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 ...

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...