FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2267937914> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2267937914 abstract "Plasticity is a general feature of all nervous systems, essential for the success and survival of organisms, allowing them to respond and adapt to their environment through the processes of learning and memory. Even relatively simple forms of learning, such as habituation, the process by which animals reduce their responsiveness to stimuli that have no immediate consequences, or sensitization, an increase in overall responsiveness following an arousing stimulus, involve changes in neural gene transcription, protein translation and the modification of synapses and networks (1). In a recent paper published in Current Biology (2), Frost and colleagues examine the mechanisms that underlie the sensitization of a swimming response in the marine mollusk, Tritonia, and discover that certain populations of neurons in the pedal ganglion network are recruited to participate in the sensitized swim response, presumably to enhance the responsiveness of the animal to other potential threatening stimuli in the environment.To identify the neurons and determine the network mechanisms that contribute to sensitization in Tritonia, Hill et al. made use of a voltage-sensitive dye that allowed them to monitor, simultaneously, the activity of up to ~65 neurons in the pedal ganglion (2,3). For many rhythmic motor behaviors like swimming, the neural activity that drives and sustains these behaviors involve central pattern generating circuits and “bursting”, clusters of action potentials elicited with a relatively high frequency, that serve to entrain and drive downstream neurons in the network. Previous studies have shown that following a sensitizing stimulus (shock to the pedal nerve), the onset latency for the Tritonia SMP is reduced, indicating that the system exhibits sensitization (4,5). In the current study, Hill et al. set out to examine the contribution of individual neurons to the SMP before, during and after sensitization. To do so, they built upon their earlier identification of neurons within the pedal ganglion that contribute to the swim motor program (SMP) with different propensities to burst, classified as reliable bursters, variable bursters and non-bursters (3). By monitoring the activity of each class of neuron, they observed that following sensitization, the number of neurons that exhibited reliable bursting behavior was significantly enhanced. This increase in the number of reliable bursters was due to the conversion of some neurons from variable or non-bursting to reliable bursting phenotypes. Consistent with sensitization arising from an expanded SMP network, dissipation of sensitization was accompanied by a return to the original network size. Remarkably, however, the constituent neurons in the network following loss of sensitization was distinct from that in the naive network, indicating that the SMP is encoded by a dynamic network rather than by a fixed network of specific neurons.To identify the cellular mechanisms that drive the reorganization observed during sensitization of the SMP, Hill et al. (2) focused on a class of serotonergic neurons previously identified to be a part of the swim central pattern generator (6). Not only did they find that stimulation of these neurons decreased the SMP latency, consistent with sensitization, but they also showed that direct application of the serotonin to the pedal ganglion decreased SMP latency and increased the number of reliable burster neurons in the SMP network. As such, activation of a small number of serotonergic neurons was sufficient to implant a “false sensitization memory ” in the system.The findings of Hill et al. (2) add to a rich history of discoveries about the mechanisms of learning and memory in invertebrate “simple systems.” Although these simple systems contain a relatively small number of neurons, they undergo multiple and robust forms of learning. Two features contribute to the experimental tractability of these simple systems. First, the neurons are often identifiable, recognizable from animal to animal. Second, dissected preparations undergo forms of plasticity that mirror learning in the animal. These features facilitate the delineation of circuits underlying behavioral modification, and become even more powerful when combined, as by Hill et al. (2), with the use of voltage -sensitive dyes to monitor, simultaneously, the activity of many neurons in a circuit.The “simple” conclusion from Hill et al. (2) is that memories are stored as expansion in the number of neurons in networks underlying behavior. The idea is that neurons are predisposed to join a given network, and that learning, acting via neuromodulation, commits these predisposed neurons to the network. This “simple” idea is contrasted with what the authors consider the prevailing view that memories are stored as activity-dependent changes in synaptic strength and number, or synaptic plasticity. However, just as simple systems generate complex behaviors from a small number of neurons and circuits, they also have been shown to do so using multiple mechanisms. While studies in the marine mollusk Aplysia californica have emphasized the importance of changes in synaptic strength and number in mediating learning, including sensitization (7), other studies in Aplysia and the related mollusk Hermissenda, have identified “nonsynaptic” mechanisms, including changes in excitability that occur together with synaptic changes in both nonassociative and associative forms of learning (8,9). A remarkable set of studies on a central pattern generator in another invertebrate “simple system,” the lobster stomatogastric ganglion (STG), has revealed tremendous functional variability in neuronal networks, emerging from activity-dependent changes in synaptic strength and excitability (10). The findings of Frost and colleagues are indeed reminiscent of the STG work that established that neurons switch allegiance from one motor pattern to another under neuromodulatory control (11), indicating that the same circuit elements can be recombined in numerous ways, to generate behavioral flexibility.As such, Hill et al’s (2) partisan framework of synaptic plasticity opposed to network expansion, of changes in synaptic strength opposed to alterations in neuronal excitability, is simply too simple. The authors do not explore the mechanism(s) by which the bursting profile of the individual neurons within the network are altered- changes in bursting behavior could be elicited by changes in intrinsic ionic conductances but also could be mediated by alterations in excitatory and/or inhibitory transmission in the network. In fact, the two mechanisms often co-occur (10). For example, the usual line-up of ion channels that alter excitability in neuronal processes can also change the properties of axon terminal depolarization and repolarization, resulting in changes in the kinetics and amount of transmitter released. Thus, our bet is that, in the end, the answer will be that it’s not one single mechanism as opposed to another, but rather that “it’s both,” a conclusion reached more often than not in arguments of mechanism in neurobiology." @default.
• W2267937914 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2267937914 creator A5015863270 @default.
• W2267937914 creator A5025052338 @default.
• W2267937914 date "2015-12-18" @default.
• W2267937914 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2267937914 title "Opting in or out of the network" @default.
• W2267937914 cites W1509229130 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W1908979649 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W1988059687 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2050191051 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2054914622 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2089101854 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2100076633 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2122682406 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2146544771 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2414930690 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W2464593541 @default.
• W2267937914 cites W4235224675 @default.
• W2267937914 doi "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9467" @default.
• W2267937914 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4880026" @default.
• W2267937914 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26680183" @default.
• W2267937914 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2267937914 type Work @default.
• W2267937914 sameAs 2267937914 @default.
• W2267937914 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2267937914 countsByYear W22679379142016 @default.
• W2267937914 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2267937914 hasAuthorship W2267937914A5015863270 @default.
• W2267937914 hasAuthorship W2267937914A5025052338 @default.
• W2267937914 hasBestOaLocation W22679379142 @default.
• W2267937914 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2267937914 hasConcept C165556158 @default.
• W2267937914 hasConcept C3017652200 @default.
• W2267937914 hasConceptScore W2267937914C162324750 @default.
• W2267937914 hasConceptScore W2267937914C165556158 @default.
• W2267937914 hasConceptScore W2267937914C3017652200 @default.
• W2267937914 hasLocation W22679379141 @default.
• W2267937914 hasLocation W22679379142 @default.
• W2267937914 hasLocation W22679379143 @default.
• W2267937914 hasLocation W22679379144 @default.
• W2267937914 hasOpenAccess W2267937914 @default.
• W2267937914 hasPrimaryLocation W22679379141 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W1532762289 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W1596801655 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2277606789 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2373011076 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2387147530 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2267937914 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2267937914 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2267937914 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2267937914 magId "2267937914" @default.
• W2267937914 workType "article" @default.