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

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