Skip to main content

Post 8: Sex Differences in Drug Addiction

Increasing our understanding of susceptibility to drug addiction disorders is critical for preventing and reducing risk of developing such disorders. Holly et al. (2012) and Vassoler et al. (2013) both consider the effects of sex on susceptibility to increased cocaine use as well as the impacts of stress and paternal experience with cocaine, respectively. While these studies both address important concerns in regard to susceptibility to stimulant addiction, they leave many questions unanswered and introduce additional questions. 

One question I had while reading these papers, especially Holly et al., was what aspects of sex differences between male and female rats might have led to the behavioral and neurochemical differences seen in response to cocaine exposure. Because females in estrus/proestrus had more robust differences from males in locomotion, it would seem that sex hormones are involved, but I am interested in the extent to which they impact cocaine sensitization. It would be interesting to run the same experiment on ovariectomized females and castrated males, as well as ovariectomized females receiving testosterone and castrated males recieving estrogen, to determine if neurological or developmental factors are also responsible for the administration of cocaine, behavioral, and dopaminergic sex differences seen in response to cocaine. These results may also be telling for the impact that hormone therapy for transgender individuals may have on susceptibility to drug addiction, especially as these individuals may already be at higher risk due to the stress associated with gender dysphoria and transitioning. 

Vassoler et al. also left me wondering what specifically led to the differences that were seen between male and female CocSired rats, causing effects sire cocaine experience in males but not females. I speculated whether there may be a genetic sex difference, such as a Y-chromosome gene that may add to or influence the differential effects of BDNF that were observed in male CocSired rats. I also considered whether the cocaine itself or the behavior of seeking cocaine drives the epigenetic changes that lead to differential self-administration of cocaine in male offspring. Perhaps the neurological changes conferred by the cocaine itself lead to epigenetic changes, or maybe the epigenetic changes are a result of changes in reward-seeking circuits. It would be interesting to test this by administering cocaine to sires non-voluntarily (testing whether the cocaine itself causes changes) and allowing for voluntary self-administration of sucrose (testing whether any reward-seeking behaviors cause changes). Doing so could contribute to knowledge of both epigenetics and factors that drive susceptibility and resistance to drug addiction. 


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...