Search

Behavioural experiences interact with regenerative responses to shape patterns of neural reorganization after stroke. This review is focused on the competitive nature of these behavioural experience effects. Interactions between learning‐related plasticity and regenerative reactions have been found to underlie the establishment of new compensatory behaviours and the efficacy of motor rehabilitative training in rodent stroke models. Learning in intact brains depends on competitive and cooperative mechanisms of synaptic plasticity. Synapses are added in response to learning and selectively maintained and strengthened via activity‐dependent competition. Long‐term memories for experiences that occur closely in time can be weakened or enhanced by competitive or cooperative interactions in the time‐dependent process of stabilizing synaptic changes. Rodent stroke model findings suggest that compensatory reliance on the non‐paretic hand after stroke can shape and stabilize synaptic reorganization patterns in both hemispheres, to compete with the capacity for experiences of the paretic side to do so. However, the competitive edge of the non‐paretic side can be countered by overlapping experiences of the paretic hand, and might even be shifted in a cooperative direction with skilfully coordinated bimanual experience. Advances in the basic understanding of learning‐related synaptic competition are helping to inform the basis of experience‐dependent variations in stroke outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mounting evidence indicates that a physiological function of amyloid-β (Aβ) is to mediate neural activity-dependent homeostatic and competitive synaptic plasticity in the brain. I have previously summarized the lines of evidence supporting this hypothesis and highlighted the similarities between Aβ and anti-microbial peptides in mediating cell/synapse competition. In cell competition, anti-microbial peptides deploy a multitude of mechanisms to ensure both self-protection and competitor elimination. Here I review recent studies showing that similar mechanisms are at play in Aβ-mediated synapse competition and perturbations in these mechanisms underpin Alzheimer's disease (AD). Specifically, I discuss evidence that Aβ and ApoE, two crucial players in AD, co-operate in the regulation of synapse competition. Glial ApoE promotes self-protection by increasing the production of trophic monomeric Aβ and inhibiting its assembly into toxic oligomers. Conversely, Aβ oligomers, once assembled, promote the elimination of competitor synapses via direct toxic activity and amplification of "eat-me" signals promoting the elimination of weak synapses. I further summarize evidence that neuronal ApoE may be part of a gene regulatory network that normally promotes competitive plasticity, explaining the selective vulnerability of ApoE expressing neurons in AD brains. Lastly, I discuss evidence that sleep may be key to Aβ-orchestrated plasticity, in which sleep is not only induced by Aβ but is also required for Aβ-mediated plasticity, underlining the link between sleep and AD. Together, these results strongly argue that AD is a disease of competitive synaptic plasticity gone awry, a novel perspective that may promote AD research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Synapses change their weights in response to neuronal activity and in turn, neuronal networks alter their response properties and ultimately allow the brain to store information as memories. As for memories, not all events are maintained over time. Maintenance of synaptic plasticity depends on the interplay between functional changes at synapses and the synthesis of plasticity-related proteins that are involved in stabilizing the initial functional changes. Different forms of synaptic plasticity coexist in time and across the neuronal dendritic area. Thus, homosynaptic plasticity refers to activity-dependent synaptic modifications that are input-specific, whereas heterosynaptic plasticity relates to changes in non-activated synapses. Heterosynaptic forms of plasticity, such as synaptic cooperation and competition allow neurons to integrate events that occur separated by relatively large time windows, up to one hour. Here, we show that activation of Cdc42, a Rho GTPase that regulates actin cytoskeleton dynamics, is necessary for the maintenance of long-term potentiation (LTP) in a time-dependent manner. Inhibiting Cdc42 activation does not alter the time-course of LTP induction and its initial expression but blocks its late maintenance. We show that Cdc42 activation is involved in the phosphorylation of cofilin, a protein involved in modulating actin filaments and that weak and strong synaptic activation leads to similar levels on cofilin phosphorylation, despite different levels of LTP expression. We show that Cdc42 activation is required for synapses to interact by cooperation or competition, supporting the hypothesis that modulation of the actin cytoskeleton provides an activity-dependent and time-restricted permissive state of synapses allowing synaptic plasticity to occur. We found that under competition, the sequence in which synapses are activated determines the degree of LTP destabilization, demonstrating that competition is an active destabilization process. Taken together, we show that modulation of actin cytoskeleton by Cdc42 activation is necessary for the expression of homosynaptic and heterosynaptic forms of plasticity. Determining the temporal and spatial rules that determine whether synapses cooperate or compete will allow us to understand how memories are associated. [Display omitted] • Cdc42 is required for the maintenance of homosynaptic synaptic plasticity. • Weak and strong stimulation modulate actin by cofilin phosphorylation. • Cdc42 activation is necessary for heterosynaptic cooperation and competition. • Synaptic competition is an active destabilization process. • The time-window of synaptic cooperation and competition is activity dependent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]