Skip to main content

Post 3: DA circuits and recovery from stress

Ramirez’s research group explores the role of the dentate gyrus in both false memory formation and repression of depressive like behaviors in papers published two years apart. These papers complement each other as the second 2015 elaborates and grows from the previous 2013 paper.

Ramirez et al’s 2013 paper explored the effects of stimulating the Dentate Gyrus (DG) to create a false memory. To do this, mice were first exposed to context A. While exploring this novel environment, the neurons activated were located and marked. Then, the mice were fear conditioned with foot shocks in context B while the same neurons that were activated in context A were reactivated. Ultimately, the mice were exposed to context A’ again as well as a control novel context C. The mice then responded with a fear response of freezing in context A, despite never having been fear conditioned within the context, but showed no response in context C. This same response was not seen when the CA1 region of the hippocampal neurons were targeted. These specific neurons also had much more overlap during the two distinct contexts. These results suggest that the fear memory was recreated to be observed in Context A, despite it having occurred in context B. The researchers induced a ‘false memory’ by manipulating specific neurons in the DG. Additionally, a real and fake fear memory can both be induced by fear memory recall as shown through the association of light with the fear response. The researchers then connected the central and basolateral amygdala to the freeze response and false memory network by looking at the cells activated. They observed the same response for the CeA and BLA in the false and true memories. This makes sense as the paper mentioned that it is common for the brain to activate very similarly for a true and false memory.

Ramirez et al continues with the DG and its role in memories and emotional response as they examine the role of happy memories in depressive behaviors. This is interesting because it mirrors their previous research in that it goes the opposite way; they activate the DG to produce happy memories instead of fear conditioned ones. Again, they introduce the mice to a happy memory (hanging out with a female mouse), track which neurons in the DG are activated, then reactive them after inducing stress. The research group explored many avenues as to the effects this would have, evident by the many supplementary figures, but most interestingly they observed a reversal of depressive behaviors as seen in tests like the tail suspension test, sucrose preference test, and novelty suppressed feeding tests. In conjunction with these behavioral paradigms, they were also looking at the molecular effects and observed an increase in neurogenesis, activation of the nucleus accumbens, and activation in the BLA. All of these results pointed to a network connection in positive experiences with the nucleus accumbens, BLA, and DG. Lastly, blocking dopamine blocked the light-inducing effects of the DG, insinuating that dopamine plays a critical role in that happy memory recall and ameliorating depressive symptoms. However, the authors did not focus on this much more.   

Each of these papers highlights the interesting advancements in identifying and utilizing neurons with new technology. Just the sheer ability to visualize specific neurons being activated during a specific context or memory using c-fos or mCherry, then being able to go back and optogenetically stimulate those specific neurons is impressive. They combined measurements of quantifiable activation, specific location, and behavior to support their hypothesis. While there are still areas to explore, such as the nucleus accumbens and BLA interactions with the dentate gyrus, I think this paper utilized fear conditioning and quantifying neuron’s activity well. The mechanism of glutamate and DA is still somewhat unclear, even though the paper touched on the necessity of it to induce the reversal effect of depressive symptoms. In terms of translating this to a human model, researchers, from my knowledge, cannot optogenetically stimulate specific neurons in the brains of humans ethically yet. However, it does illuminate another avenue for potential explorations and treatments in depression.   

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...