Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats

Rachel Comba; Nicole Gervais; Dave Mumby; Matthew Holahan

doi:10.12688/f1000research.6822.1

Home Browse Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Rachel Comba¹, Nicole Gervais², Dave Mumby², Matthew Holahan¹

PUBLISHED 27 Jul 2015

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada
² Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Improvement on spatial tasks is observed during a late, postnatal developmental period (PND18 – PND24). The purpose of the current work was 1) to determine whether the emergence of spatial-behavioral function was based on the ability to generate appropriate behavioral output; 2) to assess whether mossy fiber connectivity patterns preceded the emergence of spatial-behavioral function; 3) to explore functional changes in the hippocampus to determine whether activity in hippocampal networks occurred in a training-dependent or developmentally-dependent fashion. To these ends, male, Long Evans rats were trained on a spatial water or dry maze task for one day (PND16, PND18 or PND20) then euthanized. Training on these 2 tasks with opposing behavioral demands (swimming versus exploration) was hypothesized to control for behavioral topology. Only at PND20 was there evidence of spatial-behavioral function for both tasks. Examination of synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region (i.e., mossy fiber projections) revealed enhanced connectivity patterns that preceded the emergence of spatial behavior. Analysis of c-Fos labeling (functional changes) revealed developmentally-dependent increases in c-Fos positive cells in the dentate gyrus, CA3 and CA1 regions whereas training-dependent increases were noted in the CA3 and CA1 regions for the water-maze trained groups. Results suggest that changes in mossy fiber connectivity in association with enhanced hippocampal functioning precede the emergence of spatial behavior observed at PND20. The combination of neuroanatomical and behavioural results confirms the hypothesis that this time represents a sensitive period for hippocampal development and modification and the emergence of spatial/ cognitive function.

Keywords

water maze, object exploration, memory, postnatal

Corresponding author: Matthew Holahan

Competing interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Grant information: This research was supported by National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery grants to DGM (RGPIN 156937) and MRH (RGPIN 341673), a Canadian Foundation for Innovation grant (335892) to MRH and a Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec to DGM.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2015 Comba R et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D and Holahan M. Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2015, 4:396 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6822.1) First published: 27 Jul 2015, 4:396 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6822.1) Latest published: 27 Jul 2015, 4:396 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6822.1)

Introduction

One brain region that shows connectivity-based changes during postnatal development is the hippocampus. Neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus (DG) peaks in density between postnatal day 15 (PND15; 7) and PND18^12,18,77 and the mossy fibers (MF), forming connections between the DG granule cells and CA3 pyramidal cells, show a late, postnatal remodelling^9,24,25,32. With increasing evidence that MFs in the adult rat regulate memory function by remodeling^{33,34,57–60}, it is attractive to hypothesize that improved performance on a number of spatial tasks during development^{3,13,16,20,41,65,66,71,73} may be related to connectivity- or functional-based changes in the network properties of the DG-CA3 region.

The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the emergence of spatial-behavioral function and the emergence of the neural substrates – both anatomical and functional – that would support optimal spatial-behavioral function. In this respect, one question related to MF connectivity-based developmental changes is whether these changes occur prior to the emergence of spatial behavior or as a result of spatial behavior. This is an issue as adult MF remodelling can occur within a 24-hour period following spatial water maze training³³. Another related question is how the functional aspects of hippocampal neurons change during development and whether this too occurs in response to behavioral-based activity. Similar to the MF question is whether hippocampal network activity precedes or results from the emergence of spatial behavior. To investigate this, analysis of c-Fos positive cells in the hippocampal DG, CA3 and CA1 regions was carried out to examine training-associated hippocampal activity and activity associated with neural development.

A final issue explored in the present study was whether improvements in spatial-behavioral performance reflect enhanced hippocampal structural and network activity or emergence of sensori-motor demands required for task performance^11,17,67,75. During development, sensori-motor demands of a task could confound firm conclusions concerning the development of spatial-behavioral function (e.g., 30). To clarify this, rats were trained on the hidden-platform water-maze task (aka, Morris water maze task) or a dry maze version of the novelty-preference paradigm where rats are required to recognize that an object is in a place where there had not previously been an object^26,54 for one day on PND16, PND18 or PND20. In this case, spatial representational requirements were similar for both tasks but behavioral topology requirements were different – swimming versus exploration. Comparing performance on these two tasks was hypothesized to determine whether the emergence of spatial-behavioral function was based on the ability to generate appropriate behavioral output or based on the hippocampal spatial navigation neural substrates.

Materials and Methods

Subjects

A total of 51 male Long-Evans rats (LER; Charles River, St. Constant, Quebec, Canada) were used. The day the pups were born was marked as postnatal day 0 (PND0). Pups remained with their dams throughout the duration of the study. Rats were housed in a temperature-controlled vivarium in polycarbonite cages with a 12 hour light-dark cycle. Food and water were provided ad libitum. All experiments were conducted in accordance with the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines and specific protocols approved by the Carleton University Animal Care Committee and the Concordia University Animal Care and Use Committee (Animal Use Protocol Number P13-10).

Apparatus

Water maze. The water maze was a white, circular, polypropylene pool measuring 124 cm diameter, 31 cm height and filled with water to a depth of 25 cm. Water temperature averaged 23°C and was rendered opaque by the addition of non-toxic white paint. The platform was made of clear Plexiglas measuring 11 cm diameter and was submerged 2.0 cm below the water surface. Distal visual cues were present on the walls of the room surrounding the maze. Rat movement in the pool was tracked using the HVS Image 2100 Tracking System (version 1/09; HVS Image, Buckingham, UK). The water was skimmed and stirred after each trial and the pool was drained and refilled every day.

Dry maze. The dry maze was 122 cm in diameter with Lexan walls and floor measuring 10.5 cm high, 2 mm thick. The floor of the maze was opaque white and the walls were transparent. The two stimulus objects were plastic turquoise water bottles 20 cm high with the widest circumference measuring approximately 23 cm. A small glass jar (7 cm high, 20 cm circumference) was fastened to the bottom of each object with epoxy. The jar lids were inverted and fastened to the floor to allow the objects to be secured in place by screwing the jars into the lids. Holes were drilled at the center of each quadrant to accommodate the lids and to allow counterbalancing of object positions. When not in use, the holes were covered with a small piece of circular white tape. After each trial, the objects and maze were wiped down with water. At the beginning of each day, the floor of the maze and objects were washed with a 70% alcohol solution and the Lexan walls were cleaned with standard window cleaner.

Behavioral procedures

Morris Water Maze (MWM). For the Morris water maze (MWM) portion, there were three groups with five rats per group (n = 15). Rats underwent fixed hidden-platform water-maze training consisting of 8 trials with a 1-minute inter-trial interval to locate the hidden platform. Training was carried out on one day only at PND16, PND18 or PND20. Each trial began from a different start point on the perimeter of the pool. If a rat did not reach the platform within 60 seconds, they were guided to it. Rats remained on the platform for 30 seconds before being removed, dried, and placed into a holding cage for an additional 30 seconds. Following the final trial, each rat was dried with a towel and placed in another holding cage on a heating pad in the housing room for 15 to 20 minutes before being returned to its home cage. Rats were euthanized with an overdose of 60 mg/kg sodium pentobarbital 1 hour later followed by decapitation.

Object in a Novel Location (ONL). For the Object in a Novel Location (ONL) portion, there were three groups of seven rats (n = 21). Each group was trained and tested on a single day: PND16, PND18 or PND20. For training, rats were individually placed into the arena and allowed to explore. Two identical objects were placed in adjacent arena quadrants and remained in the same location for the familiarization phase. There were three familiarization periods each lasting 7 minutes carried out once per hour over 3 hours. Between familiarization periods, rats were placed back into their home cage with their cage mates.

One and a half hours after the last familiarization period, rats were tested for 5 minutes. For the test, one of the objects was moved to a different quadrant of the arena. This procedure reflects the conventional object-in-novel-place preference test which takes advantage of a rats spontaneous tendency to explore objects that have changed location within an otherwise stable environment^19,26,27. When rats display such a preference, it is inferred that they have detected a change in location of the object within the environment. To determine preference during the testing phase, an investigation ratio was calculated during the 5 minute testing phase; the proportion of total object-investigation that was spent investigating the displaced object to the total time investigating both objects (t_displaced/[t_displaced + t_{not displaced}]). A rat was considered to be investigating an object when its head was within 4 cm and its nose was within a 45° angle from being perpendicular to the object. Investigation was also considered when a rat was rearing with at least one forepaw making contact with the object with the head oriented upwards but not when climbing on top of the object. Each rat was tested once to ensure that the exploration ratio was based solely on the change in the position of the object from the familiarization to the testing phase. Rats were euthanized with an overdose of 60 mg/kg sodium pentobarbital 1 hour later followed by decapitation.

Home Cage Controls (HCC). Three additional, separate groups of rats were euthanized with an overdose of 60 mg/kg sodium pentobarbital on PND16, PND18, or PND20 (n = 5/time point; 15 total) with no behavioural manipulations (home cage controls; HCC). All brains were processed immunohistochemically as described below.

Immunohistochemistry

Tissue preparation. Brains were immersion fixed in 4%-paraformaldehyde (Sigma; USA) in 0.1M phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) overnight at 4°C. This solution was replaced with 30% sucrose in 0.1M PBS the following day and brains were stored at 4°C until sectioning. Brains were sectioned through the dorsal hippocampus at 60µm on a Leica CM1900 cryostat (Weztler, Germany). Because learning-associated changes in mossy fiber axonal input to the CA3 region are restricted to the most rostral levels of the dorsal hippocampus^33,59, we focussed our immunohistochemical analyses to this region. Sections were stored in a 0.1% sodium azide solution in 0.1M phosphate buffer (PB) at 4°C.

Synaptophysin staining. Sections were washed for 15 min in a 0.2% Triton-X/0.01 M phosphate-buffered saline (T-PBS) then blocked in a 1x animal free blocker (Vector)/T-PBS solution for 1 h at room temperature. Incubation in the primary antibody (rabbit anti-synaptophysin polyclonal antibody from Chemicon/Millipore (Cat#: AB9272), 1:2500) occurred overnight at room temperature. The following day, sections were washed in T-PBS for 15 minutes followed by a 2 hour incubation in the secondary antibody (1:500 goat anti-rabbit Igg (H+L) polyclonal secondary Alexa Fluor 594 from Molecular Probes; Cat# R37117). Sections were given a final rinse in 0.01 M PBS (pH 7.4) for 15 min then mounted on glass slides and coverslipped with glass coverslips adhered with Fluormount (Sigma).

c-Fos staining. Sections adjacent to those stained for synaptophysin were placed in phosphate-buffered saline with Triton X (T-PBS) for three 5 minute washes. They were then incubated in 0.3% hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) in T-PBS for 15 minutes followed by three, 5 minute washes in T-PBS. Sections were transferred to 1x animal free blocker (AFB; Vector) in T-PBS for 30 minutes at room temperature. Incubation in the primary antibody (rabbit polyclonal anti-c-Fos from Abcam (Cat# ab53036), 1:5000) occurred overnight at room temperature. The following day, tissue was washed in T-PBS for three, 10 minute washes followed by a 2 hour incubation in the secondary antibody (Biotinylated Goat Anti-Rabbit IgG (H+L) Antibody from Vector Laboratories (Cat# BA-1000), 1:1000). Tissue was washed for three 10 minute washes in T-PBS before being placed into an ABC solution (Vector) for 1 hour. The tissue was rinsed in three 5 minute washes using PBS before being placed into a nickel-enhanced 3,3′-Diaminobenzidine (DAB) solution. Sections were then mounted on glass slides, dehydrated (1 minute in distilled H₂O; 1 minute in 25% ethanol; 2 minutes in 50% ethanol; 5 minutes in 90% ethanol; 10 minutes in 100% ethanol; 20 minutes in Clearene) and cover slipped.

Synatophysin quantification. Fluorescent images of the CA3 region were captured at 20× magnification using a Retiga-2000R camera (QImaging, BC) and an Olympus BX61 research microscope (Olympus-Canada). Three coronal sections were sampled from the dorsal hippocampus. The anterior boundary was defined as the first section where the upper and lower blades of the granule cell layers were equal in length. The posterior limit was 420 μm from this initial anterior starting location. Three coronal sections were sampled from this anterior-posterior boundary with 120 μm between sections. Synaptophysin staining measurements for each region of interest were taken as averages of the number of puncta from the three coronal levels. The areas of the stratum lucidum (SL) and the stratum oriens (SO) were estimated by outlining the synaptophysin-positive region. Synaptophysin-positive puncta were defined as having an intensity value twice that of the background as measured on the stratum radiatum (SR) of the CA3 region and a size restricted to not greater than 5 µm and not less than 1 µm. Comparisons between groups were made using 1) total puncta in the SL; 2) total puncta in the SO; 3) the ratio of puncta in SO to SL to account for size variations between individual animals. An experimenter who was blind to group assignment carried out all analyses.

c-Fos quantification. Utilizing the Optical Fractionator probe, an estimate of the number of c-Fos positive cells in the dentate gyrus (DG), CA3 and CA1 regions of the dorsal hippocampus was undertaken. Stained sections were visualized using an Olympus BX51 brightfield microscope with a motorized stage (Olympus Canada, Markham, ON) and images captured with an Olympus U-CMAD3 camera. Stereo Investigator (version 11.06.1; MBF Bioscience, Williston, VT) software was used for quantification. The region of interest (DG, CA1 or CA3 of the dorsal hippocampus) for each section was traced digitally at 4× magnification. The anterior boundary was defined as the first section where the upper and lower blades of the granule cell layers were equal in length. The posterior limit was 420 μm from this initial anterior starting location. Based on these limits, the volume of the DG measured 17,892 µm³; CA3 volume was 31,637 µm³; CA1 volume was 12,487 µm³. Because of these volume differences across hippocampal subregions, c-Fos data were expressed as c-Fos+ cells per 100 µm³ to ease visual comparisons across subregions. Cell density (as measured on cresyl violet-stained sections from 3 rats from each age group – PND16, PND18 and PND20) in the DG, CA3 and CA1 regions was not different across the 3 age groups (one-way ANOVA; DG (F(2,6) = 3.29, p = 0.089; CA3 (F(2,6) = 3.60, p = 0.094) and CA1 (F(2,6) = 3.56, p = 0.096). Three coronal sections were sampled from this anterior-posterior limit with 120 μm between sections. Counting parameters were set to a counting frame of 30×30 µm² and a dissector height of 10 µm between the top and bottom guard zones with average mounted section thickness of 35 μm. c-Fos positive cells were quantified using a 60X magnification lens (oil immersion, NA 1.35) when the uppermost tip of c-Fos positive nuclei were in focus within the counting frame and the dissector height. Stereo Investigator software used planar and depth information for each counted nuclei to calculate the volume for the digitally traced region of interest and provide an estimate of the labeled cells per region of interest (DG, CA1 or CA3).

Results

Morris Water Maze (MWM)

Escape latency (Figure 1A), speed (Figure 1B), pathlength (Figure 1C) and percent pathlength spent swimming along the edge of the pool (thigmotaxis; Figure 1D) data for the water maze task (see Dataset 1) were analyzed using separate two-way, repeated measures ANOVAs (age (PND16, PND18, PND20) as the between factor and trial as the repeated measure). Analysis of latency data (Figure 1A) revealed main effects of age (F(2,12) = 8.49, p < 0.01) and trial (F(7,14) = 2.44, p < 0.05) but no interaction (F(14,84) < 1.0). Tukey HSD post-hoc tests on the main effect of group revealed that the PND20 group showed shorter latencies to locate the platform than the PND16 group (t(8) = 3.37, p < 0.01) and the PND18 group (t(8) = 3.18, p < 0.05).

Figure 1. One-day Morris water maze task (MWM).

Groups of rats were trained for one day (PND16, PND18, PND20) to locate the hidden platform on the water maze task. Swimming behaviors were captured with HVS Image software (version 1/09) and included: (A) Latency in seconds (mean ± SEM) to reach the platform (60 s cutoff); (B) speed in meters/second (mean ± SEM); (C) pathlength in meters (mean ± SEM); (D) thigmotaxis defined as percent of total pathlength spent within 10 centimeter of the pool wall (mean ± SEM). Significant group differences were found on latency to reach the platform with PND20 group showing shorter latencies than the PND16 (** p < 0.01) and PND18 (+, p < 0.05). Analysis of speed data revealed faster swim speeds in the PND20 group than both other age groups (**, p < 0.01). Measures of thigmotaxis revealed less thigmotaxis in the PND20 group than both other groups (*, p < 0.05). A significant interaction (##, p < 0.01) was also found and specific comparisons showed that the PND20 group spent less time along the edge of the pool on Trials 5 and 8 than PND16 and PND18 (A and C; p < 0.05) and on Trial 6 than PND18 (B; p < 0.01). @ and @@ in A and D, respectively, refer to a main effect of Trial.

Analysis of speed data (meters/sec; Figure 1B) revealed a main effect of age (F(2,12) = 86.18, p < 0.001) but no effect of trial (F(7,14) < 1.0) and no interaction (F(14,84) = 1.43). Tukey HSD post-hoc tests on the main effect of group revealed a significantly faster swim speed in the PND20 group than the PND16 group (t(8) = 13.11, p < 0.001) and PND18 group (t(8) = 9.28, p < 0.001).

Analysis of pathlength data (meters; Figure 1C) revealed no main effect of age (F(2,12) = 2.11, p = 0.163), no effect of trial (F(7,14) = 2.11, p = 0.051) and no interaction (F(14,84) = 1.01, p = 0.45).

Analysis of thigmotactic data (percent of the swimming distance spent within 10 cm of the wall of the pool; Figure 1D) revealed a main effect of age (F(2,12) = 7.07, p < 0.01), a main effect of trial (F(7,14) = 4.92, p < 0.001) and a significant interaction (F(14,84) = 2.97, p < 0.01). Tukey HSD post-hoc tests on the main effect of group revealed significantly less thigmotaxis in the PND20 group than the PND16 group (t(8) = 2.64, p < 0.05) and the PND18 group (t(8) = 3.32, p < 0.05). At Trials 5 and 8, the PND20 group showed less thigmotaxis than the PND16 and PND18 groups (p < 0.05) and at Trial 6, the PND20 group showed less thigmotaxis than the PND18 group (p < 0.01).

LATENCY (SECONDS)									SPEED (METERS/SECOND)									PATHLENGTH (METERS)									THIGMOTAXIS (PERCENT PATH)
PND16	TRIAL1	TRIAL2	TRIAL3	TRIAL4	TRIAL5	TRIAL6	TRIAL7	TRIAL8	p16	TRIAL1	TRIAL2	TRIAL3	TRIAL4	TRIAL5	TRIAL6	TRIAL7	TRIAL8	PND16	TRIAL1	TRIAL2	TRIAL3	TRIAL4	TRIAL5	TRIAL6	TRIAL7	TRIAL8	p16	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8
1	60	60	60	60	60	36.36	8.2	60	1	0.13	0.13	0.08	0.12	0.1	0.11	0.18	0.12	1	7.8	7.8	4.8	7.2	6	3.9996	1.476	7.2	1	77	90.7	94.8	86.7	92.5	57.8	0	87.7
2	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	2	0.12	0.08	0.13	0.14	0.12	0.1	0.13	0.12	2	7.2	4.8	7.8	8.4	7.2	6	7.8	7.2	2	84.2	96	92.8	79.5	73.8	72.2	80.2	80.2
3	60	60	60	60	6.71	60	54.52	8.64	3	0.08	0.13	0.15	0.13	0.07	0.15	0.14	0.07	3	4.8	7.8	9	7.8	0.4697	9	7.6328	0.6048	3	84	75.3	86.2	85.3	55.7	82.3	49.9	46.3
4	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	4	0.14	0.13	0.14	0.13	0.09	0.13	0.17	0.11	4	8.4	7.8	8.4	7.8	5.4	7.8	10.2	6.6	4	84.8	86	80.8	78	85.3	83	69	61.8
5	31.48	60	60	60	60	60	42.84	60	5	0.2	0.07	0.09	0.08	0.09	0.12	0.11	0.1	5	6.296	4.2	5.4	4.8	5.4	7.2	4.7124	6	5	58.2	85.2	83	94.8	92.2	59.2	61.7	89
MEAN	54.296	60	60	60	49.342	55.272	45.112	49.728	mean	0.134	0.108	0.118	0.12	0.094	0.122	0.146	0.104	MEAN	6.8992	6.48	7.08	7.2	4.89394	6.79992	6.36424	5.52096	mean	77.64	86.64	87.52	84.86	79.9	70.9	52.16	73
SEM	5.101812697	0	0	0	9.532805002	4.228851759	8.716589425	9.187556106	sem	0.019390719	0.01356466	0.013928388	0.010488088	0.008124038	0.008602325	0.012884099	0.009273618	SEM	0.563020881	0.727956043	0.747475752	0.562849891	1.032034388	0.761110771	1.341747692	1.117153283	sem	5.064938302	3.42908151	2.722204989	2.984727793	6.935632632	5.415533215	13.94025107	8.253060039

PND18	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8	p18	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8	PND18	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8	p18	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8
1	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	60	1	0.09	0.13	0.13	0.13	0.14	0.13	0.13	0.14	1	5.4	7.8	7.8	7.8	8.4	7.8	7.8	8.4	1	88.8	81.3	82.3	82.3	91.5	86.8	93	88.8
2	60	28.02	60	60	16.59	60	60	60	2	0.14	0.11	0.14	0.13	0.1	0.16	0.12	0.12	2	8.4	3.0822	8.4	7.8	1.659	9.6	7.2	7.2	2	79.3	69.2	72.8	64.5	63.2	75.7	88.8	84.8
3	60	60	60	60	30.52	41.86	60	4.84	3	0.16	0.12	0.13	0.13	0.15	0.13	0.13	0.07	3	9.6	7.2	7.8	7.8	4.578	5.4418	7.8	0.3388	3	86	72.8	87.5	72.7	62.3	81.8	82.2	74.5
4	60	60	60	60	60	60	23.92	60	4	0.13	0.11	0.12	0.13	0.13	0.12	0.06	0.14	4	7.8	6.6	7.2	7.8	7.8	7.2	1.4352	8.4	4	74.2	77.7	87.8	88.5	70.5	82.7	84.3	76.8
5	53.67	42.78	28.53	60	33.98	60	60	60	5	0.16	0.14	0.16	0.16	0.14	0.16	0.15	0.16	5	8.5872	5.9892	4.5648	9.6	4.7572	9.6	9	9.6	5	73.6	77.6	83.6	77.5	78.5	87	63.3	71.2
MEAN	58.734	50.16	53.706	60	40.218	56.372	52.784	48.968	mean	0.136	0.122	0.136	0.136	0.132	0.14	0.118	0.126	MEAN	7.95744	6.13428	7.15296	8.16	5.43884	7.92836	6.64704	6.78776	mean	80.38	75.72	82.8	77.1	73.2	82.8	82.32	79.22
SEM	1.266	6.461891364	6.294	0	8.584582925	3.628	7.216	11.032	sem	0.012884099	0.005830952	0.00678233	0.006	0.008602325	0.0083666	0.015297059	0.015362291	SEM	0.701988143	0.82047297	0.674285371	0.36	1.221401124	0.784816086	1.335366901	1.656296416	sem	3.064375956	2.116931742	2.720110292	4.094386401	5.42715395	2.062280291	5.107582598	3.281524036

PND20	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8	p20	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8	PND20	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8	p20	Trial 1	Trial 2	Trial 3	Trial 4	Trial 5	Trial 6	Trial 7	Trial 8
1	60	60	60	25.09	60	25.05	24.35	25.68	1	0.21	0.21	0.22	0.22	0.2	0.18	0.2	0.21	1	12.6	12.6	13.2	5.5198	12	4.509	4.87	5.3928	1	81.7	86.2	77.8	66.7	55.3	62.8	58.6	50.8
2	23.46	60	60	60	8.45	7.93	12.42	10.28	2	0.14	0.23	0.21	0.24	0.27	0.22	0.26	0.23	2	3.2844	13.8	12.6	14.4	2.2815	1.7446	3.2292	2.3644	2	79.7	77.7	86.2	81.8	28.9	43.4	45.1	31.7
3	60	60	60	60	60	19.77	42.52	50.53	3	0.19	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.22	0.22	0.18	3	11.4	12	12	12	12	4.3494	9.3544	9.0954	3	92.2	93.5	96.2	69.7	68.5	53.6	63.5	54.8
4	6.2	24.02	60	60	21.21	60	22.08	1.67	4	0.2	0.21	0.2	0.21	0.23	0.21	0.18	0.1	4	1.24	5.0442	12	12.6	4.8783	12.6	3.9744	0.167	4	50	61.8	76.5	82.8	52.9	36	61.5	58.3
5	60	10.67	60	23.3	12.12	23.62	13.08	60	5	0.19	0.23	0.22	0.18	0.21	0.25	0.23	0.23	5	11.4	2.4541	13.2	4.194	2.5452	5.905	3.0084	13.8	5	88.3	78.4	79.5	67.2	38.7	74	96.8	60.3
MEAN	41.932	42.938	60	45.678	32.356	27.274	22.89	29.632	mean	0.186	0.216	0.21	0.21	0.222	0.216	0.218	0.19	MEAN	7.98488	9.17966	12.6	9.74276	6.741	5.8216	4.88728	6.16392	mean	78.38	79.52	83.24	73.64	48.86	53.96	65.1	51.18

Dataset 1.Watermaze Dataset.

Included in this worksheet are the water maze behavioral measures collected for the current work. Measures included latency to locate the platform for each trial, speed on each trial, pathlength to reach the platform for each trial and percent of the pathlength spent close to the perimeter of the pool (thigmotaxis)⁷⁸.

Object in Novel Location (ONL)

The mean investigation ratios (see Dataset 2) for the ONL task are shown in Figure 2A. One-way ANOVA on the investigation ratios between ages revealed a main effect of age (F(2,18) = 4.64, p < 0.05) and Tukey HSD post-hoc tests revealed that the PND20 group showed a larger investigation ratio than both other ages (p < 0.05). The investigation ratios for the PND16 (t(6) = 1.35) and PND18 (t(6) = 0.63) groups were not significantly different from chance (0.5) while the investigation ratio for the PND20 group (t(6) = 2.52, p < 0.05) was significantly greater than chance. An analysis of the times spent investigating the displaced and nondisplaced objects (in seconds; Dataset 2) during the test (Figure 2B) with a two-way ANOVA (age by investigation time of the displaced and nondisplaced objects) revealed no main effects of age (F(2,18) = 1.60), no main effect of investigation time (F(1,2) = 1.38) and no interaction (F(2,18) = 1.67). One-way ANOVA examining the distance traveled (see Dataset 2) during the test session (in meters; Figure 2C) revealed a main effect age group (F(2,18) = 4.02, p < 0.05). Tukey post-hoc test showed that the PND18 group showed a longer distance traveled during the test than the PND20 group (t(12) = 2.50, p < 0.05). No other age group differences were detected (PND16 vs PND18, t(12) = 1.31).

Figure 2. One-day object in a novel location task (ONL).

Groups of rats were trained and tested on a single day: PND16, PND18 or PND20. (A) Mean investigation ratios (± SEM) from the entire 5 minute test. Dotted line indicates chance investigation ratios meaning similar times spent investigating the displaced (D) and non-displaced (ND) objects. The PND20 group showed an investigation ratio significantly above chance (** p < 0.01) indicating a preference for the D object over the ND object. The PND20 group also showed a larger investigation ratio than the PND16 and PND18 groups (* p < 0.05). (B) Average total time (seconds ± SEM) spent investigating the D and ND objects. There were no overall age effects or object effects on investigation time. (C) Total distance traveled during the ONL 5 minute test. Data are expressed as average (± SEM) distance in meters. A main effect of age (*, p < 0.05) was found with the PND18 group showing a longer distance traveled than the PND20 group (+, p < 0.05).

OBJECT EXPLORATION														INVESTIGATION TIME		INVESTIGATION RATIO
rat	day	nd_01	d_01	ratio_01	nd_02	d_02	ratio_02	nd_03	d_03	ratio_03	nd_04	d_04	ratio_04	nd_05	d_05	ratio_05
1	p16	5.3	0.1	0.018518519	14.1	0.1	0.007042254	24	0.1	0.004149378	25.2	0.7	0.027027027	26.2	1.2	0.04379562	0-5 min
8	p16	0	0	.	0	30.1	1	0	41.5	1	18.1	55.4	0.753741497	18.2	60.5	0.768742058		PND16	PND18	PND20
14	p16	0	0	.	1.4	0.4	0.222222222	5.6	2.6	0.317073171	5.6	7.8	0.582089552	5.6	10.5	0.652173913		0.480798223	0.493885696	0.749115911
19	p16	0.2	4.3	0.955555556	3.5	5	0.588235294	13.2	5	0.274725275	13.3	11.7	0.468	14.1	20.5	0.592485549	SEM
20	p16	5.9	2.3	0.280487805	10.4	3.6	0.257142857	10.4	3.6	0.257142857	11	12.4	0.52991453	28.4	12.4	0.303921569		0.097868848	0.034513569	0.063567372
28	P16	7.1	0	0	21.3	0	0	22.7	15.3	0.402631579	28.6	15.4	0.35	32.8	16.7	0.337373737
29	P16	0	28	1	6.1	35.9	0.854761905	13.6	38.7	0.739961759	13.6	47.8	0.778501629	25.9	51.9	0.667095116
6(2)	p18	0	0.7	1	0.3	5.8	0.950819672	2.2	5.8	0.725	2.2	5.8	0.725	4.5	5.8	0.563106796
10	p18	3.7	0.4	0.097560976	5	2	0.285714286	5	4	0.444444444	5	7.7	0.606299213	5	7.9	0.612403101
13	p18	2.7	2.9	0.517857143	13.4	3.2	0.192771084	16.4	5.7	0.257918552	16.4	21.2	0.563829787	23	21.8	0.486607143
16	p18	0.4	3.5	0.897435897	3.4	5.1	0.6	12.5	12.9	0.507874016	13.1	14.1	0.518382353	13.2	17.6	0.571428571
22 (7)	p18	5.2	0.6	0.103448276	34.4	0.6	0.017142857	34.5	3.2	0.084880637	34.5	16.5	0.323529412	34.5	27.9	0.447115385
23	p18	5	8.8	0.637681159	8.6	14.6	0.629310345	19.6	25.7	0.567328918	37.6	25.7	0.40600316	37.6	25.7	0.40600316
30 (32)	p18	0	7	1	10.7	10.7	0.5	26.9	10.7	0.284574468	26.9	13.3	0.330845771	28.2	16.6	0.370535714
7	p20	0	0.5	1	2.4	5.1	0.68	9.5	8.9	0.483695652	9.5	18.2	0.657039711	9.5	19.5	0.672413793
12	p20	0.3	0	0	0.3	11.8	0.975206612	2.1	12.6	0.857142857	2.1	12.6	0.857142857	2.3	14.3	0.861445783		ND	D	SEM ND	SEM D
18	p20	0.4	2.6	0.866666667	0.8	3.3	0.804878049	0.8	3.6	0.818181818	1.1	3.6	0.765957447	19.1	16.3	0.460451977	PND16	21.6	24.81428571	3.569513772	8.463097164
26	p20	0	12	1	0.2	13	0.984848485	0.2	20.8	0.99047619	0.2	20.8	0.99047619	0.2	20.8	0.99047619	PND18	20.85714286	17.61428571	5.123701096	3.176058397
27	p20	1.4	3.6	0.72	1.9	4	0.677966102	2	4.2	0.677419355	2	4.2	0.677419355	2	4.2	0.677419355	PND20	7.185714286	19.5	2.625826724	4.449344521
34	p20	2	1.1	0.35483871	2	12.2	0.85915493	2.2	12.2	0.847222222	3.6	14.2	0.797752809	4.2	18.3	0.813333333
35	p20	0.4	0	0	6.7	4.8	0.417391304	12.7	5	0.282485876	13	29.2	0.691943128	13	43.1	0.768270945


DISTANCE TRAVELLED METERS
p16		p18		p20
rat	Distance meters	rat	Distance meters	rat	Distance meters
1	4.3727	6	7.295	7	2.9188
8	4.4728	10	8.0994	12	4.8843
14	5.2699	13	5.9103	18	5.3797
19	7.3013	16	7.8807	26	4.9143
20	4.9217	22	7.1438	27	3.3712
28	4.1367	23	4.3902	34	4.02
29	5.6492	32	5.8598	35	7.6089
mean	5.160614286		6.654171429		4.728171429
sd	1.082633564		1.326234812		1.549129312
sem	0.409197025		0.501269642		0.585515844

Dataset 2.Drymaze Dataset.

Included in this worksheet are the data from the object exploration task (dry maze task) consisting of time spent exploring each objected (displaced (d) and nondisplaced (nd)) during the first, second, third fourth and fifth minutes (cumulative time). Distance traveled during the tests are shown below these data⁷⁹.

Synaptophysin immunohistochemistry

Stratum Lucidum (SL). The average number of synaptophysin-positive puncta (Dataset 3) in the SL (Figure 3A and Supplemental Figure S1) was analyzed using a 3×3 univariate ANOVA (age (PND16, PND18, PND20) and training history (HCC, ONL, MWM) as the fixed factors). This analysis revealed a main effect of age only (F(2,2) = 8.53, p < 0.01) (training history F(2,4) < 1.0; interaction F(4,42) < 1.0). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons on the main effect of age revealed that the PND16 group showed more synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SL than both the PND18 and PND20 groups (p < 0.05).

Figure 3. Synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region as an indicator of mossy fiber (MF) projections.

Brains from PND16, PND18 and PND20 from home cage control (HCC), object in a novel location (ONL) or Morris water maze (MWM) groups were removed and processed immunohistochemically for synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region as a marker for MF connectivity. Left panels show representative staining from the three age groups (images from MWM condition). Abbreviations: SO: stratum oriens; SP: stratum pyramisale; SL: stratum lucidum. Arrows point to synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SO region. Scale bar = 100 µm. (A) Synaptophysin-positive puncta quantified in the SL region revealed a main effect of age with group PND16 showing more staining than PND18 and PND20 (*, p < 0.05). (B) Synaptophysin-positive puncta quantified in the SO region revealed a main effect of age with group PND18 showing more staining than PND16 (++, p < 0.01) and group PND20 showing more staining than groups PND16 and PND18 (**, p < 0.01). (C) Ratio of synaptophysin-positive puncta quantified in the SO: SL region (to control for potential size variation) revealed a main effect of age with group PND18 showing more staining than PND16 (++, p < 0.01) and group PND20 showing more staining then groups PND16 and PND18 (**, p < 0.01).

Stratum Oriens (SO). The average number of synaptophysin-positive puncta (Dataset 3) in the SO (Figure 3B and Supplemental Figure S1) was analyzed using a 3×3 univariate ANOVA (age (PND16, PND18, PND20) and training history (HCC, ONL, MWM) as the fixed factors). This analysis revealed a main effect of age only (F(2,2) = 91.78, p < 0.001) (training history F(2,4) < 1.0; interaction F(4,42) < 1.0). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons on the main effect of age revealed that the PND18 group showed more synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SO than the PND16 group (p < 0.01) and the PND20 group showed more synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SO than both the PND16 and PND18 groups (p < 0.001; Figure 3B).

SO:SL Ratio. The ratio (see Dataset 3) of synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SO to puncta in the SL (Figure 3C and Supplemental Figure S1) was analyzed using a 3×3 univariate ANOVA (age (PND16, PND18, PND20) and training history (HCC, ONL, MWM) as the fixed factors). This analysis revealed a main effect of age only (F(2,2) = 91.52, p < 0.001) (training history F(2,4) < 1.0; interaction F(4,42) < 1.0). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons on the main effect of age revealed that the PND18 group showed more synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SO than the PND16 group (p < 0.001) and the PND20 group showed more synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SO than both the PND16 and PND18 groups (p < 0.001; Figure 3C).

NUMBER OF SYNAPTOPHYSIN PUNCTA
P16
Group DM	SL	SO	ratio	Group WM	SL	SO	ratio	Group HC	SL	SO	ratio
rat1	568	53	0.093309859	rat1	504	23	0.045634921	rat1	601	22	0.036605657
rat8	605	28	0.046280992	rat2	704	63	0.089488636	rat2	545	59	0.108256881
rat14	549	19	0.034608379	rat3	722	46	0.063711911	rat3	706	14	0.019830028
rat19	715	48	0.067132867	rat4	562	24	0.042704626	rat4	683	32	0.046852123
rat20	614	26	0.042345277	rat5	582	33	0.056701031	rat5	527	54	0.102466793
rat28	542	68	0.125461255
rat29	548	29	0.052919708


avg	591.5714286	38.71428571	0.066008334		614.8	37.8	0.059648225		612.4	36.2	0.062802296
SEM	27.47223707	7.973766512	0.014591853		42.18340906	7.532595834	0.008363934		35.8547068	8.8	0.01792579




P18
Group DM	SL	SO	ratio	Group WM	SL	SO	ratio	Group HC	SL	SO	ratio
rat6	499	47	0.094188377	rat1	592	106	0.179054054	rat1	620	82	0.132258065
rat10	597	47	0.078726968	rat2	358	61	0.170391061	rat2	424	78	0.183962264
rat13	534	81	0.151685393	rat3	600	68	0.113333333	rat3	519	120	0.231213873
rat16	465	72	0.15483871	rat4	484	49	0.101239669	rat4	314	32	0.101910828
rat22	536	66	0.123134328	rat5	442	61	0.13800905	rat5	450	48	0.106666667
rat23	583	70	0.120068611
rat32	447	99	0.22147651


	523	68.85714286	0.134874128		495.2	69	0.140405434		465.4	72	0.151202339
	25.22036214	8.227711595	0.021091891		45.89814811	9.741663102	0.015273264		50.81692631	15.19210321	0.02474573


P20
Group DM	SL	SO	ratio	Group WM	SL	SO	ratio	Group HC	SL	SO	ratio
rat7	548	124	0.226277372	rat1	525	160	0.304761905	rat1	527	122	0.231499051
rat12	517	117	0.226305609	rat2	557	162	0.290843806	rat2	431	128	0.296983759
rat18	514	146	0.284046693	rat3	575	131	0.227826087	rat3	524	137	0.261450382
rat26	692	157	0.226878613	rat4	473	115	0.243128964	rat4	608	132	0.217105263
rat27	534	146	0.27340824	rat5	597	217	0.363484087	rat5	509	189	0.371316306
rat34	449	169	0.376391982
rat35	430	142	0.330232558


	526.2857143	143	0.277648724		545.4	157	0.28600897		519.8	141.6	0.275670952

Dataset 3.Synaptophysin Quantification Dataset.

Synaptophysin data were collected as number of puncta within the stratum lucidum (SL), stratum oriens (SO) and the ratio of SO:SL as defined in the text⁸⁰.

c-Fos immunohistochemistry

Dentate Gyrus (DG). The estimated number of c-Fos-positive cells per 100 µm³ (see Dataset 4) in the DG (quantified in Figure 4A; representative images from rats trained on the MWM shown in Figure 5 and for groups HCC and ONL in Supplemental Figure S2 and Supplemental Figure S3) was analyzed using a 3×3 univariate ANOVA (age (PND16, PND18, PND20) and training history (HCC, ONL, MWM) as the fixed factors). This analysis revealed main effects of age (F(2,2) = 96.99, p < 0.001) and training history (F(2,4) = 3.45, p < 0.05) but no significant interaction (F(4,42) = 1.23). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons on the main effect of age revealed that the PND18 group showed more c-Fos positive cells in the DG than the PND16 group (p < 0.01) and the PND20 group showed more c-Fos positive cells in the DG than both other age groups (p < 0.001; Figure 4A). Post-hoc analysis of the main effect of training history revealed fewer c-Fos positive cells associated with MWM task than ONL task (p < 0.05).

Figure 4. Quantification of hippocampal c-Fos labeling.

The estimated number of c-Fos-positive cells per 100 µm³ were quantified in the (A) dentate gyrus (DG); (B) CA3 and (C) CA1 hippocampal regions from PND16, PND18 and PND20 groups from home cage control (HCC), object in a novel location (ONL) or Morris water maze (MWM) conditions. (A) DG c-Fos staining revealed more c-Fos-positive cells in the PND18 than the PND16 group (++, p < 0.01) and more positive cells in the PND20 group than the PND16 and PND18 groups (*** p < 0.01). (B) CA3 staining revealed more c-Fos positive cells in the PND18 than the PND16 group (++, p < 0.01) and in the pND20 group than the PND16 group (##, p < 0.01). There was also more c-Fos labelling associated with the MWM condition than the HCC and ONL conditions (@@, p < 0.01). (C) CA1 staining revealed more c-Fos positive cells in the PND20 than the PND16 and PND18 groups (**, p < 0.01). There was also more c-Fos labelling associated with the MWM condition than the HCC and ONL conditions (@@, p < 0.01).

Figure 5. Representative c-Fos labeling in the hippocampus.

Representative images for immunohistochemical localization of c-Fos in the dentate gyrus (DG), CA3 and CA1 regions. All images are from rats included in the MWM condition. Top row shows sections from PND16; middle row from PND18; bottom row from PND20. Images were taken at 10× with scale bar = 200 μm. Abbreviations: ML: molecular layer of the dentate gyrus; GC: granule cells; S: stratum lucidum; SP: stratum pyramidale; SO: stratum oriens; SR: stratum radiatum; SLM: stratum lacunosum moleculare.

CA3. The estimated number of c-Fos-positive cells per 100 µm³ (see Dataset 4) in the CA3 (quantified in Figure 4B; representative images from rats trained on the MWM shown in Figure 5 and for groups HCC and ONL in Supplemental Figure S2 and Supplemental Figure S3) was analyzed using a 3×3 univariate ANOVA (age (PND16, PND18, PND20) and training history (HCC, ONL, MWM) as the fixed factors). This analysis revealed main effects of age (F(2,2) = 28.43, p < 0.001) and training history (F(2,4) = 7.08, p < 0.01) but no significant interaction (F(4,42) = 1.95). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons on the main effect of age revealed that the PND20 and PND18 groups showed more c-Fos positive cells in the CA3 region than the PND16 group (p < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis of the main effect of training history revealed more c-Fos staining associated with the MWM task than the ONL task and the HCC condition (p < 0.01 for both comparisons).

CA1. The estimated number of c-Fos-positive cells per 100 µm³ (see Dataset 4) in the CA1 (quantified in Figure 4C; representative images from rats trained on the MWM shown in Figure 5 and for groups HCC and ONL in Supplemental Figure S2 and Supplemental Figure S3) was analyzed using a 3×3 univariate ANOVA (age (PND16, PND18, PND20) and training history (HCC, ONL, MWM) as the fixed factors). This analysis revealed main effects of age (F(2,2) = 14.21, p < 0.001) and training history (F(2,4) = 12.49, p < 0.001) but no significant interaction (F(4,42) = 1.26). Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons on the main effect of age revealed that the PND20 group showed more c-Fos positive cells in the CA1 region than both other age groups (p < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis of the main effect of training history revealed more c-Fos staining associated with the MWM task than the ONL task and the HCC condition (p < 0.01 for both comparisons).

C-FOS LABELED CELLS PER 100 UM^3
P16
Group DM	CA1	CA3	DG	Group WM	CA1	CA3	DG	Group HC	CA1	CA3	DG
rat1	1.161137441	0.363614688	0.401723335	rat1	1.58524173	0.377617939	0.328552803	rat1	1.155807365	0.549475095	0.432882586
rat8	1.264810427	0.423223653	0.687005123	rat2	1.006361323	0.504548339	0.443285528	rat2	1.410764873	0.596381505	0.623350923
rat14	1.485979463	0.399380067	0.296925943	rat3	1.674300254	0.507721599	0.620599739	rat3	1.529745042	0.546124637	0.323218997
rat19	0.939968404	0.39341917	0.500698649	rat4	1.567430025	0.555320499	0.43285528	rat4	1.359773371	0.402054948	0.519459103
rat20	1.202606635	0.402360515	0.232883093	rat5	1.122137405	0.399830759	0.427640156	rat5	0.866855524	0.355148537	0.346306069
rat28	0.988349131	0.476871722	0.331858407
rat29	1.078199052	0.497734859	0.459944108


avg	1.160150079	0.422372096	0.415862666		1.391094148	0.469007827	0.450586701		1.264589235	0.489836944	0.449043536
SEM	0.082388028	0.021502157	0.06771082		0.135895254	0.034168216	0.047271006		0.116353027	0.046863313	0.055672882




P18
Group DM	CA1	CA3	DG	Group WM	CA1	CA3	DG	Group HC	CA1	CA3	DG
rat6	0.801737757	0.703385789	1.84559851	rat1	1.522900763	0.869473239	1.387222947	rat1	0.883852691	0.660040205	1.356365435
rat10	1.119668246	0.673581307	1.403120633	rat2	1.62086514	0.704463719	0.709256845	rat2	1.478753541	0.546124637	1.183212401
rat13	1.009083728	0.727229375	1.43223102	rat3	1.727735369	0.859953459	1.173402868	rat3	1.087818697	0.649988832	1.668040897
rat16	1.485979463	0.634835479	1.333255706	rat4	1.558524173	0.577533319	0.970013038	rat4	1.317280453	0.619834711	1.033146438
rat22	1.492890995	0.718288031	1.723334886	rat5	1.318066158	0.885339539	1.209908735	rat5	1.232294618	0.489166853	0.969656992
rat23	1.292456556	0.539461135	1.263390778
rat32	1.306279621	0.602050548	1.082906381


	1.215442338	0.656975952	1.440548273		1.549618321	0.779352655	1.089960887		1.2	0.593031048	1.242084433
	0.113616127	0.030790181	0.117800419		0.06753197	0.060079458	0.115982291		0.101250913	0.032742049	0.125665582


P20
Group DM	CA1	CA3	DG	Group WM	CA1	CA3	DG	Group HC	CA1	CA3	DG
rat7	1.472156398	0.825584168	1.967862133	rat1	1.994910941	0.913898879	1.41851369	rat1	1.164305949	0.649988832	1.183212401
rat12	1.631121643	0.688483548	1.542850489	rat2	1.798982188	0.891686059	1.700130378	rat2	1.563739377	0.482465937	1.627638522
rat18	1.278633491	0.605030997	1.420586865	rat3	2.048346056	0.720330019	1.168187744	rat3	1.359773371	0.918025463	1.315963061
rat26	1.65185624	0.646757272	2.142524453	rat4	1.816793893	0.723503279	1.32464146	rat4	1.393767705	0.609783337	1.44871372
rat27	1.430687204	0.596089652	1.560316721	rat5	2.600508906	0.837740639	1.209908735	rat5	1.886685552	0.452311816	1.968172823
rat34	1.624210111	0.554363376	1.542850489
rat35	1.403041074	0.634835479	1.461341407


	1.498815166	0.650163499	1.662618937		2.051908397	0.817431775	1.364276402		1.473654391	0.622515077	1.508740106

Dataset 4.C-Fos Quantification Dataset.

Stereological summary of the number of c-Fos positive cells within the three hippocampal regions (dentate gyrus (DG), CA1 and CA3) for the three behavioral conditions. Data are expressed as mean number of c-Fos-positive cells per 100 µm³⁸¹.

Discussion

Summary of main findings

The purpose of the current work was three-fold: 1) to determine whether the emergence of spatial-behavioral function was based on the ability to generate appropriate behavioral output; 2) to assess whether mossy fiber connectivity patterns preceded optimal spatial-behavioral function; 3) to explore functional changes in the hippocampus to determine whether activity in hippocampal networks occurred in a training-dependent or developmentally-dependent fashion. At PND20, optimal spatial behavioral performance emerged on both the water maze task and the object exploration task whereas at PND16 and PND18, optimal spatial behavior was not present on either task. Analysis of synaptophysin staining in the CA3 SL and SO subregions revealed more synaptophysin staining in the SO in the PND18 than the PND16 group and more synaptophysin staining in the SO in the PND20 group than both the PND16 and PND18 groups. Estimates of c-Fos-positive cells in the DG, CA3 and CA1 regions revealed more staining in the DG and CA3 regions in the PND18 and PND20 groups than the PND16 group (and more in the PND20 versus PND18 group) as well as more c-Fos staining in the CA3 and CA1 areas associated with water maze training. The combined behavioral and immunohistochemical results support the hypothesis that hippocampal anatomical and functional neural substrates mature prior to the emergence of optimal spatial-behavioral function. The maturation of these networks may be necessary to support the emergence of optimal spatial behavioral performance.

Ontogeny of spatial behavior: performance or cognition?

Training on two tasks (water and dry maze) that required distinct behavioral topology (swimming versus walking) to complete were used. In this case, the PND20 group showed evidence of optimal spatial proficiency on both tasks when compared to the PND16 and PND18 groups. Behavioral results revealed that the PND20 group given 1 day of water maze training had significantly lower latencies than the groups trained at PND16 or PND18 suggesting the emergence of spatial function by PND20. The PND20 group also showed significantly faster swim speeds. This raises the possibility that the older rats were better able to perform the task than PND16 and PND18 rats because they were stronger and possibly, better swimmers. Rather than spatial function being the reason for the superior water maze performance in the PND20 group, it could be argued that physicality contributed to superior water maze task performance. Because swimming requires a certain level of physical aptitude, an older rat may show better performance because they have more muscle mass to perform the task.

To examine whether the improvements seen at PND20 were due to spatial or motor development, an experiment was run on a dry maze. This task was less physically demanding than the water maze task (ambulation rather than swimming) and was hypothesized to tease out spatial from motor development. Other reports have shown that by PND15/PND16, rats are able to perform tests of locomotor activity and engage in exploratory behaviours such as rearing that are similar to adults^8,74 and what was required for performance of the ONL task used in the present study. In contrast, optimal (i.e., adult) swimming behavior does not fully emerge until PND22⁶⁸ though PND15 rats are able to keep their face and nose out of water. Thus, performance on the ONL task was utilized as a less physically demanding task yet still able to tap into spatial functions. For the ONL task, the PND20 group performed significantly better than chance but the younger groups (PND16 and PND18) showed chance performance. Because the ONL task takes advantage of the ability to detect changes in the spatial relationship between the two objects but is less physically demanding than the water maze, a preliminary conclusion is that optimal spatial behavioral function emerges around PND20, independent from behavioral topology.

Converging lines of evidence from other behavioral studies point to the postnatal period from PND16 to PND21 as a sensitive developmental timeframe for spatial behavioral function to emerge. Improved performance on a number of spatial tasks during development^{2–5,13,16,20,21,29,32,38,41,46,64–66,70,71,73,76} point to a sensitive developmental period for spatial behavior to emerge between PND16 and PND21. In addition, optimal performance on a delayed alternation task has been shown to emerge between PND19 and PND27 but in pups with PND10 hippocampal lesions, this behavior fails to fully develop²³ suggesting that hippocampal integrity is important for the normal development of spatial behavioral function and other brain structures do not compensate when the hippocampus is damaged during postnatal development⁶.

Ontogeny of Mossy Fiber Connectivity

In adult Long Evans rats (LER), the mossy fiber terminal field (as labeled with zinc or synaptophysin) shows a dense projection to the stratum oriens (SO) corresponding to the basal dendrites of the CA3 pyramidal cells³³. In an examination of the development of CA3 hippocampal mossy fiber (MF) distribution in LER³², MF innervation of the stratum lucidum (SL) was widespread by PND12 and beginning on PND15, MF staining was evident in the stratum pyramidale (SP) and by PND18 and PND21, widespread MF staining was observed in the SO. By PND24, the SO projection in LER was complete and remained stable into adulthood³³.

The present study carried out an explicit comparison between the development of these MF connectivity patterns and the emergence of spatial behavior. While in a previous study⁴¹, using LER rats, dramatic improvement in spatial behavioral function was observed from PND18 to PND21, there was no examination of the MF distribution during this course of behavioral improvement. Utilizing a one-day training procedure on two different tasks and comparing the change in MF connectivity patterns to a home cage control condition allowed us to determine how plasticity in the MF terminal field was associated with the emergence of spatial behavior. In this respect, clear developmental-dependent changes occurred in MF terminal field distribution (inferred from synaptophysin staining) with a gradual increase in staining observed in the SO from PND16 to PND18 to PND20 with SO staining being greatest at PND20. This suggests that developmentally-dependent changes in the distribution of MF terminals, particularly those that terminate on the basal dendrites of CA3 pyramidal neurons, may form an anatomical substrate that supports the emergence of spatial behavior. Such facilitation of spatial behavior could arise as a consequence of shifting input away from inhibitory interneurons^10,51,53 thereby reducing the number of synapses on inhibitory interneurons located within the SL⁷² leading to excitatory inputs on CA3 pyramidal neurons via the basal dendrites in SO.

Ontogeny of hippocampal network activity

The developmentally-dependent changes in presynaptic MF terminals are likely dependent on patterned neural activity within this system that occurs during development³⁹. To examine putative functional changes associated with developmentally-linked improvements in spatial behavior and MF terminal field distribution, c-Fos immunohistochemical staining in the DG, CA3 and CA1 regions of the hippocampus was carried out across the three developmental time points (PND16, PND18 and PND20). Immediate early gene proteins, such as c-Fos, regulate the transcription of additional genes directing a general genomic response to a variety of environmental stimuli⁶⁹. These regulatory proteins control downstream gene expression and are thought to translate environmental signals into relatively long-term changes in neuronal function^28,40,69. As such, c-Fos protein labeling was used in the present work to provide a marker for cells that have recently been activated and are potentially undergoing long-term structural or functional changes.

Comparison of c-Fos-positive cells between the different ages revealed more c-Fos labeled neurons in the DG and CA1 regions in the PND20 group than the PND16 and PND18 groups indicating more network activity in these regions at PND20 that may facilitate the emergence of spatial behavior. The PND18 group also showed more c-Fos labeling in the DG and CA3 than the PND16 group, perhaps providing the patterned neural activity required for development changes in the MF connectivity. Finally, there were training-associated elevations in c-Fos staining following the water maze task in the CA3 and CA1 regions.

The developmental-associated changes in c-Fos labeling in the DG and CA1 regions continued to show increased activity from PND16 to PND18 then more activity at PND20 while the CA3 labeling patterns suggested a plateau of activity at PND20. Activity changes in the DG during development may reflect patterned activity necessary for the stabilization of MF inputs to CA3. Indeed, the wave of increased DG activity at PND18 corresponds to the first occurrence of a significant MF projection to SO; the second wave of DG activity at PND20 corresponds to a further, significant expansion of the MF projection within SO. With the formation and stabilization of this MF-CA3 network, optimal spatial behavior may be possible. A previous report showed that the expression of Homer1a in the DG peaks between PND19 and PND23⁵² compared to PND9-15 and PND35 to adulthood. This is consistent with the current results showing a continued maturation of network activity in the DG spanning the PND16 – PND20 period. During this maturational period, appropriate networks may be established to support optimal spatial behavioral output.

The CA1 region also showed continued maturation of network activity spanning PND16 – PND20 (with c-Fos-positive neurons at PND18 > PND16 and PND20 > PND18). Activity patterns in the CA1 region may continue to mature well beyond the PND20 period. As an example, place cells in CA1 with specific spatial firing patterns have been recorded at PND17 with place cell patterns conveying optimal spatial information showing continued development up to PND35^1,46. Likewise, place cell firing is present from PND16 – PND26 but continues to improve throughout development with stable place cell recordings (i.e., similar to adults) being made at PND28⁷⁶. Theta-modulated firing is present at PND16 in the hippocampus CA1 region and these responses reach adult proportions by PND22^46,76. After PND21, both the magnitude and threshold for post-synaptic induction of long-term potentiation (LTP) are reduced with a corresponding increase in the threshold for presynaptic induction^13,22. These data, with the present results, suggest continued maturation of CA1 neural activity beyond the PND20 time point that continues to support the refinement and optimization of spatial information.

The CA3 and CA1 subregions showed patterned c-Fos labeling that was associated with the water maze task condition. While studies have shown that the dorsal CA3 and CA1 hippocampal subregions contribute to numerous aspects of spatial processing^31,36,37,45, there are functional differences between the two regions. The CA3 subregion has been suggested to be important for cognitive functions associated with spatial pattern separation^44,63, spatial pattern completion⁴⁸, novelty detection⁴⁷ and short-term memory^45,49. Likewise, the dorsal CA3 region has been shown to be involved in the early stages of acquiring spatial information but less involved during the retrieval of spatial information after long delays⁵⁰. The dorsal CA1 region has been shown to be involved in the encoding and retrieval of spatial-shock associations³⁵ and inactivation of the CA1 region with lidocaine prior to water maze training impairs spatial performance^14,55,61. As well, CA1 lidocaine injections before a probe retention test impaired the ability of rats to demonstrate spatial function^15,56.

In the present work, both the CA3 and CA1 regions showed c-Fos elevations associated with performance of the water maze task. Because there was no probe retention test, this patterned activity appears to be related to the acquisition of spatial information. For the ONL task, the animals were euthanized following the test session. In this case, there was no significant increase in c-Fos labeling over and above the HCC condition. This suggests the possibility that these regions were not activated during the ONL task or that they were not involved in the retrieval of spatial information. While the present study was not designed to examine differential activation patterns in the CA3 and CA1 regions based on different cognitive demands, it would be of interest to determine if distinct mnemonic functions (e.g., pattern separation mediated by the DG-CA3 network^42,62 and pattern completion mediated by the CA3-CA1 network⁴³) would show a different pattern of emergence during development.

Conclusions

The combination of neuroanatomical and behavioural results from the present work leads to the hypothesis that this developmental time period (PND16 – PND20) represents a sensitive period for hippocampal anatomical and functional modification leading to the emergence of spatial behavior. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the emergence of spatial-behavior function and the emergence of the neural substrates – both anatomical and functional – that would support optimal spatial-behavioral function. In this respect, MF connectivity-based developmental changes preceded the emergence of spatial behavior. In association with this, functional aspects of hippocampal neurons changed in response to developmental age with functional changes also occurring in response to behavioral-dependent inputs. These data support the hypothesis that network maturation the hippocampus supports the emergence of optimal spatial behavior.

Data availability

F1000Research: Dataset 1. Watermaze Dataset, 10.5256/f1000research.6822.d96530⁷⁸

F1000Research: Dataset 2. Drymaze Dataset, 10.5256/f1000research.6822.d96531⁷⁹

F1000Research: Dataset 3. Synaptophysin Quantification Dataset, 10.5256/f1000research.6822.d96532⁸⁰

F1000Research: Dataset 4. C-Fos Quantification Dataset, 10.5256/f1000research.6822.d96533⁸¹

Author contributions

RC, NJG, DGM and MRH conceived the study. DGM and MRH designed the experiments. RC and NJG carried out the research. RC prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All authors were involved in the revision of the draft manuscript and have agreed to the final content.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Grant information

This research was supported by National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery grants to DGM (RGPIN 156937) and MRH (RGPIN 341673), a Canadian Foundation for Innovation grant (335892) to MRH and a Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec to DGM.

I confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ridhi Nair for quantifying cresyl violet staining.

Supplementary Material

Figure S1. Synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region as an indicator of mossy fiber (MF) projections.

Brains from PND16, PND18 and PND20 from home cage control (HCC) and object in a novel location (ONL) groups were removed and processed immunohistochemically for synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region as a marker for MF connectivity. Top panel shows representative staining from the three age groups from the HCC condition and bottom panel show staining from the ONL condition. Abbreviations: SO: stratum oriens; SP: stratum pyramisale; SL: stratum lucidum. Arrows point to synaptophysin-positive puncta in the SO region.

Figure S2. Representative c-Fos labeling in the hippocampus.

Representative images for immunohistochemical localization of c-Fos in the dentate gyrus (DG), CA3 and CA1 regions from rats included in the HCC condition. Top row shows sections from PND16; middle row from PND18; bottom row from PND20. Images were taken at 10×. Abbreviations: ML: molecular layer of the dentate gyrus; GC: granule cells; S: stratum lucidum; SP: stratum pyramidale; SO: stratum oriens; SR: stratum radiatum; SLM: stratum lacunosum moleculare.

Figure S3. Representative c-Fos labeling in the hippocampus.

Representative images for immunohistochemical localization of c-Fos in the dentate gyrus (DG), CA3 and CA1 regions from rats included in the ONL condition. Top row shows sections from PND16; middle row from PND18; bottom row from PND20. Images were taken at 10×. Abbreviations: ML: molecular layer of the dentate gyrus; GC: granule cells; S: stratum lucidum; SP: stratum pyramidale; SO: stratum oriens; SR: stratum radiatum; SLM: stratum lacunosum moleculare.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Ainge JA, Langston RF: Ontogeny of neural circuits underlying spatial memory in the rat. Front Neural Circuits. 2012; 6: 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Akers KG, Candelaria-Cook FT, Rice JP, et al.: Delayed development of place navigation compared to directional responding in young rats. Behav Neurosci. 2009; 123(2): 267–275. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Akers KG, Candelaria-Cook FT, Rice JP, et al.: Cued platform training reveals early development of directional responding among preweanling rats in the Morris water task. Dev Psychobiol. 2011; 53(1): 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Akers KG, Candelaria FT, Hamilton DA: Preweanling rats solve the Morris water task via directional navigation. Behav Neurosci. 2007; 121(6): 1426–1430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Akers KG, Hamilton DA: Comparison of developmental trajectories for place and cued navigation in the Morris water task. Dev Psychobiol. 2007; 49(6): 553–564. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Altemus KL, Almli CR: Neonatal hippocampal damage in rats: long-term spatial memory deficits and associations with magnitude of hippocampal damage. Hippocampus. 1997; 7(4): 403–415. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Altman J, Das GD: Autoradiographic and histological evidence of postnatal hippocampal neurogenesis in rats. J Comp Neurol. 1965; 124(3): 319–335. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Altman J, Sudarshan K: Postnatal development of locomotion in the laboratory rat. Anim Behav. 1975; 23(4): 896–920. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Amaral DG, Dent JA: Development of the mossy fibers of the dentate gyrus: I. A light and electron microscopic study of the mossy fibers and their expansions. J Comp Neurol. 1981; 195(1): 51–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Aradi I, Maccaferri G: Cell type-specific synaptic dynamics of synchronized bursting in the juvenile CA3 rat hippocampus. J Neurosci. 2004; 24(43): 9681–9692. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Bannerman DM, Good MA, Butcher SP, et al.: Distinct components of spatial learning revealed by prior training and NMDA receptor blockade. Nature. 1995; 378(6553): 182–186. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Bayer SA: Development of the hippocampal region in the rat. I. Neurogenesis examined with ³H-thymidine autoradiography. J Comp Neurol. 1980; 190(1): 87–114. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Blair MG, Nguyen NN, Albani SH, et al.: Developmental changes in structural and functional properties of hippocampal AMPARs parallels the emergence of deliberative spatial navigation in juvenile rats. J Neurosci. 2013; 33(30): 12218–12228. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Bohbot V, Otáhal P, Liu Z, et al.: Electroconvulsive shock and lidocaine reveal rapid consolidation of spatial working memory in the water maze. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996; 93(9): 4016–4019. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
15. Broadbent NJ, Squire LR, Clark RE: Reversible hippocampal lesions disrupt water maze performance during both recent and remote memory tests. Learn Mem. 2006; 13(2): 187–191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Brown RW, Whishaw IQ: Similarities in the development of place and cue navigation by rats in a swimming pool. Dev Psychobiol. 2000; 37(4): 238–245. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Cain DP, Saucier D, Boon F: Testing hypotheses of spatial learning: the role of NMDA receptors and NMDA-mediated long-term potentiation. Behav Brain Res. 1997; 84(1–2): 179–193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Curlik DM 2nd, Difeo G, Shors TJ: Preparing for adulthood: thousands upon thousands of new cells are born in the hippocampus during puberty and most survive with effortful learning. Front Neurosci. 2014; 8: 70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Dix SL, Aggleton JP: Extending the spontaneous preference test of recognition: evidence of object-location and object-context recognition. Behav Brain Res. 1999; 99(2): 191–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Douglas RJ, Peterson JJ, Douglas DP: The ontogeny of a hippocampus-dependent response in two rodent species. Behav Biol. 1973; 8(1): 27–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Dumas TC: Early eyelid opening enhances spontaneous alternation and accelerates the development of perforant path synaptic strength in the hippocampus of juvenile rats. Dev Psychobiol. 2004; 45(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Dumas TC: Postnatal alterations in induction threshold and expression magnitude of long-term potentiation and long-term depression at hippocampal synapses. Hippocampus. 2012; 22(2): 188–199. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Freeman JH Jr, Stanton ME: Fimbria-fornix transections disrupt the ontogeny of delayed alternation but not position discrimination in the rat. Behav Neurosci. 1991; 105(3): 386–395. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Gaarskjaer FB: The development of the dentate area and the hippocampal mossy fiber projection of the rat. J Comp Neurol. 1985; 241(2): 154–170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Gaarskjaer FB: The organization and development of the hippocampal mossy fiber system. Brain Res. 1986; 396(4): 335–357. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
26. Gaskin S, Gamliel A, Tardif M, et al.: Incidental (unreinforced) and reinforced spatial learning in rats with ventral and dorsal lesions of the hippocampus. Behav Brain Res. 2009; 202(1): 64–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Gaskin S, Tardif M, Cole E, et al.: Object familiarization and novel-object preference in rats. Behav Processes. 2010; 83(1): 61–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Goelet P, Castellucci VF, Schacher S, et al.: The long and the short of long-term memory--a molecular framework. Nature. 1986; 322(6078): 419–422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Green RJ, Stanton ME: Differential ontogeny of working memory and reference memory in the rat. Behav Neurosci. 1989; 103(1): 98–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Henrich-Noack P: Please keep calm: investigating hippocampal function without stress. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 8: 356. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Hoang LT, Kesner RP: Dorsal hippocampus, CA3, and CA1 lesions disrupt temporal sequence completion. Behav Neurosci. 2008; 122(1): 9–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Holahan MR, Honegger KS, Routtenberg A: Expansion and retraction of hippocampal mossy fibers during postweaning development: strain-specific effects of NMDA receptor blockade. Hippocampus. 2007; 17(1): 58–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Holahan MR, Rekart JL, Sandoval J, et al.: Spatial learning induces presynaptic structural remodeling in the hippocampal mossy fiber system of two rat strains. Hippocampus. 2006; 16(6): 560–570. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Holahan MR, Routtenberg A: Lidocaine injections targeting CA3 hippocampus impair long-term spatial memory and prevent learning-induced mossy fiber remodeling. Hippocampus. 2011; 21(5): 532–540. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
35. Hunsaker MR, Kesner RP: Dissociations across the dorsal-ventral axis of CA3 and CA1 for encoding and retrieval of contextual and auditory-cued fear. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2008; 89(1): 61–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Hunsaker MR, Lee B, Kesner RP: Evaluating the temporal context of episodic memory: the role of CA3 and CA1. Behav Brain Res. 2008; 188(2): 310–315. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Hunsaker MR, Thorup JA, Welch T, et al.: The role of CA3 and CA1 in the acquisition of an object-trace-place paired-associate task. Behav Neurosci. 2006; 120(6): 1252–1256. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Jablonski SA, Schiffino FL, Stanton ME: Role of age, post-training consolidation, and conjunctive associations in the ontogeny of the context preexposure facilitation effect. Dev Psychobiol. 2012; 54(7): 714–722. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Jung MW, McNaughton BL: Spatial selectivity of unit activity in the hippocampal granular layer. Hippocampus. 1993; 3(2): 165–182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Kaczmarek L, Chaudhuri A: Sensory regulation of immediate-early gene expression in mammalian visual cortex: implications for functional mapping and neural plasticity. Brain Res Rev. 1997; 23(3): 237–256. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Keeley RJ, Wartman BC, Häusler AN, et al.: Effect of juvenile pretraining on adolescent structural hippocampal attributes as a substrate for enhanced spatial performance. Learn Mem. 2010; 17(7): 344–354. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Kesner RP: A behavioral analysis of dentate gyrus function. Prog Brain Res. 2007; 163: 567–576. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Kesner RP: Behavioral functions of the CA3 subregion of the hippocampus. Learn Mem. 2007; 14(11): 771–781. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Kesner RP: A process analysis of the CA3 subregion of the hippocampus. Front Cell Neurosci. 2013; 7: 78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Kesner RP, Lee I, Gilbert P: A behavioral assessment of hippocampal function based on a subregional analysis. Rev Neurosci. 2004; 15(5): 333–351. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Langston RF, Ainge JA, Couey JJ, et al.: Development of the spatial representation system in the rat. Science. 2010; 328(5985): 1576–1580. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
47. Lee I, Hunsaker MR, Kesner RP: The role of hippocampal subregions in detecting spatial novelty. Behav Neurosci. 2005; 119(1): 145–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Lee I, Jerman TS, Kesner RP: Disruption of delayed memory for a sequence of spatial locations following CA1- or CA3-lesions of the dorsal hippocampus. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2005; 84(2): 138–147. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Lee I, Kesner RP: Differential roles of dorsal hippocampal subregions in spatial working memory with short versus intermediate delay. Behav Neurosci. 2003; 117(5): 1044–1053. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
50. Lee I, Rao G, Knierim JJ: A double dissociation between hippocampal subfields: differential time course of CA3 and CA1 place cells for processing changed environments. Neuron. 2004; 42(5): 803–815. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
51. Maccaferri G, Tóth K, McBain CJ: Target-specific expression of presynaptic mossy fiber plasticity. Science. 1998; 279(5355): 1368–1370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. Montes-Rodriguez CJ, Lapointe V, Trivedi V, et al.: Postnatal development of Homer1a in the rat hippocampus. Hippocampus. 2013; 23(10): 890–902. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Mori M, Abegg MH, Gähwiler BH, et al.: A frequency-dependent switch from inhibition to excitation in a hippocampal unitary circuit. Nature. 2004; 431(7007): 453–456. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Mumby DG, Gaskin S, Glenn MJ, et al.: Hippocampal damage and exploratory preferences in rats: memory for objects, places, and contexts. Learn Mem. 2002; 9(2): 49–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
55. Parron C, Poucet B, Save E: Re-evaluation of the spatial memory deficits induced by hippocampal short lasting inactivation reveals the need for cortical co-operation. Behav Brain Res. 2001; 127(1–2): 71–79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
56. Pereira de Vasconcelos A, Klur S, Muller C, et al.: Reversible inactivation of the dorsal hippocampus by tetrodotoxin or lidocaine: a comparative study on cerebral functional activity and motor coordination in the rat. Neuroscience. 2006; 141(4): 1649–1663. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
57. Ramirez-Amaya V, Balderas I, Sandoval J, et al.: Spatial long-term memory is related to mossy fiber synaptogenesis. J Neurosci. 2001; 21(18): 7340–7348. PubMed Abstract
58. Ramírez-Amaya V, Escobar ML, Chao V, et al.: Synaptogenesis of mossy fibers induced by spatial water maze overtraining. Hippocampus. 1999; 9(6): 631–636. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
59. Rekart JL, Sandoval CJ, Bermudez-Rattoni F, et al.: Remodeling of hippocampal mossy fibers is selectively induced seven days after the acquisition of a spatial but not a cued reference memory task. Learn Mem. 2007; 14(6): 416–421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
60. Rekart JL, Sandoval CJ, Routtenberg A: Learning-induced axonal remodeling: evolutionary divergence and conservation of two components of the mossy fiber system within Rodentia. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2007; 87(2): 225–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
61. Riekkinen P Jr, Ikonen S, Aura J, et al.: Tetrahydroaminoacridine and D-cycloserine fail to alleviate the water maze spatial navigation defect induced by hippocampal inactivation. Eur J Pharmacol. 1999; 366(1): 13–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
62. Rolls ET: The mechanisms for pattern completion and pattern separation in the hippocampus. Front Syst Neurosci. 2013; 7: 74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
63. Rolls ET: A quantitative theory of the functions of the hippocampal CA3 network in memory. Front Cell Neurosci. 2013; 7: 98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
64. Rudy JW: Contextual conditioning and auditory cue conditioning dissociate during development. Behav Neurosci. 1993; 107(5): 887–891. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
65. Rudy JW, Morledge P: Ontogeny of contextual fear conditioning in rats: implications for consolidation, infantile amnesia, and hippocampal system function. Behav Neurosci. 1994; 108(2): 227–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
66. Rudy JW, Stadler-Morris S, Albert P: Ontogeny of spatial navigation behaviors in the rat: dissociation of "proximal"- and "distal"-cue-based behaviors. Behav Neurosci. 1987; 101(1): 62–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
67. Saucier D, Cain DP: Spatial learning without NMDA receptor-dependent long-term potentiation. Nature. 1995; 378(6553): 186–189. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
68. Schapiro S, Salas M, Vukovich K: Hormonal effects on ontogeny of swimming ability in the rat: assessment of central nervous system development. Science. 1970; 168(3927): 147–150. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
69. Sheng M, McFadden G, Greenberg ME: Membrane depolarization and calcium induce c-fos transcription via phosphorylation of transcription factor CREB. Neuron. 1990; 4(4): 571–582. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
70. Smith CA, Macdonald A, Holahan MR: Acute postnatal exposure to di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate adversely impacts hippocampal development in the male rat. Neuroscience. 2011; 193: 100–108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
71. Tonkiss J, Shultz P, Galler JR: Long-Evans and Sprague-Dawley rats differ in their spatial navigation performance during ontogeny and at maturity. Dev Psychobiol. 1992; 25(8): 567–579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
72. Vida I, Frotscher M: A hippocampal interneuron associated with the mossy fiber system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000; 97(3): 1275–1280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
73. Wartman BC, Gervais NJ, Smith C, et al.: Enhanced adolescent learning and hippocampal axonal projections following preadolescent spatial exposure to a water or dry maze. Brain Res. 2012; 1475: 37–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
74. Westerga J, Gramsbergen A: The development of locomotion in the rat. Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 1990; 57(2): 163–174. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
75. Whishaw IQ, Cassel JC, Jarrard LE: Rats with fimbria-fornix lesions display a place response in a swimming pool: a dissociation between getting there and knowing where. J Neurosci. 1995; 15(8): 5779–5788. PubMed Abstract
76. Wills TJ, Cacucci F, Burgess N, et al.: Development of the hippocampal cognitive map in preweanling rats. Science. 2010; 328(5985): 1573–1576. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
77. Zhang L, Blomgren K, Kuhn HG, et al.: Effects of postnatal thyroid hormone deficiency on neurogenesis in the juvenile and adult rat. Neurobiol Dis. 2009; 34(2): 366–374. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
78. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source
79. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 2 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source
80. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 3 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source
81. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 4 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 27 Jul 2015

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada
² Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada

Competing interests

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Grant information

This research was supported by National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery grants to DGM (RGPIN 156937) and MRH (RGPIN 341673), a Canadian Foundation for Innovation grant (335892) to MRH and a Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec to DGM.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 27 Jul 2015, 4:396

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6822.1

Copyright

© 2015 Comba R et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D and Holahan M. Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2015, 4:396 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6822.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 27 Jul 2015

Views

27

Reviewer Report 20 Aug 2015

Bryan D. Devan, Laboratory of Comparative Neuropsychology, Psychology Department, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

Christoper Magalis, Psychology Department, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

Robert McDonald, Department of Neuroscience, Canadian Center for Behavioural Neuroscience, Lethbridge University, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7335.r9641

Editorial Note from F1000Research – 26^th August 2015:

This report has been updated to provide a link to the author's now published Correspondence Article. The phrase "(forthcoming)" was removed. No other changes have been made to the text of the report.

The ... Continue reading

Editorial Note from F1000Research – 26^th August 2015:

This report has been updated to provide a link to the author's now published Correspondence Article. The phrase "(forthcoming)" was removed. No other changes have been made to the text of the report.

The study by Comba et al.¹ suggests a critical period of prenatal development (PND) in rodents during which neuronal mossy fiber growth in the hippocampus is associated with the emergence of spatial behavior. The researchers emphasize the PND 15-18 month period where this growth connecting the dentate gyrus to the CA3 cellular field is most prominent. It is also noted in the introduction that such grow may be related to the finding that neurogenesis-based processes specific to the hippocampus are also associated with the emergence of spatial learning. The researchers describe a “behavioral typology” control in their research design to dissociate effects based on non-cognitive motor demands from true cognitive information processing, which was supported by their data analyses of place learning in the Morris water maze versus spatial exploration in a dry land task (with swimming being more difficult than common ambulation). Despite the difference in motor demands, there was a common emergence of spatial behavior proficiency on each task at PND20. The researchers also found that enhanced mossy fiber projections, revealed by synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region, preceded the emergence of spatial behavior. Developmentally-dependent functional changes in cFOS positive cells were increased in all hippocampal subregions measured, while training-dependent changes were restricted to the CA3 and CA1 regions for groups trained in the water maze. The researchers conclude that mossy fiber connectivity along with enhanced function of the hippocampus precedes the emergence of spatial behavior at PND20, confirming their hypothesis of a sensitive period for hippocampal growth and the emergence of cognitive-spatial function.

This research is very important and exciting when considering past studies of place learning ability in adult rats and research attempts to dissociate motor performance from true cognitive processing. In previous water maze studies of latent learning²^,³ using passive placement on the goal in the water maze to view distal cues to form a cognitive map of the environment, mixed results and individual differences seem to obscure matters⁴^-⁸, leading to one interpretation that movement and cognitive mapping may necessarily occur simultaneously, a finding that has been replicated in humans using a virtual version of the water maze⁹. Hence, for the water maze at least, movement through the environment seems to be an important constraint on highly proficient spatial learning and navigation. The use of a separate dry land task by Comba et al. with less motoric demands seems to be in agreement with the difference in motor demands between the original rodent version of the task¹⁰ requiring swimming and the human virtual version⁹ using minimal hand/finger movements to navigate. The role of dynamic movement during spatial tasks and the motoric demands have been topics of intense interest with the role of the hippocampus as a substrate for cognitive mapping¹¹^,¹², path integration¹³^-¹⁷, or the conductor of a symphony of dynamic movement and mapping¹⁸ as part of a larger neural network of brain systems¹⁹ have all been hotly debated theoretically over the years. The separation of cognitive and motor performance associated with developmentally-specific changes in hippocampal circuitry by Comba et al. is an exciting finding that may have important implications for a central role of the hippocampus in cognitive-spatial information processing as it emerges early in development.

Consequently, the “behavioral typology” issue in the Comba et al. study, along with other aspects of their research design, is of critical importance in assessing the emerging role of the hippocampus in cognitive-spatial behavior. The following matters should be considered by all interested in this fascinating area of research in general, and in the Comba et al. study in particular.

Specific Considerations

The level of spatial proficiency in escaping to a hidden platform for PND20 rats given only 8 trials in the water maze is not comparable to the asymptotic level of escape latency performance (< 10 sec) observed in most water maze studies after considerably more extensive training. The one day water maze training paradigm is likely tapping into ventral hippocampal function in which the animals are just approaching the general location. After more training, dorsal hippocampus forms a more precise representation of the location. The authors should discuss this work²⁰ and an analysis of their data (dorsal versus ventral) would be of interest.
On a related matter, escape is not required, and exploration of an object at a novel “place” in the dry land task is very different from the typical water maze procedure, involving the presence of a local cue or familiar beacon (with different motivation). Some might argue that the lack of “true” spatial proficiency in the water maze is a flaw or weakness of the study; however, given the focus on the emergence of spatial behavior, and that well-learned escape responses are dependent on other brain regions²¹^,²² that contribute/correlate with movement parameters¹⁹, it seems reasonable to expect less performance-wise using the escape latency measure than what is typically observed in most studies of this type.
Consequently, spatial bias on a probe test might be considered as an alternative measure in future studies as it does not depend on a well-learned escape response that may be less hippocampal-dependent and more closely approximates the dwell time that is measured on the spatial exploration task.
The object/place task is interesting. Integration with ideas about direct versus indirect measures of memory and the role of the hippocampus in one versus the other, and how these ideas relate to their different measures on this task would be of interest²³.
There are other obvious differences between the two tasks. Water maze for example is not disrupted by disorientation procedures but a dry-land version of spatial localization is disrupted by disorientation²⁴. This work suggests that the representations are different as well, not just the behavioral topology. This should be discussed.
The number of rats in each group for the water maze task is quite low (n = 5/group).
A statement on the standardization of immunohistochemical procedures would be reassuring for those not familiar with the specific techniques used. Also, the use of an unbiased stereology technique should be considered.
It appears that different behavioral procedures may have been conducted at different institutions. A statement on the time of day of testing and other procedural controls would provide reassurance that there are no threats to internal validity.
More information on the recording and quantification of exploratory behavior (e.g., video recording, tracking, and interrater reliability) would be helpful for assessment and replication.
It is interesting that the researchers note that PND18 rodents traveled a longer distance in the novel relocation task then the other groups (even though apparently PND20 rats exhibited more exploratory behavior). This finding may warrant further discussion to support the argument that both tasks assess potentially related cognitive functions.
Reassurance that no statistical assumptions were violated (e.g., spherecity). Tukey HSDs are specifically based on studentized q related statistics but t-tests were reported. Though this may have been simply an alternative method (e.g. regression-based) to report the Tukey post-hoc results, possibly Bonferroni t-tests with separate mean square error denominators may be optimal for potential corrections to assumption violations.

See full Correspondence Article by the Referees

References

1. Comba R, Gervais NJ, Mumby DG, Holahan MR: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats [v1; ref status: approved 1, http://f1000r.es/5nr]. F1000Research. 2015; 4 (396). Publisher Full Text
2. Keith JR, McVety KM: Latent place learning in a novel environment and the influences of prior training in rats. Psychobiology. 1988; 16 (2): 146-151 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
3. Sutherland RJ, Linggard R: Being there: a novel demonstration of latent spatial learning in the rat.Behav Neural Biol.1982; 36 (2): 103-107 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
4. Devan BD, Petri HL, Mishkin M, Stouffer EM, et al.: A room with a view and a polarizing cue: individual differences in the stimulus control of place navigation and passive latent learning in the water maze. Neurobiol Learn Mem.2002; 78 (1): 79-99 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
5. Chew GL, Sutherland RJ, Whishaw IQ: Latent learning does not produce instantaneous transfer of place navigation: A rejoinder to Keith and McVety. Psychobiology. 1989; 17 (2): 207-209 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
6. Whishaw IQ: Latent learning in a swimming pool place task by rats: Evidence for the use of associative and not cognitive mapping processes. Q J Exp Psychol B.1991; 43 (1): 83-103 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
7. Jacobs WJ, Zaborowski JA, Whishaw IQ: Failure to find latent spatial learning in the Morris Water Task: Retraction of Jacobs, Zaborowski, and Whishaw. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1989; 15 (3): 286 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
8. Jacobs WJ, Zaborowski JA, Whishaw IQ: Jacobs/WJ;Zaborowski/JA;Whishaw/IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1989; 15 (1): 36-42 Reference Source
9. Hamilton DA, Driscoll I, Sutherland RJ: Human place learning in a virtual Morris water task: some important constraints on the flexibility of place navigation.Behav Brain Res.2002; 129 (1-2): 159-170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
10. Morris RGM: Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues. Learning and Motivation. 1981; 12 (2): 239-260 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
11. O'Keefe J, Nadel L: The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford University Press. 1978. Reference Source
12. Tolman EC: Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev.1948; 55 (4): 189-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
13. Whishaw IQ, Jarrard LE: Evidence for extrahippocampal involvement in place learning and hippocampal involvement in path integration. Hippocampus.1996; 6 (5): 513-524 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
14. Whishaw IQ, Maaswinkel H: Rats with fimbria-fornix lesions are impaired in path integration: a role for the hippocampus in "sense of direction". J Neurosci.1998; 18 (8): 3050-3058 PubMed Abstract | Reference Source
15. Whishaw IQ: Place learning in hippocampal rats and the path integration hypothesis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev.1998; 22 (2): 209-220 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
16. Whishaw IQ, McKenna JE, Maaswinkel H: Hippocampal lesions and path integration. Curr Opin Neurobiol.1997; 7 (2): 228-234 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
17. Whishaw IQ, Cassel JC, Jarrad LE: Rats with fimbria-fornix lesions display a place response in a swimming pool: a dissociation between getting there and knowing where.J Neurosci.1995; 15 (8): 5779-5788 PubMed Abstract | Reference Source
18. The navigating hippocampus: An individual medley of movement, space, and memory. In: Buzsáki G and Vanderwolf CHV(eds): Electrical activity of the archicortex. Akadémiai Kiadó. 1985. 255-279
19. Maguire EA, Burgess N, Donnett JG, Frackowiak RS, et al.: Knowing where and getting there: a human navigation network. Sciece.1998; 580 (5365): 921-924 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
20. Ruediger S, Spirig D, Donato F, Caroni P: Goal-oriented searching mediated by ventral hippocampus early in trial-and-error learning. Nat Neurosci.2012; 15 (11): 1563-1571 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
21. Devan BD, Goad EH, Petri HL: Dissociation of hippocampal and striatal contributions to spatial navigation in the water maze. Neurobiol Learn Mem.1996; 66 (3): 305-323 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
22. Sutherland RJ, Rodriguez AJ: The role of the fornix/fimbria and some related subcortical structures in place learning and memory.Behav Brain Res.1989; 32 (3): 265-277 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
23. Moses SN, Sutherland RJ, McDonald RJ: Differential involvement of amygdala and hippocampus in responding to novel objects and contexts.Brain Res Bull.2002; 58 (5): 517-527 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
24. Gibson BM, Shettleworth SJ, McDonald RJ: Finding a goal on dry land and in the water: differential effects of disorientation on spatial learning. Behav Brain Res.2001; 123 (1): 103-111 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

24

Reviewer Report 31 Jul 2015

Eric M. Stouffer, Department of Psychology, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, PA, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7335.r9642

The authors conducted behavioral and neuroanatomical experiments to determine if hippocampal neuroanatomical development precedes the development of spatial learning abilities in an early postnatal period in male rats. They examined spatial learning abilities using the Morris water maze (MWM) task ... Continue reading

The authors conducted behavioral and neuroanatomical experiments to determine if hippocampal neuroanatomical development precedes the development of spatial learning abilities in an early postnatal period in male rats. They examined spatial learning abilities using the Morris water maze (MWM) task and a dry-version of the object in a novel location (ONL) task at postnatal days (PND) 16, 18, and 20 using separate groups of rats. Following performance on these tasks, the rats’ hippocampi were examined using synaptophysin staining and c-Fos staining to demonstrate neuroanatomical development compared to home-cage control groups of rats. Based on the results of the study, the authors suggest that neuroanatomical development of the hippocampus is present at PND 18 compared to PND 16, but that spatial learning abilities are not expressed until PND 20. Therefore, the authors state that hippocampal neuroanatomical development does indeed precede the development of spatial learning abilities in male rats.

While I agree with the authors’ main conclusion for this study, I believe that there are some issues with the behavioral data that do not fully support other assertions made by the authors. For example, the authors conclude that the male rats showed spatial learning abilities at PND 20 in both the MWM task and the ONL task. In the MWM task, the authors point to the significant difference in escape latency between the PND 20 rats and the other two age groups. However, this difference can be explained as a result of a difference in swim speed (a physical development issue) rather than as a result of spatial learning. In fact, the authors do point this out in the discussion section as a “possibility”. I would argue that the physical development (swim speed) explanation for the difference in escape latency is not only a possibility, but rather is the most likely explanation of the significant difference in escape latency, especially given the non-difference in pathlength (arguably a more sensitive measure of spatial learning than escape latency) between the three age groups. Therefore, I do not think the authors can claim that the PND 20 rats showed spatial learning abilities in the MWM task. Perhaps if the authors had tested rats at PND 22 or PND 24 they may have seen stronger evidence of spatial learning in the MWM task.

Regarding the ONL task, the authors used two main measures of spatial learning: the investigation ratio for the displaced object compared to the non-displaced object and the investigation time for the displaced and non-displaced objects. The investigation ratio data do support the conclusion that PND 20 rats show spatial learning compared to PND 16 and PND 18 rats. The investigation time data, however, did not show significant age differences. However, careful examination of Figure 2B leads me to believe that with a larger sample size that the PND 20 rats would demonstrate a significant increase in investigation time of the displaced compared to the non-displaced objects.

Therefore, I do believe that PND 20 rats do show some evidence of spatial learning compared to PND 16 and PND 18 rats, just not as strong as the authors claim. This, however, does not detract from the fact that the authors do clearly demonstrate neuroanatomical development of the hippocampus prior to the development of spatial learning skills. That was the main point of the study, and was the authors’ main conclusion of the study. Overall, I do believe that this study does add to the existing literature.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 27 Jul 2015

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 27 Jul 15	read	read

Eric M. Stouffer, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, USA
Bryan D. Devan, Towson University, Towson, USA

Christoper Magalis, Towson University, Towson, USA

Robert McDonald, Canadian Center for Behavioural Neuroscience, Lethbridge University, Lethbridge, Canada

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

20 Aug 2015 | for Version 1

Bryan D. Devan, Laboratory of Comparative Neuropsychology, Psychology Department, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

Christoper Magalis, Psychology Department, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA

Robert McDonald, Department of Neuroscience, Canadian Center for Behavioural Neuroscience, Lethbridge University, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Editorial Note from F1000Research – 26^th August 2015:

This report has been updated to provide a link to the author's now published Correspondence Article. The phrase "(forthcoming)" was removed. No other changes have been made to the text of the report.

The study by Comba et al.¹ suggests a critical period of prenatal development (PND) in rodents during which neuronal mossy fiber growth in the hippocampus is associated with the emergence of spatial behavior. The researchers emphasize the PND 15-18 month period where this growth connecting the dentate gyrus to the CA3 cellular field is most prominent. It is also noted in the introduction that such grow may be related to the finding that neurogenesis-based processes specific to the hippocampus are also associated with the emergence of spatial learning. The researchers describe a “behavioral typology” control in their research design to dissociate effects based on non-cognitive motor demands from true cognitive information processing, which was supported by their data analyses of place learning in the Morris water maze versus spatial exploration in a dry land task (with swimming being more difficult than common ambulation). Despite the difference in motor demands, there was a common emergence of spatial behavior proficiency on each task at PND20. The researchers also found that enhanced mossy fiber projections, revealed by synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region, preceded the emergence of spatial behavior. Developmentally-dependent functional changes in cFOS positive cells were increased in all hippocampal subregions measured, while training-dependent changes were restricted to the CA3 and CA1 regions for groups trained in the water maze. The researchers conclude that mossy fiber connectivity along with enhanced function of the hippocampus precedes the emergence of spatial behavior at PND20, confirming their hypothesis of a sensitive period for hippocampal growth and the emergence of cognitive-spatial function.

This research is very important and exciting when considering past studies of place learning ability in adult rats and research attempts to dissociate motor performance from true cognitive processing. In previous water maze studies of latent learning²^,³ using passive placement on the goal in the water maze to view distal cues to form a cognitive map of the environment, mixed results and individual differences seem to obscure matters⁴^-⁸, leading to one interpretation that movement and cognitive mapping may necessarily occur simultaneously, a finding that has been replicated in humans using a virtual version of the water maze⁹. Hence, for the water maze at least, movement through the environment seems to be an important constraint on highly proficient spatial learning and navigation. The use of a separate dry land task by Comba et al. with less motoric demands seems to be in agreement with the difference in motor demands between the original rodent version of the task¹⁰ requiring swimming and the human virtual version⁹ using minimal hand/finger movements to navigate. The role of dynamic movement during spatial tasks and the motoric demands have been topics of intense interest with the role of the hippocampus as a substrate for cognitive mapping¹¹^,¹², path integration¹³^-¹⁷, or the conductor of a symphony of dynamic movement and mapping¹⁸ as part of a larger neural network of brain systems¹⁹ have all been hotly debated theoretically over the years. The separation of cognitive and motor performance associated with developmentally-specific changes in hippocampal circuitry by Comba et al. is an exciting finding that may have important implications for a central role of the hippocampus in cognitive-spatial information processing as it emerges early in development.

Consequently, the “behavioral typology” issue in the Comba et al. study, along with other aspects of their research design, is of critical importance in assessing the emerging role of the hippocampus in cognitive-spatial behavior. The following matters should be considered by all interested in this fascinating area of research in general, and in the Comba et al. study in particular.

Specific Considerations

The level of spatial proficiency in escaping to a hidden platform for PND20 rats given only 8 trials in the water maze is not comparable to the asymptotic level of escape latency performance (< 10 sec) observed in most water maze studies after considerably more extensive training. The one day water maze training paradigm is likely tapping into ventral hippocampal function in which the animals are just approaching the general location. After more training, dorsal hippocampus forms a more precise representation of the location. The authors should discuss this work²⁰ and an analysis of their data (dorsal versus ventral) would be of interest.
On a related matter, escape is not required, and exploration of an object at a novel “place” in the dry land task is very different from the typical water maze procedure, involving the presence of a local cue or familiar beacon (with different motivation). Some might argue that the lack of “true” spatial proficiency in the water maze is a flaw or weakness of the study; however, given the focus on the emergence of spatial behavior, and that well-learned escape responses are dependent on other brain regions²¹^,²² that contribute/correlate with movement parameters¹⁹, it seems reasonable to expect less performance-wise using the escape latency measure than what is typically observed in most studies of this type.
Consequently, spatial bias on a probe test might be considered as an alternative measure in future studies as it does not depend on a well-learned escape response that may be less hippocampal-dependent and more closely approximates the dwell time that is measured on the spatial exploration task.
The object/place task is interesting. Integration with ideas about direct versus indirect measures of memory and the role of the hippocampus in one versus the other, and how these ideas relate to their different measures on this task would be of interest²³.
There are other obvious differences between the two tasks. Water maze for example is not disrupted by disorientation procedures but a dry-land version of spatial localization is disrupted by disorientation²⁴. This work suggests that the representations are different as well, not just the behavioral topology. This should be discussed.
The number of rats in each group for the water maze task is quite low (n = 5/group).
A statement on the standardization of immunohistochemical procedures would be reassuring for those not familiar with the specific techniques used. Also, the use of an unbiased stereology technique should be considered.
It appears that different behavioral procedures may have been conducted at different institutions. A statement on the time of day of testing and other procedural controls would provide reassurance that there are no threats to internal validity.
More information on the recording and quantification of exploratory behavior (e.g., video recording, tracking, and interrater reliability) would be helpful for assessment and replication.
It is interesting that the researchers note that PND18 rodents traveled a longer distance in the novel relocation task then the other groups (even though apparently PND20 rats exhibited more exploratory behavior). This finding may warrant further discussion to support the argument that both tasks assess potentially related cognitive functions.
Reassurance that no statistical assumptions were violated (e.g., spherecity). Tukey HSDs are specifically based on studentized q related statistics but t-tests were reported. Though this may have been simply an alternative method (e.g. regression-based) to report the Tukey post-hoc results, possibly Bonferroni t-tests with separate mean square error denominators may be optimal for potential corrections to assumption violations.

See full Correspondence Article by the Referees

References

1. Comba R, Gervais NJ, Mumby DG, Holahan MR: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats [v1; ref status: approved 1, http://f1000r.es/5nr]. F1000Research. 2015; 4 (396). Publisher Full Text
2. Keith JR, McVety KM: Latent place learning in a novel environment and the influences of prior training in rats. Psychobiology. 1988; 16 (2): 146-151 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
3. Sutherland RJ, Linggard R: Being there: a novel demonstration of latent spatial learning in the rat.Behav Neural Biol.1982; 36 (2): 103-107 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
4. Devan BD, Petri HL, Mishkin M, Stouffer EM, et al.: A room with a view and a polarizing cue: individual differences in the stimulus control of place navigation and passive latent learning in the water maze. Neurobiol Learn Mem.2002; 78 (1): 79-99 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
5. Chew GL, Sutherland RJ, Whishaw IQ: Latent learning does not produce instantaneous transfer of place navigation: A rejoinder to Keith and McVety. Psychobiology. 1989; 17 (2): 207-209 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
6. Whishaw IQ: Latent learning in a swimming pool place task by rats: Evidence for the use of associative and not cognitive mapping processes. Q J Exp Psychol B.1991; 43 (1): 83-103 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
7. Jacobs WJ, Zaborowski JA, Whishaw IQ: Failure to find latent spatial learning in the Morris Water Task: Retraction of Jacobs, Zaborowski, and Whishaw. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1989; 15 (3): 286 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
8. Jacobs WJ, Zaborowski JA, Whishaw IQ: Jacobs/WJ;Zaborowski/JA;Whishaw/IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1989; 15 (1): 36-42 Reference Source
9. Hamilton DA, Driscoll I, Sutherland RJ: Human place learning in a virtual Morris water task: some important constraints on the flexibility of place navigation.Behav Brain Res.2002; 129 (1-2): 159-170 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
10. Morris RGM: Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues. Learning and Motivation. 1981; 12 (2): 239-260 Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
11. O'Keefe J, Nadel L: The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford University Press. 1978. Reference Source
12. Tolman EC: Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev.1948; 55 (4): 189-208 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
13. Whishaw IQ, Jarrard LE: Evidence for extrahippocampal involvement in place learning and hippocampal involvement in path integration. Hippocampus.1996; 6 (5): 513-524 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
14. Whishaw IQ, Maaswinkel H: Rats with fimbria-fornix lesions are impaired in path integration: a role for the hippocampus in "sense of direction". J Neurosci.1998; 18 (8): 3050-3058 PubMed Abstract | Reference Source
15. Whishaw IQ: Place learning in hippocampal rats and the path integration hypothesis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev.1998; 22 (2): 209-220 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
16. Whishaw IQ, McKenna JE, Maaswinkel H: Hippocampal lesions and path integration. Curr Opin Neurobiol.1997; 7 (2): 228-234 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
17. Whishaw IQ, Cassel JC, Jarrad LE: Rats with fimbria-fornix lesions display a place response in a swimming pool: a dissociation between getting there and knowing where.J Neurosci.1995; 15 (8): 5779-5788 PubMed Abstract | Reference Source
18. The navigating hippocampus: An individual medley of movement, space, and memory. In: Buzsáki G and Vanderwolf CHV(eds): Electrical activity of the archicortex. Akadémiai Kiadó. 1985. 255-279
19. Maguire EA, Burgess N, Donnett JG, Frackowiak RS, et al.: Knowing where and getting there: a human navigation network. Sciece.1998; 580 (5365): 921-924 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
20. Ruediger S, Spirig D, Donato F, Caroni P: Goal-oriented searching mediated by ventral hippocampus early in trial-and-error learning. Nat Neurosci.2012; 15 (11): 1563-1571 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
21. Devan BD, Goad EH, Petri HL: Dissociation of hippocampal and striatal contributions to spatial navigation in the water maze. Neurobiol Learn Mem.1996; 66 (3): 305-323 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
22. Sutherland RJ, Rodriguez AJ: The role of the fornix/fimbria and some related subcortical structures in place learning and memory.Behav Brain Res.1989; 32 (3): 265-277 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
23. Moses SN, Sutherland RJ, McDonald RJ: Differential involvement of amygdala and hippocampus in responding to novel objects and contexts.Brain Res Bull.2002; 58 (5): 517-527 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source
24. Gibson BM, Shettleworth SJ, McDonald RJ: Finding a goal on dry land and in the water: differential effects of disorientation on spatial learning. Behav Brain Res.2001; 123 (1): 103-111 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Reference Source

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

31 Jul 2015 | for Version 1

Eric M. Stouffer, Department of Psychology, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, PA, USA

24 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors conducted behavioral and neuroanatomical experiments to determine if hippocampal neuroanatomical development precedes the development of spatial learning abilities in an early postnatal period in male rats. They examined spatial learning abilities using the Morris water maze (MWM) task and a dry-version of the object in a novel location (ONL) task at postnatal days (PND) 16, 18, and 20 using separate groups of rats. Following performance on these tasks, the rats’ hippocampi were examined using synaptophysin staining and c-Fos staining to demonstrate neuroanatomical development compared to home-cage control groups of rats. Based on the results of the study, the authors suggest that neuroanatomical development of the hippocampus is present at PND 18 compared to PND 16, but that spatial learning abilities are not expressed until PND 20. Therefore, the authors state that hippocampal neuroanatomical development does indeed precede the development of spatial learning abilities in male rats.

While I agree with the authors’ main conclusion for this study, I believe that there are some issues with the behavioral data that do not fully support other assertions made by the authors. For example, the authors conclude that the male rats showed spatial learning abilities at PND 20 in both the MWM task and the ONL task. In the MWM task, the authors point to the significant difference in escape latency between the PND 20 rats and the other two age groups. However, this difference can be explained as a result of a difference in swim speed (a physical development issue) rather than as a result of spatial learning. In fact, the authors do point this out in the discussion section as a “possibility”. I would argue that the physical development (swim speed) explanation for the difference in escape latency is not only a possibility, but rather is the most likely explanation of the significant difference in escape latency, especially given the non-difference in pathlength (arguably a more sensitive measure of spatial learning than escape latency) between the three age groups. Therefore, I do not think the authors can claim that the PND 20 rats showed spatial learning abilities in the MWM task. Perhaps if the authors had tested rats at PND 22 or PND 24 they may have seen stronger evidence of spatial learning in the MWM task.

Regarding the ONL task, the authors used two main measures of spatial learning: the investigation ratio for the displaced object compared to the non-displaced object and the investigation time for the displaced and non-displaced objects. The investigation ratio data do support the conclusion that PND 20 rats show spatial learning compared to PND 16 and PND 18 rats. The investigation time data, however, did not show significant age differences. However, careful examination of Figure 2B leads me to believe that with a larger sample size that the PND 20 rats would demonstrate a significant increase in investigation time of the displaced compared to the non-displaced objects.

Therefore, I do believe that PND 20 rats do show some evidence of spatial learning compared to PND 16 and PND 18 rats, just not as strong as the authors claim. This, however, does not detract from the fact that the authors do clearly demonstrate neuroanatomical development of the hippocampus prior to the development of spatial learning skills. That was the main point of the study, and was the authors’ main conclusion of the study. Overall, I do believe that this study does add to the existing literature.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Ainge JA, Langston RF: Ontogeny of neural circuits underlying spatial memory in the rat. Front Neural Circuits. 2012; 6: 8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Akers KG, Candelaria-Cook FT, Rice JP, et al.: Delayed development of place navigation compared to directional responding in young rats. Behav Neurosci. 2009; 123(2): 267–275. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Akers KG, Candelaria-Cook FT, Rice JP, et al.: Cued platform training reveals early development of directional responding among preweanling rats in the Morris water task. Dev Psychobiol. 2011; 53(1): 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Akers KG, Candelaria FT, Hamilton DA: Preweanling rats solve the Morris water task via directional navigation. Behav Neurosci. 2007; 121(6): 1426–1430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Akers KG, Hamilton DA: Comparison of developmental trajectories for place and cued navigation in the Morris water task. Dev Psychobiol. 2007; 49(6): 553–564. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Altemus KL, Almli CR: Neonatal hippocampal damage in rats: long-term spatial memory deficits and associations with magnitude of hippocampal damage. Hippocampus. 1997; 7(4): 403–415. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Altman J, Das GD: Autoradiographic and histological evidence of postnatal hippocampal neurogenesis in rats. J Comp Neurol. 1965; 124(3): 319–335. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Altman J, Sudarshan K: Postnatal development of locomotion in the laboratory rat. Anim Behav. 1975; 23(4): 896–920. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Amaral DG, Dent JA: Development of the mossy fibers of the dentate gyrus: I. A light and electron microscopic study of the mossy fibers and their expansions. J Comp Neurol. 1981; 195(1): 51–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Aradi I, Maccaferri G: Cell type-specific synaptic dynamics of synchronized bursting in the juvenile CA3 rat hippocampus. J Neurosci. 2004; 24(43): 9681–9692. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Bannerman DM, Good MA, Butcher SP, et al.: Distinct components of spatial learning revealed by prior training and NMDA receptor blockade. Nature. 1995; 378(6553): 182–186. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Bayer SA: Development of the hippocampal region in the rat. I. Neurogenesis examined with ³H-thymidine autoradiography. J Comp Neurol. 1980; 190(1): 87–114. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Blair MG, Nguyen NN, Albani SH, et al.: Developmental changes in structural and functional properties of hippocampal AMPARs parallels the emergence of deliberative spatial navigation in juvenile rats. J Neurosci. 2013; 33(30): 12218–12228. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Bohbot V, Otáhal P, Liu Z, et al.: Electroconvulsive shock and lidocaine reveal rapid consolidation of spatial working memory in the water maze. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996; 93(9): 4016–4019. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Broadbent NJ, Squire LR, Clark RE: Reversible hippocampal lesions disrupt water maze performance during both recent and remote memory tests. Learn Mem. 2006; 13(2): 187–191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Brown RW, Whishaw IQ: Similarities in the development of place and cue navigation by rats in a swimming pool. Dev Psychobiol. 2000; 37(4): 238–245. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Cain DP, Saucier D, Boon F: Testing hypotheses of spatial learning: the role of NMDA receptors and NMDA-mediated long-term potentiation. Behav Brain Res. 1997; 84(1–2): 179–193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Curlik DM 2nd, Difeo G, Shors TJ: Preparing for adulthood: thousands upon thousands of new cells are born in the hippocampus during puberty and most survive with effortful learning. Front Neurosci. 2014; 8: 70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Dix SL, Aggleton JP: Extending the spontaneous preference test of recognition: evidence of object-location and object-context recognition. Behav Brain Res. 1999; 99(2): 191–200. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Douglas RJ, Peterson JJ, Douglas DP: The ontogeny of a hippocampus-dependent response in two rodent species. Behav Biol. 1973; 8(1): 27–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Dumas TC: Early eyelid opening enhances spontaneous alternation and accelerates the development of perforant path synaptic strength in the hippocampus of juvenile rats. Dev Psychobiol. 2004; 45(1): 1–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Dumas TC: Postnatal alterations in induction threshold and expression magnitude of long-term potentiation and long-term depression at hippocampal synapses. Hippocampus. 2012; 22(2): 188–199. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Freeman JH Jr, Stanton ME: Fimbria-fornix transections disrupt the ontogeny of delayed alternation but not position discrimination in the rat. Behav Neurosci. 1991; 105(3): 386–395. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Gaarskjaer FB: The development of the dentate area and the hippocampal mossy fiber projection of the rat. J Comp Neurol. 1985; 241(2): 154–170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Gaarskjaer FB: The organization and development of the hippocampal mossy fiber system. Brain Res. 1986; 396(4): 335–357. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Gaskin S, Gamliel A, Tardif M, et al.: Incidental (unreinforced) and reinforced spatial learning in rats with ventral and dorsal lesions of the hippocampus. Behav Brain Res. 2009; 202(1): 64–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Gaskin S, Tardif M, Cole E, et al.: Object familiarization and novel-object preference in rats. Behav Processes. 2010; 83(1): 61–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Goelet P, Castellucci VF, Schacher S, et al.: The long and the short of long-term memory--a molecular framework. Nature. 1986; 322(6078): 419–422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Green RJ, Stanton ME: Differential ontogeny of working memory and reference memory in the rat. Behav Neurosci. 1989; 103(1): 98–105. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Henrich-Noack P: Please keep calm: investigating hippocampal function without stress. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014; 8: 356. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Hoang LT, Kesner RP: Dorsal hippocampus, CA3, and CA1 lesions disrupt temporal sequence completion. Behav Neurosci. 2008; 122(1): 9–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Holahan MR, Honegger KS, Routtenberg A: Expansion and retraction of hippocampal mossy fibers during postweaning development: strain-specific effects of NMDA receptor blockade. Hippocampus. 2007; 17(1): 58–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Holahan MR, Rekart JL, Sandoval J, et al.: Spatial learning induces presynaptic structural remodeling in the hippocampal mossy fiber system of two rat strains. Hippocampus. 2006; 16(6): 560–570. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Holahan MR, Routtenberg A: Lidocaine injections targeting CA3 hippocampus impair long-term spatial memory and prevent learning-induced mossy fiber remodeling. Hippocampus. 2011; 21(5): 532–540. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[35] 35. Hunsaker MR, Kesner RP: Dissociations across the dorsal-ventral axis of CA3 and CA1 for encoding and retrieval of contextual and auditory-cued fear. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2008; 89(1): 61–69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Hunsaker MR, Lee B, Kesner RP: Evaluating the temporal context of episodic memory: the role of CA3 and CA1. Behav Brain Res. 2008; 188(2): 310–315. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Hunsaker MR, Thorup JA, Welch T, et al.: The role of CA3 and CA1 in the acquisition of an object-trace-place paired-associate task. Behav Neurosci. 2006; 120(6): 1252–1256. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Jablonski SA, Schiffino FL, Stanton ME: Role of age, post-training consolidation, and conjunctive associations in the ontogeny of the context preexposure facilitation effect. Dev Psychobiol. 2012; 54(7): 714–722. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Jung MW, McNaughton BL: Spatial selectivity of unit activity in the hippocampal granular layer. Hippocampus. 1993; 3(2): 165–182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Kaczmarek L, Chaudhuri A: Sensory regulation of immediate-early gene expression in mammalian visual cortex: implications for functional mapping and neural plasticity. Brain Res Rev. 1997; 23(3): 237–256. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Keeley RJ, Wartman BC, Häusler AN, et al.: Effect of juvenile pretraining on adolescent structural hippocampal attributes as a substrate for enhanced spatial performance. Learn Mem. 2010; 17(7): 344–354. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Kesner RP: A behavioral analysis of dentate gyrus function. Prog Brain Res. 2007; 163: 567–576. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Kesner RP: Behavioral functions of the CA3 subregion of the hippocampus. Learn Mem. 2007; 14(11): 771–781. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Kesner RP: A process analysis of the CA3 subregion of the hippocampus. Front Cell Neurosci. 2013; 7: 78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Kesner RP, Lee I, Gilbert P: A behavioral assessment of hippocampal function based on a subregional analysis. Rev Neurosci. 2004; 15(5): 333–351. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Langston RF, Ainge JA, Couey JJ, et al.: Development of the spatial representation system in the rat. Science. 2010; 328(5985): 1576–1580. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[47] 47. Lee I, Hunsaker MR, Kesner RP: The role of hippocampal subregions in detecting spatial novelty. Behav Neurosci. 2005; 119(1): 145–153. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Lee I, Jerman TS, Kesner RP: Disruption of delayed memory for a sequence of spatial locations following CA1- or CA3-lesions of the dorsal hippocampus. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2005; 84(2): 138–147. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Lee I, Kesner RP: Differential roles of dorsal hippocampal subregions in spatial working memory with short versus intermediate delay. Behav Neurosci. 2003; 117(5): 1044–1053. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Lee I, Rao G, Knierim JJ: A double dissociation between hippocampal subfields: differential time course of CA3 and CA1 place cells for processing changed environments. Neuron. 2004; 42(5): 803–815. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Maccaferri G, Tóth K, McBain CJ: Target-specific expression of presynaptic mossy fiber plasticity. Science. 1998; 279(5355): 1368–1370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Montes-Rodriguez CJ, Lapointe V, Trivedi V, et al.: Postnatal development of Homer1a in the rat hippocampus. Hippocampus. 2013; 23(10): 890–902. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Mori M, Abegg MH, Gähwiler BH, et al.: A frequency-dependent switch from inhibition to excitation in a hippocampal unitary circuit. Nature. 2004; 431(7007): 453–456. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Mumby DG, Gaskin S, Glenn MJ, et al.: Hippocampal damage and exploratory preferences in rats: memory for objects, places, and contexts. Learn Mem. 2002; 9(2): 49–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[55] 55. Parron C, Poucet B, Save E: Re-evaluation of the spatial memory deficits induced by hippocampal short lasting inactivation reveals the need for cortical co-operation. Behav Brain Res. 2001; 127(1–2): 71–79. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. Pereira de Vasconcelos A, Klur S, Muller C, et al.: Reversible inactivation of the dorsal hippocampus by tetrodotoxin or lidocaine: a comparative study on cerebral functional activity and motor coordination in the rat. Neuroscience. 2006; 141(4): 1649–1663. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[57] 57. Ramirez-Amaya V, Balderas I, Sandoval J, et al.: Spatial long-term memory is related to mossy fiber synaptogenesis. J Neurosci. 2001; 21(18): 7340–7348. PubMed Abstract

[58] 58. Ramírez-Amaya V, Escobar ML, Chao V, et al.: Synaptogenesis of mossy fibers induced by spatial water maze overtraining. Hippocampus. 1999; 9(6): 631–636. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[59] 59. Rekart JL, Sandoval CJ, Bermudez-Rattoni F, et al.: Remodeling of hippocampal mossy fibers is selectively induced seven days after the acquisition of a spatial but not a cued reference memory task. Learn Mem. 2007; 14(6): 416–421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[60] 60. Rekart JL, Sandoval CJ, Routtenberg A: Learning-induced axonal remodeling: evolutionary divergence and conservation of two components of the mossy fiber system within Rodentia. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2007; 87(2): 225–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[61] 61. Riekkinen P Jr, Ikonen S, Aura J, et al.: Tetrahydroaminoacridine and D-cycloserine fail to alleviate the water maze spatial navigation defect induced by hippocampal inactivation. Eur J Pharmacol. 1999; 366(1): 13–18. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[62] 62. Rolls ET: The mechanisms for pattern completion and pattern separation in the hippocampus. Front Syst Neurosci. 2013; 7: 74. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[63] 63. Rolls ET: A quantitative theory of the functions of the hippocampal CA3 network in memory. Front Cell Neurosci. 2013; 7: 98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[64] 64. Rudy JW: Contextual conditioning and auditory cue conditioning dissociate during development. Behav Neurosci. 1993; 107(5): 887–891. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[65] 65. Rudy JW, Morledge P: Ontogeny of contextual fear conditioning in rats: implications for consolidation, infantile amnesia, and hippocampal system function. Behav Neurosci. 1994; 108(2): 227–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[66] 66. Rudy JW, Stadler-Morris S, Albert P: Ontogeny of spatial navigation behaviors in the rat: dissociation of "proximal"- and "distal"-cue-based behaviors. Behav Neurosci. 1987; 101(1): 62–73. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[67] 67. Saucier D, Cain DP: Spatial learning without NMDA receptor-dependent long-term potentiation. Nature. 1995; 378(6553): 186–189. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Schapiro S, Salas M, Vukovich K: Hormonal effects on ontogeny of swimming ability in the rat: assessment of central nervous system development. Science. 1970; 168(3927): 147–150. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[69] 69. Sheng M, McFadden G, Greenberg ME: Membrane depolarization and calcium induce c-fos transcription via phosphorylation of transcription factor CREB. Neuron. 1990; 4(4): 571–582. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[70] 70. Smith CA, Macdonald A, Holahan MR: Acute postnatal exposure to di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate adversely impacts hippocampal development in the male rat. Neuroscience. 2011; 193: 100–108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[71] 71. Tonkiss J, Shultz P, Galler JR: Long-Evans and Sprague-Dawley rats differ in their spatial navigation performance during ontogeny and at maturity. Dev Psychobiol. 1992; 25(8): 567–579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[72] 72. Vida I, Frotscher M: A hippocampal interneuron associated with the mossy fiber system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000; 97(3): 1275–1280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[73] 73. Wartman BC, Gervais NJ, Smith C, et al.: Enhanced adolescent learning and hippocampal axonal projections following preadolescent spatial exposure to a water or dry maze. Brain Res. 2012; 1475: 37–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[74] 74. Westerga J, Gramsbergen A: The development of locomotion in the rat. Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 1990; 57(2): 163–174. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[75] 75. Whishaw IQ, Cassel JC, Jarrard LE: Rats with fimbria-fornix lesions display a place response in a swimming pool: a dissociation between getting there and knowing where. J Neurosci. 1995; 15(8): 5779–5788. PubMed Abstract

[76] 76. Wills TJ, Cacucci F, Burgess N, et al.: Development of the hippocampal cognitive map in preweanling rats. Science. 2010; 328(5985): 1573–1576. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[77] 77. Zhang L, Blomgren K, Kuhn HG, et al.: Effects of postnatal thyroid hormone deficiency on neurogenesis in the juvenile and adult rat. Neurobiol Dis. 2009; 34(2): 366–374. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[78] 78. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source

[79] 79. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 2 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source

[80] 80. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 3 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source

[81] 81. Comba R, Gervais N, Mumby D, et al.: Dataset 4 in: Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats. F1000Research. 2015. Data Source

Emergence of spatial behavioral function and associated mossy fiber connectivity and c-Fos labeling patterns in the hippocampus of rats

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Subjects

Apparatus

Behavioral procedures

Immunohistochemistry

Results

Morris Water Maze (MWM)

Figure 1. One-day Morris water maze task (MWM).

Object in Novel Location (ONL)

Figure 2. One-day object in a novel location task (ONL).

Synaptophysin immunohistochemistry

Figure 3. Synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region as an indicator of mossy fiber (MF) projections.

c-Fos immunohistochemistry

Figure 4. Quantification of hippocampal c-Fos labeling.

Figure 5. Representative c-Fos labeling in the hippocampus.

Discussion

Summary of main findings

Ontogeny of spatial behavior: performance or cognition?

Ontogeny of Mossy Fiber Connectivity

Ontogeny of hippocampal network activity

Conclusions

Data availability

Author contributions

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgements

Supplementary Material

Figure S1. Synaptophysin staining in the CA3 region as an indicator of mossy fiber (MF) projections.

Figure S2. Representative c-Fos labeling in the hippocampus.

Figure S3. Representative c-Fos labeling in the hippocampus.

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated