Skip to main content

Post 3: Ramirez et al. (2013 & 2015)

By
            In the first paper published by Ramirez and collaborators, the researchers outlined how they created false memories in mice using fear conditioning. In brief summary, mice were taken off Dox and allowed to explore context A so that their cells could be labeled with ChR2-mCherry. After, the mice were put back on Dox and fear conditioned via shocks in context B while the cells labeled in context A were activated. When placed in either context A or a novel context C, it was shown that the mice froze significantly more in context A, not C, than background levels. This discovery of creating false memories artificially could give us insight into how humans form false memories. I’ve watched several videos of people falsely recalling what a criminal looks like based on external input. I’m also very curious about the psychological phenomenon of rosy retrospection – looking back at past experiences in a disproportionally positive manner. Does this same population of DG cells play a role in that? How do these false memories occur naturally?
            In Ramirez’s second paper, researchers explored an application of these memory circuits to try to suppress depression-like behavior. One of the main findings was that activating dentate gyrus cells that were labeled by a positive experience was able to reverse the effects of stress in the tail suspension test, sucrose preference test, and novelty-suppressed feeding test. The experiment that I found the most interesting was when the researchers explored the long-term rescue of depression-like behaviors. The five days of stimulation of positive memories lead to an increase in struggling in the tail suspension test and an increase in sucrose preference. However, the chronic activation did not ameliorate anxiety-related behaviors as measured by the open field test and elevated plus maze test. The paper speculates that this is due to the fact that the circuitry for these anxiety-related behaviors must be different. As discussed in class, everyone experiences depression differently, and there are many ways in which it can manifest. This difference in circuitry could explain why last week’s papers came to differing conclusions and why people do experience depression differently.

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