Late phase of L-LTP elicited in isolated CA1 dendrites cannot be transferred by synaptic capture

Temporal phases of long-term potentiation (LTP): myth or fact?

Long-term potentiation (LTP) remains the most widely accepted model for learning and memory. In accordance with this belief, the temporal differentiation of LTP into early and late phases is accepted as reflecting the differentiation of short-term and long-term memory. Moreover, during the past 30 years, protein synthesis inhibitors have been used to separate the early, protein synthesis-independent (E-LTP) phase and the late, protein synthesis-dependent (L-LTP) phase. However, the role of these proteins has not been formally identified. Additionally, several reports failed to show an effect of protein synthesis inhibitors on LTP. In this review, a detailed analysis of extensive behavioral and electrophysiological data reveals that the presumed correspondence of LTP temporal phases to memory phases is neither experimentally nor theoretically consistent. Moreover, an overview of the time courses of E-LTP in hippocampal slices reveals a wide variability ranging from <1 h to more than 5 h. The existence of all these conflictual findings should lead to a new vision of LTP. We believe that the E-LTP vs. L-LTP distinction, established with protein synthesis inhibitor studies, reflects a false dichotomy. We suggest that the duration of LTP and its dependency on protein synthesis are related to the availability of a set of proteins at synapses and not to the de novo synthesis of plasticity-related proteins. This availability is determined by protein turnover kinetics, which is regulated by previous and ongoing electrical activities and by energy store availability.

Dopamine D1/D5 receptors mediate informational saliency that promotes persistent hippocampal long-term plasticity

Dopamine (DA) plays an essential role in the enablement of cognition. It adds color to experience-dependent information storage, conferring salience to the memories that result. At the synaptic level, experience-dependent information storage is enabled by synaptic plasticity, and given its importance for memory formation, it is not surprising that DA comprises a key neuromodulator in the enablement of synaptic plasticity, and particularly of plasticity that persists for longer periods of time: Analogous to long-term memory. The hippocampus, that is a critical structure for the synaptic processing of semantic, episodic, spatial, and declarative memories, is specifically affected by DA, with the D1/D5 receptor proving crucial for hippocampus-dependent memory. Furthermore, D1/D5 receptors are pivotal in conferring the properties of novelty and reward to information being processed by the hippocampus. They also facilitate the expression of persistent forms of synaptic plasticity, and given reports that both long-term potentiation and long-term depression encode different aspects of spatial representations, this suggests that D1/D5 receptors can drive the nature and qualitative content of stored information in the hippocampus. In light of these observations, we propose that D1/D5 receptors gate hippocampal long-term plasticity and memory and are pivotal in conferring the properties of novelty and reward to information being processed by the hippocampus.

Improved preparation and preservation of hippocampal mouse slices for a very stable and reproducible recording of long-term potentiation

Long-term potentiation (LTP) is a type of synaptic plasticity characterized by an increase in synaptic strength and believed to be involved in memory encoding. LTP elicited in the CA1 region of acute hippocampal slices has been extensively studied. However the molecular mechanisms underlying the maintenance phase of this phenomenon are still poorly understood. This could be partly due to the various experimental conditions used by different laboratories. Indeed, the maintenance phase of LTP is strongly dependent on external parameters like oxygenation, temperature and humidity. It is also dependent on internal parameters like orientation of the slicing plane and slice viability after dissection. The optimization of all these parameters enables the induction of a very reproducible and very stable long-term potentiation. This methodology offers the possibility to further explore the molecular mechanisms involved in the stable increase in synaptic strength in hippocampal slices. It also highlights the importance of experimental conditions in in vitro investigation of neurophysiological phenomena.

Evidence for constitutive protein synthesis in hippocampal LTP stabilization

The notion that blockade of constitutive protein synthesis underlies the effect of protein synthesis inhibitors (PSIs) on long-term potentiation (LTP) stabilization was examined using the rat hippocampal CA3-CA1 synapse. Using a biochemical assay we found protein synthesis rate largely recovered 1h after wash-out of cycloheximide (CHX). Nonetheless, a 4-h CHX application followed by wash-out 1h prior to LTP resulted in a significant decrement of LTP stabilization. Wash-out initiated just prior to LTP, thus extending protein synthesis inhibition well into the post-LTP period, resulted in no further effect on LTP. However, short pre- and continuous post-tetanization application of PSIs failed to influence LTP persistence for up to 7 h. Addition of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) 5-25 min following LTP induction resulted in parallel depression of potentiated and non-potentiated inputs, leaving LTP seemingly unaltered. However, in the presence of cyxloheximide the H₂O₂ application resulted in a significant reduction of LTP.

IN CONCLUSION

LTP stabilization was impaired by pre-LTP application of protein synthesis inhibition but not by post-LTP application unless the slices were exposed to oxidative stress. We submit that these results favor the notion that constitutive rather than triggered protein synthesis is important for LTP stabilization.

Long-lasting LTP requires neither repeated trains for its induction nor protein synthesis for its development

Current thinking about LTP triggered in the area CA1 of hippocampal slices is ruled by two “dogmas”: (1) A single train of high-frequency stimulation is sufficient to trigger short-lasting LTP (1 – 3 h), whereas multiple trains are required to induce long-lasting LTP (L-LTP, more than 4 h). (2) The development of the late phase of L-LTP requires the synthesis of new proteins. In this study, we found that a single high-frequency train could trigger an LTP lasting more than 8 h that was not affected by either anisomycin or cycloheximide (two inhibitors of protein synthesis). We ascertained that the induction of this L-LTP made use of the same mechanisms as those usually reported to be involved in LTP induction: it was dependent on NMDA receptors and on the activation of two “core” kinases, CaMKII and PI3K. These findings call into question the two “dogmas” about LTP.