Skip to main content

Week 5, Allsop et al. & Sial et al. Observational Learning

By

This week the two papers, first by Sial et al. and second by Allsop et al. studied two different paradigms and different hypothesis however they utilized certain paradigms to achieve the same underlying effect of observational learning and the ability for us to observe that in rodent models. Right off the bat, I was quite overwhelmed with the amount of manipulation that went into the paradigm discussed in the Allsop et al. paper as compared to Sial et al.

Allsop et al. used a variety of test and control groups to develop a paradigm to study the projections and nuclei that may be involved in observational fear learning. Sial et al. however, used a much more simplified chronic social defeat stress paradigm (CSDS), one that has been seen many times before in our previous articles, along with a witness component to factor in the ‘observational’ aspect (VSDS)

I have been thinking a lot about ethological validity lately in terms of how a laboratory setting could affect the natural and endogenous behaviors of organisms. Ethological validity is a major confounding variable that most paradigms try to account for. Sial et al. seem to have developed a novel method, the VSDS that not only uses a tried and tested model to induce anxiety in mice but to also account for things such as “emotional stress” in an animal model. This method to me seemed most valid in terms of models for observational learning and well as PTSD. I had a few qualms with the paradigm chosen by Allsop et al. Firstly, they had no data to support the idea that an organism can learn through observation without ever having experienced the stimulus or situation themselves and this is seen in their data as NO (naive observer) group that had never experienced cue-shock pairings did not change behavior after viewing a demonstrator attain a cue paired shock. This is in direct contrast to their opening statement saying “observational learning. Individuals (can) learn without directly experiencing the pairing or predictive cue and punishment.” Their paradigm is focused on a classical conditioning response which in my opinion lacks ethological validity and with the bulk of behavior being a result of classical conditioning and not pure observational learning. It is too highly manipulated, and although it does provide a model in which former experience can lead to recall due to observation, it does not seem as robust as the data shown by Sial et al. where it was quite clear that emotionally stressed mice were displaying similar behaviors in stress tests to physically stressed mice. This model very succinctly showed that observation alone can induce a change in behavior as seen not only by their cortisone changes but as well as a social interaction test and elevated plus maze. 

Allsop et al, however, did take it one step further, a step I would have liked to see done by Sial et al., they used optogenetics to then study the neuronal projections from the anterior cingulate cortex to the basolateral amygdala, I would have much rather liked to have seen these optogenetic studies done using the VSDS paradigm which, to me, seemed a much better model for PTSD as well as observational learning. I would like to see if the projections activate in the same way and the ACC and BLA nuclei are necessary components of acquisition for fear learning. If this pattern of activation was conserved in the VSDS model, it would provide a concrete argument for the functionality of these projections and further validate the use of the VSDS model created by Sial et al. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Gut-brain axis

By
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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Gut-Brain Interactions: Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

By
Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016) present quite fascinating approaches to studying the interactions or ‘axis’ between the rodent (and human) gut and brain. As the gut is a primary route for bringing things from the environment into our body, these two studies present very clear and convincing evidence for the relevance and translatable validity of their various hypotheses.   One of the most interesting conclusions to me from Buffington et al. was that co-housing three high-fat diet offspring with just one regular-diet offspring was enough to rescue their social behavior deficits and microbiome profiles. This is remarkable, and I would like to hear more about possible mechanisms for this transfer to actually occur. Although the article mentions that mice do eat each other’s feces to transfer microbiota, could there be a certain “threshold” or level of bacteria needed to observe this phenotype switch? That is, how many more high-fat diet mice could have been house...
Post a Comment
Read more