Skip to main content

Effects of Anti-Depressants, Bessa & Santarelli


            Santarelli et al reported two results: (1) fluoxetine induces hippocampal neurogenesis and reduces latency to feed in the NSF test via 5-HT1A receptors and (2) hippocampal irradiation halts neurogenesis in the subgranular zone (SGZ), causing fluoxetine to have no anti-depressant effect. Santarelli’s experiments were elegantly done, but I’m not convinced that neurogenesis is the cause of the effects seen from fluoxetine. Using 5HT1A-R knockout mice demonstrated that chronic treatment with fluoxetine is sufficient to reduce latency to feed in WT mice; however, the same effect is seen using 8-OH-DPAT, a 5HT1A-selective agonist. How do we know if the fluoxetine-induced neurogenesis and its anti-depressant effects are independent of each other or not? If fluoxetine and 8-OH-DPAT have the same effects, couldn’t the reduced latency to feed be caused solely by agonists binding 5HT1A receptors? Neurogenesis occurs, but there’s no timeline of when it happened relative to the decreased latency to feed occurred.
            Similar to their first results, Santarelli et al show data that the number of BrdU+ cells decrease following hippocampal irradiation, but they do not say if 5HT1A receptors are affected by the radiation, nor do they specify which strain of mice they irradiate. Therefore, isn’t it possible that the radiation is simply damaging 5HT1A receptors, which then prevents fluoxetine from working? If a method to quantify the amount of 5HT1A receptors exists, I would have liked to see these data in Santarelli’s experiment.
            Bessa et al reported data mainly in opposition to Santarelli. Namely, Bessa reported that neurogenesis was important for the behavioral effects seen from using anti-depressants, but not for the mechanism of the drug itself. Using MAM as a method of arresting neurogenesis is, in my opinion, a more reliable method than irradiation. Bessa’s data also imply that restoration of synaptic contacts was the possible mechanism by which anti-depressants were working. This raises the question: Before the administration of anti-depressants, could synaptic remodeling occur outside of the hippocampus and PFC to mediate depressive-like behaviors? Other pathways in the brain that are involved in stress and fear may be strengthened and weakened under stressful conditions or with anti-depressant treatments.
            The Santarelli and Bessa paper provide a good overview of the possible effects that symptoms of depression and anti-depressants may have on the brain. However, there is no definitive mechanism of depression or its treatment that has been identified, thus indicating the need for further research. New techniques such as DREADDS, optogenetics, or genetic knockouts of Ncam1 or Syn1 genes could provide more specific results about the function of the hippocampus and PFC in depression.  



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Week 2- Dopamine Modulation of Depressive-like Behaviors

The Chaudhury et al paper explored the neural circuit mechanisms involved in the dopamine modulation of certain symptoms of depression. In this study, the researchers looked at social interaction and sucrose preference as part of their social-defeat paradigm, which has been shown in the past to be indicative of depressive-like behaviors. Although I initially did not completely see the connection between the social-defeat stress model of depression and the tonic vs phasic firing of dopamine neurons, it seemed that susceptibility and resilience to stress played a role in the functional/behavioral effects of dopamine firing. It was interesting to see how chronic mild stress with phasic firing of VTA dopamine neurons converted even resilient mice into susceptible mice.  The Tye et al paper similarly looked at the dopamine modulation of depressive-like behaviors, focusing on motivation with the forced swim tests and open field tests, followed by measurement of anhedonia by quantifyi...

Sial & Allsop

Sial et al. derived a novel approach for studying what they deem vicarious defeat stress (VSDS) as a model for MDD, PTSD, and other mood-related disorders as an alternative to the classical CSDS paradigm. Using adult male mice, they demonstrate that their model induces a robust and measurable social avoidant phenotype as well as other stress and anxiety related behavioral outputs. Their subsequent rescue study with chronic fluoxetine treatment shows reversal of the behavioral phenotypes and emphasizes the predictive validity of the model. Allsop et al. found that BLA-projecting ACC neurons preferentially encode socially derived aversive cue information by encoding the demonstrator’s distress response during observational learning, hence enabling acquisition of negative valence of cue by BLA neurons and behavioral output. In order to test their hypothesis, Allsop et al. used an observational fear conditional paradigm to create association between a conditioned stimulu...

Buffington and Reber

Buffington et al. explore a mechanism by which maternal obesity can induce neuronal and subsequent behavioral disorders. Using a model of high-fat diet (MHFD)-induced obesity, the authors showcase the strong connection between the brain and the gut, and its impact on behavior. The findings are provocative; by exposing these offspring to the microbiome of control offspring, there was evidence of a rescued observed behavioral phenotype. Furthermore, a phylogenetic profiling of the gut microbiome revealed a decrease in L. reuteri within MHFD offspring, and introduction of live L. reuteri into the drinking water shows successful rescue of the behavioral issues in the MHFD offspring. L. reuteri-induced expression of oxytocin within the paraventricular nuclei of the hypothalamus provides a potential mechanistic explanation for the behavioral changes. I thought this paper provided robust support for the hypothesized interaction between the gut biome and the developing CNS, with tremendous po...