Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35027710›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2022

Forgetting as a form of adaptive engram cell plasticity.

Tomás J Ryan, Paul W Frankland

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Unforgettable forgotten memories.Nature neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Contamination of Engram Coactivity Networks During Forgetting.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Tension shapes memory: computational insights into neural plasticity.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tomás J RyanSchool of Biochemistry and Immunology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. tomas.ryan@tcd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0121-8514
Paul W FranklandChild & Brain Development Program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. paul.frankland@sickkids.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1395-3586

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One leading hypothesis suggests that memories are stored in ensembles of neurons (or 'engram cells') and that successful recall involves reactivation of these ensembles. A logical extension of this idea is that forgetting occurs when engram cells cannot be reactivated. Forms of 'natural forgetting' vary considerably in terms of their underlying mechanisms, time course and reversibility. However, we suggest that all forms of forgetting involve circuit remodelling that switches engram cells from an accessible state (where they can be reactivated by natural recall cues) to an inaccessible state (where they cannot). In many cases, forgetting rates are modulated by environmental conditions and we therefore propose that forgetting is a form of neuroplasticity that alters engram cell accessibility in a manner that is sensitive to mismatches between expectations and the environment. Moreover, we hypothesize that disease states associated with forgetting may hijack natural forgetting mechanisms, resulting in reduced engram cell accessibility and memory loss.

Indexed as

Cell PlasticityMental RecallAdaptation, PhysiologicalHumansNeuronal PlasticityNeurons

Identifiers

PMID35027710

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.