Fig. 5. Silencing during reconsolidation, neurons that were immature at the time of learning, impairs long-term memory persistence whereas silencing neurons that were mature at the time of learning had no impact on memory.

a Experimental protocol: 2-month-old rats were injected with Gi-GFP RV (n = 21) or its control GFP RV (n = 10) 1 week before MWM training. Rats were trained for 6 days and memory was reactivated 4 weeks later GFP RV (n = 10) and Gi-GFP-RV (n = 11). Thirty minutes before reactivation, CNO (1 mg/kg) was injected (i.p.). A group of rats Gi-GFP-RV (n = 10) received CNO but was not reactivated (nR). Memory was tested 2 days later (Test) and again 2 weeks later (Test 2). b Latency to find the platform during training and to first cross the position of the platform during the reactivation and test trials. Memory performances of Gi-GFP rats were impaired at Test 2 compared to those of GFP RV rats and compared to their own performances at the reactivation trial (Tukey’s test: **p < 0.01; ^##p < 0.01). c Latency to cross the position of the platform at Test 2. Latency was higher for the Gi-GFP rats compared to that of GFP rats (Tukey’s test: *p < 0.05). d Experimental protocol: 2-month-old rats were injected with Gi-GFP RV (n = 11) or its control GFP RV (n = 6) 6 weeks before MWM training. Rats were trained for 6 days and memory was reactivated 4 weeks later. 30 min before reactivation, rats were injected (i.p.) with 1 mg/kg CNO. Memory was tested 2 days later (Test) and again 2 weeks later (Test 2). e Latency to find the platform during training and to first cross the position of the platform during the reactivation and test trials. Memory performances of Gi-GFP rats and GFP rats are similar. All data shown are mean ± s.e.m. For statistical details, see Table S1.