Susceptible to Reconsolidation Disruption.

Avoidance memory reactivation at recall triggers theta-gamma hippocampal phase amplitude coupling (hPAC) only when it elicits hippocampus-dependent reconsolidation. However, it is not known whether there is a causal relationship between these phenomena. We found that in adult male Wistar rats, silencing the medial septum during recall did not affect avoidance memory expression or maintenance but abolished hPAC and the amnesia caused by the intrahippocampal administration of reconsolidation blockers, both of which were restored by concomitant theta burst stimulation of the fimbria-fornix pathway. Remarkably, artificial hPAC generated by fimbria-fornix stimulation during recall of a learned avoidance response naturally resistant to hippocampus-dependent reconsolidation made it susceptible to reactivation-dependent amnesia. Our results indicate that hPAC mediates the destabilization required for avoidance memory reconsolidation and suggest that the generation of artificial hPAC at recall overcomes the boundary conditions of this process.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Theta-gamma hippocampal phase-amplitude coupling (hPAC) increases during the induction of hippocampus-dependent avoidance memory reconsolidation. However, whether hPAC plays a causal role in this process remains unknown. Using behavioral, electrophysiological, optogenetic, and biochemical tools in adult male Wistar rats, we demonstrate that reactivation-induced hPAC is necessary for avoidance memory destabilization, and that artificial induction of this patterned activity during recall of reconsolidation-resistant aversive memories renders them liable to the amnesic effect of reconsolidation inhibitors.