Skip to main content

Reversal of Addiction in Rats

By
The organization of the Venniro paper was extremely frustrating. At first read, the experiments seem to be laid out nicely with the subheadings, but the procedures and results were all over the place. It was so difficult to figure out the details of the methods, even with the supplementary note. I felt like some of the tests, or lack thereof, were random. Why, for instance, did they calculate addiction scores in two different ways? Why were females only used in two of the experiments that they performed? I felt like the researchers were trying to put a lot into this paper so that their conclusions could be significant, but it all felt a little bit messy to me. That being said, they did a good job at establishing a voluntary model that is more indicative of human behavior than previous forced abstinence models. As mentioned at the end of the paper, there are still several differences between this model and addiction in humans, but incorporating a social aspect is important. In addition, there are more confounding factors that I would like to see tested in this model. For example, if we depressed or stressed an animal, would they have the same preference for social interaction over drug administration? Social reward does not outperform drug administration in people, so I’d be interested to see if we could test other factors. I think, given the results from experiment 5, that there are several implications of this study. If we establish a pathway involving the PKCδ neurons in a similar experiment as the de Guglielmo paper, we could potentially find better targets to treat addiction. I’m also extremely curious as to if the PKCδ neurons were also activated when testing for heroin, since that is a different class of drug that seemed to have a similar result in regards to social choice as methamphetamine did. In the de Guglielmo paper, they didn’t look at PKCδ either, and I’d be curious as to if these neurons were also activated in alcohol addiction.

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

Gut-brain axis

By
This weeks papers Reber et al. 2016 and Buffington et al. 2016 present a super interesting look into the gut-brain axis. Regarding both of these papers, it was amazing to see how potent favorable or unfavorable gut microbiome compositions are in affecting neuronal signaling and overall behavior. Reber et al. shows how immunoregulatory immunization with specifically heat killed M.vaccae can serve as a protective factor against chronic subordinate stress induce colotis as well as behavioral symptoms due to chronic stress as such. Interestringly, this paper depleted regulatory T cell activity via the anti CD25 antibody in order to show that the antiinflammatory mechanism induced by m vaccae immunization is depented on the secondary regulatory mechanisms offered by Treg proliferation and signaling. But, when T reg signaling was removed, this did not seem to cause a significant change in behavior . Therefore, this begs the consideration of what othe rmechanisms may be at play in order ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ramirez et al.: 2013 and 2015 Papers

By
In these papers, Ramirez et al. strive to understand how memory encoding via optogenetic manipulation of engram-bearing cells in the hippocampus, specifically the dentate gyrus, can affect an animal’s response to a stressful context.  The first paper, published in 2013, was crucial to the field as it introduced this very exciting technique; in this paper, Ramirez et al. use tet-tag to manipulate brain circuity and establish associations between two contexts. Throughout the paper, this is referred to as “false memories.” Using these artificial memories, the investigators are able to manipulate the animal’s fear response in a specific context. Specifically, after the animals are conditioned to a repeated fearful stimulus (a foot shock, in context B), activation of the involved DG cells in a different context (context A’) will also initiate a fear response (in absence of any foot shock). In this experiment, the false memory is used to create an unnatural fear association in a given...
Post a Comment
Read more