Transgenerational effects of early environmental insults on aging and disease

October 16, 2017December 8, 2020 gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Brain development, Brain hemispheres, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Stress, Telomeres, Testosterone Brain neurons, Critical period, DNA methylation, Embryo development, Genetic factors, Neural plasticity, Neurodegenerative disease, Prefrontal cortex

The first paper of Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week was a 2017 Canadian/Netherlands review that’s organized as follows:

“First, we address mechanisms of developmental and transgenerational programming of disease and inheritance. Second, we discuss experimental and clinical findings linking early environmental determinants to adverse aging trajectories in association with possible parental contributions and sex-specific effects. Third, we outline the main mechanisms of age-related functional decline and suggest potential interventions to reverse negative effects of transgenerational programming.”

A transgenerational phenotype was defined as an epigenetic modification that was maintained at least either to F₂ grandchildren in the paternal lineage, or to F₃ great-grandchildren in the maternal lineage.

The reviewers noted that mechanisms of transgenerational programming are complex and multivariate. Severity, timing, and type of exposure; lineage of transmission; germ cell exposure; and gender of an organism were the main factors that may determine consequences. Mechanisms reviewed were:

Parental exposure to an adverse environment;
Altered maternal behavior and care of offspring; and
Experience-dependent modifications of the epigenome.

There was a long list of diseases and impaired functionalities that were consequences of ancestral experiences and exposures. Most studies were of animals, but a few were human, such as those done on effects of extended power outages during a Quebec ice storm of January 1998.

One intervention that was effective in reversing a transgenerational phenotype induced by deficient rodent maternal care was to place pups with a caring foster female soon after birth. It’s probably unacceptable in human societies to preemptively recognize all poor-care human mothers and remove the infant to caring foster mothers. But researchers could probably find enough instances to develop studies of the effectiveness of such placements in reversing a transgenerational phenotype.

The review didn’t have suggestions for reversing human transgenerational phenotypes, just “potential interventions to reverse negative effects of transgenerational programming.” Interventions suggested for humans – exercise, enriched lifestyle, cognitive training, dietary regimens, and expressive art and writing therapies – only reduced impacts of transgenerational epigenetic effects.

Tricky wording of “reverse negative effects of transgenerational programming” showed that research paradigms weren’t aimed at resolving causes. The review was insufficient for the same reasons mentioned in How one person’s paradigms regarding stress and epigenetics impedes relevant research, prompting my same comment:

Aren’t people interested in human treatments of originating causes so that their various symptoms don’t keep bubbling up? Why wouldn’t research paradigms be aligned accordingly?

When reversals of human phenotypes aren’t researched, problems may compound by being transmitted to the next generations.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976341630714X “Transgenerational effects of early environmental insults on aging and disease incidence” (not freely available)

It’s transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week!

October 16, 2017July 9, 2019 gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Immune system, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress Brain neurons, DNA methylation, Embryo development, Genetic factors, Neural plasticity

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is a subject whose time has come. This week I sequentially curated two 2017 reviews and two 2016 studies of the subject, and ended with a meta-analysis of human preventive treatments:

It’s the opposite of advancing science for those in the funding chain to give lip service to the subject, and then create an atmosphere where proposals to extend experiments to subsequent generations to study possible transgenerational epigenetic effects are neither encouraged nor funded.

Epigenetic effects of early life stress exposure

October 10, 2017March 29, 2020 gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain development, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Dopamine, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Locus coeruleus, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Primal Therapy, Serotonin, Stress, Thalamus, Vasopressin Antidepressants, Brain neurons, Critical period, DNA methylation, Embryo development, Infants, Neural plasticity, Prefrontal cortex, Unconscious feelings, Unconscious memories

This 2017 Netherlands review subject was the lasting epigenetic effects of early-life stress:

“Exposure to stress during critical periods in development can have severe long-term consequences.

One of the key stress response systems mediating these long-term effects of stress is the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.

Early life stress (ELS) exposure has been reported to have numerous consequences on HPA-axis function in adulthood.

ELS is able to “imprint” or “program” an organism’s neuroendocrine, neural and behavioral responses to stress. Research focuses along two complementary lines:

ELS during critical stages in brain maturation may disrupt specific developmental processes (by altered neurotransmitter exposure, gene transcription, or neuronal differentiation), leading to aberrant neural circuit function throughout life.

ELS may induce modifications of the epigenome which lastingly affect brain function.

These epigenetic modifications are inducible, stable, and yet reversible, constituting an important emerging mechanism by which transient environmental stimuli can induce persistent changes in gene expression and ultimately behavior.”

In early life, the lower brain and limbic system brain structures are more developed and dominant, whereas the cerebrum is less developed (use the above rodent graphic as a rough guide). Stress and pain generally have a greater impact on a fetus than an infant, and a greater impact on an infant than an adult.

The reviewers cited 50+ studies from years 2000-2015 in the “Early Life Stress Effects in a “Matching” Stressful Adult Environment” section to argue for the match / mismatch theory:

“Encountering ELS prepares an organism for similar (“matching”) adversities during adulthood, while a mismatching environment results in an increased susceptibility to psychopathology, indicating that ELS can exert either beneficial or disadvantageous effects depending on the environmental context.

Initial evidence for HPA-axis hypo-reactivity is observed for early social deprivation, potentially reflecting the abnormal HPA-axis function as observed in post-traumatic stress disorder.

Experiencing additional (chronic) stress in adulthood seems to normalize these alterations in HPA-axis function, supporting the match / mismatch theory.”

Evidence for this theory was contrasted with the allostatic load theory presented in How one person’s paradigms regarding stress and epigenetics impedes relevant research.

The review mainly cited evidence from rodent studies that mismatched reactions in adulthood may be consequences of early-life events. These events:

“Imprint or program an organism’s neuroendocrine, neural and behavioral responses..leading to aberrant neural circuit function throughout life..which lastingly affect brain function.”

Taking this research to a personal level:

Have you had feelings that you were unsafe, although your environment was objectively safe?
Have you felt uneasy when people are nice to you?
Have you felt anxious when someone pays attention to you, even after you’ve acted to gain their attention?

Mismatched human feelings are one form of mismatched reactions. These may be consequences of early-life experiences, and indicators of personal truths.

If researchers can let go of their biases and Advance science by including emotion in research, they may find that human subjects’ feelings produce better evidence for what actually happened during the subjects’ early lives than do standard scientific methods of:

Surveys of the responsible parties (for example, Parental lying thwarted both their children and researchers); and
Self-reports of early-life events (for example, A problematic study of oxytocin receptor gene methylation, childhood abuse, and psychiatric symptoms).

Incorporating feeling evidence may bring researchers and each individual closer to discovering the major insults that knocked their development processes out of normally robust pathways and/or induced “persistent changes in gene expression and ultimately behavior.”

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2017.00087/full “Modulation of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis by Early Life Stress Exposure”

I came across this review as a result of it being cited in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084952117302884 “Long-term effects of early environment on the brain: Lesson from rodent models” (not freely available)

A gaping hole in a review of nutritional psychiatry

September 29, 2017May 27, 2018 gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Brain development, Cerebrum, Dopamine, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress Antidepressants, Brain neurons, DNA methylation, Neural plasticity, Neurodegenerative disease, Psychotropic medication

This December 2016 Australian review published in September 2017 concerned:

“..the nutritional psychiatry field..the neurobiological mechanisms likely modulated by diet, the use of dietary and nutraceutical interventions in mental disorders, and recommendations for further research.”

The reviewers inexplicably omitted acetyl-L-carnitine, which I first covered in A common dietary supplement that has rapid and lasting antidepressant effects. A PubMed search on “acetyl carnitine” showed over a dozen studies from the past twelve months that were relevant to the review’s subject areas. Here’s a sample, beginning with follow-on research published in June 2016 of the study I linked above:

Reply to Arduini et al.: Acetyl-l-carnitine and the brain: Epigenetics, energetics, and stress

Dietary supplementation with acetyl-l-carnitine counteracts age-related alterations of mitochondrial biogenesis, dynamics and antioxidant defenses in brain of old rats

Neuroprotective effects of acetyl-l-carnitine on lipopolysaccharide-induced neuroinflammation in mice: Involvement of brain-derived neurotrophic factor

ALCAR promote adult hippocampal neurogenesis by regulating cell-survival and cell death-related signals in rat model of Parkinson’s disease like-phenotypes

Analgesia induced by the epigenetic drug, L-acetylcarnitine, outlasts the end of treatment in mouse models of chronic inflammatory and neuropathic pain

The cited references in these recent studies were older, of course, and in the time scope of the review. There’s no excuse for this review’s omission of acetyl-L-carnitine.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/nutritional-psychiatry-the-present-state-of-the-evidence/88924C819D21E3139FBC48D4D9DF0C08 “Nutritional psychiatry: the present state of the evidence” (not freely available)

How one person’s paradigms regarding stress and epigenetics impedes relevant research

September 13, 2017March 16, 2026 gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Amygdala, Beliefs, Brain development, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Locus coeruleus, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress, Testosterone Antidepressants, Brain neurons, Control group, Critical period, DNA methylation, Genetic factors, Infants, Neural plasticity, Prefrontal cortex, Psychotropic medication

This 2017 review laid out the tired, old, restrictive guidelines by which current US research on the epigenetic effects of stress is funded. The reviewer rehashed paradigms circumscribed by his authoritative position in guiding funding, and called for more government funding to support and extend his reach.

The reviewer won’t change his beliefs regarding individual differences and allostatic load pictured above since he helped to start those memes. US researchers with study hypotheses that would develop evidence beyond such memes may have difficulties finding funding except outside of his sphere of influence.

Here’s one example of the reviewer’s restrictive views taken from the Conclusion section:

“Adverse experiences and environments cause problems over the life course in which there is no such thing as “reversibility” (i.e., “rolling the clock back”) but rather a change in trajectory [10] in keeping with the original definition of epigenetics [132] as the emergence of characteristics not previously evident or even predictable from an earlier developmental stage. By the same token, we mean “redirection” instead of “reversibility”—in that changes in the social and physical environment on both a societal and a personal level can alter a negative trajectory in a more positive direction.”

What would happen if US researchers proposed tests of his “there is no such thing as reversibility” axiom? To secure funding, the prospective studies’ experiments would be steered toward altering “a negative trajectory in a more positive direction” instead.

An example of this influence may be found in the press release of Familiar stress opens up an epigenetic window of neural plasticity where the lead researcher stated a goal of:

“Not to ‘roll back the clock’ but rather to change the trajectory of such brain plasticity toward more positive directions.”

I found nothing in citation [10] (of which the reviewer is a coauthor) where the rodent study researchers even attempted to directly reverse the epigenetic changes! The researchers under his guidance simply asserted:

“A history of stress exposure can permanently alter gene expression patterns in the hippocampus and the behavioral response to a novel stressor”

without making any therapeutic efforts to test the permanence assumption!

Nevermind that researchers outside the reviewer’s sphere of influence have done exactly that, reverse both gene expression patterns and behavioral responses!!

In any event, citation [10] didn’t support an “there is no such thing as reversibility” axiom.

The reviewer also implied that humans respond just like lab rats and can be treated as such. Notice that the above graphic conflated rodent and human behaviors. Further examples of this inappropriate rodent / human merger of behaviors are in the Conclusion section.

What may be a more promising research approach to human treatments of the epigenetic effects of stress? As pointed out in The current paradigm of child abuse limits pre-childhood causal research:

“If the current paradigm encouraged research into treatment of causes, there would probably already be plenty of evidence to demonstrate that directly reducing the source of the damage would also reverse damaging effects. There would have been enough studies done so that the generalized question of reversibility wouldn’t be asked.

Aren’t people interested in human treatments of originating causes so that their various symptoms don’t keep bubbling up? Why wouldn’t research paradigms be aligned accordingly?”

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2470547017692328 “Neurobiological and Systemic Effects of Chronic Stress”

Epigenetic stress effects in preterm infants

September 6, 2017October 17, 2018 gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Brain hemispheres, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress Antidepressants, Brain neurons, Corpus callosum, DNA methylation, Embryo development, Genetic factors, Infants

This 2017 Italian review selected 9 human studies on the epigenetic effects of:

“One of the major adverse events in human development. Preterm infants are hospitalized in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit where they are exposed to life-saving yet pain-inducing procedures and to protective care.”

Highlights of the referenced studies included:

“Early exposure to adverse events during the third trimester of pregnancy is capable to alter the epigenetic status of imprinted and placenta-related genes which have relevant implications for fetal development and preterm infants’ HPA [hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal] stress reactivity during infancy.”
“There was an association between DNAm [DNA methylation] and white matter tract tissue integrity and shape inferred from dMRI [diffusion MRI], suggesting that epigenetic variation may contribute to the cerebral phenotype of preterm birth.”

Limitations of the referenced studies included:

“A multiple sampling design that includes parental samples, placental tissue, cord blood and extends across the life-course would be required to investigate the relative contributions of in utero and postnatal exposures to changes in DNAm, and the extent to which preterm birth leaves a legacy on the methylome.”
Saliva, blood, and other tissues’ DNA methylation may not produce valid links to brain tissue DNA methylation of the same gene, which may hamper conclusive inferences about behavior, etc.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763417302117 “Preterm Behavioral Epigenetics: A systematic review” (not freely available)

http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v6/n1/full/tp2015210a.html “Epigenomic profiling of preterm infants reveals DNA methylation differences at sites associated with neural function” (one of the studies selected, quoted above)

On Primal Therapy with Drs. Art and France Janov

June 29, 2016October 17, 2019 gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Primal Therapy, Stress Brain neurons, Conscious awareness, Critical period, DNA methylation, Dr. Arthur Janov, Embryo development, Empathy, Genetic factors, Happiness, Infants, Levels of consciousness, Neural plasticity, Prefrontal cortex, Unconscious feelings, Unconscious memories

Experiential feeling therapy addressing the pain of the lack of love.

A limited study of parental transmission of anxiety/stress-reactive traits

May 15, 2016July 22, 2019 gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Immune system, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress Brain neurons, DNA methylation, Embryo development, Empathy, Infants, Neural plasticity

This 2016 New York rodent study found:

“Parental behavioural traits can be transmitted by non-genetic mechanisms to the offspring.

We show that four anxiety/stress-reactive traits are transmitted via independent iterative-somatic and gametic epigenetic mechanisms across multiple generations.

As the individual traits/pathways each have their own generation-dependent penetrance and gender specificity, the resulting cumulative phenotype is pleiotropic. In the context of genetic diseases, it is typically assumed that this phenomenon arises from individual differences in vulnerability to the various effects of the causative gene. However, the work presented here reveals that pleiotropy can be produced by the variable distribution and segregated transmission of behavioural traits.”

A primary focus was how anxiety was transmitted from parents to offspring:

“The iterative propagation of the male-specific anxiety-like behaviour is most compatible with a model in which proinflammatory state is propagated from H [serotonin_1A receptor heterozygote] F₀ to F₁ [children] females and in which the proinflammatory state is acquired by F₁ males from their H mothers, and then by F₂ [grandchildren] males from their F₁ mothers.

We propose that increased levels of gestational MIP-1β [macrophage inflammatory protein 1β] in H and F₁ mothers, together with additional proinflammatory cytokines and bioactive proteins, are required to produce immune system activation in their newborn offspring, which in turn promotes the development of the anxiety-like phenotype in males.

In particular, increase in the number of monocytes and their transmigration to the brain parenchyma in F₁ and F₂ males could be central to the development of anxiety.”

The researchers studied transmission of behavioral traits and epigenetic changes. Due to my quick take on the study title – “Behavioural traits propagate across generations..” – I had expectations of this study that weren’t born out. What could the researchers have done versus what they did?

The study design removed prenatal and postnatal parental behavioral transmission of behavioral traits and epigenetic changes as each generation’s embryos were implanted into foster wild-type (WT) mothers.

The study design substituted the foster mothers’ prenatal and postnatal parental environments for the biological parents’ environments. So we didn’t find out, for example:

To what extents the overly stress-reactive F₁ female children’s prenatal environments and postnatal behaviors induced behaviors and/or epigenetic changes in their children; and
Whether the F₂ grandchildren’s parental behaviors subsequently induced behaviors and/or epigenetic changes in the F₃ great-grandchildren.

How did the study meet the overall goal of rodent studies: to help humans?

1. Only a minority of humans experienced an early-life environment that included primary caregivers other than our biological parents.
2. Very, very few of us experienced a prenatal environment other than our biological mothers.
3. The study’s thorough removal of parental behavior was an outstanding methodology to confirm by falsifiability whether parental behavior was both an intergenerational and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance mechanism.
4. Maybe the researchers filled in some gaps in previous rodent studies, such as determining what is or isn’t a “true transgenerational mechanism.”

As an example of a rodent study that more closely approximated human conditions, the behavior of a mother whose DNA was epigenetically changed by stress induced the same epigenetic changes to her child’s DNA when her child was 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.”

How did parental behavioral transmission of behavioral traits and epigenetic changes become a subject not worth investigating? These traits and effects can be seen everyday in real-life human interactions, and in every human’s physiology.

But when investigating human correlates with behavioral epigenetic changes of rodents in the laboratory, parental behavioral transmission of behavioral traits is often treated the way this study treated it: as a confounder.

I doubt that people who have reached some degree of honesty about their early lives and concomitant empathy for others would agree with this prioritization. The papers of Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week show the spectrum of opportunities to advance science that were intentionally missed.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160513/ncomms11492/full/ncomms11492.html “Behavioural traits propagate across generations via segregated iterative-somatic and gametic epigenetic mechanisms”

Why drugs aren’t ultimately therapeutic

May 7, 2016May 10, 2016 gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Beliefs, Brain development, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals Brain neurons, DNA methylation, Genetic factors, Neurodegenerative disease

This 2016 Oregon review’s concept was the inadequacy of drug-based therapies, explored with the specific subject of epilepsy:

“Currently used antiepileptic drugs:

[aren’t] effective in over 30% of patients

[don’t] affect the comorbidities of epilepsy

[don’t] prevent the development and progression of epilepsy (epileptogenesis).

Prevention of epilepsy and its progression [requires] novel conceptual advances.”

The overall concept that current drug-based therapies poorly address evolutionary biological realities was illustrated by a pyramid, with the comment that:

“If the basis of the pyramid depicted in Figure 1 is overlooked, it becomes obvious that a traditional pharmacological top-down treatment approach has limitations.”

I would have liked the reviewer to further address the “therapeutic reconstruction of the epigenome” point he made in the Abstract:

“New findings based on biochemical manipulation of the DNA methylome suggest that:

Epigenetic mechanisms play a functional role in epileptogenesis; and

Therapeutic reconstruction of the epigenome is an effective antiepileptogenic therapy.”

As it was, the reviewer lapsed into the prevalent belief that the causes of and cures for human diseases will always be found on the molecular level – for example, the base of the above pyramid – and never in human experiences. This preconception leads to discounting human elements – notably absent in the above pyramid – that generate epigenetic changes.

A consequence of ignoring experiential causes of diseases is that the potential of experiential therapies to effect “therapeutic reconstruction of the epigenome” isn’t investigated.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnmol.2016.00026/full “The Biochemistry and Epigenetics of Epilepsy: Focus on Adenosine and Glycine”

Epigenetic effects of diet, and reversing DNA methylation

February 27, 2016May 26, 2018 gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Acetylcholine, Brain development, Cerebellum, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Dopamine, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Lower brain, Neurochemicals, Stress Brain neurons, Critical period, DNA methylation, Embryo development, Genetic factors, Neural plasticity, Prefrontal cortex

This 2015 French review focused on:

“The role of maternal health and nutrition in the initiation and progression of metabolic and other disorders.

The effects of various in utero exposures and maternal nutritional status may have different effects on the epigenome. However, critical windows of exposure that seem to exist during development need to be better defined.

The epigenome can be considered as an interface between the genome and the environment that is central to the generation of phenotypes and their stability throughout the life course.”

The reviewer used the term “transgenerational” to refer to effects that were more appropriately termed parental or intergenerational. Per the definition in A review of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of reproductive disease, for the term to apply there needed to be evidence in at least the next 2 male and/or 3 female generations of:

“Altered epigenetic information between generations in the absence of continued environmental exposure.”

The review had separate sections for animal and human studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4663595/ “Impact of Maternal Diet on the Epigenome during In Utero Life and the Developmental Programming of Diseases in Childhood and Adulthood”

I arrived at the above review as a result of it citing the 2014 Harvard Reversing DNA Methylation: Mechanisms, Genomics, and Biological Functions. I’ll quote a few items from that review’s informative “Role of DNA demethylation in neural development” section:

“Distinct parts of mammalian brains, including frontal cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum, all exhibit age-dependent acquisition of 5hmC [an oxidized derivative of 5mC [methylation of the fifth position of cytosine]].

In fact, the genome of mature neurons in adult central nervous system contains the highest level of 5hmC of any mammalian cell-type (~40% as abundant as 5mC in Purkinje neurons in cerebellum). These observations indicate that 5mC oxidation and potentially DNA demethylation may be functionally important for neuronal differentiation and maturation processes.

A comprehensive base-resolution analyses of 5mC and 5hmC in mammalian frontal cortex in both fetal and adult stages indicate that non-CpG methylation (mCH) and CpG hydroxymethylation (hCG) drastically build up in cortical neurons after birth, coinciding with the peak of synaptogenesis and synaptic pruning in the cortex. This study demonstrated that mCH could become a dominant form of cytosine modifications in adult brains, accounting for 53% in adult human cortical neuronal genome.

In mature neurons, intragenic mCH is preferentially enriched at inactive non-neuronal lineage-specific genes, indicating a role in negative regulation of the associated transcripts. By contrast, genic hCG is positively correlated with gene expression levels.”

What’s the underlying question for every brain study to answer?

February 20, 2016May 15, 2019 gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Dopamine, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Primal Therapy, Serotonin, Stress, Testosterone, Thalamus Brain neurons, Dr. Arthur Janov, Genetic factors, Neural plasticity, Prefrontal cortex, Unconscious feelings, Unconscious memories

Is the underlying question for every brain study to answer:

How do our brains internally represent the external world?

Is it:

How did we learn what we know?
How do we forget or disregard what we’ve learned?
What keeps us from acquiring and learning newer or better information?

How about:

What affects how we pay attention to our environments?
How do our various biochemical states affect our perceptions, learning, experiences, and behavior?
How do these factors in turn affect our biology?

Or maybe:

Why do we do what we do?
How is our behavior affected by our experiences?
How did we become attracted and motivated toward what we like?
How do we develop expectations?
Why do we avoid certain situations?

Not to lose sight of:

How do the contexts affect all of the above?
What happens over time to affect all of the above?

This 2015 UCLA paper reviewed the above questions from the perspective of Pavlovian conditioning:

“The common definition of Pavlovian conditioning, that via repeated pairings of a neutral stimulus with a stimulus that elicits a reflex the neutral stimulus acquires the ability to elicit that the reflex, is neither accurate nor reflective of the richness of Pavlovian conditioning. Rather, Pavlovian conditioning is the way we learn about dependent relationships between stimuli.

Pavlovian conditioning is one of the few areas in biology in which there is direct experimental evidence of biological fitness.”

The most important question unanswered by the review was:

How can its information be used to help humans?

How can Pavlovian conditioning answer: What can a human do about the thoughts, feelings, behavior, epigenetic effects – the person – the phenotype – that they’ve been shaped into?

One example of the unanswered question: the review pointed out in a section about fear extinction that this process doesn’t involve unlearning. Fear extinction instead inhibits the symptoms of fear response. The fear memory is still intact, awaiting some other context to be reactivated and expressed.

How can this information be used to help humans?

Is inhibiting the symptoms and leaving the fear memory in place costless with humans?
Or does this practice have both potential and realized adverse effects?
Where’s the human research on methods that may directly address a painful emotional memory?

One relevant hypothesis of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy is that a person continues to be their conditioned self until they address the sources of their pain. A corollary is that efforts to relieve symptoms seldom address causes.

How could it be otherwise? A problem isn’t cured by ameliorating its effects.

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/8/1/a021717.full “The Origins and Organization of Vertebrate Pavlovian Conditioning”

Use it or lose it: the interplay of new brain cells, age, and activity

February 19, 2016January 23, 2018 gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress, Telomeres, Testosterone Brain neurons, Genetic factors, Language development, Neural plasticity, Neurodegenerative disease

This 2015 German review was of aging and activity in the context of adult neurogenesis:

“Adult neurogenesis might be of profound functional significance because it occurs at a strategic bottleneck location in the hippocampus.

Age-dependent changes essentially reflect a unidirectional development in that everything builds on what has occurred before. In this sense, aging can also be seen as continued or lifelong development. This idea has limitations but is instructive with regard to adult neurogenesis, because adult neurogenesis is neuronal development under the conditions of the adult brain.

The age-related alterations of adult neurogenesis themselves have quantitative and qualitative components. So far, most research has focused on the quantitative aspects. But there can be little doubt that qualitative changes do not simply follow quantitative changes (e.g., in cell or synapse numbers), but emerge on a systems level and above when an organism ages. With respect to adult neurogenesis, only one multilevel experiment including morphology and behavior has been conducted, and, even in that study, only three time points were investigated.

In old age, adult neurogenesis occurs at only a small fraction of the level in early adulthood. The decline does not seem to be ‘regulated’ but rather the by-product of many age-related changes of other sorts.

From a behavioral level down to a synaptic level, activity increases adult neurogenesis. This regulation does not seem to occur in an all-or-nothing fashion but rather influences different stages of neuronal development differently. Both cell proliferation and survival are influenced by or even depend on activity.

The effects of exercise and environmental enrichment are additive, which indicates that increasing the potential for neurogenesis is sufficient to increase the actual use of the recruitable cells in the case of cognitive stimulation. Physical activity would not by itself provide specific hippocampus-relevant stimuli that induce net neurogenesis but be associated with a greater chance to encounter specific relevant stimuli.

Adult hippocampal neurogenesis might contribute to a structural or neural reserve that if appropriately trained early in life might provide a compensatory buffer of brain plasticity in the face of increasing neurodegeneration or nonpathological age-related functional losses. There is still only limited information on the activity-dependent parameters that help to prevent the age-dependent decrease in adult neurogenesis and maintain cellular plasticity.

The big question is what the functional contribution of so few new neurons over so long periods can be. Any comprehensive concept has to bring together the acute functional contributions of newly generated, highly plastic neurons and the more-or-less lasting changes they introduce to the network.”

I’ve quoted quite a lot, but there are more details that await your reading. A few items from the study referenced in the first paragraph above:

“The hippocampus represents a bottleneck in processing..adult hippocampal neurogenesis occurs at exactly the narrowest spot.

We have derived the theory that the function of adult hippocampal neurogenesis is to enable the brain to accommodate continued bouts of novelty..a mechanism for preparing the hippocampus for processing greater levels of complexity.”

The role of the hippocampus in emotion was ignored as it so often is. The way to address many of the gaps mentioned by the author may be to Advance science by including emotion in research.

For example, from the author’s The mystery of humans’ evolved capability for adults to grow new brain cells:

“Adult neurogenesis is already effective early in life, actually very well before true adulthood, and is at very high levels when sexual maturity has been reached. Behavioral advantages associated with adult neurogenesis must be relevant during the reproductive period.”

When human studies are designed to research how “behavioral advantages associated with adult neurogenesis must be relevant” what purpose does it serve to exclude emotional content?

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/7/11/a018929.full “Activity Dependency and Aging in the Regulation of Adult Neurogenesis”

The mystery of humans’ evolved capability for adults to grow new brain cells

February 15, 2016January 30, 2019 gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory Brain neurons, Genetic factors, Neural plasticity

This 2016 German review discussed the evolution of human adult neurogenesis:

“Mammalian adult hippocampal neurogenesis is a trait shaped by evolutionary forces that have contributed to the advantages in natural selection that are associated with the mammalian dentate gyrus. Adult hippocampal neurogenesis in mammals originates from an ectopic precursor cell population that resides in a defined stem-cell niche detached from the ventricular wall.

Neurogenesis in the adult olfactory bulb generates a diverse range of interneurons, and is involved in the processing of sensory input. In contrast, adult hippocampal neurogenesis produces only one type of excitatory principal neuron and plays a role in flexible memory formation.

A surplus of new neurons is generated first from which only a subset survives. And it is exactly these new neuronal nodes that, at least for a transient period, are the carriers of synaptic plasticity.

For a number of weeks after they were born, the new neurons have a lower threshold for long-term potentiation. This directs the action to the new cells and results in a bias toward the most plastic cells in the local circuitry.

It is a highly polygenic trait, and numerous genes have already been identified to ultimately have essentially identical effects on net neurogenesis.

Adult neurogenesis is also an individualizing trait. Even before an identical genetic background, subtle individual differences in starting conditions and differential behavioral trajectories result in an increase in phenotypic variation with time.”

The author continued the penultimate paragraph above to pose a question about adult neurogenesis that’s incompletely answered by evolutionary biology theory and evidence todate:

“How genetic variation in single genes (or many genes) would be able to exert a phenotypic change in neurogenesis that can provide a large enough advantage to be selected for.”

The development of new brain cells throughout our lives helps us continually adapt and learn. The “increase in phenotypic variation with time” helps us maintain the unique individual that each of us is.

The review emphasized to me how “individual differences” should neither be viewed as a mystery, nor explained away, nor treated as an etiological factor as researchers often do. Focusing on what caused the differences may provide clearer information.

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/8/2/a018986.full “Adult Neurogenesis: An Evolutionary Perspective”

The effects of imposing helplessness

February 11, 2016August 8, 2022 gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Locus coeruleus, Lower brain, Memory, Stress Antidepressants, Brain neurons, Control group, Corpus callosum, Genetic factors, Prefrontal cortex, Unconscious feelings, Unconscious memories

This 2016 New York rodent study found:

“By using unbiased and whole-brain imaging techniques, we uncover a number of cortical and subcortical brain structures that have lower activity in the animals showing helplessness than in those showing resilience following the LH [learned helplessness] procedure. We also identified the LC [locus coeruleus] as the sole subcortical area that had enhanced activity in helpless animals compared with resilient ones.

Some of the brain areas identified in this study – such as areas in the mPFC [medial prefrontal cortex], hippocampus, and amygdala – have been previously implicated in clinical depression or depression-like behavior in animal models. We also identified novel brain regions previously not associated with helplessness. For example, the OT [olfactory tubercle], an area involved in odor processing as well as high cognitive functions including reward processing, and the Edinger–Westphal nucleus containing centrally projecting neurons implicated in stress adaptation.

The brains of helpless animals are locked in a highly stereotypic pathological state.”

Concerning the study’s young adult male subjects:

“To achieve a subsequent detection of neuronal activity related to distinct behavioral responses, we used the c-fosGFP transgenic mice expressing c-FosGFP under the control of a c-fos promoter. The expression of the c-fosGFP transgene has been previously validated to faithfully represent endogenous c-fos expression.

Similar to wild-type mice, approximately 22% (32 of 144) of the c-fosGFP mice showed helplessness.”

The final sentence of the Introduction section:

“Our study..supports the view that defining neuronal circuits underlying stress-induced depression-like behavior in animal models can help identify new targets for the treatment of depression.”

Helplessness is both a learned behavior and a cumulative set of experiences during every human’s early life. Therapeutic approaches to detrimental effects of helplessness can be different with humans than with rodents in that we can address causes.

The researchers categorized activity in brain circuits as causal in the Discussion section:

“Future studies aimed at manipulating these identified neural changes are required for determining whether they are causally related to the expression of helplessness or resilience.”

Studying whether or not activity in brain circuits induces helplessness in rodents may not inform us about causes of helplessness in humans. Our experiences are often the ultimate causes of helplessness effects. Many of our experiential “neural changes” are only effects, as demonstrated by this and other studies’ induced phenotypes such as “Learned Helplessness” and “Prenatally Restraint Stressed.”

Weren’t the researchers satisfied that the study confirmed what was known and made new findings? Why attempt to extend animal models that only treat effects to humans, as implied in the Introduction above and in the final sentence of the Discussion section:

“Future studies aimed at elucidating the specific roles of these regions in the pathophysiology of depression as well as serve as neural circuit-based targets for the development of novel therapeutics.”

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fncir.2016.00003/full “Whole-Brain Mapping of Neuronal Activity in the Learned Helplessness Model of Depression” (Thanks to A Paper a Day Keeps the Scientist Okay)

Publicly-funded researchers need to provide unqualified free access to their studies

February 1, 2016February 7, 2023 gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory Brain neurons

Starting the second year of this blog with a magazine article New Clues to How the Brain Maps Time reviewed the findings of a 2015 Boston rodent study During Running in Place, Grid Cells Integrate Elapsed Time and Distance Run. The article’s information was mixed such that when the reader arrived at this phrase:

“Moreover, time cells rely on context; they only mark time when the animal is put into a situation in which time is what matters most.”

it wasn’t clear whether the “time cells” referred to grid cells located in the entorhinal cortex (per the referenced study) or some other cells located in the hippocampus.

The hippocampus also has “time cells.” One of the first studies I curated when I started this blog one year ago today was Our memories are formed within a specific context. That 2014 study’s Significance section included:

“A number of recent studies have shown that the hippocampus, a structure known to be essential to form episodic memories, possesses neurons that explicitly mark moments in time.

We add a previously unidentified finding to this work by showing that individual primate hippocampal neurons not only track time, but do so only when specific contextual information (e.g., object identity/location) is cued.”

I attempted to disambiguate the “time cells” location by reading the 2015 study, only to find it was behind a paywall for which the public doesn’t have unqualified free access.

I assert that the study was performed using public funds, and that the researchers’ infrastructure and facilities were paid in part by the US taxpayers. Only US government funding sources were disclosed on the organization Mission Statement page of the study’s lead researcher, whose position is Lab Chief.

I assume that whether or not the study had unqualified free access was the researchers’ decision. Here’s a typical US NIH statement:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

There are multiple problems with placing publicly-funded studies behind paywalls. One pertinent to this study and article was the accurate presentation of the study’s findings in news coverage.

The article’s author gave her interpretation of the study and the lead researcher’s remarks. She solicited five other researchers’ opinions, and one researcher provided an appraisal in the Comments section.

Was this treatment of the study’s findings sufficient for the public to understand what the US taxpayers paid for?

It was nice to have interpretations and remarks and opinions and appraisals, but these may have diverged from what the study actually found. Without unqualified free access to the study, there was no base on which to compare and contrast the article’s POVs.

Other news coverage of the study provided further examples of why publicly funded research needs to be freely available without qualification:

NPR’s coverage also confused the cells’ location: “If grid cells in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex..”
An article carried by multiple sites headlined the cells as “Odometer neurons.” Did the study find that grid cells operated cumulatively like an odometer that began at some stage of the subjects’ development? Or did it find that the grid cells operated more like a trip meter?
In the Discover Magazine coverage the lead researcher stated: “..could point to ways to treat memory loss, whether from old age or illness, like Alzheimer’s disease.” Did the study actually find anything about “memory loss?” Was there anything in it about “old age or illness, like Alzheimer’s disease?”

As the study’s news coverage discrepancies and ambiguities demonstrated, there’s every reason for researchers to provide all the details of their work. We’re well past the days when “wise old men” selectively gate information flows.