Depression papers

   Li et al and Pollack et al were very good papers that signify important advances in our understanding of different research methods.  Pollock et al’s safety protocol training serves as a great comparison to modern clinical therapy and coping mechanism training. Their model of fear conditioning and showing how the safety groups resisted its effects could suggest a clinical method of training people to resist depressive thoughts and could greatly reduce the chance of contracting depression in the future. The many  different tests they carried out, including the elevator maze test using fluoxetine, BrdU tracking for proliferation, x-irradiation and so on show high diversity in their experimental methods and serves as a fine point for the validity of their paper.

    Li et al on the other hand had an easier-to-read paper in which they tested the effects of NMDA receptor antagonists to show a reversal in the symptoms of depression. I thought that their paper was concise and clear, while using multiple models and tests to show their validity. One of the biggest criticisms I have is that they did not discuss the effect of other NMDA-R antagonists besides ketamine and RO 25, especially considering that ketamine is a dangerous drug and may not be a good treatment option in humans because of the possible side effects. The techniques they used seem to be an improvement on the techniques used by previously read papers, including the CUS paradigm which seems more valid as it produces both anhedonia and anxiety, and since it requires higher testing rather than just forced swim test and learned helplessness. If this is one of the first papers to analyze the importance of NMDA antagonist action on depression, it could represent a huge shift in the modern treatment of depression, and pharmaceutical companies will probably focus on further testing and development of NMDA antagonists for treatment.