Chaudhury et al. and Tye et al. present two opposing
viewpoints in regards to the mechanisms behind depression and depressive-like
behavior. I was surprised to find that both these papers were published in
the same issue of Nature in 2012. Whereas Chaudhury et al. establishes two links—one
between the excitation of VTA dopaminergic neuron phasic firing patterns and a susceptibility
to a depression-like phenotype as well as one between the inhibition of the
same VTA neuronal projections to the nucleus accumbens (validated by a social
defeat behavioral paradigm and sucrose preference test)—Tye et al. utilizes a
tail-suspension test as a CMS paradigm as well as a sucrose preference test to
claim that a reduced modulation of dopamine cell firing in the VTA causes
depressive-like symptoms whereas the inhibition of VTA dopaminergic projection
neurons to the nucleus accumbens increases depressive phenotypes. I would assert
that both arguments are backed with adequate research models and extensive
methodology sections, (using similar optogenetic, chemogenetic, and
electrophysiology techniques to derive their conclusions), and hence both are sound and demonstrate validity. That being said, the question isn’t which
paper is “right”, but rather, how can we use the combination of the two to
further develop a model for how depression works. It’s a well known fact that
depression is one of the most complex psychological phenomena, as it manifests
itself in such a multitude of ways across the board. Furthermore, it’s often
accompanied with various forms of anxiety—whether it be social, GAD, PTSD, etc.—and
each individual prognosis expresses different symptomatic behavior. After
reading the two review articles on Scientific American as well, it becomes
clear that the Chaudhury et al. repeated social defeat paradigm attempts to
induce a stress model that is objectively more severe than the chronic mild
stress model used by Tye et al. It brought me to thinking about how although we
often assume the mesolimbic dopamine system is modulated by more or less the
same pathway, every different type of stress model causes varied downstream
pathway effects, and we still have ways to go in the field before we truly understand depression in the brain.
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...
Comments
Post a Comment