Skip to main content

Post 5: Vicarious social defeat and observational learning

Our studies this week discussed two different aspects of fear learning and conditioning in the contexts of vicarious stress and observational learning. I thought both groups of researchers did a fantastic job setting up their experimental groups and establishing control parameters. For instance, Sial et al (2016) specified how the social defeats were performed in a separate room so as not to influence control animals and how aggressor mice that consistently wounded the stressed/control mice were removed and not included in the data set. As I’ve mentioned before, I do not have hands-on experience with mouse research and having these details specified makes comprehending the articles much clearer. 

A few questions that came up: Allsop et al (2018) noted how experienced and naive observers showed increase interaction with the demonstrator mice, possibly due to ‘empathic processes’ or the ‘social buffering of stress’. Although not a primary focus of the paper, this was the first time these terms have come up in our discussions. What research methods are currently in practice to study empathy? Do studies ever focus on empathic behaviors or is it usually only something noted in addition to the main study?  

I was also intrigued by the conclusions made about the necessity of the ACC —> BLA circuitry for certain memory pairings. The paper notes that the BLA receives social information specifically during the cue presentation and it is therefore what ultimately makes the pairing stick. So, could the ACC potentially play a similar role for other types of memories that are not socially motivated? In some response, the authors later mention how they performed reciprocal inhibition (i.e. BLA —> ACC) and it did not affect observational fear conditioning. Perhaps there is some credence then to the reverse pathway playing a role in encoding different types of memories and experiences that might not be socially derived. 

Lastly, I kept thinking about the role that mirror neurons might play in these types of experimental setups. It is known that these neurons fire when we perform an action but also when we observe someone else performing that same action. With the limited knowledge I have about the topic, I think it is reasonable to think they must be somehow involved in the pathways discussed here and I'd be interested to know if anyone has experience or insight on that hypothesis. 

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...