is this a legitimate study?

Question

http://www.sfn.org/?pagename=news_050407a

Answer 1

It's hard to say, because you don't define what you mean by legitimate (scientifically, morally, experimentally etc.)

However, from the scientific standpoint, I can comment.
The abstract of the paper can be found here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17475797&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum
and the original is here (though you need a membership)
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/18/4894

Thankfully, I have a membership.

This paper is not ground breaking. As mentioning in the paper "all classes of antidepressants stimulate neuronal generation (new brain cells), and the behavioral effects of these medications are abolished when neurogenesis (creation of new brain cells) is blocked".

What this paper adds is that the effect can be seen in primates. The follow these created brain cells, and found most of them turned into what appeared to be neurons (i.e. the main processing cells of the brain) or endothelial cells (blood vessels), while few turned into glial cells (largely support cells).

The number of monkeys used in this study is large enough to make useable statistical comparisons, (n=6). The people who counted the density of new brain cells were blinded to the treatment the animals received, which is very good experimental techneque

Problems with this study: The control group was an anaesthesia sham; (i.e. they had the anaesthesia, but not electroconvulsive shock (ECS)). While this is an okay control (better than just untreated animals). It doesn't tell us whether the new brain cells results from just the simple electrocution, or whether this depends on clinically effective ECS.

That brings me to another problem. There was no attempt to show that the ECS was in anyway antidepressant, and importantly, that the amount of brain cell proliferation was correlated with antidepressant activity (i.e. if new brain cells were antidepressant, more new brain cells should mean more antidepressant). Indeed, even repeating this experiment with antidepressant drugs would be helpful

Functionally, it would have been nice to physiologically prove these supposed brain cells behaved like brain cells.

I would have liked to have seen proof the the ECS didn't kill brain cells.

Finally, During the ECS shocking, the animals were anaesthetized. While the reason for this is obvious (to avoid the distress/pain the shocks would produce) and I would find this experiment morally indefensible if this were not done; it still is an experimental confounder. i.e. when humans get clinically effective Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), they are not under anaesthetic.

In conclusion, all this study truly tell us is that if you shock the crap out of monkeys, they're brains grow new brain cells, and these probably turn into neurons and blood vessels. But of course, far more wide ranging studies have allready been done in rodents, showing the antidepressant function depends on neurogenisis, at least in a lot of models.

Answer 2

There doesn't seem to be a link to the study, so it's hard to tell. As a general rule, though, keep in mind that journalists generally know diddle about science, and their reporting shows it. I'm not saying they need an intimate knowledge of primate neuroanatomy, just a little of the basics of the scientific method. When you read an article about a study, it's best not to take much from it except perhaps to read the study itself to see if it really says what's reported. It often doesn't.

Answer 3

There are many current researches done trying to find something new and such study cited is one if the recent findings however more studies would be needed to verify the authenticity of such findings. Only on that time we can tell if such is a legitimate study.

Answer 4

It cannot be told by just looking at the surface of this study.

There are some interesting studies coming out of the US at the moment, these are leading to more drug companies being sued for misinformation and causing disease rather than curing it. See the site below.