Skip to main content

Post 2: Investigation of Dopamine Neurons and Neural Firing Patterns in the VTA of Depressed Animal Models using Optogenetics

Chaudhury et al. and Tye et al. both published articles about the use of optogenetics to investigate the effects of dopamine neurons and their firing patters in the VTA on depressive behaviors in Naturein 2012. While their experiments had numerous similarities in purpose and methods, the details of their procedures revealed seemingly contrasting results that highlight the complexity of the neurological manifestation and treatment of depression. While Tye primarily concludes that dopamine activation, particularly in a phasic neural pattern, reverses the depressive-like behaviors exhibited by stress-induced mice, Chaudhury concludes that phasic firing of VTA dopamine neurons in stress-induced mice is suggestive of susceptibility for depressive behaviors.
            One difference between the two experiments that may contribute to their contradictory results is the stress paradigm used. While Chaudhury uses social defeat paradigms to induce stress, Tye employs a gentler chronic mild stress (CMS) paradigm As both Chaudhury and Tye acknowledge, the severity of stress modulates whether stress increases or decreases the activity of VTA dopamine neurons, with more severe stressors (like social defeat) increasing dopaminergic activity and less severe stressors (like CMS) decreasing dopaminergic activity. The severity-dependent bidirectional effects of stress on dopamine imbalance support Tye and Chaudhury’s seemingly opposing conclusions.
            While these two conclusions can logically co-exist, this is not to say that either of the papers are without limitations. I found that the poorly defined structure of both papers (presumably required by Nature) reduced the clarity and efficiency of the papers, as sections were not labeled (with Chaudhury forgoing an introduction altogether) and portions of the methods were restated throughout the results, as well as separately. Another cause for confusion: Chaudhury’s methods section details an elevated plus maze and open field test, but neither or these tests or their results are mentioned anywhere in the main paper. Despite these, and other weaknesses found in the papers, they demonstrate the utility of optogenetics in gaining an understanding of depression and, taken together, emphasize the complexity of the neurological systems that contribute to depression and other mood disorders.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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 ...

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

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...

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

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...