Skip to main content

Post 2:Dopamine circuits and recovery from stress

By
            The two papers this week were published in the same year, in the same journal, and on the same topic. They both looked at dopamine’s role in depressive-like behaviors. Both groups utilized optogenetics and phasic firing in the ventral tegmental area. With all of the similarities, it was shocking that both research groups came to completely different conclusions. After reading the papers, I went back to re-read them to establish the differences that could account for the opposite conclusion. The main methodology difference that I found was in the stress protocol. Chaudhury used a social-defeat stress model and Tye used a chronic mild stress paradigm. According to the articles, both are established models for inducing depressive-like behaviors. So, why did phasic firing in the first experiment lead to resilient mice becoming susceptible while in the latter experiment, it led to the rapid rescue of this depressive phenotype?
            My best guess would be that the social-defeat stress model established more of an acute depressive state, whereas the chronic mild stress parallels chronic depression. This thought was validated when I read the article in Discover. The author creates an analogy with getting mugged and being consistently worried about job security. The different experiences could alter the brain in a different way, even though they both may act within the same circuitry. Relating this back to our discussion last week, depression presents itself in many forms. We talked about how anxiety closely relates to depression and how anxious behavior is often indicative of depression. But depression does not always manifest itself in anxious behavior – some people can’t get out of bed, are lethargic, and have no interest in things. Perhaps the differing results then confirm what we already know: depression affects everyone differently. This then raises a lot of questions. If depression affects people so differently based on their experiences, what is the best way to go about studying it and ultimately treating it? If there was such a quick reversal of effects in these studies, is there a way for us to see a quick reversal of depression in humans without waiting for SSRIs to kick in?

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