The malleable brain: plasticity of neural circuits and behavior: A review from students to students

One of the most intriguing features of the brain is its ability to be malleable, allowing it to adapt continually to changes in the environment. Specific neuronal activity patterns drive long-lasting increases or decreases in the strength of synaptic connections, referred to as long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) respectively. Such phenomena have been described in a variety of model organisms, which are used to study molecular, structural, and functional aspects of synaptic plasticity. This review originated from the first International Society for Neurochemistry (ISN) and Journal of Neurochemistry (JNC) Flagship School held in Alpbach, Austria (Sep 2016), and will use its curriculum and discussions as a framework to review some of the current knowledge in the field of synaptic plasticity. First, we describe the role of plasticity during development and the persistent changes of neural circuitry occurring when sensory input is altered during critical developmental stages. We then outline the signaling cascades resulting in the synthesis of new plasticity-related proteins, which ultimately enable sustained changes in synaptic strength. Going beyond the traditional understanding of synaptic plasticity conceptualized by LTP and LTD, we discuss system-wide modifications and recently unveiled homeostatic mechanisms, such as synaptic scaling. Finally, we describe the neural circuits and synaptic plasticity mechanisms driving associative memory and motor learning. Evidence summarized in this review provides a current view of synaptic plasticity in its various forms, offers new insights into the underlying mechanisms and behavioral relevance, and provides directions for future research in the field of synaptic plasticity.Fil: Schaefer, Natascha. University of Wuerzburg; AlemaniaFil: Rotermund, Carola. University of Tuebingen; AlemaniaFil: Blumrich, Eva Maria. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Lourenco, Mychael V.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Joshi, Pooja. Robert Debre Hospital; FranciaFil: Hegemann, Regina U.. University of Otago; Nueva ZelandaFil: Jamwal, Sumit. ISF College of Pharmacy; IndiaFil: Ali, Nilufar. Augusta University; Estados UnidosFil: García Romero, Ezra Michelet. Universidad Veracruzana; MéxicoFil: Sharma, Sorabh. Birla Institute of Technology and Science; IndiaFil: Ghosh, Shampa. Indian Council of Medical Research; IndiaFil: Sinha, Jitendra K.. Indian Council of Medical Research; IndiaFil: Loke, Hannah. Hudson Institute of Medical Research; AustraliaFil: Jain, Vishal. Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences; IndiaFil: Lepeta, Katarzyna. Polish Academy of Sciences; ArgentinaFil: Salamian, Ahmad. Polish Academy of Sciences; ArgentinaFil: Sharma, Mahima. Polish Academy of Sciences; ArgentinaFil: Golpich, Mojtaba. University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre; MalasiaFil: Nawrotek, Katarzyna. University Of Lodz; ArgentinaFil: Paid, Ramesh K.. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology; IndiaFil: Shahidzadeh, Sheila M.. Syracuse University; Estados UnidosFil: Piermartiri, Tetsade. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; BrasilFil: Amini, Elham. University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre; MalasiaFil: Pastor, Verónica. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Biología Celular y Neurociencia ; ArgentinaFil: Wilson, Yvette. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Adeniyi, Philip A.. Afe Babalola University; NigeriaFil: Datusalia, Ashok K.. National Brain Research Centre; IndiaFil: Vafadari, Benham. Polish Academy of Sciences; ArgentinaFil: Saini, Vedangana. University of Nebraska; Estados UnidosFil: Suárez Pozos, Edna. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Kushwah, Neetu. Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences; IndiaFil: Fontanet, Paula. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Biología Celular y Neurociencia ; ArgentinaFil: Turner, Anthony J.. University of Leeds; Reino Unid

Eligibility Traces and Plasticity on Behavioral Time Scales: Experimental Support of neoHebbian Three-Factor Learning Rules

Most elementary behaviors such as moving the arm to grasp an object or walking into the next room to explore a museum evolve on the time scale of seconds; in contrast, neuronal action potentials occur on the time scale of a few milliseconds. Learning rules of the brain must therefore bridge the gap between these two different time scales. Modern theories of synaptic plasticity have postulated that the co-activation of pre- and postsynaptic neurons sets a flag at the synapse, called an eligibility trace, that leads to a weight change only if an additional factor is present while the flag is set. This third factor, signaling reward, punishment, surprise, or novelty, could be implemented by the phasic activity of neuromodulators or specific neuronal inputs signaling special events. While the theoretical framework has been developed over the last decades, experimental evidence in support of eligibility traces on the time scale of seconds has been collected only during the last few years. Here we review, in the context of three-factor rules of synaptic plasticity, four key experiments that support the role of synaptic eligibility traces in combination with a third factor as a biological implementation of neoHebbian three-factor learning rules

NMDA Receptor-mediated Synaptic Plasticity in Developing Mammalian Visual Pathways

Precise connections in many mammalian nervous systems require a great deal of remodeling during development. In the visual system, many excess synapses are originally formed in the lateral geniculate nucleus and striate cortex. Only the correct set of axon terminals are retained during normal development, while imprecise ones withdraw. The mechanism by which only correct axons are retained requires neural activity, and may be regulated by specific receptors at synapses. The transmission of neural signals at these synapses is carried out in part by the glutamate-activated NMDA receptor. It is hypothesized that NMDA receptor activation plays a crucial role in enhancing only those connections in the immature system which will form a retinotopically correct map in the LGN and cortex. NMDA receptor activation requires depolarization of the neuron membrane. Possibly, only neurons transmitting information from nearby areas in the retina summate to produce NMDA receptor- mediated currents. The result is an influx of Ca++ ions that has been shown to cause trophic effects within the cell that could enhance the synaptic connection. Thus, NMDA receptors may act to detect coincident neural activity in immature animals, thereby allowing only visuo-topically related axon terminals to undergo enhancement of synaptic transmission and structure. As development proceeds, NMDA receptor function decreases, possibly reducing these intracellular effects. Blocking NMDA receptor activation experimentally does alter the normal set of connections in the visual system. Yet, is there a direct cause- and-effect relation between NMDA receptor activity and anatomical changes? Many cellular events probably result from NMDA-mediated currents. Intracellular changes in phosphorylation states and protein levels could eventually alter a synapse at the anatomical level. Study of the changing NMDA receptor subunit types making up the receptor within visual system structures could reveal, in part, the means by which plasticity is down-regulated. The experimental regulation of these subunits in vivo could reveal important information concerning their specific function if plasticity and development were to be altered as a result. A summary of previous studies, and proposals for further research concerning the role of the NMDA receptor and its various types in developing visual pathways are presented in this manuscript

Memory formation shaped by astroglia

Astrocytes, the most heterogeneous glial cells in the central nervous system (CNS), execute a multitude of homeostatic functions and contribute to memory formation. Consolidation of synaptic and systemic memory is a prolonged process and hours are required to form long-term memory. In the past, neurons or their parts have been considered to be the exclusive cellular sites of these processes, however, it has now become evident that astrocytes provide an important and essential contribution to memory formation. Astrocytes participate in the morphological remodeling associated with synaptic plasticity, an energy-demanding process that requires mobilization of glycogen, which, in the CNS, is almost exclusively stored in astrocytes. Synaptic remodeling also involves bidirectional astroglial-neuronal communication supported by astroglial receptors and release of gliosignaling molecules. Astroglia exhibit cytoplasmic excitability that engages second messengers, such as Ca(2+), for phasic, and cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), for tonic signal coordination with neuronal processes. The detection of signals by astrocytes and the release of gliosignaling molecules, in particular by vesicle-based mechanisms, occurs with a significant delay after stimulation, orders of magnitude longer than that present in stimulus–secretion coupling in neurons. These particular arrangements position astrocytes as integrators ideally tuned to support time-dependent memory formation

Activity-regulated genes as mediators of neural circuit plasticity

Modifications of neuronal circuits allow the brain to adapt and change with experience. This plasticity manifests during development and throughout life, and can be remarkably long lasting. Evidence has linked activity-regulated gene expression to the long-term structural and electrophysiological adaptations that take place during developmental critical periods, learning and memory, and alterations to sensory map representations in the adult. In all these cases, the cellular response to neuronal activity integrates multiple tightly coordinated mechanisms to precisely orchestrate long-lasting, functional and structural changes in brain circuits. Experience-dependent plasticity is triggered when neuronal excitation activates cellular signaling pathways from the synapse to the nucleus that initiate new programs of gene expression. The protein products of activity-regulated genes then work via a diverse array of cellular mechanisms to modify neuronal functional properties. Synaptic strengthening or weakening can reweight existing circuit connections, while structural changes including synapse addition and elimination create new connections. Posttranscriptional regulatory mechanisms, often also dependent on activity, further modulate activity-regulated gene transcript and protein function. Thus, activity-regulated genes implement varied forms of structural and functional plasticity to fine-tune brain circuit wiring.National Institutes of Health (U.S.). Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (F31 NS069510)RO1 EY01189

The Synaptic Theory of Memory: A Historical Survey and Reconciliation of Recent Opposition

Trettenbrein (2016) has argued that the concept of the synapse as the locus of memory is outdated and has made six critiques of this concept. In this article, we examine these six critiques and suggest that the current theories of the neurobiology of memory and the empirical data indicate that synaptic activation is the first step in a chain of cellular and biochemical events that lead to memories formed in cell assemblies and neural networks that rely on synaptic modification for their formation. These neural networks and their modified synaptic connections can account for the cognitive basis of learning and memory and for memory deterioration in neurological disorders. We first discuss Hebb’s (1949) theory that synaptic change and the formation of cell assemblies and phase sequences can link neurophysiology to cognitive processes. We then examine each of Trettenbrein’s (2016) critiques of the synaptic theory in light of Hebb’s theories and recent empirical data. We examine the biochemical basis of memory formation and the necessity of synaptic modification to form the neural networks underlying learning and memory. We then examine the use of Hebb’s theories of synaptic change and cell assemblies for integrating neurophysiological and cognitive conceptions of learning and memory. We conclude with an examination of the applications of the Hebb synapse and cell assembly theories to the study of the neuroscience of learning and memory, the development of computational models of memory and the construction of “intelligent” robots. We conclude that the synaptic theory of memory has not met its demise, but is essential to our understanding of the neural basis of memory, which has two components: synaptic plasticity and intrinsic plasticity

Homeostatic control of synaptic rewiring in recurrent networks induces the formation of stable memory engrams

Brain networks store new memories using functional and structural synaptic plasticity. Memory formation is generally attributed to Hebbian plasticity, while homeostatic plasticity is thought to have an ancillary role in stabilizing network dynamics. Here we report that homeostatic plasticity alone can also lead to the formation of stable memories. We analyze this phenomenon using a new theory of network remodeling, combined with numerical simulations of recurrent spiking neural networks that exhibit structural plasticity based on firing rate homeostasis. These networks are able to store repeatedly presented patterns and recall them upon the presentation of incomplete cues. Storage is fast, governed by the homeostatic drift. In contrast, forgetting is slow, driven by a diffusion process. Joint stimulation of neurons induces the growth of associative connections between them, leading to the formation of memory engrams. These memories are stored in a distributed fashion throughout connectivity matrix, and individual synaptic connections have only a small influence. Although memory-specific connections are increased in number, the total number of inputs and outputs of neurons undergo only small changes during stimulation. We find that homeostatic structural plasticity induces a specific type of “silent memories”, different from conventional attractor states