Skip to main content

Gut-Brain Interactions: Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

By
Buffington et al. (2016) and Reber et al. (2016) present quite fascinating approaches to studying the interactions or ‘axis’ between the rodent (and human) gut and brain. As the gut is a primary route for bringing things from the environment into our body, these two studies present very clear and convincing evidence for the relevance and translatable validity of their various hypotheses. 

One of the most interesting conclusions to me from Buffington et al. was that co-housing three high-fat diet offspring with just one regular-diet offspring was enough to rescue their social behavior deficits and microbiome profiles. This is remarkable, and I would like to hear more about possible mechanisms for this transfer to actually occur. Although the article mentions that mice do eat each other’s feces to transfer microbiota, could there be a certain “threshold” or level of bacteria needed to observe this phenotype switch? That is, how many more high-fat diet mice could have been housed with this one regular-diet mouse for the same changes to have been observed? Is there an “unlimited” potential of this transfer process, or are there other considerations to be taken?

Another question I had regarding the same conclusion was about potential reciprocal effects. Again, the high-fat diet offspring were housed with a regular-diet mouse in order to reverse deficits in the high-fat offspring. However, is it possible for the experimental set-up to be altered where the regular-diet mice become negatively impacted? In other words, instead of regular-diet mice helping the deficient mice regain bacteria, could the high-fat diet mice actually induce negative changes in the other and take away some of their bacteria to match the microbiome of the high-fat diet mice? I don’t know if there is a paradigm where this could be observed, but I am mostly wondering if there is always a beneficial/positive outcome from fecal transfers or if there are scenarios where the outcomes are negative, too.

A final thought on these articles relates to Reber et al. One of their primary findings was that immunized mice exposed to a chronic stressor had decreased anxiety-like behavior on the EPM, which then went on to impact gene and microglia-related observations. While I do think their conclusion is valid, it has been brought up several times this semester that the EPM can be an imperfect measure of anxiety and is also just one behavioral paradigm. I wonder if the researchers considered confirming their results with 1-2 other tests, such as the open field test or novelty suppressed feeding. For me, the additional data would have strengthened their conclusion and increased its overall credibility in the context of their other findings.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 2- Dopamine Modulation of Depressive-like Behaviors

By
The Chaudhury et al paper explored the neural circuit mechanisms involved in the dopamine modulation of certain symptoms of depression. In this study, the researchers looked at social interaction and sucrose preference as part of their social-defeat paradigm, which has been shown in the past to be indicative of depressive-like behaviors. Although I initially did not completely see the connection between the social-defeat stress model of depression and the tonic vs phasic firing of dopamine neurons, it seemed that susceptibility and resilience to stress played a role in the functional/behavioral effects of dopamine firing. It was interesting to see how chronic mild stress with phasic firing of VTA dopamine neurons converted even resilient mice into susceptible mice.  The Tye et al paper similarly looked at the dopamine modulation of depressive-like behaviors, focusing on motivation with the forced swim tests and open field tests, followed by measurement of anhedonia by quantifyi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sial & Allsop

By
Sial et al. derived a novel approach for studying what they deem vicarious defeat stress (VSDS) as a model for MDD, PTSD, and other mood-related disorders as an alternative to the classical CSDS paradigm. Using adult male mice, they demonstrate that their model induces a robust and measurable social avoidant phenotype as well as other stress and anxiety related behavioral outputs. Their subsequent rescue study with chronic fluoxetine treatment shows reversal of the behavioral phenotypes and emphasizes the predictive validity of the model. Allsop et al. found that BLA-projecting ACC neurons preferentially encode socially derived aversive cue information by encoding the demonstrator’s distress response during observational learning, hence enabling acquisition of negative valence of cue by BLA neurons and behavioral output. In order to test their hypothesis, Allsop et al. used an observational fear conditional paradigm to create association between a conditioned stimulu...
Post a Comment
Read more

Buffington and Reber

By
Buffington et al. explore a mechanism by which maternal obesity can induce neuronal and subsequent behavioral disorders. Using a model of high-fat diet (MHFD)-induced obesity, the authors showcase the strong connection between the brain and the gut, and its impact on behavior. The findings are provocative; by exposing these offspring to the microbiome of control offspring, there was evidence of a rescued observed behavioral phenotype. Furthermore, a phylogenetic profiling of the gut microbiome revealed a decrease in L. reuteri within MHFD offspring, and introduction of live L. reuteri into the drinking water shows successful rescue of the behavioral issues in the MHFD offspring. L. reuteri-induced expression of oxytocin within the paraventricular nuclei of the hypothalamus provides a potential mechanistic explanation for the behavioral changes. I thought this paper provided robust support for the hypothesized interaction between the gut biome and the developing CNS, with tremendous po...
Post a Comment
Read more