It is generally assumed that in the developing neuron a filopodium is formed first; following establishment of contact with an afferent fiber, it retracts and becomes a spine (Fiala et al., 1998; Sorra & Harris, 2000). In this case the outcome would be viewed as an increase in the efficacy of synaptic transmission. However, stable synaptic connections leading to spontaneous network activity have also been seen in young neurons (3–4 days in vitro) even before the formation of spines, and these synapses are formed primarily on dendritic shafts (Lauri et al., 2003). Likewise,

it is not entirely clear that the process of conversion of filopodia to spines is a necessary step in an already mature neuron, where filopodia are rare and spines can form and dissolve within hours, Ganetespib price as shown in estrus-cycling female rats (Woolley & McEwen, 1993) and during recovery from hibernation (Popov & Bocharova, 1992; Popov et al., 2007), as well as in time-lapse microscopy in adult mice (Xu et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2009). On the other hand, within hours following activity blockade with tetrodotoxin (TTX), filopodia grow off existing spines, Roxadustat molecular weight indicating that they are being used as a means of searching for glutamate-releasing presynaptic terminals (Richards et al., 2005). Thus, with a few exceptions, it can be concluded that spines can be formed from shaft synapses, and the presence of spines reduces rather

than enhances the impact of an individual synapse on the activity of the parent neuron. A corollary issue is whether a neuron loses its synapses when spines are pruned, just to regain them when the spines reappear, or whether it retains the synapses with its afferent terminals,

which may form shaft synapses? Intuitively, a synapse which is rich in adhesion molecules crossing between pre- and postsynaptic membranes has a bond strong enough to resist mechanical dissociation of the tissue (e.g. during preparation of synaptosomes). Why then should the synapse lose the presynaptic partner just because it retracts by a few micrometers NADPH-cytochrome-c2 reductase only to reappear a day later, as is the case with the estrus cycle? Recent electron-microscopic data indicate that spine-pruned cortical neurons do lose their connection with afferent inputs (Knott et al., 2006). On the other hand, in hibernating animals there is a marked decrease in spine density during hibernation but there is an increase in shaft synapses (Popov et al., 2007; von der Ohe et al., 2006), and when the animals wake up from hibernation they regain the spines and appear to remember tasks learnt before hibernation, indicating that regardless of the persistence of spines, memories are retained (Clemens et al., 2009). In fact, if trained 24 h after arousal from hibernation, they remember better than controls (Weltzin et al., 2006). Likewise, female rats in the estrus phase of the cycle, when their spine density is down by 30%, are not less capable of remembering items learnt previously.