Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27242410›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2016

A Model of Synaptic Reconsolidation.

David B Kastner, Tilo Schwalger, Lorric Ziegler, Wulfram Gerstner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David B KastnerSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland.
Tilo SchwalgerSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lorric ZieglerSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland.
Wulfram GerstnerSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences and Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Sciences, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

TRAINING THE NEXT GENERATION OF MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCHERSR25MH060482 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI DANIEL H MATHALON, Susan M. Voglmaier · 2000 to 2026
$5.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH060482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reconsolidation of memories has mostly been studied at the behavioral and molecular level. Here, we put forward a simple extension of existing computational models of synaptic consolidation to capture hippocampal slice experiments that have been interpreted as reconsolidation at the synaptic level. The model implements reconsolidation through stabilization of consolidated synapses by stabilizing entities combined with an activity-dependent reservoir of stabilizing entities that are immune to protein synthesis inhibition (PSI). We derive a reduced version of our model to explore the conditions under which synaptic reconsolidation does or does not occur, often referred to as the boundary conditions of reconsolidation. We find that our computational model of synaptic reconsolidation displays complex boundary conditions. Our results suggest that a limited resource of hypothetical stabilizing molecules or complexes, which may be implemented by protein phosphorylation or different receptor subtypes, can underlie the phenomenon of synaptic reconsolidation.

Indexed as

memory dynamicsneuron modelingreconsolidationreduced modelsynaptic plasticity

Identifiers

PMID27242410
PMCPMC4870270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.