Skip to main content

Week 1: Neurogenesis & Anti-depressant actions

By

In 2003, Santarelli et al. confirmed the existence of a link between the stimulation of neurogenesis by antidepressants (ADs) and how this contributes to their behavioral effects. A mere five years later—though this may be considered eons in the fast-paced world of neurobiological and technological advancements—Bessa et al. published a rebuttal elucidating that ADs work even when neurogenesis was halted through administration of methylazoxymethanol (MAM). This critique pushed forth the theory that neuronal plasticity is more crucial than neurogenesis to experience behavioral effects of ADs. Nevertheless, it complimented the preceding idea with the stance that stimulation of adult hippocampal neurogenesis may be necessary, it is not sufficient to produce the behavioral effects of ADs.

To study the functional implication of such observations, Bessa et al. (2008) used an unpredictable chronic mild stress (CMS) paradigm to induce symptoms of depressive behaviors in rat models. Standard behavioral assays were used to assess anhedonia, learned helplessness, and anxiety-like behaviors. After the induction of stress, a recovery experiment commenced using four different antidepressants alongside the cytostatic drug MAM to attenuate neurogenesis. Characterization of therapeutic efficacy was done using mRNA expression studies of genes heavily implicated in synaptic remodeling and plasticity in the PFC (this is a step up from Santarelli et al. among other things).  

Although the mechanisms and pathology of depression still remain unclear, we know that both neural plasticity and neurogenesis are disrupted in depression. That being said, the findings of Bessa et al. are in accordance with those of Santarelli et al., though the difference in time period reflects the methodology and subsequent interpretation of the results acquired. From my understanding, Santarelli et al. completed what experimenters of the early 2000s would have deemed a proper and thorough investigation. The results are not inaccurate, but in due time we could see that they are also not complete. Bessa et al. took advantage of more modern-day techniques to assert that there’s more to the story than we initially thought. It’s only a matter of time before another scientist sees a hole in the combination of these two and sets forth an additional mechanism—being that depression is so complex.


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