Abstract

The theta rhythm, a quasi-periodic 4-10 Hz oscillation, is observed during memory processing in the hippocampus, with different phases of theta hypothesized to separate independent streams of information related to the encoding and recall of memories. At the cellular level, the discovery of hippocampal memory cells (engram neurons), as well as the modulation of memory recall through optogenetic activation of these cells, has provided evidence that certain memories are stored, in part, in a sparse ensemble of neurons in the hippocampus. In previous research, however, engram reactivation has been carried out using open loop stimulation at fixed frequencies; the relationship between engram neuron reactivation and ongoing network oscillations has not been taken into consideration. To address this concern, we implemented a closed-loop reactivation of engram neurons that enabled phase-specific stimulation relative to theta oscillations in the local field potential in CA1. Using this real-time approach, we tested the impact of activating dentate gyrus engram neurons during the peak (encoding phase) and trough (recall phase) of theta oscillations. Consistent with previously hypothesized functions of theta oscillations in memory function, we show that stimulating dentate gyrus engram neurons at the trough of theta is more effective in eliciting behavioral recall than either fixed frequency stimulation or stimulation at the peak of theta. Moreover, phase-specific trough stimulation is accompanied by an increase in the coupling between gamma and theta oscillations in CA1 hippocampus. Oure results provide a causal link between phase- specific activation of engram cells and the behavioral expression of memory.

Data availability

Data collected for the purpose of this paper and the custom algorithms that were used in performing the analysis are available at https://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k0p2ngfc0. The theta-phase detection algorithm is accessible at https://github.com/ndlBU/phase_specific_stim. It can be run using the RTXI platform accessible through http://rtxi.org. Behavioral scoring was done using the ezTrack package available at github.com/DeniseCaiLab/ezTrack.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Bahar Rahsepar

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jacob F Norman

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jad Noueihed

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Benjamin Lahner

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Melanie H Quick

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kevin Ghaemi

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Aashna Pandya

    Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Fernando R Fernandez

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Steve Ramirez

    Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9966-598X
  10. John A White

    Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    jwhite@bu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1073-2638

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS054281)

  • John A White

BU Center for Systems Neuroscience and Neurophotonics Center (Grant)

  • Bahar Rahsepar
  • Jacob F Norman
  • Jad Noueihed
  • Steve Ramirez
  • John A White

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01 EB016407)

  • John A White

National Institutes of Health (DP5 OD023106-01)

  • Steve Ramirez

National Institutes of Health (Transformative R01)

  • Steve Ramirez

Ludwig Family Foundation (Research Grant)

  • Steve Ramirez

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (Young Investigator Grant)

  • Steve Ramirez

McKnight Foundation (Memory and Cognitive Disorders Award)

  • Steve Ramirez

Pew Scholars Program in the Biomedical Science (Grant)

  • Steve Ramirez

Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550- 21-1-0310)

  • Steve Ramirez

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Laura L Colgin, University of Texas at Austin, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (PROTO201800599) of Boston University. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of the University of Minnesota (Permit Number: 27-2956). All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Version history

  1. Received: August 14, 2022
  2. Preprint posted: October 28, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: July 3, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: July 4, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: July 21, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Rahsepar et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,014
    views
  • 196
    downloads
  • 2
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Bahar Rahsepar
  2. Jacob F Norman
  3. Jad Noueihed
  4. Benjamin Lahner
  5. Melanie H Quick
  6. Kevin Ghaemi
  7. Aashna Pandya
  8. Fernando R Fernandez
  9. Steve Ramirez
  10. John A White
(2023)
Theta-phase-specific modulation of dentate gyrus memory neurons
eLife 12:e82697.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82697

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82697

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Amanda Chu, Nicholas T Gordon ... Michael A McDannald
    Research Article

    Pavlovian fear conditioning has been extensively used to study the behavioral and neural basis of defensive systems. In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits freezing, a behavior theoretically linked to predator detection. Studies have since shown a fear conditioned cue can elicit locomotion, a behavior that - in addition to jumping, and rearing - is theoretically linked to imminent or occurring predation. A criticism of studies observing fear conditioned cue-elicited locomotion is that responding is non-associative. We gave rats Pavlovian fear discrimination over a baseline of reward seeking. TTL-triggered cameras captured 5 behavior frames/s around cue presentation. Experiment 1 examined the emergence of danger-specific behaviors over fear acquisition. Experiment 2 examined the expression of danger-specific behaviors in fear extinction. In total, we scored 112,000 frames for nine discrete behavior categories. Temporal ethograms show that during acquisition, a fear conditioned cue suppresses reward seeking and elicits freezing, but also elicits locomotion, jumping, and rearing - all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent. During extinction, a fear conditioned cue most prominently suppresses reward seeking, and elicits locomotion that is timed to shock delivery. The independent expression of these behaviors in both experiments reveal a fear conditioned cue to orchestrate a temporally organized suite of behaviors.

    1. Neuroscience
    Salima Messaoudi, Ada Allam ... Isabelle Caille
    Research Article

    The fragile X syndrome (FXS) represents the most prevalent form of inherited intellectual disability and is the first monogenic cause of autism spectrum disorder. FXS results from the absence of the RNA-binding protein FMRP (fragile X messenger ribonucleoprotein). Neuronal migration is an essential step of brain development allowing displacement of neurons from their germinal niches to their final integration site. The precise role of FMRP in neuronal migration remains largely unexplored. Using live imaging of postnatal rostral migratory stream (RMS) neurons in Fmr1-null mice, we observed that the absence of FMRP leads to delayed neuronal migration and altered trajectory, associated with defects of centrosomal movement. RNA-interference-induced knockdown of Fmr1 shows that these migratory defects are cell-autonomous. Notably, the primary Fmrp mRNA target implicated in these migratory defects is microtubule-associated protein 1B (MAP1B). Knocking down MAP1B expression effectively rescued most of the observed migratory defects. Finally, we elucidate the molecular mechanisms at play by demonstrating that the absence of FMRP induces defects in the cage of microtubules surrounding the nucleus of migrating neurons, which is rescued by MAP1B knockdown. Our findings reveal a novel neurodevelopmental role for FMRP in collaboration with MAP1B, jointly orchestrating neuronal migration by influencing the microtubular cytoskeleton.