Is LTP in the
amygdala a synaptic mechanism for the acquisition of conditional fear?
Summary
The major amygdaloid nuclei have long been proposed as the loci of emotional
processing. In the past dacade, intense research has been carried out
on the lateral and basolateral amygdaloid nuclei. These structures are
thought to be necessary for Pavlovian (classical) fear conditioning,
that is learning about fearful events, believed to be carried out through
glutamatergic LTP. The proposed experiment would (1) test for the presence
of amygdalar LTP in the GluR-A-/- mice and then (2) establish whether
the mice show fear conditioned responses. The study would thus investigate
whether increases in synaptic strength in the appropriate neural circuit
is indeed necessary for fear conditioning.
BACKGROUND
Anatomy
The
basolateral amygdaloid complex (BLA) receives multiple inputs from a
variety of structures. It receives, among others, auditory information
(from the auditory thalamus), visual information (from the perirhinal
cortex), spatial and contextual information (from the hippocampus) and
somatosensory information (from the insular cortex). The BLA, therefore,
is anatomically situated to integrate information from a variety of
sensory domains.
Thus, the BLA is a locus of sensory convergence and a site for conditional
stimulus-unconditional stimulus (CS-US) association in the amygdala.
Intra-amygdaloid circuitry conveys the CS-US association to the central
nucleus, where projections to the hypothalamus and brainstem mediate
fear responses such as freezing (periaqueductal gray), potentiated acoustic
startle (nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis), increased heart rate
and blood pressure (lateral hypothalamus), increased respiration (parabrachial
nucleus) and glucocorticoid release (paraventricular nucleus of the
hypothalamus).
Fear conditioning
Fear
conditioning is a paradigm that has been used as a model for emotional
learning in animals. During fear conditioning, a neutral conditioned
stimulus (the CS; for example, a tone) is followed by an unconditioned
stimulus (the US; for example, a foot shock), which routinely elicits
a stereotypic response - the behavioural correlates of fear. The lateral
amygdala (LA) is thought to be the critical structure in which information
from the CS and US converge (LeDoux, 1995). Commonly, researchers have
tested versions of the following hypothesis: LTP strengthens the input
from the auditory thalamus to the amygdala; this how the fear gets attached
to the tone. Deletion of LTP should block learning about the relationship
between CS and US.
The acquisition
of conditioned fear behaviour is evaluated by measuring 'freezing',
a characteristic defensive posture expressed in the presence of stimuli
that predict danger. The amount of time accounted for by freezing was
measured during the 20-s CS and also during the 20 s immediately before
CS onset (pre-CS period). The latter is a measure of the acquisition
of aversive conditioning to the experimental context in which the US
is delivered (such as the conditioning chamber); freezing to the experimental
context is independent of the presence or absence of an explicit CS,
and is typically seen with both paired and unpaired training. In this
experiment and pilot studies, the pattern of behaviour exhibited during
the 'one tone per second' 20-s CS was in all respects similar to the
behaviour exhibited by animals trained with a 20-s continuous tone CS;
for example, rats did not respond to the individual tones that made
up the CS, but rather behaved as though the 20-s CS period was a continuous
tone.
As the CS-US
relation is learned, innate physiological and behavioural responses
come under the control of the CS (Figure 1). For example, if a rat is
given a tone CS followed by an electric shock US, after a few tone-shock
pairings (one is often sufficient), defensive responses (responses that
typically occur in the presence of danger) will be elicited by the tone.
Examples of species-typical defensive responses that are brought under
the control of the CS include defensive behaviours (such as freezing)
and autonomic (e.g. heart rate, blood pressure) and endocrine (hormone
release) responses, as well as alterations in pain sensitivity (analgesia)
and reflex expression (fear potentiated startle and eye blink responses).
Long term
potentiation
There have been a number of studies of LTP in the amygdala, mostly
involving in vitro brain slices and pathways carrying information from
the cortex to LA and B (Chapman et al 1990, Chapman & Bellevance
1992, Gean et al 1993, Huang & Kandel 1998). These studies have
led to mixed results regarding the possible role of NMDA receptors in
cortico-amygdala LTP, with some studies finding effects (Huang &
Kandel 1998) and some not (Chapman & Bellevance 1992). Recent in
vitro studies indicate that LTP in the thalamo-amygdala pathway requires
postsynaptic calcium but the calcium does not enter through NMDA receptors
(Weisskopf et al 1999). Instead, calcium entry appears through L-type
voltage-gated calcium channels. These channels have also been implicated
in a form of LTP that occurs in the hippocampus (Cavus & Teyler
1996). It has also been shown that prior fear conditioning leads to
an enhancement in synaptic responses recorded subsequently in vitro
from amygdala slices (McKernan & Schinnick-Gallagher 1997). The
receptor mechansisms underlying this form of plasticity have not been
elucidated.
LTP has also
been studied in vivo in the thalamo-amygdala pathway using recordings
of extracellular field potentials (Clugnet & LeDoux 1990, Rogan
& LeDoux 1995, Rogan et al 1997). These studies show that LTP occurs
in fear processing pathways, that the processing of natural stimuli
similar to those used as a CS in conditioning studies is facilitated
following LTP induction, and that fear conditioning and LTP induction
produce similar changes in the processing of CS-like stimuli (Figure
6). Although exploration of mechanisms are difficult in these in vivo
studies, they nevertheless provide some of the strongest evidence to
date in any brain system of a relation between natural learning and
LTP (Barnes 1995, Eichenbaum 1995, Stevens 1998). LTP has been found
in vivo in the hippocampal-amygdala pathway, which is believed to be
involved in context conditioning (Maren & Fanselow 1995).
If the amygdala
is involved in learning of associations between stimuli and fearful
outcomes, is this process LTP-dependent? Studies along these lines are
only just beginning but there is considerable support for the hypothesis.
For example, it has been known for some time that the pathways into
and out of the amygdala are very plastic, and readily show LTP. The
basolateral nucleus is richly endowed with NMDA receptors, and drugs
that block these receptors (such as AP5) block acquisition but not expression
of fear responses, both to simple stimuli and to context. Furthermore,
induction of LTP in the auditory inputs increases auditory evoked potentials
in the amygdala, and auditory fear conditioning increases the size of
these responses, as well as neural activity along this pathway.
Long term potentiation has been proposed as the synaptic mechanism underlying
learning about fearful events. Several studies concentrate on the neurons
in the LA and BLA, which receive inputs from the medial geniculate nucleus
of the thalamus (aversive auditory cues, e.g. burst of white noise),
and that these two structures, through learning, exhibit associative
spiking. Glutamate receptors are thought to be essential for fear conditioning.
LTP induction on amygdaloid interneurons appears to be mediated by AMPA
rather than NMDA receptors (Mahanty and Sah, 1998).
Because the CS is a simple sensory stimulus, the afferents that carry
the CS information into the LA can be defined. This connection between
the auditory thalamus and LA can express LTP (Clugnet and LeDoux, 1990)
which, when induced with electrical stimulation, causes an increase
in the response of the LA to auditory stimulation (Rogan and LeDoux,
1995). The processing of natural stimuli can, therefore, use the mechanisms
set up by artificially induced LTP.
By preparing in vitro slices of the LA from fear conditioned rats, McKernan
and Shinnick-Gallagher (1997) examined the synaptic responses of LA
neurons to stimulation of afferents from the auditory thalamus. These
responses were consistently larger than those recorded from LA slices
prepared from control animals that had undergone unpaired CS-US training.
Furthermore, the synaptic responses of LA neurons to an independent
input that was not involved in fear conditioning remained unaltered.
The compelling conclusion is that fear conditioning caused an increase
in synaptic efficacy (for example, LTP), specifically at the synapses
that process the CS. The authors also suggest that this behaviourally
induced increase in synaptic strength may be due, at least in part,
to presynaptic modifications, because it was accompanied by a change
in one form of short-term presynaptic plasticity.
To test for LTP in the LA, LeDoux and colleagues (Bauer et al, 2001)
make use of whole-cell recordings from LA neurons in slice preparations.
Stimulating electrodes were placed in the path of the thalamic afferents
to LA. LTP is induced by pairing a train of 10 presynaptic stimuli (30
Hz) to the thalamic fibers with a train of 10 depolarizations (1 nA,
5 ms) of the postsynaptic cell given 5-10 ms after the onset of each
EPSP to produce an action potential at the peak of each EPSP. Pairing
is given 15 times at 20-second intervals. A second group of cells receives
unpaired depolarizations (UDs) 10 seconds after each pairing. This arrangement
reduces the overall probability with which depolarizations occurring
in conjunction with presynaptic stimulation to 50%, but maintains the
temporal contiguity between the EPSPs and depolarizations.
Is the LTP-memory
connection now established enough to silence the sceptics? Rogan, Staubli
and LeDoux (1997) point out several features common to fear conditioning
and hippocampal LTP, including their dependence on NMDA receptors (Miserendino,
Sananes, Melia and Davis, 1990; Gewirtz and Davis, 1997) Nevertheless,
it remains to be shown that the mechanisms responsible for the behaviourally
induced synaptic changes are the same as those underlying electrically
induced LTP. But the new reports (Rogan, Staubli and LeDoux, 1997; McKernan
and Shinnick-Gallagher, 1997) indicate that attempts to study LTP have
not simply been an intellectual exercise, and that progress continues
towards a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that underlie
learning and memory.
In vivo
recordings
We
have previously shown that LTP induction in pathways that transmit auditory
CS information to the lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA) increases
auditory-evoked field potentials in this nucleus7. Transmission of auditory
information from the medial geniculate body to the lateral nucleus of
the amygdala is believed to be involved in the conditioning of fear
responses to acoustic stimuli. This pathway exhibits LTP of electrically
evoked field potentials after high frequency stimulation of the medial
geniculate body. High frequency stimulation of the medial geniculate
body also results in a long-lasting potentiation of a field potential
in the lateral amygdala elicited by a naturally transduced acoustic
stimulus.
Rats were
anaesthetized and implanted with a stainless-steel recording electrode
(0.6 mW) in the LA, and a ground electrode in the skull, under aseptic
surgical conditions.Now we show that fear conditioning alters auditory
CS-evoked responses in LA in the same way as LTP induction. The changes
parallel the acquisition of CS-elicited fear behaviour, are enduring,
and do not occur if the CS and US remain unpaired. LTP-like associative
processes thus occur during fear conditioning, and these may underlie
the long-term associative plasticity that constitutes memory of the
conditioning experience.v
To address
this in vivo, Rogan, Staubli and LeDoux (1997) monitored the extracellular
potential in the LA, in response to the CS tones while a rat was trained.
As the CS and US were paired, and the animal learned to respond to the
CS with a behavioural correlate of fear, the response in the LA to the
CS alone grew, and remained at a high level. Further presentations of
the CS alone extinguished the behavioural response (that is, the memory),
and the auditory-evoked potential returned to baseline. Importantly,
when the CS and US were unpaired - so no learning occurred - there was
no significant growth in the auditory-evoked potential.
Genetic
manipulations
Is
it possible to impair fear conditioning by eliminating amygdaloid LTP
genetically? Consistent with the deficit of titanic LTP in the amygdala,
genetic KO models have been produced. The best one to date a RasGRF
knockout mice engineered by Brambilla and colleagues (Brambilla et al,
1999). They found that mice that lack RasGRF exhibit deficits in both
tetanic LTP in the amygdala and Pavlovian fear conditioning. Tetanic
LTP in the BLA was characterized in vitro in brain slices obtained from
wild-type mice and mice lacking RasGRF. Extracellular field potentials
in BLA were elicited by electrical stimulation of the LA. High-frequency
stimulation of LA induced a robust LTP of synaptic transmission in the
BL of wild-type mice, but resulted in a rapidly decaying potentiation
in mice that lack RasGRF.
Consistent
with the deficit in tetanic LTP in the amygdala, mice lacking RasGRF
exhibited deficits in long-term retention of Pavlovian fear conditioning.
Conditional freezing to a tone that was paired with footshock and the
context in which the tone-shock pairing occurred was impaired in RasGRF
knockouts when they were tested 24 h after training. However, their
short-term memory for the fear conditioning was intact when they were
tested 30 min after training. This indicates that the deficit in long-term
retention in mice lacking RasGRF was not the result of an inability
of these mice to exhibit freezing behavior. Hippocampal LTP in RasGRF
knockouts was normal. This study constitutes some of the most compelling
evidence for the link between LTP and fear conditioning.
PROPOSED
EXPERIMENT
The proposed
study, to be conducted on the global and conditional knockout mice,
would test the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis
If fear conditioning requires AMPA-mediated LTP, then LTP-deficient
mice should fail to show fear conditioned responses.
Tests
1. Test for LTP in the thalamic medial geniculate nucleus (MGN) - basolateral
amygdaloid complex (BLA) pathway.
2. Test for auditorily evoked fear responses in the potentiated startle
paradigm.
3. Perform amygdalectomies to control for extra-amygdalar compensation
Possible
outcomes if LTP is deficient:
1. Normal fear conditioning
2. Lack of fear conditioning
Both outcomes are compelling. If there is no fear conditioning or fear
potentiated startle, this will almost conclusively be because of the
lack of LTP. On the other hand, if fear conditioning is indistinguishable
from the wild types, then some other mechanism and the argument put
forward by LeDoux et al is demolished. Either way, the role of AMPA
based LTP will be elucidated to a much greater extent than in previous
studies.
Conditional
knockouts
There
is also a question about whether the amygdala is involved in induction
or consolidation. With NMDA blockade there is no induction. Presumably
there would be no learning either in the global KOs. However, with the
inducible KOs, one could show that the same animal can learn the fear
potentiated startle or the normal fear conditioning paradigms at one
time, then omit doxycycline from their diet and see whether their ability
is impaired.
Compensation
by extra-amygdalar structures
In the event that fear conditioning is intact in the knockouts, an intriguing
finding, one might attempt several explanations. One of these explanations
would be compensation (especially in case of the global knockouts).
In order to control for possible extra-hippocampal compensation, we
would perform cytotoxic amygdalectomies on the GluR-A-/- mice and then
test them fear conditioning. This would provide very strong evidence
indeed for the LTP hypothesis whether the mice are able to learn about
fearful events or not.
|