Linking muscarinic receptor activation to UPS-mediated object memory destabilization: Implications for long-term memory modification and storage

Muscarinic receptor activation promotes destabilization and updating of object location memories in mice

The storage of long-term memories is a dynamic process. Reminder cues can destabilize previously consolidated memories, rendering them labile and modifiable. However, memories that are strongly encoded or relatively remote at the time of reactivation can resist destabilization only being rendered labile under conditions that favour memory updating. Using the object location recognition task, here we show in male C57BL/6 mice that novelty-induced destabilization of strongly-encoded memories requires muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (mAChR) activation. Furthermore, we use the objects-in-updated locations task to show that updating of object location memories is mAChR-dependent. Thus, mAChR stimulation appears to be critical for spatial memory destabilization and related memory updating. Enhancing our understanding of the role of ACh in memory updating should inform future research into the underlying causes of behavioural disorders that are characterized by persistent maladaptive memories, such as age-related cognitive inflexibility and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Activating M1 muscarinic cholinergic receptors induces destabilization of resistant contextual fear memories in rats

Destabilization of previously consolidated memories places them in a labile state in which they are open to modification. However, strongly encoded fear memories tend to be destabilization-resistant and the conditions required to destabilize such memories remain poorly understood. Our lab has previously shown that exposure to salient novel contextual cues during memory reactivation can destabilize strongly encoded object location memories and that activity at muscarinic cholinergic receptors is critical for this effect. In the current study, we similarly targeted destabilization-resistant fear memories, hypothesizing that exposure to salient novelty at the time of reactivation would induce destabilization of strongly encoded fear memories in a muscarinic receptor-dependent manner. First, we show that contextual fear memories induced by 3 context-shock pairings readily destabilize upon memory reactivation, and that this destabilization is blocked by systemic (ip) administration of the muscarinic receptor antagonist scopolamine (0.3 mg/kg) in male rats. Following that, we confirm that this effect is dorsal hippocampus (dHPC)-dependent by targeting M1 receptors in the CA1 region with pirenzepine. Next, we show that more strongly encoded fear memories (induced with 5 context-shock pairings) resist destabilization. Consistent with our previous work, however, we report that salient novelty (a change in floor texture) presented during the reactivation session promotes destabilization of resistant contextual fear memories in a muscarinic receptor-dependent manner. Finally, the effect of salient novelty on memory destabilization was mimicked by stimulating muscarinic receptors with the selective M1 agonist CDD-0102A (ip, 0.3 mg/kg). These findings reveal further generalizability of our previous results implicating novel cues and M1 muscarinic signaling in promoting destabilization of resistant memories and suggest possible therapeutic options for disorders characterized by persistent, maladaptive fear memories such as PTSD and phobias.

Muscarinic receptor activation overrides boundary conditions on memory updating in a calcium/calmodulin-dependent manner

Long-term memory storage is a dynamic process requiring flexibility to ensure adaptive behavioural responding in changing environments. Indeed, it is well established that memory reactivation can "destabilize" consolidated traces, leading to various forms of updating. However, the neurobiological mechanisms rendering long-term memories labile and modifiable remain poorly described. Moreover, boundary conditions, such as the age or strength of the memory, can reduce the likelihood of this destabilization; yet, intuitively, these most behaviourally influential of memories should also be modifiable under appropriate conditions. Here, we provide evidence that salient novelty at the time of memory reactivation promotes integrative updating of resistant object memories in rats. Furthermore, blockade of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs; with pirenzepine) or disruption of calcium/calmodulin (Ca²⁺/CaM) with KN-93, a Ca²⁺/CaM-binding molecule that inhibits calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) activation, in perirhinal cortex (PRh) prevented novelty-induced destabilization and updating of resistant object memories. Finally, PRh M₁ mAChR activation (with CDD-0102A) was sufficient to destabilize resistant object memories for updating, and this effect was blocked by KN-93, possibly via inhibition of CaMKII activity. Thus, mAChRs and activation of CaMKII appear to interact as part of a mechanism to override boundary conditions on resistant object memories to ensure integrative modification with novel information. These findings therefore have important implications for understanding the dynamic nature of long-term memory storage and potential treatments for conditions characterized by maladaptive and inflexible memories.

Dissociating the involvement of muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic receptors in object memory destabilization and reconsolidation

The content of long-term memory is neither fixed nor permanent. Reminder cues can destabilize consolidated memories, rendering them amenable to change before being reconsolidated. However, not all memories destabilize following reactivation. Characteristics of a memory, such as its age or strength, impose boundaries on destabilization. Previously, we demonstrated that presentation of salient novel information at the time of reactivation can readily destabilize resistant object memories in rats and this form of novelty-induced destabilization is dependent upon acetylcholine (ACh) activity at muscarinic receptors (mAChRs). In the present study, we sought to determine if this same mechanism for initiating destabilization of resistant object memories is present in mice and further expand our understanding of the mechanisms through which ACh modulates object memory destabilization by investigating the role of nicotinic receptors (nAChRs). We provide evidence that in mice mAChRs are necessary for destabilizing object memories that are readily destabilized and those that are resistant to destabilization. Conversely, nAChRs were found to be necessary only when memories are readily destabilized. We then investigated the role of both receptors in the reconsolidation of destabilized object memory traces and determined that nAChRs, but not mAChRs, are necessary for object memory reconsolidation. Together, these results suggest that nAChRs may play a more selective role in the re-storage of object memories following destabilization and that ACh acts through mAChRs to act as an override signal to initiate destabilization of resistant object memories following reactivation with novelty. These findings expand our current understanding of the role of ACh in the dynamic storage of long-term memory.

The evidence for and against reactivation-induced memory updating in humans and nonhuman animals

Systematic investigation of reactivation-induced memory updating began in the 1960s, and a wave of research in this area followed the seminal articulation of "reconsolidation" theory in the early 2000s. Myriad studies indicate that memory reactivation can cause previously consolidated memories to become labile and sensitive to weakening, strengthening, or other forms of modification. However, from its nascent period to the present, the field has been beset by inconsistencies in researchers' abilities to replicate seemingly established effects. Here we review these many studies, synthesizing the human and nonhuman animal literature, and suggest that these failures-to-replicate reflect a highly complex and delicately balanced memory modification system, the substrates of which must be finely tuned to enable adaptive memory updating while limiting maladaptive, inaccurate modifications. A systematic approach to the entire body of evidence, integrating positive and null findings, will yield a comprehensive understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of long-term memory storage and the potential for harnessing modification processes to treat mental disorders driven by pervasive maladaptive memories.

Dopamine ramps for accurate value learning under uncertainty

Dopamine signals ramping towards reward timings have become widely reported, but their functions remain elusive. Through modeling analyses and experiments in mice, a recent study by Mikhael, Kim et al. shows that such signals represent reward prediction errors used for accurate value learning in conditions with uncertainty about upcoming state and its resolution by sensory feedback.

Activation of CB1 pathway in the perirhinal cortex is necessary but not sufficient for destabilization of contextual fear memory in rats

According to the reconsolidation theory, memories can be modified through the destabilization-reconsolidation process. The rodent perirhinal cortex (PER; Brodmann areas 35 and 36) critically participates in the process of fear conditioning. Previous studies showed that some of the parahippocampal regions are critical for contextual fear memory reconsolidation. In our research, through a three-day paradigm of CFC, we showed that protein synthesis in PER of rats is required for memory reconsolidation, and activation of CB1 pathway is necessary but not sufficient in inducing memory destabilization. This result underlines parahippocampal regions in destabilization and reconsolidation process of fear memory besides amygdala and hippocampus.

Muscarinic (M1 ) cholinergic receptor activation within the dorsal hippocampus promotes destabilization of strongly encoded object location memories

Following the initial consolidation process, memories can become reactivated by exposure to a reminder of the original learning event. This can lead to the memory becoming destabilized and vulnerable to disruption or other forms of modification. The memory must then undergo the protein-synthesis dependent process of reconsolidation in order to be retained. However, older and/or stronger memories resist destabilization, but can become labile when reactivated in the presence of salient novelty. We have implicated the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, acting at M₁ muscarinic cholinergic receptors (mAChRs) within perirhinal cortex (PRh), in novelty-induced destabilization of remote object memories. It remains unclear, however, whether mAChRs are involved in destabilization of other forms of memory. We hypothesized that the role of M₁ mAChRs previously demonstrated for PRh-dependent object memory would extend to hippocampus-dependent spatial memory. Using the object location (OL) task, which relies on the dorsal hippocampus (dHPC), we showed that (a) reactivation-dependent reconsolidation of OL memories requires protein synthesis within the dHPC; (b) destabilization of relatively weak OL memories depends on M₁ mAChR activation within the dHPC; (c) salient novelty during reactivation promotes destabilization of resistant strongly encoded OL memories; (d) novelty-induced destabilization of strong OL memories requires activation of mAChRs within the dHPC; and (e) M₁ mAChR activation within the dHPC in the absence of novelty during memory reactivation mimics the effect of novelty, destabilizing strongly encoded OL memories. These results implicate ACh acting at M₁ mAChRs in the destabilization of dHPC-dependent spatial memories, demonstrating generalizability of this cholinergic function beyond memory for object identity. These findings therefore enhance our understanding of the dynamics of long-term memory storage and suggest implications for the treatment of human conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and aging, which are characterized by behavioral and mnemonic inflexibility.

Memory destabilization during reconsolidation: a consequence of homeostatic plasticity?

Remembering is not a static process: When retrieved, a memory can be destabilized and become prone to modifications. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in a number of brain regions, but the neuronal mechanisms that rule memory destabilization and its boundary conditions remain elusive. Using two distinct computational models that combine Hebbian plasticity and synaptic downscaling, we show that homeostatic plasticity can function as a destabilization mechanism, accounting for behavioral results of protein synthesis inhibition upon reactivation with different re-exposure times. Furthermore, by performing systematic reviews, we identify a series of overlapping molecular mechanisms between memory destabilization and synaptic downscaling, although direct experimental links between both phenomena remain scarce. In light of these results, we propose a theoretical framework where memory destabilization can emerge as an epiphenomenon of homeostatic adaptations prompted by memory retrieval.

Fluctuating NMDA Receptor Subunit Levels in Perirhinal Cortex Relate to Their Dynamic Roles in Object Memory Destabilization and Reconsolidation

Reminder cues can destabilize consolidated memories, rendering them modifiable before they return to a stable state through the process of reconsolidation. Older and stronger memories resist this process and require the presentation of reminders along with salient novel information in order to destabilize. Previously, we demonstrated in rats that novelty-induced object memory destabilization requires acetylcholine (ACh) activity at M₁ muscarinic receptors. Other research predominantly has focused on glutamate, which modulates fear memory destabilization and reconsolidation through GluN2B- and GluN2A-containing NMDARs, respectively. In the current study, we demonstrate the same dissociable roles of GluN2B- and N2A-containing NMDARs in perirhinal cortex (PRh) for object memory destabilization and reconsolidation when boundary conditions are absent. However, neither GluN2 receptor subtype was required for novelty-induced destabilization of remote, resistant memories. Furthermore, GluN2B and GluN2A subunit proteins were upregulated selectively in PRh 24 h after learning, but returned to baseline by 48 h, suggesting that NMDARs, unlike muscarinic receptors, have only a temporary role in object memory destabilization. Indeed, activation of M₁ receptors in PRh at the time of reactivation effectively destabilized remote memories despite inhibition of GluN2B-containing NMDARs. These findings suggest that cholinergic activity at M₁ receptors overrides boundary conditions to destabilize resistant memories when other established mechanisms are insufficient.

Retrieval-Dependent Mechanisms Affecting Emotional Memory Persistence: Reconsolidation, Extinction, and the Space in Between

Maladaptive emotional memories contribute to the persistence of many mental health disorders, and therefore the prospect of disrupting these memories to produce long-term reductions in relapse is of great clinical appeal. Reducing the impact of maladaptive emotional memories on behaviour could be achieved by two retrieval-dependent manipulations that engage separate mnemonic processes: "reconsolidation disruption" and "extinction enhancement." Extinction occurs during a prolonged re-exposure session in the absence of the expected emotional outcome and is widely accepted as reflecting the formation of a new, inhibitory memory that prevents behavioural expression of the original trace. Reconsolidation, by contrast, involves the destabilisation of the original memory, allowing for subsequent updating and restabilisation in specific brain regions, unless the re-stabilization process is prevented through specific pharmacological or behavioural interventions. Both destabilisation of the original memory and memory extinction require that re-exposure induces prediction error-a mismatch between what is expected and what actually occurs-but the parameters that allow reconsolidation and extinction to occur, and control the transition between them, have not been well-characterised. Here, we review what is known about the induction of memory destabilisation and extinction, and the transition period that separates these mnemonic processes, drawing on preclinical and clinical examples. A deeper understanding of the processes that determine the alternative routes to memory persistence or inhibition is critical for designing new and more reliable clinical treatments targeting maladaptive emotional memories.

Activation of cortical M1 muscarinic receptors and related intracellular signaling is necessary for reactivation-induced object memory updating

Reactivated long-term memories can become labile and sensitive to modification. Memories in this destabilized state can be weakened or strengthened, but there is limited research characterizing the mechanisms underlying retrieval-induced qualitative updates (i.e., information integration). We have previously implicated cholinergic transmission in object memory destabilization. Here we present a novel rodent paradigm developed to assess the role of this cholinergic mechanism in qualitative object memory updating. The post-reactivation object memory modification (PROMM) task exposes rats to contextual information following object memory reactivation. Subsequent object exploratory performance suggests that the contextual information is integrated with the original memory in a reactivation- and time-dependent manner. This effect is blocked by interference with M₁ muscarinic receptors and several downstream signals in perirhinal cortex. These findings therefore demonstrate a hitherto unacknowledged cognitive function for acetylcholine with important implications for understanding the dynamic nature of long-term memory storage in the normal and aging brain.