Interesting article on lack of serotonin not being cause of depression

[birchswing]

I think this is already somewhat known as you see commercials on TV now for "add-on" depression meds in addition to SSRIs, but I saw this article:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/281645.php

It describes mice that were created to be physically unable to produce serotonin and did not show depressive symptoms, yet they responded similarly to other mice when given SSRIs, meaning the effect of the SSRI is something other than just blocking re-uptake of serotonin.

It's quite interesting. It also makes me wonder how people were so sure of themselves when SSRIs came out. There used to be that whole spiel about mental illness is just like diabetes. Just like a diabetic doesn't have enough insulin, you don't have enough serotonin.

I definitely believe depression and other mental illnesses have physiological causes. If anything I think describing them as mental is problematic. I think before on this forum I've said how I think they should be called syndromes to increase the awareness of their physiological nature with clear patterns of presentation and also the lack of knowledge as to their etiology.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[notdeadyet]

We've known for a long time that serotonin levels do not correspond to depression. If it did, then SSRIs (which work very quickly) would show very rapid improvement to depression, instead of four or even six weeks. The theory is that there's a downstream effect that is occurring that is much slower and we don't know what that effect is.

Bad doctors have sort of kept the misunderstanding going by misrepresenting how SSRIs work.

 

[hamstergang]

I think they should be called syndromes to increase the awareness of their physiological nature with clear patterns of presentation and also the lack of knowledge as to their etiology.

Perhaps we can call them disorders for the same purpose? And since we already do call them disorders?

 

[birchswing]

We've known for a long time that serotonin levels do not correspond to depression. If it did, then SSRIs (which work very quickly) would show very rapid improvement to depression, instead of four or even six weeks. The theory is that there's a downstream effect that is occurring that is much slower and we don't know what that effect is.

Bad doctors have sort of kept the misunderstanding going by misrepresenting how SSRIs work.

That's interesting to know about why it takes 4-6 weeks. It's also interesting that people are taking without having any idea why it does what it does. You sort of develop this mental image of what an SSRI is. Now my mental image is of it being a mystery. It did something for me when I first took it. A definite change. I've been on it for over half my life now, so I can't tell if I'd be worse without it. Certainly does nothing for my OCD which has become much worse since being on meds.

Perhaps we can call them disorders for the same purpose? And since we already do call them disorders?

Sorry wasn't clear. I meant the "mental" part. That we say mental illness. To me these conditions are more like syndromes, like fibromyalgia. There are a constellation of symptoms that are physical and perceptual. The word "mental" is the one that always has bothered me. I think when I was younger there was an attitude toward me that things that are "mental" or "in your head" can be overcome with enough grit, and so I'm somewhat averse to that word. I know I would think about depression differently if it were called something like slow-body syndrome. I know that's not a good name. But something to indicate that there is a physiological change in the experiences of sleep, wakefulness, emotion, pain, joy—something that goes beyond sad thoughts. I know people say depression is a disease like any other, but there's something about the terminology that I believe hinders people from really believing that. It all seems very ethereal somehow. And I don't believe that depression, for example, really is treated in terms of accommodation or understanding like other diseases. Maybe it's my own slowness to grasp the reality of these illnesses as true illnesses. At least for me, a language change would help to expedite that understanding. I like the word syndrome because to me it conveys that there are real, observable constellations of symptoms. And it seems to also be used in emerging diseases when a cause is not known, which also seems to fit for what we now call mental illness/mental disorder/behavioral disorder.

 

[smalltownpsych]

That's interesting to know about why it takes 4-6 weeks. It's also interesting that people are taking without having any idea why it does what it does. You sort of develop this mental image of what an SSRI is. Now my mental image is of it being a mystery. It did something for me when I first took it. A definite change. I've been on it for over half my life now, so I can't tell if I'd be worse without it. Certainly does nothing for my OCD which has become much worse since being on meds.

Sorry wasn't clear. I meant the "mental" part. That we say mental illness. To me these conditions are more like syndromes, like fibromyalgia. There are a constellation of symptoms that are physical and perceptual. The word "mental" is the one that always has bothered me. I think when I was younger there was an attitude toward me that things that are "mental" or "in your head" can be overcome with enough grit, and so I'm somewhat averse to that word. I know I would think about depression differently if it were called something like slow-body syndrome. I know that's not a good name. But something to indicate that there is a physiological change in the experiences of sleep, wakefulness, emotion, pain, joy—something that goes beyond sad thoughts. I know people say depression is a disease like any other, but there's something about the terminology that I believe hinders people from really believing that. It all seems very ethereal somehow. And I don't believe that depression, for example, really is treated in terms of accommodation or understanding like other diseases. Maybe it's my own slowness to grasp the reality of these illnesses as true illnesses. At least for me, a language change would help to expedite that understanding. I like the word syndrome because to me it conveys that there are real, observable constellations of symptoms. And it seems to also be used in emerging diseases when a cause is not known, which also seems to fit for what we now call mental illness/mental disorder/behavioral disorder.

There is a lot of push to try and emphasize the physiological aspects of mental disorders and that can be good in that it destigmatizes; however, it is not always an accurate or helpful way to conceptualize. It can lead to a dependency on medications to improve a patient's life without a recognition that behaviors, environment, cognitions, interpersonal relations all play a role. For some of my patients, medication will actually make things worse because of this dynamic since in their case it is not a biochemical imbalance to be corrected but actual external changes that need to be made.

 

[Ibid]

Being depressed is not illness. It is an adaptive state that signals to your social group that you need looking after. Giving someone a drug is not really looking after someone but in western society is serves as a signal that some cares. It is this signal that actually does all the work and is the main reason for people beginning to feel better. With out getting wordy that's it in a nutshell.

 

[Armadillos]

I'm hugely aware of the role of what most would consider "non-medical" factors in depression, but I think its worth reminding people that despite us not fully understanding it, depression ultimately is a brain condition.It has been empirically shown to be an inducible brain state, historically through social/life factors. But now we can induce the brain state of depression in several ways. Whether its chemically with certain drugs, or most strikingly electrically induced depression by misplaced parkinsons DBS leads.

Obviously well known to people in psychiatry, but for those on the outside looking in, the NEJM article describing instantly reproducible severe depression in someone with no psych history is eye opening.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199905133401905

"During this postoperative evaluation, the patient's face expressed profound sadness within five seconds after a continuous monopolar 2.4-V rectangular current with a pulse width of 60 μsec and a frequency of 130 Hz was delivered for seven minutes through contact 0 of the electrode implanted on the left. Although still alert, the patient leaned to the right, started to cry, and verbally communicated feelings of sadness, guilt, uselessness, and hopelessness , such as “I'm falling down in my head, I no longer wish to live, to see anything, hear anything, feel anything. . . .” When asked why she was crying and if she felt pain, she responded: “No, I'm fed up with life, I've had enough. . . . I don't want to live any more, I'm disgusted with life. . . . Everything is useless, always feeling worthless, I'm scared in this world.” When asked why she was sad, she replied: “I'm tired. I want to hide in a corner. . . . I'm crying over myself, of course. . . . I'm hopeless, why am I bothering you. . . .” She had no hallucinations, nor were there any changes in her motor or cognitive symptoms of Parkinson's disease. The depression disappeared less than 90 seconds after stimulation was stopped.

 

[notdeadyet]

Being depressed is not illness. It is an adaptive state that signals to your social group that you need looking after. Giving someone a drug is not really looking after someone but in western society is serves as a signal that some cares. It is this signal that actually does all the work and is the main reason for people beginning to feel better. With out getting wordy that's it in a nutshell.

Interesting idea. Any studies backing this?

 

[smalltownpsych]

I'm hugely aware of the role of what most would consider "non-medical" factors in depression, but I think its worth reminding people that despite us not fully understanding it, depression ultimately is a brain condition.It has been empirically shown to be an inducible brain state, historically through social/life factors. But now we can induce the brain state of depression in several ways. Whether its chemically with certain drugs, or most strikingly electrically induced depression by misplaced parkinsons DBS leads.

Obviously well known to people in psychiatry, but for those on the outside looking in, the NEJM article describing instantly reproducible severe depression in someone with no psych history is eye opening.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199905133401905

"During this postoperative evaluation, the patient's face expressed profound sadness within five seconds after a continuous monopolar 2.4-V rectangular current with a pulse width of 60 μsec and a frequency of 130 Hz was delivered for seven minutes through contact 0 of the electrode implanted on the left. Although still alert, the patient leaned to the right, started to cry, and verbally communicated feelings of sadness, guilt, uselessness, and hopelessness , such as “I'm falling down in my head, I no longer wish to live, to see anything, hear anything, feel anything. . . .” When asked why she was crying and if she felt pain, she responded: “No, I'm fed up with life, I've had enough. . . . I don't want to live any more, I'm disgusted with life. . . . Everything is useless, always feeling worthless, I'm scared in this world.” When asked why she was sad, she replied: “I'm tired. I want to hide in a corner. . . . I'm crying over myself, of course. . . . I'm hopeless, why am I bothering you. . . .” She had no hallucinations, nor were there any changes in her motor or cognitive symptoms of Parkinson's disease. The depression disappeared less than 90 seconds after stimulation was stopped.

Great information but not too surprising. Stimulation of the amygdala can cause fear or aggression and parts of the hypothalamus cause pleasurable sensations. We have known this for quite a few decades. Maybe we should wire people up like in some of my favorite sci-fi books. I'm being a little flip, but how does this info really help our patients and possibly worse, does it serve to reinforce the belief that we are passive agents to the vagaries of neuroanatomy?

Another factor to consider is that because the DSM doesn't really study etiology, we are likely looking at various types of depression which can be why there is such a varied response to types of treatments. Recent data has shown that moderate to severe depression is usually more responsive to medications than mild to moderate. This fits with what we were seeing in practice since 2000 when a professor of mine spoke about more severe depression appearing to be more "biological". We also saw increased suicidality in adolescents back then too. Sometimes it takes awhile for the research to catch up to what we are observing clinically.

 

[Ceke2002]

I think this is already somewhat known as you see commercials on TV now for "add-on" depression meds in addition to SSRIs, but I saw this article:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/281645.php

It describes mice that were created to be physically unable to produce serotonin and did not show depressive symptoms, yet they responded similarly to other mice when given SSRIs, meaning the effect of the SSRI is something other than just blocking re-uptake of serotonin.

It's quite interesting. It also makes me wonder how people were so sure of themselves when SSRIs came out. There used to be that whole spiel about mental illness is just like diabetes. Just like a diabetic doesn't have enough insulin, you don't have enough serotonin.

I definitely believe depression and other mental illnesses have physiological causes. If anything I think describing them as mental is problematic. I think before on this forum I've said how I think they should be called syndromes to increase the awareness of their physiological nature with clear patterns of presentation and also the lack of knowledge as to their etiology.

The whole 'it's a chemical imbalance/serotonin is to blame' idea behind depression is far too simplistic yet people who don't understand the intricacies of chemical receptors and correlating symptoms of mental illness keep trotting out the same old chestnut. I've had some quite interesting discussions with my Psychiatrist, who is a co-ordinator for the study of Neurosciences, regarding some of the physiological mechanisms believed to be at play in clinical depression - none of which I can remember off hand, but suffice to say it's a lot more complicated than just serotonin.

I'm not sure if it's a bit old fashioned with regards to current research, but I tend to like the BioPsychoSocio approach to mental illness. With my own treatment it tends to be a case of medication when clinically indicated, otherwise we mainly concentrate on dealing with the psychological and sociological aspects through various modalities of on going talk therapy. Think of it this way, just to use your Diabetes and Insulin example - if someone has Insulin Dependent Diabetes then obviously you would prescribe Insulin to them, but you'd also teach them how to use it, show them how to work out the correct dosage, demonstrate how they should measure their blood sugar, and so on...If they were having trouble keeping their Diabetes under control because of embarrassment, or shame, or frustration, then you'd help them deal with that as well...If they're social situation made it difficult for them to control their Diabetes properly as well, then that's something else you'd need to approach - What you wouldn't do is just hand a Diabetic a prescription for Insulin, and a box of syringes and say 'Good luck with that'. I tend to see the BioPsychoSocio model in Psychiatry along the same lines, the acceptance that most illnesses don't exist in a nice neat little physiological vacuum and there are often other factors, both internal and external, at play.

Just my layperson's opinion of course.

 

[Armadillos]

Great information but not too surprising. Stimulation of the amygdala can cause fear or aggression and parts of the hypothalamus cause pleasurable sensations. We have known this for quite a few decades. Maybe we should wire people up like in some of my favorite sci-fi books. I'm being a little flip, but how does this info really help our patients and possibly worse, does it serve to reinforce the belief that we are passive agents to the vagaries of neuroanatomy?

Another factor to consider is that because the DSM doesn't really study etiology, we are likely looking at various types of depression which can be why there is such a varied response to types of treatments. Recent data has shown that moderate to severe depression is usually more responsive to medications than mild to moderate. This fits with what we were seeing in practice since 2000 when a professor of mine spoke about more severe depression appearing to be more "biological". We also saw increased suicidality in adolescents back then too. Sometimes it takes awhile for the research to catch up to what we are observing clinically.

I was posting this because this thread seemed to be wondering what depression is on a chemical/brain level and was pointing out that we don't really know yet, but we have found ways to reliably produce depression using "psychological",chemical and electrical means. It then doesn't seem surprising that we have been able to use modifications of thoughts, chemicals and electricity all to help treat depression.

I also think the bolded is a false dichotomy. Just because depression is a brain state influenced by anatomy/circuitry doesn't make someone any less able to influence their neurocircuitry by various means. fMRI shows changes in brain function with psychotherapy, meditation, SSRIs, etc. If anything I think it empowers a lot of patients who are depressed when they realize that when they are depressed their brain is in fact physically/electrically not functioning properly and that there are things they can do to physically/electrically make their brain function better. Instead of depression feeling like some sort of mythical/spiritual mystery to our patients, we can instead present that we don't fully understand depression, but it is a sickness of the brain and that there are numerous tools available to them that have been demonstrated to reliably change how the brain works.

 

[nitemagi]

BDNF.

 

[Ibid]

Interesting idea. Any studies backing this?

I see it like this.... the idea I have posited is based on my own belief that humans are at root social beings and this social explanation for what gets called depression works perfectly well. The other ideological position is that humans are at root biological. So far the biological theory is the most studied and their are two ways to look at the results of the studies. One way is to say that nothing is understood yet but it will be revealed in future, the bio ideological position requires no proof as it is a pre-existing belief that biology is the explanation. The other way to look at the evidence is that it seems to suggest that actually a faulty biology has nothing to do with it. Of course this doesn't suit anyone with a bio based ideological position.

I am sure that you have come across the idea that bio psychiatry amounts to an ideological position as is of course the idea that humans are at root social beings. I hope that doesn't come over as rude. It's just how I see it.... and of course I believe that people should be free to believe in anything they want....

I was posting this because this thread seemed to be wondering what depression is on a chemical/brain level and was pointing out that we don't really know yet, but we have found ways to reliably produce depression using "psychological",chemical and electrical means. It then doesn't seem surprising that we have been able to use modifications of thoughts, chemicals and electricity all to help treat depression.

I also think the bolded is a false dichotomy. Just because depression is a brain state influenced by anatomy/circuitry doesn't make someone any less able to influence their neurocircuitry by various means. fMRI shows changes in brain function with psychotherapy, meditation, SSRIs, etc. If anything I think it empowers a lot of patients who are depressed when they realize that when they are depressed their brain is in fact physically/electrically not functioning properly and that there are things they can do to physically/electrically make their brain function better. Instead of depression feeling like some sort of mythical/spiritual mystery to our patients, we can instead present that we don't fully understand depression, but it is a sickness of the brain and that there are numerous tools available to them that have been demonstrated to reliably change how the brain works.

Sitting out in the sun changes the temp in your brain..... does that mean the sun or clouds that block the sun is ultimately responsible for all our thoughts and behaviour as the sun interacts with our limbic systems.... seems a bit primitive..... I thought sun worship had died out....

 

[nitemagi]

I see it like this.... the idea I have posited is based on my own belief that humans are at root social beings and this social explanation for what gets called depression works perfectly well. The other ideological position is that humans are at root biological. So far the biological theory is the most studied and their are two ways to look at the results of the studies. One way is to say that nothing is understood yet but it will be revealed in future, the bio ideological position requires no proof as it is a pre-existing belief that biology is the explanation. The other way to look at the evidence is that it seems to suggest that actually a faulty biology has nothing to do with it. Of course this doesn't suit anyone with a bio based ideological position.

I am sure that you have come across the idea that bio psychiatry amounts to an ideological position as is of course the idea that humans are at root social beings. I hope that doesn't come over as rude. It's just how I see it.... and of course I believe that people should be free to believe in anything they want....



Sitting out in the sun changes the temp in your brain..... does that mean the sun or clouds that block the sun is ultimately responsible for all our thoughts and behaviour as the sun interacts with our limbic systems.... seems a bit primitive..... I thought sun worship had died out....

This isn't new. It's evolutionary biology/psychiatry. Look up papers by Nesse and Keller. This is the rationale for how normal sadness and grief is adaptive. Like any adaptive mechanism, when reaching an extreme it can become pathological. Severe depression isn't adaptive because the resulting benefits don't return the person to functioning, if they occur at all.

 

[Ibid]

This isn't new. It's evolutionary biology/psychiatry. Look up papers by Nesse and Keller. This is the rationale for how normal sadness and grief is adaptive. Like any adaptive mechanism, when reaching an extreme it can become pathological. Severe depression isn't adaptive because the resulting benefits don't return the person to functioning, if they occur at all.

Well, I would suggest that it is adaptive because when people do recover it is the social response that explains why.... they got looked after by other humans to put it simply.... all the evidence is that is the non specific factors like giving people a sense hope rather than any of the technologies employed. (I'm including CBT as well as drugs as technology)

As far as genes go all the evidence is that even copy number variations are an irrelevance. No matter how one tries to dress it up dna can only code for structure, not behaviour and certainly not for beliefs. Ideas, attitudes and beliefs are passed down through families in social relationships..... no genes required to explain any of it.

 

[nitemagi]

Well, I would suggest that it is adaptive because when people do recover it is the social response that explains why.... they got looked after by other humans to put it simply.... all the evidence is that is the non specific factors like giving people a sense hope rather than any of the technologies employed. (I'm including CBT as well as drugs as technology)

As far as genes go all the evidence is that even copy number variations are an irrelevance. No matter how one tries to dress it up dna can only code for structure, not behaviour and certainly not for beliefs. Ideas, attitudes and beliefs are passed down through families in social relationships..... no genes required to explain any of it.

I agree that genetics as a tie to behavior is a weak link. Nonetheless, an adaptive trait can become maladaptive when the circumstances change. If that adaptive trait is relied upon solely as a means to responding to a problem, it will be done more (rather than varying the way of responding to an alternative adaptive trait), resulting in it being maladaptive. Nesse and Keller write about depressive sxs serving many functions, depending on the symptoms. Increased sleep, appetite, and isolation could be viewed as a means of conserving energy in the face of an unobtainable goal that can't be relinquished.

The idea of a symptom serving a purpose has been written about by many, and is the basis for several psychotherapy approaches. Check out Luborsky and the "Symptom-Context Method" for example.

This is a model for understanding any dysfunctional behavior. It isn't alcoholism, it's a problem behavior of drinking too much. At some point in the past drinking worked (to whatever degree) to deal with stress or a problem. Then it got used inappropriately, and the problem started.

 

[AnnoyedByFreud]

I think this is already somewhat known as you see commercials on TV now for "add-on" depression meds in addition to SSRIs, but I saw this article:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/281645.php

It describes mice that were created to be physically unable to produce serotonin and did not show depressive symptoms, yet they responded similarly to other mice when given SSRIs, meaning the effect of the SSRI is something other than just blocking re-uptake of serotonin.

It's quite interesting. It also makes me wonder how people were so sure of themselves when SSRIs came out. There used to be that whole spiel about mental illness is just like diabetes. Just like a diabetic doesn't have enough insulin, you don't have enough serotonin.

I definitely believe depression and other mental illnesses have physiological causes. If anything I think describing them as mental is problematic. I think before on this forum I've said how I think they should be called syndromes to increase the awareness of their physiological nature with clear patterns of presentation and also the lack of knowledge as to their etiology.

I was reading some pretty interesting criticism (aka: a rant from a neuroscientist) about this study and the use of knockout mice. Basically, the idea was that knocking out any gene is going to lead to many downstream effects/rewiring that are impossible to control for and that superior methods of isolating the effect of serotonin are available for studying.

 

[whopper]

Bad doctors have sort of kept the misunderstanding going by misrepresenting how SSRIs work.

A problem with medical culture in general is the approach of problem --> apply solution --> over.

While the majority of cases work like above, the exceptions are not one in a million. I generally expect at least one case on my inpatient list to not follow the norm if not a few.

The payment structure of medicine rewards doctors who spend less time per patient, encouraging and enabling the fast-food model of medicine. Doctors being overworked, but also not caring in the first place makes it worse.

With psychiatry, the issues that could be happening can become more odd, more out-there, and nebulous than the other fields, and some psychiatrists, in a move to become what the believe is "more scientific" further reduce their treatment choices to options that are more medicinal.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am beginning to wonder if any of the psychotropic medications that we have treat anything other than the symptoms. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, some of the most effective and popular medications treat undesirable symptoms, but it can be problematic when our patients think they are getting treatment for their disease when in fact they are not. The medical field as a whole does not get this distinction in my experience and many mental health providers don't either, unfortunately. I think if we were a bit clearer on this, it would be helpful, but there is a lot of money committed to making it seem as though we have cures.

 

[Ibid]

I agree that genetics as a tie to behavior is a weak link. Nonetheless, an adaptive trait can become maladaptive when the circumstances change. If that adaptive trait is relied upon solely as a means to responding to a problem, it will be done more (rather than varying the way of responding to an alternative adaptive trait), resulting in it being maladaptive. Nesse and Keller write about depressive sxs serving many functions, depending on the symptoms. Increased sleep, appetite, and isolation could be viewed as a means of conserving energy in the face of an unobtainable goal that can't be relinquished.

The idea of a symptom serving a purpose has been written about by many, and is the basis for several psychotherapy approaches. Check out Luborsky and the "Symptom-Context Method" for example.

This is a model for understanding any dysfunctional behavior. It isn't alcoholism, it's a problem behavior of drinking too much. At some point in the past drinking worked (to whatever degree) to deal with stress or a problem. Then it got used inappropriately, and the problem started.

Apologies for the late response.... I do feel that a more honest disposition like this and also reflected in Whoppers and Smalltowns post would go a long way. I fear the trouble is that not only is money at stake, as mentioned, but the "its genetic" forms the bed rock for the legitimacy of involuntary commitment laws..... and as you know a house built on sand and all that....

 

[Armadillos]

. No matter how one tries to dress it up dna can only code for structure, not behaviour and certainly not for beliefs.

What do you mean by "genes don't code for behavior"??

Isolate any animal (including humans) from social interactions at birth and they are still going to display numerous predictable behaviors. My cat buries its crap in sand and finds the highest point in the room to perch on instinctively, nobody had to teach it.

 

[smalltownpsych]

What do you mean by "genes don't code for behavior"??

Isolate any animal (including humans) from social interactions at birth and they are still going to display numerous predictable behaviors. My cat buries its crap in sand and finds the highest point in the room to perch on instinctively, nobody had to teach it.

Actually humans are genetically coded for learning. Much more than any other animal.

 

[Ibid]

A

Actually humans are genetically coded for learning. Much more than any other animal.

Attitudes and values, ideas about right and wrong are passed down through social groups..... so what you are saying is that capacity to learn is coded but what is learned is social, by that measure the old model of psychiatrist imposing a sort of behavioural orthodoxy in a battle of will comes to mind.

Software developers report that some things can not be expressed with a 1 or a 0. An illusion has to be created for the end user.... their is a lesson in that.... somewhere....

 

[smalltownpsych]

What does a human do when isolated from social context as an infant? Not much other than fail to develop language or handle emotions or poop in the toilet.

 

[Armadillos]

What does a human do when isolated from social context as an infant? Not much other than fail to develop language or handle emotions or poop in the toilet.

The previous poster made a very bold and sweeping statement: "genes don't code for behaviors". All im doing is providing one obvious counter example to prove that statement is false.

A human isolated from social context immediately at birth will still cry when hungry. Crying is a behavior, therefore his statement is false. If the poster wants to provide a more nuanced stance that same behaviors are pre-wired by genes, some are learned and that our genetic pre-wiring influences our learning then I would have no dispute with him.

 

[nitemagi]

The previous poster made a very bold and sweeping statement: "genes don't code for behaviors". All im doing is providing one obvious counter example to prove that statement is false.

A human isolated from social context immediately at birth will still cry when hungry. Crying is a behavior, therefore his statement is false. If the poster wants to provide a more nuanced stance then thats much more reasonable.

To play devil's advocate, what's the gene that codes for crying?

 

[Armadillos]

To play devil's advocate, what's the gene that codes for crying?

This is kind of like asking "which gene codes for the heart?", I'm not sure how thats a useful question?

 

[Armadillos]

Anyhow, I don't know how anyone in medicine could genuinely believe "genes don't code for behavior"

I mean just look at Angelman, Prader-Willi, Rett Syndrome, etc. Predictable behaviors resulting from known genetic causes.

Thats not to say genes code for all behavior, I don't believe that, nobody believes that, it would be absurd to think that. Just as absurd as saying that "genes don't code for behavior"

 

[nitemagi]

This is kind of like asking "which gene codes for the heart?", I'm not sure how thats a useful question?

Again, not saying that I disagree with you, but for the purpose of the argument.

The heart is an organ, and I agree it's more than a single gene involved in the formation of the organ.
Babies do seem to all cry. Therefore we presume it's biological, which is encoded in their genes. I could make the argument, though, that babies stumble on this and that it becomes learned when someone responds to it, reinforcing the behavior. Just like I might try going down a side street once, but unless it actually gets me to my destination faster, I'm not going to do it again.

Do neglected babies cry? I do believe the evidence is that they don't (along with a host of other problems).

Again, I'm just poking at the argument with a stick, here.

 

[Armadillos]

Therefore we presume it's biological, which is encoded in their genes. I could make the argument, though, that babies stumble on this and that it becomes learned when someone responds to it, reinforcing the behavior.

I figured this would be the objection people had with the argument, but I still would argue that the default is that the baby cries during its first days of life when hungry. Only over time will a baby be able to "un-learn" the genetically encoded behavior of crying when hungry.

 

[Ibid]

To play devil's advocate, what's the gene that code.....s for crying?

Imo a newborn baby cries when it is born in response to a change in environment. btw Retts syndrome has been removed from DSM V ..... in response to armadillos... are babies that cry to much for thier parents liking mentally ill then? Mad babies.....

 

[Armadillos]

Retts syndrome has been removed from DSM V .

What does that have to do with anything? Its not like MECP2 mutations stopped existing lol

I still ask, if genes can't strongly influence behavior how is it that in angelmans, retts and prader-willi there are predictable behavioral changes caused by known genetic changes?

 

[slappy]

What does a human do when isolated from social context as an infant? Not much other than fail to develop language or handle emotions or poop in the toilet.

You're forgetting the more likely consequence - death. Unless of course it's the Ice Age.

 

[Ibid]

What does that have to do with anything? Its not like MECP2 mutations stopped existing lol

I still ask, if genes can't strongly influence behavior how is it that in angelmans, retts and prader-willi there are predictable behavioral changes caused by known genetic changes?

Because it is a axiomatic that mental illness has a genetic root according to the ideology of psychiatry. But when something is "proven" to be genetic it gets taken out of the mental disorder list. It's a bit incoherent....

 

[Armadillos]

Because it is a axiomatic that mental illness has a genetic root according to the ideology of psychiatry. But when something is "proven" to be genetic it gets taken out of the mental disorder list. It's a bit incoherent....

Your still dodging my question, Ill repeat it again.

If genes can't strongly influence behavior how is it that in angelmans, retts and prader-willi there are predictable behavioral changes caused by known genetic changes?

 

[nitemagi]

Your still dodging my question, Ill repeat it again.

If genes can't strongly influence behavior how is it that in angelmans, retts and prader-willi there are predictable behavioral changes caused by known genetic changes?

I agree with you on this, as benchmark examples. It's a slippery slope to generalize to other maladaptive or self-harming behaviors though, which we then classify as diseases or disorder. Drug addiction (for some) may really be at it's core an issue of impulsivity, lack of response to negative punishment, and seeking of novel stimuli. I would buy that those bases have a genetic correlate, but the behavioral manifestation occurs within a social context.

What is more likely is that genetics predisposes to a certain state, the environment may add to that, and that behaviors develop as a way of adapting to that new state (often by accident or by modeling). This behavior while adaptive becomes maladaptive when context changes or it's overused. The genetics-->behavior is a loose connection. Quite often it's one of many factors. Rarely it's a sole cause. Sometimes it's not really a factor at all.

 

[Ibid]

Your still dodging my question, Ill repeat it again.

If genes can't strongly influence behavior how is it that in angelmans, retts and prader-willi there are predictable behavioral changes caused by known genetic changes?

Those syndromes you quote are not mental disorders, thats the first point. The second point is that their are clear structural differences that associate with those genetic changes. Genes just code for structure. My point is that although you imply it you still have no evidence that genes codes for the behaviours that lead to a diagnosis of something that gets called a mental disorder. I get what you are saying but so far none of it contradicts my idea that genes do not code for behaviour. Sure if you have a cleft palette you might subsequently display behaviour associated with depression due to some social stigma but the genes that coded for the structure that led to the cleft palette didn't code for the behaviour.

Unless you can come up with something substantive I'm going to rest my case.....genes code for structure and nothing else.

 

[Ibid]

I agree with you on this, as benchmark examples. It's a slippery slope to generalize to other maladaptive or self-harming behaviors though, which we then classify as diseases or disorder. Drug addiction (for some) may really be at it's core an issue of impulsivity, lack of response to negative punishment, and seeking of novel stimuli. I would buy that those bases have a genetic correlate, but the behavioral manifestation occurs within a social context.

What is more likely is that genetics predisposes to a certain state, the environment may add to that, and that behaviors develop as a way of adapting to that new state (often by accident or by modeling). This behavior while adaptive becomes maladaptive when context changes or it's overused. The genetics-->behavior is a loose connection. Quite often it's one of many factors. Rarely it's a sole cause. Sometimes it's not really a factor at all.

Yes...it is a bit complex.. tomatoes have nicotine in them I expect because they want to be eaten.....impulsively. Roll on a conversation about free will.....

 

[hamstergang]

My point is that although you imply it you still have no evidence that genes codes for the behaviours that lead to a diagnosis of something that gets called a mental disorder.

Just to clarify, are you saying that there is no genetic basis for things such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? If not, can you expand on what you're actually saying?

 

[nitemagi]

Yes...it is a bit complex.. tomatoes have nicotine in them I expect because they want to be eaten.....impulsively. Roll on a conversation about free will.....

I was referencing specific mouse models of addiction.

 

[splik]

Just to clarify, are you saying that there is no genetic basis for things such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? If not, can you expand on what you're actually saying?

well there are no such things as "schizophrenia" or "bipolar disorder". one of the challenges has been people trying to find a genetic basis for clinical constructs that do not appear to have real neurobiological coherence. there are of course many SNPs and CNVs that are associated with psychiatric illness, but their contributions are usually so small to be clinically meaningful, and they are rarely specific to these constructs and appear nonspecific

 

[Armadillos]

Unless you can come up with something substantive I'm going to rest my case.....genes code for structure and nothing else.

And from structure's interaction with environment everything else arises, so I guess we don't disagree at all. I thought you were implying that genes don't influence and at least partially determine behavior via the structure/function of the brain, I must have taken something you wrote out of context.

 

[hamstergang]

well there are no such things as "schizophrenia" or "bipolar disorder".

I get what people mean when they say this, but I don't agree that it invalidates my question. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are labels that describe symptoms and almost surely represent heterogeneous groups of etiologies and disease processes. But that doesn't mean that there can't be certain genetics that correlate with developing those symptoms due to being in one of those groups.

 

[Armadillos]

well there are no such things as "schizophrenia" or "bipolar disorder". one of the challenges has been people trying to find a genetic basis for clinical constructs that do not appear to have real neurobiological coherence. there are of course many SNPs and CNVs that are associated with psychiatric illness, but their contributions are usually so small to be clinically meaningful, and they are rarely specific to these constructs and appear nonspecific

And yet even though we don't know exactly what bipolar is, we know it is rather heritable.

 

[Nasrudin]

I thinks it's funny that the neurobiological work in our field is called an ideology by those with such an obvious stake in mental illness being confined strictly to psychotherapy and social analysis. As if genetics and environment--structure and behavior--were some sort of actual dichotomy.

 

[Ibid]

Just to clarify, are you saying that there is no genetic basis for things such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? If not, can you expand on what you're actually saying?

I'm pretty much signed up to what Splik posted.....

I was referencing specific mouse models of addiction.

I'm not so sure mice are immune from being tortured in laboratory conditions.....not keen on the whole mice thing but I get you...

And from structure's interaction with environment everything else arises, so I guess we don't disagree at all. I thought you were implying that genes don't influence and at least partially determine behavior via the structure/function of the brain, I must have taken something you wrote out of context.

I was just reflecting things and putting a view forward...... honestly just having a conversation..... an article here in the Lancet addressing the issue....

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(14)70283-4/fulltext
cut and paste from the article...
A major division exists between social psychiatrists and biological psychiatrists. It has been suggested that mental and neurological conditions should be merged as they are both caused by brain changes and this would reduce mind-body dualism and resulting stigma.9 The reality is that both social and biological vulnerabilities can lead to the development of mental health problems. A reductionist view that denies one half or other of the equation is not helpful to the patient or the profession. With increasing specialisation, psychiatry has become more divided and is often not able to speak with one voice, leading to competing cacophony without any clear direction or message.

I thinks it's funny the neurobiological work in our field is called an ideology by those with such an obvious stake in mental illness being confined strictly to psychotherapy and social analysis. As if genetics and environment--structure and behavior--were some sort of actual dichotomy.

Well plenty of psychiatrists say that it amounts to an ideological position..... its not that uncommon..... depends what you get exposed to I suppose.... or allow yourself to be exposed to.....

 

[Armadillos]

A major division exists between social psychiatrists and biological psychiatrists. It has been suggested that mental and neurological conditions should be merged as they are both caused by brain changes and this would reduce mind-body dualism and resulting stigma.9 The reality is that both social and biological vulnerabilities can lead to the development of mental health problems. A reductionist view that denies one half or other of the equation is not helpful to the patient or the profession. With increasing specialisation, psychiatry has become more divided and is often not able to speak with one voice, leading to competing cacophony without any clear direction or message.

I'm very much on board with the quote from the lancet article, which is why I was so up in arms, it appeared you were attempting to completely strike out the biological half of the equation.

 

[Ibid]

I'm very much on board with the quote from the lancet article, which is why I was so up in arms, it appeared you were attempting to completely strike out the biological half of the equation.

I hope I was upfront about where I stood..... I do feel that if 3/4 of the billions that go into researching behavioural genetics, so called, went into social programs like rape crisis centres, non medical sanctuaries for people who feel suicidal but are in no meaningful sense mentally ill and so on that would be no bad thing.... the balance is all wrong.....imo

 

[Ceke2002]

I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion, but please continue with it for as long as possible, it's simply fascinating to read.

 

[nitemagi]

I hope I was upfront about where I stood..... I do feel that if 3/4 of the billions that go into researching behavioural genetics, so called, went into social programs like rape crisis centres, non medical sanctuaries for people who feel suicidal but are in no meaningful sense mentally ill and so on that would be no bad thing.... the balance is all wrong.....imo

Those are really two different issues. While yes there's really only one big pot of money in the world, muddying research with prevention and treatment is misguided, IMPO.

You can have luxury suites and gold standard treatment for every person who has ever experienced a trauma in their life, but that will not push the science forward.

Unless you believe that we already have all the cures for every mental illness and have just not been spending on implementing them.