Month: March 2018

If I were the head of a funding agency devoted to looking into the effects of microbes on human health, I would be most excited to support research proposals that were dedicated to understanding the relationship between microbes and mental illness. For me, there is nothing more unfortunate, disquieting, or otherwise depressing than watching somebody slowly lose there mind, or having a fractured grip on reality result in somebody hurting themselves or others.

With that said, if research into microbes could shed even a little light on what is now a vastly mysterious subject, there’s a good chance it would be worth the money. Fortunately, there are already studies looking into the brain-gut axis and doing their best to piece this puzzle together. Perhaps, in the future, research programs such as these could nail down a concrete link between microbiota and subsequent adjustments in brain chemistry, and begin to address how to use that relationship in both preventive (and possibly even curative) treatment. now THAT is something I would love to see.

Human non infectious diseases caused by microbes:

-depression

-Asthma

-Diabetes

-anxiety

-Cardiovascular desease

-HPV

-Cancer

-Obesity

-Various other neurological disorders

-IBD

-Crohn’s Disease

-Allergies*

 

The big differences between the conditions listed here and those from my first post in this class:

The most important takeaway for me from this comparison (and possibly even for this entire class) is just how far reaching the effects of the human microbiota may be. When initially I had to wrack my brain searching for just three small examples of microbial effects on non infectious and chronic diseases, I was now able to spout off over a dozen in just a fraction of the time. It would seem that the human microbiome is actually much more important than most people give it credit for.

Additionally, after looking at all of the diseases I’ve listed here, the most surprising to me are still the number of different psychological diseases and conditions, things which I had believed were solely due to genetics and brain chemistry.

In this post, I’ll be discussing the significance of five important questions which one should consider while interpreting scientific literature.

• Can experiments detect differences that matter?

This point is important, because it’s these differences which allow results to produced and made apparent through empirical study. Without the inclusion of statistically significant deviations from one group to another, any claims laid are unsupported conjecture, and may be considered next to useless in many forums.

• Does the study show causation or correlation?

The distinction between these two terms is crucial for determining the effects which things have on one another, and is as important to understand as the closely related distinction between fact and superstition. For example, every adult in the history of the world who has died has consumed water, but this doesn’t mean that water is responsible for their deaths.

• What is the mechanism?

This question looks more closely at the connections between observations and their results, and considers the physical conditions and process which lead to the reproducible observations under question. Ultimately, it lends deeper understanding to perceived connections.

• How much do experiments reflect reality?

The importance of this question almost goes without saying. After all, what’s the point of performing an experiment with nigh on useless results? I sure wouldn’t want a child who’s only medical experience was playing the game “Operation!” (adept as they may be at it) to start cutting things out of me. This is the same Idea.

• Could anything else explain the results?

Finally, This is a condition that has been analyzed in statistics and many other fields for quite some time. At its core, this question is related to many others, like determining causation vs correlation, or finding the mechanism. As such, I believe it is likely the most important question to consider while interpreting scientific literature. No matter how many of the other questions are adequately answered by a study, if there’s something else out that there that is equally or more likely to produce the same results, more experiments need to be performed, and more data obtained.

 

While it may initially seem absurd to think that the brain and microbiome of the gut could have an intimate connection ( I was skeptical coming in to the idea, to say the least), there are actually many different connections that allow this relationship to be possible, as the gut is considered to be the “second brain” and is wrought with neural connections.

Looking more towards the practical applications of this axis,  the microbiome affects brain function by:

• Triggering the release of cytokines by affecting immune cells
• The direct production of corticosteroids and neurotransmitters
• Other small materials, and enzymatic products may affect the brain via nerves

In return, the brain can adjust the microbiota via the release of hormones and steroids capable of affecting it. For example, during times of stress, the environment of the stomach may become much more acidic, and this could ultimately result in a population shift along the microbiome towards more acid-tolerant microbes.

In terms of mental health, these brain affecting capabilities can actually have quite the effect. For example, the addition of Lactobacillus rhamnosus to the microbiome was shown to reduce the observable effects of depression in mice, but only when there was an appreciable nerve connection between the gut and brain. Research has also shown that the presence of a microbiota may have a hand in reducing the effects that stress exerts on a body.

With all of that said, turnabout is fair play, and mental health can be readily affected by the microbiome as well. Besides the simple case of having the brain and autonomic responses themselves adjusting microbiota, there are multiple examples of mental conditions which adjust behavior. Lesch-Nyhan syndrome is a particularly devastating example which compels an inflicted individual to eat his own fingers and lips. Conditions such as this could readily introduce new organisms into a microbiome, and could also upset the relatively well maintained environment found therein.

All of these effects come together in a roiling stew of situations and conditions that can dramatically affect human health as a whole, in both positive and negative ways.

Through the precess of peer reviewing, I’ve learned several ways in which to better review my own writing, by holding myself to the same standards of those who I’ve passed my own judgement on. The opportunity to look over the best work of others also gave me a chance to learn from their writing styles and notice tools or abilities that I’d like to emulate in my own work.

With all that said, the process of pouring over somebody else’s work and looking for errors or missteps was strange, as I’m not one who usually critiques the works of others. Another issue with the process of peer reviewing is that it’s incredibly difficult to stay enthusiastic and engaged with someone else’s work on a topic you may not be familiar or interested with, all in an effort to examine the minutia of what they’re saying. This makes it necessary to take several breaks while reviewing in order to keep a fresh mind, but also results in a general dilution of early information as you progress with your review.

All in all, peer review seems like an important process which can be trying to the reviewer, but ultimately results in a generally higher caliber of work for everybody involved.

In peer review, articles which authors want to publish in scientific journals are examined by researchers in the field on which the article is founded. Through the process, the author sends his article into the editor of a paper of his choice, this editor then decides wether to reject the article or send it out to the reviewers who will submit their recommendations back to the editor. On these recommendations, the editor then decides if he wants to accept the article, require further revision, or reject it outright.

These steps allow for interactive and constructive discourse between members of a specified scientific community that may otherwise never have had any contact. This system means that there is a level of accountability and accuracy in papers now which never could have existed before. With multiple individuals who are well familiarized with the field looking over each piece, rather than one editor who may or may not be an expert, the quality of the writing is likely to increase. Unfortunately, having so many individuals looking over a piece of writing in a single blind style makes it easy for disagreements and misunderstandings to butty an otherwise revolutionary discovery, which is why many have pressed for much more transparent peer review processes.