Skip to main content

Paper Response #2: Dopamine Circuits and Stress Recovery

By

WEEK 3: Jan. 27 Papers (Chaudhury et. al, Tye et. al)

The Chaudhury et. al and Tye et. al papers both examine how dopamine neurons modulate depression-related behaviors in rodents. The papers differ greatly in terms of the results found, with the Chaudhury paper claiming that increased phasic firing in Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA) dopamine neurons heightens depression-related behaviors, while the Tye paper states inhibition of these same neurons induces depression-related behaviors. Furthermore, the Chaudhury paper found that inhibiting dopaminergic projections from the VTA to the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) reduced depressive behaviors, but the Tye paper found this increased depressive behaviors, and vice versa. However, differences between the two studies in how the research was conducted and the specific factors that were examined may account for some of the contrasting results.

For starters, Chaudhury’s study only experimented on mice, whereas Tye’s study carried out some of their research on mice and some of it on rats. While these species are very similar, we cannot rule out the possibility of mild differences between them accounting for some of the disparity in results. Additionally, while both studies used the Sucrose Preference Test (SPT) as a measure of anhedonia indicative of depressive behavior, the Chaudhury study used social interaction as their second measure of depression, whereas the Tye study examined motivation as exhibited during the Tail Suspension Test (TST) instead. It is important to note here that depression is a complex, multifactorial disorder characterized by a wide array of symptoms that need not all be present in a given patient for them to qualify for diagnosis. Therefore, neither lack of motivation nor reduced social interaction can be considered fully encompassing, definitive measures of depression. Since social interaction and motivation are two very different behavioral phenotypes of depression that may have different causal roots including but also going beyond dopaminergic intervention, they cannot be directly compared to one another.  

Most importantly, the studies used different experimental paradigms to elicit depressive states in the rodents. Chaudhury employed the Social-Defeat (SD) Paradigm, but Tye used the Chronic Mild Stress (CMS) Paradigm. Both authors agreed that context and severity of the stress experienced greatly influence the stress-regulating role of dopamine neuron firing rates, with different kinds of stressors evoking contrasting reactions from dopaminergic neurons in the VTA. Specifically, the papers were in agreement that chronic mild stressors such as those used in the Tye study’s CMS paradigm inhibit the activity of VTA neurons, while more severe stressors such as those in the Chaudhury study’s SD paradigm increase activity. This strikes me as the most important difference between the studies and likely the leading reason behind the disparity in results. It is quite possible that both studies have valid results despite seemingly being in direct opposition to each other, as they are really investigating different (but related) stress-related processes. This is a good reminder that neural processes are often complex and play varying roles depending on the situation even within the same neural circuit. 

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

Gut-brain axis

By
This weeks papers Reber et al. 2016 and Buffington et al. 2016 present a super interesting look into the gut-brain axis. Regarding both of these papers, it was amazing to see how potent favorable or unfavorable gut microbiome compositions are in affecting neuronal signaling and overall behavior. Reber et al. shows how immunoregulatory immunization with specifically heat killed M.vaccae can serve as a protective factor against chronic subordinate stress induce colotis as well as behavioral symptoms due to chronic stress as such. Interestringly, this paper depleted regulatory T cell activity via the anti CD25 antibody in order to show that the antiinflammatory mechanism induced by m vaccae immunization is depented on the secondary regulatory mechanisms offered by Treg proliferation and signaling. But, when T reg signaling was removed, this did not seem to cause a significant change in behavior . Therefore, this begs the consideration of what othe rmechanisms may be at play in order ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ramirez et al.: 2013 and 2015 Papers

By
In these papers, Ramirez et al. strive to understand how memory encoding via optogenetic manipulation of engram-bearing cells in the hippocampus, specifically the dentate gyrus, can affect an animal’s response to a stressful context.  The first paper, published in 2013, was crucial to the field as it introduced this very exciting technique; in this paper, Ramirez et al. use tet-tag to manipulate brain circuity and establish associations between two contexts. Throughout the paper, this is referred to as “false memories.” Using these artificial memories, the investigators are able to manipulate the animal’s fear response in a specific context. Specifically, after the animals are conditioned to a repeated fearful stimulus (a foot shock, in context B), activation of the involved DG cells in a different context (context A’) will also initiate a fear response (in absence of any foot shock). In this experiment, the false memory is used to create an unnatural fear association in a given...
Post a Comment
Read more