the role of perineuronal nets in learning and memory · 2018-07-18 · ii the role of perineuronal...
Post on 25-May-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Role of Perineuronal Nets in Learning and Memory
by
Moushumi Nath
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
Department of Physiology University of Toronto
© Copyright by Moushumi Nath 2018
ii
The Role of Perineuronal Nets in Learning and Memory
Moushumi Nath
Master of Science
Department of Physiology
University of Toronto
2018
Abstract
The balance between stability and plasticity in the brain determines our ability to learn. A key
molecular regulator of this balance includes perineuronal nets. Perineuronal nets are specialized
extracellular matrix structures surrounding neurons, and have a presumed function in promoting
stability within neural circuits. We investigated the effects of disrupting perineuronal nets,
thereby enhancing plasticity, on learning and memory in mice. We found that perineuronal net
disruption in the hippocampal CA1 region is associated with faster water maze reversal learning,
and increased contextual fear generalization. Moreover, the population of active neurons is larger
at retrieval of a contextual fear memory. These results demonstrate that perineuronal nets are
important for learning and memory, and that shifts in perineuronal nets is associated with altered
circuit level activity.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Paul Frankland for providing me the opportunity to conduct this
project, Dr. Evelyn Lambe and Dr. Maithe Arruda-Carvalho for their guidance throughout the
project, Adam Ramsaran for his initial assistance in developing the project, and the rest of the
JFlab.
To Monsieur Mysterious Person Whose Name Shall not be Disclosed, thank you for entertaining
me. Running errands with you, watching you consume food, and being miserable together – ah,
what fun times. I shall forever cherish these moments. Time well spent.
To Julia Yu, thank you so much for supporting me throughout this project and beyond. More
food adventures please – I wish you all the best.
To Xinwen Zhu – i.e. my intellectual soul mate – here is your promised haiku:
From start to finish
You’ve always been there for me (“you’ve” counts as 1 syllable)
Forever grateful
Emotionally and intellectually – you have been a wonderful friend. You were there when I was
“synthesizing” a project, facilitated my thought processes, helped me work through things, and
more importantly – listened to what I had to say – rants, epiphanies, and cries. I cannot thank you
enough. But I cannot leave you with only good notes, so I’ll just end with…Mark is still cooler.
I wish you all the best!
Special shout-out to my incognito group. =)
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Behavioural Framework .................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 The Stability-Plasticity Dilemma ......................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Biological Substrates of Stability-Plasticity: The Brain........................................ 1
1.1.3 Forgetting, Behavioural Flexibility, and Generalization ....................................... 2
1.2 Perineuronal Nets ........................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Perineuronal Net Composition ............................................................................. 3
1.2.2 Tools to Manipulate Perineuronal Nets ................................................................ 4
1.2.3 The Function of Perineuronal Nets ...................................................................... 4
1.2.4 Perineuronal Nets and the Excitation: Inhibition Balance .................................... 9
1.2.5 Perineuronal Nets and Disorders.........................................................................11
1.3 Hippocampus .................................................................................................................11
1.3.1 Memory Function ...............................................................................................12
1.3.2 The Trisynaptic Loop .........................................................................................13
1.4 Engram ..........................................................................................................................14
1.4.1 Observational Studies .........................................................................................14
1.4.2 Loss-of-Function and Gain-of-Function Studies .................................................15
1.5 Summary and Research Questions .................................................................................15
1.5.1 Summary Points .................................................................................................15
1.5.2 Research Questions ............................................................................................16
Chapter 2 Methods ....................................................................................................................17
v
Methods ................................................................................................................................17
2.1 Animals .........................................................................................................................17
2.2 Stereotaxic Surgeries .....................................................................................................17
2.3 Behavioural Assays........................................................................................................17
2.3.1 Water Maze ........................................................................................................17
2.3.2 Contextual Fear Conditioning .............................................................................18
2.4 Histology .......................................................................................................................19
2.4.1 Tissue Preparation ..............................................................................................19
2.4.2 Immunohistochemistry .......................................................................................19
2.4.3 Imaging and Analysis .........................................................................................20
2.5 Engram Experiment .......................................................................................................20
2.5.1 Mice ...................................................................................................................20
2.5.2 Contextual Fear Conditioning .............................................................................20
2.5.3 Immunohistochemistry .......................................................................................21
2.5.4 Imaging and Analysis .........................................................................................21
2.6 Statistical Analysis.........................................................................................................21
Chapter 3 Results ......................................................................................................................22
Results ..................................................................................................................................22
3.1 Histology .......................................................................................................................22
3.2 Behavioural Flexibility ..................................................................................................24
3.3 Generalization................................................................................................................26
3.4 ArcTRAP.......................................................................................................................28
Chapter 4 Discussion .................................................................................................................30
Discussion ............................................................................................................................30
4.1 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................30
4.1.1 Behavioural Effects ............................................................................................30
vi
4.1.2 Neural Representation Effects ............................................................................30
4.2 Model ............................................................................................................................31
4.2.1 Facilitated Extinction .........................................................................................31
4.2.2 Increased Behavioural Flexibility .......................................................................31
4.2.3 Increased Generalization ....................................................................................32
4.2.4 Overlap between Arc and cFos ...........................................................................32
4.3 Results Summary ...........................................................................................................32
4.4 Future Directions ...........................................................................................................33
4.5 Conclusion: Perineuronal Nets and the Stability-Plasticity Dilemma ..............................34
References .................................................................................................................................36
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Histological examination of perineuronal net density in the hippocampal CA1 region.
Figure 2 Perineuronal net disruption in CA1 is associated with faster reversal water maze
learning.
Figure 3 Perineuronal net disruption in CA1 is associated with enhanced contextual fear
generalization.
Figure 4 Histological examination of ArcTRAP and cFos cell densities in CA1 at the encoding
and retrieval of a contextual fear memory.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Behavioural Framework
1.1.1 The Stability-Plasticity Dilemma
An information processing system requires plasticity, in order to integrate incoming information,
and stability, in order to store the acquired information. However, too much plasticity is
predicted to result in catastrophic forgetting, or forgetting of previously acquired information,
and too much stability is expected to result in the entrenchment effect, or saturation in the ability
to acquire new information. These constraints on the system’s ability to process information (or
learn) describe the stability-plasticity dilemma (Mermillod, Bugaiska, & Bonin, 2013). An
information processing system requires a balance between stability and plasticity in order to
optimize learning.
1.1.2 Biological Substrates of Stability-Plasticity: The Brain
The brain is a biological information processing system that is constrained by stability and
plasticity. This stability-plasticity balance is represented by neural circuit dynamics. Plasticity is
the change in neural connection strengths, through which information is thought to be acquired.
Stability is the maintenance of these neural connections, through which information is
presumably stored (Abraham & Robins, 2005). For example, auditory fear conditioning is
associated with the strengthening of synapses in the amygdala (Rogan, Staubli, & LeDoux,
1997), and preventing this strengthening prior to training blocks fear memory acquisition
(Fanselow & Kim, 1994). Interference with stably formed synapses, either through a weakening
of synapse strength resulting from long-term depression (Nabavi et al., 2014) or through a
reduction in spine size (Hayashi-Takagi et al., 2015), is associated with deficits in fear and motor
memory expression, respectively. These data support the idea that neural circuit plasticity is
required for memory acquisition and neural circuit stability is necessary for memory
maintenance.
2
1.1.3 Forgetting, Behavioural Flexibility, and Generalization
The interaction between stability and plasticity can allow for forgetting, behavioural flexibility,
and generalization (Richards & Frankland, 2017). Specifically, stability of a specific network of
neurons is associated with memory persistence. Plasticity within this network can result in (1)
erasure of the stored memory, (2) updating of that memory, or (3) generalization of the memory.
1.1.3.1 Memory Erasure
Circuit remodeling, or plasticity, can facilitate forgetting of previously acquired memories. For
example, increasing neurogenesis in the hippocampus through exercise after contextual fear
conditioning, but not before, is associated with impaired contextual fear memory expression,
indicative of forgetting (Akers et al., 2014). Blocking exercise-mediated increases in
neurogenesis abolishes this effect (Akers et al., 2014). Plasticity may therefore facilitate
forgetting through retrieval errors or changes in the original memory expression.
1.1.3.2 Memory Updating
Plasticity is also associated with increased behavioural flexibility. This flexibility is
demonstrated by the ability to form novel associations between cues. For example, exposure to
an enriching environment results in faster acquisition of a new platform location in the Morris
Water maze task (Garthe, Roeder, & Kempermann, 2016). In other words, the original platform
location was readily updated to the new platform location, exhibiting flexible behaviour instead
of persistent behaviour, which in this context would have been maladaptive. Blocking
neurogenesis in these animals, however, abolished the increased flexible learning of the new
platform location (Garthe et al., 2016). These results suggest that increased plasticity may be
associated with increased behavioural flexibility.
1.1.3.3 Memory Generalization
Behavioural outputs acquired and attributed to a specific situation can be generalized to a novel
situation. The more similar two cues are, the more likely an animal is to demonstrate
generalization of a behaviour that was acquired in response to only one of the two cues (Resnik
& Paz, 2015). Plasticity may facilitate generalization. For example, increasing variability in
connection weights in artificial neural networks facilitates generalization (Hinton & van Camp,
1993; Richards & Frankland, 2017). This variability may represent plasticity. In contrast,
3
plasticity in the form of neurogenesis has been associated with increased behavioural
discrimination (Pistikova, Brozka, & Stuchlik, 2017). The differences in effect of plasticity on
generalization may depend on the timing of plasticity induction, where this plasticity occurs, the
nature of the behavioural task, and the basic circuit organization in which plasticity is being
induced. Nonetheless, whereas stability would predict a persistent specific expression of a
memory, plasticity may predict a variable expression of a memory under novel contexts.
1.2 Perineuronal Nets
Perineuronal nets appear to be key molecular regulators of this stability-plasticity balance in the
brain. This section will review what is known about perineuronal nets, their presumed function,
and how they can be used as a tool to manipulate the stability-plasticity balance in the brain.
1.2.1 Perineuronal Net Composition
Perineuronal nets are specialized extracellular matrix structures. They form net-like structures
around the soma and proximal dendrites of neurons and appear to delineate synapses onto the
neuronal surface (Celio & Blumcke, 1994; Celio, Spreafico, De Biasi, & Vitellaro-Zuccarello,
1998; Dzyubenko, Gottschling, & Faissner, 2016). They are composed of a mixture of
carbohydrates and proteins, synthesized by both glial cells and neurons (Volterra & Meldolesi,
2005). The components of perineuronal nets include:
(1) Hyaluronan: Hyaluronan is a linear polymer of disaccharides that forms the backbone of
perineuronal nets. Its presumed function is to anchor the rest of the perineuronal net
structure to the neuron through interactions with the hyaluronan synthase enzyme
expressed on the neuronal surface (Carulli, Rhodes, & Fawcett, 2007; Wang & Fawcett,
2012).
(2) Chondroitin-sulfate proteoglycans: Chondroitin-sulfate proteoglycans consist of a protein
core bound to chondroitin sulfates (carbohydrate groups). These proteoglycans interact
with other components of perineuronal nets, including hyaluronan, link proteins, and
tenascin-R. They have a presumed role as a scaffolding structure for other molecules.
Examples of chondroitin-sulfate proteoglycans include aggrecan, neurocan, versican, and
brevican (Wang & Fawcett, 2012).
(3) Link proteins: Link proteins are small proteins that include the cartilage link protein 1
and brain link protein 2. They function in linking the hyaluronan backbone to the
4
chondroitin-sulfate proteoglycans and contribute to the stability of perineuronal nets
(Carulli et al., 2007; Dzyubenko et al., 2016; Wang & Fawcett, 2012).
(4) Tenascin-R: Tenascin-R is a trimeric glycoprotein that is present in perineuronal nets and
can be found bound to chondroitin-sulfate proteoglycans (Wang & Fawcett, 2012).
1.2.2 Tools to Manipulate Perineuronal Nets
The function of perineuronal nets has been primarily examined through animal models in which
the aforementioned components were disrupted. These disruptions were made through the
production of genetic knockouts or through enzymatic degradation. For example, link protein
knockouts, such as that of cartilage link protein 1 (Romberg et al., 2013), chondroitin-sulfate
proteoglycan knockouts, such as that of aggrecan (Giamanco, Morawski, & Matthews, 2010),
and tenascin-R knockouts (Morellini et al., 2010) have been previously generated. Enzymatic
degradation of perineuronal nets has been achieved through infusions of chondroitinase ABC, a
bacterial enzyme that primarily degrades chondroitin-sulfate proteoglycans (but that may not be
highly specific) (Hylin, Orsi, Moore, & Dash, 2013; Pizzorusso et al., 2002; Romberg et al.,
2013), or hyaluronidase, which degrades the hyaluronan backbone of perineuronal nets (Hylin et
al., 2013). In addition to directly targeting perineuronal net components, one can manipulate
proteins involved in the regulation of perineuronal nets, such as hyaluronan synthases (which
anchor the nets to the cell surface) (Arranz et al., 2014) and matrix metalloproteases (which
degrade perineuronal nets) (Brew, Dinakarpandian, & Nagase, 2000).
1.2.3 The Function of Perineuronal Nets
Perineuronal nets have a hypothesized role in promoting stability within neural circuits. This
section will examine the different fields of evidence supporting this hypothesis.
1.2.3.1 Perineuronal Nets Over Time
The development of perineuronal nets appears to coincide with the closure of early
developmental critical periods. For example, in the central auditory system, perineuronal nets
develop gradually from the brainstem to the cortex, up until the sixth postnatal week in the
auditory cortex of rats. This development occurs after the onset of acoustically-evoked signal
processing within the cortex at postnatal day 12 (Sonntag, Blosa, Schmidt, Rubsamen, &
Morawski, 2015). In the visual system, perineuronal net development has been shown to
5
coincide with the closure of the visual critical period, in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus of
the thalamus in cats (Hockfield, Kalb, Zaremba, & Fryer, 1990), and in the visual cortex of rats
and mice (Pizzorusso et al., 2002; Ye & Miao, 2013). Moreover, sensory deprivation can delay
the development of perineuronal nets. This has been shown in dark-reared cats and mice
(Hockfield et al., 1990; Ye & Miao, 2013) and in deaf rats (Myers, Ray, & Kulesza, 2012).
These results suggest that experience-dependent activity may contribute to the development of
perineuronal nets and that this development coincides with the closure of critical periods in
different systems.
1.2.3.2 Perineuronal Nets Over Space
An examination of the distribution of perineuronal nets across brain regions suggests that these
structures are denser in primary sensory and motor cortices than in higher order associative
cortices (Hylin et al., 2013). Histological analyses reveal increased perineuronal net staining in
layers IV and VI of the somatosensory, auditory, and visual cortices of gerbils and rats (in
addition to the retrosplenial cortex, prepiriform cortex, and hippocampal CA3 region) (Bruckner
et al., 1994). In macaque monkeys, the distribution of perineuronal nets is greater in layer III and
V of the somatosensory and motor regions, but diffuse in the prefrontal regions and cingulate
cortex across the cortical layers (McGuire, Hockfield, & Goldman-Rakic, 1989). Therefore,
perineuronal net distribution varies across cortical layers and between brain regions. This
distribution appears to roughly correlate with regions associated with higher circuit stability
(Hylin et al., 2013).
1.2.3.3 Perineuronal Nets and Manipulative Experiments
1.2.3.3.1 Perineuronal Nets Promote Stability in the Brain
To further investigate the function of perineuronal nets, experimental studies have been
performed that support a role for perineuronal nets in mediating the balance between stability
and plasticity in the brain.
Pizzorusso et al., (2002) have shown that the enzymatic degradation of perineuronal nets in the
visual cortex of adult rats reopens the critical period for visual cortical plasticity. In these rats,
normal ocular dominance column patterning within the visual cortex can be restored following
monocular deprivation. In contrast, rats with intact perineuronal net development exhibited
6
altered ocular dominance column patterning following monocular deprivation. This pioneering
work demonstrated that perineuronal nets promote stability within circuits. Degradation of
perineuronal nets reinstates plasticity in circuits to levels measurable to that during early
developmental critical periods.
Perineuronal nets have additionally been examined under the context of axonal regeneration. In
this study, Alilain et al., (2011) observed an upregulation of perineuronal nets surrounding
phrenic motor neurons following cervical spinal cord injury. Degradation of these nets facilitated
extensive axonal regeneration. These results emphasize the inhibitory influence of perineuronal
nets on plasticity, under the context of injured tissue.
1.2.3.3.2 Perineuronal Nets in Forgetting, Behavioural Flexibility, and Generalization
This section will examine the behavioural effects of perineuronal net manipulations under the
context of forgetting, flexibility, and generalization.
Perineuronal Nets in Forgetting
1.2.3.3.2.1.1 Acquisition versus Forgetting Based Impairments
Several experiments have been performed in which perineuronal net disruption was associated
with impaired behavioural task performance. Tenascin-C knockout mice are impaired in the
one-trial learning step-down avoidance task (Strekalova et al., 2002). In this task, mice were
trained to not step down from a platform in order to avoid receiving an electric footshock.
Tenascin-C mice would more quickly step down than control mice during the recall session.
Perineuronal net disruption in the hippocampus has also been shown to be associated with
impaired contextual fear conditioning. This has been shown through enzymatic degradation of
perineuronal nets using hyaluronidase, or chondroitinase ABC and hyaluronidase in the
hippocampi of mice and rats, respectively (Hylin et al., 2013; Kochlamazashvili et al., 2010).
Hippocampal perineuronal net disruption has also been associated with impaired auditory fear
memory expression acquired under the trace but not delayed paradigm; whereas medial
prefrontal cortical perineuronal net disruption has been associated with impaired auditory fear
memory expression acquired under both trace and delayed paradigms (Hylin et al., 2013). In
contrast to these studies, one study showed that tenascin-R knockout mice exhibit no deficits in
7
contextual fear conditioning (Morellini et al., 2010). Differences in contextual fear conditioning
effects may arise from the different mechanisms by which perineuronal nets were disrupted
(enzymatic versus genetic manipulations of specific components), the regions in which they were
disrupted (global versus specific), and the training conditions and experimental timeline.
These results suggest that increasing plasticity by perineuronal net disruption during task
acquisition impairs task performance. However, it remains to be seen whether disrupting
perineuronal nets post-task acquisition might also lead to behavioural defects. Such experiments
would allow us to distinguish whether perineuronal net mediated alterations in circuit
stability/plasticity occur through impairments in learning (i.e. perineuronal nets are disrupted
during task acquisition) and/or through impairments in forgetting (i.e. perineuronal nets are
disrupted post-task acquisition).
1.2.3.3.2.1.2 Erasure of a Memory Achieved through Extinction Learning
Perineuronal net disruption has been associated with erasure of memories following extinction
learning. For example, Gogolla et al., (2009) demonstrated that removal of perineuronal nets in
the amygdala of mice using chondroitinase ABC prior to auditory fear conditioning was
associated with facilitated extinction learning and reduced reinstatement of the fear memory,
suggestive of memory erasure. However, these effects were not observed when perineuronal nets
were disrupted after contextual fear training.
Similarly, perineuronal net disruptions using chondroitinase ABC in the amygdala of rats is
associated with reduced reinstatement of morphine-induced conditioned place preference
following extinction training, or of heroin and cocaine seeking behaviour (Xue et al., 2014).
Therefore, extinction learning following perineuronal net disruption promotes memory erasure,
observed under auditory fear conditioning and drug-based conditioned place preference
paradigms.
Perineuronal Nets in Behavioural Flexibility
The degradation of perineuronal nets has been associated with increased behavioural flexibility,
as measured by facilitated reversal learning of different cue associations. For example, tenascin-
R knockout mice are faster at acquiring the new location of a hidden platform in a spatial water-
8
maze task, suggesting flexibility in updating of the original platform location (Morellini et al.,
2010). Tenascin-R knockout mice also demonstrate rapid learning of an odor reward association
task, in which odor-reward associations were reversed (Morellini et al., 2010). Therefore,
perineuronal net disruption promotes behavioural flexibility.
Perineuronal Nets in Generalization
Conflicting results have been observed regarding the effects of perineuronal net disruption on
context discrimination. For example, in a novel object recognition task, brevican knockout mice
show similar preference levels in a spatial Y maze task between the familiar and novel arms of
the maze. In contrast, control mice exhibit a greater preference for the novel arm compared to the
familiar arm (Favuzzi et al., 2017). These results suggest that perineuronal net disruption is
associated with decreased context discrimination, or memory for the familiar arm (suggestive of
forgetting). In a different study, cartilage link protein 1 knockout mice and mice with
chondroitinase ABC mediated disruption of perineuronal nets in the perirhinal cortex show
enhanced object recognition memory (Romberg et al., 2013). That is, they spent a greater amount
of time with a novel object presented at test session than control mice. This result suggests that
perineuronal net disruption may in fact be associated with facilitated cue separation or better
retention of the familiar objects.
Differences between these two studies may arise from the method of perineuronal net
manipulation (the specific components that were knocked out and whether they were disrupted
enzymatically or genetically), the region of manipulation, and the type of task performed. For
example, whereas Favuzzi et al., (2017) used a spatial Y maze task, Romberg et al., (2013) used
objects to test for novelty preference. Presumably, the arms of the Y maze task are more similar
and constitute the only two options compared to the object task, in which very different objects
and multiple objects were presented. The more similar two cues, such as the arms of the maze
compared to the objects, the more likely one is to observe diminished discrimination between
cues (Resnik & Paz, 2015).
Decreased novelty preference, however, would support the predicted effects of enhanced
generalization following perineuronal net disruption (given increased plasticity). This is based on
the fact that generalization and novelty preference rely on discrimination between cues.
9
1.2.3.4 Perineuronal Nets and Behavioural Summary
To summarize, observational studies demonstrate that perineuronal net development coincides
with the closure of critical periods and that the distribution of perineuronal nets appears to be
denser in regions associated with greater stability. Experimental studies demonstrate that
perineuronal net disruption is able to reinstate plasticity, and is associated with enhanced
forgetting, behavioural flexibility, and possibly generalization.
1.2.4 Perineuronal Nets and the Excitation: Inhibition Balance
This section will review the possible mechanisms by which perineuronal nets might modulate the
stability-plasticity balance in the brain, including through influences on the excitation-inhibition
balance within circuits and additional molecular mechanisms.
1.2.4.1 Perineuronal Nets and Parvalbumin Cells
Perineuronal nets have been found to generally surround GABAergic parvalbumin-expressing
cells (Bruckner et al., 1994; Hartig, Brauer, & Bruckner, 1992). These are fast-spiking cells that
receive convergent inputs primarily from excitatory principal cells, producing broad tuning
curves to stimuli (Hu, Gan, & Jonas, 2014). In turn, parvalbumin-positive cells have highly
divergent inhibitory projections. These projections can participate in feedforward or feedback
inhibition. The latter form enables inhibition of surrounding cell activity, employing a “winner-
take-all” mechanism (Hu et al., 2014). This function may facilitate, for example, pattern
separation (Hu et al., 2014).
Perineuronal nets have been shown to enhance the excitability of parvalbumin-expressing cells.
Degradation of perineuronal nets is associated with reduced firing rates of parvalbumin-positive
cortical neurons (Balmer, 2016).
Interestingly, monocular deprivation has been shown to inhibit parvalbumin-positive cell activity
(Hu et al., 2014) and transplantation of embryonic parvalbumin-positive cells is able to reinstate
cortical plasticity to allow for proper ocular dominance column patterning (Tang, Stryker,
Alvarez-Buylla, & Espinosa, 2014). These effects parallel those effects observed with
perineuronal net manipulations: monocular deprivation delays perineuronal net development
(Hockfield et al., 1990) and perineuronal net disruption reinstates visual cortical plasticity for
10
ocular dominance column patterning even after the closure of the endogenous critical period
(Pizzorusso et al., 2002). (Presumably, the firing activity patterns between embryonic
parvalbumin-positive cells and mature parvalbumin-positive cells without perineuronal nets are
similar, yielding the same effects on cortical plasticity.) In addition, the distribution of
parvalbumin positive cells with perineuronal nets changes with learning. For example, in the
HVC nucleus of zebrafinches, the percentage of parvalbumin positive cells surrounded by
perineuronal nets was correlated to song maturity (Balmer, Carels, Frisch, & Nick, 2009).
Together, these results suggest that perineuronal nets and parvalbumin expressing interneurons
are tightly coupled in expression and functional effects.
Perineuronal nets have also been observed surrounding other cell types, although to a much
lesser extent. These cell types include: glutamatergic pyramidal cells of the neocortex (Alpar,
Gartner, Hartig, & Bruckner, 2006), cholinergic principal cells of the oculomotor nucleus
(Morawski, Bruckner, Jager, Seeger, & Arendt, 2010), aspartergic neurons of the deep cerebellar
nuclei (Kumoi, Saito, Kuno, & Tanaka, 1988), and glycinergic neurons of the medial nucleus of
the trapezoid body (Balmer, 2016). Perineuronal net associations with these cell types have also
been implicated in learning and memory processes. For example, excitatory neurons in the
amygdala surrounded by perineuronal nets were preferentially recruited to an auditory fear
memory, as suggested by an increased overlap in labeling with the cFos activity marker
(Morikawa, Ikegaya, Narita, & Tamura, 2017).
1.2.4.2 The Molecular Mechanisms of Action of Perineuronal Nets
There are several mechanisms by which perineuronal nets may interact with the neurons they
surround. These include:
(1) Regulation of the distribution of glutamate receptors. Perineuronal nets limit the lateral
diffusion of AMPA receptors. Removal of perineuronal nets is associated with increased
extrasynaptic receptor diffusion, AMPA receptor exchange, and an increased paired-
pulse ratio (Frischknecht et al., 2009; McRae & Porter, 2012).
(2) Influence on long-term synaptic plasticity. For example, synapses from CA3 in the CA2
stratum radiatum of the hippocampus are resistant to long-term potentiation induction.
The removal of perineuronal nets around these excitatory pyramidal neurons facilitates
long-term potentiation induction (Carstens, Phillips, Pozzo-Miller, Weinberg, & Dudek,
11
2016). In contrast, perineuronal net removal in the hippocampal CA1 region was
associated with a decrease in long-term potentiation (Bukalo, Schachner, & Dityatev,
2001).
(3) A presumed function in ion buffering, based on its polyanionic structure (Brückner
(Bruckner et al., 1994; Morawski et al., 2010; Morawski et al., 2015).
(4) Protection from oxidative stress (Morawski, Bruckner, Riederer, Bruckner, & Arendt,
2004).
(5) Possible interactions with the cytoskeleton (Celio et al., 1998).
1.2.5 Perineuronal Nets and Disorders
Perineuronal nets have been implicated in epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease, and schizophrenia.
Interestingly, altered parvalbumin activities have also been associated with epilepsy, Alzheimer’s
disease, and schizophrenia, in addition to depression and autism (Hu et al., 2014). In epilepsy,
mutations in certain extracellular matrix components and changes in the expression of certain
components have been associated with epilepsy. For example, a decrease in the expression of
proteoglycan link protein 1, hyaluronan synthase 3, and aggrecan has been observed in epileptic
prone tissue (Soleman, Filippov, Dityatev, & Fawcett, 2013). Alzheimer’s disease has in turn
been associated with an increase in perineuronal net expression (Vegh et al., 2014). Degradation
of these structures reversed the early memory deficits observed in an Alzheimer’s mouse model
(Vegh et al., 2014). In schizophrenic patients, decreases in perineuronal net expression have been
observed in the amygdala, entorhinal cortex, and prefrontal cortex (Berretta, Pantazopoulos,
Markota, Brown, & Batzianouli, 2015). Together, these data emphasize the relevance of
perineuronal nets in maintaining proper physiological function.
1.3 Hippocampus
The hippocampus is a seahorse shaped structure found in the medial temporal lobes of humans,
and a cashew shaped structure found below the neocortex in rodents (Knierim, 2015). It receives
cortical inputs through the entorhinal cortex, which projects into the dentate gyrus, which in turn
projects to the CA3 region, followed by the CA1 region, which outputs through the entorhinal
cortex. This simplified circuit defines the trisynaptic loop (Knierim, 2015). This circuit has been
extensively studied in its role in spatial memory processing. This section will briefly review the
12
three regions of the trisynaptic loop and their associated functions, with an emphasis on the
hippocampal CA1 region and its contributions to memory.
1.3.1 Memory Function
The hippocampus is thought to function in the encoding of episodic memories, and in the
retrieval of recent memories (Knierim, 2015). Insights into the hippocampal function in memory
processing arise from human and animal lesion studies, and neurophysiological studies. For
example, patient H.M. exhibited deficits in the formation of new declarative memories
(anterograde amnesia) but not in the formation of new procedural memories, and could retrieve
temporally-remote memories but not temporally-recent memories (temporally-graded retrograde
amnesia) (Squire, 2009). These effects were observed following a surgical procedure to remove
epileptogenic tissue, which in this case included the hippocampus within bilateral medial
temporal lobe lesions (Squire, 2009). Animal studies have corroborated a role for the
hippocampus in the formation of spatial memories. These animal studies often examine spatial
learning through tasks such as the Morris water maze, radial arm maze, and contextual fear
conditioning (Knierim, 2015). These lesion studies suggest that the hippocampus functions in
contextual memory processing.
The identification of long-term potentiation, and of space and time cells in the hippocampus,
further support a role for the hippocampus in the translation of experiences into memories.
Although not exclusive to the hippocampus, synaptic strengthening through long-term
potentiation was first identified in perforant projections to the dentate gyrus (Bliss & Lomo,
1973). Classic long-term potentiation (that is NMDA-receptor dependent) is presumed to be the
neurobiological basis by which memories are formed. This is because long-term potentiation is
persistent, input (synapse) specific, associative, and cooperative (Malenka, 2003). Memories
parallel these same properties. They are persistent, they are distinguished via specific sets of
information (input specificity), different sources of information can be associated, and
insignificant information is forgotten (non-cooperative input). Therefore, long-term potentiation
is thought to equal memory (Stevens, 1998), and the presence of synaptic plasticity in the
hippocampus provides a mechanism by which memories can be formed in the hippocampus. The
presence of space and time cells suggests that these memories would be of a contextual basis.
Place cells are cells that fire exclusively to a specific location in an environment (Knierim,
13
2015). Time cells are cells that fire when a specific amount of time has passed (Eichenbaum,
2014). The same neurons can encode a place or a time (Eichenbaum, 2014). These neurons
include granule cells of the dentate gyrus, and pyramidal cells of the CA1, CA2, and CA3 areas
(Knierim, 2015). Neurophysiological data provide a basis by which the hippocampus may
function in translating experiences, defined by space and time, into memories through synaptic
plasticity.
1.3.2 The Trisynaptic Loop
1.3.2.1 Dentate Gyrus
The dentate gyrus is the input structure of the hippocampus (within the trisynaptic loop). The
dentate gyrus has a presumed function in pattern separation. The dentate gyrus circuitry is
distinct in that it is characterized by an extensive number of granule cells (Amaral, Scharfman, &
Lavenex, 2007), and by the presence of neurogenesis (Drew, Fusi, & Hen, 2013). These
characteristics, in addition to the firing activity patterns of the cells, is thought to facilitate the
function of pattern separation, wherein similar experiences can be distinguished through sparse
coding in the circuit (orthogonalization of similar inputs).
1.3.2.2 CA3
Projections from the dentate gyrus arrive at the CA3 region, which is characterized by an auto-
associative network formed by multiple recurrent collaterals (Drew et al., 2013). This circuit is
thought to facilitate the function of pattern completion, wherein a cue is able to reactivate an
encoded memory pattern and that allows for different cues to associate and activate an encoded
memory pattern (Rolls, 2013).
1.3.2.3 CA1
The CA1 outputs from the hippocampus. Studies have been performed to dissociate the role of
the CA1 region in memory processing from that of the CA3 region and the dentate gyrus. For
example, whereas both the CA1 and CA3 areas appear necessary for the context dependent
extinction of an auditory conditioned fear memory, CA1 is required for the retrieval of this
context dependency (Ji & Maren, 2008). The CA1 region may also play an important role in the
encoding of memories with a temporal component, including the encoding of temporally distant
events, the encoding of temporally distant events at long intervals, and temporal pattern
14
separation (Rolls & Kesner, 2006). For example, knocking out NMDA receptors in the
hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells is associated with impaired auditory fear memory acquired
under the trace (time delay between conditioned stimulus and unconditioned stimulus)
conditioning paradigm but not delayed (no delay between conditioned stimulus and
unconditioned stimulus) (Huerta, Sun, Wilson, & Tonegawa, 2000). Similarly, in a trial-unique
odor pair conditioning task, CA1 lesions impaired the association of odor pairs when the delay
between the presentations of these odors was long, whereas CA3 lesions led to impairments at
brief interval delays (Farovik, Dupont, & Eichenbaum, 2010). In addition to the role of
associating temporally separate events, the CA1 functions in temporal pattern separation. Gilbert,
Kesner, and Lee (2001) demonstrate that rats with lesions to the CA1 area are impaired in their
ability to recall the earliest arm visited in a radial arm maze (Gilbert, Kesner, & Lee, 2001).
1.4 Engram
The term engram was coined by Richard Semon to refer to a persistent physical change in the
brain that encodes a memory (Tonegawa, Liu, Ramirez, & Redondo, 2015). Engram cells are
thus a population of cells that are activated during learning, undergo changes as a consequence of
this learning, and can be reactivated to recall the memory formed as a product of learning
(Tonegawa et al., 2015). Presumably, this population of engram cells form a neuronal ensemble
through (Hebbian) synaptic plasticity (Tonegawa et al., 2015).
There are three basic methods applied to identifying an engram: observational approach, loss-of-
function approach, and gain-of-function approach (Tonegawa et al., 2015).
1.4.1 Observational Studies
Observational studies can be used to identify cells that are active during a learning episode. For
example, cells active during a learning episode can be tagged by labelling immediate early genes,
such as cFos and Arc. These genes are expressed following sufficient activation of a neuron
(Guzowski et al., 2005). Another form of observational study that can be used to assess whether
the cells that were activated during learning underwent cellular changes as a consequence of this
learning include electrophysiological and imaging studies. For example, one can examine
whether cells have undergone changes in synaptic strength using in vivo electrophysiology
(Nabavi et al., 2014), or changes in spine dynamics using in vivo imaging of spine dynamics
15
(Holtmaat, Wilbrecht, Knott, Welker, & Svoboda, 2006). Finally, observational studies can be
used to examine whether cells active during retrieval of a memory overlap with those cells active
during learning. For example, Reijmers et al., (2007) used TetTag transgenic mice to label cells
active during learning through induced LAC expression, and immunohistochemistry to label
cells active during retrieval by staining for ZIF, an immediate early gene. Overlap between LAC
(learning) and ZIF (retrieval) was then examined.
1.4.2 Loss-of-Function and Gain-of-Function Studies
Cells tagged during learning can further be manipulated in loss-of-function or gain-of-function
studies. This describes the tag-and-manipulate strategy (Josselyn, Kohler, & Frankland, 2015).
For example, TetTag and TRAP transgenic animals can be used to label cells active during a
learning episode, and these labelled cells can be induced to express various effectors, such as
opsins or DREADDs. Inhibition of these cells or activation of these cells through these effector
molecules has been associated with deficits in memory expression, and expression of the
memory, respectively (Josselyn et al., 2015).
Therefore, engram cells can be identified through observational studies, and tagged and
manipulated to examine the behavioural effects of presumed engram cell manipulation.
1.5 Summary and Research Questions
1.5.1 Summary Points
Balance between stability and plasticity determines optimal learning. Too much plasticity
is associated with forgetting. Too much stability is associated with a limited learning
capacity.
The interaction between stability and plasticity may result in memory erasure, memory
updating (flexibility), or memory generalization.
Perineuronal nets appear to promote stability within circuits.
The hippocampus plays an important role in the processing of contextual memories.
Engrams are memory traces.
16
1.5.2 Research Questions
Our research project wanted to investigate the effects of shifting the stability-plasticity balance in
the brain on learning and memory. This shift was achieved by manipulating the levels of
perineuronal nets in the brain. Specifically, we enzymatically degraded perineuronal nets using
chondroitinase ABC, which degrades chondroitin-sulfate proteoglycans, a primary component of
perineuronal nets. These manipulations were performed in the hippocampal CA1 region,
associated with contextual memory processing. We additionally examined how memory
representations were altered following perineuronal net disruptions.
The following are points that were addressed in this research project:
What is the effect of increasing plasticity, through perineuronal net disruption, in the
hippocampal CA1 region on learning and memory?
o Does perineuronal net disruption facilitate contextual fear memory erasure?
o Does perineuronal net disruption promote behavioural flexibility of a contextual
memory?
o Does perineuronal net disruption facilitate contextual fear memory
generalization?
How do interactions between perineuronal nets and parvalbumin-positive cells translate
to the observed behavioural effects?
o How are engram properties influenced by perineuronal net disruption in the
hippocampal CA1 region?
By addressing these research questions, we establish a (speculative) model that explains how
perineuronal net disruptions cause alterations in engram representations that lead to the observed
behavioural effects.
17
Chapter 2 Methods
Methods
2.1 Animals
129SvEV x C57BL6/N F1 hybrid male and female mice of at least 8 weeks of age were used in
each experiment. These mice were housed in groups of 4 per cage, had continuous access to food
and water, and were exposed to a 12-hour light/dark cycle at the Lab Animal Services facility at
the Peter Gilgan Centre for Research and Learning.
2.2 Stereotaxic Surgeries
Mice were intraperitoneally injected with atropine sulfate (0.1 mg/kg) and chloral hydrate (400
mg/kg), before being placed in a stereotaxic frame. Once placed, the skull was exposed and holes
were drilled at the hippocampal CA1 coordinates (AP: -1.8 mm, ML: ±1.5mm, DV: -1.5mm
from bregma). Penicillinase or chondroitinase ABC was infused bilaterally into the CA1 through
glass micropipettes. A volume of 1µl at a rate of 0.1µl/min was infused, followed by a 10min
wait period to ensure full transfer before removing the pipette. Mice were subsequently
subcutaneously injected with 1ml of saline and either ketoprofen or Metacam (2mg/kg). Mice
were allowed to recover from surgeries for 3 days before behavioural testing.
2.3 Behavioural Assays
2.3.1 Water Maze
2.3.1.1 Apparatus
A large circular white tub was filled with water, adjusted to a temperature of approximately
26ºC, and with nontoxic white paint to render the water opaque. During training sessions, a small
circular platform was positioned in the pool as specified by the WaterMaze software, and
submerged by at least 5mm of water. The pool was encircled by a white curtain marked by red or
black shapes that could be used for spatial orientation. The room was dimly lit, with ventilation.
A camera was positioned directly above the pool that would track the mouse’s movements.
These tracked movements were analyzed using the WaterMaze software.
18
2.3.1.2 Habituation, Training, and Testing
Mice were handled for three consecutive days (2min/mouse) prior to water maze training. On
training and test days, mice were brought to the water maze room at least 1 hour before
commencement of the training or testing sessions. On training days, mice were trained to find the
location of the hidden platform. Each training day consisted of 2-blocks of 3-trials, with each
block separated by at least 1 hour. Each trial was at most 60 seconds long (the length of which
was determined by the time it took the mouse to reach the platform), followed by a 15 second
wait period during which the mouse waited on the platform before removal. There were 3
consecutive training days. The start position (or drop-off point) per trial was pseudorandomly
determined by the WaterMaze software from 4 possible locations (North, South, East, or West),
but was the same between mice. On test day, the platform was removed and mice were dropped-
off at the same start point between mice. Test day consisted of a single 60 second trial per
mouse.
2.3.1.3 Reversal Training
Before reversal training, forward training and testing took place as described above. In the
reversal training sessions, the platform location was moved to the opposite quadrant, as
determined by the WaterMaze software. Similar to forward training, mice underwent 2-blocks of
3 trials, with each block separated by at least 1 hour. Similar to forward training, these trials were
at most 60 seconds long, with a 15 second wait period when the mouse has reached the platform.
On the third consecutive day of reversal training, a test session was conducted as described
previously. At least an hour after this test session, the third reversal training session took place.
Two additional consecutive reversal training days took place before. After five consecutive
reversal training days, a second test session was conducted.
2.3.2 Contextual Fear Conditioning
2.3.2.1 Contextual Fear Training and Testing Apparatus
The contextual fear training and testing chamber consisted of a grid floor, two opposing
plexiglass walls, and two opposing aluminum walls. Below the grid floor was a tray that was
wiped with 70% EtOH, to provide the chamber with a distinct smell.
19
2.3.2.2 Novel Context Testing Apparatus
To produce a novel context, a white mat wiped with distilled water was placed above the grid
floor in the same chambers as above. A folded white board was additionally placed, such that
now the chamber appeared to have 3 walls forming a triangular context, with 2 white walls and 1
plexiglass wall.
2.3.2.3 Training and Testing
Mice were brought into a holding room at least 1 hour before contextual fear training and testing
sessions. On training day, mice were placed in the contextual fear conditioning chamber. Mice
were allowed to explore the chamber for 2 minutes, before 3 shock deliveries at 0.5mA separated
by 1 minute. After these 3 shock deliveries, mice were allowed to explore the chamber for an
additional minute before being retrieved. On test days, mice were placed in the contextual fear
training chamber or the novel context chamber for 5 minutes. The order in which either of these
testing chambers was presented was altered between mice. Mouse movements were tracked
using cameras mounted on top of the chambers. Freezing levels during training and testing
sessions were analyzed using FreezeFrame software.
2.4 Histology
2.4.1 Tissue Preparation
Mice were anaesthetized with chloral hydrate, prior to transcardial perfusion with 40mL of 0.1M
phosphate-buffered solution, followed by 40mL of 4% paraformaldehyde solution, at a rate of
13-15mL/min. Brains were removed and incubated overnight in 4% paraformaldehyde solution
in 4ºC. Brains were then coronally sectioned in 50µm thick slices using a vibratome. Slices were
stored in 0.1M phosphate-buffered solution with 0.05% sodium azide in 4ºC.
2.4.2 Immunohistochemistry
Slices were washed with 0.1M phosphate-buffered solution, followed by a 1 hour incubation in
blocking solution (4% goat serum and 0.5% Triton-X diluted in 0.1M phosphate-buffered
solution). The following primary antibodies were used: wisteria floribunda agglutinin to
visualize perineuronal nets and anti-parvalbumin. Primary antibodies were diluted in blocking
solution, and slices were incubated overnight with the primary antibodies in 4ºC. After primary
20
antibody incubation, slices were rinsed with 0.1% Triton-X diluted in 0.1M phosphate-buffered
solution, followed by a 2-hour secondary antibody incubation at room temperature. The
following secondary antibodies were used: streptavidin conjugated to Alexa Fluor 488 to
visualize perineuronal nets and goat anti-mouse conjugated to Alexa Fluor 568 to visualize
parvalbumin. Slices were counterstained with DAPI for 10 minutes at room temperature, rinsed
with 0.1M phosphate-buffered solution, and mounted on slides using PermaFluor mounting
medium (Thermo Scientific).
2.4.3 Imaging and Analysis
Slides were imaged using a laser confocal microscope (Zeiss LSM 710). Serial z-stack images
were obtained at 20x magnification. The number of perineuronal nets and parvalbumin positive
cells was manually quantified within a single plane.
2.5 Engram Experiment
2.5.1 Mice
For the engram experiment, ArcTRAP-TdTomato transgenic mice of a C57Bl6 background were
used (male and female, at least 8 weeks of age).
2.5.2 Contextual Fear Conditioning
Prior to contextual fear conditioning, these mice were handled for 3 consecutive days (2
min/day) and placed in a holding room for at least 6 hours. On training day, mice were brought
to the holding room 1 hour before fear training. Fear training was conducted as described
previously for wildtype mice, except that 0.7mA shocks were delivered since these mice are
poorer learners. Immediately after fear training, mice were intraperitoneally injected with 4-
hydrotamoxifen to induce expression of TdTomato in Arc expressing cells, and placed in the
holding room for 6 hours before returning them to the housing facility. 3 days after training,
these mice were tested for fear memory expression as described above. 90 minutes post testing,
mice were perfused and tissue was prepared for immunohistochemistry as descried previously in
order to label cFos expression.
21
2.5.3 Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemistry was conducted as described previously with some changes. First, the
following primary antibodies were used: wisteria floribunda agglutinin to visualize perineuronal
nets and anti-cFos. Second, the primary antibodies were incubated for 3 overnights in order to
optimize cFos labelling. Third, the following seconday antibodies were used: streptavidin
conjugated to Alexa Fluor 488 to visualize perineuronal nets and anti-rabbit conjugated to Alex
Fluor 647 to visualize cFos. Fourth, the secondary antibodies were incubated overnight to
optimize cFos labelling.
2.5.4 Imaging and Analysis
Slides were imaged as described previously, except that a single image plane was taken at 10x
magnification. Image conditions were identical for all slides. The number of perineuronal nets,
TdTomato expressing cells, and cFos expressing cells were quantified using a semi-automatic
method on ImageJ.
2.6 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). Normality
assumptions were validated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. One-way ANOVA (with post-
hoc Tukey HSD comparisons) was used to assess histological differences, two-way ANOVA
was used to assess generalization differences, and paired student’s t-test or Wilcoxon signed-
rank test was used in all other comparisons. Significance level was set to 0.05. Data are
expressed as mean ± standard error mean.
22
Chapter 3 Results
Results
3.1 Histology
To validate chABC mediated disruption of perineuronal nets in the hippocampal CA1 region, we
performed immunohistochemistry and quantified the number of perineuronal nets in the CA1
area at 3, 14, 28, and 56 days post-enzymatic infusion (FIG1A). One-way ANOVA analyses
reveal a statistically significant decrease in perineuronal net density at 3 days (2.91 ± 1.4
counts/mm2, n = 4 mice), 14 days (20.4 ± 3.3 counts/mm2, n = 4 mice), and 28 days (25.2 ± 3.2
counts/mm2, n = 3 mice) post-chABC infusion compared to control mice treated with PEN (38.2
± 2.3 counts/mm2, n = 4 mice), but not at 56 days (40.1 ± 3.7 counts/mm2, n = 2 mice) post-
chABC infusion, (F(4,12)=30.499, p<0.001), (FIG1B). Enzymatic disruption of perineuronal
nets using chABC was therefore effective, and was associated with a gradual recovery in
perineuronal net density over two months post-infusion. This recovery period is in line with data
observed in the perirhinal cortex, with approximately 50%, 70%, and full recovery at 2 weeks, 6
weeks, and 8 weeks post-chABC infusion, respectively (Romberg et al., 2013).
23
Figure 1 Histological perineuronal net quantification in the hippocampal CA1 region.
A. Examples of perineuronal nets stained with Wisteria floribunda agglutinin in the hippocampal
CA1 region of mice treated with PEN or chABC at 3, 14, 28, and 56 days post-treatment. B.
Quantifications of perineuronal net densities in counts/mm2. N=4 mice per condition, except
chABC-28d (3) and chABC-56d (2). Statistical comparisons to PEN-3d group, using One-Way
ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test.
24
3.2 Behavioural Flexibility
To examine the effects of perineuronal net disruption in the hippocampal CA1 region on
behavioural flexibility, mice were trained in a spatial water maze task (FIG2A). In this task,
mice had to locate a hidden platform in a pool of water using spatially guided cues. PEN and
chABC mice were able to acquire the location of the hidden platform equally well, as assessed
by the percent time spent within the target zone (PEN: 19.5 ± 2.7%, n = 10 mice; chABC: 21.8 ±
2.6%, n = 9 mice; t(17) = 0.624, p = 0.541) (FIG2B,C). However, when the platform was
relocated to the opposite quadrant, chABC mice displayed faster acquisition of this new platform
location compared to PEN mice, as assessed by the percent time spent within the new target zone
(PEN: 6.0 ± 1.4%; chABC: 12.9 ± 3.0%; t(17) = 0.107, p = 0.048) and the cumulative proximity
to the new platform location (PEN: 2719.1 ± 68.3 cm; chABC: 1991.8 ± 86.0 cm; t(17) = -6.687,
p<0.001) (FIG2B,C,D). With further reversal training, both groups of mice displayed similar
performance levels, as assessed by percent time spent within the new target zone (PEN: 16.9 ±
2.4%; chABC: 16.9 ± 3.4%; t(17) = -0.003, p = 0.998) and the cumulative proximity to the new
platform location (PEN: 1920.1 ± 125.1 cm; chABC: 1774.5 ± 115.6 cm; t(17) = -0.849, p =
0.408) (FIG2B,C,D). Together, these results demonstrate that perineuronal net disruption in
CA1 is associated with enhanced behavioural flexibility, as measured by facilitated reversal
learning of a new platform location in a spatial water maze task. These effects are supported by
previous data demonstrating faster water maze and odor associated reward reversal learning tasks
in tenascin-R knockout mice (Morellini et al., 2010).
25
Figure 2 chABC treated mice show facilitated water maze reversal learning
A. Schematic of spatial water maze training. B. Sample movement traces of a single PEN treated
mice (top) and a single chABC treated mice (bottom) in the water maze pool at forward probe,
reversal probe 1, and reversal probe 2. C. Percent time spent in each zone (target, left, right, and
opposite) quantified for the forward probe, reversal probe 1, and reversal probe 2. chABC mice
spend significantly more time within the new target zone compared to PEN mice at reversal
probe 1. D. Cumulative proximity to target measured for the reversal probe 1 and reversal probe
2. chABC mice are significantly closer to the new target platform location compared to PEN
mice at reversal probe 1. N=10 PEN, 9 chABC mice.
26
3.3 Generalization
To examine the effects of perineuronal net disruption on memory generalization, mice were
contextually fear conditioned and the specificity of the contextual fear memory was assessed by
comparing freezing levels between the training context and a novel context (FIG3A). In the
training context, two-way ANOVA analyses reveal no statistically significant difference in
freezing levels between PEN and chABC mice (F(1,27) = 1.740, p = 0.198), in the order of
training context presentation (F(1,27) = 0.006, p = 0.938), or in the interaction between the
mouse condition and order of context presentation (F(1, 27) = 0.311, p = 0.582) (FIG3B). In the
novel context, there is a significant effect of condition (F(1,27) = 6.785, p = 0.015), order of
context presentation (F(1,27) = 17.104, p<0.001), but no interaction effect (F(1, 27) = 0.186, p =
0.669) (FIG3C). This is associated with higher freezing levels in chABC treated mice (37.0 ±
5.1%, n = 15 mice) compared to PEN mice (22.1 ± 4.1%, n = 16 mice); and higher freezing
levels when the novel context is presented prior to the training context for both conditions
(training context before novel (PEN: 12.3 ± 3.4%, n = 8 mice; chABC: 23.8 ± 6.2%, n = 7 mice);
novel context before training (PEN: 31.8 ± 5.8%, n = 8 mice; chABC: 47.8 ± 5.4%, n = 8 mice))
(FIG3C). Together, the results suggest that chABC treatment in the CA1 region is associated
with enhanced contextual fear memory generalization (FIG3D).
27
28
Figure 3 chABC treated mice show enhanced generalization of a contextual fear memory
A. Schematic of contextual fear training and test sessions. B. Percent freezing in the training
context only. C. Percent freezing in the novel context only. chABC mice freeze more to PEN
mice in the novel context. D. Percent freezing in either the training or novel context, independent
of context order presentation. chABC mice freeze more within the novel context compared to
PEN mice. N= 16 PEN, 15 chABC mice.
3.4 ArcTRAP
To examine how perineuronal net disruption influences memory representation within CA1
circuits, we contextually fear conditioned mice and tagged active neurons at training and testing
sessions using ArcTRAP-TdTomato transgenic mice and cFos immunohistochemistry,
respectively (FIG4A,B). We found an increased but non-significant Arc-positive cell density in
the CA1 region at training in chABC mice (12.2 ± 3.0 counts/mm2, n = 7 mice) compared to
PEN mice (6.8 ± 1.2 counts/mm2, n = 8 mice), (t(13) = -1.768, p = 0.101) (FIG4C). In addition,
we found a significantly increased cFos-positive cell density at testing in chABC mice (9.8 ± 1.6
counts/mm2) compared to PEN mice (4.5 ± 0.9 counts/mm2), (t(13) = -3.024, p = 0.010)
(FIG4C). Behaviourally, both PEN and chABC ArcTRAP-TdTomato mice displayed similar
freezing levels during the test session (PEN: 30.0 ± 3.6%; chABC: 35.7 ± 8.0%; t(13) = -0.675, p
= 0.511) (FIG4D). Therefore, an increase in active CA1 cell population is observed at contextual
fear testing following perineuronal net disruption.
29
Figure 4 Perineuronal Net Disruption is Associated with Increased Active Cell Population
Counts
A. Schematic of ArcTRAP and cFos labeling in contextually fear conditioned mice. B. Sample
images of Arc-expression (red) and cFos-expression (purple), additionally immunostained for
perineuonal nets (green) and counterstained with DAPI (blue) in the hippocampal CA1 region of
PEN or chABC treated mice. C. Quantifications of perineuronal net density, Arc density, and
cFos density in counts/mm2. chABC mice show higher Arc-positive (non-significant) and cFos-
positive cells. D. Percent freezing levels at test between PEN and chABC mice. N=8 PEN, 7
chABC.
30
Chapter 4 Discussion
Discussion
4.1 Summary of Results
4.1.1 Behavioural Effects
We have shown that perineuronal net disruption in the hippocampal CA1 region is associated
with enhanced behavioural flexibility, as measured by faster water maze reversal learning, and
increased contextual fear memory generalization. These behavioural results are in line with
previous data showing faster water maze reversal learning in tenascin-R knockout mice
(Morellini et al., 2010), and decreased discrimination between a novel versus a familiar arm in a
spatial Y maze task in brevican knockout mice (Favuzzi et al., 2017). The novelty of our
behavioural results arises from the fact that we have shown hippocampal specific effects
achieved through chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan degradations (1. Hippocampal CA1 region
specific; 2. CSPG component specific). Combined, these results demonstrate the importance of
perineuronal nets in learning and memory, wherein disrupting these structures is associated with
increased behavioural flexibility and generalization.
4.1.2 Neural Representation Effects
We further attempted to identify how perineuronal net disruptions might translate to the observed
behavioural effects by examining neural representations of an experience (which has not been
done previously). To do this we had labelled different immediate early genes, Arc and cFos,
during contextual fear conditioning (Arc) and contextual fear memory testing (cFos). We had
predicted an increase in active cell density representing the contextual fear experience given that
(1) perineuronal net disruption is associated with decreased parvalbumin-positive cell activity
(Balmer, 2016) and (2) inhibition of parvalbumin-cells is associated with an increase in auditory
fear memory engram size in the lateral amygdala (though this altered engram size does not
correlate to freezing levels) (Morrison et al., 2016). Our results show a trend towards increased
Arc-positive cell density following perineuronal net disruption at training, and a statistically
significant increase in cFos-positive cell density at testing. Our inability to statistically capture a
significant increase in Arc expression may be due to the low counts (5-10 cell counts/mm2) or
31
due to the leakiness of Arc expression, which may influence the signal: noise ratio (Guenthner,
Miyamichi, Yang, Heller, & Luo, 2013). Alternatively, the differences in active cell density
count may reflect the differences in experiences Whereas Arc is capturing cells active at the
encoding of the contextual fear memory, cFos is labeling cells active at the retrieval of the
contextual fear memory. These differences may reveal differences in hippocampal CA1 function
between the encoding and retrieval of the memory (Ji & Maren, 2008), and differences in how
the CA1 circuit is activated between these two processes (Manns, Zilli, Ong, Hasselmo, &
Eichenbaum, 2007).
Given the observed increase in active cell density of a contextual fear memory, and the increased
reversal learning and generalization, how might these two observed effects be related?
4.2 Model
The suggested increase in Arc positive cell density and cFos positive cell density suggests an
increased neural representation of the memory. This larger active cell population may be more
likely to overlap with other engrams or more likely to undergo interference through reactivation,
resulting in altered behavioural expression.
4.2.1 Facilitated Extinction
An increased active cell population is more likely to include (or activate) cells belonging to the
original memory engram. An increased likelihood of activating this engram, and repeated
activation of this engram may facilitate memory extinction, as observed with an auditory fear
memory in amygdala (Gogolla et al., 2009) and contextual fear memory in the retrosplenial
cortex (data not shown).
4.2.2 Increased Behavioural Flexibility
An increased active cell population is likewise more likely to include (or activate) cells
belonging to the original engram, which opens up a labile period for updating of information
encoded in that engram. This means that novel or conflicting information, such as a change in the
location of a hidden platform in a spatial water maze, is more easily updated into the original
engram. This paradigm is similar to reconsolidation, where reexposure to a cue opens up a labile
period during which a memory can be updated (Lee, Nader, & Schiller, 2017). In contrast,
32
control mice may have two representations of say platform location, that of the old and that of
the novel, that may conflict with each other, resulting in slower acquisition of the new platform
location.
4.2.3 Increased Generalization
Increased active cell populations may also explain generalization, where a novel context may
contain features sufficient to activate the original engram resulting in fear memory expression in
the novel context. In our results, we observed an effect of order and of condition on freezing
levels within the novel context. The recency (temporal feature) of the event may explain
increased freezing levels, wherein chABC mice displayed even higher freezing levels than PEN
mice due to increased active cell populations during novel context presentation. chABC mice
still showed higher freezing levels when the novel context was presented after the training
context, supporting a contextual discrimination impairment or enhanced generalization.
4.2.4 Overlap between Arc and cFos
We mentioned how an increased active cell population at retrieval is more likely to include (or
activate) cells belonging to the original engram, resulting in the observed behavioural effects.
Presumably, this inclusion may be reflected in the Arc and cFos labelling experiments, where we
would predict an increase in overlap between the two labels in chABC treated mice compared to
the PEN treated mice. However, there was limited overlap (0-2 cells) within the CA1 region
between Arc and cFos and therefore this measure could not be compared between chABC and
PEN mice. An alternative explanation to this interference based mechanism is that the increased
active cell population at retrieval has a greater capacity to encode additional features, and/or may
overempower the original memory. Or, the original engram was unstable due to perineuronal net
disruption, and the new information may appear as novel. Further experimentation is required to
better understand how perineuronal net disruption may translate mechanistically to observed
behavioural effects (elaborated in Future Directions section).
4.3 Results Summary
To summarize, we observed an increase in active cell population of a memory that was
associated with increased behavioural flexibility and generalization. The novelty of our results is
a demonstration of a hippocampal CA1 specific effect through CSPG component degradation
33
specific effect on behavioural flexibility and generalization, and a first attempt at examining
neural representations of an experience in a circuit state with disrupted perineuronal nets.
4.4 Future Directions
We have demonstrated the behavioural effects of perineuronal net disruption. It would be of
interest to further investigate:
1. The behavioural effects of increasing perineuronal net density. This could be done by
increasing activity of the genetic programs relevant to perineuronal net synthesis (ex. the
synthesis of hyaluronan synthase) or by inhibiting degradation of perineuronal nets (ex.
by infusing tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases) (Brew et al., 2000; Wang & Fawcett,
2012). This increase in perineuronal net density can be performed prior to the
endogenous development of perineuronal nets, thereby presumably enclosing the critical
period at an earlier time, or in a region with normally low levels of perineuronal nets.
This would allow us to bidirectionally examine the effects of perineuronal net
manipulations, thereby providing a clearer picture of its function.
2. The effects of perineuronal net disruption within different regions of the hippocampal
region. This may be of interest given that the endogenous perineuronal net density largely
differs between these regions, with particularly high expression in the CA3 region
compared to the CA1 (Bruckner et al., 1994). Differential effects of perineuronal net
disruption in regions differentially expressing these structures may allow us to identify
(1) why certain regions express perineuronal nets moreso than others and (2) how these
structures influence computations within circuits between regions that translate to
behavioural effects.
3. To further investigate how perineuronal nets influence circuit activity patterns, it may be
of interest to perform calcium imaging experiments. This provides a spatially and
temporally dynamic in vivo approach to examining circuit activity patterns, compared to
the histology based assessments performed in this study.
4. Parvalbumin-positive cells and perineuronal nets are tightly coupled in their expression
patterns, and may have similar behavioural effects. How then do these two features
dynamically interact with each other during a learning episode? For example, contextual
fear conditioning causes an increase in parvalbumin expression, and this increase is
associated with impaired object recognition memory (Allen & Monyer, 2013; Donato,
34
Rompani, & Caroni, 2013). How does altered parvalbumin expression (possibly)
influence perineuronal net expression (or vice-versa) and in turn result in changes in
circuit activity patterns to result in the observed behavioural effects.
5. An important question of interest is how perineuronal net expression is modulated
endogenously. One may presume that in an error prone environment, perineuronal net
synthesis may decrease. In contrast, in a highly stable environment, perineuronal net
synthesis may increase. This idea may be supported by the fact that delaying visual inputs
can delay the development of perineuronal nets, thereby delaying the closure of the
critical period (Hockfield et al., 1990; Ye & Miao, 2013). In regards to learning and
memory in the hippocampus, this relationship between error-prone versus stable
environment on perineuronal net development may be investigated in the following
manner. For example, a mouse that is constantly subjugated to an error prone
environment, such as through water maze learning where the platform would be
continuously changed, might see an active decrease in perineuronal net density.
4.5 Conclusion: Perineuronal Nets and the Stability-Plasticity Dilemma
Perineuronal nets are considered an important stability factor. Perineuronal net disruption in the
hippocampal CA1 region was associated with enhanced behavioural flexibility and
generalization, and an increased active cell population . This balance between stability and
plasticity is critical to our ability to learn. Whereas stability may be advantageous in stable
environments, allowing for the persistence of originally formed memories; plasticity may be
behaviourally advantageous in dynamic environments. This is reflected through the observed
increased behavioural flexibility and generalization effects. In dynamic environments,
information must be rapidly updated. In the water maze context, this means irrelevant
information on platform position is rapidly updated with incoming novel information. In the
generalization context, this means a particular piece of information learnt under one context can
now be readily adapted to other contexts. Therefore plasticity in the brain may be important for
behavioural adaptation in dynamic environments. The optimal balance between stability and
plasticity may in turn be determined by features within the environment. Altering this balance
can influence neural representations of the memory, and in turn result in differences in
35
behavioural outputs. Our results shed light on fundamental mechanisms underlying our ability to
learn.
36
References
Abraham, W. C., & Robins, A. (2005). Memory retention--the synaptic stability versus plasticity
dilemma. Trends Neurosci, 28(2), 73-78. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.12.003
Akers, K. G., Martinez-Canabal, A., Restivo, L., Yiu, A. P., De Cristofaro, A., Hsiang, H. L., . . .
Frankland, P. W. (2014). Hippocampal neurogenesis regulates forgetting during
adulthood and infancy. Science, 344(6184), 598-602. doi:10.1126/science.1248903
Alilain, W. J., Horn, K. P., Hu, H., Dick, T. E., & Silver, J. (2011). Functional regeneration of
respiratory pathways after spinal cord injury. Nature, 475(7355), 196-200.
doi:10.1038/nature10199
Allen, K., & Monyer, H. (2013). Neuroscience: The highs and lows of memory. Nature,
504(7479), 228-229. doi:10.1038/504228a
Alpar, A., Gartner, U., Hartig, W., & Bruckner, G. (2006). Distribution of pyramidal cells
associated with perineuronal nets in the neocortex of rat. Brain Res, 1120(1), 13-22.
doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.069
Amaral, D. G., Scharfman, H. E., & Lavenex, P. (2007). The dentate gyrus: fundamental
neuroanatomical organization (dentate gyrus for dummies). Prog Brain Res, 163, 3-22.
doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(07)63001-5
Arranz, A. M., Perkins, K. L., Irie, F., Lewis, D. P., Hrabe, J., Xiao, F., . . . Yamaguchi, Y.
(2014). Hyaluronan deficiency due to Has3 knock-out causes altered neuronal activity
and seizures via reduction in brain extracellular space. J Neurosci, 34(18), 6164-6176.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3458-13.2014
Balmer, T. S. (2016). Perineuronal Nets Enhance the Excitability of Fast-Spiking Neurons.
eNeuro, 3(4). doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0112-16.2016
Balmer, T. S., Carels, V. M., Frisch, J. L., & Nick, T. A. (2009). Modulation of perineuronal nets
and parvalbumin with developmental song learning. J Neurosci, 29(41), 12878-12885.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2974-09.2009
Berretta, S., Pantazopoulos, H., Markota, M., Brown, C., & Batzianouli, E. T. (2015). Losing the
sugar coating: potential impact of perineuronal net abnormalities on interneurons in
schizophrenia. Schizophr Res, 167(1-3), 18-27. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2014.12.040
Bliss, T. V., & Lomo, T. (1973). Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the
dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path. J
Physiol, 232(2), 331-356. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4727084
Brew, K., Dinakarpandian, D., & Nagase, H. (2000). Tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases:
evolution, structure and function. Biochim Biophys Acta, 1477(1-2), 267-283. Retrieved
from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10708863
37
Bruckner, G., Seeger, G., Brauer, K., Hartig, W., Kacza, J., & Bigl, V. (1994). Cortical areas are
revealed by distribution patterns of proteoglycan components and parvalbumin in the
Mongolian gerbil and rat. Brain Res, 658(1-2), 67-86. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7834357
Bukalo, O., Schachner, M., & Dityatev, A. (2001). Modification of extracellular matrix by
enzymatic removal of chondroitin sulfate and by lack of tenascin-R differentially affects
several forms of synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus. Neuroscience, 104(2), 359-369.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11377840
Carstens, K. E., Phillips, M. L., Pozzo-Miller, L., Weinberg, R. J., & Dudek, S. M. (2016).
Perineuronal Nets Suppress Plasticity of Excitatory Synapses on CA2 Pyramidal
Neurons. J Neurosci, 36(23), 6312-6320. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0245-16.2016
Carulli, D., Rhodes, K. E., & Fawcett, J. W. (2007). Upregulation of aggrecan, link protein 1,
and hyaluronan synthases during formation of perineuronal nets in the rat cerebellum. J
Comp Neurol, 501(1), 83-94. doi:10.1002/cne.21231
Celio, M. R., & Blumcke, I. (1994). Perineuronal nets--a specialized form of extracellular matrix
in the adult nervous system. Brain Res Brain Res Rev, 19(1), 128-145. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8167657
Celio, M. R., Spreafico, R., De Biasi, S., & Vitellaro-Zuccarello, L. (1998). Perineuronal nets:
past and present. Trends Neurosci, 21(12), 510-515. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881847
Donato, F., Rompani, S. B., & Caroni, P. (2013). Parvalbumin-expressing basket-cell network
plasticity induced by experience regulates adult learning. Nature, 504(7479), 272-276.
doi:10.1038/nature12866
Drew, L. J., Fusi, S., & Hen, R. (2013). Adult neurogenesis in the mammalian hippocampus:
why the dentate gyrus? Learn Mem, 20(12), 710-729. doi:10.1101/lm.026542.112
Dzyubenko, E., Gottschling, C., & Faissner, A. (2016). Neuron-Glia Interactions in Neural
Plasticity: Contributions of Neural Extracellular Matrix and Perineuronal Nets. Neural
Plast, 2016, 5214961. doi:10.1155/2016/5214961
Eichenbaum, H. (2014). Time cells in the hippocampus: a new dimension for mapping
memories. Nat Rev Neurosci, 15(11), 732-744. doi:10.1038/nrn3827
Fanselow, M. S., & Kim, J. J. (1994). Acquisition of contextual Pavlovian fear conditioning is
blocked by application of an NMDA receptor antagonist D,L-2-amino-5-
phosphonovaleric acid to the basolateral amygdala. Behav Neurosci, 108(1), 210-212.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7910746
Farovik, A., Dupont, L. M., & Eichenbaum, H. (2010). Distinct roles for dorsal CA3 and CA1 in
memory for sequential nonspatial events. Learn Mem, 17(1), 12-17.
doi:10.1101/lm.1616209
38
Favuzzi, E., Marques-Smith, A., Deogracias, R., Winterflood, C. M., Sanchez-Aguilera, A.,
Mantoan, L., . . . Rico, B. (2017). Activity-Dependent Gating of Parvalbumin Interneuron
Function by the Perineuronal Net Protein Brevican. Neuron, 95(3), 639-655 e610.
doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.028
Frischknecht, R., Heine, M., Perrais, D., Seidenbecher, C. I., Choquet, D., & Gundelfinger, E. D.
(2009). Brain extracellular matrix affects AMPA receptor lateral mobility and short-term
synaptic plasticity. Nat Neurosci, 12(7), 897-904. doi:10.1038/nn.2338
Garthe, A., Roeder, I., & Kempermann, G. (2016). Mice in an enriched environment learn more
flexibly because of adult hippocampal neurogenesis. Hippocampus, 26(2), 261-271.
doi:10.1002/hipo.22520
Giamanco, K. A., Morawski, M., & Matthews, R. T. (2010). Perineuronal net formation and
structure in aggrecan knockout mice. Neuroscience, 170(4), 1314-1327.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.08.032
Gilbert, P. E., Kesner, R. P., & Lee, I. (2001). Dissociating hippocampal subregions: double
dissociation between dentate gyrus and CA1. Hippocampus, 11(6), 626-636.
doi:10.1002/hipo.1077
Gogolla, N., Caroni, P., Luthi, A., & Herry, C. (2009). Perineuronal nets protect fear memories
from erasure. Science, 325(5945), 1258-1261. doi:10.1126/science.1174146
Guenthner, C. J., Miyamichi, K., Yang, H. H., Heller, H. C., & Luo, L. (2013). Permanent
genetic access to transiently active neurons via TRAP: targeted recombination in active
populations. Neuron, 78(5), 773-784. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.025
Guzowski, J. F., Timlin, J. A., Roysam, B., McNaughton, B. L., Worley, P. F., & Barnes, C. A.
(2005). Mapping behaviorally relevant neural circuits with immediate-early gene
expression. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 15(5), 599-606. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2005.08.018
Hartig, W., Brauer, K., & Bruckner, G. (1992). Wisteria floribunda agglutinin-labelled nets
surround parvalbumin-containing neurons. Neuroreport, 3(10), 869-872. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1421090
Hayashi-Takagi, A., Yagishita, S., Nakamura, M., Shirai, F., Wu, Y. I., Loshbaugh, A. L., . . .
Kasai, H. (2015). Labelling and optical erasure of synaptic memory traces in the motor
cortex. Nature, 525(7569), 333-338. doi:10.1038/nature15257
Hinton, G. E., & van Camp, D. (1993). Keeping Neural Networks Simple. In S. Gielen & B.
Kappen (Eds.), ICANN ’93: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial
Neural Networks Amsterdam, The Netherlands 13–16 September 1993 (pp. 11-18).
London: Springer London.
Hockfield, S., Kalb, R. G., Zaremba, S., & Fryer, H. (1990). Expression of neural proteoglycans
correlates with the acquisition of mature neuronal properties in the mammalian brain.
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol, 55, 505-514. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2132834
39
Holtmaat, A., Wilbrecht, L., Knott, G. W., Welker, E., & Svoboda, K. (2006). Experience-
dependent and cell-type-specific spine growth in the neocortex. Nature, 441(7096), 979-
983. doi:10.1038/nature04783
Hu, H., Gan, J., & Jonas, P. (2014). Interneurons. Fast-spiking, parvalbumin(+) GABAergic
interneurons: from cellular design to microcircuit function. Science, 345(6196), 1255263.
doi:10.1126/science.1255263
Huerta, P. T., Sun, L. D., Wilson, M. A., & Tonegawa, S. (2000). Formation of temporal
memory requires NMDA receptors within CA1 pyramidal neurons. Neuron, 25(2), 473-
480. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10719900
Hylin, M. J., Orsi, S. A., Moore, A. N., & Dash, P. K. (2013). Disruption of the perineuronal net
in the hippocampus or medial prefrontal cortex impairs fear conditioning. Learn Mem,
20(5), 267-273. doi:10.1101/lm.030197.112
Ji, J., & Maren, S. (2008). Differential roles for hippocampal areas CA1 and CA3 in the
contextual encoding and retrieval of extinguished fear. Learn Mem, 15(4), 244-251.
doi:10.1101/lm.794808
Josselyn, S. A., Kohler, S., & Frankland, P. W. (2015). Finding the engram. Nat Rev Neurosci,
16(9), 521-534. doi:10.1038/nrn4000
Knierim, J. J. (2015). The hippocampus. Curr Biol, 25(23), R1116-1121.
doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.049
Kochlamazashvili, G., Henneberger, C., Bukalo, O., Dvoretskova, E., Senkov, O., Lievens, P.
M., . . . Dityatev, A. (2010). The extracellular matrix molecule hyaluronic acid regulates
hippocampal synaptic plasticity by modulating postsynaptic L-type Ca(2+) channels.
Neuron, 67(1), 116-128. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.05.030
Kumoi, K., Saito, N., Kuno, T., & Tanaka, C. (1988). Immunohistochemical localization of
gamma-aminobutyric acid- and aspartate-containing neurons in the rat deep cerebellar
nuclei. Brain Res, 439(1-2), 302-310. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3282599
Lee, J. L. C., Nader, K., & Schiller, D. (2017). An Update on Memory Reconsolidation
Updating. Trends Cogn Sci, 21(7), 531-545. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.04.006
Malenka, R. C. (2003). The long-term potential of LTP. Nat Rev Neurosci, 4(11), 923-926.
doi:10.1038/nrn1258
Manns, J. R., Zilli, E. A., Ong, K. C., Hasselmo, M. E., & Eichenbaum, H. (2007). Hippocampal
CA1 spiking during encoding and retrieval: relation to theta phase. Neurobiol Learn
Mem, 87(1), 9-20. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2006.05.007
McGuire, P. K., Hockfield, S., & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1989). Distribution of cat-301
immunoreactivity in the frontal and parietal lobes of the macaque monkey. J Comp
Neurol, 288(2), 280-296. doi:10.1002/cne.902880207
40
McRae, P. A., & Porter, B. E. (2012). The perineuronal net component of the extracellular
matrix in plasticity and epilepsy. Neurochem Int, 61(7), 963-972.
doi:10.1016/j.neuint.2012.08.007
Mermillod, M., Bugaiska, A., & Bonin, P. (2013). The stability-plasticity dilemma: investigating
the continuum from catastrophic forgetting to age-limited learning effects. Front Psychol,
4, 504. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00504
Morawski, M., Bruckner, G., Jager, C., Seeger, G., & Arendt, T. (2010). Neurons associated with
aggrecan-based perineuronal nets are protected against tau pathology in subcortical
regions in Alzheimer's disease. Neuroscience, 169(3), 1347-1363.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.05.022
Morawski, M., Bruckner, M. K., Riederer, P., Bruckner, G., & Arendt, T. (2004). Perineuronal
nets potentially protect against oxidative stress. Exp Neurol, 188(2), 309-315.
doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.04.017
Morawski, M., Reinert, T., Meyer-Klaucke, W., Wagner, F. E., Troger, W., Reinert, A., . . .
Arendt, T. (2015). Ion exchanger in the brain: Quantitative analysis of perineuronally
fixed anionic binding sites suggests diffusion barriers with ion sorting properties. Sci Rep,
5, 16471. doi:10.1038/srep16471
Morellini, F., Sivukhina, E., Stoenica, L., Oulianova, E., Bukalo, O., Jakovcevski, I., . . .
Schachner, M. (2010). Improved reversal learning and working memory and enhanced
reactivity to novelty in mice with enhanced GABAergic innervation in the dentate gyrus.
Cereb Cortex, 20(11), 2712-2727. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq017
Morikawa, S., Ikegaya, Y., Narita, M., & Tamura, H. (2017). Activation of perineuronal net-
expressing excitatory neurons during associative memory encoding and retrieval. Sci Rep,
7, 46024. doi:10.1038/srep46024
Morrison, D. J., Rashid, A. J., Yiu, A. P., Yan, C., Frankland, P. W., & Josselyn, S. A. (2016).
Parvalbumin interneurons constrain the size of the lateral amygdala engram. Neurobiol
Learn Mem, 135, 91-99. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2016.07.007
Myers, A. K., Ray, J., & Kulesza, R. J., Jr. (2012). Neonatal conductive hearing loss disrupts the
development of the Cat-315 epitope on perineuronal nets in the rat superior olivary
complex. Brain Res, 1465, 34-47. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.05.024
Nabavi, S., Fox, R., Proulx, C. D., Lin, J. Y., Tsien, R. Y., & Malinow, R. (2014). Engineering a
memory with LTD and LTP. Nature, 511(7509), 348-352. doi:10.1038/nature13294
Pistikova, A., Brozka, H., & Stuchlik, A. (2017). Adult neurogenesis in the hippocampus from a
perspective of discrimination and generalization: a hypothesis. Physiol Res, 66(3), 441-
448. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28730838
Pizzorusso, T., Medini, P., Berardi, N., Chierzi, S., Fawcett, J. W., & Maffei, L. (2002).
Reactivation of ocular dominance plasticity in the adult visual cortex. Science,
298(5596), 1248-1251. doi:10.1126/science.1072699
41
Reijmers, L. G., Perkins, B. L., Matsuo, N., & Mayford, M. (2007). Localization of a stable
neural correlate of associative memory. Science, 317(5842), 1230-1233.
doi:10.1126/science.1143839
Resnik, J., & Paz, R. (2015). Fear generalization in the primate amygdala. Nat Neurosci, 18(2),
188-190. doi:10.1038/nn.3900
Richards, B. A., & Frankland, P. W. (2017). The Persistence and Transience of Memory.
Neuron, 94(6), 1071-1084. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.037
Rogan, M. T., Staubli, U. V., & LeDoux, J. E. (1997). Fear conditioning induces associative
long-term potentiation in the amygdala. Nature, 390(6660), 604-607. doi:10.1038/37601
Rolls, E. T. (2013). The mechanisms for pattern completion and pattern separation in the
hippocampus. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 74. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00074
Rolls, E. T., & Kesner, R. P. (2006). A computational theory of hippocampal function, and
empirical tests of the theory. Prog Neurobiol, 79(1), 1-48.
doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2006.04.005
Romberg, C., Yang, S., Melani, R., Andrews, M. R., Horner, A. E., Spillantini, M. G., . . .
Saksida, L. M. (2013). Depletion of perineuronal nets enhances recognition memory and
long-term depression in the perirhinal cortex. J Neurosci, 33(16), 7057-7065.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6267-11.2013
Soleman, S., Filippov, M. A., Dityatev, A., & Fawcett, J. W. (2013). Targeting the neural
extracellular matrix in neurological disorders. Neuroscience, 253, 194-213.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.08.050
Sonntag, M., Blosa, M., Schmidt, S., Rubsamen, R., & Morawski, M. (2015). Perineuronal nets
in the auditory system. Hear Res, 329, 21-32. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.12.012
Squire, L. R. (2009). The legacy of patient H.M. for neuroscience. Neuron, 61(1), 6-9.
doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.023
Stevens, C. F. (1998). A million dollar question: does LTP = memory? Neuron, 20(1), 1-2.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9459434
Strekalova, T., Sun, M., Sibbe, M., Evers, M., Dityatev, A., Gass, P., & Schachner, M. (2002).
Fibronectin domains of extracellular matrix molecule tenascin-C modulate hippocampal
learning and synaptic plasticity. Mol Cell Neurosci, 21(1), 173-187. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12359159
Tang, Y., Stryker, M. P., Alvarez-Buylla, A., & Espinosa, J. S. (2014). Cortical plasticity
induced by transplantation of embryonic somatostatin or parvalbumin interneurons. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A, 111(51), 18339-18344. doi:10.1073/pnas.1421844112
Tonegawa, S., Liu, X., Ramirez, S., & Redondo, R. (2015). Memory Engram Cells Have Come
of Age. Neuron, 87(5), 918-931. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.002
42
Vegh, M. J., Heldring, C. M., Kamphuis, W., Hijazi, S., Timmerman, A. J., Li, K. W., . . . van
Kesteren, R. E. (2014). Reducing hippocampal extracellular matrix reverses early
memory deficits in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Acta Neuropathol Commun, 2,
76. doi:10.1186/s40478-014-0076-z
Volterra, A., & Meldolesi, J. (2005). Astrocytes, from brain glue to communication elements: the
revolution continues. Nat Rev Neurosci, 6(8), 626-640. doi:10.1038/nrn1722
Wang, D., & Fawcett, J. (2012). The perineuronal net and the control of CNS plasticity. Cell
Tissue Res, 349(1), 147-160. doi:10.1007/s00441-012-1375-y
Xue, Y. X., Xue, L. F., Liu, J. F., He, J., Deng, J. H., Sun, S. C., . . . Lu, L. (2014). Depletion of
perineuronal nets in the amygdala to enhance the erasure of drug memories. J Neurosci,
34(19), 6647-6658. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5390-13.2014
Ye, Q., & Miao, Q. L. (2013). Experience-dependent development of perineuronal nets and
chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan receptors in mouse visual cortex. Matrix Biol, 32(6),
352-363. doi:10.1016/j.matbio.2013.04.001
top related