Search

Abstract Social recognition is essential for the formation of social structures. Many times, recognition comes with lesser exploration of familiar animals. This lesser exploration has led to the assumption that recognition may be a habituation memory. The underlying memory mechanisms and the thereby acquired cortical representations of familiar mice have remained largely unknown, however. Here, we introduce an approach directly examining the recognition process from volatile body odors among male mice. We show that volatile body odors emitted by mice are sufficient to identify individuals and that more salience is assigned to familiar mice. Familiarity is encoded by reinforced population responses in two olfactory cortex hubs and communicated to other brain regions. The underlying oxytocin-induced plasticity promotes the separation of the cortical representations of familiar from other mice. In summary, neuronal encoding of familiar animals is distinct and utilizes the cortical representational space more broadly, promoting storage of complex social relationships.

Where and how the brain learns from experience is not fully understood. Here the authors use a hierarchical approach from behavioural modelling to systems fMRI to cellular coding reveals brain mechanisms for history informed updating of future predictions.

Abstract Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain combined with voxel-based morphometry (VBM) revealed changes in gray matter volume (GMV) in various disorders. However, the cellular basis of GMV changes has remained largely unclear. We correlated changes in GMV with cellular metrics by imaging mice with MRI and two-photon in vivo microscopy at three time points within 12 weeks, taking advantage of age-dependent changes in brain structure. Imaging fluorescent cell nuclei allowed inferences on (i) physical tissue volume as determined from reference spaces outlined by nuclei, (ii) cell density, (iii) the extent of cell clustering, and (iv) the volume of cell nuclei. Our data indicate that physical tissue volume alterations only account for 13.0% of the variance in GMV change. However, when including comprehensive measurements of nucleus volume and cell density, 35.6% of the GMV variance could be explained, highlighting the influence of distinct cellular mechanisms on VBM results.