helenllama Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 A study in Rats has just shown that SSRI's may treat Stress better than Depression Not sure what I think about this, but for those of us with the working/not working problem then it may explain some of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Emperor Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 I didn't even read it, no offense, but in my particular experience, SSRI's have done NOTHING but freak me the fuck out. I get even more stressed and anxious and I hope I never have to take another one as long as I live. So, not true for me, but then, as far as I know, I'm not depressed, just anxious, so this may be irrelevant. I just react poorly to SSRI's, and I'm not a rat, in the literal sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemisia Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 I'm out of practice when it comes to analyzing research studies (not that the link is to an actual study, but I would hope that Northwestern's own publication wouldn't butcher the research of one of its best and brightest too badly), and my knowledge of the brain is a bit limited, so please bear with me... If I understand correctly, this research looked at the genes that are expressed* in the hippocampus and amygdala of 4 types of rats that were exposed to stress (some of the rats had also been bred for depression, whereas others hadn't). Changes in the hippocampus and amygdala have previously been shown to be associated with depression. And supposedly the expression pattern of genes in the stressed depressed and not depressed animals did not overlap much at all. I think I'm getting lost. Shouldn't there be another control that included rats that were not subject to experimental stress? There doesn't seem to be. (I understand that even though rats may be among the cheapest lab animals, caring for them and then processing their brains does have its cost. And microarrays can't be cheap either...) I do find it interesting that there seems to be so little overlap between "stress genes" and "depression genes." I don't see where the assertion that antidepressants treat stress comes from, though. I'm probably missing a lot. I prefer to analyze research in a group because someone else will always notice something I miss. Would some of you be my group then? *Really, microarrays look at RNA, not at proteins, but there should be a correlation there, even though things can get a little complicated. I'm not quite sure whether looking at RNA or proteins would be more useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamp56 Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 SSRI's have helped my depression to a huge extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recoverymouse Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 interesting, I've cut back on my effexor by half and my anxiety is way up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null0trooper Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 If I understand correctly, this research looked at the genes that are expressed* in the hippocampus and amygdala of 4 types of rats that were exposed to stress (some of the rats had also been bred for depression, whereas others hadn't). Changes in the hippocampus and amygdala have previously been shown to be associated with depression. And supposedly the expression pattern of genes in the stressed depressed and not depressed animals did not overlap much at all. I would hope so, although the linked text suggests that the two regions of the brain are genetically different. I think I'm getting lost. Shouldn't there be another control that included rats that were not subject to experimental stress? There *should* be, as the "stress is the cause of depression" idea is rooted more in psychology than psychiatry. Most animal models that are used by scientists to test antidepressants are based on the hypothesis that stress causes depression. "They stress the animals and look at their behavior," she said. "Then they manipulate the animals' behavior with drugs and say, 'OK, these are going to be good anti-depressants.' But they are not treating depression; they are treating stress." Well, no. That's why clinical trials in humans are still needed to show that the medication response isn't simply an artifact of whatever means is used to get depressed mice and rats. It seems to me that even after those results are in, no one is entirely sure how some antidepressants do whatever it is they are doing. Her animal model of depression did not show dramatic differences in the levels of genes controlling neurotransmitters functions. "If depression was related to neurotransmitter activity, we would have seen that," she said. 1. I'm not convinced by the article that that they were looking for really is consistent with the neurotransmitter model. 2. Assuming it is, that the 4 breeding lines used are genetically capable of responding as expected in the time allotted. 3. Even then, looking at gene expression in areas most closely tied to serotonin says little, if anything, about noradrenaline, histamine, dopamine, melatonin, or NMDA transmission. 4. And if their methodology shows no link between stress and depression, why the hell did they follow up using stressed rats? They couldn't find some emo rats? But the biggest warning flag, both in the article and in the OP's assessment of what it means, is that it's not disclosed what was being used as the proxy for all antidepressants in use. After all, not every antidepressant has the same mechanism of action as the SSRIs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemisia Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 If this woman is on to something, then SSRI's should be better at treating situational depression (more likely to be caused by stress) than random/quasi-idiopathic/other depression. I haven't seen studies showing this, but then I haven't looked. As far as I can tell, this was a presentation. I hope she publishes an article on it, so we can see the details... (The way I understand it, in most fields, it's harder/takes longer to publish an article than to present something at a conference.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null0trooper Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 If this woman is on to something, then SSRI's should be better at treating situational depression (more likely to be caused by stress) than random/quasi-idiopathic/other depression. I haven't seen studies showing this, but then I haven't looked. I haven't either, but a friend of mine was helped considerably by a short course of an SSRI in addition to therapy while going through a really tough time. That suggests that it's a viable use. While it wouldn't hurt to delve into how that could work, I'd be worried about ADs becoming (more?) overused for prophylaxis. As far as I can tell, this was a presentation. I hope she publishes an article on it, so we can see the details... (The way I understand it, in most fields, it's harder/takes longer to publish an article than to present something at a conference.) That's been my experience within my own field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.