Skip to main content

Ramirez et al.: 2013 and 2015 Papers

In these papers, Ramirez et al. strive to understand how memory encoding via optogenetic manipulation of engram-bearing cells in the hippocampus, specifically the dentate gyrus, can affect an animal’s response to a stressful context. 
The first paper, published in 2013, was crucial to the field as it introduced this very exciting technique; in this paper, Ramirez et al. use tet-tag to manipulate brain circuity and establish associations between two contexts. Throughout the paper, this is referred to as “false memories.” Using these artificial memories, the investigators are able to manipulate the animal’s fear response in a specific context. Specifically, after the animals are conditioned to a repeated fearful stimulus (a foot shock, in context B), activation of the involved DG cells in a different context (context A’) will also initiate a fear response (in absence of any foot shock). In this experiment, the false memory is used to create an unnatural fear association in a given context. It is also interesting to note that while it was possible to create a false memory via manipulation of the DG, this was not possible when the cells in the CA1 were similarly manipulated. The authors hypothesize that this is a result of contextual engrams relying on synchronous timing of neural firing. While not explicitly implied in the paper, I believe that this could have greater implications for determining the distinct circuity involved in disorders such as generalized anxiety, in which inappropriate contextual feedback can lead to a stress response. 
The second paper, published in 2015, describes a more direct application, in which optogenetic activation of a positive memory can alter a depression-like phenotype. In this paper, Ramirez et al. attempt to modulate stress response by using positive association (presence of a female mouse, specifically). By activating positive encoded memories in the DG while the mice endured various tests of anxiety, active/passive escape behavior, and anhedonia, the researchers were able to rescue stress-induced depression-related behaviors. Essentially, this research implies that the memory of a positive experience may outcompete the stressful stimuli.
It should also be noted that in the 2015 paper, a test of necessity was used to conclude that the projection of the basal lateral amygdala (BLA) to the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) is necessary for the positive memory stimulation to have an effect on overall reactivity to stress. It would also be interesting to run tests of sufficiency to determine if activating this pathway could increase the ability of the animals to respond effectively to stress. Would this increase their sucrose preference from baseline? Would it increase the animal’s tendency to engage in escape-like behavior?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gut-brain axis

This weeks papers Reber et al. 2016 and Buffington et al. 2016 present a super interesting look into the gut-brain axis. Regarding both of these papers, it was amazing to see how potent favorable or unfavorable gut microbiome compositions are in affecting neuronal signaling and overall behavior. Reber et al. shows how immunoregulatory immunization with specifically heat killed M.vaccae can serve as a protective factor against chronic subordinate stress induce colotis as well as behavioral symptoms due to chronic stress as such. Interestringly, this paper depleted regulatory T cell activity via the anti CD25 antibody in order to show that the antiinflammatory mechanism induced by m vaccae immunization is depented on the secondary regulatory mechanisms offered by Treg proliferation and signaling. But, when T reg signaling was removed, this did not seem to cause a significant change in behavior . Therefore, this begs the consideration of what othe rmechanisms may be at play in order ...

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 ...

Gut-Brain Interactions: Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016) present quite fascinating approaches to studying the interactions or ‘axis’ between the rodent (and human) gut and brain. As the gut is a primary route for bringing things from the environment into our body, these two studies present very clear and convincing evidence for the relevance and translatable validity of their various hypotheses.   One of the most interesting conclusions to me from Buffington et al. was that co-housing three high-fat diet offspring with just one regular-diet offspring was enough to rescue their social behavior deficits and microbiome profiles. This is remarkable, and I would like to hear more about possible mechanisms for this transfer to actually occur. Although the article mentions that mice do eat each other’s feces to transfer microbiota, could there be a certain “threshold” or level of bacteria needed to observe this phenotype switch? That is, how many more high-fat diet mice could have been house...