I happened to read Santarelli’s paper before Bessa’s, which
reminded me of all the ways we can question the validity of a paper regardless
of how neatly tied-up it appears to be. While Santarelli’s presentation of 5HT1A-mediated
neurogenesis as the “missing link” between antidepressant mechanisms and behavioral
improvement was impressive and convenient, I found myself confused at multiple
points in the paper – why wasn’t there more discussion on the actual mechanism
of causality between neurogenesis and 5HT1A receptor activation/availability? I
wish the researchers hadn’t written such a confident conclusion before
discussing problems such as how serotonin reception alters the rate of
neurogenesis or why their research model reconciles the fact that even the
5HT1A knockout mice had the same basal rate of adult neurogenesis as WT mice. Concerning
the latter issue, it seems the crutch of their conclusion is that there must be
a difference between the two conditions; if this isn’t the case - and they do
eventually clarify that they’re more concerned with the serotonergic effects on
neurogenesis - then their specific
conclusion (and paper title) seems misdirected.
While reading Bessa’s paper, I had to stop to admire the
scientific process. What Santarelli’s paper lacked in logistic detail, Bessa’s
paper certainly provided. Consequently, the finding that mood-improving effects
of antidepressant treatments occur independently of neurogenesis is far more
convincing. Bessa’s direct address of other issues in Santarelli’s paper such
as the lack of practicality behind only relying on the NSF test to evaluate depressive
behaviors or the confounding factor of inflammation after x-ray treatment are extremely
satisfying to me. Overall, and in a topical sense, reading about these studies together
truly shows the way a single paper could effectively convince someone not
familiar with the topic that a conclusion is valid. Thus the importance of
learning how to compare papers!
No comments:
Post a Comment