When we think about how memories persist, it is tempting to look for something that remains unchanged. Yet preserving past experiences alone is not enough to adapt to new situations. How does the brain reconcile maintaining memories with updating them?
A study published in Nature Medicine on August 21 analyzed postmortem brains from people with depression and suggested that the process of generating new neurons in the hippocampus may have stalled. Using gene expression and other cellular data, the researchers examined differences in the composition of stem-cell-like populations and neuroblasts at a later stage. This was not an experiment that tracked the birth of cells in a living brain, and a causal relationship with depression has not yet been established. Original paper by Peng and colleagues ↗
An earlier mouse study offers a way to interpret this finding. Sahay and colleagues showed that an intervention that increased the survival of newly generated hippocampal neurons improved performance on a task requiring mice to distinguish between two very similar situations. Memory did not improve uniformly across the board. Sahay and colleagues, Nature, 2011 ↗
The distinction worth considering here is whether new cells contribute only to how much can be remembered, or whether they help similar experiences be treated as distinct. Both drawing on past experience and recognizing that the present situation differs from the past are necessary.
In the previous issue, we considered how memories can persist even as neural wiring and activity change. This time, we want to approach the question from the other direction: what is lost when necessary changes become harder to make? The ability to retain old memories might remain intact, while distinguishing new situations or revising earlier judgments becomes more difficult. This is not a conclusion of the current paper, but a hypothesis to test next.
To understand the effects of changing neurogenesis, we need to know which cells, at which stages, enter which circuits and contribute to which behaviors. Understanding those relationships would let us think more specifically about what needs to be restored, rather than simply aiming to “increase brain plasticity.” We will follow this line of research by looking for separate measures of memory stability and the ability to learn anew.
Evidence & reading
Public sources checked for this edition. Linked pages may subsequently change.
- Pengらの原著 ↗www.nature.com · checked 2026-09-23
- Sahayら、Nature、2011年 ↗www.nature.com · checked 2026-09-23
READER DISCUSSION
What does this change for you?
A question, a different reading, or a source we should consider. A short comment is welcome.
Comments are public only after editorial review. Comments, likes and reports are for people aged 18 or older. Sign-in is required; you choose a public display name. Reviews are not continuous. Discussion rules
Loading discussion…
Also in this issue
Contents →Commercialization
What Scientific AI Companies Sell Next: Experimental Data, Labs, and Drug Discovery Assets
Experimental services, laboratory infrastructure and drug assets: three ways scientific AI businesses earn returns.
R&D Allocation
Who Will Build the Systems to Oversee Clinical AI?
Patient support, supervision, implementation and independent evaluation: the research roles funded by ADVOCATE.
Frontier Science
How Far Can Human Neural Tissue Compensate for Lost Function?
Beyond graft survival: what could the animals do, and what remained impaired? Comparisons with dopamine and inhibitory-cell graft studies.
Frontier Science
Can measuring brain function help us choose an antidepressant?
How far did brain imaging, behavior and clinical information take medication selection? What SMART-D leaves to test next.
Commercialization
Shield: Can Expanded Coverage Lead to Screening and Diagnosis?
Following a coverage-policy change through screening, payment and diagnostic follow-up.