CA1 astrocyte Gi activation impairs schema-mediated memory acquisition and expression
To specially modulate CA1 astrocyte Gi pathway activation, we employed an AAV2/9 carrying hM4Di fused to mCherry under the control of the astrocytic GFAP promoter. Vectors of AAV2/9-GFAP-hM4Di-mCherry were injected into the bilateral dorsal HPC/CA1 of rats, resulting in CA1 astrocyte-specific expression which is restricted to the astrocytic outer membranes (Fig. 1A). The expression of vectors has high penetrance (90.78±1.91% of GFAP cells expressed hM4Di), high specificity (92.22±1.05% hM4Di-positive cells were also GFAP-positive) and less leakage of neuron (NeuN showed 1.95±0.23% overlap with hM4Di expression).
To test the effect of astrocytic Gi pathway modulation on overall schema establishment, we prepared two groups of rats (hM4Di_CNO and hM4Di_Saline, n=6 each) who received AAV8-GFAP-hM4Di-mCherry bilateral CA1 injection. After 3 weeks of post-surgery recovery and vector expression, 7 days of habituation was conducted and followed by 2 days of pre-training. Rats were trained to learn the schema of six original paired associates (OPAs) over 18 sessions. Each session consisted of six trials. At the beginning of each trial, the rat is given a flavored food pellet as cue in a start box. During each trial, only one sand well out of the six contained the flavored food rewards. Rats were required to dig at one or more sand wells until finding the correct location containing three food pellets of the same flavor as the cue tasted in start box. Three nonrewarded probe tests were conducted to test memory retrieval wherein rats were given a flavor cue and allowed to dig in any of the six sand wells within 120s, however, there would be no food rewards in the correct sand well. The performance index (PI) was calculated by noting the number of incorrect sand wells dug before finding the correct cued location. Memory recall in the nonrewarded probe tests were assessed by calculating the percentage digging time at the correct cued location (Fig. 1B). CNO (10mg/kg, i.p.) in hM4Di_CNO group and same volume of saline in hM4Di_Saline group were administered 30 min before each OPA training session, but not before the probe tests (Fig. 1D). In hM4Di_Saline group, the performance index of OPA training improved steadily across sessions, from chance level (50%) to over 70%, while hM4Di_CNO group lingered at chance level throughout the training sessions. After session 5, performance index in hM4Di_Saline group were significantly higher than hM4Di_CNO group (Fig 1C), indicating that hM4Di_CNO group of rats failed to develop schema-mediated memory of the OPAs.
To assess the memory retrieval of OPAs, 3 nonrewarded probe tests were conducted. The hM4Di_Saline group showed increasing proportion of digging time at the cued location from PT1 to PT3 (PT1 to PT3, 13.32%±1.22 to 35.24%±3.22, F(2,39)= 38.73, p<0.001, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 1E), while hM4Di_CNO group did not show any improvement in each probe test (F(2,39)= 1.932, p=0.158, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 1E). In addition, digging time of PT3 in hM4Di_Saline group was noticeably higher than hM4Di_CNO group (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 35.24%±3.22 vs 16.35%±0.94, p<0.001, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 1E), demonstrating that hM4Di_CNO groups did not develop a schema memory of OPAs.
After “schema” is well established, new information will be assimilated rapidly. To verify that rats had successfully developed the schema memory of OPAs, we introduced two new PAs (NPAs), NPA7 and 8 in session 19, followed by NPA probe test in session 20. hM4Di_CNO rats showed poor memory retrieval of NPAs as evidenced by a significantly lower digging time % compared to hM4Di_Saline group (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 34.42%±2.10 vs 15.26%±2.26, F(2, 13)=27.854, p<0.001, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 1F), indicating that hM4Di_CNO group failed to assimilate new information.
CNO is reverse-metabolized to its parent compound clozapine and exerts interoceptive stimulus effects in rats and/or mice [21]. To confirm that the PA learning inhibition was not due to clozapine-like effects, we set another control group (Vehicle_CNO, n=4) where rats received the vehicle virus (AAV8-GFAP-mCherry) injection in bilateral CA1. CNO 10mg/kg was i.p. administered 30 min before each training session. Vehicle_CNO group’s performance index or digging time % in PT3 (hM4Di_Saline vs Vehicle_CNO, 35.25%±3.22 vs 37.17%±1.80, p=1.000, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 1E) showed no difference with hM4Di_Saline group. Vehicle_CNO group was successful in assimilating new PA information; the cued digging time % in PT4 is comparable with that of hM4Di_Saline group (hM4Di_Saline vs Vehicle_CNO, 34.42%±2.10 vs 35.00%±1.91, p=0.983, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 1F). In addition, both Vehicle_CNO group and hM4Di_Saline group showed no difference in latency which is the time before digging commenced at the correct well during each training session (Fig. 1G), indicating that CNO administration does not impact rat reaction. The above evidences exclude the effect of CNO itself on rats’ behavior.
During consistent Gi pathway activation, hM4Di_CNO group rats neither established schema of OPAs, nor assimilated new information after single session training.
These findings support the hypothesis that CA1 astrocyte activation is necessary for the establishment of memory schema. Next, we investigate the role of CA1 astrocytes in modulating memory transformation between hippocampus and neocortex in the schema development process.
The feature of CA1-ACC interaction during the development and establishment of memory schema
Next, we used fiber photometry to assess the Ca2+ signal level in CA1 and ACC, correlating the CA1/ACC activity with PA training in freely behaving rats under physiological state (Fig. 2A). Since the process of schema development is a network built between CA1 and ACC, we specifically detected the subpopulation of CA1-ACC projecting cells’ activation. Here, we utilized two new cohorts of rats. The first cohort of rats received bilateral injection of vector AAV2/9-Ef1α-DIO-GCaMP7s and AAV8-GFAP-hM4Di-mCherry into CA1, and simultaneous injection of retro-AAV including the expression of Cre (AAV2-retro-CaMKII-Cre) into ACC. Together, Ca2+ indicator GCaMP7s was expressed in CA1-ACC projecting neurons selectively (Fig. 2C). The second cohort of rats were implanted with photometry fibers into bilateral ACC after GCaMP7 infection and AAV8-GFAP-hM4Di-mCherry was injected in CA1 (Fig. 2G). In each session, both cohorts of rats only received saline treatment 30 min before training and recording (Fig. 2B).
Although Ca2+ signals (ΔF/F%) fluctuated during the whole PA task training, it is intriguing that high Ca2+ signals/peaks were mostly detected when rats were seeking for the cued location in the open arena or getting food reward pellets. On the contrary, Ca2+ signals decreased and then flattened when rats were digging in the sand wells (Additional file 1: Fig S1, 1A). Meanwhile, the probability distribution of averaged Z-score of Ca2+ signals distinguish these different behaviors (Additional file 1: Fig S1, 1B). Therefore, we only analyzed the average level of Ca2+ signal including the rodent behavior of seeking and obtaining food reward pellets, and excluding digging sand wells.
The fiber photometry results showed that Ca2+ signals in CA1-ACC projecting neurons were robust when rats were newly exposed into OPAs in session 1 where the Ca2+ level (ΔF/F%) was close to 4% (3.86±0.24%), and then decreased to 2.97±0.37% in session 10. With continuous training of OPA task, Ca2+ signals gradually diminished to <1% (0.79±0.17%, Fig. 2E, F) at session 16. In contrast to the varying trend in CA1 Ca2+ signals, the Ca2+ level in ACC showed a mild increase when first exposed in session 1 (1.19±0.21%), then reached the peak at session 10 (2.95±0.35%). In the subsequent training session, Ca2+ level slightly decreased to 1.12±0.11%. Interestingly, when a probe test (PT3) was conducted at the end of training to test the memory recall of OPAs, Ca2+ signals in ACC showed an obvious increase compared to session 16 (PT3 vs session 16, 2.01±0.17% vs 1.12±0.11%, p=0.042, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 2J) while CA1 Ca2+ level had no improvement (0.71±0.20%, Fig. 2F), indicating that the ACC, but not CA1, assumes the main role in the memory retrieval of OPA memory retrieval and that information had been transferred and stored into the ACC at the end of schema development. Next, we introduced two NPA7,8 in session 19. Both projection neurons and ACC neurons showed an elevation of Ca2+ signals compared to session 16 (session 16 vs NPA; CA1, 0.79±0.17% vs 1.90±0.16%, p=0.023; ACC, 2.32±0.26% vs 1.12±0.11%, p=0.010; one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 2E, F, I, J), confirming the parallel encoding in CA1 and ACC during the assimilation of new information. In addition, the possibility of a decrease Ca2+ level in CA1 due to photobleaching by prolonged detection was excluded.
These results suggest that memory schema is initially located in CA1 and is gradually transferred to and stored in the ACC. Encoding of new associated information requires parallel activation in both brain areas. We next use three time points (session 1, 10, and 18) to study the process of schema memory development and establishment. CA1 astrocytes will be chemogenetically manipulated in different stages of the process.
CA1 astrocyte Gi activation impairs the initial stage of memory schema by inhibiting the activation of CA1-ACC projecting neurons (c-Fos expression and calcium level)
We administered CNO or saline i.p. to hM4Di_CNO group and hM4Di_Saline group respectively 30min before training from sessions 1 to 5 (Fig. 3A). The performance index of hM4Di_Saline group during OPA task gradually increased across the 5 sessions, while the performance index of hM4Di_CNO group showed no improvement after session 3 (Fig. 3B). Meanwhile, the retrieval of OPA memory in PT1 also revealed a lower proportion digging time at the cued location in hM4Di_CNO group (PT1, hM4Di_CNO vs hM4Di_Saline, 11.70%±0.92 vs 18.44%±1.40, F(1,30)=8.298, p= 0.007, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 3C). After withdrawal of CNO i.p., the performance index of hM4Di_CNO group gradually caught up with that of hM4Di_Saline group in session 14, while digging time % in PT2 was still markedly lower (PT2, hM4Di_CNO vs hM4Di_Saline, 26.22%±2.42 vs 39.15%±1.82, F(1,30)=30.526, p< 0.001, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 3C). Finally, after continuous training for another 7 sessions, CNO rats exhibited a comparable digging time % to the saline group in PT3 at session 23 (Rats’ PA performance recovery was defined as both performance index and probe test digging time % comparable to hM4Di_Saline group). Altogether, these findings indicate that Gi pathway activation of CA1 astrocytes damaged the initial period of schema development, but was recovered after CNO withdrawal.
To examine the activation of the subpopulation of CA1-ACC projecting cells, we tagged these projection neurons with bilateral injection of a retro-AAV which included the expression of the Cre recombinase in excitatory neurons (AAV2-retro-CaMKII-Cre) into the ACC and with a Cre-dependent virus inducing the expression of green fluorescent protein (EYFP) (AAV2/9-Ef1α-DIO-EYFP) into the CA1. AAV8-GFAP-hM4Di–mCherry was simultaneously injected into the CA1 to allow astrocytic manipulation (Fig. 3E). Finally, the three vectors resulted in EYFP expression only in CA1 neurons which projected to ACC, and mCherry expression in CA1 astrocytes (Fig. 3E). Meanwhile, the terminal of projecting fibers from CA1 also showed green fluorescence in ACC (Fig. 3F). This group of rats was then sacrificed 90 min later (Fig. 3A).
We found that in this stage of schema development, CA1 neurons had been dramatically recruited compared to home-cage group (home-cage vs session 1, 6.81×103/mm3±0.66 vs 15.97×103/mm3±1.74, p=0.041, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2B). However, the activation of CA1 neurons was delicate under the manipulation of astrocytes Gi pathway activation. The overall CA1 c-Fos expression in hM4Di_CNO group was significantly downregulated compared to hM4Di_Saline group (hM4Di_CNO vs hM4Di_Saline, 9.58×103/mm3±1.21 vs 15.97×103/mm3±1.74, t(10)=3.012, p=0.013, t-test, Fig. 3K). More interestingly, the dramatic recruitment during session 1 of OPA task learning was observed in the subpopulation of CA1-ACC projecting cells, with >35% of projection cells expressing c-Fos after OPA task learning, significantly more than home-cage rats (home-cage vs session 1, 6.57%±1.79 vs 36.72%±4.26, p<0.001, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2D), and can be downregulated to < 20% by CNO administration (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 36.72%±4.26 vs 19.80%±3.32, t(10)=3.133, p=0.011, t-test, Fig. 3L). Identically, results from fiber photometry recording showed that the average Ca2+ signals of CA1-ACC projecting neurons were decreased by CNO treatment (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 3.49% ±0.28 vs 2.19%±0.32, t(32)=3.044, p= 0.005, t-test, Additional file 3: Fig S3, 3B, 3C and 3E). Furthermore, the probability distribution of Ca2+ signals in hM4Di_CNO group showed a left-shift compared to that of hM4Di_Saline group (Additional file 3: Fig S3, 3D), indicating that CNO treatment resulted in decreased Ca2+ signal activity in CA1-ACC projecting neurons while learning the OPAs in session 1.
To investigate ACC neuronal activation in the initial stage, we introduced a new cohort of rats which received AAV2/9-GFAP-hM4Di–mCherry infusion in the CA1 and were sacrificed 90min after CNO/Saline i.p. and 60 min after session 1 OPA task training. c-Fos staining and quantification were used to detected ACC neuron activation (Fig. 3A). Compared to the home-cage group, ACC was found to be involved during session 1 OPA task training, as evidenced by increased c-Fos expression (session 1 vs home-cage, 10.08×103/mm3±0.79 vs 5.92×103/mm3±0.42, p=0.018, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2F). However, Gi pathway activation in CA1 astrocytes had no effect on preventing the recruitment of ACC. The c-Fos expression was similar between hM4Di_Saline and hM4Di_CNO groups (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 10.08×103/mm3±0.79 vs 8.03×103/mm3±0.63, t(10)= 2.030, p= 0.070, t-test, Fig. 3M). Consistent with c-Fos expression, no significant effect on ACC neurons’ Ca2+ activation was observed in CNO group during learning of OPAs in session 1; the average Ca2+ signals did not show a difference between two groups (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 1.22%±0.20 vs 1.18%±0.17, t(32)=0.1789, p=0.859, t-test, Additional file 3: Fig S3, 3F, 3G and 3I) or a probability distribution curve shift (Additional file 3: Fig S3, 3H). These data suggest that the recruitment of the subpopulation of CA1-ACC projecting cells is necessary for the initial stage of schema memory learning. To verify whether Gi pathway activation in CA1 astrocytes has an effect on other non-ACC projecting neurons, we tagged additional monosynaptic projections from the CA1 terminating at the nucleus accumbens (NAc) and activated the Gi pathway in CA1 astrocytes. Looking at c-Fos expression in the subpopulation of NAc projecting neurons in session 1, we found that these neurons are only moderately recruited compared to home-cage rats (home-cage vs session 1, 8.40%±0.63 vs 13.12%±1.31, t(7)=2.98, p=0.021, t-test, Additional file 3: Fig S3, 3O). Interestingly, astrocyte Gi pathway activation had no effect on reducing CA1-NAc projecting neurons’ recruitment. (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 13.12%±1.31 vs 11.83%±1.53, t(7)=0.649, p=0.90, t-test, Additional file 3: Fig S3, 3K, 3L, 3Q).
These results suggest that astrocyte modulation has distinct effects among different subpopulation neurons in CA1. During schema development, astrocytic Gi pathway activation in CA1 has a specific inhibitory effect on CA1-ACC projecting neurons.
CA1 astrocyte Gi activation interrupts the middle stage of memory schema formation by impairing CA1-ACC neurons’ interaction (c-Fos expression and calcium level)
In this study, CNO administration 30min before training from sessions 10 to 14 leads to a gradual decrease in performance index to chance level (Fig. 4B), considerably lower than hM4Di_Saline group. In addition, the digging time % in PT3 of OPA task was also decreased in hM4Di_CNO group (hM4Di_CNO vs hM4Di_Saline, 17.59%±1.96 vs 36.47%±2.43, F(1,40)=27.226, p<0.001, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 4C). After withdrawal of CNO administration, both the performance index and digging time % in PT could be recovered.
Next, we set up a cohort of CA1-ACC projection-tagged rats which received CNO/Saline i.p. 30 min before session 10 and which were then sacrificed 90 min later (Fig. 4A). Firstly, CA1 was found to be highly involved in the learning of OPAs in session 10 compared to home-cage group, as the evidenced by the overall significantly higher c-Fos expression in CA1 in the home-cage group (home-cage vs session 10, 6.81×103/mm3±0.66 vs 17.22×103/mm3±2.78, p=0.016, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2B). Meanwhile, Gi pathway activation dramatically decreased CA1 neuron recruitment as shown by the significant reduction in c-Fos in hM4Di_CNO group compared to hM4Di_Saline group (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO,17.22×103/mm3±2.78 vs 9.17×103/mm3±1.26, t(10)=2.643, p=0.025, t-test, Fig. 4E, F, I). Secondly, in the middle stage of schema development, CA1-ACC projecting neurons were evidently recruited, as >30% of CA1-ACC projecting cells expressed c-Fos following task learning, while CNO administration significantly downregulated the proportion of c-Fos in these cells to < 17% (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 30.75%±4.38 vs 16.92%±3.95, t(10)=2.345, p=0.041, t-test, Fig. 4E, F, and J). Consistent with the quantification of c-Fos/EYFP overlap, Ca2+ levels of CA1-ACC projecting neurons showed a similar trend; the average Ca2+ signal recording in session 10 was dramatically decreased after CNO treatment (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 2.77%±0.20 vs 1.28%±0.22, t(40)=5.017, p<0.001, t-test, Additional file 4: Fig S4, 4B, 4C and 4E). Furthermore, the probability distribution of Ca2+ signals in hM4Di_CNO group was left-shifted compared to that in hM4Di_Saline group (Additional file 4: Fig S4, 4D).
The recruitment of ACC neurons in the learning of OPAs in session 10 is robust, significantly higher than the initial stage (session 10 vs session 1, 14.32×103/mm3±1.38 vs 10.07×103/mm3±0.79, p=0.015, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2F). Unlike the initial stage, the greater involvement of ACC activity in the middle stage of OPA task suggests that ACC may play a critical role in the middle stage of memory schema formation. Moreover, learning-induced elevation of neuron recruitment can be inhibited by CA1 astrocytes Gi pathway activation (c-Fos expression hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 14.32×103/mm3±1.38 vs 10.56×103/mm3±0.54, t(10)=2.54, p=0.029, t-test, Fig. 4G, H, K). Identically, in correlation with real-time behavior, Ca2+ signal level in ACC was flattened by CNO treatment (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 2.54%±0.15 vs 1.33%±0.16, t(33)=5.428, p<0.001, t-test, Additional file 4: Fig S4, 4F, 4G, 4I). In the distribution of probability, the curve of hM4Di_CNO group exhibited a left-shift compared to that of hM4Di_Saline group (Additional file 4: Fig S4, 4H). We show here that chemogenetic manipulation CA1 astrocyte Gi pathway suppressed CA1-ACC projecting neuronal activity and negatively impacts the middle stage task learning by damaging CA1-ACC communication.
CA1 astrocyte Gi activation has less effects on memory retrieval, but markedly suppresses new PA assimilation into the established memory schema
After 18 sessions of training with 6 PAs, the food-location associative memory schema was established. To explore the adaptable feature of memory schema and the role of astrocytes in the rapid assimilation of new information into the schema, we administered CNO 30min before sessions 18–22 (Fig. 5A). Unlike the initial and middle stages, late-stage manipulation of CA1 astrocytes had no effect on the performance index of OPA task since the performance index in both groups was ~ 70%, and hM4Di_CNO group showed no difference compared to hM4Di_Saline group (Fig. 5B). The results of PT4 of OPA memory in both groups were maintained in a high level and showed no difference (hM4Di_CNO vs hM4Di_Saline, 44.01%±2.28 vs 43.58±1.18, F(1,40)=0.021, p=0.885, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Fig. 5C). To verify whether astrocytes Gi pathway activation in CA1 will disrupt the recall of schema memory, we set up another cohort of rats who received CNO/saline injection 30 min before sessions 19, 21, 25, and 28, which corresponds to PT4-7 of OPAs (Additional file 5: Fig S5, 5A). The results showed that the memory of OPAs was very robust, and there was no difference in digging time % between PT4-7 (F(3,44)=0.080, p=0.971, two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 5: Fig S5, 5D). Moreover, CA1 astrocytic Gi pathway activation has no effect on memory retrieval of OPAs as no difference was found between hM4Di_Saline group and hM4Di_CNO group (F(1,44)=0.735, p=0.396, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 5: Fig S5, 5D).
Next, we introduced a cohort of rats which were sacrificed at session 18, 60 min after the task and 90 min after CNO/saline i.p. In hM4Di_Saline group (Fig. 5A), there was an overall increase in c-Fos expression in CA1 compared to home-cage group without statistical significance (home-cage vs session 18, 6.81×103/mm3±0.66 vs 13.20×103/mm3±1.96, p=0.378, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2B), while CNO treatment failed to downregulate c-Fos expression in CA1 (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 13.20×103/mm3±1.96 vs 8.95×103/mm3±0.74, t(10)=2.03, p=0.07, t-test, Fig. 5E, F, and I). Interestingly, the proportion of CA1-ACC projection neuronal recruitment was significantly less than the initial and middle stages and close to the home-cage group with only 7.45% of CA1-ACC projecting cells with c-Fos expression (home-cage vs session 18, 6.57%±1.79 vs 7.45%±2.09, p=1.000, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2D). Moreover, c-Fos expression in the subpopulation of CA1-ACC projecting cells had no impact after CNO administration; 7.25% recruitment was observed in hM4Di_CNO group, similar to that of hM4Di_Saline group (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 7.45%±2.10 vs 7.25%±1.91, t(10)=0.07, p=0.945, t-test, Fig. 5E, F, and J).
ACC is still involved in session 18 PA task compared to home-cage rats (session 18 vs home-cage, 10.70×103/mm3±0.57 vs 5.92×103/mm3±0.42, p=0.005, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2F). Furthermore, due to low recruitment of CA1-ACC projecting cells, CNO showed limited impact on ACC neuronal activation. The c-Fos expression (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 10.70×103/mm3±0.57 vs 10.07×103/mm3±0.72, t(10)=0.6834, p=0.510, t-test, Fig. 5G, H, K) revealed no difference between hM4Di_Saline and hM4Di_CNO groups.
Next, we characterize the critical role of CA1 astrocytes in modulating new PA memory encoding after the schema of OPAs had been established. In this cohort of rats, CNO or saline was administered 30min before session 19 during which two new PAs (NPAs) 7 and 8 were introduced, eliminating the former OPAs 1 and 6 (Fig. 6A). We found that performance index of hM4Di_CNO group decreased in session 19, but without statistical significance (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 67.79±3.18% vs 63.61±1.52, t(10)=1.182, p=0.264, multiple t-test, Fig. 6B). The probe test of new PAs (PT4) showed that digging time % in hM4Di_CNO group had markedly decreased compared to saline group, suggesting a failure to recall the memory of new PAs (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 36.93%±2.41 vs 12.88%±2.84, t(10)=0.646, p<0.001, t-test, Fig. 6D). Another cohort of rats were sacrificed at session 19, 60 min after task training and 90 min after CNO/Saline i.p (Fig. 6A).
The c-Fos expression in CA1-ACC projecting neurons and ACC neurons were examined. We showed significant increases of c-Fos expression in CA1-ACC projecting neurons in NPA acquisition compared to session 18 (NPA vs session 18, 26.47±3.77% vs 7.45±2.10%, p=0.005, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2D). Secondly, Gi pathway activation dramatically decreased CA1-ACC projecting neuron recruitment as shown by the significant reduction in c-Fos/EYFP (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 26.47±3.77% vs 12.62±0.85%, t(10)=3.582, p=0.005, t-test, Fig. 6E, F, J). ACC also showed sufficient involvement in the acquisition of NPAs as evidenced by a significant increase in c-Fos expression compared to home-cage (NPA vs home-cage, 13.10×103/mm3±0.85 vs 5.92×103/mm3±0.42, p<0.001, one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, Additional file 2: Fig S2, 2F). In addition, astrocytic Gi pathway activation in CA1 evidently prevented ACC neurons’ recruitment, shown by the lower level of c-Fos expression (hM4Di_Saline vs hM4Di_CNO, 13.10×103/mm3±0.85 vs 8.80×103/mm3±0.55, t(10)= 4.243, p=0.0017, t-test, Fig. 6G, H, K).
CA1 astrocyte Gi activation no longer impacts OPA memory retrieval; it appears that when memory schema has been established, the retrieval of OPA memory is independent of CA1. However, when introducing new associated information at this stage, CA1-ACC neural communication will be immediately recruited, and CA1 astrocyte Gi activation exhibit marked suppression on new PA assimilation by disrupting CA1-ACC interaction.