c-Fos expression correlates with performance on novel object and novel place recognition tests

Méndez, Marta; Arias, Natalia; Uceda, Sara; Árias, Jorge L.

doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2015.07.004

Cited by 41 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the "where" component is explicitly evaluated by moving one of those objects into a new location during the choice phase 37 . Thus, our results show that the aRSC and dHP are required to consolidate the "where" component of recognition memory 18,55,56 . These results are consistent with previous findings showing that both RSC and HP are structures highly specialized in processing spatial information but at the same time put into evidence the differential role played by these structures in processing distinct components of the recognition memory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Anterior retrosplenial cortex is required for long-term object recognition memory

Landeta

Pereyra

Medina

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The retrosplenial cortex (RSC) is implicated on navigation and contextual memory. Lesions studies showed that the RSC shares functional similarities with the hippocampus (HP). Here we evaluated the role of the anterior RSc (aRSc) in the "what" and "where" components of recognition memory and contrasted it with that of the dorsal HP (dHP). Our behavioral and molecular findings show functional differences between the aRSC and the dHP in recognition memory. The inactivation of the aRSC, but not the dHP, impairs the consolidation and expression of the "what" memory component. In addition, object recognition task is accompanied by c-Fos levels increase in the aRSC. Interestingly, we found that the aRSC is recruited to process the "what" memory component only if it is active during acquisition. In contrast, both the aRSC and dHP are required for encoding the "where" component, which correlates with c-Fos levels increase. Our findings introduce a novel role of the aRSC in recognition memory, processing not only the "where", but also the "what" memory component. open Scientific RepoRtS | (2020) 10:4002 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60937-zwww.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ functions of the aRSC from those of the dHP, given that the last one is only required for the "where" component of recognition memory. ResultsaRSC, but not dHP, is required for the "what" memory component processing. To make a comparative study about the participation of aRSC and dHP in the "what" component of the recognition memory, we decided to study object recognition memory in the non-spatial Y-maze (Y-OR) task 28 . Due to the high walls, small corridors and the lack of explicit clues in the Y-maze, the Y-OR task has minimal spatial information and therefore a negligible "where" component. First, we validated the Y-OR task by transient inactivation of the PRh, confirming its requirement for object recognition memory ( Supplementary Fig. S1; p = 0.0031, t = 3.774, df = 11; Muscimol vs. Vehicle, Student's t test, n = 5-7). Then, we analyzed the participation of the aRSC and dHP in the formation of Y-OR long-term memory (LTM) by infusing the GABA A receptor agonist muscimol (0.1 μg/μl) or vehicle (saline) into the aRSC or the dHP immediately after the sample phase (training session), and we evaluated memory expression 24 h later during the choice phase (Fig. 1a). We found memory impairment associated to the Scientific RepoRtS | (2020) 10:4002 | https://doi.empty maze during 15 min for 2 days. Exposition time during sample and choice phases were the same as the Y-OR, with the difference that in this task the objects were located facing each other in the middle of the maze ( Supplementary Fig. S6B). Object Location. OL task was performed in the same apparatus that the SOR. This task was adapted fromEnnaceur and collaborators 37 . The habituation session consisted in letting the rat explore the empty apparatus during 20 min for 3 days. During the sample phase two identical objects were presented to the rat, each on...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Anterior retrosplenial cortex is required for long-term object recognition memory

Landeta

Pereyra

Medina

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to NOR, the recognition of a changed spatial configuration of the objects was not affected by WBV in CD1 mice as shown by the SOR test. In the five minutes WBV protocol, the CD1 mice did not improve their SOR performance, which is supposed to be dependent on the hippocampus (Manns and Eichenbaum, 2009; Castilla-Ortega et al, 2012; Mendez et al, 2015). Nevertheless, vibrated CD1 mice showed a tendency to improve, which did not reach significant levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Attention to a novel object as measured in the NOR test was shown to be improved by WBV. Recognition of an object depends strongly on the functional integrity of the perirhinal cortex (Winters et al, 2008;Mendez et al, 2015). This may suggest that this brain region is sensitive to WBV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Striatal preference in CD1 mice is even stronger in older mice (age > 18 months; Mulder et al, 2016), which could be related to a further (gradual) loss of hippocampal function due to aging (Kuhn et al, 1996; Gil-Mohapel et al, 2013; Van der Zee, 2015). The striatum is known to be much less sensitive to sensory stimulation as the hippocampus (Manns and Eichenbaum, 2009; Castilla-Ortega et al, 2012; Mendez et al, 2015). It could be that the 5 minutes protocol was not optimally chosen for improving their hippocampus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Whole Body Vibration Improves Attention and Motor Performance in Mice Depending on the Duration of the Whole-Body Vibration Session

Keijser

Heuvelen

Nyakas³

et al. 2017

Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Whole body vibration (WBV) is a form of physical stimulation via mechanical vibrations transmitted to a subject. It is assumed that WBV induces sensory stimulation in cortical brain regions through the activation of skin and muscle receptors responding to the vibration. The effects of WBV on muscle strength are well described. However, little is known about the impact of WBV on the brain. Recently, it was shown in humans that WBV improves attention in an acute WBV protocol. Preclinical research is needed to unravel the underlying brain mechanism. As a first step, we examined whether chronic WBV improves attention in mice. Material and Methods: A custom made vibrating platform for mice with low intensity vibrations was used. Male CD1 mice (3 months of age) received five weeks WBV (30 Hz; 1.9 G), five days a week with sessions of five (n=12) or 30 (n=10) minutes. Control mice (pseudo-WBV; n=12 and 10 for the five and 30 minute sessions, respectively) were treated in a similar way, but did not receive the actual vibration. Object recognition tasks were used as an attention test (novel and spatial object recognition -the primary outcome measure). A Balance beam was used for motor performance, serving as a secondary outcome measure. Results: WBV sessions of five (but not WBV sessions of 30 minutes) improved balance beam performance (mice gained 28% in time needed to cross the beam) and novel object recognition (mice paid significantly more attention to the novel object) as compared to pseudo WBV, but no change was found for spatial object performance (mice did not notice the relocation). Although 30 minutes WBV sessions were not beneficial, it did not impair either attention or motor performance. Conclusion: These results show that brief sessions of WBV improve, next to motor performance, attention for object recognition, but not spatial cues of the objects. The selective improvement of attention in mice opens the avenue to unravel the underlying brain mechanisms.

show abstract

“…The immediate‐early gene (IEG) c‐ fos provides an indirect signal of neural activity (Tischmeyer and Grimm, ; Guzowski et al, ), with perirhinal expression increasing after exposure to novel visual stimuli (Wan et al, ; Kinnavane et al, ). This increase is associated with characteristic patterns of interlinked c‐ fos activity across medial temporal lobe sites (Albasser et al, ; Kinnavane et al, ; Mendez et al, ). Furthermore, c‐ fos expression stabilizes long‐term recognition memory in perirhinal cortex (Seoane et al, ) while its production can be used to record and reactivate contextual learning within the hippocampus (Liu et al, ; Ramirez et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting and discriminating novel objects: The impact of perirhinal cortex disconnection on hippocampal activity patterns

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perirhinal cortex provides object‐based information and novelty/familiarity information for the hippocampus. The necessity of these inputs was tested by comparing hippocampal c‐fos expression in rats with or without perirhinal lesions. These rats either discriminated novel from familiar objects (Novel‐Familiar) or explored pairs of novel objects (Novel‐Novel). Despite impairing Novel‐Familiar discriminations, the perirhinal lesions did not affect novelty detection, as measured by overall object exploration levels (Novel‐Novel condition). The perirhinal lesions also largely spared a characteristic network of linked c‐fos expression associated with novel stimuli (entorhinal cortex→CA3→distal CA1→proximal subiculum). The findings show: I) that perirhinal lesions preserve behavioral sensitivity to novelty, whilst still impairing the spontaneous ability to discriminate novel from familiar objects, II) that the distinctive patterns of hippocampal c‐fos activity promoted by novel stimuli do not require perirhinal inputs, III) that entorhinal Fos counts (layers II and III) increase for novelty discriminations, IV) that hippocampal c‐fos networks reflect proximal‐distal connectivity differences, and V) that discriminating novelty creates different pathway interactions from merely detecting novelty, pointing to top‐down effects that help guide object selection. © 2016 The Authors Hippocampus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

c-Fos expression correlates with performance on novel object and novel place recognition tests

Cited by 41 publications

References 45 publications

Anterior retrosplenial cortex is required for long-term object recognition memory

Anterior retrosplenial cortex is required for long-term object recognition memory

Whole Body Vibration Improves Attention and Motor Performance in Mice Depending on the Duration of the Whole-Body Vibration Session

Detecting and discriminating novel objects: The impact of perirhinal cortex disconnection on hippocampal activity patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About