Skip to main content

Blog 8: Venniro et al. (2018) & de Guglielmo et al. (2019)

By
Venniro et al. (2018) & de Guglielmo et al. (2019) take two complementary approaches to furthering the study and discussion of drug addiction and dependence in rodent models and potential clinical translations. Overall, I found Venniro et al. particularly intriguing for their discussion of clinical applications but also appreciated the extensive consideration of controls used to verify de Guglielmo et al.’s methodology. 

One critique I had for de Guglielmo et al. actually relates to their use of controls and how they originally induced alcohol dependence. The alcohol-dependent rats were exposed to cycling chronic intermittent alcohol vapors in operant chambers. For both dependent and non-dependent animals, they describe unaffected levels of water and saccharin intake in control and and NpHR-expressing rats. However, I think it would have been relevant for the researchers to also expose all groups to saccharin vapor and water vapor. If they are attempting to rule out the attribution of any nonspecific behavioral effects on alcohol drinking, it is certainly possible that the saccharin vapor (water vapor should likely have no effect) affects preference for saccharin and alters their intake relative to the intake of alcohol. 

As I mentioned, Venniro et al. discussed how their social-choice model could inform addiction treatments in humans. I agree with and really appreciate the concept of humans using a global frame of reference and ‘choice bundling’ when choosing a drug over a social interaction. As an aside, I have a close family member who is a recovering gambling addict, and while gambling has its own neural considerations compared to typical drug addiction, he has often expressed how thoughts of his actions negatively impacting family and friends has kept him from relapsing. As the authors say here, their thinking goes beyond the momentary presence or absence but focuses instead on longer-term effects and outcomes. 

Given this context, I am increasingly skeptical of rodent social addiction models for their translational relevance. If we will always have to give the caveat that ‘humans think about this differently’ then, frankly, is there any relevance at all? Sure, studies focused on pharmacological-based interventions are still likely to be translatable. Yet, despite my skepticism, I can acknowledge that social models like this one are very important given what we do know about the social aspects of addiction. I don't have a solid answer as to how, but neuroscience research must continue to develop these models and create relevant ways to bridge the gap between rodent and human translation in order for their conclusions to be the most effective and beneficial. 

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

Buffington et al. and Reber et al.: Gut-Brain Interactions

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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