Skip to main content

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 were very intriguing to me, and hit kind of close to home. A little over a year ago, my parents adopted my little sister from Seoul. She's 3 years old, is very small for her age and has delayed speech and motor coordination. We spent the last year (and a variety of doctors and specialists) trying to diagnose the underlying cause for her inability to grow. She has IBD and ulcerative colitis which led to an inflamed gut, discomfort, and decreased appetite. After giving her a daily probiotic drink that meets her allergy needs, she now eats a lot better and has gained a few pounds. She has also been in speech therapy and OT, and has improved so much. But, she does still have anxiety, which is understandable due to the trauma she has experienced. Reber and colleagues' work had a very clear clinical translation—to use probiotics as a treatment for both a healthy gut, and healthy brain. Seeing how my sister has improved, and reading the findings of Reber et al.'s work, really has me convinced that this is a strong therapeutic option.

Buffington and colleagues' work was also very interesting, and I think it makes a good argument for prevention of neurodevelopmental disorders, like ASD. There are certainly many good reasons for mothers to have healthy diets during pregnancy aside from social factors, but the surprising part of this study was that co-habitating with a healthy rat's offspring had preventative factors for the pregnant mother's offspring. I'm not as convinced about this study, but its' findings were so interesting that I definitely think it warrants further investigation and I would be excited to see how future studies play out. The brain-gut axis is so cool!!!!

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...