, 1968 and Schneider and Sherman, 1968). In 2000, Nader and colleagues raised this challenge again in experiments that targeted the known role of the amygdala in synaptic consolidation of the Pavlovian association of a tone (CS) with a shock (US; Falls et al., 1992 and Duvarci et al., 2006), showing that a CS alone reminder presented long after consolidation HIF-1 activation was complete re-engaged the temporary susceptibility of the memory. These findings were interpreted as evidence that the reminder reactivated the original

memory trace, making it necessary to “reconsolidate” the memory, or else suffer erasure of the memory (Sara, 2000 and Nader et al., 2000). Over the last decade, many experiments have supported the observation of memory

susceptibility following reminders and these findings have been reviewed extensively in recent papers (Nader and Hardt, 2009, Dudai and Eisenberg, 2004, Lee, 2010, Alberini, 2011 and Sara, 2010). Results supporting the existence of reconsolidation have been reported in several species across a broad range of learning tests, and using a variety of manipulations to block memory (e.g., Rose and Rankin, 2006, Pedreira et al., 2002, Eisenberg et al., 2003, Frankland et al., 2006, Lee et al., 2005, Hupbach et al., 2007, Monfils et al., 2009 and Schiller Bioactive Compound Library order et al., 2010). Despite broad support for the generality of reconsolidation (Nader and Hardt, 2009), several studies have failed to find Megestrol Acetate that amnesic agents block memory in the reconsolidation paradigm (Biedenkapp and Rudy, 2004) or have observed that

the memory deficits are temporary (Lattal and Abel, 2004 and Power et al., 2006), leading to the idea that the reconsolidation phenomenon has “boundary conditions” (Eisenberg et al., 2003, Milekic and Alberini, 2002 and Morris et al., 2006). Several experimental parameters have been shown to be important in determining whether reconsolidation occurs, including how memories are reactivated (Debiec et al., 2006 and Tronel et al., 2005), whether novelty is introduced during memory reactivation (Pedreira et al., 2004), and the age and strength of a memory (Eisenberg et al., 2003 and Milekic and Alberini, 2002). We consider two main categories of boundary conditions: which memory is active at the time of amnesic treatment and whether the reminder generates new learning. Early in the recent series of studies on reconsolidation there were conflicting reports on whether reminders reinstated lability of memories for classical aversive conditioning. Several studies (Berman et al., 2003, Vianna et al.