Stress

If research treats “Preexisting individual differences” as a black box, how can it find causes for stress and depression?

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Epigenetics, Immune system, Stress ,

This 2014 research studied both humans and rodents to provide further evidence on the physiology of defeat. The researchers demonstrated that with mice:

“Bone marrow transplants of stem cells that produce leucocytes lacking IL-6 (the cytokine interleukin 6) or when injected with antibodies that block IL-6 prior to stress exposure, the development of social avoidance was reduced.”

The researchers also showed in humans that standard antidepressants didn’t act to lower IL-6.

So, what were we to make of this finding?

“Preexisting differences in the sensitivity of a key part of each individual’s immune system to stress confer a greater risk of developing stress-related depression or anxiety.”

  • Was it sufficient for the researchers and the news articles covering the research to treat “preexisting differences” as a black box that nobody could enter to find causes for the effects of “developing stress-related depression or anxiety?”
  • Did things happen in each individual’s history to cause the “preexisting differences” or was each individual born that way?
  • Why was the research directed at symptoms with no mention of any underlying causal factors?

It wasn’t sufficient for the researchers to carry on their experiments with assumptions that there weren’t early-life causes for the above symptoms. Such a pretense leads to the follow-on pretense that later-life consequences weren’t effects of causes, but were instead, mysteries due to “preexisting individual differences.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/16136.full “Individual differences in the peripheral immune system promote resilience versus susceptibility to social stress”

Problematic research on stress that will never make a contribution toward advancing science

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Cortisol, Neurochemicals, Stress

This 2014 UK human study found:

“Type 2 diabetes is characterized by disruption of stress-related processes across multiple biological systems and increased exposure to life stress.”

HOWEVER, the stress effects weren’t conclusively shown to be either a cause or consequence of type 2 diabetes. Correlation wasn’t causation.

Looking around for clues as to what went wrong, I found this data sample of cortisol in a small table that comprised the total amount of information in the supplementary material:

“Geometric means, adjusted for education, marital status, BMI, smoking status, use of statins, and time of day.”

It’s hubris for the researchers to state that they improved data measurements by averaging them after adjusting for all of the above six factors.

Maybe the problem was elsewhere, maybe in the study design. Wherever the problems were, they guaranteed that the researchers would NEVER find cause and effect.

But maybe that’s the point?

There appeared to be other agendas that ensured studies like these failed to make a contribution toward advancing science. The researchers inevitably used buzzwords such as “allostatic load” and cited the need for further studies (money). Everybody was okay with that, including the reviewer, and everybody kept their safe jobs.

Such studies also had limiting effects on how we “do something” about real problems because the researchers wouldn’t produce findings that weren’t politically correct.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/44/15693.full “Disruption of multisystem responses to stress in type 2 diabetes: Investigating the dynamics of allostatic load”

If research provides evidence for the causes of stress-related disorders, why only focus on treating the symptoms?

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Brainstem, Cortisol, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Locus coeruleus, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress , , ,

This 2014 rodent research reliably induced many disorders common to humans. Here are some post-birth problems the researchers caused, primarily by applying different types of stress, as detailed in the study’s supplementary material:

Yet the researchers’ goal was to identify a brain receptor for:

“Novel therapeutic targets for stress-related disorders.”

In other words, develop new drugs to treat the symptoms.

Where are the studies that have goals to prevent these common problems being caused in humans by humans?

Where is the research on treatments to reverse the enduring physiological impacts to stress by treating the causes?

What do you think of this excerpt?

“Accumulating evidence suggests that traumatic events particularly during early life (e.g., parental loss or neglect) coupled with genetic factors are important risk factors for the development of depression and anxiety disorders.

Moreover, the brain is particularly vulnerable to the effects of stress during this period.

Maternal separation in rodents is a useful model of early-life stress that results in enduring physiological and behavioral changes that persist into adulthood, including increased hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA)–axis sensitivity, increased anxiety, and visceral hypersensitivity.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15232.full “GABAB(1) receptor subunit isoforms differentially regulate stress resilience”

How to make a child less capable even before they are born: stress the pregnant mother-to-be

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

This 2014 rodent study showed how to make a less-capable pup by stressing the mother early in gestation. The study centered on a placental enzyme (OGT) that translates a mother’s stress into neuroprogramming of her developing fetus.

One finding was that this enzyme was less plentiful when the fetus was male compared with female.

Another finding was that the enzyme was less plentiful when the mother was stressed early in gestation, compared with unstressed mothers.

Informed by the first two findings, the researchers studied the placentae of male pups where the mother was stressed early in gestation. They found that these placentae had lower levels of an enzyme (Hsd17b3) that converts the precursor androstenedione into testosterone.

The resultant finding was that the male pups of stressed mothers had lower levels of testosterone than the control group of male pups.

A fourth finding was that offspring of both sexes born with a placenta where the OGT enzyme was less plentiful had 10-20% less body weight, a condition that developed after weaning. The researchers attributed this finding to reduced mitochondrial function in the hypothalamus compared with normal mice.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/26/9639.full “Targeted placental deletion of OGT recapitulates the prenatal stress phenotype including hypothalamic mitochondrial dysfunction”

Are stress-induced epigenetic changes to DNA inherited across generations?

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Amygdala, Brain development, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress , , , , ,

This 2014 Geneva/Cambridge plant study ended by stating:

“The unequivocal demonstration of transgenerational transmission of environmentally-induced epigenetic traits remains a significant challenge.

One of the critical activities erasing stress memories is conserved between plants and mammals.”

However, the researchers didn’t demonstrate that their findings were broadly applicable for mammals or organisms other than the specific plant variety they studied. Possible reasons for these limited findings were given in a 2015 Australian study referenced by Mechanisms of stress memories in plants:

“The majority of DNA methylation analyses performed in plants to date have focused on Arabidopsis, despite being relatively depleted of TEs [transposable elements] (15–20% of the genome) and being poorly methylated compared to other plant genomes.

These studies have lacked the resolution to provide the specific context and genomic location of the changes in DNA methylation.”

There are also significant differences in how epigenetic inheritance across generations may operate among different species per Epigenetic reprogramming in plant and animal development.

Neither the current study nor the above review addressed the behavioral aspect of stress-induced epigenetic inheritance across generations. For example, the behavior of a mother whose DNA was epigenetically changed by stress can induce the same epigenetic changes to her child’s DNA when her child is stressed per One way that mothers cause fear and emotional trauma in their infants:

“Our results provide clues to understanding transmission of specific fears across generations and its dependence upon maternal induction of pups’ stress response paired with the cue to induce amygdala-dependent learning plasticity.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8547.full “Identification of genes preventing transgenerational transmission of stress-induced epigenetic states”

Hypothalamic oxytocin and vasopressin have sex-specific effects on pair bonding, gregariousness, and aggression

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Oxytocin, Stress, Vasopressin

This 2014 bird study showed the complementary effects of neurochemicals vasopressin and oxytocin in the hypothalamus.

Oxytocin neurons in the hypothalamus promote pair bonding and gregariousness in females.

Vasopressin neurons in the hypothalamus promote maternal care, social recognition, and gregariousness in both males and females, and aggression in males toward females.

Vasopressin and oxytocin released generally and in other parts of the brain have different effects. For example:

“Central administration of oxytocin also attenuates stress-induced effects on the brain and reverses stress-induced social avoidance.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/16/6069.full “Hypothalamic oxytocin and vasopressin neurons exert sex-specific effects on pair bonding, gregariousness, and aggression in finches”

Why do researchers title their study the cortex vs. the limbic system or lower brain?

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain, Stress ,

This 2012 review of 89 studies was ostensibly of the prefrontal cortex. The review title showed how researchers characterize their work as studying the cerebrum, even when they primarily deal with the limbic system and lower brains.

For example, the reviewer discussed rodent studies of the developing pup fetus regarding:

  • Sensory/motor – Paternal complex housing, maternal complex housing
  • Stress – Mild stress, bystander stress, moderate stress
  • Psychoactive drugs – Stimulants
  • Adult stimulants – Ethanol

The active brain areas of the rodent fetus are the brainstem and the limbic system, and those areas were primarily what was studied. The cerebrum of the developing pup is a tiny strip that has little cognitive function.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_2/17186.full “Experience and the developing prefrontal cortex”

Chronic stress changes the architecture of the hippocampus, leading to depression and cognitive impairment

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

This 2014 rodent study gave further details that:

“Chronic stress, which can precipitate depression, induces changes in the architecture and plasticity of apical dendrites that are particularly evident in the CA3 region of the hippocampus.”

Other studies on the hippocampus CA3 region include:

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/16130.full “Role for NUP62 depletion and PYK2 redistribution in dendritic retraction resulting from chronic stress”

Problematic research: Feigning naivety of the impact of prenatal, infancy and early childhood experiences

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory, Stress

What I found curious in this 2012 UK review of 82 studies was the reviewer’s reluctance to highly regard a human’s life before birth, during infancy, and in early childhood.

There was no lack in 2012 of animal studies to draw from to inferentially hypothesize how a human fetal environment causes the fetus to adapt with enduring epigenetic changes.

To take just one study that I won’t curate on this blog because it’s too old:

Weinstock M (2008) The long-term behavioural consequences of prenatal stress. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 32:1073–1086, “Stress, [to the pregnant mother] in rodents as well as nonhuman primates, produces behavioral abnormalities [in the pup], such as

  • an elevated and prolonged stress response,
  • impaired learning and memory,
  • deficits in attention,
  • altered exploratory behavior,
  • altered social and play behavior, and
  • an increased preference for alcohol.”

Yet the reviewer posed the question:

“There is a need to determine just what epigenetic changes do and do not account for. Put succinctly, do they explain individual differences in response to adversity and do they account for variations in health and behavior outcomes?”

I suspect that the cause of this feigned naivety was the political incorrectness of adequately placing importance in the human fetus’ experience of the development environment provided by their mother.

The PC view would have us pretend that there aren’t lasting adverse effects from human prenatal, infancy, and early childhood experiences.

The follow-on pretense to this PC view would be that later-life consequences aren’t effects, but are instead, mysteries due to “individual differences.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_2/17149.full “Achievements and challenges in the biology of environmental effects”

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.

Stress impairs the normal matching of neuronal activity to increased blood flow in the amygdala

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Amygdala, Cortisol, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Stress

This 2014 rodent study showed one aspect of how stress changed the amygdala. Stress didn’t allow normal matching of neuronal activity to increased blood flow:

“Chronic stress — which is a contributing factor for many diseases — impairs neurovascular coupling in the amygdala..

Neurovascular coupling (is) the process that matches neuronal activity with increased local blood flow.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7462.full “Stress-induced glucocorticoid signaling remodels neurovascular coupling through impairment of cerebrovascular inwardly rectifying K+ channel function”

Active areas of the brain when making decisions in stressful conditions

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress

This 2013 human study was of decision making under stressful conditions.

Acute stress (ice water immersion) evoked habitual behavior rather than deliberative behavior. In my view, the subjects’ behaviors when under stress were driven more by their limbic system and lower brain areas than their cerebrum.

This finding wasn’t a big surprise. However, the researchers went on to state:

“Subjects with more executive resources to spare find themselves less susceptible to the behavioral changes brought about by stress response.”

I interpreted this statement to mean that when stressed, the more-capable subjects didn’t act out as much as the less-capable subjects acted out their respective feelings, instincts and impulses.

I felt that to understand this statement called for more investigation into the individual histories of the subjects:

  • What happened in their lives that enabled each person to acquire “more executive resources” or not?
  • What happened in their lives that made each person more or less sensitive to stress?
  • How are these two avenues of investigation related?

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/52/20941.full “Working-memory capacity protects model-based learning from stress”

A mother’s care affects the infant’s hippocampus structure and function through epigenetic regulation of genes

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

This 2012 McGill University rodent study found:

“Variations in maternal care in the rat affect hippocampal morphology and function as well as performance on hippocampal-dependent tests of learning and memory in the offspring.

Thus, in the rat, as in humans, social influences operate during early life to influence the structure and function of brain regions critical for cognitive capacity.

Variations in maternal care can influence hippocampal function and cognitive performance through the epigenetic regulation of genes.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_2/17200.full “Variations in postnatal maternal care and the epigenetic regulation of metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 expression and hippocampal function in the rat”

The effects of early-life stress are permanent alterations in the child’s brain circuitry and function

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Amygdala, Brain development, Cortisol, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress ,

The sobering application of this 2013 rodent study’s finding was that if the limbic systems of human children weren’t already permanently damaged before they entered an orphanage, the orphanage experience would probably do that to them:

“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.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18274.full “Early-life stress has persistent effects on amygdala function and development in mice and humans”

One way that mothers cause fear and emotional trauma in their infants

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

This 2014 rodent study showed that infants learned to fear specific items in the environment that their mothers feared. The imprinting memory happened at a stage in the infants’ lives when they hadn’t yet developed the physiology to respond to the environment with fear on their own.

The learning cue was the mothers’ fear response – in this case, her distress odor, even when the mother was not present – coupled with the infants’ stress. The fear memory was stored in the infants’ amygdalae:

“These memories are acquired at younger ages compared with amygdala-dependent odor-shock conditioning and are more enduring following minimal conditioning.

Our results provide clues to understanding transmission of specific fears across generations and its dependence upon maternal induction of pups’ stress response paired with the cue to induce amygdala-dependent learning plasticity.”

There’s no scientific reason why this and related studies shouldn’t inform researchers who ignore the earliest stages of human life when studying limbic system disorders in humans.

For an example of researchers choosing to NOT be informed, look at Is this science, or a PC agenda? Problematic research on childhood maltreatment and its effects.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/12222.full “Intergenerational transmission of emotional trauma through amygdala-dependent mother-to-infant transfer of specific fear”

Is this science, or a PC agenda? Problematic research on childhood maltreatment and its effects

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Amygdala, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Stress ,

This 2013 Wisconsin human study’s goal was to assess effects of childhood trauma using both functional MRI scans and self-reported answers to a questionnaire. The families of the study’s subjects (64 18-year-olds) participated with researchers before some of the teenagers were born.

How could the teenagers give answers that described events that may have taken place early in their lives, before their cerebrums were developed, around age 4? Even if the subjects were old enough to remember, would they give accurate answers to statements such as:

“My parents were too drunk or high to take care of the family.

Somebody in my family hit me so hard that it left me with bruises or marks.”

knowing that affirmative answers would prompt a visit to their family from a government employee?

Although some data may have been available, data from the teenagers’ prenatal, birth term, infancy, and early childhood wasn’t part of the study design. Intentional dismissal of early influencing factors ignored applicable research!

No

Was the study’s limited window due to the political incorrectness of placing importance in the development environment provided by the subjects’ mothers? The evidence was there for those willing to see.

One clue of ignored early traumatic events was provided by the lead researcher’s quote in news coverage:

“These kids seem to be afraid everywhere,” he says. “It’s like they’ve lost the ability to put a contextual limit on when they’re going to be afraid and when they’re not.”

This finding of “fear without context” possibly described the later-life effects of traumas that were encountered in utero and during infancy. A pregnant woman’s terror and fear can register on the fetus’ lower brain and the amygdala from the third trimester onward.

Storing a memory’s context is one of the functions that the hippocampus performs. Because the hippocampus develops later than the amygdala, though, it would be unable to provide a context for any earlier feelings and sensations such as fear and terror.

The researchers attempted to place the finding of unfocused fear into later stages of child development without doing the necessary research. They tried to force this finding into the subjects’ later development years by citing rat fear-extinction and other marginally related studies.

But citing these studies didn’t make them applicable to the current study. Cause and effect wasn’t demonstrated by noting various “is associated with” findings.

Was this science? Was it part of furthering an agenda like protecting publicly funded jobs?

Was this study published to make a contribution to science? Were the peer reviewers even interested in advancing science?

And what about the 64 18-year-old subjects? If the lead researcher’s statement was accurate, did these teenagers receive help that addressed what they really needed?

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/47/19119.full “Childhood maltreatment is associated with altered fear circuitry and increased internalizing symptoms by late adolescence”

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