“Mousality” and individual differences: obstacle or advantage?

The demand from our clinical colleagues is “Make mouse models work!”. Unfortunately, humans and animals are not perfectly aligned in physiology, and certainly not when it comes to psychopathology, Haim Einat (Tel Aviv, Israel) told a “brainstorming” session on animal models.

Among humans, some respond badly to stress; others don’t. We attribute that to differences in personality. Yet when we study animals, we expect them all to respond in the same way: to show the same biochemical and behavioural changes. In fact, of course, there is “mousality”. Animals vary in sensitivity and resilience just as we do.

As an example, when mice are exposed to the smell of a cat, they almost all show an acute anxiety-like response. In certain animals, but by no means all, the anxiety becomes chronic and looks a bit like post traumatic stress disorder. So if we want to model PTSD, it is animals with a persisting stress response which we should select.

Subgroups as a useful tool

To some researchers animal heterogeneity is an unwanted obstacle. But if we look at the different subgroups, instead of concentrating on mean data for the group as a whole, we have valuable opportunities to increase our understanding of mechanisms underlying sensitivity and resilience, and response or non-response to medication.

Work on a potential new antidepressant illustrates how animal variability gives us insight into dose-response. At a standard dose, some animals show a behavioural response; others don’t. Increasing the dose increases the overall effect. OK. But by looking at individual animals we can see that what the higher dose has done is to increase the number of responders. It has not increased the strength of the effect in those who were already responders at the lower dose.

To give another example, animals that are dominant in a food competition test respond less to antidepressants than animals that are submissive. Can we use that difference to investigate possible genetic or molecular mechanisms that might underlie this different response to medication?, Professor Einat asked.

This theme was taken up by Catherine Belzung of INSERM, Tours, France.

Dissecting non-response

We have known since the results of STAR*D that around a third of patients with MDD respond well to antidepressant therapy while around two-thirds have partial responses or do not respond at all. A large array of factors seems to have some value in predicting likelihood of response. Variation in level of stress hormones is one. Can this be modelled in mice?, Professor Belzung and colleagues wondered.

The answer is that it can. We do see variability in stress hormones in mice, and that variability does seem to influence behavioural responses to antidepressant medication. In an attempt to understand a possible underlying mechanism, the French group is now looking at Ki67, a marker of cell proliferation, in the hippocampus of their responding and non-responding animals.

It would be risky to say that animal non-response translates directly into human non-response. Face validity and predictive validity are not the same. But intra-group variability can be an opportunity to develop animal models of human treatment resistance and, potentially, to develop new therapeutic options.

In discussion, Professor Einat was asked about the role of the most obvious of individual differences: gender. Following the prevailing view that female mice were likely to be inherently more variable, because of hormonal fluctuations, he had for many years used only male animals in his studies. But he has been impressed by a recent review suggesting that gender in fact makes no real difference to variability of response. And he is now proposing to study female animals as well.

Correspondent’s highlights from the symposium are meant as a fair representation of the scientific content presented. The views and opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Lundbeck.
Country selection
We are registering that you are located in Brazil - if that's correct then please continue to Progress in Mind Brazil
You are leaving Progress in Mind
Le informazioni contenute nel nuovo sito prescelto possono non essere conformi al D.Ivo 219/06 che regola la pubblicità dei medicinali per uso umano e le opinioni espresse non riflettono necessariamente le posizioni dell’azienda, non sono da essa avvallate.
Accesso riservato a Operatori Sanitari
Per accedere si prega di registrarsi o, in caso sia già stato fatto, di autenticarsi
L’accesso a Progress in Mind Italia è consentito unicamente agli Operatori Sanitari (medici e farmacisti). I contenuti di questo sito sono prodotti da un team di Operatori Sanitari il cui obiettivo è presentare le ultime novità in ambito psichiatrico e neurologico, attraverso interviste, registrazioni audio/video di seminari con opinion leader, report e sintesi di congressi sia internazionali che nazionali. Per poter accedere al sito è quindi necessario registrarsi e fornire alcuni dati così da poter verificare che l‘utente sia un Operatore Sanitario.
Hello
Please confirm your email
We have just sent you an email, with a confirmation link.
Before you can gain full access - you need to confirm your email.
The information on this site is exclusively intented for health care professionals.
All the information included in the Website is related to products of the local market and, therefore, directed to health professionals legally authorized to prescribe or dispense medications with professional practice. The technical information of the drugs is provided merely informative, being the responsibility of the professionals authorized to prescribe drugs and decide, in each concrete case, the most appropriate treatment to the needs of the patient.
Congress
Register for access to Progress in Mind in your country