Altered AMPA receptor expression plays an important role in inducing bidirectional synaptic plasticity during contextual fear memory reconsolidation.

Retrieval of a memory appears to render it unstable until the memory is once again re-stabilized or reconsolidated. Although the occurrence and consequences of reconsolidation have received much attention in recent years, the specific mechanisms that underlie the process of reconsolidation have not been fully described. Here, we present the first electrophysiological model of the synaptic plasticity changes underlying the different stages of reconsolidation of a conditioned fear memory. In this model, retrieval of a fear memory results in immediate but transient alterations in synaptic plasticity, mediated by modified expression of the glutamate receptor subunits GluA1 and GluA2 in the hippocampus of rodents. Retrieval of a memory results in an immediate impairment in LTP, which is enhanced 6h following memory retrieval. Conversely, memory retrieval results in an immediate enhancement of LTD, which decreases with time. These changes in plasticity are accompanied by decreased expression of GluA2 receptor subunits. Recovery of LTP and LTD correlates with progressive overexpression of GluA2 receptor subunits. The contribution of the GluA2 receptor was confirmed by interfering with receptor expression at the postsynaptic sites. Blocking GluA2 endocytosis restored LTP and attenuated LTD during the initial portion of the reconsolidation period. These findings suggest that altered GluA2 receptor expression is one of the mechanisms that controls different forms of synaptic plasticity during reconsolidation.

Delaying interference training has equivalent effects in various Pavlovian interference paradigms.

Spontaneous recovery in extinction appears to be inversely related to the acquisition-to-extinction interval, but it remains unclear why this is the case. Rat subjects trained with one of three interference paradigms exhibited less spontaneous recovery of the original response after delayed than immediate interference, regardless of whether interference resulted in attenuated fear (extinction, CS-Shock followed by CS-noShock), acquisition of conditioned fear (latent inhibition, CS-noShock followed by CS-Shock), or acquisition of a response (counterconditioning, CS-Shock followed by CS-Sucrose). We suggest that delaying interference treatment increases the relative similarity of the interference and test contexts, facilitating retrieval of the interfering association and attenuating recovery of the original response.

Long-term maintenance of immediate or delayed extinction is determined by the extinction-test interval.

Short acquisition-extinction intervals (immediate extinction) can lead to either more or less spontaneous recovery than long acquisition-extinction intervals (delayed extinction). Using rat subjects, we observed less spontaneous recovery following immediate than delayed extinction (Experiment 1). However, this was the case only if a relatively long extinction-test interval was used; a relatively short extinction-test interval yielded the opposite result (Experiment 2). Previous data appear consistent with this observation suggesting that, although delayed extinction appears more beneficial in the short term, immediate extinction may have more favorable long-term effects. These observations may have important implications for attenuation of relapse in clinical situations.