Defining stress as a prelude to mapping its neurocircuitry : no help from allostasis

The way in which researchers conceptualise and thus define stress shapes the way in which they approach the task of mapping the brain's stress control pathways. Unfortunately, much of the research currently being done on stress neurocircuitry is occurring within a poorly developed conceptual framework, a framework that limits the depth of the questions that our studies ask, and even our ability to fully appreciate and make use of the data that they yield. Consequently, any attempt to improve our conceptual framework merits close attention. In that regard it is notable that in recent years it has been argued that the concept of homeostasis should be supplemented by the concepts of allostasis (literally ‘stability through change’) and allostatic load (in effect, the cost of allostasis). One of the purported benefits of this change has been that it will clarify the concept of stress. A close review of the arguments leads us to conclude that the introduction of the concept of allostasis has largely occurred as a result of misunderstandings and misapprehensions concerning the concept of homeostasis. In terms of understanding how the organism operates, it is not clear that the concepts of ‘allostasis’ or ‘allostatic load’ offer us anything that was not already apparent, or at least readily derivable, from an accurate reading of the original concept of homeostasis. Not surprisingly then, these more recently proposed concepts also offer little help in clarifying our understanding of stress. Indeed, rather than clarifying the concept of stress, the primary effort appears to be directed at subsuming the concept of stress within the concept of allostasis, which has the inadvertent effect of collapsing the study of homeostatic responses and stress responses together. This seems to be out of step with the fact that there is now considerable evidence that the brain does indeed possess certain pathways that merit the title of ‘stress neurocircuitry’. The attempt to subsume the concept of stress within the concept of allostasis is also counter-productive in that it distracts stress researchers from the important task of developing conceptual frameworks that allow us to tackle fundamental issues such as how the organism differentiates stressful from non-stressful challenges.

Sociodemographic, behavioral and genetic determinants of allostatic load in a Swiss population-based study.

Allostatic load (AL) is a marker of physiological dysregulation which reflects exposure to chronic stress. High AL has been related to poorer health outcomes including mortality. We examine here the association of socioeconomic and lifestyle factors with AL. Additionally, we investigate the extent to which AL is genetically determined. We included 803 participants (52% women, mean age 48±16years) from a population and family-based Swiss study. We computed an AL index aggregating 14 markers from cardiovascular, metabolic, lipidic, oxidative, hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal and inflammatory homeostatic axes. Education and occupational position were used as indicators of socioeconomic status. Marital status, stress, alcohol intake, smoking, dietary patterns and physical activity were considered as lifestyle factors. Heritability of AL was estimated by maximum likelihood. Women with a low occupational position had higher AL (low vs. high OR=3.99, 95%CI [1.22;13.05]), while the opposite was observed for men (middle vs. high OR=0.48, 95%CI [0.23;0.99]). Education tended to be inversely associated with AL in both sexes(low vs. high OR=3.54, 95%CI [1.69;7.4]/OR=1.59, 95%CI [0.88;2.90] in women/men). Heavy drinking men as well as women abstaining from alcohol had higher AL than moderate drinkers. Physical activity was protective against AL while high salt intake was related to increased AL risk. The heritability of AL was estimated to be 29.5% ±7.9%. Our results suggest that generalized physiological dysregulation, as measured by AL, is determined by both environmental and genetic factors. The genetic contribution to AL remains modest when compared to the environmental component, which explains approximately 70% of the phenotypic variance.

Health of farmed fish: its relation to fish welfare and its utility as welfare indicator

This brief review focuses on health and biological function as cornerstones of fish welfare. From the function-based point of view, good welfare is reflected in the ability of the animal to cope with infectious and non-infectious stressors, thereby maintaining homeostasis and good health, whereas stressful husbandry conditions and protracted suffering will lead to the loss of the coping ability and, thus, to impaired health. In the first part of the review, the physiological processes through which stressful husbandry conditions modulate health of farmed fish are examined. If fish are subjected to unfavourable husbandry conditions, the resulting disruption of internal homeostasis necessitates energy-demanding physiological adjustments (allostasis/acclimation). The ensuing energy drain leads to trade-offs with other energy-demanding processes such as the functioning of the primary epithelial barriers (gut, skin, gills) and the immune system. Understanding of the relation between husbandry conditions, allostatic responses and fish health provides the basis for the second theme developed in this review, the potential use of biological function and health parameters as operational welfare indicators (OWIs). Advantages of function- and health-related parameters are that they are relatively straightforward to recognize and to measure and are routinely monitored in most aquaculture units, thereby providing feasible tools to assess fish welfare under practical farming conditions. As the efforts to improve fish welfare and environmental sustainability lead to increasingly diverse solutions, in particular integrated production, it is imperative that we have objective OWIs to compare with other production forms, such as high-density aquaculture. However, to receive the necessary acceptance for legislation, more robust scientific backing of the health- and function-related OWIs is urgently needed.