Han and Yiu

As I started reading the Han paper, I prematurely assumed they would go the route that previous papers we have read went, by suggesting causality but providing data that only showed correlation. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that this was not the case and that they went the ablation route. Like we have previously discussed in class, if you want to show that something is necessary, get rid of it; and Han did just that. I found their method interesting as they could destroy specific neurons that they had identified and linked to a memory by taking advantage of CREB expression and using the DT and transgenic DTR mice. They probably weren’t the first to do that but I still thought it was very clever. As I was satisfied with the methodology, I was satisfied with the results of this paper as well in their ability to erase the fear memories.

I found the Yiu paper interesting in terms of all the different methods used. They found that CREB manipulation wasn’t necessary for memory formation. They showed that it was all about excitability especially when they prevented the effects of increasing CREB by decreasing excitability. To me, the paper was a roundabout way of saying all of this but I feel like that about most papers in terms of them being too long and wordy: probably just a personal thing.

I was satisfied the findings of both papers and intrigued by their methods. I like their differing approaches to essentially the same line of questioning. Han chose to identify a link between neuronal subpopulations and memory expression, showing that certain neurons are critical in the memory trace whereas Yiu just uses excitability to show this same critical nature of the neurons in the memory trace. I believe the ends justified the means in both cases.