Brain development

Unconscious stimuli have a pervasive effect on our brain function and behavior

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Brain development, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Primal Therapy , , , , ,

This 2015 Swedish human study, performed at the institution that awards the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, found:

“Pain responses can be shaped by learning that takes place outside conscious awareness.”

Images of neutral male faces were used as conditioning stimuli which the subjects were trained to associate with levels of pain.

The concluding sentence of the study:

“Our results demonstrate that conscious awareness of conditioned stimuli is not required during either acquisition or activation of conditioned analgesic and hyperalgesic responses, and that low levels of the brain’s hierarchical organization are susceptible for learning that affects higher-order cognitive processes.”

From the study’s abstract:

“Our results support the notion that nonconscious stimuli have a pervasive effect on human brain function and behavior and may affect learning of complex cognitive processes such as psychologically mediated analgesic and hyperalgesic responses.”

Principles of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy related to this study’s findings are:

  • Experiences associated with pain can be remembered below our conscious awareness.
  • Unconscious memories associated with pain, when activated, have varying forms of expression as they pass up through our levels of consciousness.
  • These memories, when activated, have effects on our feelings, thinking, health, brain functioning, and behavior that are usually below our conscious awareness.

I’ll use one of Dr. Janov’s 2011 blog posts, On Being Alone, to show an example of how the study’s findings of:

  • “Conscious awareness of conditioned stimuli is not required during either acquisition or activation of conditioned..responses” and
  • “Nonconscious stimuli have a pervasive effect on human brain function and behavior”

are seen through the lens of Primal Therapy:

Unconscious memories associated with the pain of being left alone may be stored, especially in the developing brain, in our lower brain areas below conscious awareness: “Pain of being left alone a lot in childhood and infancy, added to the ultimate aloneness right after birth when no one was there for the newborn. That imprints a primal terror where a naïve, innocent and vulnerable baby has no one to lean on, to be held by, to snuggle up to, to be comforted. To be loved.”
As we develop, the cumulative memories associated with the pain of being left alone, when activated, may affect our feelings, thoughts, and behavior: “And that also has multiple meanings: no one wants me; there is no one there for me: no one wants to be with me; I have no love and no one who cares. One races to phone others so as not to feel alone. One runs from the feeling and struggles mightily not to be alone. Or, depending on earlier events one stays alone out of that same feeling. These are by and large the depressives.”
Although memories associated with the pain of being left alone may be formed in our early lives, they remain decades later, and can be activated below our conscious awareness: “When something in the present occurs which is similar to an old feeling “I am all alone and no one wants me,” the old feelings are triggered off..and the whole feeling rises toward conscious/awareness where it must be combated. Either the person wallows in the feeling and is overwhelmed by it even when she doesn’t even know what “it” is. Or the compounded feeling drives the act-out, forcing the person into some kind of social contact.”

A PNAS commentary on the study stated:

“Pain, analgesia, and hyperalgesia represent higher-order cognitive functions.”

and attempted to draw conclusions from this reasoning.

The commentator was incorrect regarding pain. I didn’t see where this study showed or even postulated that pain was always a higher-order cognitive function. In fact, the researchers cited a sea slug study and stated:

“It would not be surprising if vestiges of simpler nonconscious processes would also be operative under some conditions.”

Maybe it would have provided clarifications if the researchers specifically defined “low” and “higher” used throughout the study in statements such as the closing sentence:

“Low levels of the brain’s hierarchical organization are susceptible for learning that affects higher-order cognitive processes.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/25/7863.full “Classical conditioning of analgesic and hyperalgesic pain responses without conscious awareness”

This post has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.

Epigenetic changes in the developing brain change behavior

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress , , , , ,

This 2015 review cited 143 studies to tie together findings in epigenetic chemistry and behavioral neuroscience.

In addition to studies I’ve previously curated, other research included:

  • a 2012 study which completely abolished mouse maternal behavior by silencing a gene encoding an estrogen receptor;
  • a 2012 study which found that stress-induced changes in the rat hippocampus were heritable;
  • a 2014 study that distinguished between transgenerational and intergenerational epigenetic effects such as:

    “in utero exposure to nutritional status, stress, or toxic environmental factors that act on the developing embryo and its germ line”

  • a 2013 study that showed how genomic imprinting coordinated:

    “Genetic coadaptation where beneficially interacting alleles evolve to become coinherited.”

The current status of research incorporating both epigenetic chemistry and behavioral neuroscience was summed up as:

“A large number of behavioral epigenetic studies attempt to correlate epigenetic marker changes at global levels and in mixed populations of cells with phenotypic changes.

Specific changes at specific gene levels and at single cell levels correlating with behavioral changes remain largely unknown.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6789.full “Epigenetic changes in the developing brain: Effects on behavior”

RNA as a proxy signal for context-specific biological activity

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Thalamus , ,

This 2015 Harvard/MIT rodent study was of long (more than 200 nucleotides) noncoding (non-protein coding) RNAs (ribonucleic acids). These are of interest because:

“Within the mammalian body, the largest repertoire and diversity of lncRNA genes outside the germ line occurs in the brain, where lncRNAs exhibit regional and cell-specific localization.

The expression patterns of lncRNAs may serve as a proxy signal for important, context-specific biological activity.”

The researchers explained what they could and couldn’t determine with current techniques and technologies:

“The whole-gene ablation method used here is often a first approach to determine the functionality of a locus.

Although each of these loci contains a lncRNA, it is important to consider that any observation resulting from this strategy could reflect the loss of any regulatory element in the deleted region.

The rate of lncRNA gene discovery has significantly outpaced our ability to evaluate both the physiological significance and function of these genes. It is difficult to predict whether the loss of any particular lncRNA locus will present a phenotype, but crucial information on the spatiotemporal dynamics of expression from each locus can provide significant direction and focus to downstream mechanistic studies by highlighting those loci most likely to have a physiological impact.

It is important to stress that no single method exists that can account for all possible mechanisms of action of a noncoding locus. Within these limits, the phenotypes observed after ablation of specific lncRNA loci confirm that expression of this class of noncoding RNAs can serve as a proxy signal to identify functional genomic loci with physiological relevance to disease and development, independent of whether this activity is directly ascribed to a functional lncRNA molecule.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6855.full “Spatiotemporal expression and transcriptional perturbations by long noncoding RNAs in the mouse brain”

Stress in early life can alter physiology and behavior across the entire lifespan

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Amygdala, Brain development, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Immune system, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress, Testosterone , , , , , , , ,

I’ll quote a few sections of this 2014 summary of 111 studies concerning stress, including the authors’ research:

“The brain is the central organ of stress and adaptation to stressors because:

  • It not only perceives what is threatening or potentially threatening and initiates behavioral and physiological responses to those challenges,
  • But also is a target of the stressful experiences and the hormones and other mediators of the stress response.

The stress history of parents is a significant factor in the resilience of their offspring.

Environmental stress transduces its effects into lasting changes on physiology and behavior, which can vary even among genetically identical individuals.

Stress in early life can alter physiology and behavior across the entire lifespan.

Structural stress memory is even more apparent with regard to gene expression in stress-sensitive brain regions like the hippocampus.

Individual history is important and that there is a memory of stress history retained by neurons at the cellular level in regions like the hippocampus.

Stress has a number of known effects on epigenetic marks in the brain, producing alterations in DNA methylation and histone modifications in most of the stress-sensitive brain regions examined, including the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex.”

It seemed to be taboo to note that most of – and the largest of – detrimental effects of stress occurred during womb-life in the mother’s environment. The authors instead opted for a politically correct “the stress history of parents” phrase.

Referenced studies had findings relevant to the earliest periods of life, including Figure 1:

interactions

“Those organs that show the highest levels of retrotransposon [a repeat element (mobile DNA sequences often involved in mutations) type formed by copy-and-paste mechanisms] activity, such as the brain and placenta, also seem to be both steroidogenic and steroid-sensitive.”

However, Figure 1 was given a beneficial context, and other studies’ findings weren’t mentioned in their contexts of detrimental effects on fetuses of mothers who were stressed while pregnant.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6828.full “Stress and the dynamic genome: Steroids, epigenetics, and the transposome”

Changing an individual’s future behavior even before they’re born

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Brain development, Epigenetics, Stress , , , ,

This 2015 Harvard fruit fly research was a companion of the Is what’s true for a population what’s true for an individual? study.

The researchers began with the question:

“If we could rear genetically identical individuals from a variety of genetic backgrounds and rear them in the same environment, how much phenotypic variation between individuals of the same genotype would we see?”

They answered with:

“We show that different genotypes vary dramatically in their propensity for variability, that phenotypic variability itself, as a trait, can be heritable, and that loci affecting variability can be mapped.”

The specific problem that probably prompted this study was that the methodology of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) usually:

“Focuses on the average effect of alternative alleles averaged in a population.”

What this methodology often missed was:

“When phenotypic variation results from alleles that modify phenotypic variance rather than the mean, this link between genotype and phenotype will not be detected.”

The researchers altered the environment during a critical period of fruit flies’ development in order to induce epigenetic changes in the fruit fly pupae brains:

“Disruption of Ten-a [the synaptic target recognition gene Tenascin accessory] expression in midpupa affects behavioral variance [the standard statistical dispersion parameter].

In all cases, disrupting Ten-a increased the variability [the median of the absolute deviation from each observation’s median] in turning bias with no effect on the mean.”

I fully expect researchers to demonstrate that this finding has general applicability for humans, especially during womb-life. Research such as:

are steps in this direction just for one factor in the human fetal environment – stress. The effects of stressing a human fetus should be at least as significant as the effects produced on the study’s subjects with increased temperature during pupation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/21/6706.full “Behavioral idiosyncrasy reveals genetic control of phenotypic variability”

The thalamus part of the limbic system has a critical period for connections

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain development, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain, Primal Therapy, Thalamus , , ,

This highly-jargoned 2015 UK study found that connections made by the thalamus of the developing human fetus had a critical period of the last trimester of womb-life. Babies born before the 33rd week of gestation experienced thalamic disconnections compared with normal-term babies and adults. The disconnections increased with a shorter womb-life.

The thalamus of premature babies also developed stronger connections with areas of the face, lips, tongue, jaw, and throat. They presumably needed these connections for survival actions such as breathing and feeding that aren’t a part of the last trimester of womb-life.

The study confirmed that the structures of thalamic connections of normal-term babies were very similar to those of adults. The study added to the research that shows that human limbic systems and lower brains closely approximate their lifelong functionalities at the normal time of birth.

It was difficult to measure the thalamus at this stage of life with current technology, and the researchers had to discard over two-thirds of their results. The researchers recommended monitoring these premature babies for difficulties in later childhood that may be caused by their early-life experiences.

Why would this monitoring recommendation apply to just the study’s subjects? We know from other studies that a main purpose of thalamic connections is to actively control and gate information to and from the cerebrum.

Would it make sense for a medical professional to disregard any patient’s birth history if they had problems in their brain’s gating functions or connectivity?

One researcher said:

“The ability of modern science to image the connections in the brain would have been inconceivable just a few years ago, but we are now able to observe brain development in babies as they grow, and this is likely to produce remarkable benefits for medicine.”

This study’s results provided evidence for a principle of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy: the bases for disconnection from aspects of oneself are often set down during gestation. The “remarkable benefits for medicine” are more likely to be along the lines of what I describe in my Scientific evidence page.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/20/6485.full “Specialization and integration of functional thalamocortical connectivity in the human infant”

Do our unique visual perceptions arise from brain structural differences?

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Cerebrum, Limbic system

This 2014 UK/German human study involved fMRI scans of the subjects inferior temporal cortex while viewing images:

“Brain representational idiosyncrasies accessible to fMRI are expressed in an individual’s perceptual judgments.

We found evidence for an individually unique representation predictive of perceptual idiosyncrasies in hIT [human inferior temporal cortex] (but not in early visual areas) and for personally meaningful (but not for unfamiliar) objects.”

Citing other studies, the researchers said:

“The size of primary visual cortex varies across individuals by a factor of about 2.5.

Although other areas might vary by smaller factors, many parts of the brain, including cortical and subcortical structures, show gross anatomical variation across individuals that is predictive of cognitive and behavioral differences.”

The researchers asserted:

“Functional differences as reported here ultimately must arise from differences in the physical structure of each individual brain.”

However, no evidence was provided for this assertion.

The researchers acknowledged this lack of evidence, but in a way that required further evidence:

“Our study demonstrates individual differences in high-level semantic representations but cannot address their structural basis. Our current interpretation is that the representational idiosyncrasies might arise from the microstructural plasticity of cortex, which is driven by individual experience.”

The researchers’ assertion beyond the study’s supporting data was at best a statement of their goal. Further, their bias to focus on the inferior temporal cortex area of the cerebrum led them to not investigate other areas of the brain that may have been involved with the “personally meaningful (but not for unfamiliar) objects” finding, such as the subjects’ limbic systems.

I hope that researchers won’t think that their research is complete when they reach their goal of finding “differences in the physical structure of each individual brain.” It would be far more informative to understand the causes for these effects.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/40/14565.full “Unique semantic space in the brain of each beholder predicts perceived similarity”

Separating genetic from environmental factors when assessing educational achievement

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Brain development, Epigenetics , ,

This 2014 UK study of identical and fraternal twins found that an average of 62% of the differences among their scores on a significant test given at age 16 were due to genetic factors:

“Genetic influence is greater for achievement than for intelligence, and other behavioral traits are related to educational achievement largely for genetic reasons.”

However, the “genetic reasons” term didn’t mean that the researchers actually took genetic samples. From one news article:

“Identical twins share 100 percent of their genes while non-identical twins share just 50 percent of their genes. Because these sets of twins share the same environment, the scientists were able to compare identical and non-identical twins to estimate the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors.”

This estimation method produced an artificial divide between genetic and environmental factors. Identical twins start out sharing 100% of their genes, but then their genes become expressed differently – often because of environmental factors – to produce unique individuals even before birth.

The sets of identical twins were definitely not the 100% same genetic makeup between themselves at age 16 as they were at conception, and that assumption was the foundation of the researchers’ model:

F2

“Bivariate estimates for additive genetic (A), shared environmental (C), and nonshared environmental (E) contributions to the correlations between GCSE and nine predictors. The total length of the bar indicates the phenotypic correlations.”

The researchers didn’t provide evidence that “genetic reasons” were causal factors to the stated extent. Although the model’s numbers may have indicated that the method’s results were valid, that didn’t necessarily mean that the reality of genetic and epigenetic influences on the subjects were represented to the stated precision by the results.

The weather analogy of Scientific evidence applies to this study’s methods:

“We can think about what we mean by evidence. For example, that when you see dark storm clouds overhead, that’s strong evidence that it’s about to rain. If you smell a certain scent, that’s maybe weak evidence that it’s about to rain. And if we see the dark storm clouds and then we smell the scent, the evidence doesn’t get weaker: if anything, it gets stronger.

But P-values in a circumstance like that, where you have a very small P-value in one dataset and a not-so-small P-value in a second dataset, you put the data together and the P-value will tend to sort of average.

So the P-value is not behaving like evidence.”

Better methods of estimating “the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors” are available with actual genetic sampling. One way is to measure the degree of DNA methylation of genes as did:

The study and its news coverage were full of politically-correct buzzwords – for example, the researchers’ statement:

“The results also support the trend in education toward personalized learning.”

This “personalized learning” is a teacher not telling a student:

“You’re doing poorly at math. You need to pay attention in class and do the homework.”

but instead saying:

“You have a different learning style. We’ll tailor the math lessons to your style.”

The funniest thing I saw in the study’s news coverage was this one where someone argued that the researchers were wrong and that they needed educational psychologists on their staff to interpret the data. Guess the profession of the arguer!

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15273.full “The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence”

Kids who have a larger and better-connected hippocampus learn math better when tutored

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Brain development, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory, Thalamus ,

This 2013 Stanford study of 24 eight- and nine-year-old children found that measurements of limbic system areas predicted how well the 11 boys and 13 girls would respond to 8 weeks of one-on-one math tutoring!

“Pretutoring hippocampal volume predicted performance improvements. Furthermore, pretutoring intrinsic functional connectivity of the hippocampus with dorsolateral and ventrolateral prefrontal cortices and the basal ganglia also predicted performance improvements.

Brain regions associated with learning and memory, and not regions typically involved in arithmetic processing, are strong predictors of responsiveness to math tutoring in children. More generally, our study suggests that quantitative measures of brain structure and intrinsic brain organization can provide a more sensitive marker of skill acquisition than behavioral measures.”

None of the assessments, such as IQ and working memory tests, predicted how much benefit a child would receive from one-on-one math tutoring. The 16 children in the control group who didn’t receive one-on-one math tutoring didn’t improve their math performance over the 8-week period. Adults use different brain areas when solving math problems.

Much of the news coverage was from vested interests who dismissed the findings. A typical headline was “Your child’s brain on math: Don’t bother?”

The No Child Left Behind people were concerned that science could predict that some children were better suited to math tutoring than others. Psychiatrists and psychologists responded with general dismissals like small sample size, and the journalist let that stand without asking them how they disagreed with any of the specific P-, T- and other values found in the study’s supplementary material.

The researchers were careful to invoke a politically-correct meme of “individual differences“ 19 times, including the study’s title!

“Individual differences” isn’t a causal explanation, however. The journalist whiffed and also gave a pass to the researchers on this uninformative-but-PC meme.

It certainly would have been within the scope of this study for the researchers to inquire further into causes for the findings. It possibly could have informed us of causal factors had the children’s test battery included emotional content, as did the subjects in the Early emotional experiences change our brains: Childhood maltreatment is associated with reduced volume in the hippocampus study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/8230.full “Neural predictors of individual differences in response to math tutoring in primary-grade school children”

The critical period for some aspects of human sight can be extended past childhood

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Cerebrum

This 2013 human study provided further details of critical periods in human development. The study subjects were:

“11 children enrolled in a humanitarian and scientific effort in India that provides corrective surgery to children with treatable cataracts and subsequently studies their visual abilities.”

The researchers found:

“The human visual system can retain plasticity beyond critical periods, even after early and extended blindness.

We define “early-onset” blindness as occurring before 1 y of age. We define “extended” blindness as lasting at least until early childhood, when many visual abilities in normally developing children reach adult levels. Contrast sensitivity in particular develops until approximately age 7 in normally sighted humans.

Of the 11 children, five had no discernible improvement, whereas one child’s vision grew worse, probably because of post-surgical complications. Five of the patients showed remarkable enhancement, however, and of these, an 11-year-old and a 15-year-old showed 30-fold improvement in contrast sensitivity.

“The visual brain can be plastic for longer than we originally thought,” concludes Kalia. “Many of the kids dramatically improve their quality of life.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/2035.full “Development of pattern vision following early and extended blindness”

A missed opportunity to research the oxytocin receptor gene and autism

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Oxytocin, Vasopressin ,

This 2013 study:

“Examined whether genetic variants of the OXTR [oxytocin receptor] affect face recognition memory in families with an autistic child.

We investigated whether common polymorphisms in the genes encoding the oxytocin and vasopressin 1a receptors influence social memory for faces.”

I feel that the researchers missed an opportunity to improve their assessment of the autism-related genetic contribution to the study’s findings by separating the degree of environmental influence on the oxytocin receptor gene expression, as did the How epigenetic DNA methylation of the oxytocin receptor gene affects the perception of anger and fear study.

An assessment of epigenetic DNA methylation of the oxytocin receptor gene may have been even more compelling because the researchers genetically sampled one non-autistic sibling in each of the autistic children’s families. I hope the study’s samples are still available, because they may offer the possibility of evaluating the contribution of the autistic children’s historical environment with potential confirmation from their siblings.

Both studies gave their subjects similar facial emotion recognition tests, with the current one deriving from findings about autism, and the second from findings about the amygdala. The studies also had common references, such as a 2010 study, A common allele in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) impacts prosocial temperament and human hypothalamic-limbic structure and function.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1987.full “Common polymorphism in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) is associated with human social recognition skills”

The prefrontal cortex develops more repressive function at puberty

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Cerebrum, Primal Therapy , ,

This 2014 primate study found:

“The average magnitude of functional connections measured between neurons was lower overall in the prefrontal cortex of peripubertal [age when puberty starts] monkeys compared with adults. The difference resulted because negative functional connections (indicative of inhibitory interactions) were stronger and more prevalent in peripubertal compared with adult monkeys.”

The researchers found more inhibitory functional connections at the onset of puberty than during adulthood. This repressive functionality presumably develops at puberty because that’s when it’s relatively more needed:

“The bias toward increased inhibitory connectivity we report here for young monkeys might also be an intrinsic feature of human prefrontal cortex at a comparable stage of development.”

One hypothesis of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy is that repression is an important function that the prefrontal cortex evolved.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/10/3853.full “Age-dependent changes in prefrontal intrinsic connectivity”

A possible link between stress responses and human cancers?

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Neurochemicals, Primal Therapy, Stress ,

This 2015 UK rodent study found:

“An unexpected role for the GR [glucocorticoid receptor] in promoting accurate chromosome segregation during mitosis.

We also identify reduced GR expression in several common human cancers, thereby implicating GR as a novel tumor suppressor gene.”

One of the researchers said:

“Cancer is caused by cell division going wrong, but no one has previously looked at the role GR has to play in this process. It’s now clear that it is vital.”

From the study:

“Our findings now show that GR function regulates accurate mitotic progression, with clear implications for human health.

Add a previously unidentified perspective to GR action in cell division, affecting mitotic spindle function.

It may be that this action can be targeted by specific ligands, potentially opening up new therapeutic approaches to treat common cancers.”

The Translating PTSD research findings from animals to humans study also found reduced expression of glucocorticoid receptor genes, which appeared in some rodents after stress. Unfortunately, those researchers’ priorities weren’t to research the causes of this reduced expression.

One relevant hypothesis of Primal Therapy is that trauma in the earliest parts of human life epigenetically impairs the proper functioning of human development processes. A follow-on hypothesis is that the arrival of diseases in later life may be traceable back to the damage done during early-life development processes.

An example of this would be that a developing fetus adapts to being constantly stressed by an anxious and stressed mother. When the changes persist after birth, they may present as maladaptations of the infant to a non-stressful environment. These enduring changes may be among the causes of symptoms decades later such as over- and/or under-reactions to stress.

It seems possible that further research in these areas may find links among human stress responses and human cancers. The current study suggested that the glucocorticoid receptor may play a part in these links.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5479.full “Glucocorticoid receptor regulates accurate chromosome segregation and is associated with malignancy”

Can a Romanian orphan give informed consent to be an experimental subject?

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Amygdala, Brain development, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Stress , ,

This 2015 study used Romanian orphans as lab rats for findings of which I failed to see the value. The world didn’t really need any further research to demonstrate that foster care would be better for a child than staying in an orphanage.

The researchers placed the orphans in five separate stressful situations, and measured their cortisol and DHEA-S levels, along with their electrocardiograph and impedance cardiograph activity. The findings were:

“Children who were removed from the Romanian institutions and placed with foster parents before the age of 24 months had stress system responses similar to those of children being raised by families in the community.

The children raised in institutions showed blunted responses in the sympathetic nervous system, associated with the flight or fight response, and in the HPA axis, which regulates cortisol.”

One unsupported assertion from the researchers was:

“We provide evidence for a causal link between the early caregiving environment and stress response system reactivity in humans with effects that differ markedly from those observed in rodent models.”

The researchers stated that rodent studies have converged to find:

“Early-life adversity results in hyperreactivity of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis.”

It’s baloney that the same results from early life adversity in rodents haven’t also been present in humans. Even the lead researcher herself said in a news article:

“More significantly, McLaughlin said, their [the orphans] stress response systems might have been initially hyperactive at earlier points in development, then adapted to high levels of stress hormones.”

The difference was that the rodents were monitored 24/7 until researchers killed and dissected them. The children’s periods of adversity likely started while in the womb, and their lives had been monitored for research purposes sporadically after their births.

Everybody knows that just because adverse events and effects in these children’s lives weren’t recorded by researchers didn’t mean these effects weren’t present at some point.

Particularly irksome was another unsupported assertion from the lead reviewer:

“The children involved in the study are now about 16 years old, and researchers next plan to investigate whether puberty has an impact on their stress responses. It could have a positive effect, McLaughlin said, since puberty might represent another sensitive period when stress response systems are particularly tuned to environmental inputs. “It’s possible that the environment during that period could reverse the impacts of early adversity on the system,” she said.”

No, this is NOT possible. We may as well expect an apple to fall upward.

The impacts of early adversity persist with enduring physiological changes as shown in experimental studies. Studies have NOT provided evidence that the subjects’ environment can cause the effects of complete reversal of all these changes, no matter the stage of life of the subjects.

This point was addressed in The effects of early-life stress are permanent alterations in the child’s brain circuitry and function rodent study:

“The current study manipulates the type and timing of a stressor and the specific task and age of testing to parallel early-life stress in humans reared in orphanages.

The results provide evidence of both early and persistent alterations in amygdala circuitry and function following early-life stress.

These effects are not reversed when the stressor is removed nor diminished with the development of prefrontal regulation regions.”

That study had the same reviewer as the current study. The current study’s lead researcher knew or should have known of this and other relevant research. She knew or should have known of the irreversibility of critical periods, during which developments either occurred or were forever missed.

Did the lead researcher make assertions not supported by the study or relevant research – assertions made counter to her scientific knowledge – show her unease about treating the orphans as lab rats? Was there was some other agenda in play?

The larger problem was the study’s informed consent with this group of Romanian orphans. If you were in contact with a damaged person, and implicitly gave them hope that you would improve their life, then who are you as a feeling human being when you don’t personally carry through? Does the legal documentation matter?

Also, I’ve noticed problems with several studies that had this particular reviewer:

Add the current study to the list.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/18/5637.full “Causal effects of the early caregiving environment on development of stress response systems in children”

This post has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.

Genetic programming of hypothalamic neurons regulates food intake and body weight

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Hypothalamus, Limbic system ,

These 2015 Michigan/Argentinian fish and rodent studies were of the genetic programming of specific neurons in the hypothalamus. The study linked below found:

“Food intake and body weight regulation depend on proper expression of the gene” in these neurons.

In a second study released at the same time from the same researchers:

“The researchers found that the two enhancers act in ways that complement one another, both encouraging the expression of the Pomc gene at key times. One of the two is found in the same form among all mammals, the other among all placental mammals – suggesting that they’ve been kept intact throughout the evolutionary process.”

Genetic programming of these neurons begins during early brain development. One of the researchers said:

“This work represents the first example of a neuron-specific gene in vertebrates where we have found both the enhancers and a shared transcription factor that control gene expression in the developing brain and then throughout the life span of the adult.”

The first study showed that if the genetic expression of these hypothalamic neurons was disrupted, the individual lost control of their eating (hyperphagia) and the usual result was severe obesity:

“We don’t know, but we think it likely, that it [regulation of these specific hypothalamic neurons in humans] may be similar to the mouse model, where its role is like a dial, with a linear relationship between the amount of Pomc [the gene] expression and the degree of obesity.”

I hope that when extending this research to humans, the researchers don’t exclude emotional content like most studies involving areas of the limbic system have done. Everyone has feelings intermixed with eating and foods. It’s a great disservice to have publicly funded studies not include aspects of emotion that could potentially help people.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/E1861.full “Islet 1 specifies the identity of hypothalamic melanocortin neurons and is critical for normal food intake and adiposity in adulthood”