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 ...

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...