Skip to main content

Week 2- Dopamine Modulation of Depressive-like Behaviors

The Chaudhury et al paper explored the neural circuit mechanisms involved in the dopamine modulation of certain symptoms of depression. In this study, the researchers looked at social interaction and sucrose preference as part of their social-defeat paradigm, which has been shown in the past to be indicative of depressive-like behaviors. Although I initially did not completely see the connection between the social-defeat stress model of depression and the tonic vs phasic firing of dopamine neurons, it seemed that susceptibility and resilience to stress played a role in the functional/behavioral effects of dopamine firing. It was interesting to see how chronic mild stress with phasic firing of VTA dopamine neurons converted even resilient mice into susceptible mice. 
The Tye et al paper similarly looked at the dopamine modulation of depressive-like behaviors, focusing on motivation with the forced swim tests and open field tests, followed by measurement of anhedonia by quantifying the sucrose preference test. Immediately after reading this, it seemed to me that this article did a better job of explaining to the audience their reasoning behind their choice of protocols and how it related to modulation of VTA dopaminergic neurons. The most important distinction between the findings in these two articles is that this study came to the conclusion that inhibition of the VTA dopamine induces depressive-like behaviors and chronic mild stress causes this depression-like behaviors to continue for extended periods of time. Further, it seemed to directly link the nucleus accumbens role in this pathway but did not expand on the circuitry in the way that Chaudury et al did in their study.

One question that these types of studies tend to raise is the question of whether the results of these experiments are clinically applicable. Since modeling depression in mice in a way that reflects clinical depression is very difficult, one valuable piece included in the first article (Chaudury et al) was the fact that they used two separate kinds of mice- the ChR2 mice who were susceptible to developing depressive behaviors after exposure to chronic mild stress and the eYFP mice who acted as the resilient controls. This is important because even in humans, people react differently to the stressors in their life. Further, severe stressful situations such as trauma can trigger a depressive episode, which would be consistent with the result that the mice expressed anhedonia-like behaviors with increased phasic firing of dopaminergic neurons in the mesolimbic pathway.

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. (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...

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 ...