Amygdala Dopamine Receptors Are Required for the Destabilization of a Reconsolidating Appetitive Memory1,2^{1,2}

Disrupting maladaptive memories may provide a novel form of treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders, but little is known about the neurochemical mechanisms underlying the induction of lability, or destabilization, of a retrieved consolidated memory. Destabilization has been theoretically linked to the violation of expectations during memory retrieval, which, in turn, has been suggested to correlate with prediction error (PE). It is well-established that PE correlates with dopaminergic signaling in limbic forebrain structures that are critical for emotional learning. The basolateral amygdala is a key neural substrate for the reconsolidation of pavlovian reward-related memories, but the involvement of dopaminergic mechanisms in inducing lability of amygdala-dependent memories has not been investigated. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that dopaminergic signaling within the basolateral amygdala is required for the destabilization of appetitive pavlovian memories by investigating the effects dopaminergic and protein synthesis manipulations on appetitive memory reconsolidation in rats. Intra-amygdala administration of either the D1-selective dopamine receptor antagonist SCH23390 or the D2-selective dopamine receptor antagonist raclopride prevented memory destabilization at retrieval, thereby protecting the memory from the effects of an amnestic agent, the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin. These data show that dopaminergic transmission within the basolateral amygdala is required for memory labilization during appetitive memory reconsolidation.This work was supported by a UK Medical Research Council Programme Grant (G1002231) to B.J.E. and A.L.M. and was conducted in the Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute (BCNI), an initiative jointly funded by the MRC and the Wellcome Trust. A.L.M. was supported by a BCNI lectureship and the Ferrerailletts Fellowship from Downing College, Cambridge. The manuscript was partly prepared while A.L.M. was an Erskine Visiting Cambridge Fellow at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Publish, Don’t Perish!: Strategies for Getting Published in Peer Reviewed Journals

Over the last several years I have had the delightful opportunity to collaborate with other journal editors on presentations related to publishing at the Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting and the Society for Social Work Research Annual Conference. In order to disseminate what we hope is sage advice that we give in these presentations to a wider audience, I have invited them to collaborate with me on this editorial on writing for publication in peer reviewed journals

Cathelicidin suppresses lipid accumulation and hepatic steatosis by inhibition of the CD36 receptor.

Background and objectivesObesity is a global epidemic which increases the risk of the metabolic syndrome. Cathelicidin (LL-37 and mCRAMP) is an antimicrobial peptide with an unknown role in obesity. We hypothesize that cathelicidin expression correlates with obesity and modulates fat mass and hepatic steatosis.Materials and methodsMale C57BL/6 J mice were fed a high-fat diet. Streptozotocin was injected into mice to induce diabetes. Experimental groups were injected with cathelicidin and CD36 overexpressing lentiviruses. Human mesenteric fat adipocytes, mouse 3T3-L1 differentiated adipocytes and human HepG2 hepatocytes were used in the in vitro experiments. Cathelicidin levels in non-diabetic, prediabetic and type II diabetic patients were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsLentiviral cathelicidin overexpression reduced hepatic steatosis and decreased the fat mass of high-fat diet-treated diabetic mice. Cathelicidin overexpression reduced mesenteric fat and hepatic fatty acid translocase (CD36) expression that was reversed by lentiviral CD36 overexpression. Exposure of adipocytes and hepatocytes to cathelicidin significantly inhibited CD36 expression and reduced lipid accumulation. Serum cathelicidin protein levels were significantly increased in non-diabetic and prediabetic patients with obesity, compared with non-diabetic patients with normal body mass index (BMI) values. Prediabetic patients had lower serum cathelicidin protein levels than non-diabetic subjects.ConclusionsCathelicidin inhibits the CD36 fat receptor and lipid accumulation in adipocytes and hepatocytes, leading to a reduction of fat mass and hepatic steatosis in vivo. Circulating cathelicidin levels are associated with increased BMI. Our results demonstrate that cathelicidin modulates the development of obesity

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

Background Longer post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are associated with increased colorectal neoplasia detection at surveillance in some studies. We investigated this association to inform optimal surveillance intervals. Methods Patients who underwent colonoscopy and post-polypectomy surveillance at 17 UK hospitals were classified as low/high risk by baseline findings. We compared detection rates of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous/villous, high grade dysplasia), high risk findings (HRFs: ≥ 2 serrated polyps/[adenomas] of which ≥ 1 is ≥ 10 mm or has [high grade] dysplasia; ≥ 5 serrated polyps/adenomas; or ≥ 1 nonpedunculated polyp ≥ 20 mm), or colorectal cancer (CRC) at surveillance colonoscopy by surveillance interval (< 18 months, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years). Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using multivariable regression. Results Of 11 214 patients, 7216 (64 %) were low risk and 3998 (36 %) were high risk. Among low risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 7.8 %, 3.7 %, and 1.1 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma detection increased with increasing surveillance interval, reaching 9.8 % with a 6-year interval (P trend < 0.001). Among high risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 15.3 %, 10.0 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma and CRC detection rates (P trends < 0.001) increased with increasing surveillance interval; RRs (95 % confidence intervals) for CRC were 1.54 (0.68–3.48), 4.44 (1.95–10.08), and 5.80 (2.51–13.40) with 3-, 4-, and 5-year intervals, respectively, versus an interval of < 18 months. Conclusions Metachronous neoplasia was uncommon among low risk patients, even with long surveillance intervals, supporting recommendations for no surveillance in these patients. For high risk patients, a 3-year surveillance interval would ensure timely CRC detection

Animal cultures matter for conservation

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from AAAS via the DOI in this record.No abstrac

Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Background Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines. Objectives To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance. Design A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation. Setting Seventeen NHS hospitals. Participants Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline. Main outcome measures Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance. Data sources Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England. Methods Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821. Limitations The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates. Conclusions Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients

Task Attention Facilitates Learning of Task-Irrelevant Stimuli

Attention plays a fundamental role in visual learning and memory. One highly established principle of visual attention is that the harder a central task is, the more attentional resources are used to perform the task and the smaller amount of attention is allocated to peripheral processing because of limited attention capacity. Here we show that this principle holds true in a dual-task setting but not in a paradigm of task-irrelevant perceptual learning. In Experiment 1, eight participants were asked to identify either bright or dim number targets at the screen center and to remember concurrently presented scene backgrounds. Their recognition performances for scenes paired with dim/hard targets were worse than those for scenes paired with bright/easy targets. In Experiment 2, eight participants were asked to identify either bright or dim letter targets at the screen center while a task-irrelevant coherent motion was concurrently presented in the background. After five days of training on letter identification, participants improved their motion sensitivity to the direction paired with hard/dim targets improved but not to the direction paired with easy/bright targets. Taken together, these results suggest that task-irrelevant stimuli are not subject to the attentional control mechanisms that task-relevant stimuli abide