Scientists and mental health professionals have made major strides in understanding and treating major depression, including the discovery of the role played by imbalances in brain chemicals such as serotonin and noradrenaline. But there is increasing evidence that there is more to the story: Depression also involves structural changes in areas of the brain that are involved in mood, memory, and decision-making.
Depression is often precipitated by stressful experiences. The brain interprets our experiences and decides if they are threatening, and then controls our behavioral and physiological responses to them. Data obtained from animal experiments show that harmful physiological changes result from the inability of the brain and body to respond to repeated stress with adaptive modifications in structure and function. Three brain areas -- the hippocampus, the prefrontal cortex, and the amygdala -- are particularly susceptible to pathological changes in size and function.
These areas are instrumental in interpreting what is stressful and in determining appropriate responses. Many chemical mediators are involved, including cortisol and adrenalin from the adrenal glands, other hormones and neurotransmitters (such as serotonin and noradrenalin), and responses from the autonomic and immune systems. Depression thus leads to changes in the rest of the body, owing to long-term chemical imbalances in the systems that control the heart, the immune system, and metabolism.
The hippocampus, a key structure in the formation of memories of events and contexts, expresses receptors that enable it to respond to stress hormones in the blood. We now know that it atrophies in a number of psychiatric disorders. Within the hippocampus -- a curved elongated ridge located in each of the brain's two temporal lobes -- is a structure called the dentate gyrus, which produces new neurons throughout adult life. Chronic stress inhibits neurogenesis and also causes many hippocampal neurons to shrink -- a process called "remodeling." Animal studies have shown that the stress hormone cortisol, together with neurotransmitters in the brain, also plays an important role in the remodeling of neurons.
Similarly, there is evidence that the prefrontal cortex -- a key structure in emotional regulation as well as in decision-making and working memory -- shrinks in major depression. On the other hand, rather than atrophying, the amygdala, the seat of emotional memories, becomes hyperactive both in post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive illness, and there is evidence from animal studies of a hypertrophy of nerve cells after repeated stress.
A hyperactive amygdala, along with abnormal activity in other regions of the brain, leads to disrupted patterns of sleep and physical activity, as well as irregular patterns of secretion of hormones and other chemical mediators that control many of the body's structures. For example, levels of the stress hormone cortisol increase in the evening, when they are normally low. Over time, if uncorrected, major depression can cause such conditions as progressive mineral loss from bones, accumulation of abdominal fat, increased blood platelet reactivity, and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Moreover, certain types of antidepressants may contribute to some of these conditions. Nevertheless, one of the most interesting features of these structural changes is that they can be prevented, and potentially reversed, with medication.
The good news from Cushing's disease is that hippocampal shrinkage and memory impairment is at least partially reversible over several years after correction of the excess cortisol.
Still, one of the problems with many of the current medications is that, even with treatment, the recurrence of major depression is very high -- around 70 percent to 80 percent. This suggests that physiological processes underlying depression -- the ones that may also lead to structural changes in the brain -- are not being completely arrested, and that new anti-depressants are needed.
Bruce McEwen is the Alfred E. Mirsky Professor at Rockefeller University in New York and head of the Harold and Margaret Milliken Hatch Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing