The global public health crisis caused by COVID-19 has lasted longer than many of us would have hoped and expected. With its high uncertainty and limited control, the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly asked a lot from all of us. One important central question is: how resilient have we proved in face of the unprecedented and prolonged coronavirus pandemic? There is a vast and rapidly growing literature that has examined the impact of the pandemic on mental health both on the shorter (2020) and longer (2021) term. This not only concerns pandemic-related effects on resilience in the general population, but also how the pandemic has challenged stress resilience and mental health outcomes across more specific vulnerable population groups: patients with a psychiatric disorder, COVID-19 diagnosed patients, health care workers, children and adolescents, pregnant women, and elderly people. It is challenging to keep up to date with, and interpret, this rapidly increasing scientific literature. In this review, we provide a critical overview on how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted mental health and how human stress resilience has been shaped by the pandemic on the shorter and longer term. The vast literature is dominated by a wealth of data which are, however, not always of the highest quality and heavily depend on online and self-report surveys. Nevertheless, it appears that we have proven surprisingly resilient over time, with fast recovery from COVID-19 measures. Still, vulnerable groups such as adolescents and health care personnel that have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic do exist. Large interindividual differences exist, and for future pandemics there is a clear need to comprehensively and integratively assess resilience from the start to provide personalized help and interventions tailored to the specific needs for vulnerable groups.

The role of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) in insulin-dependent signaling is well-known; GLP-1 enhances glucose-dependent insulin secretion and lowers blood glucose in diabetes. GLP-1 receptors (GLP-1R) are also widely expressed in the brain, and in addition to its role in neuroprotection, it affects reward pathways. This systematic review aimed to analyze the studies on GLP-1 and reward pathways and its currently identified mechanisms.Methods: “Web of Science” and “Pubmed” were searched to identify relevant studies using GLP-1 as the keyword. Among the identified 26,539 studies, 30 clinical, and 71 preclinical studies were included. Data is presented by grouping rodent studies on palatable food intake, drugs of abuse, and studies on humans focusing on GLP-1 and reward systems.Results: GLP-1Rs are located in reward-related areas, and GLP-1, its agonists, and DPP-IV inhibitors are effective in decreasing palatable food intake, along with reducing cocaine, amphetamine, alcohol, and nicotine use in animals. GLP-1 modulates dopamine levels and glutamatergic neurotransmission, which results in observed behavioral changes. In humans, GLP-1 alters palatable food intake and improves activity deficits in the insula, hypothalamus, and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). GLP-1 reduces food cravings partially by decreasing activity to the anticipation of food in the left insula of obese patients with diabetes and may inhibit overeating by increasing activity to the consumption of food in the right OFC of obese and left insula of obese with diabetes.Conclusion: Current preclinical studies support the view that GLP-1 can be a target for reward system related disorders. More translational research is needed to evaluate its efficacy on human reward system related disorders.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) is a target for treatment of diabetes; however, its function in the brain is not well studied. In this systematic review, we aimed to analyze the neuroprotective role of GLP-1 and its defined mechanisms. Methods: We searched ‘Web of Science’ and ‘Pubmed’ to identify relevant studies using GLP-1 as the keyword. Two hundred and eighty-nine clinical and preclinical studies have been included. Data have been presented by grouping neurodegenerative, neurovascular and specific cell culture models. Results: Recent literature shows that GLP-1 and its agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors and combined GLP-1/GIP molecules are effective in partially or fully reversing the effects of neurotoxic compounds, neurovascular complications of diabetes, neuropathological changes related with Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease or vascular occlusion. Possible mechanisms that provide neuroprotection are enhancing the viability of the neurons and restoring neurite outgrowth by increased neurotrophic factors, increasing subventricular zone progenitor cells, decreasing apoptosis, decreasing the level of pro-inflammatory factors, and strengthening blood-brain barrier. Conclusion: Based on the preclinical studies, GLP-1 modifying agents are promising targets for neuroprotection. On the other hand, the number of clinical studies that investigate GLP-1 as a treatment is low and further clinical trials are needed for a benchside to bedside translation of recent findings.

Objective: Bipolar disorder is highly comorbid with anxiety disorders, however current and lifetime comorbidity patterns of each anxiety disorder and their associated features are not well studied. Here, we aimed to conduct a meta-analysis and meta-regression study of current evidence. Method: We searched PubMed to access relevant articles published until September 2015, using the keywords “Bipolar disorder” or “Affective Psychosis” or “manic depressive” separately with “generalized anxiety,” “panic disorder,” “social phobia,” “obsessive compulsive,” and “anxiety.” Variables for associated features and prevalence of anxiety disorders were carefully extracted. Results: Lifetime any anxiety disorder comorbidity in BD was 40.5%; panic disorder (PD) 18.1%, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) 13.3%, social anxiety disorder (SAD) 13.5% and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) 9.7%. Current any anxiety disorder comorbidity in BD is 38.2%; GAD is 15.2%, PD 13.3%, SAD 11.7%, and OCD 9.9%. When studies reporting data about comorbidities in BDI or BDII were analyzed separately, lifetime any anxiety disorder comorbidity in BDI and BDII were 38% and 34%, PD was 15% and 15%, GAD was 14% and 16.6%, SAD was 8% and 13%, OCD was 8% and 10%, respectively. Current any DSM anxiety disorder comorbidity in BDI or BDII were 31% and 37%, PD was 9% and 13%, GAD was 8% and 12%, SAD was 7% and 11%, and OCD was 8% and 7%, respectively. The percentage of manic patients and age of onset of BD tended to have a significant impact on anxiety disorders. Percentage of BD I patients significantly decreased the prevalence of panic disorder and social anxiety disorder. A higher rate of substance use disorder was associated with greater BD–SAD comorbidity. History of psychotic features significantly affected current PD and GAD. Conclusions: Anxiety disorder comorbidity is high in BD with somewhat lower rates in BDI vs BDII. Age of onset, substance use disorders, and percentage of patients in a manic episode or with psychotic features influences anxiety disorder comorbidity.

The first clinical symptoms focused on the presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been respiratory failure, however, accumulating evidence also points to its presentation with neuropsychiatric symptoms, the exact mechanisms of which are not well known. By using a computational methodology, we aimed to explain the molecular paths of COVID-19 associated neuropsychiatric symptoms, based on the mimicry of the human protein interactions with SARS-CoV-2 proteins.Methods: Available 11 of the 29 SARS-CoV-2 proteins’ structures have been extracted from Protein Data Bank. HMI-PRED (Host-Microbe Interaction PREDiction), a recently developed web server for structural PREDiction of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) between host and any microbial species, was used to find the “interface mimicry” through which the microbial proteins hijack host binding surfaces. Classification of the found interactions was conducted using the PANTHER Classification System.Results: Predicted Human-SARS-CoV-2 protein interactions have been extensively compared with the literature. Based on the analysis of the molecular functions, cellular localizations and pathways related to human proteins, SARS-CoV-2 proteins are found to possibly interact with human proteins linked to synaptic vesicle trafficking, endocytosis, axonal transport, neurotransmission, growth factors, mitochondrial and blood-brain barrier elements, in addition to its peripheral interactions with proteins linked to thrombosis, inflammation and metabolic control.Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2-human protein interactions may lead to the development of delirium, psychosis, seizures, encephalitis, stroke, sensory impairments, peripheral nerve diseases, and autoimmune disorders. Our findings are also supported by the previous in vivo and in vitro studies from other viruses. Further in vivo and in vitro studies using the proteins that are pointed here, could pave new targets both for avoiding and reversing neuropsychiatric presentations.

Stress, encompassing psychological, physical, and physiological challenges, is an important factor affecting an individual's well-being and potentially leading to psychiatric, neurodegenerative, immune, and metabolic disorders. However, not everyone exposed to stress develops these conditions, highlighting the concept of resilience. Resilience is a dynamic process categorized into four dimensions: pre-existing resilience capacity, ongoing resilience processes, post-stress resilience outcomes, and recovery from psychopathologies. These dimensions involve genomic, cellular, and systemic interactions influenced by genetic factors, early life experiences, adult life experiences in addition to community/environmental factors, and health behaviors. The biological response to stress encompasses endocrine, autonomic, immunological, and behavioral components, modulated by stressor characteristics and individual traits. Due to the limitations in studying stress and resilience in humans, translational models using rodents and cell cultures are essential. Rodent models include acute, chronic, and traumatic stress paradigms, aiding the study of stress-related behavioral and molecular outcomes. Additionally, early life stress models, such as prenatal stress and maternal separation, provide insights into developmental impacts. In this review, first, rodent models for lifelong stress exposure will be summarized considering their validity, advantages, and limitations. Subsequently, an overview of models designed to enhance resilience capacity and process in rodents, and later the behavioral models employed to study the outcomes of resilience will be given. Lastly, the focus will be shifted to cell culture and iPSCs models. Finally, future considerations focused on improving translational models used to study stress and resilience will be discussed. It is aimed to provide an overview of designs for translational stress and resilience models to access more effective translational biomarkers associated with stress and resilience. Stress and resilience are complex phenomena influenced by various factors, spanning molecular to behavioral levels. Integrating data across dimensions remains crucial for unraveling the complexities of stress-related disorders and resilience.