We found that there was a strong correlation between the strength of E-LTP expression (measured as E1 volume just prior to L2 stimulation) and the strength of the synaptic tag (measured as the volume of E1 3 hr after L2 stimulation thought to be proportional to the synaptic tag strength; Figure 3D). This indicates that the strength of the synaptic tag is tightly correlated with the level of E-LTP expression when GLU stimulation precedes

GLU+FSK stimulation. Under these conditions, the magnitudes of L-LTP at the spines given GLU stimulation were generally lower than that at spines given GLU+FSK stimulation (Figure 2K). On the other hand, when GLU stimulation followed GLU+FSK stimulation, the magnitude of L-LTP at the spine given

GLU stimulation (E2) tended to be similar to that of the spine given GLU+FSK stimulation (Figure 2F). Therefore, we hypothesized that PrPs NLG919 strengthen tags at spines stimulated later, but not earlier. To test this idea, we employed a subthreshold stimulus (each uncaging laser pulse lasts 1 ms instead of 4 ms) that, consistent with previously reported data (Harvey and Svoboda, 2007), did not cause a change in spine MLN0128 solubility dmso volume (Figure 3E). When this stimulus was given to a spine (S2) after GLU+FSK stimulation was given to another spine (L1), a significant increase in spine volume was seen at both L1 and S2 (Figure 3F). Similar to the L1-L2 stimulation (Figures 2C and 2D) and L1-E2 stimulation (Figure 2F) experiments, this growth depended on protein synthesis during L1 stimulation, but not S2 stimulation (data not shown). However, when the same subthreshold stimulus (S1) was given to one spine before GLU+FSK stimulation was given to a second spine (L2), no growth at S1 was seen, whereas L2 grew normally (Figure 3G). These data support the hypothesis that PrPs strengthen tags at spines stimulated after their production, but not those stimulated

earlier. Thus, though STC is temporally bidirectional, the two directions are different, not only because the lifetimes of the synaptic tag and the rate-limiting PrP are different, but also because L-LTP induction or expression seems to facilitate tag formation at PD184352 (CI-1040) spines stimulated later, but not at spines stimulated earlier. Having established STC at the single-spine level and revealed its asymmetric bidirectionality, we next examined the spatial span over which STC occurs, an issue central to the CPH (Govindarajan et al., 2006). The spatial relationship between spines participating in STC cannot be studied using field stimulation, since it results in the activation of many unidentified spines. But, it can be studied in our system by varying the distance between two spines both of which are given GLU+FSK stimulations (L1, L2) with only L2 stimulation conducted in the presence of anisomycin.