Skip to main content

Modeling PTSD – fear conditioning and extinction

The Han et al. (2009) paper does a very thorough job of showing that this subpopulation of lateral amygdala neurons is an essential component of the memory trace. However, for further research, I’d like to know what other parts of the brain are essential or involved in the fear memory formation. It’d be fascinating to be able to plot out a whole or most of a memory trace since it likely is not isolated in a single region of the brain, and be able to understand how all these different brain regions are interacting to produce a single behavioral response.

These papers show how CREB expression enhances memory and that, by killing a specific subpopulation of neurons, a fear memory can be deleted which are important and interesting findings. However, I don’t see a clear clinical application for the results of these experiments. The experiments from the Han et al. (2009) paper require killing neurons in order to remove the fear memory from the rodents. Killing an entire area of the brain in a patient suffering from let’s say PTSD is risky and probably not realistic (I don’t know enough about severe PTSD treatments or clinical research to know if this is considered). The next steps I’d like to see in this line of research is if it is possible to take these neurons that can be identified to be in the memory trace and remove them from the memory trace/remove the memory trace from the neurons without killing the neurons. Is there a limit to how many memory traces a neuron can be recruited into? Neurons can be part of multiple memory traces so if researchers were to rewire lateral amygdala neurons in order to erase the memory trace from specific neurons, a major challenge would be to remove one memory trace without significantly disrupting others. Something the Han et al. (2009) paper lacked is an investigation into the unintentional effects of killing the targeted neurons. They could’ve done two separate fear trainings and see if/how killing the neurons encoding one fear memory affects the other fear memory.

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...