Skip to main content

Post 5: the cellular and circuit basis of fear and extinction

When the Sial et al. (2015) mentioned PTSD in individuals who witness a traumatic or fearful event, I thought of a scenario in which a child watches his or her parent suffer from domestic abuse which is a realistic situation that could cause PTSD and other cognitive/mental problems in children. The vicarious social defeat wouldn’t accurately model this specific type of PTSD since in the scenario I describe, there may be a strong emotional connection between the witness and the subject of the trauma and this could influence how seeing and being present for the traumatic event affects the witness. I wonder how they could change the vicarious social defeat to model a scenario/PTSD like the one I described. I’m not sure how mice bond emotionally, whether they bond most with littermates, siblings, parents/offspring, etc. but using two mice with a strong emotional connection for the physical stress and emotional stress mouse could help model this. I wonder how this would change the reaction in the emotional stress mouse. Could this elicit defensive and/or aggressive responses from the emotional stress mouse during the chronic defeat or during the social interaction? There are studies that show mice willing to help each other and prevent each other from getting hurt when possible so it would be interesting to see if mice will get protective if a emotionally close mice is being attacked or if it will worsen the social withdrawal because the attack feels even more personal and close.

The observational learning in the Allsop et al. paper reminds me of the experiment where a group of animals were housed together and if one animal attempted to obtain a reward, the rest of the animals would get shocked so the animals would stop any animal from trying to get the reward. When one of the animals gets replaced by a naive animal, all the animals try to stop the new animal from getting the reward. When another animal gets replaced, all the animals including the previously naive animal stops the new animal from getting the reward. Eventually all of the animals get replaced and all stop new animals from getting the reward even though none of them have been shocked. I know it’s not the same as the observation learning from the paper because these animals are being hurt/attacked whereas the observational learning animals only watched other animals getting hurt but it reminded me of it because in both, the animals are learning to associate punishment from other animals and not from experiencing it on their own. I wonder what commonalities these types of learning share in the ACC->BLA circuit or if there are any commonalities at all.

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...