Anti-depressant use is a critically
important topic that intersects public health and scientific research communities.
Given the gravity of the implications of anti-depressant use, it is interesting
that research on many of the underlying mechanisms of the drugs lacks consensus
from the scientific community. The papers we read this week provide a great
window into the somewhat backwards nature of research into why anti-depressants
do what they do.
The contrast between Santarelli et.
al. and Bessa et. al. highlighted the
importance of clearly delineating every step of the experimental process when
writing a scientific paper. Bessa et. al. used individual sections to explain
every new item in the study in precise detail as it was presented. While
Santarelli et. al. did provide clarity, it was not as clearly delineated,
making the article a heavier read. Particularly little attention was given by
Santarelli et. al. to describing methods of measuring behavioral change in
animal subjects. Without context, methods of behavior measurement in animal
models can seem more subjective than is often the standard in scientific
research. Bessa et. al. did a superior job in clearly outlining exactly what
was done throughout the paper, but particularly in this regard.
With conflicting results, these
studies could provide a great jumping off point for neuroimaging studies on the
topic of neurogenesis in anti-depressant use. Cerebral blood volume (CBV)
measurement and spectroscopy of biomarkers for neuroprogenitor cells have been
shown to be useful in identification of adult neurogenesis in animals and are
easily translatable to humans. Use of these methods could eliminate the
potential post-mortem changes to the brain. Overall, there is great need for
further research into this topic as it is of great consequence to the
population at large.
No comments:
Post a Comment