Protein Synthesis I Pharmacology

Oliver Stork and Hans Welz! Abstract

The formation of long-lasting memory traces depends on the de novo synthesis of proteins. For more than 30 years substantial experimental evidence has been collected in species ranging from insects to mammals, in support of this hypothesis. A pharmacological approach to investigate the dependence of long-term memory formation on de novo protein synthesis is to administer drugs that prevent protein synthesis on the transcriptional or translational level. When injected during or after learning, these drugs block the development of long-term memory while leaving short-term memory unaffected. Recent research investigating the time course of protein synthesis following learning revealed the existence of two or probably more distinct time windows during which new proteins are synthesized in order to form an enduring memory trace. Another current topic addresses the question where in the neuron de novo protein synthesis takes place. Whereas a large part of the new proteins are synthesized in the soma, some of them are assembled specifically at those synapses whose modification of synaptic efficiency underlies memory formation.

Asking about the 'Where' and 'When' of Learning-Related Protein Synthesis

Over the past 30 years and more, a large body of evidence has been raised for an involvement of protein synthesis in the formation of long-term memory (LTM). The use of protein synthesis inhibitors (PSIs) has been fundamental for the development of this view. Short-term memory (STM), which is insensitive to protein synthesis inhibition, is now believed to be based on transient modifications of preexisting molecules, most importantly phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of enzymes, receptors and/or ion channels. For an alteration of synaptic efficiency beyond the scope of STM, however, the de novo synthesis of proteins appears to be indispensable. These proteins include transcriptional activators and regulators, neurotrophic factors, cytoskeletal and cell recognition molecules, to name but a few. In essence, it is believed that the protein synthesis during formation of LTM is required for structural changes of existing synapses or generation of new neuronal circuits through reactive sprouting and synaptogenesis.4,2 ,67,83 A strong similarity is apparent to the regulation of growth during development and regeneration in the nervous system. All these processes are activity-dependent, require retrograde messengers and recruit cellular programs of growth including de novo protein synthesis to evoke changes in synaptic structure and function.18,62,101

The fact that LTM in vertebrates and invertebrates can be blocked by PSIs has long been the sole evidence for an involvement of protein synthesis.29 In recent years, however, this hypothesis has obtained support from studies that employed molecular and genetic approaches, as the targeted disruption of transcription factors (e.g., c-fos, zif268, CREB) or specific effector genes (e.g., BDNF, NCAM, CamKII) disturbed the formation of LTM. It must be considered though that mutation of a gene may affect a variety of biological functions other than memory

Lumbar Spine Anatomy

Figurel. Sites ofPSI action within the cell. Actinomycin-D interferes with transcription, whereas 8-azaguanin is incorporated into the growing mRNA and subsequently disturbs its translation. Anisomycin, cyclohex-imide, emetine and puromycin disturb cytoplasmic translation throughout the cell. Puromycin and chloramphenicol interfere with mitochondrial translation. Rapamycin, by interfering with the function of TOR proteins, can be used to specifically disturb synaptic protein synthesis.

Figurel. Sites ofPSI action within the cell. Actinomycin-D interferes with transcription, whereas 8-azaguanin is incorporated into the growing mRNA and subsequently disturbs its translation. Anisomycin, cyclohex-imide, emetine and puromycin disturb cytoplasmic translation throughout the cell. Puromycin and chloramphenicol interfere with mitochondrial translation. Rapamycin, by interfering with the function of TOR proteins, can be used to specifically disturb synaptic protein synthesis.

formation, especially if the gene is active during development. Mutant phenotypes may often be related to compensatory up-regulation or cis-activation of other genes91 rather than the mutation itself, and are sensitive to variations in genetic background.2 ,46 Some of these problems are overcome with inducible transgenic or knock out mutants,110,118 with injection of anti-sense oligonucleotides or with virus-mediated gene-transfer.61,131 However, it may still be difficult to clearly distinguish roles of the mutated molecules in STM and LTM as experimentally induced changes in gene expression require time and can hardly be controlled to occur in an exact time window before, during or after training.

Thus, while the tools are now available to investigate protein synthesis with unprecedented molecular specificity, PSIs become increasingly important to investigate the temporal and spatial aspects, in other words the "When? and Where?" of learning-related protein synthesis. They appear to be particularly powerful when studied in combination with or comparison to specific molecular interventions. In the following we describe the function of the most commonly used PSIs and their effect on memory formation in various paradigms.



Anisomycin Cvcloheximide

Figure 2. Chemical structure of the most commonly used PSIs in memory research, actinomycin-D, anisomycin and cycloheximide.

Inhibitors of Protein Synthesis

Transcription Inhibitors

Actinomycin-D (dactinomycin) and 8-azaguanine can be used to interfere with protein synthesis at the transcriptional level. Actinomycin-D is one of the best known antibiotics and used as a cytostatic agent in, e.g., Hodgkin's disease. It is produced by Streptomyces antibioticus and intercalates between GC base pairs of the DNA double strand without binding to single stranded RNA, and thus at low concentrations can inhibit transcription without interfering with translation or DNA replication.99 Actinomycin-D does not cross the blood-brain barrier and, therefore, has to be injected intracranially when a blockade of transcription in the central nervous system is desired. 8-Azaguanine, which is identical to Pathocidin from Streptomyces spectabilis, is incorporated during transcription43 and subsequently disturbs the translation of the affected mRNA. It also exerts influence on a variety of enzymes in cell metabolism and inhibits 5-phosphoribosylpyrophospate-amidotransferase, the key enzyme in purine synthesis. Unfortunately, doses of 8-azaguanine and actinomycin-D that are sufficient to substantially suppress cerebral protein synthesis cause rapid and irreversible systemic toxicity as well as ne-crosis.21,121 Intracranial injections of very low doses (l^g) of actinomycin-D, on the other hand, have little effect on RNA synthesis but still attenuate retention even when injected as late as 24h after training.121 This suggests that retention deficits may be the result of drug-induced brain damage and abnormalities in electrical activity. Thus, experiments with these transcription inhibitors should include anatomical and electrophysiological controls and have to be interpreted with caution.


Figure 3. Gene expression during memory formation. (A) Induction of the immediate early gene c-fos in the amygdala, 30min after fear conditioning training. A number of strongly labeled cells can be found throughout the amygdala, whereas baseline c-fos expression levels (not shown) are hardly detectable. (B) Expression of a novel ubiquitination factor Prajal in the amygdala, 6h after fear conditioning training. (1) Fear conditioned, (2) pseudo-trained and (3) fear memory retrieving mice, (4) naive controls. The graded increase across groups indicates fear-, stress- and learning-related regulation of gene-expression.1 8 CE, central amygdala; L, lateral amygdala; BL, basolateral amygdala; MB, basomedial amygdala; M, medial amygdala and CO, cortical amydala.

Translation Inhibitors

Three classes of translation inhibitors have most commonly been used in memory experiments: puromycin (PURO), anisomycin (ANI), and various glutarimides (cycloheximide (CXM), emetine and acetoxycycloheximide). PURO is a nucleoside-antibiotic from streptomy-ces alboniger and inhibits protein synthesis at both the 70S and 80S, i.e., prokaryotic/mito-chondrial and eukaryotic, ribosomes. Through its structural analogy to aminoacyl-tRNA, PURO can be incorporated into the growing peptide chain at its carboxyl end, which results in premature release of peptidyl-PURO fragments from the ribosomal complex. Unfortunately, such peptidyl-PURO fragments may by themselves have a long-lasting effect on cell function that causes amnesia.29 In addition to inhibiting protein synthesis, PURO induces hippocampal seizures, swelling of mitochondria and disaggregation of ribosomes.36 Due to its numerous side effects, PURO cannot be recommended to investigate the effects of protein synthesis inhibition on memory formation (for a discussion see ref. 29).

ANI is a pyrolidine antibiotic from Streptomycesgriseolus. It inhibits the peptidyl transferase activity in eukaryotic ribosomes and thus interferes with peptide bond formation.94 ANI is, at doses that successfully block retention, a fairly nontoxic protein synthesis inhibitor. Successive injections of ANI permit an inhibition of variable duration in the range of 2-8h, with the inactive form deacetyl-ANI serving as control compound.36 However, it should be considered that ANI is a potent agonist of Jun-NH2 terminal kinase (JNK) as well as mitogen-activated kinase (MAPK), and can induce apoptosis.15,136 CXM, which is isolated from Streptomyces griseus, interferes with the function of peptidyl transferase at the large subunit of the eukaryotic ribosome. However, CXM not only disturbs translation (initiation, translocation, and steps of elongation processes), but also DNA, rRNA and tRNA synthesis,43,49 and in effective doses is far more toxic than ANI.35 Doses inhibiting protein synthesis by 80% or more can cause sickness and, under stressful training conditions, even death. On the behavioral level, changes


- 4.9 kb

3.6 kb

2.7 kb


a* -


m 1.9 kb

1.5 kb

1.4 kb

1.2 kb

1.0 kb


2 3 4

0.7 kb

Figure 4. A model for protein synthesis during LTM formation. An incoming signal can produce several cellular responses: (1) post-translational modifications (e.g., phosphorylation) of proteins at activated synapses, responsible for STM, (2) a translational induction of protein synthesis at preexisting mRNA, to support ITM and possibly the generation of synaptic "tags", and (3) an induction of gene-expression through the activation of transcription factors, which are indispensable for LTM. All these processes appear to be activated in parallel during learning.

Figure 4. A model for protein synthesis during LTM formation. An incoming signal can produce several cellular responses: (1) post-translational modifications (e.g., phosphorylation) of proteins at activated synapses, responsible for STM, (2) a translational induction of protein synthesis at preexisting mRNA, to support ITM and possibly the generation of synaptic "tags", and (3) an induction of gene-expression through the activation of transcription factors, which are indispensable for LTM. All these processes appear to be activated in parallel during learning.

in locomotor activity occur that are not seen after ANI injections. Both protein synthesis inhibitors can cause diarrhea, but the signs are hardly noticeable after ANI injections.36 Emetine is the main alkaloid component in Radix ipecacuanhae and inhibits protein synthesis through an interaction with the ribosomal protein S14 of the small eukaryotic ribosomal subunit. Emetine is very toxic and irritant and although considered one of the classical PSI antibiotics has only been used in few studies to interfere with memory formation.

Antibiotics that specifically interfere with the function of 70S ribosomes, such as the Strep-tomyces venezuela antibiotic chloramphenicol, may be used to inhibit prokaryotic and mito-chondrial protein synthesis. Chloramphenicol binds to the 50S mitochondrial ribosome subunit and disturbs the mitochondrial peptidyl transferase reaction without affecting protein synthesis of eukaryotic ribosomes. Indirectly, however, chloramphenicol also affects nuclear and cytoplasmic gene expression and leads to the generation of new mitochondrial RNA species.1 7 Moreover, the inhibition of mitochondrial protein synthesis may change energy provision or Ca2+ sequestration in the mitochondria. The effects of chloramphenicol treatment thus have to be interpreted with care, in particular as its blockade of LTM can be accompanied by profound changes in motor behavior.42

Rapamycin finally is a lipophilic macrolide, which has been employed to show synaptic protein synthesis in Aplysia californica.16 Rapamycin is isolated from a strain of Streptomyces hygroscopicus indigenous to Easter Island ("Rapa Nui"). It interacts with the ubiquitous protein FKBP12 to specifically interfere with the TOR protein (target of rapamycin ). TOR modulates the phosphorylation of proteins that are involved in translation initiation and elongation of the peptide chain, and controls the abundance of the translation machinery in response to mitogen and growth factor stimulation. TOR localizes to synaptic sites and interacts with gephrin,109 and is therefore thought to play a pivotal role in the control of synaptic protein synthesis.

In summary, a number of PSIs are available to interfere with different steps of protein synthesis during memory formation. However, possible unspecific effects have to be carefully controlled in experiments with PSIs. In fact, several hypotheses have been put forth to explain the amnesic effects of protein synthesis inhibitors by mechanisms other than their blockade of protein synthesis (e.g., by producing sickness and conditioned aversion, changes in locomotor activity, inhibition of steroidogenesis, and disturbance of catecholamine neurotransmission), but a number of experiments in different laboratories have provided results that make all these alternative explanations unlikely (for a review see ref. 29). Still, it should be considered that inhibitors of protein synthesis may affect behavioral performance not only through their interference with memory formation, but also by acting on learning-related processes involved in, e.g., attention or motivation. In addition to PSIs, the inhibitors of specific signal transduction pathways can be used to interfere with gene expression during memory formation. In fact, inhibition of the protein kinase A (PKA) and MAPK pathways, or blockade of glucocorticoid receptors have revealed striking similarity to the effects of PSIs.

Effects of Protein Synthesis Inhibitors on Memory Formation


Learning in invertebrates has been extensively used to investigate cellular and molecular mechanisms of memory formation, including the role of protein synthesis in LTM. Invertebrates are capable of simple forms of learning that are controlled by less complicated and more accessible nervous systems than in vertebrates.

Aplysia californica

In the sea snail Aplysia californica, a simple gill-withdrawal reflex habituates with repeated stimulation (direct touch), but is sensitized by a noxious stimulation of the tail (for a review see ref. 32). The basic elements of this reflex can be simulated in vitro in a preparation consisting of sensory and motor neurons, and application of exogenous serotonin. Long-term facilitation has been shown to be synapse-specific and to require local protein synthesis, as well as RNA and protein synthesis in the cell body.16,74 Long-term - but not short-term — in vivo sensitization or in vitro facilitation are prevented when mRNA or protein synthesis is inhibited during or up to 30min following treatments that normally induce the formation of a memory trace.5,17,8 ANI, when applied around the time of such treatments (-1h to +2h) or 4-7h later, can also block structural changes that are associated with long-term sensitization and facilitation.90 In addition to STM and LTM, an intermediate-term memory (ITM), which requires transla-tional but not transcriptional activation, has been described.48,75,129,130 The translational activation during this ITM seems to be independent of the soma and based on mRNA already existing at the synapse.

Hermissenda crassicornis

In this sea snail classical conditioning of the foot contraction reflex is achieved by pairing a light stimulus (conditioned stimulus; CS) with a rotation (unconditioned stimulus; US; for a review see ref. 32). Several different paradigms have been used on different nervous system preparations from Hermissenda. Although this makes a direct comparison of experimental data difficult, a number of key features, resembling those obtained in Aplysia, emerged. First, extensive conditioning causes structural changes of the neurons involved.1 Second, three different stages of memory formation could be distinguished: STM,25,26,97 which is independent of protein and RNA synthesis, ITM, which is dependent on translational but not transcriptional processes,27 and LTM, which requires mRNA as well as protein synthesis for its formation.25,26 And third, the requirement for protein synthesis is probably not restricted to the immediate post-training period, but continues for several hours, since prolonged and selective changes in RNA expression have been observed after extensive training (maximal at 24h and still detectable after four days88).


The fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster has been a long-time favourite with behavioral geneticists, due to the ease with which mutations can be created and their consequences are investigated (for a review see ref. 32). In a simple odor discrimination task, an anesthesia-resistant and CXM-insensitive memory can be induced that decays within 4 days after training. With spaced training, however, a LTM for odors is established that lasts for at least 7 days and can be blocked by application of CXM during training.139 Few studies exist that investigated protein synthesis and memory formation in other insects. In honeybees (Apis mellifera), LTM for an odour-sucrose association is blocked by inhibition of either transcription or translation. The blocking effect can be detected 4 days after conditioning, if the drugs are injected 1h or 6h — but not 24h - after conditioning. Memory lasting for up to 2 days, however, is unaffected by the protein synthesis inhibition.80,142,144 Inhibition of protein synthesis also prevents passive avoidance learning in the praying mantis (Stagmatoptera biocellata59). When tested after 24h, animals that were injected with CXM immediately after training act like naive animals. CXM injection 2h after training has no such effect.


The analysis of memory formation in birds has been particularly helpful to identify critical temporal phases of protein synthesis and the biochemical processes that occur after training.


When newly hatched chicks are briefly exposed to a distinct moving object, they become imprinted to it and the time spent near this object will be increased during future exposures. This imprinting process can be attenuated by immediate post trial injection of CXM.47 Imprinting is accompanied by structural changes in the intermediate medial hyperstriatum ventrale, a brain structure known to be essential for different types of visual learning in chicks. However, the question whether protein synthesis inhibition also blocks these changes has not yet been investigated.55

Passive Avoidance Learning

Newly hatched chicks will also peck at water droplets that form at beads of different color and shape. When one of the beads is associated with a bitter tasting fluid, the chicks quickly learn to avoid pecking at beads of that color and shape.103,105 Injection of ANI immediately before or up to 30min after initial training blocks the formation of LTM in this task.37,133 Pretraining ANI injection can also prevent structural changes in the lobus parolfactorius that accompany the retention of passive avoidance.120 A second time window of critical protein synthesis has been identified with ANI injections 4-5h post-training.132 Inhibitors of protein fucosylation similarly prevent LTM formation when applied during this second time window, indicating the generation of glycoproteins that are essential for the learning process.104,106

Song Learning

When zebra finches listen to the song of a conspecific, neuronal activity and expression of an immediate early gene (zenk, synonym to zif268) is increased in the caudomedial striatum.24,78,79,86 With repeated listening to the same song, neuronal activity declines and zenk expression disappears. However, novel calls or complex sounds reinduce neuronal activity and zenk expression. This 'stimulus-specific habituation' can last for up to two days.23,24 Injection of CXM immediately after song presentation (0.5-3h) or at multiple subsequent periods (5.5-7h, 14-15h, and 17-18.5h) blocks the reduction in neuronal activity and prevents the decline of zenk expression.23,24,140


Since the early 1960s a wealth of data has accumulated that supports a critical role of protein synthesis for LTM formation in mice and rats (for a review see ref. 29). The data have been collected in paradigms that range from classical conditioning to complex spatial learning tasks.

Fear Conditioning

In recent years, the involvement of protein synthesis in auditory cued and contextual fear conditioning has been extensively studied; this paradigm appears to be particularly well suited for molecular, cellular and biochemical analyses since a robust association of the auditory CS or the training context with the aversive US can be achieved within one brief training session. In different experiments with ANI, CXM and actinomycin-D it has been shown that the formation of such fear memory can be prevented with systemic, intra-ventricular or intra-amygdalar blockade of protein synthesis.6'11 >n5,n6>127 Contextual fear conditioning was further found to involve either one or two PSI-sensitive consolidation periods, depending on the intensity of training.13 In the latter and in other studies, a striking similarity was observed to the effects of PKA and MAPK inhibition.114,115 It has further been shown that fear memories require amygdalar protein synthesis also for reconsolidation after their retrieval.84 Extinction of contextual fear memory, on the other hand, can take place in the presence of systemically injected PSIs.65

Conditioned Taste Aversion

Similar to fear conditioning, conditioned taste aversion learning is characterized by a brief training episode, in this case with a novel taste that is followed by the induction of sickness (e.g., through administration of lithium chloride). Consolidation of taste aversion memory can be prevented by intra-ventricular injections of CXM,56,137 and by bilateral ANI injections into the gustatory cortex before or during trainingal.108 Recent studies furthermore have shown that ANI injection into the gustatory cortex can also block the extinction of conditioned taste aversion.10

Avoidance Learning

It has long been established that administration of PSIs before or immediately after training prevents passive avoidance learning in rodents.35,36,66,95,96,124 The same treatment does not affect STM, nor the performance during acquisition of the task. However, the amnesic action of protein synthesis inhibition was shown to decrease with the strength of training and to increase with longer duration of protein synthesis inhibition. The involvement of hippocampus and amygdala in this task is illustrated by the amnesic effects of local actinomycin-D and CXM injections, respecitively.11 On the other hand, protein synthesis inhibition over a period of 6-8h is necessary to block active avoidance learning or the extinction of this task in mice.33,34

Discrimination Learning

Injections of CXM or ANI during and following training interfere with the establishment of LTM for an object discrimination task.122 Moreover, rat olfactory discrimination learning in two different social situations was found to be blocked by protein synthesis inhibition.70 ANI, however, does not prevent memory formation after olfactory discrimination learning,124 possibly due to residual protein synthesis or the occurrence of protein-synthesis independent synap-tic changes outlasting the training-test interval. Two critical waves of protein synthesis for brightness discrimination learning , one around training (between 10min pre and 80min post-) and one 4-6h post training,50,51 could be identified with hippocampal ANI injections. Injections between these two time windows are without effect.

Spatial Learning

Few studies have investigated the effects of protein synthesis inhibition in spatial learning tasks. However, the formation of spatial LTM in the water maze can be disturbed by subcutaneous or intra-ventricular injection of ANI before, but not after each training session.65,77 Extinction of spatial memory, in contrast, has proven insensitive to ANI.65

Electrophysiological Models

Long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term depression (LTD) are electrophysiological models of synaptic plasticity that can be tested in vivo as well as in vitro. Physiological and molecular events that characterize LTP and LTD resemble those observed in learning paradigms, i.e., strong parallels exist between hippocampal LTP and spatial learning,12,10 and amygdala LTP and fear conditioning.73,102 Accordingly, a late phase of LTP (L-LTP), which is sensitive to PSIs in vitro and in vivo,38,39,57,63,85, 9,92,123 can be distinguished from a PSI-insensitive early phase (E-LTP). A similar protein synthesis-dependent late phase of cerebellar LTD has also been described.69,71 The maintenance of LTP for up to 3h has been shown to require protein synthesis, but not mRNA synthesis,92 suggesting that - as in ITM - proteins which can support a limited maintenance of LTP are synthesized from preexisting mRNA.

Principle Findings and Future Perspectives in Protein Synthesis Inhibitor Research

Investigations in both vertebrates and invertebrates have provided ample evidence for the dependence of LTM formation on de novo protein synthesis. Findings from protein synthesis inhibition are supported by recent molecular and genetic studies which interfere with the function of specific transcription factors during memory formation.8,14,60,61,93,131,145,146 PSIs have been particularly valuable tools in determining spatial and temporal characteristics, i.e., the "Where? And When?" of learning-induced gene-expression.

The "When"

In essence, it seems that at least two critical waves of protein synthesis exist during memory consolidation; only when applied within these time windows are protein synthesis inhibitors able to block the formation of LTM.13,50,51,104,132,134 Moreover, the finding that a limited LTM can still be induced in the presence of transcription inhibitors during an initial phase following training92,130 has led to the concept of an intermediate-term memory (ITM), which is supported primarily through translation from preexisting mRNAs. Other studies have identified unique biochemical processes during this transitional phase of information storage, such as activation of PKA and calcineurin. 2 The biochemical processes that underly ITM and LTM appear to be activated in parallel; the induction of early gene transcription factors for example is essential for LTM, but not for ITM, and occurs within minutes after training.

Protein synthesis is further involved in the reconsolidation and continuous refinement of existing memories. Interestingly, opposite effects of PSIs were observed in different aversive learning tasks: ANI blocked the extinction of an active avoidance memory after systemic injection34 and the extinction of conditioned taste aversion when infused to the insular cortex,10 but strongly interfered with the reconsolidation of auditory cued fear memory after injection into the amygdala.84 These observations may illustrate the complexity of memory reconsolidation and the contribution of different brain areas therein.

The "Where"

By disrupting memory consolidation with local injections of PSIs, it was in fact possible to identify brain areas that undergo neural plasticity following training, such as the amygdala during Pavlovian fear conditioning114 or the gustatory cortex during aversive taste conditioning.10 Moreover, PSIs may be used to address the intracellular localization of protein synthesis. It has also become evident in recent years that some critical protein constituents are synthesised synaptically during memory transport of mRNA into dendrites ap pears to be common for plasticity-related molecules including microtubule-associated pro-tein2 (MAP2),44'138 CamKII,76 arg3.1,68 brain spectrin,45 trkB and BDNF.135 Such synaptic protein synthesis may speed up local reorganization processes, allow localized and transcription-independent regulation of protein synthesis through retrograde messengers82 and possibly provide new "synaptic tags".16,40,41 As one of the best examples, CamKII mRNA is actively transported into dendrites and associates with synaptic polysomes upon depolarization.3,76 Specific cis-acting elements in the 3' untranslated region of CaMKII mRNA are responsible for its localization and for its synaptic translation, which involves the cytoplasmic polyadenylation element binding protein, CpEB.76,143 Initiation of translation, elongation of the peptide chain and the abundance of translation machinery components including CPEB are regulated by the TOR protein, which has become an exciting new target in memory re-


PSIs have also been helpful for the identification of signal transduction pathways that control gene-expression during formation of LTM and to identify the factors that are induced. For instance, a striking parallel has been observed between protein synthesis inhibition and the effect of glucocorticoid inhibition during chick passive avoidance learning.111,112 In Pavlovian fear memory, a temporal coincidence of PSI- with PKA- and MAPK inhibitor-sensitive phases of memory consolidation has been observed. e.g.,113 As the PKA and MAPK pathways converge in CREB activation, these findings support the idea that CREB-mediated gene expression may be critical for fear memory activation in both vertebrates and invertebrates has been implicated in numerous other learning paradigms.7,31,52,58,64,141

Downstream of CREB, several genes are induced during a first PSI-sensitive phase immediately after training. In this phase, so-called immediate early gene transcription factors (e.g., c-fos, c-jun, zif268) and neurotrophic factors, the latter of which can initiate activity-dependent functional and structural reorganization in presynaptic and neighboring cells, are expressed.2,18,30,53,78,79,107 Target genes of these transcriptional activators are expressed in later waves of protein synthesis and likely participate in the modification of synaptic structure and signal transduction.9,19,20,87,119,128

In summary, PSIs have been valuable tools for investigations on the brain structures and time windows that are critical for memory formation. They are used to dissect signalling pathways that control gene expression during learning and to identify the factors that are critical in these processes. The application of PSIs to questions of intracellular control mechanisms of synaptic plasticity, such as dendritic protein synthesis and synaptic tagging, and to the question of memory reconsolidation are promising new fields of research.


1. Alkon DL, Ikeno H, Dworkin J et al. Contraction of neuronal branching volume: An anatomical correlate of Pavlovian conditioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:1611-1614.

2. Anokhin KV, Rose SPR. Learning-induced increase of immediate early gene messenger RNA in the chick forebrain. Eur J Neurosci 1991; 3:162-167.

3. Bagni C, Mannucci L, Dotti CG et al. Chemical stimulation of synaptosomes modulates alpha-Ca2+/ calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II mRNA association to polysomes. J Neurosci 2000; 20:RC76.

4. Bailey CH, Kandel ER. Structural changes accompanying memory storage. Ann Rev Physiol 1993;


5. Bailey CH, Montarolo P, Chen M et al. Inhibitors of protein and RNA synthesis block structural changes that accompany long-term heterosynaptic plasticity in Aplysia. Neuron 1992; 9:749-758.

6. Bailey DJ, Kim JJ, Sun W et al. Acquisition of fear conditioning in rats requires the synthesis of mRNA in the amygdala. Behav Neurosci 1999; 113:276-282.

7. Bartsch D, Casadio A, Karl KA et al. CREB1 encodes a nuclear activator, a repressor, and a cyto-plasmic modulator that form a regulatory unit critical for long-term facilitation. Cell 1998; 95:211-223.

8. Bartsch DGM, Skehel PA, Karl KA et al. Aplysia CREB2 represses long-term facilitation: Relief of repression converts transient facilitation into long-term functional and structural change. Cell 1995; 83:979-992.

9. Barzilai A, Kennedy TE, Sweatt JD et al. 5-HT modulates protein synthesis and the expression of specific proteins during long-term facilitation in Aplysia sensory neurons. Neuron 1989; 2:1577-1586.

10. Berman DE, Dudai Y. Memory extinction, learning anew, and learning the new: Dissociations in the molecular machinery of learning in cortex. Science 2001; 291:2417-2419.

11. Berman RF, Kesner RP, Partlow LM. Passive avoidance impairment in rats following cyclohexim-ide injection into the amygdala. Brain Res 1978; 158:171-188.

12. Bliss TVP, Collingridge GL. A synaptic model of memory: Long-term potentiation in the hippocampus. Nature 1993; 361:31-39.

13. Bourtchuladze R, Abel T, Berman N et al. Different training procedures recruit either one or two critical periods for contextual memory consolidation, each of which requires protein synthesis and PKA. Learn Mem 1998; 5:365-374.

14. Bourtchuladze R, Frenguelli B, Blendy J et al. Deficient long-term memory in mice with a targeted mutation of the cAMP-responsive element-binding protein. Cell 1994; 79:59-68.

15. Cano E, Hazzalin CA, Mahadevan LC. Anisomycin-activated protein kinases p45 and p55 but not mitogen-activated protein kinases ERK-1 and -2 are implicated in the induction of c-fos and c-jun. Mol Cell Biol 1994; 14:7352-7362.

16. Casadio A, Martin KC, Giustetto M et al. A transient, neuron-wide form of CREB-mediated long-term facilitation can be stabilized at specific synapses by local protein synthesis. Cell 1999; 99:221-237.

17. Castellucci VF, Blumenfeld H, Goelet P et al. Inhibitor of protein synthesis blocks long-term behavioral sensitization in the isolated gill-withdrawal reflex in Aplysia. J Neurobiol 1989; 20:1-9.

18. Castren E, Pitkänen M, Sirviö Jetal. The induction of LTP increases BDNF and NGF mRNA but decreases NT-3 mRNA in the dentate gyrus. Neuro Report 1993; 4:895-898.

19. Cavallaro S, Schreurs BG, Zhao W et al. Gene expression profiles during long-term memory consolidation. Eur J Neurosci 2001; 13:1809-1815.

20. Cavallaro S, Meiri N, Yi C-L et al. Late memory-related genes in the hippocampus revealed by RNA fingerprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997; 94:9669-9673.

21. Chabner BA, Allegra CJ, Curt GA et al. Antineoplastic agents. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Molinoff et al, eds. Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995:1233-1287.

22. Chang FF, Greenough WT. Transient and enduring morphological correlates of synaptic activity and efficacy change in the rat hippocampal slice. Brain Res 1984; 309:35-46.

23. Chew SJ, Mello C, Nottebohm F et al. Decrements in auditory responses to a repeated conspecific song are long-lasting and require two periods of protein synthesis in the songbird forebrain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92:3406-3410.

24. Chew SJ, Vicario DS, Nottebohm F. Quantal duration of auditory memories. Science 1996; 274:1909-1914.

25. Crow T, Forrester J. Inhibition of protein synthesis blocks long-term enhancement of generator potentials produced by one-trial in vivo conditioning in Hermissenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87:4490-4494.

26. Crow T, Siddiqi V, Dash PK. Long-term enhancement but not short-term in Hermissenda is dependent upon mRNA synthesis. Neurobiol Learn Mem 1997; 68:343-350.

27. Crow T, Xue-Bian J-J, Siddiqi V. Protein synthesis-dependent and mRNA synthesis-independent intermediate phase of memory in Hermissenda. J Neurophysiol 1999; 82:495-500.

28. Crusio WE. Gene-targeting studies: New methods old problems. Trends Neurosci 1996; 19:186-187.

29. Davis HP, Squire LR. Protein synthesis and memory: A review. Psychol Bull 1984; 96:518-559.

30. Dragunow M, Hughes P, Mason-Parker SE et al. TrkB expression in dentate granule cells is associated with a late phase of long-term potentiation. Mol Brain Res 1997; 46:274-280.

31. Dubnau J, Tully T. Gene discovery in Drosophila: New insights for learning and memory. Annu Rev Neurosci 1998; 21:407-444.

32. Dudai Y. The Neurobiology of Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

33. Flood JF, Bennett EL, Orme AE et al. Effects of protein synthesis inhibition on memory for active avoidance. Physiol Behav 1975; 14:177-184.

34. Flood JF, Jarvik ME, Bennett EL et al. Protein synthesis inhibition and memory for pole jump active avoidance and extinction. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1977; 7:71-77.

35. Flood JF, Rosenzweig MR, Bennett EL et al. Influence of training strength on amnesia induced by pretraining injections of cycloheximide. Physiol Behav 1972; 9:589-600.

36. Flood JF, Rosenzweig MR, Bennett EL et al. The influence of duration of protein synthesis inhibition on memory. Physiol Behav 1973; 10:555-562.

37. Freeman FM, Rose SPR, Scholey AB. Two time windows of anisomycin-induced amnesia for passive avoidance training in the day-old chick. Neurobiol Learn Mem 1995; 63:291-295.

38. Frey U, Frey S, Schollmeier F et al. Influence of actinomycin D, a RNA inhibitor, on long-term potentiation in rat hippocampal neurons in vivo and in vitro. J Physiol (Lond) 1996; 490:703-711.

39. Frey U, Krug M, Reymann KG et al. Anisomycin, an inhibitor of protein synthesis, blocks late phases of LTP phenomena in the hippocampal CA1 region in vitro. Brain Res 1988; 452:57-65.

40. Frey U, Morris RGM. Synaptic tagging and long-term potentiation. Nature 1997; 385:533-536.

41. Frey U, Morris RGM. Synaptic tagging: Implications for late maintainance of hippocampal long-term potentiation. Trends Neurosci 1998; 21:181-188.

42. Fride E, Ben-Or S, Allweis C. Mitochondrial protein synthesis may be involved in long-term memory formation. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1989; 32:873-878.

43. Gale EF, Cundliffe E, Reynolds PE et al. The Molecular Basis of Antibiotic Action. 2nd ed. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.

44. Garner CC, Tucker R, Matus A. Selective localization of messenger RNA for cytoskeletal protein MAP2 in dendrites. Nature 1988; 336:674-677.

45. Gelot A, Moreau J, Ben Ari Y et al. Alpha-brain spectrin mRNA belongs to the population of intradendritically transported mRNAs. Neuro Report 1996; 8:113-116.

46. Gerlai R. Gene-targeting studies of mammalian behavior: Is it the mutation or the background genotype? Trends Neurosci 1996; 19:177-181.

47. Gibbs ME, Lecanuet J-P. Disruption of imprinting by memory inhibitors. Anim Behav 1981; 29:572-580.

48. Ghirardi M, Montarolo PG, Kandel ER. A novel intermediate stage in the transition between short- and long-term facilitation in the sensory to motor synapse of Aplysia. Neuron 1995; 14:413-420.

49. Gokal PK, Cavanaugh AH, Thompson Jr EA. The effects of cycloheximide upon transcription of rRNA, 5S RNA, and tRNA genes. J Biol Chem 1986; 261:2536-2541.

50. Grecksch G, Matthies H. Two sensitive periods for the amnesic effect of anisomycin. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1980; 12:663-665.

51. Grecksch G, Ott T, Matthies H. The effect of intrahippocampally applied anisomycin on the retention of brightness discrimination in rats. Behav Neural Biol 1980; 29:281-288.

52. Guzowski JF, McGaugh JL. Antisense ologideoxynucleotide-mediated disruption of hippocampal cAMP response element binding protein levels impairs consolidation of memory for water maze training. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997; 94:2693-2698.

53. Hall J, Thomas KL, Everitt BJ. Fear memory retrieval induces CREB phosphorylation and Fos expression within the amygdala. Eur J Neurosci 2001; 13:1453-1458.

54. Hedge AN, Goldberg AL, Schwartz JH. Regulatory subunits of cAMP-dependent protein kinases are degraded after conjugation to ubiquitin: A molecular mechanism underlying long-term synaptic plasticity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993; 90:7436-7440.

55. Horn G, Bradley P, McCabe BJ. Changes in the structure of synapses associated with learning. J Neurosci 1985; 5:3161-3168.

56. Houpt TA, Berlin R. Rapid, labile, and protein synthesis-independent short-term memory in conditioned taste aversion. Learn Mem 1999; 6:37-46.

57. Huang Y-Y, Li X-C, Kandel ER. cAMP contributes to mossy fiber LTP by initiating both a co-valently mediated early phase and macromolecular synthesis-dependent late phase. Cell 1994; 79:69-79.

58. Impey S, Mark M, Villacres EC et al. Induction of CREmediated gene expression by stimuli that generate long-lasting LTP in area CA1 of the hippocampus. Neuron 1996; 16:973-982.

59. Jaffe K. Effect of cycloheximide on protein synthesis and memory in praying mantis. Physiol Behav 1980; 25:367-371.

60. Jones MW, Errington ML, French PJ et al. A requirement for the immediate early gene Zif268 in the expression of late LTP and long-term memories. Nature Neurosci 2001; 4:289-296.

61.Josselyn SA, Shi C, Carlezon Jr WA et al. Long-term memory is facilitated by cAMP response element-binding protein overexpression in the amygdala. J Neurosci 2001; 21:2404-2412.

62. Kandel ER, O'Dell TJ. Are adult learning mechanisms also used for development? Science 1992; 258:243-245.

63. Krug M, Lossner B, Ott T. Anisomycin blocks the late phase of long-term potentiation in the dendate gyrus of freely moving rats. Brain Res Bull 1984; 13:39-42.

64. Lamprecht R, Hazvi S, Dudai Y. cAMP response element-binding protein in the amygdala is required for long- but not short-term conditioned taste aversion memory. J Neurosci 1997; 17:8443-8450.

65. Lattal KM, Abel T. Different requirements for protein synthesis in acquisition and extinction of spatial preferences and context-evoked fear. J Neurosci 2001; 21:5773-5780.

66. Lee EHY, Hung HC, Lu KT et al. Protein synthesis in the hippocampus associated with memory facilitation by corticotropin-releasing factor in rats. Peptides 1992; 13:927-937.

67. Lee KS, Schottler F, Oliver M et al. Brief bursts of high-frequency stimulation produce two types of structural change in rat hippocampus. J Neuro Physiol 1980; 44:247-258.

68. Link W, Konietzko U, Kauselmann G et al. Somatodendritic expression of immediate early gene is regulated by synaptic activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92:5734-5738.

69. Linden DJ. A protein synthesis-dependent late phase of cerebellar long-term depression. Neuron 1996; 17:483-490.

70. Malenfant SA, Barry M, Fleming AS. Effects of cycloheximide on the retention of olfactory learning and maternal experience effects in postpartum rats. Physiol Behav 1991; 49:289-294.

71. Manahan-Vaughan D, Kulla A, Frey U. Requirement of translation but not transcription for the maintenance of long-term depression in the CA1 region of freely moving rats. J Neurosci 2000; 20:8572-8576.

72. Mansuy IM, Mayford M, Jacob B et al. Restricted and regulated overexpression reveals calcineurin as a key component in the transition from short-term to long-term memory. Cell 1998; 92:39-49.

73. Maren S, Fanselow M. Synaptic plasticity in the basolateral amygdala induced by hippocampal formation stimulation in vivo. J Neurosci 1995; 15:7548-7564.

74. Martin KC, Casadio A, Zhu H et al. Synapse-specific, long-term facilitation of Aplysia sensory to motor synapses: A function for local protein synthesis in memory storage. Cell 1997; 91:927-938.

75. Mauelshagen J, Parker GR, Carew TJ. Dynamics of induction and expression of long-term synap-tic facilitation in Aplysia. J Neurosci 1996; 16:7099-7108.

76. Mayford M, Baranes D, Podsypanina K et al. The 3'-untranslated region of CaMKII alpha is a cis-acting signal for the localization and translation of mRNA in dendrites. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93:13250-13255.

77. Meiri N, Rosenblum K. Lateral ventricle injection of the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin impairs long-term memory in a spatial memory task. Brain Res 1998; 789:48-55.

78. Mello C, Nottebohm F, Clayton D. Repeated exposure to one song leads to a rapid and persistent decline in an immediate early gene's response to that song in zebra finch telencephalon. J Neurosci 1995; 15:6919-6925.

79. Mello CV, Vicario DS, Clayton DF. Song presentation induces gene expression in the songbird forebrain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992; 89:6818-6822.

80. Menzel R, Manz G, Menzel R et al. Massed and spaced learning in honeybees: The role of CS, US, the intertrial interval, and the test interval. Learn Mem 2001; 8:198-208.

81. Montarolo PG, Goelet P, Castellucci VF et al. A critical period of macromolecular synthesis in long-term heterosynaptic facilitation in Aplysia. Science 1986; 234:1249-1254.

82. Morris BJ. Stabilization of dendritic mRNAs by nitric oxide allows localized, activity-dependent enhancement of hippocampal protein synthesis. Europ J Neurosci 1997; 9:2334-2339.

83. Moser M-B, Trommald M, Andersen P. An increase in dendritic spine densitiy on hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells following spatial learning in adult rats suggests the formation of new synapses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91:12673-12675.

84. Nader K, Schafe GE, Le Doux JE. Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature 2000; 406:722-726.

85. Namgung U, Valcourt E, Routtenberg A. Long-term potentiation in vivo in the intact mouse hippocampus. Brain Res 1995; 689:85-92.

86. Nastiuk KL, Mello CV, George JM et al. Immediate-early gene responses in the avian song control system: Cloning and expression analysis of the canary c-jun cDNA. Mol Brain Res 1994; 27:299-309.

87. Nayak A, Zastrov DJ, Lickteig R et al. Maintenance of late-phase LTP is accompanied by PKA-dependent increase in AMPA receptor synthesis. Nature 1998; 394:680-683.

88. Nelson TJ, Alkon DL. Prolonged RNA changes in the Hermissenda eye induced by classical conditioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1988; 85:7800-7804.

89. Nguyen PV, Abel T, Kandel ER. Requirement of a critical period of transcription for induction of a late phase of LTP. Science 1994; 265:1104-1107.

90. O'Leary FA, Byrne JH, Cleary LJ. Long-term structural remodeling in Aplysia sensory neurons requires de novo protein synthesis during a critical time period. J Neurosci 1995; 15:3519-3525.

91. Olson EN, Arnold H-H, Rigby PWJ et al. Know your neighbors: Three phenotypes in null mutants of the myogenic bHLH gene MRF4. Cell 1996; 85:1-4.

92. Otani S, Marshall CJ, Tate WP et al. Maintenance of long-term potentiation in rat dentate gyrus requires protein synthesis but not messenegr RNA synthesis immediately post-tetanization. Neurosci 1989; 28:519-526.

93. Paylor R, Johnson R, Papaioannou V et al. Behavioral assessment of c-fos mutant mice. Brain Res 1994; 651:275-282.

94. Pestka S. Inhibitors of ribosome function. Ann Rev Microbiol 1971; 25:487-562.

95. Quatermain D, McEwen BS. Temporal characteristics of amnesia induced by protein synthesis inhibition: Determination by shock level. Nature 1970; 228:677-678.

96. Quinton EE, Kramarcy NR. Memory impairment correlates closely with cycloheximide dose and degree of inhibition of protein synthesis. Brain Res 1977; 131:184-190.

97. Ramirez RR, Gandhi CC, Muzzio IA et al. Protein synthesis-dependent memory and neuronal enhancement in Hermissenda are contingent on parameters of training and retention. Learn Mem 1998; 4:462-477.

98. Raught B, Gingras AC, Sonenberg N. The target of rapamycin (TOR) proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98:7037-7044.

99. Reich E. Biochemistry of actinomycins. Cancer Res 1963; 23:1428-1441.

100. Richter-Levin G, Collingridge L, Bliss TV. Long-term potentiation and glutamate release in the dentate gyrus: Links to spatial learning. Behav Brain Res 1995; 66:37-40.

101. Rocamora N, Welker E, Pascual M et al. Upregulation of BDNF mRNA expression in the barrel cortex of adult mice after sensory stimulation. J Neurosci 1996; 16:4411-4419.

102. Rogan MT, Staubli U, LeDoux JE. Fear conditioning induces associative long-term potentiation in the amygdala. Nature 1997; 390:604-607.

103. Rose SPR. How chicks make memories: The cellular cascade from c-fos to dendritic remodelling. Trends Neurosci 1991; 14:390-397.

104. Rose SPR. Cell-adhesion molecules, glucocorticoids and long-term-memory formation. Trends Neurosci 1995; 18:502-506.

105. Rose SPR. God's Organism? The chick as a model system for memory studies. Learn Mem 2000; 7:1-17.

106. Rose SPR, Jork R. Long-term memory in the chick is blocked by 2-deoxygalactose, a fucose analogue. Behav Neural Biol 1987; 48:246-258.

107. Rosen JB, Fanselow M, Young SL et al. Immediate-early gene expression in the amygdala following footshock stress and contextual fear conditioning. Brain Res 1998; 796:132-142.

108. Rosenblum K, Meiri N, Dudai Y. Taste memory: The role of protein synthesis in gustatory cortex. Behav Neural Biol 1993; 59:49-56.

109. Sabatini DM, Barrow RK, Blackshaw S et al. Interaction of RAFT1 with gephyrin required for rapamycin-sensitive signaling. Science 1999; 284:1161-1164.

110. Saez E, No D, West A et al. Inducible gene expression in mammalian cells and transgenic mice. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1997; 8:608-616.

111. Sandi C, Rose SPR. Protein synthesis- and fucosylation-dependent mechanisms in corticosterone facilitation of long-term memory in the chick. Behav Neurosci 1992; 111:1098-1104.

112. Sandi C, Rose SP, Mileusnic R et al. Corticosterone facilitates long-term memory formation via enhanced glycoprotein synthesis. Neurosci 1995; 69:1087-1093.

113. Schafe GE, Atkins CM, Swank MW et al. Activation of ERK/MAP kinase in the amygdala is required for memory consolidation of pavlovian fear conditioning. J Neurosci 2000; 20:8177-8187.

114. Schafe GE, LeDoux JE. Memory consolidation of auditory Pavlovian fear conditioning requires protein synthesis and protein kinase A in the amygdala. J Neurosci 2000; 20:RC96.

115. Schafe GE, Nadel NV, Sullivan GM et al. Memory consolidation for contextual and auditory fear conditioning is dependent on protein synthesis, PKA, and MAP kinase. Learn Mem 1999; 6:97-110.

116. Schmaltz G, Marcant P. Transient aversion and long-lasting amnesia following cycloheximide injection in the rat. Physiol Behav 1983; 30:845-852.

117. Selwood SP, McGregor A, Lightowlers RN et al. Inhibition of mitochondrial protein synthesis promotes autonomous regulation of mtDNA expression and generation of a new mitochondrial RNA species. FEBS Lett 2001; 494:186-191.

118. Shockett P, Difillippantonio M, Hellman N et al. A modified tetracycline-regulated system provides autoregulatory, inducible gene expression in cultured cells and transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92:6522-6526.

119. Smirnova T, Laroche S, Errington ML et al. Transsynaptic expression of a presynaptic glutamate receptor during hippocampal long-term potentiation. Science 1993; 262:433-436.

120. Sojka M, Davies HA, Harrison E et al. Long-term increases in synaptic density in chick CNS after passive avoidance training are blocked by an inhibitor of protein synthesis. Brain Res 1995; 684:209-214.

121. Squire LR, Barondes SH. Actinomycin-D: Effects on memory at different times after training. Nature 1970; 225:649-650.

122. Squire LR, Barondes SH. Anisomycin, like other inhibitors of cerebral protein synthesis, impairs 'long-term' memory of a discrimination task. Brain Res 1974; 66:301-308.

123. Stanton PK, Sarvey JM. Blockade of long-term potentiation in rat hippocampal CA1 region by inhibitors of protein synthesis. J Neurosci 1984; 4:3080-3088.

124. Stäubli U, Faraday R, Lynch G. Pharmacological dissociation of memory: Anisomycin, a protein synthesis inhibitor, and leupeptin, a protease inhibitor, block different learning tasks. Behav Neural Biol 1985; 43:287-297.

125. Steward O. Molecular sorting in neurons: Cell biological processes that play a role in synapse growth and plasticity. In: Baudry M, Thompson RF, Davis JL, eds. Synaptic Plasticity. Cambridge MA: Bradford Book MIT Press, 1993:13-43.

126. Steward O, Schuman EM. Protein synthesis at synaptic sites on dendrites. Annu Rev Neurosci 2001; 24:299-325.

127. Stiedl O, Palve M, Radulovic J et al. Differential impairment of auditory and contextual fear conditioning by protein synthesis inhibition in C57BL/6N mice. Behav Neurosci 1999; 113:496-506.

128. Stork O, Stork S, Pape H-C et al. Identification of genes expressed in the amygdala during the formation of fear memory. Learn Mem 2001; 8:209-219.

129. Sutton MA, Carew TJ. Parallel molecular pathways mediate expression of distinct forms of intermediate-term facilitation at tail sensory-motor synapses in Aplysia. Neuron 2000; 26:219-231.

130. Sutton MA, Masters SE, Bagnall MW et al. Molecular mechanims underlying a unique intermediate phase of memory in Aplysia. Neuron 2001; 31:143-154.

131. Tischmeyer W, Grimm R, Schicknick H et al. Sequence-specific impairment of learning by c-jun antisense oligonucleotides. Neuro Report 1994; 5:1501-1504.

132. Tiunova A, Anokhin KV, Rose SPR. Two critical periods of protein and glycoprotein synthesis in memory consolidation for visual categorization learning in chicks. Learn Mem 1998; 4:401-410.

133. Tiunova A, Anokhin KV, Rose SPR et al. Involvement of glutamate receptors, protein kinases, and protein synthesis in memory for visual discrimination in the young chick. Neurobiol Learn Mem 1996; 65:233-243.

134. Tiunova A, Anokhin KV, Schachner M et al. Three time windows for amnestic effect of antibodies to cell adhesion molecule L1 in chicks. Neuro Report 1998; 9:1645-1648.

135. Tongiorgi E, Righi M, Cattaneo A. Activity-dependent dendritic targeting of BDNF and TrkB mRNAs in hippocampal neurons. J Neurosci 1997; 17:9492-9505.

136. Torocsik B, Szeberenyi J. Anisomycin affects both pro- and antiapoptotic mechanisms in PC12 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2000; 278:550-556.

137. Tucker A, Gibbs M. Cycloheximide-induced amnesia for taste aversion memory in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1976; 4:181-184.

138. Tucker RP, Garner C, Matus A. In situ localization of microtubule-associated protein mRNA in the developing and adult rat brain. Neuron 1989; 2:1245-1256.

139. Tully T, Preat T, Boynton SC et al. Genetic dissection of consolidated memory in Drosophila melanogaster. Cell 1994; 79:35-47.

140. Vicario DS, Nottebohm F. Quantal memory durations: Observations not reproduced. Science 1998; 279:1437.

141. Williams J, Dragunow M, Lawlor P et al. Krox20 may play a key role in the stabilization of long-term potentiation. Mol Brain Res 1995; 28:87-93.

142. Wittstock S, Kaatz H-H, Menzel R. Inhibition of brain protein synthesis by cycloheximide does not affect formation of long-term memory in honeybees after olfactory conditioning. J Neurosci 1993; 13:1379-1386.

143. Wu L, Wells D, Tay J et al. CPEB-mediated cytoplasmic polyadenylation and the regulation of experience-dependent translation of alpha-CaMKII mRNA at synapses. Neuron 1998; 21:1129-1139.

144. Wüstenberg D, Gerber B, Menzel R. Long- but not medium-term retention of olfactory memories in honeybees is impaired by actinomycin D and anisomycin. Eur J Neurosci 1998; 10:2742-2745.

145. Yin JC, Del Vecchio M, Zhou H et al. CREB as a memory modulator: Induced expression of a dCREB2 activator isoform enhances long-term memory in Drosophila. Cell 1995; 81:107-115.

146. Yin JC, Wallach J, Del Vecchio M et al. Induction of a dominant negative CREB transgene specifically blocks long-term memory in Drosophila. Cell 1994; 79:49-58.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Unraveling Alzheimers Disease

Unraveling Alzheimers Disease

I leave absolutely nothing out! Everything that I learned about Alzheimer’s I share with you. This is the most comprehensive report on Alzheimer’s you will ever read. No stone is left unturned in this comprehensive report.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment