Skip to main content

Week 5

By

            In regards to the first paper, the VSDS seems like a good model for analyzing the effects of emotional stress, but I’m not convinced based on this one paper that it’s a good model for PTSD. I have a difficult time reading about animal models because instinctively, I relate everything back to humans. Not everyone who witnesses something traumatic has PTSD. Also, I wish they did more tests other than weight gain (which returned to control levels), social interaction, elevated plus-maze, and corticosterone levels. They measured social avoidance, but I’m curious if there was also an increase in distress. Why did they measure CORT levels after forced swimming rather than the traumatic reminder of a CD-1 mouse? I wish they measured changes in aggression or changes in sleep that are also characteristic of PTSD. However, I still think that it is a good model to use, as the second paper uses it to discuss neural pathways.
            I found it extremely interesting that in the conclusion of the second paper, the authors mentioned that understanding these circuits would provide insight into conditions like social anxiety and schizophrenia but failed to mention antisocial personality disorder. The two groups that observed a demonstrator being shocked on cue both exhibited increased freezing. Those two groups also had higher social interactions with the demonstrators, driven by the observation of distress, which the authors suggested could reflect empathy. Given that a hallmark characteristic of antisocial personality disorder is a lack of empathy, I’m very curious to see if this pathway has any implications in that disorder. I’m unsure if there are animal models for antisocial personality disorder. I would be curious to see the individual differences in this experiment of the mice who froze in correspondence to the cue to see if some mice inherently froze more for the demonstrator. Are there ever any mice that wouldn’t freeze at all? Or is this emotional contagion so necessary for survival purposes that a complete lack of it doesn’t exist in mice?

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

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

Ramirez et al.: 2013 and 2015 Papers

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more