Search

FAPERJ (Funda??o de Amparo ? Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Minist?rio da Sa?de. Secretaria de Vigil?ncia em Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil / Universidade do Estado do Par?. Departamento de Morfologia e Ci?ncias Fisiol?gicas. Bel?m, PA, Brazil / Centro Universit?rio Metropolitano da Amaz?nia. Instituto Euro-Americano de Educa??o, Ci?ncia e Tecnologia. Bel?m, PA, Brazil. University of Groningen. Department of Neuroscience. Section Medical Physiology. Groningen, The Netherlands. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Biomedical Sciences Institute. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. University of Edinburgh Medical School. Scotland, United Kingdom. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Universidade Federal de S?o Paulo. Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Psicobiologia. S?o Paulo, SP, Brazil. University of Minnesota. Department of Psychiatry. Minneapolis, MN, USA. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Biomedical Sciences Institute. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Institute of Microbiology of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Czech Republic. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Carl R Woese Institute for Genomic Biology. Urbana, Illinois, USA. Universidade do Estado do Par?. Departamento de Morfologia e Ci?ncias Fisiol?gicas. Bel?m, PA, Brazil / Centro Universit?rio Metropolitano da Amaz?nia. Instituto Euro-Americano de Educa??o, Ci?ncia e Tecnologia. Bel?m, PA, Brazil / Minist?rio da Sa?de. Secretaria de Vigil?ncia em Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Instituto de Ci?ncias B?sicas da Sa?de. Departamento de Bioqu?mica. Rio Grande do Sul, RS, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader?s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. In this observational study, we compared random samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. We found that peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although this difference was small. We found larger differences favoring PubMed in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Interestingly, an exploratory analysis showed that preprints with figures and legends embedded within text had reporting scores similar to PubMed articles. These differences cannot be directly attributed to peer review or editorial processes, as manuscripts might already differ before submission due to greater uptake of preprints by particular research communities. Nevertheless, our results show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions. An ongoing second phase of the project is comparing preprints to their own published versions in order to more directly assess the effects of peer review.

Most efforts to estimate the reproducibility of published findings have focused on specific areas of research, even though science is usually assessed and funded on a regional or national basis. Here we describe a project to assess the reproducibility of findings in biomedical science published by researchers based in Brazil. The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative is a systematic, multicenter effort to repeat between 60 and 100 experiments: the project will focus on a set of common methods, repeating each experiment in three different laboratories from a countrywide network. The results, due in 2021, will allow us to estimate the level of reproducibility of biomedical science in Brazil, and to investigate what aspects of the published literature might help to predict whether a finding is reproducible.

Reconsolidation is a process in which re-exposure to a reminder causes a previously acquired memory to undergo a process of destabilisation followed by subsequent restabilisation. Different molecular mechanisms have been postulated for destabilisation in the amygdala and hippocampus, including CB1 receptor activation, protein degradation and AMPA receptor exchange; however, most of the amygdala studies have used pre-reexposure interventions, while those in the hippocampus have usually performed them after reexposure. To test whether the temporal window for destabilisation is similar across both structures, we trained Lister Hooded rats in a contextual fear conditioning task, and 1 day later performed memory reexposure followed by injection of either the NMDA antagonist MK-801 (0.1 mg/kg) or saline in order to block reconsolidation. In parallel, we also performed local injections of either the CB1 antagonist SR141716A or its vehicle in the hippocampus or in the amygdala, either immediately before or immediately after reactivation. Infusion of SR141716A in the hippocampus prevented the reconsolidation-blocking effect of MK-801 when performed after reexposure, but not before it. In the amygdala, meanwhile, pre-reexposure infusions of SR141716A impaired reconsolidation blockade by MK-801, although the time-dependency of this effect was not as clear as in the hippocampus. Our results suggest the temporal windows for CB1-receptor-mediated memory destabilisation during reconsolidation vary between brain structures. Whether this reflects different time windows for engagement of these structures or different roles played by CB1 receptors in destabilisation across structures remains an open question for future studies.

Reconsolidation is a process in which re-exposure to a reminder causes a previously acquired memory to undergo a process of destabilisation followed by subsequent restabilisation. Different molecular mechanisms have been postulated for destabilisation in the amygdala and hippocampus, including CB1 receptor activation, protein degradation and AMPA receptor exchange; however, most of the amygdala studies have used pre-re-exposure interventions, while those in the hippocampus have performed them after re-exposure. To test whether the temporal window for destabilisation is similar across both structures, we trained Lister Hooded rats in a contextual fear conditioning task, and 1 day later performed memory re-exposure followed by injection of either the NMDA antagonist MK-801 (0.1 mg/kg) or saline in order to block reconsolidation. In parallel, we also performed local injections of either the CB1 antagonist SR141716A or its vehicle in the hippocampus or in the amygdala, either immediately before or immediately after reactivation. Infusion of SR141716A in the hippocampus prevented the reconsolidation-blocking effect of MK-801 when performed after re-exposure, but not before it. In the amygdala, meanwhile, pre-reexposure infusions of SR141716A impaired reconsolidation blockade by MK-801, although the time-dependency of this effect was not as clear as in the hippocampus. Our results suggest the temporal windows for CB1-receptor-mediated memory destabilisation during reconsolidation vary between brain structures. Whether this reflects different time windows for engagement of these structures or different roles played by CB1 receptors in destabilisation across structures remains an open question for future studies.

The search for biological causes of mental disorders has up to now met with limited success, leading to growing dissatisfaction with diagnostic classifications. However, it is questionable whether most clinical syndromes should be expected to correspond to specific microscale brain alterations, as multiple low-level causes could lead to similar symptoms in different individuals. In order to evaluate the potential multifactoriality of alterations related to psychiatric illness, we performed a parametric exploration of published computational models of schizophrenia. By varying multiple parameters simultaneously, such as receptor conductances, connectivity patterns, and background excitation, we generated 5625 different versions of an attractor-based network model of schizophrenia symptoms. Among networks presenting activity within valid ranges, 154 parameter combinations out of 3002 (5.1%) presented a phenotype reminiscent of schizophrenia symptoms as defined in the original publication. We repeated this analysis in a model of schizophrenia-related deficits in spatial working memory, building 3125 different networks, and found that 41 (4.9%) out of 834 networks with valid activity presented schizophrenia-like alterations. In isolation, none of the parameters in either model showed adequate sensitivity or specificity to identify schizophrenia-like networks. Thus, in computational models of schizophrenia, even simple network phenotypes related to the disorder can be produced by a myriad of causes at the molecular and circuit levels. This suggests that unified explanations for either the full syndrome or its behavioral and network endophenotypes are unlikely to be expected at the genetic and molecular levels.

When 5-lipoxygenase (5-LO) is inhibited, roughly half of the CNS effect of the prototypic endocannabinoid anandamide (AEA) is lost. Therefore, we decided to investigate whether inhibiting this enzyme would influence physiological functions classically described as being under control of the endocannabinoid system. Although 5-LO inhibition by MK-886 reduced lipoxin A4 levels in the brain, no effect was found in the elevated plus maze (EPM), even at the highest possible doses, via i.p. (10 mg/kg,) or i.c.v. (500 pmol/2 µl) routes. Accordingly, no alterations in anxiety-like behavior in the EPM test were observed in 5-LO KO mice. Interestingly, aged mice, which show reduced circulating lipoxin A4 levels, were sensitive to MK-886, displaying an anxiogenic-like state in response to treatment. Moreover, exogenous lipoxin A4 induced an anxiolytic-like profile in the EPM test. Our findings are in line with other reports showing no difference between FLAP KO or 5-LO KO and their control strains in adult mice, but increased anxiety-like behavior in aged mice. We also show for the first time that lipoxin A4 affects mouse behavior. In conclusion, we propose an age-dependent relevancy of endogenous 5-LO derivatives in the modulation of anxiety-like behavior, in addition to a potential for exogenous lipoxin A4 in producing an anxiolytic-like state.

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, e Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal’s impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal’s impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article’s online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.

Scientific activity in Brazil has experienced an accelerated growth in the past decades, with an increase in productivity that greatly surpasses the international average. This growth has occurred mostly at the expense of centers of excellence in public universities, which account for the vast majority of the country's scientific output. The aim of this study was to evaluate the production of the Department of Biochemistry of a large public university in southern Brazil (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), as well as to identify internal and external policies that have influenced this growing production profile. We have performed a historical analysis of the scientific output of this Department of Biochemistry, which accounts for a considerable share of the indexed scientific production at this university. By focusing on the temporal course of its growth and drawing correlations between scientific output and important events in the history of the Department of Biochemistry and of the Brazilian science policies, we concluded that internal factors (as the creation of a postgraduation program, collaboration among researchers, experienced abroad researchers, qualification of faculty members) and external factors (as investments in the postgraduate education, the establishment of national scientific policies, such as financial stimuli for productive researchers and evaluation systems) influence scientific productivity in Brazil.A atividade científica no Brasil apresentou um crescimento acelerado nas últimas décadas, com um aumento na produtividade que ultrapassou os valores médios internacionais. Este crescimento tem ocorrido através dos centros de excelência em pesquisa nas Universidades Públicas, as quais são responsáveis pela maior parte da produção científica do país. O presente estudo tem como objetivo avaliar a produção do Departamento de Bioquímica de uma grande universidade pública do sul do Brasil (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS), bem como identificar os fatores internos e externos que influenciaram este perfil crescente de produção. Foi realizada uma análise histórica da produção científica do Departamento, a qual representa uma parte considerável da produção científica da Universidade. Ao enfocar a evolução temporal do seu crescimento e o estudo das correlações entre a produção científica e eventos importantes na história do Departamento de Bioquímica e das políticas científicas brasileiras, podemos concluir que os fatores internos (como a criação de um programa de pós-graduação, a colaboração entre pesquisadores, a experiência no exterior por parte dos pesquisadores, a qualificação dos docentes) e fatores externos (como os investimentos na formação de pós-graduandos, o estabelecimento de políticas nacionais científicas, tais como estímulos financeiros para os pesquisadores produtivos e sistemas de avaliação) influenciam a produção científica no Brasil.

OSAN, R. , TORT, A. B. L. , AMARAL, O. B. . A mismatch-based model for memory reconsolidation and extinction in attractor networks. Plos One, v. 6, p. e23113, 2011. Centro de Neurociências, da Universidade de Boston, EUA (RO), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brasil (ABLT e OBA), e Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (OBA). The processes of memory reconsolidation and extinction have received increasing attention in recent experimental research, as their potential clinical applications begin to be uncovered. A number of studies suggest that amnestic drugs injected after reexposure to a learning context can disrupt either of the two processes, depending on the behavioral protocol employed. Hypothesizing that reconsolidation represents updating of a memory trace in the hippocampus, while extinction represents formation of a new trace, we have built a neural network model in which either simple retrieval, reconsolidation or extinction of a stored attractor can occur upon contextual reexposure, depending on the similarity between the representations of the original learning and reexposure sessions. This is achieved by assuming that independent mechanisms mediate Hebbian-like synaptic strengthening and mismatch-driven labilization of synaptic changes, with protein synthesis inhibition preferentially affecting the former. Our framework provides a unified mechanistic explanation for experimental data showing (a) the effect of reexposure duration on the occurrence of reconsolidation or extinction and (b) the requirement of memory updating during reexposure to drive reconsolidation

The series of disease mongering articles in the April 2006 issue of PLoS Medicine overall seem to define the term as “widening the boundaries of illness” [ 1] by “taking a normal function and implying that there's something wrong with it and that it should be treated” [ 2]. While there is undoubtedly a strong case to be made for this sort of practice by pharmaceutical companies, perhaps we should also question ourselves on what we mean by “disease boundaries.” All of the conditions touched on by the disease mongering series (e.g., bipolar disease, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, restless legs syndrome, and sexual dysfunctions) share the fact that they represent spectra of symptoms felt by virtually everyone, but which for some people can reach a point at which they become disturbing. However, since the benefit of treating these symptoms is ultimately dependent on their significance in a patient's life, it seems doubtful that anyone but the patient can adequately define the “boundaries” of illness for these conditions. The existence of these large “grey zones” between disease and normality (as well as the difficulty of doctors in dealing with them) might help to explain the increase in “lifestyle drug use” and self-prescription of psychiatric medication [ 3]. While these behaviors undoubtedly carry risks, they might well be an inevitable development in an age where information on anything (including drugs) is so widely available. Moreover, tampering with body chemistry is nothing new (alcohol, coffee, chocolate, and sunlight come to mind as examples), and it is hard to expect people will not do it because of pharmaceutical labels. Therefore, complain as we may, it is unlikely that this trend can be feasibly prevented. Therefore, if we want to prevent disease mongering, perhaps we should start by focusing on our own concept of “disease.” Maybe it is time we start to loosen the grip on our powers to define disease and start working less as diagnosing machines and more as decision facilitators for patients. It seems quite absurd to decide on a “concept” of erectile dysfunction or depression that can define who should be treated. On the contrary, our role should be to inform patients of the benefits and risks of treatment (or nontreatment) for their particular condition. This also means being comfortable with the fact that, no matter which criteria one uses to define disease, there will always be “normal” people who will want treatment as well as “sick” people who will refuse it. And in both cases they are probably entitled to do so, without necessarily receiving a diagnosis of “normal” or “sick.” Moreover, since the trend for self-prescription is not likely to be prevented, and since the pharmaceutical industry will surely try to capitalize on it, perhaps we should also worry about making nonprofit, unbiased scientific information more available to the public. Education on health matters is an important responsibility that traditionally has been overlooked by doctors in most countries. Now, if ever, seems to be the time to change that, because if physicians do not concentrate on it, drug companies will be happy to do it for them. It is obvious that medicine cannot abandon the concept of disease boundaries, since most of our medical knowledge and research is still based on it. Moreover, there are fields in which medical responsibility is sure to remain important in defining these boundaries (e.g., attribution of public funds, research studies, and treatment of children). But after reading so much on disease mongering, it seems to me that if we become a little more flexible in admitting that “disease boundaries” for many conditions are an oxymoron, perhaps the pharmaceutical industry will make less of a fuss in trying to convince people they are ill. My guess is that this would do everybody a favor.

Submitted by Biblioteca Suporte PUCRS (biblioteca.suporte@pucrs.br) on 2022-10-13T12:38:13Z No. of bitstreams: 2 Altered_ATP_hydrolysis_by_pentylenetetrazolkindling_in_rat_brain_synaptosomes.pdf: 23036 bytes, checksum: 83992a79e15d066cbb23a8ea9cfdc1d2 (MD5) Altered_ATP_hydrolysis_by_pentylenetetrazolkindling_in_rat_brain_synaptosomes.pdf: 23036 bytes, checksum: 83992a79e15d066cbb23a8ea9cfdc1d2 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2022-10-13T12:38:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Altered_ATP_hydrolysis_by_pentylenetetrazolkindling_in_rat_brain_synaptosomes.pdf: 23036 bytes, checksum: 83992a79e15d066cbb23a8ea9cfdc1d2 (MD5) Altered_ATP_hydrolysis_by_pentylenetetrazolkindling_in_rat_brain_synaptosomes.pdf: 23036 bytes, checksum: 83992a79e15d066cbb23a8ea9cfdc1d2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2000

SummaryAlzheimer’s disease (AD) and type 2 diabetes appear to share similar pathogenic mechanisms. dsRNA-dependent protein kinase (PKR) underlies peripheral insulin resistance in metabolic disorders. PKR phosphorylates eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2α (eIF2α-P), and AD brains exhibit elevated phospho-PKR and eIF2α-P levels. Whether and how PKR and eIF2α-P participate in defective brain insulin signaling and cognitive impairment in AD are unknown. We report that β-amyloid oligomers, AD-associated toxins, activate PKR in a tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α)-dependent manner, resulting in eIF2α-P, neuronal insulin receptor substrate (IRS-1) inhibition, synapse loss, and memory impairment. Brain phospho-PKR and eIF2α-P were elevated in AD animal models, including monkeys given intracerebroventricular oligomer infusions. Oligomers failed to trigger eIF2α-P and cognitive impairment in PKR−/− and TNFR1−/− mice. Bolstering insulin signaling rescued phospho-PKR and eIF2α-P. Results reveal pathogenic mechanisms shared by AD and diabetes and establish that proinflammatory signaling mediates oligomer-induced IRS-1 inhibition and PKR-dependent synapse and memory loss.