Skip to main content

Post 2: Dopamine Circuits and Stress Recovery

By
The papers by Chaudhury et al. and Tye et al. investigate the role of dopaminergic neurons in the VTA on the presence of a depressive phenotype. At first glance, their methodology seems similar: both papers, published in the same journal in 2012, induce depressive-like behaviors in mice and use optogenetics to activate or inhibit specific neuronal pathways. However, they reach drastically different results. When I first read these papers, I went around in circles trying to decide which study presented more “convincing evidence,” but then I realized that both provide clean, conclusive data. The real difference between these experimental designs are the behavioral paradigms used to induce a state of stress and the tests used to assess the effect of optogenetic inhibition/stimulation.
Specifically, Chaudhury et al. used a 10-day social defeat paradigm to induce social avoidance and decreased sucrose preference. Using this model, the researchers concluded that phasic stimulation of the VTA-Nucleus Accumbens pathway rapidly induced the depressive phenotype in previously resilient mice. In the presence of phasic stimulation, these mice exhibited a decrease in time in the interaction zone during the social-interaction test and a decrease in sucrose preference, compared to the controls. Inhibition of this pathway resulted in a statistically significant increase in both time in interaction zone and in sucrose preference. 
Conversely, Tye et al. induced two stress-related depressive symptoms, specifically decreased motivation and anhedonia, using the chronic mild stress paradigm. Then, they employed the forced swim test (FST) and tail suspension test (TST) as an assay for motivation of the mice, and the sucrose preference test as an assay for anhedonia. Using this paradigm, they found that optogenetic inhibition induces the depressive phenotype, which can be reversed by phasic stimulation of the VTA dopaminergic neurons. 
In essence, Chaudhury et al. explain that VTA stimulation leads to a depressive phenotype, while Tye et al. argue that it is actually VTA inhibition. However, as stated in the paper by Tye et al., “different stressors can cause opposite responses from VTA neurons depending on pre-exposure and severity.” Although the methods used in both papers to induce stress and to assay depressive phenotype are well-recognized in the scientific community, they are not identical, and the effects of stress on mesolimbic dopamine pathways can vary drastically. These differences in the behavioral paradigms could play a part in the conflicting conclusions presented in these papers, and also underscore why it is far from easy to study depression. Although neuroscience had led to the discovery to specific pathways that we know play a role in depression, the complex nature of the disorder implies that its causes could influence the same brain region in potentially opposite ways. These two papers, especially when taken in conjunction, show us just how important it is to keep studying disorders such as depression.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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