Targeted sensory enrichment interventions protect against behavioral and neuroendocrine consequences of early life stress

Chemogenetic manipulation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis counteracts social behavioral deficits induced by early life stress in C57BL/6J mice

“…Non-stressed mice were provided with acrylic enrichment tubes in the home cage, but ELS mice were not, as environmental enrichment has been shown to reverse ELS-induced deficits (Gracia-Rubio et al, 2016;Kentner, Scalia, Shin, Migliore, & Rondón-Ortiz, 2018).…”

“…Other potentially significant factors to note here include (a) ELS mice (but not non-stressed) were deprived of home cage enrichment tubes based on previous work showing that enriched environments can reverse effects of ELS (Gracia-Rubio et al, 2016;Kentner et al, 2018), (b) albeit, all mice were housed with one same-sex cage mate throughout the duration of their post-weaned lives, which in itself provides enrichment compared to isolated housing, and (c) during periods of postnatal maternal separation (i.e., when the dam was removed from the nest), pups were allowed to remain in the nest with their littermates. Interpretation of studies using maternal separation to model ELS necessitates consideration of the details of the protocol as well as species and strain differences.…”

Neonatal immune challenge induces female-specific changes in social behavior and somatostatin cell number, independent of microglial inflammatory signaling

“…For example, males are at much higher risk of immune-related neurodevelopmental disorders such as ASD (Baio et al, 2018) while females are far more likely than males to develop autoimmune disorders such as lupus erythematosus, myasthenia gravis, and thyroid diseases including Graves disease and Hashimotos thyroiditis (Klein & Flanagan, 2016), as well as anxiety and depression (Hodes & Epperson, 2019). While several studies have investigated the impact of neonatal LPS challenge on behavioral outcomes and/or microglia (Peng et al, 2019;Bukhari et al, 2018;MacRae et al, 2015;Williamson et al, 2011;Schwarz & Bilbo, 2011;Rico et al, 2010), few of these studies have included both males and females in their analysis, especially in the context of social behavior (Taylor et al, 2012;Kentner et al, 2018;Carlezon et al, 2019). Given that females have traditionally been underrepresented in such studies (Beery & Zucker, 2011;Klein & Flanagan, 2016) it is critical that we gain a better understanding of the long-term consequences of neonatal inflammation in females.…”

Resilience priming: Translational models for understanding resiliency and adaptation to early life adversity

“…Of the work that has been completed, it is clear that male and female rodents are differentially effected by EE housing. Specifically, while both sexes demonstrated increased levels of prosocial engagement following adolescent exposure to EE, only male rats showed elevated gene expression of hippocampal corticotropin‐releasing hormone receptor 2 (Kentner, Scalia, Shin, Migliore, & Rondón‐Ortiz, ). In contrast, life‐long EE increased social engagement in female, but not male, rats (Connors et al, ) and was associated with a sex‐dependent neuroendocrine responsivity to acute and chronic stressors (Welberg et al, ).…”

“…This work suggests that olfactory (not just specific to maternal odors) and auditory, rather than tactile, stimulation applied in isolation are effective in mitigating disturbances in plasma corticosterone levels following ELS, while all three sensory enhancements individually elevated hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor expression. Moreover, sensory enrichment was effective in counteracting the stress‐induced loss of the rooting reflex, precocious puberty, and disruptions in ultrasonic vocalizations as precipitated by ELS exposure (Kentner, Scalia et al, ). Combined with data showing that early life tactile stimulation can itself be protective against ELS (Barrett, Arambula, & Young, ; Gonzalez, Lovic, Ward, Wainwright, & Fleming, ; Lovic et al, ), this work suggests that multimodal sensory interventions are not always necessary, as in at least some instances singular sensory interventions may be sufficient (Figure ).…”