Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Human Sensation and Cellular Transduction: Physiology and Therapeutics’ Category

Milestones in Physiology & Discoveries in Medicine and Genomics: Request for Book Review Writing on Amazon.com


physiology-cover-seriese-vol-3individualsaddlebrown-page2

Milestones in Physiology

Discoveries in Medicine, Genomics and Therapeutics

Patient-centric Perspective 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B019VH97LU 

2015

 

 

Author, Curator and Editor

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Chief Scientific Officer

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence

Larry.bernstein@gmail.com

Preface

Introduction 

Chapter 1: Evolution of the Foundation for Diagnostics and Pharmaceuticals Industries

1.1  Outline of Medical Discoveries between 1880 and 1980

1.2 The History of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology in the late 19th and 20th Century

1.3 The Classification of Microbiota

1.4 Selected Contributions to Chemistry from 1880 to 1980

1.5 The Evolution of Clinical Chemistry in the 20th Century

1.6 Milestones in the Evolution of Diagnostics in the US HealthCare System: 1920s to Pre-Genomics

 

Chapter 2. The search for the evolution of function of proteins, enzymes and metal catalysts in life processes

2.1 The life and work of Allan Wilson
2.2  The  evolution of myoglobin and hemoglobin
2.3  More complexity in proteins evolution
2.4  Life on earth is traced to oxygen binding
2.5  The colors of life function
2.6  The colors of respiration and electron transport
2.7  Highlights of a green evolution

 

Chapter 3. Evolution of New Relationships in Neuroendocrine States
3.1 Pituitary endocrine axis
3.2 Thyroid function
3.3 Sex hormones
3.4 Adrenal Cortex
3.5 Pancreatic Islets
3.6 Parathyroids
3.7 Gastointestinal hormones
3.8 Endocrine action on midbrain
3.9 Neural activity regulating endocrine response

3.10 Genomic Promise for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Dementias, Autism Spectrum, Schizophrenia, and Serious Depression

 

Chapter 4.  Problems of the Circulation, Altitude, and Immunity

4.1 Innervation of Heart and Heart Rate
4.2 Action of hormones on the circulation
4.3 Allogeneic Transfusion Reactions
4.4 Graft-versus Host reaction
4.5 Unique problems of perinatal period
4.6. High altitude sickness
4.7 Deep water adaptation
4.8 Heart-Lung-and Kidney
4.9 Acute Lung Injury

4.10 Reconstruction of Life Processes requires both Genomics and Metabolomics to explain Phenotypes and Phylogenetics

 

Chapter 5. Problems of Diets and Lifestyle Changes

5.1 Anorexia nervosa
5.2 Voluntary and Involuntary S-insufficiency
5.3 Diarrheas – bacterial and nonbacterial
5.4 Gluten-free diets
5.5 Diet and cholesterol
5.6 Diet and Type 2 diabetes mellitus
5.7 Diet and exercise
5.8 Anxiety and quality of Life
5.9 Nutritional Supplements

 

Chapter 6. Advances in Genomics, Therapeutics and Pharmacogenomics

6.1 Natural Products Chemistry

6.2 The Challenge of Antimicrobial Resistance

6.3 Viruses, Vaccines and immunotherapy

6.4 Genomics and Metabolomics Advances in Cancer

6.5 Proteomics – Protein Interaction

6.6 Pharmacogenomics

6.7 Biomarker Guided Therapy

6.8 The Emergence of a Pharmaceutical Industry in the 20th Century: Diagnostics Industry and Drug Development in the Genomics Era: Mid 80s to Present

6.09 The Union of Biomarkers and Drug Development

6.10 Proteomics and Biomarker Discovery

6.11 Epigenomics and Companion Diagnostics

 

Chapter  7

Integration of Physiology, Genomics and Pharmacotherapy

7.1 Richard Lifton, MD, PhD of Yale University and Howard Hughes Medical Institute: Recipient of 2014 Breakthrough Prizes Awarded in Life Sciences for the Discovery of Genes and Biochemical Mechanisms that cause Hypertension

7.2 Calcium Cycling (ATPase Pump) in Cardiac Gene Therapy: Inhalable Gene Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Percutaneous Intra-coronary Artery Infusion for Heart Failure: Contributions by Roger J. Hajjar, MD

7.3 Diagnostics and Biomarkers: Novel Genomics Industry Trends vs Present Market Conditions and Historical Scientific Leaders Memoirs

7.4 Synthetic Biology: On Advanced Genome Interpretation for Gene Variants and Pathways: What is the Genetic Base of Atherosclerosis and Loss of Arterial Elasticity with Aging

7.5 Diagnosing Diseases & Gene Therapy: Precision Genome Editing and Cost-effective microRNA Profiling

7.6 Imaging Biomarker for Arterial Stiffness: Pathways in Pharmacotherapy for Hypertension and Hypercholesterolemia Management

7.7 Neuroprotective Therapies: Pharmacogenomics vs Psychotropic drugs and Cholinesterase Inhibitors

7.8 Metabolite Identification Combining Genetic and Metabolic Information: Genetic association links unknown metabolites to functionally related genes

7.9 Preserved vs Reduced Ejection Fraction: Available and Needed Therapies

7.10 Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by

7.11 Demonstrate Biosimilarity: New FDA Biosimilar Guidelines

 

Chapter 7.  Biopharma Today

8.1 A Great University engaged in Drug Discovery: University of Pittsburgh

8.2 Introduction – The Evolution of Cancer Therapy and Cancer Research: How We Got Here?

8.3 Predicting Tumor Response, Progression, and Time to Recurrence

8.4 Targeting Untargetable Proto-Oncogenes

8.5 Innovation: Drug Discovery, Medical Devices and Digital Health

8.6 Cardiotoxicity and Cardiomyopathy Related to Drugs Adverse Effects

8.7 Nanotechnology and Ocular Drug Delivery: Part I

8.8 Transdermal drug delivery (TDD) system and nanotechnology: Part II

8.9 The Delicate Connection: IDO (Indolamine 2, 3 dehydrogenase) and Cancer Immunology

8.10 Natural Drug Target Discovery and Translational Medicine in Human Microbiome

8.11 From Genomics of Microorganisms to Translational Medicine

8.12 Confined Indolamine 2, 3 dioxygenase (IDO) Controls the Homeostasis of Immune Responses for Good and Bad

 

Chapter 9. BioPharma – Future Trends

9.1 Artificial Intelligence Versus the Scientist: Who Will Win?

9.2 The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on KannaLife Sciences and the Discipline and Potential of Pharmacognosy

9.3 The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Computer-Aided Drug Design and Gfree Bio, LLC

9.4 Heroes in Medical Research: The Postdoctoral Fellow

9.5 NIH Considers Guidelines for CAR-T therapy: Report from Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

9.6 1st Pitch Life Science- Philadelphia- What VCs Really Think of your Pitch

9.7 Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

9.8 Heroes in Medical Research: Green Fluorescent Protein and the Rough Road in Science

9.9 Issues in Personalized Medicine in Cancer: Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing

9.10 The SCID Pig II: Researchers Develop Another SCID Pig, And Another Great Model For Cancer Research

Epilogue

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Keystone Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology – 2016-2017 Forthcoming Conferences in Life Sciences

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

2016-2017 Forthcoming Conferences in Life Sciences by topic:

DNA Replication and Recombination (Z2)
April 2 – 6, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: John F.X. Diffley, Anja Groth and Scott Keeney

Immunology

Translational Vaccinology for Global Health (S1)
October 25 – 29, 2016 | London, United Kingdom
Scientific Organizers: Christopher L. Karp, Gagandeep Kang and Rino Rappuoli

Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses (S3)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: William E. Dowling and Thomas W. Geisbert

Cell Plasticity within the Tumor Microenvironment (A1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Big Sky, Montana, USA
Scientific Organizers: Sergei Grivennikov, Florian R. Greten and Mikala Egeblad

TGF-ß in Immunity, Inflammation and Cancer (A3)
January 9 – 13, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Wanjun Chen, Joanne E. Konkel and Richard A. Flavell

New Developments in Our Basic Understanding of Tuberculosis (A5)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Samuel M. Behar and Valerie Mizrahi

PI3K Pathways in Immunology, Growth Disorders and Cancer (A6)
January 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Leon O. Murphy, Klaus Okkenhaug and Sabina C. Cosulich

Biobetters and Next-Generation Biologics: Innovative Strategies for Optimally Effective Therapies (A7)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Cherié L. Butts, Amy S. Rosenberg, Amy D. Klion and Sachdev S. Sidhu

Obesity and Adipose Tissue Biology (J4)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Marc L. Reitman, Ruth E. Gimeno and Jan Nedergaard

Inflammation-Driven Cancer: Mechanisms to Therapy (J7)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Fiona M. Powrie, Michael Karin and Alberto Mantovani

Autophagy Network Integration in Health and Disease (B2)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Ivan Dikic, Katja Simon and J. Wade Harper

Asthma: From Pathway Biology to Precision Therapeutics (B3)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Clare M. Lloyd, John V. Fahy and Sally Wenzel-Morganroth

Viral Immunity: Mechanisms and Consequences (B4)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Akiko Iwasaki, Daniel B. Stetson and E. John Wherry

Lipidomics and Bioactive Lipids in Metabolism and Disease (B6)
February 26 – March 2, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alfred H. Merrill, Walter Allen Shaw, Sarah Spiegel and Michael J.O.Wakelam

Bile Acid Receptors as Signal Integrators in Liver and Metabolism (C1)
March 3 – 7, 2017 | Monterey, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Luciano Adorini, Kristina Schoonjans and Scott L. Friedman

Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy: Taking a Place in Mainstream Oncology (C7)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Robert D. Schreiber, James P. Allison, Philip D. Greenberg and Glenn Dranoff

Pattern Recognition Signaling: From Innate Immunity to Inflammatory Disease (X5)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Thirumala-Devi Kanneganti, Vishva M. Dixit and Mohamed Lamkanfi

Type I Interferon: Friend and Foe Alike (X6)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Alan Sher, Virginia Pascual, Adolfo García-Sastre and Anne O’Garra

Injury, Inflammation and Fibrosis (C8)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tatiana Kisseleva, Michael Karin and Andrew M. Tager

Immune Regulation in Autoimmunity and Cancer (D1)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: David A. Hafler, Vijay K. Kuchroo and Jane L. Grogan

B Cells and T Follicular Helper Cells – Controlling Long-Lived Immunity (D2)
April 23 – 27, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Stuart G. Tangye, Ignacio Sanz and Hai Qi

Mononuclear Phagocytes in Health, Immune Defense and Disease (D3)
April 30 – May 4, 2017 | Austin, Texas, USA
Scientific Organizers: Steffen Jung and Miriam Merad

Modeling Viral Infections and Immunity (E1)
May 1 – 4, 2017 | Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan S. Perelson, Rob J. De Boer and Phillip D. Hodgkin

Integrating Metabolism and Immunity (E4)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Hongbo Chi, Erika L. Pearce, Richard A. Flavell and Luke A.J. O’Neill

Neuroinflammation: Concepts, Characteristics, Consequences (E5)
June 19 – 23, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Richard M. Ransohoff, Christopher K. Glass and V. Hugh Perry

Infectious Diseases

Translational Vaccinology for Global Health (S1)
October 25 – 29, 2016 | London, United Kingdom
Scientific Organizers: Christopher L. Karp, Gagandeep Kang and Rino Rappuoli

Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses (S3)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: William E. Dowling and Thomas W. Geisbert

Cellular Stress Responses and Infectious Agents (S4)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Margo A. Brinton, Sandra K. Weller and Beth Levine

New Developments in Our Basic Understanding of Tuberculosis (A5)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Samuel M. Behar and Valerie Mizrahi

Autophagy Network Integration in Health and Disease (B2)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Ivan Dikic, Katja Simon and J. Wade Harper

Viral Immunity: Mechanisms and Consequences (B4)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Akiko Iwasaki, Daniel B. Stetson and E. John Wherry

Malaria: From Innovation to Eradication (B5)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Kampala, Uganda
Scientific Organizers: Marcel Tanner, Sarah K. Volkman, Marcus V.G. Lacerda and Salim Abdulla

Type I Interferon: Friend and Foe Alike (X6)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Alan Sher, Virginia Pascual, Adolfo García-Sastre and Anne O’Garra

HIV Vaccines (C9)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Steamboat Springs, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Andrew B. Ward, Penny L. Moore and Robin Shattock

Modeling Viral Infections and Immunity (E1)
May 1 – 4, 2017 | Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan S. Perelson, Rob J. De Boer and Phillip D. Hodgkin

Metabolic Diseases

Mitochondria Communication (A4)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jared Rutter, Cole M. Haynes and Marcia C. Haigis

Diabetes (J3)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jiandie Lin, Clay F. Semenkovich and Rohit N. Kulkarni

Obesity and Adipose Tissue Biology (J4)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Marc L. Reitman, Ruth E. Gimeno and Jan Nedergaard

Microbiome in Health and Disease (J8)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Julie A. Segre, Ramnik Xavier and William Michael Dunne

Bile Acid Receptors as Signal Integrators in Liver and Metabolism (C1)
March 3 – 7, 2017 | Monterey, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Luciano Adorini, Kristina Schoonjans and Scott L. Friedman

Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Metabolic Homeostasis, Diabetes and Obesity (C6)
March 19 – 22, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, Deborah Clegg and Arthur P. Arnold

Neuronal Control of Appetite, Metabolism and Weight (Z5)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Lora K. Heisler and Scott M. Sternson

Gastrointestinal Control of Metabolism (Z6)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Randy J. Seeley, Matthias H. Tschöp and Fiona M. Gribble

Integrating Metabolism and Immunity (E4)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Hongbo Chi, Erika L. Pearce, Richard A. Flavell and Luke A.J. O’Neill

Neurobiology

Transcriptional and Epigenetic Control in Stem Cells (J1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Konrad Hochedlinger, Kathrin Plath and Marius Wernig

Neurogenesis during Development and in the Adult Brain (J2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alysson R. Muotri, Kinichi Nakashima and Xinyu Zhao

Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases: Discovery and Models of Precision Therapy (C2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: William A. Gahl and Christoph Klein

mRNA Processing and Human Disease (C3)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: James L. Manley, Siddhartha Mukherjee and Gideon Dreyfuss

Synapses and Circuits: Formation, Function, and Dysfunction (X1)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tony Koleske, Yimin Zou, Kristin Scott and A. Kimberley McAllister

Connectomics (X2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Olaf Sporns, Danielle Bassett and Jeremy Freeman

Neuronal Control of Appetite, Metabolism and Weight (Z5)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Lora K. Heisler and Scott M. Sternson

Neuroinflammation: Concepts, Characteristics, Consequences (E5)
June 19 – 23, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Richard M. Ransohoff, Christopher K. Glass and V. Hugh Perry

Plant Biology

Phytobiomes: From Microbes to Plant Ecosystems (S2)
November 8 – 12, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jan E. Leach, Kellye A. Eversole, Jonathan A. Eisen and Gwyn Beattie

Structural Biology

Frontiers of NMR in Life Sciences (C5)
March 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Kurt Wüthrich, Michael Sattler and Stephen W. Fesik

Technologies

Cell Plasticity within the Tumor Microenvironment (A1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Big Sky, Montana, USA
Scientific Organizers: Sergei Grivennikov, Florian R. Greten and Mikala Egeblad

Precision Genome Engineering (A2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: J. Keith Joung, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Olivier Danos

Transcriptional and Epigenetic Control in Stem Cells (J1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Konrad Hochedlinger, Kathrin Plath and Marius Wernig

Protein-RNA Interactions: Scale, Mechanisms, Structure and Function of Coding and Noncoding RNPs (J6)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Gene W. Yeo, Jernej Ule, Karla Neugebauer and Melissa J. Moore

Lipidomics and Bioactive Lipids in Metabolism and Disease (B6)
February 26 – March 2, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alfred H. Merrill, Walter Allen Shaw, Sarah Spiegel and Michael J.O.Wakelam

Connectomics (X2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Olaf Sporns, Danielle Bassett and Jeremy Freeman

Engineered Cells and Tissues as Platforms for Discovery and Therapy (K1)
March 9 – 12, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: Laura E. Niklason, Milica Radisic and Nenad Bursac

Frontiers of NMR in Life Sciences (C5)
March 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Kurt Wüthrich, Michael Sattler and Stephen W. Fesik

October 2016

Translational Vaccinology for Global Health (S1)
October 25 – 29, 2016 | London, United Kingdom
Scientific Organizers: Christopher L. Karp, Gagandeep Kang and Rino Rappuoli

November 2016

Phytobiomes: From Microbes to Plant Ecosystems (S2)
November 8 – 12, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jan E. Leach, Kellye A. Eversole, Jonathan A. Eisen and Gwyn Beattie

December 2016

Hemorrhagic Fever Viruses (S3)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: William E. Dowling and Thomas W. Geisbert

Cellular Stress Responses and Infectious Agents (S4)
December 4 – 8, 2016 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Margo A. Brinton, Sandra K. Weller and Beth Levine

January 2017

Cell Plasticity within the Tumor Microenvironment (A1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Big Sky, Montana, USA
Scientific Organizers: Sergei Grivennikov, Florian R. Greten and Mikala Egeblad

Precision Genome Engineering (A2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: J. Keith Joung, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Olivier Danos

Transcriptional and Epigenetic Control in Stem Cells (J1)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Konrad Hochedlinger, Kathrin Plath and Marius Wernig

Neurogenesis during Development and in the Adult Brain (J2)
January 8 – 12, 2017 | Olympic Valley, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alysson R. Muotri, Kinichi Nakashima and Xinyu Zhao

TGF-ß in Immunity, Inflammation and Cancer (A3)
January 9 – 13, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Wanjun Chen, Joanne E. Konkel and Richard A. Flavell

Mitochondria Communication (A4)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jared Rutter, Cole M. Haynes and Marcia C. Haigis

New Developments in Our Basic Understanding of Tuberculosis (A5)
January 14 – 18, 2017 | Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Samuel M. Behar and Valerie Mizrahi

PI3K Pathways in Immunology, Growth Disorders and Cancer (A6)
January 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Leon O. Murphy, Klaus Okkenhaug and Sabina C. Cosulich

Biobetters and Next-Generation Biologics: Innovative Strategies for Optimally Effective Therapies (A7)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Cherié L. Butts, Amy S. Rosenberg, Amy D. Klion and Sachdev S. Sidhu

Diabetes (J3)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Jiandie Lin, Clay F. Semenkovich and Rohit N. Kulkarni

Obesity and Adipose Tissue Biology (J4)
January 22 – 26, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Marc L. Reitman, Ruth E. Gimeno and Jan Nedergaard

Omics Strategies to Study the Proteome (A8)
January 29 – February 2, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan Saghatelian, Chuan He and Ileana M. Cristea

Epigenetics and Human Disease: Progress from Mechanisms to Therapeutics (A9)
January 29 – February 2, 2017 | Seattle, Washington, USA
Scientific Organizers: Johnathan R. Whetstine, Jessica K. Tyler and Rab K. Prinjha

Hematopoiesis (B1)
January 31 – February 4, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Catriona H.M. Jamieson, Andreas Trumpp and Paul S. Frenette

February 2017

Noncoding RNAs: From Disease to Targeted Therapeutics (J5)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Kevin V. Morris, Archa Fox and Paloma Hoban Giangrande

Protein-RNA Interactions: Scale, Mechanisms, Structure and Function of Coding and Noncoding RNPs (J6)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Gene W. Yeo, Jernej Ule, Karla Neugebauer and Melissa J. Moore

Inflammation-Driven Cancer: Mechanisms to Therapy (J7)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Fiona M. Powrie, Michael Karin and Alberto Mantovani

Microbiome in Health and Disease (J8)
February 5 – 9, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Julie A. Segre, Ramnik Xavier and William Michael Dunne

Autophagy Network Integration in Health and Disease (B2)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Ivan Dikic, Katja Simon and J. Wade Harper

Asthma: From Pathway Biology to Precision Therapeutics (B3)
February 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Clare M. Lloyd, John V. Fahy and Sally Wenzel-Morganroth

Viral Immunity: Mechanisms and Consequences (B4)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Akiko Iwasaki, Daniel B. Stetson and E. John Wherry

Malaria: From Innovation to Eradication (B5)
February 19 – 23, 2017 | Kampala, Uganda
Scientific Organizers: Marcel Tanner, Sarah K. Volkman, Marcus V.G. Lacerda and Salim Abdulla

Lipidomics and Bioactive Lipids in Metabolism and Disease (B6)
February 26 – March 2, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alfred H. Merrill, Walter Allen Shaw, Sarah Spiegel and Michael J.O.Wakelam

March 2017

Bile Acid Receptors as Signal Integrators in Liver and Metabolism (C1)
March 3 – 7, 2017 | Monterey, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Luciano Adorini, Kristina Schoonjans and Scott L. Friedman

Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases: Discovery and Models of Precision Therapy (C2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: William A. Gahl and Christoph Klein

mRNA Processing and Human Disease (C3)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Taos, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: James L. Manley, Siddhartha Mukherjee and Gideon Dreyfuss

Kinases: Next-Generation Insights and Approaches (C4)
March 5 – 9, 2017 | Breckenridge, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Reid M. Huber, John Kuriyan and Ruth H. Palmer

Synapses and Circuits: Formation, Function, and Dysfunction (X1)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tony Koleske, Yimin Zou, Kristin Scott and A. Kimberley McAllister

Connectomics (X2)
March 5 – 8, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Olaf Sporns, Danielle Bassett and Jeremy Freeman

Tumor Metabolism: Mechanisms and Targets (X3)
March 5 – 9, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Brendan D. Manning, Kathryn E. Wellen and Reuben J. Shaw

Adaptations to Hypoxia in Physiology and Disease (X4)
March 5 – 9, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: M. Celeste Simon, Amato J. Giaccia and Randall S. Johnson

Engineered Cells and Tissues as Platforms for Discovery and Therapy (K1)
March 9 – 12, 2017 | Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Organizers: Laura E. Niklason, Milica Radisic and Nenad Bursac

Frontiers of NMR in Life Sciences (C5)
March 12 – 16, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Kurt Wüthrich, Michael Sattler and Stephen W. Fesik

Sex and Gender Factors Affecting Metabolic Homeostasis, Diabetes and Obesity (C6)
March 19 – 22, 2017 | Tahoe City, California, USA
Scientific Organizers: Franck Mauvais-Jarvis, Deborah Clegg and Arthur P. Arnold

Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy: Taking a Place in Mainstream Oncology (C7)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Robert D. Schreiber, James P. Allison, Philip D. Greenberg and Glenn Dranoff

Pattern Recognition Signaling: From Innate Immunity to Inflammatory Disease (X5)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Thirumala-Devi Kanneganti, Vishva M. Dixit and Mohamed Lamkanfi

Type I Interferon: Friend and Foe Alike (X6)
March 19 – 23, 2017 | Banff, Alberta, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Alan Sher, Virginia Pascual, Adolfo García-Sastre and Anne O’Garra

Injury, Inflammation and Fibrosis (C8)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Snowbird, Utah, USA
Scientific Organizers: Tatiana Kisseleva, Michael Karin and Andrew M. Tager

HIV Vaccines (C9)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Steamboat Springs, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Andrew B. Ward, Penny L. Moore and Robin Shattock

Immune Regulation in Autoimmunity and Cancer (D1)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: David A. Hafler, Vijay K. Kuchroo and Jane L. Grogan

Molecular Mechanisms of Heart Development (X7)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Benoit G. Bruneau, Brian L. Black and Margaret E. Buckingham

RNA-Based Approaches in Cardiovascular Disease (X8)
March 26 – 30, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Thomas Thum and Roger J. Hajjar

April 2017

Genomic Instability and DNA Repair (Z1)
April 2 – 6, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Julia Promisel Cooper, Marco F. Foiani and Geneviève Almouzni

DNA Replication and Recombination (Z2)
April 2 – 6, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: John F.X. Diffley, Anja Groth and Scott Keeney

B Cells and T Follicular Helper Cells – Controlling Long-Lived Immunity (D2)
April 23 – 27, 2017 | Whistler, British Columbia, Canada
Scientific Organizers: Stuart G. Tangye, Ignacio Sanz and Hai Qi

Mononuclear Phagocytes in Health, Immune Defense and Disease (D3)
April 30 – May 4, 2017 | Austin, Texas, USA
Scientific Organizers: Steffen Jung and Miriam Merad

May 2017

Modeling Viral Infections and Immunity (E1)
May 1 – 4, 2017 | Estes Park, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Alan S. Perelson, Rob J. De Boer and Phillip D. Hodgkin

Angiogenesis and Vascular Disease (Z3)
May 8 – 12, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: M. Luisa Iruela-Arispe, Timothy T. Hla and Courtney Griffin

Mitochondria, Metabolism and Heart (Z4)
May 8 – 12, 2017 | Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Scientific Organizers: Junichi Sadoshima, Toren Finkel and Åsa B. Gustafsson

Neuronal Control of Appetite, Metabolism and Weight (Z5)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Lora K. Heisler and Scott M. Sternson

Gastrointestinal Control of Metabolism (Z6)
May 9 – 13, 2017 | Copenhagen, Denmark
Scientific Organizers: Randy J. Seeley, Matthias H. Tschöp and Fiona M. Gribble

Aging and Mechanisms of Aging-Related Disease (E2)
May 15 – 19, 2017 | Yokohama, Japan
Scientific Organizers: Kazuo Tsubota, Shin-ichiro Imai, Matt Kaeberlein and Joan Mannick

Single Cell Omics (E3)
May 26 – 30, 2017 | Stockholm, Sweden
Scientific Organizers: Sarah Teichmann, Evan W. Newell and William J. Greenleaf

Integrating Metabolism and Immunity (E4)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Hongbo Chi, Erika L. Pearce, Richard A. Flavell and Luke A.J. O’Neill

Cell Death and Inflammation (K2)
May 29 – June 2, 2017 | Dublin, Ireland
Scientific Organizers: Seamus J. Martin and John Silke

June 2017

Neuroinflammation: Concepts, Characteristics, Consequences (E5)
June 19 – 23, 2017 | Keystone, Colorado, USA
Scientific Organizers: Richard M. Ransohoff, Christopher K. Glass and V. Hugh Perry

SOURCE

Read Full Post »


Selye’s Riddle solved

Larry H. Bernstein, mD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Mathematicians Solve 78-year-old Mystery

Mathematicians developed a solution to Selye's riddle which has puzzled scientists for almost 80 years.
Mathematicians developed a solution to Selye’s riddle which has puzzled scientists for almost 80 years.

In previous research, it was suggested that adaptation of an animal to different factors looks like spending of one resource, and that the animal dies when this resource is exhausted. In 1938, Hans Selye introduced “adaptation energy” and found strong experimental arguments in favor of this hypothesis. However, this term has caused much debate because, as it cannot be measured as a physical quantity, adaptation energy is not strictly energy.

 

Evolution of adaptation mechanisms: Adaptation energy, stress, and oscillating death

Alexander N. Gorbana, , Tatiana A. Tyukinaa, Elena V. Smirnovab, Lyudmila I. Pokidyshevab,

Highlights

•   We formalize Selye׳s ideas about adaptation energy and dynamics of adaptation.
•   A hierarchy of dynamic models of adaptation is developed.
•   Adaptation energy is considered as an internal coordinate on the ‘dominant path’ in the model of adaptation.
•   The optimal distribution of resources for neutralization of harmful factors is studied.
•   The phenomena of ‘oscillating death’ and ‘oscillating remission’ are predicted.       

In previous research, it was suggested that adaptation of an animal to different factors looks like spending of one resource, and that the animal dies when this resource is exhausted.

In 1938, Selye proposed the notion of adaptation energy and published ‘Experimental evidence supporting the conception of adaptation energy.’ Adaptation of an animal to different factors appears as the spending of one resource. Adaptation energy is a hypothetical extensive quantity spent for adaptation. This term causes much debate when one takes it literally, as a physical quantity, i.e. a sort of energy. The controversial points of view impede the systematic use of the notion of adaptation energy despite experimental evidence. Nevertheless, the response to many harmful factors often has general non-specific form and we suggest that the mechanisms of physiological adaptation admit a very general and nonspecific description.

We aim to demonstrate that Selye׳s adaptation energy is the cornerstone of the top-down approach to modelling of non-specific adaptation processes. We analyze Selye׳s axioms of adaptation energy together with Goldstone׳s modifications and propose a series of models for interpretation of these axioms. Adaptation energy is considered as an internal coordinate on the ‘dominant path’ in the model of adaptation. The phenomena of ‘oscillating death’ and ‘oscillating remission’ are predicted on the base of the dynamical models of adaptation. Natural selection plays a key role in the evolution of mechanisms of physiological adaptation. We use the fitness optimization approach to study of the distribution of resources for neutralization of harmful factors, during adaptation to a multifactor environment, and analyze the optimal strategies for different systems of factors.

In this work, an international team of researchers, led by Professor Alexander N. Gorban from the University of Leicester, have developed a solution to Selye’s riddle, which has puzzled scientists for almost 80 years.

Alexander N. Gorban, Professor of Applied Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Leicester, said: “Nobody can measure adaptation energy directly, indeed, but it can be understood by its place already in simple models. In this work, we develop a hierarchy of top-down models following Selye’s findings and further developments. We trust Selye’s intuition and experiments and use the notion of adaptation energy as a cornerstone in a system of models. We provide a ‘thermodynamic-like’ theory of organism resilience that, just like classical thermodynamics, allows for economics metaphors, such as cost and bankruptcy and, more importantly, is largely independent of a detailed mechanistic explanation of what is ‘going on underneath’.”

Adaptation energy is considered as an internal coordinate on the “dominant path” in the model of adaptation. The phenomena of “oscillating death” and “oscillating remission,” which have been observed in clinic for a long time, are predicted on the basis of the dynamical models of adaptation. The models, based on Selye’s idea of adaptation energy, demonstrate that the oscillating remission and oscillating death do not need exogenous reasons. The developed theory of adaptation to various factors gives the instrument for the early anticipation of crises.

Professor Alessandro Giuliani from Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome commented on the work, saying: “Gorban and his colleagues dare to make science adopting the thermodynamics style: they look for powerful principles endowed with predictive ability in the real world before knowing the microscopic details. This is, in my opinion, the only possible way out from the actual repeatability crisis of mainstream biology, where a fantastic knowledge of the details totally fails to predict anything outside the test tube.1

Citation: Alexander N. Gorban, Tatiana A. Tyukina, Elena V. Smirnova, Lyudmila I. Pokidysheva. Evolution of adaptation mechanisms: Adaptation energy, stress, and oscillating death. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2016; DOI:10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.12.017. Voosen P. (2015) Amid a Sea of False Findings NIH tries Reform, The Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Occupational Therapy

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Definition of Occupational Therapy

Occupational therapy is a client-centred health profession concerned with promoting health and well being through occupation. The primary goal of occupational therapy is to enable people to participate in the activities of everyday life. Occupational therapists achieve this outcome by working with people and communities to enhance their ability to engage in the occupations they want to, need to, or are expected to do, or by modifying the occupation or the environment to better support their occupational engagement.(WFOT 2012)

Read the Statement on Occupational Therapy

In occupational therapy, occupations refer to the everyday activities that people do as individuals, in families and with communities to occupy time and bring meaning and purpose to life. Occupations include things people need to, want to and are expected to do.

Definition of Occupational Therapy Practice for the AOTA Model Practice Act

http://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Advocacy/State/Resources/PracticeAct/Model%20Definition%20of%20OT%20Practice%20%20Adopted%2041411.ashx

The practice of occupational therapy means the therapeutic use of occupations, including everyday life activities with individuals, groups, populations, or organizations to support participation, performance, and function in roles and situations in home, school, workplace, community, and other settings. Occupational therapy services are provided for habilitation, rehabilitation, and the promotion of health and wellness to those who have or are at risk for developing an illness, injury, disease, disorder, condition, impairment, disability, activity limitation, or participation restriction. Occupational therapy addresses the physical, cognitive, psychosocial, sensory-perceptual, and other aspects of performance in a variety of contexts and environments to support engagement in occupations that affect physical and mental health, well-being, and quality of life. The practice of occupational therapy includes:

A. Evaluation of factors affecting activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), rest and sleep, education, work, play, leisure, and social participation, including:

1. Client factors, including body functions (such as neuromusculoskeletal, sensory-perceptual, visual, mental, cognitive, and pain factors) and body structures (such as cardiovascular, digestive, nervous, integumentary, genitourinary systems, and structures related to movement), values, beliefs, and spirituality.

2. Habits, routines, roles, rituals, and behavior patterns.

3. Physical and social environments, cultural, personal, temporal, and virtual contexts and activity demands that affect performance.

4. Performance skills, including motor and praxis, sensory-perceptual, emotional regulation, cognitive, communication and social skills.

B. Methods or approaches selected to direct the process of interventions such as:

1. Establishment, remediation, or restoration of a skill or ability that has not yet developed, is impaired, or is in decline.

2. Compensation, modification, or adaptation of activity or environment to enhance performance, or to prevent injuries, disorders, or other conditions.

3. Retention and enhancement of skills or abilities without which performance in everyday life activities would decline.

4. Promotion of health and wellness, including the use of self-management strategies, to enable or enhance performance in everyday life activities.

5. Prevention of barriers to performance and participation, including injury and disability prevention.

C. Interventions and procedures to promote or enhance safety and performance in activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), rest and sleep, education, work, play, leisure, and social participation, including:

1. Therapeutic use of occupations, exercises, and activities.

2. Training in self-care, self-management, health management and maintenance, home management, community/work reintegration, and school activities and work performance.

3. Development, remediation, or compensation of neuromusculoskeletal, sensory-perceptual, visual, mental, and cognitive functions, pain tolerance and management, and behavioral skills.

4. Therapeutic use of self, including one’s personality, insights, perceptions, and judgments, as part of the therapeutic process.

5. Education and training of individuals, including family members, caregivers, groups, populations, and others.

6. Care coordination, case management, and transition services.

7. Consultative services to groups, programs, organizations, or communities.

8. Modification of environments (home, work, school, or community) and adaptation of processes, including the application of ergonomic principles.

9. Assessment, design, fabrication, application, fitting, and training in seating and positioning, assistive technology, adaptive devices, and orthotic devices, and training in the use of prosthetic devices.

10. Assessment, recommendation, and training in techniques to enhance functional mobility, including management of wheelchairs and other mobility devices.

11. Low vision rehabilitation.

12. Driver rehabilitation and community mobility.

13. Management of feeding, eating, and swallowing to enable eating and feeding performance.

14. Application of physical agent modalities, and use of a range of specific therapeutic procedures (such as wound care management; interventions to enhance sensory-perceptual, and cognitive processing; and manual therapy) to enhance performance skills.

15. Facilitating the occupational performance of groups, populations, or organizations through the modification of environments and the adaptation of processes.

Adopted by the Representative Assembly 4/14/11 (Agenda A13, Charge 18)

Read Full Post »


Pain Management

Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Pain Management Health Center

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/

 

Pain Management Overview

Pain management is important for ongoing pain control, especially if you suffer with long-term or chronic pain. After getting a pain assessment, your doctor can prescribe pain medicine, other pain treatments, or psychotherapy to help with pain relief.

Nearly any part of your body is vulnerable to pain. Acute pain warns us that something may be wrong. Chronic pain can rob us of our daily life, making it difficult and even unbearable. Many people with chronic pain can be helped by understanding the causes, symptoms, and treatments for pain – and how to cope with the frustrations.

You know your pain better than anyone — and as hard as it’s been to handle it, your experience holds the key to making a plan to treat it.

Each person and their pain are unique. The best way to manage your case could be very different from what works for someone else. Your treatment will depend upon things such as:

  • The cause
  • How intense it is
  • How long it’s lasted
  • What makes it worse or better

It can be a process to find your best plan. You can try a combination of things and then report back to your doctor about how your pain is doing. Together, you can tweak your program based on what’s working and what needs more help.

All Pain Is Not the Same

In order to make your pain management plan, your doctor will first consider whether you have sudden (“acute”) or long-term (“chronic”) pain.

Acute pain starts suddenly and usually feels sharp. Broken bones, burns, or cuts are classic examples. So is pain after surgery or giving birth.

Acute pain may be mild and last just a moment. Or it may be severe and last for weeks or months. In most cases, acute pain does not last longer than 6 months, and it stops when its underlying cause has been treated or has healed.

If the problem that causes short-term pain isn’t treated, it may lead to long-term, or “chronic” pain.

Chronic pain lasts longer than 3 months, often despite the fact that an injury has healed. It could even last for years. Some examples include:

  • Headache
  • Low back pain
  • Cancer pain
  • Arthritis pain
  • Pain caused by nerve damage

It can cause tense muscles, problems with moving, a lack of energy, and changes in appetite. It can also affect your emotions. Some people feel depressed, angry, or anxious about the pain and injury coming back.

Chronic pain doesn’t always have an obvious physical cause.

What Can I Do to Feel Better?

1. Keep moving. You might think it’s best to rest on the sidelines. But being active is a good idea. You’ll get stronger and move better.

The key is knowing what’s OK for you to do to get stronger and challenge your body, without doing too much, too soon.

Your doctor can let you know what changes to make. For instance, if you used to run and your joints can’t take that now because you have a chronic condition like osteoarthritis, you might be able to switch to something like biking or swimming.

2. Physical and occupational therapy. Take your recovery to the next level with these treatments. In PT, you’ll focus on the exact muscles you need to strengthen, stretch, and recover from injury. Your doctor may also recommend “occupational therapy,” which focuses on how to do specific tasks, like walking up and down stairs, opening a jar, or getting in and out of a car, with less pain.

3. Counseling. If pain gets you down, reach out. A counselor can help you get back to feeling like yourself again. You can say anything, set goals, and get support. Even a few sessions are a good idea. Look for a counselor who does “cognitive behavioral therapy,” in which you learn ways that your thinking can support you as you work toward solutions.

4. Massage therapy. It’s not a cure, but it can help you feel better temporarily and ease tension in your muscles. Ask your doctor or physical therapist to recommend a massage therapist. At your first appointment, tell them about the pain you have. And be sure to let them know if the massage feels too intense.

5. Relaxation. Meditation and deep breathing are two techniques to try. You could also picture a peaceful scene, do some gentle stretching, or listen to music you love. Another technique is to scan your body slowly in your mind, and consciously try to relax each part of your body, one by one, from head to toe. Any healthy activity that helps you unwind is good for you and can help you feel better prepared to manage your pain.

6. Consider complementary treatments such as acupuncture, biofeedback, and spinal manipulation. In acupuncture, a trained practitioner briefly inserts very thin needles in certain places on your skin to tap into your “chi,” which is an inner energy noted in traditional Chinese medicine. It doesn’t hurt.

Biofeedback trains you to control how your body responds to pain. In a session of it, you’ll wear electrodes hooked up to a machine that tracks your heart rate, breathing, and skin temperature, so you can see the results.

When you get spinal manipulation, a medical professional uses their hands or a device to adjust your spine so that you can move better and have less pain. Some MDs do this. So do chiropractors, osteopathic doctors (they have “DO” after their name instead of “MD”), and some physical therapists.

Are There Devices That Help?

Although there are no products that take pain away completely, there are some that you and your doctor could consider.

TENS and ultrasound. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, or TENS, uses a device to send an electric current to the skin over the area where you have pain. Ultrasound sends sound waves to the places you have pain. Both may offer relief by blocking the pain messages sent to your brain.

Spinal cord stimulation. An implanted device delivers low-voltage electricity to the spine to block pain.  If your doctor thinks it’s an option, you would use it for a trial period before you get surgery to have it permanently implanted. In most cases, you can go home the same day as the procedure.

What About Medicine?

Your doctor will consider what’s causing your pain, how long you’ve had it, how intense it is, and what medications will help. They may recommend one or more of the following:

These may include over-the-counter pain relievers such as acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, or naproxen. Or you may need stronger medications that require a prescription, such as steroids, morphine, codeine, or anesthesia.

Some are pills or tablets. Others are shots. There are also sprays or lotions that go on your skin.

Other drugs, like muscle relaxers and some antidepressants, are also used for pain. Some people may need anesthetic drugs to block pain.

Will I Need Surgery?

It depends on why you’re in pain. If you’ve had a sudden injury or accident, you might need surgery right away.

But if you have chronic pain, you may or may not need an operation or another procedure, such as a nerve block (done with anesthetics or other types of prescription drugs to halt pain signals) or a spinal injection (such as a shot of cortisone or an anesthetic drug).

Talk with your doctor about what results you can expect and any side effects, so you can weigh the risks and the benefits. Also ask how many times the doctor has done the procedure they recommend and what their patients have said about how much relief they’ve gotten.

WebMD Medical Reference

Reviewed by Jennifer Robinson, MD on September 20, 2015

Read Full Post »


Advances in acoustics and in learning

Larry H. Brnstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

Controlling acoustic properties with algorithms and computational methods

http://www.kurzweilai.net/controlling-acoustic-properties-with-algorithms-and-computational-methods

October 28, 2015

Computer scientists at Columbia Engineering, Harvard, and MIT have demonstrated that acoustic properties — both sound and vibration — can be controlled by 3D-printing specific shapes.

They designed an optimization algorithm and used computational methods and digital fabrication to alter the shape of 2D and 3D objects, creating what looks to be a simple children’s musical instrument — a xylophone with keys in the shape of zoo animals.

Practical uses

“Our discovery could lead to a wealth of possibilities that go well beyond musical instruments,” says Changxi Zheng, assistant professor of computer science at Columbia Engineering, who led the research team.

“Our algorithm could lead to ways to build less noisy computer fans and bridges that don’t amplify vibrations under stress, and advance the construction of micro-electro-mechanical resonators whose vibration modes are of great importance.”

Zheng, who works in the area of dynamic, physics-based computational sound for immersive environments, wanted to see if he could use computation and digital fabrication to actively control the acoustical property, or vibration, of an object.

Zheng’s team decided to focus on simplifying the slow, complicated, manual process of designing “idiophones” — musical instruments that produce sounds through vibrations in the instrument itself, not through strings or reeds.

The surface vibration and resulting sounds depend on the idiophone’s shape in a complex way, so designing the shapes to obtain desired sound characteristics is not straightforward, and their forms have so far been limited to well-understood designs such as bars that are tuned by careful drilling of dimples on the underside of the instrument.

Optimizing sound properties

To demonstrate their new technique, the team settled on building a “zoolophone,” a metallophone with playful animal shapes (a metallophone is an idiophone made of tuned metal bars that can be struck to make sound, such as a glockenspiel).

 

What happens in the brain when we learn

http://www.kurzweilai.net/what-happens-in-the-brain-when-we-learn

Findings could enhance teaching methods and lead to treatments for cognitive problems
October 28, 2015

A Johns Hopkins University-led research team has proven a working theory that explains what happens in the brain when we learn, as described in the current issue of the journal Neuron.

More than a century ago, Pavlov figured out that dogs fed after hearing a bell eventually began to salivate when they heard the bell ring. The team looked into the question of how Pavlov’s dogs (in “classical conditioning”) managed to associate an action with a delayed reward to create knowledge. For decades, scientists had a working theory of how it happened, but the team is now the first to prove it.

“If you’re trying to train a dog to sit, the initial neural stimuli, the command, is gone almost instantly — it lasts as long as the word sit,” said neuroscientist Alfredo Kirkwood, a professor with the university’s Zanvyl Krieger Mind/Brain Institute. “Before the reward comes, the dog’s brain has already turned to other things. The mystery was, ‘How does the brain link an action that’s over in a fraction of a second with a reward that doesn’t come until much later?’ ”

Eligibility traces

The working theory — which Kirkwood’s team has now validated experimentally — is that invisible “synaptic eligibility traces” effectively tag the synapses activated by the stimuli so that the learning can be cemented with the arrival of a reward. The reward is a neuromodulator* (neurochemical) that floods the dog’s brain with “good feelings.” Though the brain has long since processed the “sit” command, eligibility traces in the synapse respond to the neuromodulators, prompting a lasting synaptic change, a.k.a. “learning.”

The team was able to prove the eligibility-traces theory by isolating cells in the visual cortex of a mouse. When they stimulated the axon of one cell with an electrical impulse, they sparked a response in another cell. By doing this repeatedly, they mimicked the synaptic response between two cells as they process a stimulus and create an eligibility trace.

When the researchers later flooded the cells with neuromodulators, simulating the arrival of a delayed reward, the response between the cells strengthened (“long-term potentiation”) or weakened (“long-term depression”), showing that the cells had “learned” and were able to do so because of the eligibility trace.

“This is the basis of how we learn things through reward,” Kirkwood said, “a fundamental aspect of learning.”

In addition to a greater understanding of the mechanics of learning, these findings could enhance teaching methods and lead to treatments for cognitive problems, the researchers suggest.

Scientists at the University of Texas at Houston and the University of California, Davis were also involved in the research, which was supported by grants from JHU’s Science of Learning Institute and National Institutes of Health.

* The neuromodulators tested were norepinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, and acetylcholine, all of which have been implicated in cortical plasticity (ability to grow and form new connections to other neurons).


Abstract of Distinct Eligibility Traces for LTP and LTD in Cortical Synapses

In reward-based learning, synaptic modifications depend on a brief stimulus and a temporally delayed reward, which poses the question of how synaptic activity patterns associate with a delayed reward. A theoretical solution to this so-called distal reward problem has been the notion of activity-generated “synaptic eligibility traces,” silent and transient synaptic tags that can be converted into long-term changes in synaptic strength by reward-linked neuromodulators. Here we report the first experimental demonstration of eligibility traces in cortical synapses. We demonstrate the Hebbian induction of distinct traces for LTP and LTD and their subsequent timing-dependent transformation into lasting changes by specific monoaminergic receptors anchored to postsynaptic proteins. Notably, the temporal properties of these transient traces allow stable learning in a recurrent neural network that accurately predicts the timing of the reward, further validating the induction and transformation of eligibility traces for LTP and LTD as a plausible synaptic substrate for reward-based learning.

 

Holographic sonic tractor beam lifts and moves objects using soundwaves

Another science-fiction idea realized
October 27, 2015

British researchers have built a working Star-Trek-style “tractor beam” — a device that can attract or repel one object to another from a distance. It uses high-amplitude soundwaves to generate an acoustic hologram that can grasp and move small objects.

The technique, published in an open-access paper in Nature Communications October 27, has a wide range of potential applications, the researchers say. A sonic production line could transport delicate objects and assemble them, all without physical contact. Or a miniature version could grip and transport drug capsules or microsurgical instruments through living tissue.

The device was developed at the Universities of Sussex and Bristol in collaboration with Ultrahaptics.

https://youtu.be/wDzhlW-rKvM
University of Sussex | Levitation using sound waves

The researchers used an array of 64 miniature loudspeakers. The whole system consumes just 9 Watts of power, used to create high-pitched (40Khz), high-intensity sound waves to levitate a spherical bead 4mm in diameter made of expanded polystyrene.

The tractor beam works by surrounding the object with high-intensity sound to create a force field that keeps the objects in place. By carefully controlling the output of the loudspeakers, the object can be held in place, moved, or rotated.

Three different shapes of acoustic force fields work as tractor beams: an acoustic force field that resembles a pair of fingers or tweezers; an acoustic vortex, the objects becoming trapped at the core; and a high-intensity “cage” that surrounds the objects and holds them in place from all directions.

Previous attempts surrounded the object with loudspeakers, which limits the extent of movement and restricts many applications. Last year, the University of Dundee presented the concept of a tractor beam, but no objects were held in the ray.

The team is now designing different variations of this system. A bigger version aims at levitating a soccer ball from 10 meters away and a smaller version aims at manipulating particles inside the human body.

https://youtu.be/g_EM1y4MKSc
Asier Marzo, Matt Sutton, Bruce Drinkwater and Sriram Subramanian | Acoustic holograms are projected from a flat surface and contrary to traditional holograms, they exert considerable forces on the objects contained within. The acoustic holograms can be updated in real time to translate, rotate and combine levitated particles enabling unprecedented contactless manipulators such as tractor beams.


Abstract of Holographic acoustic elements for manipulation of levitated objects

Sound can levitate objects of different sizes and materials through air, water and tissue. This allows us to manipulate cells, liquids, compounds or living things without touching or contaminating them. However, acoustic levitation has required the targets to be enclosed with acoustic elements or had limited maneuverability. Here we optimize the phases used to drive an ultrasonic phased array and show that acoustic levitation can be employed to translate, rotate and manipulate particles using even a single-sided emitter. Furthermore, we introduce the holographic acoustic elements framework that permits the rapid generation of traps and provides a bridge between optical and acoustical trapping. Acoustic structures shaped as tweezers, twisters or bottles emerge as the optimum mechanisms for tractor beams or containerless transportation. Single-beam levitation could manipulate particles inside our body for applications in targeted drug delivery or acoustically controlled micro-machines that do not interfere with magnetic resonance imaging.

 

A drug-delivery technique to bypass the blood-brain barrier

http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-drug-delivery-technique-to-bypass-the-blood-brain-barrier

Could benefit a large population of patients with neurodegenerative disorders
October 26, 2015

Researchers at Massachusetts Eye and Ear/Harvard Medical School and Boston University have developed a new technique to deliver drugs across the blood-brain barrier and have successfully tested it in a Parkinson’s mouse model (a line of mice that has been genetically modified to express the symptoms and pathological features of Parkinson’s to various extents).

Their findings, published in the journal Neurosurgery, lend hope to patients with neurological conditions that are difficult to treat due to a barrier mechanism that prevents approximately 98 percent of drugs from reaching the brain and central nervous system.

“Although we are currently looking at neurodegenerative disease, there is potential for the technology to be expanded to psychiatric diseases, chronic pain, seizure disorders, and many other conditions affecting the brain and nervous system down the road,” said senior author Benjamin S. Bleier, M.D., of the department of otolaryngology at Mass. Eye and Ear/Harvard Medical School.

The nasal mucosal grafting solution

Researchers delivered glial derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), a therapeutic protein in testing for treating Parkinson’s disease, to the brains of mice. They showed that their delivery method was equivalent to direct injection of GDNF, which has been shown to delay and even reverse disease progression of Parkinson’s disease in pre-clinical models.

Once they have finished the treatment, they use adjacent nasal lining to rebuild the hole in a permanent and safe way. Nasal mucosal grafting is a technique regularly used in the ENT (ear, nose, and throat) field to reconstruct the barrier around the brain after surgery to the skull base. ENT surgeons commonly use endoscopic approaches to remove brain tumors through the nose by making a window through the blood-brain barrier to access the brain.

The safety and efficacy of these methods have been well established through long-term clinical outcomes studies in the field, with the nasal lining protecting the brain from infection just as the blood brain barrier has done.

By functionally replacing a section of the blood-brain barrier with nasal mucosa, which is more than 1,000 times more permeable than the native barrier, surgeons could create a “screen door” to allow for drug delivery to the brain and central nervous system.

The technique has the potential to benefit a large population of patients with neurodegenerative disorders, where there is still a specific unmet need for blood-brain-penetrating therapeutic delivery strategies.

The study was funded by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF).


Abstract of Heterotopic Mucosal Grafting Enables the Delivery of Therapeutic Neuropeptides Across the Blood Brain Barrier

BACKGROUND: The blood-brain barrier represents a fundamental limitation in treating neurological disease because it prevents all neuropeptides from reaching the central nervous system (CNS). Currently, there is no efficient method to permanently bypass the blood-brain barrier.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of using nasal mucosal graft reconstruction of arachnoid defects to deliver glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) for the treatment of Parkinson disease in a mouse model.

METHODS: The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved this study in an established murine 6-hydroxydopamine Parkinson disease model. A parietal craniotomy and arachnoid defect was repaired with a heterotopic donor mucosal graft. The therapeutic efficacy of GDNF (2 [mu]g/mL) delivered through the mucosal graft was compared with direct intrastriatal GDNF injection (2 [mu]g/mL) and saline control through the use of 2 behavioral assays (rotarod and apomorphine rotation). An immunohistological analysis was further used to compare the relative preservation of substantia nigra cell bodies between treatment groups.

RESULTS: Transmucosal GDNF was equivalent to direct intrastriatal injection at preserving motor function at week 7 in both the rotarod and apomorphine rotation behavioral assays. Similarly, both transmucosal and intrastriatal GDNF demonstrated an equivalent ratio of preserved substantia nigra cell bodies (0.79 +/- 0.14 and 0.78 +/- 0.09, respectively, P = NS) compared with the contralateral control side, and both were significantly greater than saline control (0.53 +/- 0.21; P = .01 and P = .03, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Transmucosal delivery of GDNF is equivalent to direct intrastriatal injection at ameliorating the behavioral and immunohistological features of Parkinson disease in a murine model. Mucosal grafting of arachnoid defects is a technique commonly used for endoscopic skull base reconstruction and may represent a novel method to permanently bypass the blood-brain barrier.

 

Creating an artificial sense of touch by electrical stimulation of the brain

http://www.kurzweilai.net/creating-an-artificial-sense-of-touch-by-electrical-stimulation-of-the-brain

DARPA-funded study may lead to building prosthetic limbs for humans using a direct brain-electrode interface to recreate the sense of touch
October 26, 2015

Neuroscientists in a project headed by the University of Chicago have determined some of the specific characteristics of electrical stimuli that should be applied to the brain to produce different sensations in an artificial upper limb intended to restore natural motor control and sensation in amputees.

The research is part of Revolutionizing Prosthetics, a multi-year Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

For this study, the researchers used monkeys, whose sensory systems closely resemble those of humans. They implanted electrodes into the primary somatosensory cortex, the area of the brain that processes touch information from the hand. The animals were trained to perform two perceptual tasks: one in which they detected the presence of an electrical stimulus, and a second task in which they indicated which of two successive stimuli was more intense.

The sense of touch is made up of a complex and nuanced set of sensations, from contact and pressure to texture, vibration and movement. The goal of the research is to document the range, composition and specific increments of signals that create sensations that feel different from each other.

To achieve that, the researchers manipulated various features of the electrical pulse train, such as its amplitude, frequency, and duration, and noted how the interaction of each of these factors affected the animals’ ability to detect the signal.

Of specific interest were the “just-noticeable differences” (JND),” — the incremental changes needed to produce a sensation that felt different. For instance, at a certain frequency, the signal may be detectable first at a strength of 20 microamps of electricity. If the signal has to be increased to 50 microamps to notice a difference, the JND in that case is 30 microamps.*

“When you grasp an object, for example, you can hold it with different grades of pressure. To recreate a realistic sense of touch, you need to know how many grades of pressure you can convey through electrical stimulation,” said Sliman Bensmaia, PhD, Associate Professor in the Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago and senior author of the study, which was published today (Oct. 26) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Ideally, you can have the same dynamic range for artificial touch as you do for natural touch.”

“This study gets us to the point where we can actually create real algorithms that work. It gives us the parameters as to what we can achieve with artificial touch, and brings us one step closer to having human-ready algorithms.”

Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and Johns Hopkins University were also involved in the DARPA-supported study.

* The study also has important scientific implications beyond neuroprosthetics. In natural perception, a principle known as Weber’s Law states that the just-noticeable difference between two stimuli is proportional to the size of the stimulus. For example, with a 100-watt light bulb, you might be able to detect a difference in brightness by increasing its power to 110 watts. The JND in that case is 10 watts. According to Weber’s Law, if you double the power of the light bulb to 200 watts, the JND would also be doubled to 20 watts.

However, Bensmaia’s research shows that with electrical stimulation of the brain, Weber’s Law does not apply — the JND remains nearly constant, no matter the size of the stimulus. This means that the brain responds to electrical stimulation in a much more repeatable, consistent way than through natural stimulation.

“It shows that there is something fundamentally different about the way the brain responds to electrical stimulation than it does to natural stimulation,” Bensmaia said.


Abstract of Behavioral assessment of sensitivity to intracortical microstimulation of primate somatosensory cortex

Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) is a powerful tool to investigate the functional role of neural circuits and may provide a means to restore sensation for patients for whom peripheral stimulation is not an option. In a series of psychophysical experiments with nonhuman primates, we investigate how stimulation parameters affect behavioral sensitivity to ICMS. Specifically, we deliver ICMS to primary somatosensory cortex through chronically implanted electrode arrays across a wide range of stimulation regimes. First, we investigate how the detectability of ICMS depends on stimulation parameters, including pulse width, frequency, amplitude, and pulse train duration. Then, we characterize the degree to which ICMS pulse trains that differ in amplitude lead to discriminable percepts across the range of perceptible and safe amplitudes. We also investigate how discriminability of pulse amplitude is modulated by other stimulation parameters—namely, frequency and duration. Perceptual judgments obtained across these various conditions will inform the design of stimulation regimes for neuroscience and neuroengineering applications.

references:

  • Sungshin Kim, Thierri Callier, Gregg A. Tabot, Robert A. Gaunt, Francesco V. Tenore, and Sliman J. Bensmaia. Behavioral assessment of sensitivity to intracortical microstimulation of primate somatosensory cortex. PNAS 2015; doi:10.1073/pnas.1509265112

Read Full Post »


Neural Activity Regulating Endocrine Response

Writer and Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

Defensive responses of Brandt’s voles (Lasiopodomys brandtii) to chronic predatory stress

Ibrahim M. Hegab, Guoshen Shang, Manhong Ye, Yajuan, et al.
Physiology & Behavior 126 (2014) 1–7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.12.001

Predator odors are non-intrusive natural stressors of high ethological relevance. The objective of this study was to investigate the processing of a chronic, life-threatening stimulus during repeated prolonged presentation to Brandt’s voles. One hundred and twenty voles were tested by repeated presentation of cat feces in a defensive withdrawal apparatus. Voles exposed to feces for short periods showed more avoidance, more concealment in the hide box, less contact time with the odor source, more freezing behavior, less grooming, more jumping, and more vigilant rearing than did non-exposed voles, and those exposed for longer periods. Serum levels of adrenocortico-tropic hormone and corticosterone increased significantly when animals were repeatedly exposed to cat feces for short periods. The behavioral and endocrine responses  habituated during prolonged presentation of cat feces.  ΔfosB mRNA expression level was highest in voles exposed to cat feces for 6 and 12 consecutive days, and subsequently declined in animals exposed to cat feces for 24 days. We therefore conclude that the behavioral and endocrine responses to repeated exposure to cat feces undergo a process of habituation, while ΔfosB changes in the medial hypothalamic region exhibit sensitization. We propose that habituation and sensitization are complementary rather than contradictory processes that occur in the same individual upon repeated presentation of the same stressor.

Neuroendocrine changes upon exposure to predator odors

Ibrahim M. Hegab, Wanhong Wei
Physiology & Behavior 131 (2014) 149–155
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.04.041

Predator odors are non-intrusive and naturalistic stressors of high ethological relevance in animals. Upon exposure to a predator or its associated cues, robust physiological and molecular anti-predator defensive strategies are

elicited thereby allowing prey species to recognize, avoid and defend against a possible predation threat. In this review, we will discuss the nature of neuroendocrine stress responses upon exposure to predator odors. Predator odors can have a profound effect on the endocrine system, including activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, and induction of stress hormones such as corticosterone and adrenocorticotropic hormone. On a neural level, short-term exposure to predator odors leads to induction of the c-fos gene, while induction of ΔFosB in a different brain region is detected under chronic predation stress. Future research should aim to elucidate the relationships between neuroendocrine and behavioral outputs to gage the different levels of antipredator responses in prey species.

Involvement of NR1, NR2A different expression in brain regions in anxiety-like behavior of prenatally stressed offspring

Hongli Sun, Ning Jia, Lixia Guan, Qing Su, et al.
Behavioural Brain Research 257 (2013) 1– 7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.08.044

Prenatal stress (PS) has been shown to be associated with anxiety. However, the underlying neurological mechanisms are not well understood. To determine the effects of PS on anxiety-like behavior in the adult offspring, we evaluated anxiety-like behavior using open field test (OFT) and elevated plus maze (EPM) in the 3-month offspring. Both male and female offspring showed a significant reduction of crossing counts in the center, total crossing counts, rearing counts and time spent in the center in the OFT, and only male offspring showed a decreased percentage of open-arm entries and open-arm time in open arms in the EPM. Additionally, expression of NR1 and NR2A subunit of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) in the hippocampus (HIP), prefrontal cortex (PFC) and striatum (STR) was studied. Our results showed that PS reduced NR1 and NR2A expression in the HIP, NR2A expression in the PFC and STR in the offspring. The altered NR1 and NR2A could have potential impact on anxiety-like behavior in the adult offspring exposed to PS.

Acute serotonergic treatment changes the relation between anxiety and HPA-axis functioning and periaqueductal gray activation

Dietmar Hestermann, Yasin Temel, Arjan Bloklan, Lee Wei Lim
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.07.003

Serotonergic (5-HT) drugs are widely used in the clinical management of mood and anxiety disorders. However, it is reported that acute 5-HT treatment elicits anxiogenic-like behavior. Interestingly, the periaqueductal gray (PAG), a midbrain structure which regulates anxiety behavior – has robust 5-HT fibers and reciprocal connections with the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis. Although the HPA axis and the 5-HT system are well investigated, the relationship between the stress hormones induced by 5-HT drug treatment
and the PAG neural correlates of the behavior remain largely unknown. In
this study, the effects of acute and chronic treatments with buspirone (BUSP)
and escitalopram (ESCIT) on anxiety related behaviors were tested in an open-
field (OF). The treatment effects on PAG c-Fos immunoreactivity (c-Fos-ir) and corticosterone (CORT) concentration were measured in order to determine the neural endocrine correlates of anxiety-related behaviors and drug treatments. Our results demonstrate that acute BUSP and ESCIT treatments induced anxiogenic behaviors with elevation of CORT compared to the baseline. A decrease of c-Fos-ir was found in the dorsomedial PAG region of both the treatment groups. Correlation analysis showed that the CORT were not associated with the OF anxiogenic behavior and PAG c-Fos-ir. No significant differences were found in behaviors and CORT after chronic treatment.
In conclusion, acute BUSP and ESCIT treatments elicited anxiogenic response with activation of the HPA axis and reduction of c-Fos-ir in the dorsomedial PAG. Although no correlation was found between the stress hormone and
the PAG c-Fos-ir, this does not imply the lack of cause-and-effect relationship between neuroendocrine effects and PAG function in anxiety responses. These correlation studies suggest that the regulation of 5-HT system was probably disrupted by acute 5-HT treatment.

Neuroendocrine mechanisms for immune system regulation during stress in fish

Gino Nardocci,, Cristina Navarro, Paula P. Cortes, Monica Imarai
Fish & Shellfish Immunology 40 (2014) 531e538
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2014.08.001

In the last years, the aquaculture crops have experienced an explosive and intensive growth, because of the high demand for protein. This growth has increased fish susceptibility to diseases and subsequent death. The constant biotic and abiotic changes experienced by fish species in culture are challenges that induce physiological, endocrine and immunological responses. These changes mitigate stress effects at the cellular level to maintain homeostasis. The effects of stress on the immune system have been studied for many years. While acute stress can have beneficial effects, chronic stress inhibits the immune response in mammals and teleost fish. In response to stress, a signaling cascade is triggered by the activation of neural circuits in the central nervous system because the hypothalamus is the central modulator of stress. This leads to the production of catecholamines, corticosteroid-releasing hormone, adrenocorticotropic hormone and glucocorticoids, which are the essential neuroendocrine mediators for this activation. Because stress situations are energetically demanding, the neuroendocrine signals are involved in metabolic support and will suppress the “less important” immune function.  Understanding the cellular mechanisms of the neuroendocrine regulation of immunity in fish will allow the development of new pharmaceutical strategies and therapeutics for the prevention and treatment of diseases triggered by stress at all stages of fish cultures
for commercial production.

Stress and immune modulation in fish

Lluis Tort
Developmental and Comparative Immunology 35 (2011) 1366–1375
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.dci.2011.07.002

Stress is an event that most animals experience and that induces a number of responses involving all three regulatory systems, neural, endocrine and immune. When the stressor is acute and short-term, the response pattern is stimulatory and the fish immune response shows an activating phase that specially enhances innate responses. If the stressor is chronic the immune response shows suppressive effects and therefore the chances of an infection may be enhanced. In addition, coping with the stressor imposes an allostatic cost that may interfere with the needs of the immune response. In this paper the mechanisms behind these immunoregulatory changes are reviewed and the role of the main neuroendocrine mechanisms directly affecting the building of the immune response and their consequences are considered.

Stress is a general term proposed by Hans Selye in 1953 (Selye, 1953) applying to a situation in which a person or an animal is subjected to a challenge that may result in a real or symbolic danger for its integrity. The stress response applies to a wide range of physiological mechanisms, including gene and protein changes, metabolism, energetics, immune, endocrine, neural and even behavioral changes that will first try to overcome that situation and then compensate for the imbalances produced by either the stressor or the consequences generated by the first array of responses.

The stress response is a general and widespread reaction in animals and it
may be assumed that this response has common traits along the phylogenetic tree. Thus, responses such as the fight and flight reaction and therefore the repertoire of energetic arrangements to serve the surplus of activity are observed in all animals. For instance, in terms of molecular responses, the increase in heat shock proteins is observed from invertebrates to fish to humans; the induction of acute phase proteins is also a common trait.

Stress and immune response

Stress and immune response

Stress and immune response. Main events regarding the principal hormones and immune mechanisms involved in acute and chronic stress

A variety of immune changes have been described after applying different kinds of stressors in fish. Hence, both activating and suppressive processes have been described following stress episodes, although the majority of changes often result in deleterious effects. Immediate responses during the activation phase enhance innate humoral immunity such as increased levels of lysozyme and C3 proteins after acute stress or the increase of the number of myeloid-type leukocytes in the peritoneum after intraperitoneal bacterial injection. Moreover, glucocorticoid receptor sites increase in head kidney leukocytes after acute handling stress.

Longer term treatments normally show suppressive effects: Sea bass subjected to crowding stress show reduced immunocompetence, as shown by reduced rates of cytotoxicity and chemiluminescence. A decrease of complement activity, lysozyme levels, agglutination activity and antibody titers is observed after 3 days onwards after repeated stress in sea bream. Stress reduces the number of circulating B-lymphocytes, and decreases the antibody response after immunization in vivo.

Effects of cortisol on cell immune responses

Effects of cortisol on cell immune responses

Effects of cortisol on cell immune responses. The arrow indicates permissive and the cross indicates suppressive. Neuroendocrine response to stress after perception by the sensors of the nervous system involves the immediate secretion of corticosteroid releasing hormone (CRH) by the preoptic nucleus of the hypothalamus. The stimulated CRH receptors in the corticotropic cells of the pituitary gland induce release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) into the circulation that subsequently stimulates release of cortisol by the head kidney interrenal cells. ACTH as well as melanocyte-stimulating hormone (α-MSH) are derived from cleavage of the pro-opiomelanocortin gene product. In most fishes this hormone releasing sequence is taking place in seconds for CRH, seconds to minutes for ACTH, and minutes for cortisol. Since the effect of corticosteroids is exerted in most tissues, a number of studies looking at the consequences of cortisol release on the immune system have been performed but less work has been done on its precursors.

It is assumed that the nervous system plays a principal role in stress episodes as the main center for sensing the challenge and developing fight-or-flight responses. At the same time, endocrine networks are responsible for a number of responses related to the subsequent reorganization of energetic resources and modification of metabolism. Finally, the immune system is not only activated very early in the time course response but it has been shown to appear as a main partner in the regulatory network that is able to modulate non-specific immediate responses and modify hormonal activity. Therefore, in summary

  • all three regulatory systems have a role in the building of a stress response
    (b) their interaction modulates and fine tunes the initial response to avoid excessive activation and adapting resources to the specific challenge.
    These interactions will not only serve for any particular stress episode but also for adapting and preparing the response for future challenges.

Neural Input Is Critical for Arcuate Hypothalamic Neurons to Mount Intracellular Signaling Responses to Systemic Insulin and Deoxyglucose Challenges in Male Rats: Implications for Communication Within Feeding and Metabolic Control Networks

Arshad M. Khan, Ellen M. Walker, Nicole Dominguez, and Alan G. Watts
Endocrinology 155: 405–416, 2014
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1210/en.2013-1480

The hypothalamic arcuate nucleus (ARH) controls rat feeding behavior in part through peptidergic

neurons projecting to the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVH). Hindbrain catecholaminergic

(CA) neurons innervate both the PVH and ARH, and ablation of CA afferents to PVH neuroendocrine

neurons prevents them from mounting cellular responses to systemic metabolic challenges such as insulin or 2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-DG). Here, we asked whether ablating CA afferents also limits their ARH responses to the same challenges or alters ARH connectivity with the PVH. We examined ARH neurons for three features:

(1) CA afferents, visualized by dopamine-β-hydroxylase (DBH)– immunoreactivity;

(2) activation by systemic metabolic challenge, as measured by increased numbers of neurons immunoreactive (ir) for phosphorylated ERK1/2 (pERK1/2);

(3) density of PVH-targeted axons immunoreactive for the feeding control peptides Agouti-related peptide and  α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone (αMSH).
Loss of PVH DBH immunoreactivity resulted in concomitant ARH reductions of DBH-ir and pERK1/2-ir neurons in the medial ARH, where AgRP neurons are enriched. In contrast, pERK1/2 immunoreactivity after systemic metabolic challenge was absent in αMSH-ir ARH neurons. Yet surprisingly, axonal αMSH immune-reactivity in the PVH was markedly increased in CA-ablated animals. These results indicate that

(1) intrinsic ARH activity is insufficient to recruit pERK1/2-ir ARH neurons during systemic metabolic challenges (rather, hindbrain-originating CA neurons are required); and

(2) rats may compensate for a loss of CA innervation to the ARH and PVH by increased expression of αMSH.
These findings highlight the existence of a hierarchical dependence for ARH responses to neural and humoral signals that influence feeding behavior and metabolism.

Acute hypernatremia dampens stress-induced enhancement of long-term potentiation in the dentate gyrus of rat hippocampus

Chiung-Chun Huang, Chiao-Yin Chu, Che-Ming Yeh , Kuei-Sen Hsu
Psychoneuroendocrinology (2014) 46, 129—140
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.04.016

Stress often occurs within the context of homeostatic threat, requiring integration of physiological and psychological demands to trigger appropriate behavioral, autonomic and endocrine responses. However, the neural mechanism underlying stress integration remains elusive. Using an acute hypernatremic challenge (2.0 M NaCl subcutaneous), we assessed whether physical state may affect subsequent responsiveness to psychogenic stressors. We found that experienced forced swimming (FS, 15 min in 25 8C), a model of psychogenic stress, enhanced long-term potentiation (LTP) induction in the dentate gyrus (DG) of the rat hippocampus ex vivo. The effect of FS on LTP was prevented when the animals were adrenalectomized or given mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist RU28318 before experiencing stress. Intriguingly, relative to normonatremic controls, hypernatremic challenge effectively elevated plasma sodium concentration and dampened FS-induced enhancement of LTP, which was prevented by adrenalectomy. In addition, acute hypernatremic challenge resulted in increased extracellular signal regulated kinase (ERK)1/2 phosphorylation in the DG and occluded the subsequent activation of ERK1/2 by FS. Moreover, stress response dampening effects by acute hypernatremic challenge remained intact in conditional oxytocin receptor knockout mice. These results suggest that acute hypernatremic challenge evokes a sustained increase in plasma corticosterone concentration,

Long-term dysregulation of brain corticotrophin and glucocorticoid receptors and stress reactivity by single early-life pain experience in male and female rats

Nicole C. Victoria, Kiyoshi Inoue, Larry J. Young, Anne Z. Murphy
Psychoneuroendocrinology (2013) 38, 3015—3028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.08.013

Inflammatory pain experienced on the day of birth (postnatal day 0: PD0) significantly dampens behavioral responses to stress- and anxiety-provoking stimuli in adult rats. However, to date, the mechanisms by which early life pain permanently alters adult stress responses remain unknown. The present studies examined the impact of inflammatory pain, experienced on the day of birth, on adult expression of receptors or proteins implicated in the activation and termination of the stress response, including corticotrophin releasing factor receptors (CRFR1 and CRFR2) and glucocorticoid receptor (GR). Using competitive receptor autoradiography, we show that Sprague Dawley male and female rat pups administered 1% carrageenan into the intraplantar surface of the hindpaw on the day of birth have significantly decreased CRFR1 binding in the basolateral amygdala and midbrain periaqueductal gray in adulthood. In contrast, CRFR2 binding, which is associated with stress termination, was significantly increased in the lateral septum and cortical amygdala. GR expression, measured with in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry, was significantly increased in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus and significantly decreased in the hippocampus of neonatally injured adults. In parallel, acute stress-induced corticosterone release was significantly attenuated and returned to baseline more rapidly in adults injured on PD0 in comparison to controls.
Collectively, these data show that early life pain alters neural circuits that regulate responses to and neuroendocrine recovery from stress, and suggest that pain experienced by infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit may permanently alter future responses to anxiety- and stress provoking stimuli.

The Impact of Ventral Noradrenergic Bundle Lesions on Increased IL-1 in the PVN and Hormonal Responses to Stress in Male Sprague Dawley Rats

Peter Blandino Jr, CM Hueston, CJ Barnum, C Bishop, and Terrence Deak
Endocrinology 154: 2489–2500, 2013
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1210/en.2013-1075

The impact of acute stress on inflammatory signaling within the central nervous system is of interest because these factors influence neuroendocrine function both directly and indirectly. Exposure to certain stressors increases expression of the proinflammatory cytokine, Il-1 in the hypothalamus. Increased IL-1 is reciprocally regulated by norepinephrine (stimulatory) and corticosterone (inhibitory), yet neural pathways underlying increased IL-1 have not been clarified.
These experiments explored the impact of bilateral lesions of the ventral noradrenergic bundle (VNAB) on IL-1 expression in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus (PVN) after foot shock. Adult male Sprague Dawley rats received bilateral 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the VNAB (VNABx) and were exposed to intermittent foot shock. VNABx depleted approximately 64% of norepinephrine in the PVN and attenuated the IL-1 response produced by foot shock. However, characterization of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal response, a crucial prerequisite for interpreting the effect of VNABx on IL-1 expression, revealed a profound dissociation between ACTH and corticosterone.

Specifically, VNABx blocked the intronic CRH response in the PVN and the increase in plasma ACTH, whereas corticosterone was unaffected at all time points examined. Additionally, foot shock led to a rapid and profound increase in cyclooxygenase-2 and IL-1 expression within the adrenal glands, whereas more subtle effects were observed in the pituitary gland.

Together the findings were

1) demonstration that exposure to acute stress increased expression of inflammatory factors more broadly throughout the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis;

2) implication of a modest role for norepinephrine-containing fibers of the VNAB as an upstream regulator of PVN IL-1; and

3) suggestion of an ACTH-independent mechanism controlling the release of corticosterone in VNABx rats.

Stress and trauma: BDNF control of dendritic-spine formation and regression

M.R. Bennett,  J. Lagopoulos
Progress in Neurobiology 112 (2014) 80–99
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.10.005

Chronic restraint stress leads to increases in brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) mRNA and protein in some regions of the brain, e.g. the basal lateral amygdala (BLA) but decreases in other regions such as the CA3 region of the hippocampus and dendritic spine density increases or decreases in line with these changes in BDNF. Given the powerful influence that BDNF has on dendritic spine growth, these observations suggest that the fundamental reason for the direction and extent of changes in dendritic spine density in a particular region of the brain under stress is due to the changes in BDNF there. The most likely cause of these changes is provided by the stress initiated release of steroids, which readily enter neurons and alter gene expression, for example that of BDNF. Of particular interest is how glucocorticoids and mineralocorticoids tend to have opposite effects on BDNF gene expression offering the possibility that differences in the distribution of their receptors and of their downstream effects might provide a basis for the differential transcription of the BDNF genes. Alternatively, differences in the extent of methylation and acetylation in the epigenetic control of BDNF transcription
are possible in different parts of the brain following stress. Although present evidence points to changes in BDNF transcription being the major causal agent for the changes in spine density in different parts of the brain following stress, steroids have significant effects on downstream pathways from the TrkB receptor once it is acted upon by BDNF, including those that modulate the density of dendritic spines. Finally, although glucocorticoids play a canonical role in determining BDNF modulation of dendritic spines, recent studies have shown a role for corticotrophin releasing factor (CRF) in this regard. There is considerable improvement in the extent of changes in spine size and density in rodents with forebrain specific knockout of CRF receptor 1 (CRFR1) even when the glucocorticoid pathways are left intact. It seems then that CRF does have a role to play in determining BDNF control of dendritic spines.

Chronic restraint stress leads to increases in brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) mRNA and protein in some regions of the brain, e.g. the basal lateral amygdala (BLA) but decreases in other regions such as the CA3 region of the hippocampus and dendritic spine density increases or decreases in line with these changes in BDNF. Given the powerful influence that BDNF has on dendritic spine growth, these observations suggest that the fundamental reason for the direction and extent of changes in dendritic spine density in a particular region of the brain under stress is due to the changes in BDNF
there. The most likely cause of these changes is provided by the stress initiated release of steroids, which readily enter neurons and alter gene expression, for example that of BDNF. Of particular interest is how glucocorticoids and mineralocorticoids tend to have opposite effects on BDNF gene expression offering the possibility that differences in the distribution of their receptors and of their downstream effects might provide a basis for the differential transcription of the BDNF genes. Alternatively, differences in the extent of methylation and acetylation in the epigenetic control of BDNF transcription are possible in different parts of the brain following stress.

Structure of the rodent BDNF gene

Structure of the rodent BDNF gene

Structure of the rodent BDNF gene. Exons are represented as boxes and the introns as lines. Numbers of the exons are indicated in Roman numerals. The coding exon (exon IX) contains two polyadenylation sites (poly A). The start codon (ATG) that marks the initiation of transcription is indicated. The red box shows the region of exon IX coding for the pro-BDNF protein. Some exons, like exon II and IX, contain different transcript variants with alternative splice-donor sites. Also shown is part of the BDNF exon IV sequence in adults with adverse infant experiences showing cytosine methylation (M) at three of the 12 CG dinucleotide sites (numbered with superscripts). See Boulle et al. (2012).

Epigenetic mechanism associated with repression and activation of BDNF exon IV transcription.

Epigenetic mechanism associated with repression and activation of BDNF exon IV transcription.

Epigenetic mechanism associated with repression and activation of BDNF exon IV transcription. The BDNF exon IV displays 12 distinct CpG sites, which can be methylated and interact selectively with MeCp2 to form complexes that repress gene transcription (see also Fig. 1). Histone methyltransferases (HMT) are responsible for adding methyl groups at histone tails (Panel A), whereas histone deacetylases (HDAC) remove acetylation at histone tails (Panel B), both processes that repress gene transcription. Moreover, low levels of nicotinamine adenine dinucleotide (NAD) promote DNA methylation at the BDNF locus. BDNF gene activation is associated with increased histone H3 and H4 acetylation, which is mediated by histone acetyl transferase (HAT) activity. DNA demethylation might be facilitated by growth arrest and DNA damage proteins such as Gadd45b. An increased binding of CREB to its specific binding protein, CREB binding protein (CBP), is also associated with an increase in BDNF gene transcription. See Boulle et al. (2012).

signaling and epigenetic pathways in granule neurons of the dentate gyrus

signaling and epigenetic pathways in granule neurons of the dentate gyrus

Schematic representation of the signaling and epigenetic pathways in granule neurons of the dentate gyrus thought to be involved in the consolidation process of memory formation after a psychologically stressful challenge. Activation of NMDAR results in stimulation of the MAPK/ERK signaling cascade, the AC /PKA cascade and the CaMKII cascade. In conjunction with activated GR these signaling cascades result in the activation of MSK and ERK leading to the formation of dual histone acetylation marks along the c-Fos promoter and subsequently induction of gene transcription. Signaling via CREB also leads to the same outcome. The induction of gene transcription is thought to be instrumental in the consolidation of memory formation in various stressful learning events. See Trollope et al. (2012).

Model for G9a-GLP complex transcriptional activity in the hippocampus

Model for G9a-GLP complex transcriptional activity in the hippocampus

Model for G9a/GLP complex transcriptional activity in the hippocampus during fear memory consolidation. Shown (panels A and B) is the role of G9a/GLP in the regulation of chromatin remodeling during long-term memory consolidation. Regulation of histone lysine methylation mediates active and repressive transcriptional regulation of genes in the hippocampus. The
changes in chromatin structure results in transcriptional gene silencing in the hippocampus. H3K9me2 dimethylation is associated with transcriptional silencing (not shown). The G9a/GLP complex methyltransferase is specific for producing this modification. Abbreviations: Ac, acetylation; M, methylation; MLLI, histone H3 lysine 4 methyltransferase (which regulates memory formation); H3K9me2, histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylation; HAT, histone acetyltransferase; G9a/GLP, G9a/G9a-like protein (GLP) complex methyltransferase.

Modification of serotonin reuptake transport, with inhibitors such as fluoxetine, augments BDNF exon I mRNA levels in the BLA as well as in the hippocampus. This augmentation is lost and replaced by a decrease in BDNF levels if the mice are homozygous for the BDNF Val66Met SNP. A better outcome is obtained for erasing fear memories in PTSD subjects than using D-cycloserine if a combination is used of extinction training with chronic fluoxetine treatment that augments BDNF exon I mRNA.

Conclusion

The following points are suggested by the present review on identifying the changes in dendritic spine synapses in neural networks under stress, the mechanisms that drive these, and how these networks can be reinstated to normality.

Dendritic spines and BDNF

Activation of BDNF leads to the sprouting of dendrites in many areas of the brain, such as CA1 in the hippocampus. As glucocorticoids decrease BDNF expression they decrease dendritic spine density in these areas . Thus activation of both GR and MR with corticosterone leads to an increase in dendritic spine turnover on pyramidal neurons in these areas. In other areas of the brain glucocorticoids do not have this.  Extinction of a fear memory, such as, of the negative effects of opiate withdrawal, involves increases of BDNF mRNA and protein in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, through the action of CREB at histone H3 of the BDNF exon I transcript promoter with acetylation of the histone. This could be enhanced before extinction training with histone deacetylase inhibitors such as trichostatin A or inhibitors such as U0126 of ERK.
Major risk factors for PTSD are low levels of cortisol in the blood immediately after the trauma occasion; and before the trauma, in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, the presence of high GR numbers, low FKBP5 expression, and high levels of GILZ mRNA. All of these risk factors are involved in the action of cytoplasmic GR in modulating gene transduction, including most likely that for the BDNF gene, as well as regulating the capacity for BDNF itself to act. This emphasis on GR in PTSD is enforced by the observations that there is an association between two polymorphisms in the GR gene (N363S and Bcl1) and PTSD as there is between that of FKBP5 and GILZ on the one hand and the capacity of GR to modulate gene function on the other.

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor in the amygdala mediates susceptibility to fear conditioning

Dylan Chou, Chiung-Chun Huang, Kuei-Sen Hsu
Experimental Neurology 255 (2014) 19–29
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.02.016

Fear conditioning in animals has been used extensively tomodel clinical anxiety disorders. While individual animals exhibit marked differences in their propensity to undergo fear conditioning, the physiologically relevant mediators have not yet been fully characterized. Here, we demonstrate that C57BL/6 inbred mouse strain subjected to a regimen of chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) can be separated into susceptible and resistant subpopulations that display different levels of fear responses in an auditory fear conditioning  paradigm. Susceptible mice had significantly more c-Fos protein expression
in neurons of the basolateral amygdala (BLA) following CSDS and showed exaggerated conditioned fear responses, while there were no significant differences between groups in innate anxiety- and depressive-like behaviors. Through the use of conditional brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) knockout strategies, we find that elevated BLA BDNF level following fear conditioning training is a key mediator contributing to determine the levels of conditioned fear responses. Our results also show that relative to susceptible mice, resistant mice had a much faster recovery from conditioned stimuli-induced cardiovascular and corticosterone responses. Systemic administration of norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor atomoxetine increased c-Fos protein expression in BLA neurons following fear conditioning training and promoted the expression of conditioned fear in resistant mice. Conversely, administration of β-adrenergic receptor antagonist propranolol reduced fear conditioning training-induced c-Fos protein expression in BLA neurons and reduced conditioned fear responses in susceptible mice. These findings reveal a novel role for the BDNF signaling within the BLA in mediating individual differences in autonomic, neuroendocrine and behavioral reactivity to fear conditioning.

Melanocortin-4 receptor in the medial amygdala regulates emotional stress-induced anxiety-like behavior, anorexia and corticosterone secretion

Jing Liu, Jacob C. Garza, Wei Li and Xin-Yun Lu
Intl J Neuropsychopharmacology (2013), 16, 105–120.
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1017/S146114571100174X

The central melanocortin system has been implicated in emotional stress-induced anxiety, anorexia and activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. However, the underlying neural substrates have not been identified. The medial amygdala (MeA) is highly sensitive to emotional stress and expresses high levels of the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R). This study investigated the effects of activation and blockade of MC4R in the MeA
on anxiety-like behavior, food intake and corticosterone secretion. We demonstrate that MC4R-expressing neurons in the MeA were activated by acute restraint stress, as indicated by induction of c-fos mRNA expression. Infusion of a selective MC4R agonist into the MeA elicited anxiogenic-like effects in the elevated plus-maze test and decreased food intake. Local MeA infusion of SHU 9119, an MC4R antagonist, on the other hand, blocked restraint stress-induced anxiogenic and anorectic effects. Moreover, plasma corticosterone levels were increased by intra-MeA infusion of the MC4R agonist under non-stressed conditions and restraint stress-induced elevation of plasma corticosterone levels was attenuated by pretreatment with SHU 9119 in the MeA. Thus, stimulating MC4R in the MeA induces stress-like anxiogenic and anorectic effects as well as activation of the HPA axis, whereas antagonizing MC4R in this region blocks such effects induced by restraint stress. Together, our results implicate MC4R signaling in the MeA in behavioral and endocrine responses to stress.

The neuroendocrine functions of the parathyroid hormone 2 receptor

Arpád Dobolyi, Eugene Dimitrov, Miklós Palkovits and Ted B. Usdin
Front in Endocr Oct 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 121, 1-10
http://dx.doi.org:/10.3389/fendo.2012.00121

The G-protein coupled parathyroid hormone 2 receptor (PTH2R) is concentrated in endocrine and limbic regions in the forebrain. Its endogenous ligand, tuberoinfundibular peptide of 39 residues (TIP39), is synthesized in only two brain regions, within the posterior thalamus and the lateral pons.TIP39-expressing neurons have a widespread projection pattern, which matches the PTH2R distribution in the brain. Neuroendocrine centers including the preoptic area, the periventricular, paraventricular, and arcuate nuclei contain the highest density of PTH2R-positive networks. The administration of TIP39 and an antagonist of the PTH2R as well as the investigation of mice that lack functional TIP39 and PTH2R revealed the involvement of the PTH2R in a variety of neural and neuroendocrine functions. TIP39 acting via the PTH2R modulates several aspects of the stress response. It evokes corticosterone release by activating corticotropin-releasing hormone-containing neurons in the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus. Block of TIP39 signaling elevates the anxiety state
of animals and their fear response, and increases stress-induced analgesia.

TIP39 has also been suggested to affect the release of additional pituitary hormones including arginine-vasopressin and growth hormone. A role of the TIP39-PTH2R system in thermoregulation was also identified. TIP39 may play
a role in maintaining body temperature in a cold environment via descending excitatory pathways from the preoptic area. Anatomical and functional studies also implicated the TIP39-PTH2R system in nociceptive information processing. Finally, TIP39 induced in postpartum dams may play a role in the release of prolactin during lactation. Potential mechanisms leading to the activation ofTIP39 neurons and how they influence the neuroendocrine system are also described. The unique TIP39-PTH2R neuromodulator system provides the possibility for developing drugs with a novel mechanism of action to control neuroendocrine disorders.

Interaction of the Serotonin Transporter-Linked Polymorphic Region and Environmental Adversity: Increased Amygdala-Hypothalamus Connectivity as a Potential Mechanism Linking Neural and Endocrine Hyperreactivity

Nina Alexander, T Klucken, G Koppe, R Osinsky, B Walter, et al.
Biol Psychiatry 2012;72:49–56
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.01.030

Background: Gene by environment (GE) interaction between genetic variation in the promoter region of the serotonin transporter gene (serotonin transporter-linked polymorphic region [5-HTTLPR]) and stressful life events (SLEs) has been extensively studied in the context of depression. Recent findings suggest increased neural and endocrine stress sensitivity as a possible mechanism conveying elevated vulnerability to psychopathology. Furthermore, these GE mediated alterations very likely reflect interrelated biological processes. Methods: In the present functional magnetic resonance imaging study, amygdala reactivity to fearful stimuli was assessed in healthy male adults (n[1]44),who were previously found to differ with regard to endocrine stress reactivity as a function of 5-HTTLPRSLEs. Furthermore, functional connectivity between the amygdala and the hypothalamus was measured as a potential mechanism linking elevated neural and endocrine responses during stressful/threatening situations. The study sample was carefully preselected regarding 5-HTTLPR genotype and SLEs. Results: We report significant GE interaction on neural response patterns and functional amygdala-hypothalamus connectivity. Homozygous carriers of the 5-HTTLPR S’ allele with a history of SLEs (S’S’/high SLEs group) displayed elevated bilateral amygdala activation in response to fearful faces. Within the same sample, a comparable GE interaction effect has previously been demonstrated regarding increased cortisol reactivity, indicating a cross-validation of heightened biological stress sensitivity. Furthermore, S’S’/high SLEs subjects were characterized by an increased functional coupling between the right amygdala and the hypothalamus, thus indicating a potential link between neural and endocrine hyperreactivity.

Amygdala reactivity to fearful faces as a function of the serotonin transporter-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR)

Amygdala reactivity to fearful faces as a function of the serotonin transporter-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR)

Amygdala reactivity to fearful faces as a function of the serotonin transporter-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) stressful life events (SLEs). The color bar depicts t values for the gene by environment interaction effect. For illustration reasons, the data were thresholded with a t value at 2.5 (see color bar for exact t values).

We report a significant 5-HTTLPRxSLEs interaction effect on bilateral amygdala reactivity to fearful faces in a sample of healthy male adults. As hypothesized, S’S’/high SLEs individuals appeared to be most reactive, which can be interpreted in terms of elevated amygdala reactivity to briefly presented (phasic) aversive stimuli. Interestingly, we have observed a similar response pattern regarding cortisol reactivity to acute stress within the same sample, indicating a cross-validation of neuroendocrine hyperreactivity to threatening/stressful stimuli as a function of 5-HTTLPRxSLEs.

Thus, our results are in line with findings from a small sample sized (n = 15) study reporting a positive association between amygdala reactivity to fearful faces and SLEs in S allele carriers during an unconscious fear processing condition. In contrast, a study using a comparable paradigm and sample size (n = 44) to our own found amygdala activity in the contrast neutral faces versus fixation to be negatively associated with SLEs in S allele carriers. The authors interpret the latter finding in support of a tonic model, by which SLEs interact with 5-HTTLPR on amygdala resting activation. Similar inconsistencies have been reported regarding the association of 5-HTTLPR and amygdala activation independent of environmental adversity, with studies supporting either a phasic or tonic model. Likewise, increased resting blood perfusion in S allele carriers has been reported in independent studies, whereas the largest study
to date could not replicate these findings.

Functional connectivity between the right amygdala as the seed region

Functional connectivity between the right amygdala as the seed region

  • Functional connectivity between the right amygdala as the seed region

(blue circle, right figure) and the hypothalamus (red circles). The middle figure depicts significant differences in activation patterns between the S’S’/high stressful life events (SLEs) and the L’/low SLEs groups and the left figure displays significant differences between S’S’/high SLEs and S’S’/high SLEs subjects. For illustration reasons, threshold was t =2.5 b (below).
(B) Surface plot of functional connectivity at the z-slice location of the peak coordinate. Voxel intensities are given in t values. 5-HTTLPR, serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region.

In conclusion, we report increased amygdala responsivity to aversive stimuli in healthy S’S’/high SLEs subjects who have previously been shown to display elevated cortisol secretion in response to psychosocial stress. Thus, our findings contribute to the current debate on potential mechanisms mediating susceptibility for the development of psychiatric disorders as a function of 5-HTTLPRxSLEs. Moreover, the present study extends previous findings by demonstrating altered functional coupling between the amygdala and the hypothalamus, thus indicating a potential link between threat/stress related neural and endocrine alterations associated with 5-HTTLPR x SLEs.

Identifying Molecular Substrates in a Mouse Model of the Serotonin Transporter Environment Risk Factor for Anxiety and Depression

 

Valeria Carola, Giovanni Frazzetto, Tiziana Pascucci, Enrica Audero, et al.
Biol Psychiatry 2008;63:840–846
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.08.013

Background: A polymorphism in the serotonin transporter (5-HTT) gene modulates the association between adverse early experiences and risk for major depression in adulthood. Although human imaging studies have begun to elucidate the neural circuits involved in the 5-HTT environment risk factor, a molecular understanding of this phenomenon is lacking. Such an understanding might help to identify novel targets for the diagnosis and therapy of mood disorders. To address this need, we developed a gene-environment screening paradigm in the mouse.

Methods: We established a mouse model in which a heterozygous null mutation in 5-HTT moderates the effects of poor maternal care on adult anxiety and depression-related behavior. Biochemical analysis of brains from these animals was performed to identify molecular substrates of the gene, environment, and gene environment effects.

Results: Mice experiencing low maternal care showed deficient ϒ-aminobutyric acid–A receptor binding in the amygdala and 5-HTT  heterozygous null mice showed decreased serotonin turnover in hippocampus and striatum. Strikingly, levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) messenger RNA in hippocampus were elevated exclusively in 5-HTT heterozygous null mice experiencing poor maternal care, suggesting that developmental programming of hippocampal circuits might underlie the 5-HTT environment risk factor.

Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that serotonin plays a similar role in modifying the long-term behavioral effects of rearing environment in diverse mammalian species and identifies BDNF  as a molecular substrate of this risk factor. In summary, we have produced a mouse model of the 5-HTT environment risk factor for human depression and have used this model to identify molecular substrates underlying this risk factor.

Elevated GABA-A receptor expression in amygdala, decreased 5-HT turnover in hippocampus, and enhanced BDNF expression in hippocampus each correlated significantly with the behavioral phenotype seen in our mice. In particular, increased expression of BDNF in CA1 pyramidal neurons was found in mice with reduced 5-HTT function and exposed to low maternal care. This defect was accompanied by an increased bias in the response to threatening cues as assessed by ambiguous cue fear conditioning.

Our data suggest that alterations in hippocampal gene expression and function underlie at least part of the interaction between 5-HTT and rearing environment and point to a role for this structure in the increased anxiety and depression-related behavior that is a risk factor for major depression.

Gene—environment interactions predict cortisol responses after acute stress: Implications for the etiology of depression

Nina Alexander, Yvonne Kuepper, Anja Schmitz, Roman Osinsky, et al.
Psychoneuroendocrinology (2009) 34, 1294—1303
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.03.017

Background: Growing evidence suggests that the serotonin transporter polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) interacts with adverse environmental influences to produce an increased risk for the development of depression while the underlying mechanisms of this association remain largely unexplored. As one potential intermediate phenotype, we investigated alterations of hypothalamic—pituitary—adrenal (HPA) axis responses to stress in individuals with no history of psychopathology depending on both 5-HTTLPR and stressful life events.

Methods: Healthy male adults (N = 100) were genotyped and completed a questionnaire on severe stressful life events (Life Events Checklist). To test for gene-by-environment interactions on endocrine stress reactivity, subjects were exposed to a standardized laboratory stress task (Public Speaking). Saliva cortisol levels were obtained at 6 time points prior to the stressor and during an extended recovery period.

Results: Subjects homozygous for the s-allele with a significant history of stressful life events exhibited markedly elevated cortisol secretions in response to the stressor compared to all other groups, indicating a significant gene-by-environment interaction on endocrine stress reactivity. No main effect of either 5-HTTLPR (biallelic and triallelic) or stressful life events on cortisol secretion patterns appeared.

Conclusion: This is the first study reporting that 5-HTTLPR and stressful life events interact to predict endocrine stress reactivity in a non-clinical sample. Our results underpin the potential moderating role of HPA-axis hyper-reactivity as a premorbid risk factor to increase the vulnerability for depression in subjects with low serotonin transporter efficiency and a history of severe life events.

The immune system and developmental programming of brain and behavior

Staci D. Bilbo, Jaclyn M. Schwarz
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 33 (2012) 267–286
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2012.08.006

The brain, endocrine, and immune systems are inextricably linked. Immune molecules have a powerful impact on neuroendocrine function, including hormone–behavior interactions, during health as well as sickness. Similarly, alterations in hormones, such as during stress, can powerfully impact immune function or reactivity. These functional shifts are evolved, adaptive responses that organize changes in behavior and mobilize immune resources, but can also lead to pathology or exacerbate disease if prolonged or exaggerated. The developing brain in particular is exquisitely sensitive to both endogenous and exogenous signals, and increasing evidence suggests the immune system has a critical role in brain development and associated behavioral outcomes for the life of the individual. Indeed, there are associations between many neuropsychiatric disorders and immune dysfunction, with a distinct etiology in neurodevelopment. The goal of this review is to describe the important role of the immune system during brain development, and to discuss some of the many ways in which immune activation during early brain development can affect the later-life outcomes of neural function, immune function, mood and cognition.

Neuroplasticity signaling pathways linked to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia

Darrick T. Balua, Joseph T. Coyle
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 35 (2011) 848–870
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.005

Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that afflicts nearly 1% of the world’s population. One of the cardinal pathological features of schizophrenia is perturbation in synaptic connectivity. Although the etiology of schizophrenia is unknown, it appears to be a developmental disorder involving the interaction of a potentially large number of risk genes, with no one gene producing a strong effect except rare, highly penetrant copy number variants. The purpose of this review is to detail how putative schizophrenia risk genes (DISC-1, neuregulin/ErbB4, dysbindin, Akt1, BDNF, and the NMDA receptor) are involved in regulating neuroplasticity and how alterations in their expression may contribute to the disconnectivity observed in schizophrenia. Moreover, this review highlights how many of these risk genes converge to regulate common neurotransmitter systems and signaling pathways. Future studies aimed at elucidating the functions of these risk genes will provide new insights into the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and will likely lead to the nomination of novel therapeutic targets for restoring proper synaptic connectivity in the brain in schizophrenia and related disorders.

Glutamate receptor composition of the post-synaptic density is altered in genetic mouse models of NMDA receptor hypo- and hyperfunction

Darrick T. Balu, Joseph T. Coyle
Brain Research 1392 (2011 ) 1–7
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.03.051

The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) and α-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate receptor (AMPAR) are ionotropic glutamate receptors responsible for excitatory neurotransmission in the brain. These excitatory synapses are found on dendritic spines, with the abundance of receptors concentrated at the postsynaptic density (PSD).
We utilized two genetic mouse models, the serine racemase knockout (SR−/−) and the glycine transporter subtype 1 heterozygote mutant (GlyT1+/−), to determine how constitutive NMDAR hypo- and hyperfunction, respectively, affect the glutamate receptor composition of the PSD in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex (PFC).

Using cellular fractionation, we found that SR−/− mice had elevated protein levels of NR1 and NR2A NMDAR subunits specifically in the PSD-enriched fraction from the hippocampus, but not from the PFC. There were no changes in the amounts of AMPAR subunits (GluR1, GluR2), or PSD protein of 95 kDa (PSD95) in either brain region. GlyT1+/− mice also had elevated protein expression of NR1 and NR2A subunits in the PSD, as well as an increase in total protein. Moreover, GlyT1+/− mice had elevated amounts of GluR1 and GluR2 in the PSD, and higher total amounts of GluR1. Similar to SR−/− mice, there were no protein changes observed in the PFC. These findings illustrate the complexity of synaptic adaptation to altered NMDAR function.

Interleukin-1 (IL-1): A central regulator of stress responses

Inbal Goshen, Raz Yirmiya
Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 30 (2009) 30–45
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.yfrne.2008.10.001

Ample evidence demonstrates that the pro-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-1 (IL-1), produced following exposure to immunological and psychological challenges, plays an important role in the neuroendocrine and behavioral stress responses. Specifically, production of brain IL-1 is an important link in stress induced activation of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis and secretion of glucocorticoids, which
mediate the effects of stress on memory functioning and neural plasticity, exerting beneficial effects at low levels and detrimental effects at high levels. Furthermore, IL-1 signaling and the resultant glucocorticoid secretion mediate the development of depressive symptoms associated with exposure to acute and chronic stressors, at least partly via suppression of hippocampal neurogenesis. These findings indicate
that whereas under some physiological conditions low levels of IL-1 promote the adaptive stress responses necessary for efficient coping, under severe and chronic stress conditions blockade of IL-1 signaling can be used as a preventive and therapeutic procedure for alleviating stress-associated neuropathology
and psychopathology.

IL-1 mediates stress-induced activation of the HPA axis

IL-1 mediates stress-induced activation of the HPA axis

IL-1 mediates stress-induced activation of the HPA axis. Immunological and
psychological stressors increase the levels of IL-1 in various brain areas, including
several brain stem nuclei, the hypothalamus and the hippocampus. In turn, IL-1
induces the secretion of CRH from the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVN),
ACTH from the pituitary and glucocorticoids from the adrenal. Following immunological
stressors, peripheral IL-1 can directly influence brain stem nuclei, such as
the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS) and ventrolateral medulla (VLM) as well as the
hypothalamus via penetration to adjacent circumventricular organs, (the area
postrema (AP) and the organum vasculosum of the lamina terminalis (OVLT),
respectively). Concomitantly, IL-1 in the periphery can activate vagal afferents,
which innervate and activate the NTS and VLM. These nuclei project to the
hypothalamus, in which the secretion of NE induces further elevation of IL-1 levels,
possibly by microglial activation. Psychological stressors can also activate the NTS
and VLM, either by intrinsic brain circuits or via vagal feedback from physiological
systems (e.g., the cardiovascular system) that are stimulated by the sympathetic
nervous system. Similarly to their role in immunological stress, the NTS and VLM
then elevate hypothalamic IL-1 levels, stimulating the CRH neurons.

The inverted U-shaped effect of IL-1 on memory and plasticity is mediated by glucocorticoids

The inverted U-shaped effect of IL-1 on memory and plasticity is mediated by glucocorticoids

The inverted U-shaped effect of IL-1 on memory and plasticity is mediated by glucocorticoids. The influence of IL-1 on memory and plasticity follows an inverted Ushape pattern, i.e., learning-associated increase in IL-1 levels is needed for memory formation (green), whereas any deviation from the physiological range, either by excess elevation in IL-1 levels or by blockade of IL-1 signaling, results in memory and plasticity impairment (red). Low dose GCs can also facilitate memory, whereas chronic or severe stressors, as well as high GC levels, can impair memory and neural plasticity. Studies on the implications of the interaction between stress, IL-1 and GCs on memory
and plasticity show that IL-1 mediates the detrimental effects of stress on memory, and that GCs are involved in both the detrimental and the beneficial effects of IL-1 on memory formation. Based on these studies, the following model is proposed: stressful stimuli induce an increase in brain IL-1 levels, which in turn contributes to the activation of the HPA axis. Subsequently, the secretion of GCs affects memory and plasticity processes in an inverted U-shaped pattern.

Immune modulation of learning, memory, neural plasticity and neurogenesis

Raz Yirmiya ⇑, Inbal Goshen
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 25 (2011) 181–213
http://dx.doi.org:/10.1016/j.bbi.2010.10.015

Over the past two decades it became evident that the immune system plays a central role in modulating learning, memory and neural plasticity. Under normal quiescent conditions, immune mechanisms are activated by environmental/psychological stimuli and positively regulate the remodeling of neural circuits, promoting memory consolidation, hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP) and neurogenesis.
These beneficial effects of the immune system are mediated by complex interactions among brain cells with immune functions (particularly microglia and astrocytes), peripheral immune cells (particularly T cells and macrophages), neurons, and neural precursor cells. These interactions involve the responsiveness of non-neuronal cells to classical neurotransmitters (e.g., glutamate and monoamines) and hormones
(e.g., glucocorticoids), as well as the secretion and responsiveness of neurons and glia to low levels of inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, and TNFa, as well as other mediators, such as prostaglandins and neurotrophins. In conditions under which the immune system is strongly activated by infection or injury, as well as by severe or chronic stressful conditions, glia and other brain immune cells change their morphology and functioning and secrete high levels of pro-inflammatory
cytokines and prostaglandins. The production of these inflammatory mediators disrupts the delicate balance needed for the neurophysiological actions of immune processes and produces direct detrimental effects on memory, neural plasticity and neurogenesis. These effects are mediated by inflammation induced neuronal hyper-excitability and adrenocortical stimulation, followed by reduced production of neurotrophins and other plasticity-related molecules, facilitating many forms of neuropathology
associated with normal aging as well as neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric diseases.

It is now firmly established that the immune system can modulate brain functioning and behavioral processes. This modulation is exerted by plasticity are among the most important aspects of brain functioning that are modulated by immune mechanisms. The aim of the present review is to present a comprehensive and integrative view of the complex dual role of the immune system in learning,memory, neural plasticity and neurogenesis. The first part of the review will focus on the physiological
beneficial effects of the immune system under normal, quiescent conditions. Under such conditions, immune mechanisms are activated by environmental/psychological stimuli and positively regulate neuroplasticity and neurogenesis, promoting learning, memory, and hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP). The second part of the review will focus on the detrimental effects of inflammatory conditions induced by infections and injury as well as severe or chronic stress, demonstrating that under such
conditions the delicate physiological balance between immune and neural processes is disrupted, resulting in neuronal hyperexcitability, hormonal aberrant ions, reduced neurotrophic factors production and suppressed neurogenesis, leading to impairments in learning, memory and neuroplasticity.

A systemic model of the beneficial role of immune processes in behavioral and neural plasticity

A systemic model of the beneficial role of immune processes in behavioral and neural plasticity

A systemic model of the beneficial role of immune processes in behavioral and neural plasticity. Learning, memory and synaptic plasticity involve neural activation of hippocampal circuits by glutamatergic inputs that originate mainly in multiple cortical areas. Long-term memory consolidation also requires emotional (limbic) activation (particularly of the amygdala and hypothalamus), inducing a mild stressful condition, which in turn results in HPA axis and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) stimulation. The peripheral organs that are the targets of these systems (e.g., the adrenal glad, heart, blood vessels and gastrointestinal (GI) tract), in turn, send afferent inputs to the brain that culminate in stimulation of receptors for glucocorticoids, norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin on hippocampal cells. These inputs are critical for memory consolidation, neural plasticity and neurogenesis. Furthermore, these inputs induce the production of IL-1, and possibly other cytokines, chemokines and immune mediators in the hippocampus, as well as in other brain areas (such as the hypothalamus and brain stem) that are critically important for neurobehavioral plasticity. Moreover, these cytokines, in turn further activate the HPA axis and SNS, thus participating in a brain-to-body-to-brain reverberating feedback loops.

Chemokines and the hippocampus: A new perspective on hippocampal plasticity and vulnerability

Lauren L. Williamson, Staci D. Bilbo
Brain, Behavior,and Immunity 30(2013)186–194
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2013.01.077

Chemokines roles within the hippocampus

Chemokines roles within the hippocampus

Chemokines have important roles within the hippocampus and may modulate plasticity and vulnerability within this unique structure. Neuroimmune signaling can occur across the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) via endothelial cells, astrocytes, and microglia within the BBB that recapitulate the immune signal from the periphery by secreting their own cohort of cytokines into the brain. Chemokines recruit cells to sites of injury as well . Microglia receive input from neurons via several membrane-bound and secreted factors, including neuronal CX3CL1 (fractalkine) and its receptor, CX3CR1, on microglia, which allow direct neuroimmune interaction. CXCL12 is released from vesicles concomitantly with GABA from basket cells onto immature neurons in the DG granule cell layer.  In the healthy brain, chemokines may modulate neuronal signaling during behavior, though this phenomenon remains to be explored. The spatial and temporal signaling and cellular sources of chemokines and their receptors are critical for understanding

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »