Skip to main content

Sex differences in drug abuse behavior

By
Venniro (2018)
When I was reading Experiment 1, I noticed that the authors only mentioned males for the methamphetamine experiments and mentioned both males and females for the heroin experiments which was interesting. It was positive that both sexes were being used in this experiment but not clear why only for the heroin experiment. I referred to the methods and there were 318 male rats and only 39 female rats used in this study, about 11%. Why wouldn’t the researchers use a ratio closer to 50/50 of male and female rats? I don’t know much about laboratory rat breeding but I would assume it’s not due to a shortage of females since most studies use only males. Why were all the females in the heroin group and none in the methamphetamine group? It says rats were randomly assigned to drug user and drug naive groups but it doesn’t say that they were randomly assigned to drug type groups. And if they were randomly assigned, it’s unlikely that all of the females were assigned to the heroin group. So their results show that sex does not have an effect on preference of social interaction or heroin but sex may have an effect on preference of social interaction or methamphetamine that has not been explored.
In experiment 3, the results show that the medium addiction group had higher resistance to punishment of social reward. I wonder where there was a bell curve here. It would make sense for the high addiction group to give up the social reward faster if there was punishment because their addiction is stronger so a social reward may not be that much more enticing than the drug to begin with. However, I’m not sure why the low addiction group would have low resistance to the social reward punishment as well.
An interesting next step for this research could be to see what kinds of stresses can undo the protection from incubation of craving brought on by abstinence. Humans after drug addiction treatment may turn to drugs again in order to deal with stressors so it would be interesting to see how strong this protection is against chronic mild stress, acute traumatic stress, etc.

de Guglielmo (2019)
I noticed this paper discussed rats being dependent on alcohol rather than saying they are addicted to alcohol. Any mentions of addiction in this paper used the term addiction-like. It reminds me of some of the papers we read previously that used phrases like “depressive-like phenotypes” or “anxiety-like behaviors” that used those terms since they can’t accurately call a rodent depressed. I wonder to what extent does that apply to addiction. Two out of the three components of addiction this paper lists are observable behaviors. Is it possible to diagnose rodents with addiction or is it not, such as with depression?

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