Skip to main content

Week 1: Santarelli and Bessa

By
These two papers, Santarelli et al. (2003) and Bessa et al. (2009) both investigate the method by which antidepressants cause their associated behavior effects – more specifically in regards to neurogenesis and neuroplasticity. 

Santarelli argues that neuroplasticity is necessary for antidepressants to induce desired behavioral effects. He tested this by measuring the feeding latency on the Novelty-Suppressed Feeding Test (NSFT) of rats by directing radiation to the hippocampal region to groups of rats both receiving and not receiving antidepressants. 

Bessa’s article is a response to Santarelli’s, as he also investigates the method behind antidepressants but argues that neurogenesis is not required to achieve the desired behavioral and molecular benefits of antidepressants. Bessa argues that neuronal remodeling and synaptic plasticity are the factors required for the behavioral efficacy of antidepressants, and explains that although hippocampal neurogenesis is promoted by antidepressants, it is not necessary for them to work. 

Although these papers have differing conclusions, I do not see them as contradictory. They both agree that neurogenesis is involved with antidepressant function, but Bessa argues that it is not the required event that makes antidepressants effective. Bessa’s experiment was more robust and rigorous because he 1) tested depressive behavior through several paradigms and 2) acknowledges the problems with X-ray methods and instead uses methylazoxymethanol (MAM) to block neurogenesis. 

Something that stood out to me when reading Santarelli’s paper was how he simplified depression. Santarelli only measured the behavioral efficacy of antidepressants in one way – through the Novelty-Suppressed Feeding Test (NSFT). Even in animal models, it is important to recognize the complexity of depression and the variety of symptoms and behaviors that antidepressants can affect. Bessa’s investigation was more thorough in its methods as it tested the behavioral efficacy of antidepressants through a variety of methods, specifically the Sucrose Preference Test (SPT), the Forced Swimming Test (FST), and the NSFT. Overall, Bessa’s article painted depression and the functionality of antidepressants in a more complicated and intricate way which I believe speaks to the multidimensional nature of the illness and its effects.

As far as future research goes, I would be interested in seeing the comparative hippocampal neurogenesis and neuronal remodeling of several more different kinds of antidepressants. I am not aware specifically of the molecular differences in varying types of antidepressants (as well as the differences in their behavioral effects) but would be interested in seeing if the neuronal remodeling changes across types.

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