Filter
Associated Lab
- Aguilera Castrejon Lab (17) Apply Aguilera Castrejon Lab filter
- Ahrens Lab (66) Apply Ahrens Lab filter
- Aso Lab (40) Apply Aso Lab filter
- Baker Lab (38) Apply Baker Lab filter
- Betzig Lab (113) Apply Betzig Lab filter
- Beyene Lab (14) Apply Beyene Lab filter
- Bock Lab (17) Apply Bock Lab filter
- Branson Lab (54) Apply Branson Lab filter
- Card Lab (43) Apply Card Lab filter
- Cardona Lab (64) Apply Cardona Lab filter
- Chklovskii Lab (13) Apply Chklovskii Lab filter
- Clapham Lab (15) Apply Clapham Lab filter
- Cui Lab (19) Apply Cui Lab filter
- Darshan Lab (12) Apply Darshan Lab filter
- Dennis Lab (1) Apply Dennis Lab filter
- Dickson Lab (46) Apply Dickson Lab filter
- Druckmann Lab (25) Apply Druckmann Lab filter
- Dudman Lab (50) Apply Dudman Lab filter
- Eddy/Rivas Lab (30) Apply Eddy/Rivas Lab filter
- Egnor Lab (11) Apply Egnor Lab filter
- Espinosa Medina Lab (19) Apply Espinosa Medina Lab filter
- Feliciano Lab (8) Apply Feliciano Lab filter
- Fetter Lab (41) Apply Fetter Lab filter
- FIB-SEM Technology (1) Apply FIB-SEM Technology filter
- Fitzgerald Lab (29) Apply Fitzgerald Lab filter
- Freeman Lab (15) Apply Freeman Lab filter
- Funke Lab (39) Apply Funke Lab filter
- Gonen Lab (91) Apply Gonen Lab filter
- Grigorieff Lab (62) Apply Grigorieff Lab filter
- Harris Lab (63) Apply Harris Lab filter
- Heberlein Lab (94) Apply Heberlein Lab filter
- Hermundstad Lab (28) Apply Hermundstad Lab filter
- Hess Lab (77) Apply Hess Lab filter
- Ilanges Lab (2) Apply Ilanges Lab filter
- Jayaraman Lab (46) Apply Jayaraman Lab filter
- Ji Lab (33) Apply Ji Lab filter
- Johnson Lab (6) Apply Johnson Lab filter
- Kainmueller Lab (19) Apply Kainmueller Lab filter
- Karpova Lab (14) Apply Karpova Lab filter
- Keleman Lab (13) Apply Keleman Lab filter
- Keller Lab (76) Apply Keller Lab filter
- Koay Lab (18) Apply Koay Lab filter
- Lavis Lab (151) Apply Lavis Lab filter
- Lee (Albert) Lab (34) Apply Lee (Albert) Lab filter
- Leonardo Lab (23) Apply Leonardo Lab filter
- Li Lab (28) Apply Li Lab filter
- Lippincott-Schwartz Lab (172) Apply Lippincott-Schwartz Lab filter
- Liu (Yin) Lab (7) Apply Liu (Yin) Lab filter
- Liu (Zhe) Lab (64) Apply Liu (Zhe) Lab filter
- Looger Lab (138) Apply Looger Lab filter
- Magee Lab (49) Apply Magee Lab filter
- Menon Lab (18) Apply Menon Lab filter
- Murphy Lab (13) Apply Murphy Lab filter
- O'Shea Lab (7) Apply O'Shea Lab filter
- Otopalik Lab (13) Apply Otopalik Lab filter
- Pachitariu Lab (48) Apply Pachitariu Lab filter
- Pastalkova Lab (18) Apply Pastalkova Lab filter
- Pavlopoulos Lab (19) Apply Pavlopoulos Lab filter
- Pedram Lab (15) Apply Pedram Lab filter
- Podgorski Lab (16) Apply Podgorski Lab filter
- Reiser Lab (51) Apply Reiser Lab filter
- Riddiford Lab (44) Apply Riddiford Lab filter
- Romani Lab (43) Apply Romani Lab filter
- Rubin Lab (145) Apply Rubin Lab filter
- Saalfeld Lab (63) Apply Saalfeld Lab filter
- Satou Lab (16) Apply Satou Lab filter
- Scheffer Lab (36) Apply Scheffer Lab filter
- Schreiter Lab (68) Apply Schreiter Lab filter
- Sgro Lab (21) Apply Sgro Lab filter
- Shroff Lab (31) Apply Shroff Lab filter
- Simpson Lab (23) Apply Simpson Lab filter
- Singer Lab (80) Apply Singer Lab filter
- Spruston Lab (94) Apply Spruston Lab filter
- Stern Lab (156) Apply Stern Lab filter
- Sternson Lab (54) Apply Sternson Lab filter
- Stringer Lab (36) Apply Stringer Lab filter
- Svoboda Lab (135) Apply Svoboda Lab filter
- Tebo Lab (33) Apply Tebo Lab filter
- Tervo Lab (9) Apply Tervo Lab filter
- Tillberg Lab (21) Apply Tillberg Lab filter
- Tjian Lab (64) Apply Tjian Lab filter
- Truman Lab (88) Apply Truman Lab filter
- Turaga Lab (52) Apply Turaga Lab filter
- Turner Lab (39) Apply Turner Lab filter
- Vale Lab (8) Apply Vale Lab filter
- Voigts Lab (3) Apply Voigts Lab filter
- Wang (Meng) Lab (22) Apply Wang (Meng) Lab filter
- Wang (Shaohe) Lab (25) Apply Wang (Shaohe) Lab filter
- Wu Lab (9) Apply Wu Lab filter
- Zlatic Lab (28) Apply Zlatic Lab filter
- Zuker Lab (25) Apply Zuker Lab filter
Associated Project Team
- CellMap (12) Apply CellMap filter
- COSEM (3) Apply COSEM filter
- FIB-SEM Technology (3) Apply FIB-SEM Technology filter
- Fly Descending Interneuron (11) Apply Fly Descending Interneuron filter
- Fly Functional Connectome (14) Apply Fly Functional Connectome filter
- Fly Olympiad (5) Apply Fly Olympiad filter
- FlyEM (54) Apply FlyEM filter
- FlyLight (49) Apply FlyLight filter
- GENIE (47) Apply GENIE filter
- Integrative Imaging (6) Apply Integrative Imaging filter
- Larval Olympiad (2) Apply Larval Olympiad filter
- MouseLight (18) Apply MouseLight filter
- NeuroSeq (1) Apply NeuroSeq filter
- ThalamoSeq (1) Apply ThalamoSeq filter
- Tool Translation Team (T3) (27) Apply Tool Translation Team (T3) filter
- Transcription Imaging (49) Apply Transcription Imaging filter
Publication Date
- 2025 (160) Apply 2025 filter
- 2024 (214) Apply 2024 filter
- 2023 (159) Apply 2023 filter
- 2022 (192) Apply 2022 filter
- 2021 (194) Apply 2021 filter
- 2020 (196) Apply 2020 filter
- 2019 (202) Apply 2019 filter
- 2018 (232) Apply 2018 filter
- 2017 (217) Apply 2017 filter
- 2016 (209) Apply 2016 filter
- 2015 (252) Apply 2015 filter
- 2014 (236) Apply 2014 filter
- 2013 (194) Apply 2013 filter
- 2012 (190) Apply 2012 filter
- 2011 (190) Apply 2011 filter
- 2010 (161) Apply 2010 filter
- 2009 (158) Apply 2009 filter
- 2008 (140) Apply 2008 filter
- 2007 (106) Apply 2007 filter
- 2006 (92) Apply 2006 filter
- 2005 (67) Apply 2005 filter
- 2004 (57) Apply 2004 filter
- 2003 (58) Apply 2003 filter
- 2002 (39) Apply 2002 filter
- 2001 (28) Apply 2001 filter
- 2000 (29) Apply 2000 filter
- 1999 (14) Apply 1999 filter
- 1998 (18) Apply 1998 filter
- 1997 (16) Apply 1997 filter
- 1996 (10) Apply 1996 filter
- 1995 (18) Apply 1995 filter
- 1994 (12) Apply 1994 filter
- 1993 (10) Apply 1993 filter
- 1992 (6) Apply 1992 filter
- 1991 (11) Apply 1991 filter
- 1990 (11) Apply 1990 filter
- 1989 (6) Apply 1989 filter
- 1988 (1) Apply 1988 filter
- 1987 (7) Apply 1987 filter
- 1986 (4) Apply 1986 filter
- 1985 (5) Apply 1985 filter
- 1984 (2) Apply 1984 filter
- 1983 (2) Apply 1983 filter
- 1982 (3) Apply 1982 filter
- 1981 (3) Apply 1981 filter
- 1980 (1) Apply 1980 filter
- 1979 (1) Apply 1979 filter
- 1976 (2) Apply 1976 filter
- 1973 (1) Apply 1973 filter
- 1970 (1) Apply 1970 filter
- 1967 (1) Apply 1967 filter
Type of Publication
4138 Publications
Showing 2311-2320 of 4138 resultsAn animal's ability to learn and to form memories is essential for its survival. The fruit fly has proven to be a valuable model system for studies of learning and memory. One learned behavior in fruit flies is courtship conditioning. In Drosophila courtship conditioning, male flies learn not to court females during training with an unreceptive female. He retains a memory of this training and for several hours decreases courtship when subsequently paired with any female. Courtship conditioning is a unique learning paradigm; it uses a positive-valence stimulus, a female fly, to teach a male to decrease an innate behavior, courtship of the female. As such, courtship conditioning is not clearly categorized as either appetitive or aversive conditioning. The mushroom body (MB) region in the fruit fly brain is important for several types of memory; however, the precise subsets of intrinsic and extrinsic MB neurons necessary for courtship conditioning are unknown. Here, we disrupted synaptic signaling by driving a shibirets effector in precise subsets of MB neurons, defined by a collection of split-GAL4 drivers. Out of 75 lines tested, 32 showed defects in courtship conditioning memory. Surprisingly, we did not have any hits in the γ lobe Kenyon cells, a region previously implicated in courtship conditioning memory. We did find that several γ lobe extrinsic neurons were necessary for courtship conditioning memory. Overall, our memory hits in the dopaminergic neurons (DANs) and the mushroom body output neurons were more consistent with results from appetitive memory assays than aversive memory assays. For example, protocerebral anterior medial DANs were necessary for courtship memory, similar to appetitive memory, while protocerebral posterior lateral 1 (PPL1) DANs, important for aversive memory, were not needed. Overall, our results indicate that the MB circuits necessary for courtship conditioning memory coincide with circuits necessary for appetitive memory.
Rats repeatedly ran through a sequence of spatial receptive fields of hippocampal CA1 place cells in a fixed temporal order. A novel combinatorial decoding method reveals that these neurons repeatedly fired in precisely this order in long sequences involving four or more cells during slow wave sleep (SWS) immediately following, but not preceding, the experience. The SWS sequences occurred intermittently in brief ( approximately 100 ms) bursts, each compressing the behavioral sequence in time by approximately 20-fold. This rapid encoding of sequential experience is consistent with evidence that the hippocampus is crucial for spatial learning in rodents and the formation of long-term memories of events in time in humans.
The dilemma that neurotheorists face is that (1) detailed biophysical models that can be constrained by direct measurements, while being of great importance, offer no immediate insights into cognitive processes in the brain, and (2) high-level abstract cognitive models, on the other hand, while relevant for understanding behavior, are largely detached from neuronal processes and typically have many free, experimentally unconstrained parameters that have to be tuned to a particular data set and, hence, cannot be readily generalized to other experimental paradigms. In this contribution, we propose a set of "first principles" for neurally inspired cognitive modeling of memory retrieval that has no biologically unconstrained parameters and can be analyzed mathematically both at neuronal and cognitive levels. We apply this framework to the classical cognitive paradigm of free recall. We show that the resulting model accounts well for puzzling behavioral data on human participants and makes predictions that could potentially be tested with neurophysiological recording techniques.
The hippocampus is critical for recollecting and imagining experiences. This is believed to involve voluntarily drawing from hippocampal memory representations of people, events, and places, including the hippocampus’ map-like representations of familiar environments. However, whether the representations in such “cognitive maps” can be volitionally and selectively accessed is unknown. We developed a brain-machine interface to test if rats could control their hippocampal activity in a flexible, goal-directed, model-based manner. We show that rats can efficiently navigate or direct objects to arbitrary goal locations within a virtual reality arena solely by activating and sustaining appropriate hippocampal representations of remote places. This should provide insight into the mechanisms underlying episodic memory recall, mental simulation/planning, and imagination, and open up possibilities for high-level neural prosthetics utilizing hippocampal representations.
Recent success in training artificial agents and robots derives from a combination of direct learning of behavioral policies and indirect learning via value functions. Policy learning and value learning employ distinct algorithms that optimize behavioral performance and reward prediction, respectively. In animals, behavioral learning and the role of mesolimbic dopamine signaling have been extensively evaluated with respect to reward prediction; however, to date there has been little consideration of how direct policy learning might inform our understanding. Here we used a comprehensive dataset of orofacial and body movements to understand how behavioral policies evolve as naive, head-restrained mice learned a trace conditioning paradigm. Individual differences in initial dopaminergic reward responses correlated with the emergence of learned behavioral policy, but not the emergence of putative value encoding for a predictive cue. Likewise, physiologically-calibrated manipulations of mesolimbic dopamine produced multiple effects inconsistent with value learning but predicted by a neural network-based model that used dopamine signals to set an adaptive rate, not an error signal, for behavioral policy learning. This work provides strong evidence that phasic dopamine activity can regulate direct learning of behavioral policies, expanding the explanatory power of reinforcement learning models for animal learning.
Recent success in training artificial agents and robots derives from a combination of direct learning of behavioural policies and indirect learning through value functions. Policy learning and value learning use distinct algorithms that optimize behavioural performance and reward prediction, respectively. In animals, behavioural learning and the role of mesolimbic dopamine signalling have been extensively evaluated with respect to reward prediction; however, so far there has been little consideration of how direct policy learning might inform our understanding. Here we used a comprehensive dataset of orofacial and body movements to understand how behavioural policies evolved as naive, head-restrained mice learned a trace conditioning paradigm. Individual differences in initial dopaminergic reward responses correlated with the emergence of learned behavioural policy, but not the emergence of putative value encoding for a predictive cue. Likewise, physiologically calibrated manipulations of mesolimbic dopamine produced several effects inconsistent with value learning but predicted by a neural-network-based model that used dopamine signals to set an adaptive rate, not an error signal, for behavioural policy learning. This work provides strong evidence that phasic dopamine activity can regulate direct learning of behavioural policies, expanding the explanatory power of reinforcement learning models for animal learning.
Pioneer transcription factors (PTFs) possess the unique capability to access closed chromatin regions and initiate cell fate changes, yet the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Here, we characterized the single-molecule dynamics of PTFs targeting chromatin in living cells, revealing a notable 'confined target search' mechanism. PTFs such as FOXA1, FOXA2, SOX2, OCT4 and KLF4 sampled chromatin more frequently than non-PTF MYC, alternating between fast free diffusion in the nucleus and slower confined diffusion within mesoscale zones. Super-resolved microscopy showed closed chromatin organized as mesoscale nucleosome-dense domains, confining FOXA2 diffusion locally and enriching its binding. We pinpointed specific histone-interacting disordered regions, distinct from DNA-binding domains, crucial for confined target search kinetics and pioneer activity within closed chromatin. Fusion to other factors enhanced pioneer activity. Kinetic simulations suggested that transient confinement could increase target association rate by shortening search time and binding repeatedly. Our findings illuminate how PTFs recognize and exploit closed chromatin organization to access targets, revealing a pivotal aspect of gene regulation.
Seconds-scale network states, affecting many neurons within a network, modulate neural activity by complementing fast integration of neuron-specific inputs that arrive in the milliseconds before spiking. Non-rhythmic subthreshold dynamics at intermediate timescales, however, are less well-characterized. We found, using automated whole cell patch clamping in vivo, that spikes recorded in CA1 and barrel cortex in awake mice are often preceded not only by monotonic voltage rises lasting milliseconds, but also by more gradual (lasting 10s-100s of ms) depolarizations. The latter exert a gating function on spiking, in a fashion that depends on the gradual rise duration: the probability of spiking was higher for longer gradual rises, even controlling for the amplitude of the gradual rises. Barrel cortex double-autopatch recordings show that gradual rises are shared across some but not all neurons. The gradual rises may represent a new kind of state, intermediate both in timescale and in proportion of neurons participating, which gates a neuron's ability to respond to subsequent inputs.
The Drosophila Methoprene-tolerant (Met) and Germ cell-expressed (Gce) bHLH-PAS transcription factors are products of two paralogous genes. Both proteins potentially mediate the effect of juvenile hormone (JH) as candidate JH receptors. Here we report that Met and Gce are partially redundant in transducing JH action. Both Met and gce null single mutants are fully viable, but the Met gce double mutant, Met(27) gce(2.5k), dies during the larval-pupal transition. Precocious and enhanced caspase-dependent programmed cell death (PCD) appears in fat body cells of Met(27) gce(2.5k) during the early larval stages. Expression of Kr-h1, a JH response gene that inhibits 20-hydroxyecdysone (20E)-induced broad (br) expression, is abolished in Met(27) gce(2.5k) during larval molts. Consequently, expression of br occurs precociously in Met(27) gce(2.5k), which may cause precocious caspase-dependent PCD during the early larval stages. Defective phenotypes and gene expression changes in Met(27) gce(2.5k) double mutants are similar to those found in JH-deficient animals. Importantly, exogenous application of JH agonists rescued the JH-deficient animals but not the Met(27) gce(2.5k) mutants. Our data suggest a model in which Drosophila Met and Gce redundantly transduce JH action to prevent 20E-induced caspase-dependent PCD during larval molts by induction of Kr-h1 expression and inhibition of br expression.