We haven’t
done a journal club in a while, so I figured I couldn’t resist delving into the
science behind another one of those scientific newspaper articles that love tohype it up. It all started with one of those articles that people share on
Facebook, the title of which translates to:
“Peptidediscovered to stop smoking definitively and without relapse!” Wow, that’s some
discovery! This article linked me to a statement released from the Center for
Addiction and Mental Health, which of course actually had a far more toned down
title: “CAMH discovery may lead to new treatment to prevent smoking relapse”.
O.K., we’re digging down past the layers of hype.
Of course
both of these articles committed my worst pet peeve ever: they didn’t cite the
actual article, and it took me forever to find it. It’s not on Science Direct
or Google Scholar yet, PubMed only has the abstract, I finally managed to find
it on the webiste of the Journal of Experimental Biology, also because the
actual title they landed on was:
Yeesh, good
thing they accompanied this article with a press release, cause that’s a pretty
specific and boring title that would not have led me to open that article and
read on, nor does it make it easy to find in a search engine. Anyway, this is
the part where I read the actual article and digest it into easier morsels for
you, like a mother bird barfing up her dinner. So let’s see, what did they actually conclusively find?
Let’s start
with what we know: we know that there are receptors in our brains called nicotine
acetylcholine receptors, or nAChRs. These receptors are activated by nicotine,
which in turn cause the yummy feelings in our brains, which is what makes
smoking additive and hard to give up, especially over long periods of time (don’t
I know it). What remains fuzzy is exactly what these receptors do on a
molecular level after they receive the nicotine fix, therefore the molecular
source of what exactly makes smoking so hard to give up.
Here, they
found that one particular receptor of the nAChR family, called α7nAChR, forms a complex with another
kind of receptor called NMDAR, under chronic exposure to nicotine. This means
that the formation of this complex could be a key component to understanding
what makes it hard to quit. Therefore, theoretically, if you stop this complex from
forming, you could prevent the downstream warm-and-fuzzy effects on the brain
that this complex induces, and thus making it easier to give up the cigs. With
me so far?
In order to
test this hypothesis, the researchers got rats addicted to nicotine, teaching
them that if they pressed down on a lever, they got a shot of nicotine. Once
they were well addicted and their self-administration of nicotine became relatively
stable, they were given a shot of a peptide that the researchers showed
interferes with the formation of this complex. After this shot, the rats no
longer looked to self-administer nicotine. They also made sure that this was
not because the peptide simply made the rats loopy, therefore making them less
likely to press down on the nicotine bar for different reasons, but they
demonstrated that the rats injected with the peptide moved around just as much
as normal rats.
This sounds
quite promising, so what are the ups and the downs?
One big problem I have with this
paper is the lack of focus on the aspect that they focused on in their press
release. I understand that the molecular part of the paper is extremely
labor-intensive and important, the fact that they conclusively demonstrated the
protein complex formation (which is not easy) and found a peptide that inhibits
it is a paper all on its own. However, rightly so, they knew that the part of
this experiment that would get the most attention is the part about actually
testing this peptide to see if it works. However, despite being the only focus
of the press release, they completely gloss over it in the paper. There is not
a single graph, not a single statistical analysis of the behaviour of the rats.
ICV injection of 12 or 40 nmol TAT- α 7pep2[L336-M345]
blocked reinstatement of nicotine seeking, they say. OK, completely? Significantly?
That’s it, that’s all the information I get?
TAT- α 7pep2[L336-M345] peptide did
not affect locomotor activity (not depicted) why is it not depicted? Did
you not run a statistical analysis to demonstrate that the locomotor activity
was not affected? If you did, let’s see it! If you’re not going to pay any attention
to the behavioural aspect of the experiment then just don’t do it, and you
definitely don’t get to make it the sole focus of your press release.
Putting
aside my wariness about the nicotine-seeking results of the rats, it is a
promising experiment and certainly the first of its kind. Of course there is a
very long way to go in applying it to humans: seeing if this complex also forms
in humans (tough to do, since in this case they demonstrated it by taking neurons
from the rats), and definitely doing a very in-depth analysis of this peptide
to make sure that it doesn’t interfere with anything else in the body which is
important.
No comments:
Post a Comment