Skip to main content

Post 3: Memory Engrams

By
The complex yet multifunctional organization of systems in the brain allows us to use the same techniques and knowledge for seemingly distinct purpose. Papers published by Ramirez in 2013 and 2015 demonstrate this by using optogenetics to artificially activate memories in the hippocampus to determine whether false fear memories can be generated for a context in which there was no fear induction and to determine whether activation of positive memories can suppress depression and anxiety-related behaviors, respectively. Ramirez et al. (2015) were able to repurpose the techniques first used in their 2013 paper to investigate whether their techniques could be useful for reducing the behavioral effects of mood disorders.

One thing I am most curious about after reading these papers is how humans would experience reactivation of previous memories if this technique were adapted for humans for therapeutic purposes. In mice, we can measure only behavioral outcomes and physical changes in the brain, and behavioral results suggesting memories of the fear associated with foot shocks (Ramirez 2013) and of the happy state associated with positive memories (Ramirez 2015) are seen. However, in humans we can also assess thoughts and mental state; I would be interested to know whether artificial activation of neurons active in the dentate gyrus during a positive memory, for example, elicit the positive memory itself, or simply the positive emotions associated with it. While such an investigation is not ethically or logistically possible now, its results seem crucial to determine the breadth of influence such technologies could have for mood disorders and many other functions.

Another thing I found interesting about the Ramirez (2015) paper in particular was that there was distinction between anxiolytic behaviors and depressive behaviors, both in their classification in the methods and the results yielded. Often, anxiety and depression are grouped together in animal research, so it was interesting to see results that consistently showed depressive, but not anxiety-like behaviors, to be ameliorated by a technique. Such differentiation points to a possible way to specifically target depression.

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