Day Trevor A
School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle, and the Hunter Medical Research Institute, NSW 2308, Australia.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;29(8):1195-200. doi: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2005.08.005. Epub 2005 Oct 5.
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.
研究人员对压力进行概念化并进而定义的方式,塑造了他们探索大脑压力控制通路的方法。不幸的是,目前许多关于压力神经回路的研究是在一个发展不完善的概念框架内进行的,这个框架限制了我们研究问题的深度,甚至限制了我们充分理解和利用其产生的数据的能力。因此,任何改进我们概念框架的尝试都值得密切关注。在这方面,值得注意的是,近年来有人认为,稳态概念应由应变稳态(字面意思是“通过变化实现稳定”)和应变稳态负荷(实际上是应变稳态的代价)概念加以补充。这种变化的一个据称好处是它将阐明压力概念。对这些论点的仔细审视使我们得出结论,应变稳态概念的引入很大程度上是由于对稳态概念的误解和误判。就理解生物体如何运作而言,尚不清楚“应变稳态”或“应变稳态负荷”概念能为我们提供从对稳态原始概念的准确解读中尚不明显、或至少不易推导出来的任何东西。因此毫不奇怪,这些最近提出的概念在澄清我们对压力的理解方面也帮助不大。事实上,主要努力似乎不是阐明压力概念,而是将压力概念归入应变稳态概念之中,这无意中导致将稳态反应和应激反应的研究混为一谈。这似乎与目前已有大量证据表明大脑确实拥有某些堪称“压力神经回路”的通路这一事实不符。将压力概念归入应变稳态概念的尝试也是适得其反的,因为它使压力研究人员偏离了开发概念框架这一重要任务,而这些概念框架能让我们解决诸如生物体如何区分有压力和无压力挑战等基本问题。