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 ...

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 ...

Ramirez et al.: 2013 and 2015 Papers

In these papers, Ramirez et al. strive to understand how memory encoding via optogenetic manipulation of engram-bearing cells in the hippocampus, specifically the dentate gyrus, can affect an animal’s response to a stressful context.  The first paper, published in 2013, was crucial to the field as it introduced this very exciting technique; in this paper, Ramirez et al. use tet-tag to manipulate brain circuity and establish associations between two contexts. Throughout the paper, this is referred to as “false memories.” Using these artificial memories, the investigators are able to manipulate the animal’s fear response in a specific context. Specifically, after the animals are conditioned to a repeated fearful stimulus (a foot shock, in context B), activation of the involved DG cells in a different context (context A’) will also initiate a fear response (in absence of any foot shock). In this experiment, the false memory is used to create an unnatural fear association in a given...