Skip to main content

Post #5 Sial and Allsop

The first article by Sial et al, published in 2015, explores the effect in terms of depressive behaviors of forcing mice to witness a traumatic event (the abuse of another mouse by an aggressor) with a paradigm called the vicarious social defeat stress model (VSDS). After understanding this experimental set up, one thing that out to me right off the bat was how this model may or may not accurately represent PTSD as it aims to do. First of all, although witnessing a traumatic event may cause PTSD, we know that it is not guaranteed to do so. In humans I am aware that there are other factors that go into developing PTSD besides just the traumatic event itself - resulting in varying PSTD responses from person to person. Although the experiment results support the fact that witnessing a traumatic event may induce emotional stress and depressive like phenotype in mice that are similar to if the mouse were experiencing the physical pain, itself, I am left wondering if other factors played into this result. For example, was the mouse just scared of being attacked by the aggressor, themselves? How would the number of times and the severity of exposure effect their behavior? What about the age, gender, and size of the mouse? Even with these questions, considering PTSD is inherently hard to control for in mice I believe the researchers did a good job in setting up this model and showing how it relates to emotional stress in the witnessing mice. The second article by Allsop et al explores how the ACC to BLA pathway relates to observational fear learning through a series of complicated control and experimental groups. In the end, the paper supports Sial’s conclusion that emotional stress via observation in a mouse can be just as harmful as physical stress and expanded to say the ACC->BLA pathway is responsible for observational fear conditioning. I thought this study was much more complicated, in depth, and convincing. For future expansions of this study, I would be interested in seeing how other projections are affected besides just the ACC -> BLA pathway, such as the HPA axis or the hippocampus. I would also be curious to see how the age of the mouse affects the emotional and physical stress response from the traumatic event since we know that children and adults respond to traumatic events in different ways and develop PTSD in different patterns. 

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...