Skip to main content

Post 2: Tye and Chaudhury

By

The two articles, Tye et al. (2012) and Chaudhury et al. (2012), both investigated how manipulating dopamine neurons using optogenetics impacts depression-related behavior, but they came to contradicting conclusions. While Chaudhury’s study discovered that increasing phasic signaling from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) increased depression-related behavior, Tye et al. found that inducing phasic signaling in the same pathway resulted in an decrease in depression-related behavior. Based on the evidence presented in the two studies, it is difficult to decide which I am more inclined to believe as I feel like both articles had flaws.

In my opinion, Chaudhury was more thorough in its methods. By breaking VTA signaling into specific projection routes, VTA to NAcc and VTA to medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), this lead to a more comprehensive approach to the understanding the susceptibility of mice to depressive-related behavior. I would have like to have seen Tye et al. do this. It illustrated that although VTA to NAcc phasic firing resulted in increased depression-related behavior, VTA to mPFC phasic firing resulted in the opposite effect; this shows that it is important not to oversimplify the role of VTA dopamine neurons.

 That being said, I believe that being only using male mice Chaudhury limited these results from being widely accepted, as if we truly to model human behavior, we need to acknowledge that there might be sex differences. Would we expect there to be a different response to the social-defeat stress method if it was a female mouse paired with a breeder? Are breeder mice so naturally territorial that we expect them to attack a new mouse (even a female) put into their habitat every time? Do they do something to the breeder mouse to provoke aggressive behavior? Future directions include incorporating both sexes but also maybe choosing a different method chronic mild stress, such as tail-suspension test from Tye’s article.


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