Blog Archive

Saturday, June 23, 2018

Larry Young: The Neurobiology of Social Bonding, Empathy and Social Loss in Monogamous Voles (Monday, July 2, 4pm)

(Monday, July 2, 4pm)




Larry Young (Speaker)
Emory University


Jennifer Bartz (Discussant)
McGill University



Franco Lepore 
Professor University of Montreal
Moderator

The socially monogamous prairie vole provides an opportunity to examine the neural and genetic mechanisms underlying complex social behaviors, including social bonding and empathy-related behaviors. Oxytocin receptor (OXTR) signaling in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) is critical for pair bond formation between mates. Diversity in expression patterns within the brain contribute to diversity in social behaviors across and within species. In prairie voles, oxytocin links the neural encoding of the social signature of the partner with the rewarding aspects of mating through interactions with dopamine and by coordinating communication across a neural network linking social information with reward. We have also explored the capacity of prairie vole to display “empathy”-like behavior, specifically consoling. Prairie voles increase their partner-directed grooming toward mates that have experienced an unobserved stressor. This consoling response is abolished by blocking oxytocin receptor antagonist into the anterior cingulate cortex, a region involved in human empathy. Finally, loss of a bonded partner results in the development of depressive-like “grieving” behavior. Infusion of oxytocin into the NAcc prevents social loss-induced depression. Studies using intranasal oxytocin and behavioral genetics suggest that the role of oxytocin on social attachment and social cognition is conserved from rodent to man. The relationship between pair bonding and vole and romantic love in humans will be discussed. 
Bartz, J. A., Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2011). Social effects of oxytocin in humans: context and person matterTrends in Cognitive Sciences15(7), 301-309.
Barrett, C. E., Arambula, S. E., & Young, L. J. (2015). The oxytocin system promotes resilience to the effects of neonatal isolation on adult social attachment in female prairie voles. Translational psychiatry, 5(7), e606. 
Burkett, J. P., Andari, E., Johnson, Z. V., Curry, D. C., de Waal, F. B., & Young, L. J. (2016). Oxytocin-dependent consolation behavior in rodents. Science, 351(6271), 375-378. 
Bosch, O. J., Dabrowska, J., Modi, M. E., Johnson, Z. V., Keebaugh, A. C., Barrett, C. E., ... & Neumann, I. D. (2016). Oxytocin in the nucleus accumbens shell reverses CRFR2-evoked passive stress-coping after partner loss in monogamous male prairie voles. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 64, 66-78. 
Sunahara, C., Zelkowitz, P., Bolger, N., Sadikaj, G., Samuel, S., Gold, I., ... & Bartz, J. A. (2018). Maternal oxytocin predicts relationship survival during the perinatal transition period: Preliminary evidence. International Journal of Psychophysiology.


13 comments:

  1. Hi1
    After hearing the panel of this afternoon and then your presentation, I can affirm that I find your work and your way of thinking very interesting. One thing that caught my mind is when you said in the panel that scientific researches was in the interest of humans (diseases, etc.) and that they were worth the lost/harm of many animals (also we don't really have a choice since we need to test on animals first, strict regulations). I think the fact that a scientific study has to benefit humans in a certain way is very important for you (to my understanding, correct me if wrong). I was wondering, with all due respect for what you do and also because this is interesting to me, how do you think your studies on prairie voles, on their brain (e.g.oxytocin) help humans? In other words, how do humans benefit from these specific studies you presented us during you talk?

    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I guess you won't get an answer from Mr Young, so perhaps I can share this (not so) brief reflection on the topic you rightfully bring up.

      For the past century or so, a debate about what kind of research should be funded still goes on :

      One the one side, people say that research, in order to be justified, should yield some usefulness. If my "Histoire de la psychologie" manual is right, William James is the one responsible for starting this feud. Thanks to him (or because of him, depending how you view it) in order to get grants, researchers have to try and demonstrate what good will come out of the research. This is why researchers like Frantisek Baluska have such a hard time getting fundings. Some domains of research are left behind, and where psychology is concerned, they have to do with fundamental research. It's no coincidence that the “rich” researchers are often the ones studying topics of general concern like autism, artificial intelligence, etc.

      On the other side, there are those who argue that this is a narrow-minded point of view. There are extraordinary discoveries we could make, but that we have no idea about at the present moment. What we know now, we could never have guessed we’d discover a few centuries ago. Someone had to try against all odds. It's unfair and counterproductive to just encourage/fund people who promise their results will allow to develop new miracle cures and let researchers who are trying to figure out the basic mechanisms of this universe starve and have to fend for themselves.

      Now enters the animal research and the questions of ethics... and this debate becomes not so simple anymore. Even though I would otherwise argue for camp 2, James' argument seems to weight in a lot more, and those who are opposed to it are in hot waters, even having to lie, pretending they do have the slightest idea about what “concrete result” their search will ultimately yield... pressured to promise that their research are sure to help find some miracle cure or whatever. They shouldn't be expected to.

      In reality, research is research. You’re searching for something and research is not for everyone: it can be quite painful. It's expected to be improbable that you'll even find ANYTHING. And if you do find something, until the second you found it, you had no certainty about what it might be, let alone what use it may have. So, if 100 teams of researchers are killing mice in search of a cure for cancer and one of them finally gets it after 40 years (and it saves your brother, let's say)... would it be fair to say that the other teams wasted lives cause they weren’t successful?

      Unless one is going to shun all medical treatment out of "moral values" (considering how any medication you’ll ever receive involved its share of dead animals)... it's only fair that we think about this issue as honestly as possible, and from multiple angles. There are no easy answers.

      Delete
  2. I was wondering about the CO2 asphyxiation method for euthanizing the voles. Were you aware of the research surrounding this that suggest that it is unethical, and do you have any counterarguments for using the method?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was very surprised to hear that they use CO2 asphyxiation method of euthanasia. This method is outdated and known to be aversive for rodent. Furthermore, this method has several disadvantages: it is difficult to ensure optimal concentration in chamber, it is irritating to mucous membranes, it is longer to get unconsciousness than with many other gaseous anaesthetics and so on... In most laboratories, isoflurane, halothane and others volatile inhalant anaesthetic are usualy used today. Especially for rodent, many studies have shown that halothane is the least aversive agents to inhale, in addition to being quick acting and easy to concentrate at hight vapour levels in closed containers.

      Delete
  3. My question (asked verbally) was : is there a way to train the natural production of oxytocin and vasopressin in one individual? In other words, does early social interaction have an effect of both the production of those molecules and on the development of the receptors for those molecules ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Larry Young s’intéresse aux campagnols des prairies, car, comme nous l’avions déjà vu préalablement à l’école d’été, ils ont une structure familiale semblable à la nôtre. Le conférencier ne s’intéresse pas directement à la monogamie, mais plutôt à la formation de couple qui est “adaptatif”, vraisemblablement pour donner plus de ressources à la progéniture et aussi pour mieux survivre à la prédation. D’une perspective évolutionniste, s’il y a peu de monogamie, on peut se demander ce qui se passe dans le cerveau pour que ceci advienne. On a remarqué que les femelles sécrètent une hormone qui leur donne le goût de s’occuper des bébés. Le même stimulus qui est dérangeant pour elle lui fait alors materner les bébés qu’elles auraient attaqués avant. Ce qui est responsable de ça c’est l’oxytocin. On retrouve cette molécule dans plusieurs espèces. C’est une molécule de couplage. J’ai trouvé intéressant que l’oxytocin soit impliqué dans la perception de stimuli sociaux, dans la récompense sociale. Elle permet à un organisme de détecter la détresse et donne la motivation de le réduire. Il s’agit alors de comportements empathiques dans lesquels ce neuropeptide est impliqué.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr Young, you suggest that "loss of a bonded partner results in the development of depressive-like “grieving” behavior".
    Do we know if voles that experienced loss of a bonded partner can reexperience mating and bonding and therefore, having no more depressive symptoms?
    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Votre soussignée a une formation en (bio)éthique et en psychologie, et à ce titre je fais également miennes les préoccupations exprimées par des collègues étudiants ci-haut relativement à la nécessité de l'euthanasie des sujets compte tenu des enjeux et des bénéfices de l'étude. Dans la présentation, on nous fait état de ce que je peux comprendre et résumer comme des différence importantes entre le modèle rongeur et le modèle animal, et de limites quant à la généralisation des résultats. N'y aurait-il pas moyen, compte tenu de la courte durée de vie du campagnol, de procéder à l'examen du cerveau à l'occasion de son décès pour causes naturelles? Ou d'effectuer de l'imagerie ou des prélèvements pour détecter la présence ou l'absence des hormones ou molécules recherchées? On nous a parlé des bénéfices pour éventuellement comprendre l'autisme chez l'humain. Cependant, un débat est actuellement bien actif sur la question de l'autisme, souvent animé par les personnes autistes elles-mêmes, à l'effet que cette condition ne devrait pas être conçue comme un handicap mais comme une particularité présente chez un certain nombre de personnes comme l'est par ex. le fait d'appartenir à une minorité de gauchers dans un monde constitué d'une minorité de droitiers. On parle de dé-médicaliser l'autisme pour plutôt miser sur des méthodes d'accessibilité ou d'adaptation dans le cheminement scolaire, social et professionnel. Certaines personnes autistes et professionnels de l'autisme s'inquiètent même d'une tendance à une forme d'eugénisme dans le fait de vouloir prévenir la condition. Je tiens également compte des études sur les importantes limites du transfert de données issues de la recherche sur d'autres espèces de rongeurs aux êtres humains telles celles que j'ai citées dans mon commentaire sur le même blog sur une autre des présentations. Je ne suis pas convaincue de plus que l'étude, bien qu'intéressante à des fins de recherche fondamentale, apporte tant au bien-être et à la préservation de l'espèce campagnol qu'elle vaille le sacrifice prématuré de certains de ses représentants. Il me semble en l'espèce qu'il serait bon de reporter l'étude afin d'attendre le développement de technologies propres à ce que les scientifiques puissent obtenir leurs données sans attenter à la vie des sujets, si nous ne sommes pas en l'état présentement de procéder sans euthanasie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. thanks for the presentation.
    about voles : I was wondering who decides to get pair or mate with? the female or the male?
    does the other one chooses to court or accepts directly?
    and for how long does it last? is it just for once? if not, does the previous experience
    influences the decision of mating?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for the presentation, it was very interesting. At the beginning of your talk you mention in all mammals, mothers take care of their children after birth. However, only 5% of mammals keep both parents stay together after mating. Is the neurophysiology of monogamous mammals similar to that of other monogamous animals, such as bald eagles, french anglefish or swans?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You mentioned that sexuality triggers the secretion of oxytocin and vasopressin, which renders more salient the other person’s characteristics.

    - What happens if the vaginal or nipple stimulation are self-induced, and how can our internal circuitry discriminate the two?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.