Non-neuronal cell memory

In partnership with

Pioneering medicine starts with investors like you.

Cizzle Biotech is transforming lung cancer detection with a patented, 95% accurate blood test. By joining our raise, you’ll gain ownership in a company backed by partnerships with Bio-Techne and Moffitt Cancer Center. You can build your portfolio with a stake in a medical breakthrough.

Join the Raise

^{Read the Offering information carefully before investing. It contains details of the issuer’s business, risks, charges, expenses, and other information, which should be considered before investing. Obtain a Form C and Offering Memorandum at invest.cizzlebio.com}

The Problem

People tend to learn better if they’re exposed to information over multiple sessions, a phenomena called “spaced training”. The same amount of training over multiple sessions typically produces a stronger memory than if the info is given in a single session. It might be why cramming was never as effective for me as spacing out my studying over a couple sessions (even though I always crammed anyway).

But interestingly, the actual cellular mechanism behind this effect is present in other cell types besides neurons. This begs the question: can non-neuronal cells store “memories” using the spaced training approach? Or is it limited to neurons?

The Study

This study investigates this question by using two non-neuronal cell types that share the specific mechanisms behind spaced training. To conduct the study, the scientists engineered their non-neuronal cells to express a specific glowing protein as a marker for “memory”.

They chose a protein that is well known to regulate many gene pathways relevant to memory formation, the transcription factor CREB. When activated by a stimulus, the CREB protein induces long lasting cellular changes often associated with memory in neuronal cells.

When activated, the modified cells began glowing. The authors looked at how long the glow persisted and if it changed based on spaced training. They claim that differences due to spaced training indicate a memory-like behavior, similar to neuronal cells.

After establishing their cell line, the scientists moved towards studying how spacing out the stimuli effected the cell response. They compared a one time small treatment (1x), 1 large treatment (massed), and three different spacings of 4 treatments (4× 10 min, 20 min, and 30 min).

The graph above shows the results. On the right, the signal from the cells (the glowing) 24 hours after treatment is shown. The larger positive numbers represent an increase in signal.

They found that spacing the treatments lead to a larger memory response compared to doing the treatment all at once. Additionally, the spacing between treatments also changed the memory response, with the 10 minute spacing outperforming the 20 or 30 minute intervals.

They go on to show that this effect is due to the same mechanisms that are important in neuronal memory formation.

This is really interesting, because it shows that these non-neuron cells show aspects of memory formation that we largely consider only a neuronal behavior. It’s a nice study that questions our assumptions that memory is exclusively a neuronal feature.

See you next week for more science,

Neil