Skip to main content

Depression-Related Behaviors, Tye and Chaudhury

By

Both Tye et al and Chaudhury et al saw robust results from activating and inactivating the VTA in depression-related behaviors. I think their findings are both elegantly done and contribute to a bigger story of the VTA and its involvement in mediating behaviors associated with depression. Tye et al show that by inhibiting VTA neurons after Chronic Mild Stress, depressive-like behaviors are induced. By activating the same subset of neurons, escape behaviors after CMS can be restored. Additionally, Tye et al showed that activation of the VTA in rats increases the prevalence of escape behavior in a novel stress test. Chaudhury et al utilize a different stress paradigm called the social defeat stress model. Their data indicate that phasic stimulation of the VTA causes depressive-liked behaviors in a social defeat paradigm, but inhibiting the VTA can restore social interaction in mice after they experience social defeat.

 Each paper explores related, yet different concepts. Although they come to different conclusions when activating and inactivating the VTA, I think the data are still complementary. While Tye et al mainly study stress models that display escape behavior, Chaudhury et al use a stress model that studies social interaction. Both behavioral paradigms are categorized under “Chronic Mild Stress,” yet they are testing two separate aspects that are seen in depression. The overlapping behavior test between the two papers, the sucrose-preference test, examines the anhedonic phenotype under two different conditions: social stress and learned helplessness. This could explain why they see differential results.

Chaudhury et al go a step further in studying the VTA by isolating specific projection routes of the VTA. While their data give great insight into how the VTA-NAc and VTA-mPFC circuits may modulate depressive-like behavior, it’s difficult to believe their interpretation of the results. This is because (a) they only studied male mice and (b) many other known outputs of the VTA are ignored. While their paper offers promising results for interpreting the functional importance of individual VTA circuits, I am still skeptical about there being other factors that may have led to the results they saw.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gut-Brain Interactions: Buffington et al, Reber et al 2016

By
April 13 Papers (Buffington et. al, Reber et. al) I found this week’s papers to be quite novel in that they both proposed potential treatments for neurodevelopmental or psychiatric disorders that target bacterial or microbial abnormalities and how these give rise to certain behavioral and physical symptoms associated with the disorders. I thought this was a very unusual yet interesting approach, and as I have not previously studied the gut-brain axis, these papers offered me a fresh perspective on researching psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. They were also unconventional in their focus of the physical symptoms that often accompany mental disorders, as this is not something that I have seen many other papers touch upon very much. Particularly, I was surprised by the Reber et al paper’s focus on the link between psychiatric disorders and inflammation in organs other than the brain, such as the colon, and the Buffington et al paper’s description of a relationship between ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Buffington et al. and Reber et al.: Gut-Brain Interactions

By
While I have not encountered a lot of gut-brain interaction literature yet. I found each paper unique and fascinating. Reber et al felt inaccessible for me. I felt like I didn’t understand what the goal of the paper really was and why they did the tests that they did. It seems like most of their relevant information got shoved into numerous supplementary figures and their behavior was quite difficult to follow. Multiple sections of their paper were supported with data found entirely in supplementary figures, which makes it difficult to follow the same conclusions. I have a few issues with the behavior they chose and because of this, I struggle to find driving conclusions from their work. I don’t understand why the CSC was not only the prior stressor but was also the acute stress condition both groups faced. To me, I feel like it would have made more sense to have the CSC be the prior stressor and then judge the effect on social behavior with maybe a three choice chamber test or te...
Post a Comment
Read more

Buffington et al (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

By
This week's articles were about the role of the gut-brain axis in neurodevelopment and stress. Reber and colleagues used a heat-killed version of the bacteria, M. vaccae, as a type of vaccine and found that administration to mouse models resulted in decreased response to chronic stress, prevented colitis related to stress, and reduced measures of anxiety. Reber et al. also used the inactivated M. vaccae in a mouse model of IBD and found that the bacteria prevented stress-induce flare-ups of colitis, but that this could be reversed by removing T cells. Buffington and colleagues instead examined the role of gut microbiota in maternal high-fat diets (MHFD) in the neurodevelopment and social behaviors of their offspring. Buffington et al. found that housing MHFD rats with the offspring of regular diet (MRD) rats prevented social deficits in their offspring. They also found that this co-housing arrangement prevented an imbalance in the gut bacteria Reber and colleagues' findings w...
Post a Comment
Read more