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 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...