Skip to main content

Blog Post 9- Venniro et al (2018) & de Guglielmo et al (2019)




Already from reading the title of the Venniro et al (2018) paper, I became interested in finding out how the researchers were able to exceed the effect of social interactions over drug choice in rats that were already previously exposed to drug addiction. Throughout the paper I wondered how the two different factors addiction and social interaction could be so closely compared to each other in terms of reward- as their effects are relatively dissimilar in strength. From my understanding, being addicted to drugs and simply abstaining from the drug is more complex than what appears to be presented in the paper, specifically for affected humans. The aim of most animal research is to explain behavioral findings towards a clinical application as well. Therefore, if these findings were to be applied to human drug addiction, then going out to a social event or improving one’s social stimuli should improve their drug addictive behaviors. This is not what has been seen in human drug addicts, as some affected individuals even appear to relapse again after exposure to social pressure. Therefore, the researchers do not enable a correctly established clinical application of the findings throughout their study. They did include a section in the discussion about how the presented results of rats would differ to that of humans. I would be interested in reading more about how exactly these applications could be improved through future experiments. 


The second paper by de Guglielmo et al (2019) was an extension of the topic of addiction but with a large emphasis on optogenetics. Since we discussed optogenetics a lot in the beginning of the course, it was interesting to see it again in a new context. Drug addiction has different components to it, meaning it can exist as both impulsive and compulsive states. In this paper, the researchers only appear to test the effect of CRF activity during the compulsive state of abuse, which clearly is the more severe state of the two. However, the researchers could have also compared and contrasted these findings with impulsive states as well to see how data may differ. As mentioned in my blog post last week, I was curious to learn more about tolerance and withdrawal. These findings allowed for a better understanding of the particular aspects of research. Thus, the researchers succeeded in explaining that the CRF pathway involving the Central Amygdala (CeA) and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) were essential in alcohol withdrawal in rats. However, the CRF is an essential component in the HPA-axis and thereby stress response. de Guglielmo et al did not mention this specifically, so I would appreciate more information on the effect that stress itself may have on drug addiction in future research.

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...