Skip to main content

Post 7: Final paper ideas

Throughout our course this semester, I’ve found that I have a strong interest in sex differences in rodent models of depression and anxiety and the validity of behavioral tests. In each paper we’ve read and discussed, I’ve paid particular attention to whether or not both male and female animals are used and how closely the behaviors they test seem to represent anxiety and/or depression. While some neurological and hormonal/chemical methods for assessing anxiety in these animals have been identified that parallel those in humans, I am especially interested in how these changes can manifest as behaviors that we can align with our own. For these reasons, I have chosen to write a review of behavioral sex differences in rodent models of anxiety for my final paper. I plan to use existing literature to investigate the efficacy of different stress paradigms in inducing anxiety in male vs. female rodents, the differences in behavioral responses of males and females to existing tests of anxiety, and what sex-specific stress paradigms and behavioral tests have been created. 

In the literature I have reviewed thus far, I’ve found that many of the same anxiety- and depression-inducing stress paradigms we’ve seen during class have been used for both males and females. In particular, chronic unpredictable stress and chronic mild stress, and a similar paradigm—variable stress—have been used in an effort to cause anxiety-like behaviors in rodents (Dalla et al., 2005, Johnson et al., 2020, Palumbo et al., 2020). In each of these studies, both males and females demonstrated anxiety-like behaviors, though there were some sex differences between behavioral outputs. Anxiety-like behaviors were measured in both sexes by common tests such as the open field test, novelty suppressed feeding, the elevated plus maze, and social interaction tests, as well as tests that are less familiar to me including the splash test (which measures grooming behaviors after splashing a mouse with a sucrose solution) and a novel cage observation of various behaviors. Sex differences in behavior cannot yet be generalized or compared across studies given the limited number of research reviewed at the time being, though there seem to be some conflicting reports about whether stress paradigms increase or decrease locomotor activity in female rodents (Palumbo et al., 2020, Dalla et al., 2005). Additionally, there seems to be a level of consensus about higher susceptibility to anxiety among females compared to males. I have also found that some sex-specific paradigms for inducing anxiety have been used, such as the early social isolation procedure used by Kumari et al. (2016) to induce anxiety in females. I look forward to learning about additional sex-specific paradigms and additional ways in which sex mediates behavioral responses to anxiety.

Sources

An, X., Zou, J., Wu, R., Yang, Y., Tai, F., Zeng, S., . . . Broders, H. (2011). Strain and sex differences in anxiety-like and social behaviors in C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ mice. Experimental Animals, 60(2), 111-123.

Dalla, C., Antoniou, K., Drossopoulou, G., Xagoraris, M., Kokras, N., Sfikakis, A., & Papadopoulou-Daifoti, Z. (2005). Chronic mild stress impact: Are females more vulnerable? Neuroscience, 135(3), 703-714. Doi:  10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.06.068

Johnson, A., Rainville, J., Rivero-Ballon, G., Dhimitri, K., & Hodes, G. (2020). Testing the Limits of Sex Differences Using Variable Stress. Neuroscience, Neuroscience, 07 January 2020.

Kumari, A., Singh, P., Baghel, M., & Thakur, M. (2016). Social isolation mediated anxiety like behavior is associated with enhanced expression and regulation of BDNF in the female mouse brain. Physiology & Behavior, 158, 34-42.

Palumbo, M. C., Dominguez, S., & Dong, H. (2020). Sex differences in hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis regulation after chronic unpredictable stress. Brain and Behavior. doi: 10.1002/brb3.1586

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...