↓ Skip to main content

The lateral parabrachial nucleus is actively involved in the acquisition of fear memory in mice

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Brain, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The lateral parabrachial nucleus is actively involved in the acquisition of fear memory in mice
Published in
Molecular Brain, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13041-015-0108-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masaru Sato, Mariko Ito, Masashi Nagase, Yae K Sugimura, Yukari Takahashi, Ayako M Watabe, Fusao Kato

Abstract

Pavlovian fear conditioning is a form of learning accomplished by associating a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US). While CS-US associations are generally thought to occur in the amygdala, the pathway mediating US signal processing has only been partially identified. The external part of the pontine lateral parabrachial nucleus (elPB) is well situated for providing US nociceptive information to the central amygdala (CeA), which was recently revealed to play a primary role in fear acquisition. Therefore, we manipulated the elPB activity to examine its role in the regulation of fear learning. First, we transiently inactivate the elPB during the acquisition of fear memory. Mice received bilateral elPB injections of the GABAA agonist muscimol (MUS) or phosphate-buffered saline (drug control), with bilateral misplacement of MUS defined as a placement control group. After the injection, mice were conditioned with a pure tone and foot-shock. On a memory retrieval test on day 2, the freezing ratio was significantly lower in the MUS group compared with that in the drug control or placement control groups. A second retrieval test using a pip tone on day 4 following de novo training on day 3, resulted in significant freezing with no group differences, indicating integrity of fear learning and a temporary limited effect of MUS. Next, we examined whether selectively activating the elPB-CeC pathway is sufficient to induce fear learning when paired with CS. Mice with channelrhodopsin2 (ChR2) expressed in the elPB received a pure tone (CS) in association with optical stimulation in the CeA (CS-LED paired group). On the retrieval test, CS-LED paired mice exhibited significantly higher freezing ratios evoked by CS presentation compared with both control mice receiving optical stimulation immediately after being placed in the shock chamber and exposed to the CS much later (immediate shock group) and those expressing only GFP (GFP control group). These results suggest that selective stimulation of the elPB-CeC pathway substitutes for the US to induce fear learning. The elPB activity is necessary and sufficient to trigger fear learning, likely as a part of the pathway transmitting aversive signals to the CeA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 2%
China 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 27%
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 45 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 13%
Computer Science 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 21 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2021.
All research outputs
#12,919,961
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Brain
#409
of 1,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,227
of 263,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Brain
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.