Skip to main content

Post 5- Modeling PTSD- Fear Conditioning and Extinction

By

Sial et al’s paper became accepted in 2015. At a first glance it became interesting to see that the paper explores the build-up of topics that we have discussed in class so far. Specifically, the researchers mention how physical stress exposure models can be applied to PTSD. The information expands from previous data in the attempt to deepen their findings relative to behavioural disorders. Although the researchers claim the validity and accuracy of the VSDS model, I am left with a few questions regarding this. Firstly, I believe that it would be helpful to read more in-depth about the differences between physical stress (PS) and emotional stress (ES), for a better comprehension about the two and their applicability to behavioural disorders. Additionally, the researchers do not specify any affected brain region nor touch upon the influence of physical versus emotional stress on memory areas. In the discussion section, they do briefly mention that the HPA axis becomes dysregulated in stress exposure. I would be curious in finding out more about the HPA axis and its relation to the models investigated in the experiment and with regards to the different stress stimuli. I also thought more clarification could be needed since the researchers mention PTSD and depression as if they are similar and parallel to each other, which certainly is not the case as they are two separate disorders. Sial et al also mention that they wish to expand the model to female mice, which I believe should be given more emphasis in their study. As discussed in class, female and male mice brains vary greatly in terms of response to stress and disorders as well as in their molecular components. This may thereby have a substantial effect on differential findings. 

Furthermore, the second paper by Allsop et al, answered some of the questions I had from the first paper. Published three years later, this study argues that the cortex and amygdala are important in social interaction and cognition. However, one may question the extent to which social information can be applied to PTSD specifically. The researchers mention that the ACC à BLA circuit involvement in observational fear conditioning is important for further investigation in specific psychiatric disorders. They also solely mention observational fear conditioning and not PTSD. Are these two behavioural outcomes the same? From my understanding fear conditioning differs in severity compared to PTSD. The paper discusses a lot of information in relation to ACC à BLA pathway but it would also be beneficial to include more findings that relate to other brain regions or pathways, again expanding on stress and the HPA axis. I also would be curious to know more about the pathway specifically for memory expression as well as additional cues and memories than only social cues. However, I believe that this information has been excluded from the paper due to funding issues and structure regulations. Although Allsop et al do go more in-depth when investigating fear in observational learning, I am still left with one unanswered question. To what extent are we able to know that observing behaviour will give us the same level of empathy as when we are actually experiencing the behaviour?

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