Opinion: Sex inclusion in basic research drives discovery

Quantification of pain in sickle mice using facial expressions and body measurements

Pain is a hallmark feature of sickle cell disease (SCD). Subjects typically quantify pain by themselves, which can be biased by other factors leading to overtreatment or under-treatment. Reliable and accurate quantification of pain, in real time, might enable to provide appropriate levels of analgesic treatment. The mouse grimace scale (MGS), a standardized behavioral coding system with high accuracy and reliability has been used to quantify varied types of pain. We hypothesized that addition of the objective parameters of body length and back curvature will strengthen the reproducibility of MGS. We examined MGS scores and body length and back curvature of transgenic BERK sickle and control mice following cold treatment or following treatment with analgesic cannabinoid CP55,940. We observed that sickle mice demonstrated decreased length and increased back curvature in response to cold. These observations correlate with changes in facial expression for the MGS score. CP55,940 treatment of sickle mice showed an increase in body length and a decrease in back curvature concordant with MGS scores indicative of an analgesic effect. Thus, body parameters combined with facial expressions may provide a quantifiable unbiased method for objective measure of pain in SCD.

Estrogenic compounds reduce influenza A virus replication in primary human nasal epithelial cells derived from female, but not male, donors

Influenza causes an acute infection characterized by virus replication in respiratory epithelial cells. The severity of influenza and other respiratory diseases changes over the life course and during pregnancy in women, suggesting that sex steroid hormones, such as estrogens, may be involved. Using primary, differentiated human nasal epithelial cell (hNEC) cultures from adult male and female donors, we exposed cultures to the endogenous 17β-estradiol (E2) or select estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and then infected cultures with a seasonal influenza A virus (IAV) to determine whether estrogenic signaling could affect the outcome of IAV infection and whether these effects were sex dependent. Estradiol, raloxifene, and bisphenol A decreased IAV titers in hNECs from female, but not male, donors. The estrogenic decrease in viral titer was dependent on the genomic estrogen receptor-2 (ESR2) as neither genomic ESR1 nor nongenomic GPR30 was expressed in hNEC cultures and addition of the genomic ER antagonist ICI 182,780 reversed the antiviral effects of E2. Treatment of hNECs with E2 had no effect on interferon or chemokine secretion but significantly downregulated cell metabolic processes, including genes that encode for zinc finger proteins, many of which contain estrogen response elements in their promoters. These data provide novel insights into the cellular and molecular mechanisms of how natural and synthetic estrogens impact IAV infection in respiratory epithelial cells derived from humans.

Our evolving science: studying the influence of sex in preclinical research

The policy announcement by the National Institutes of Health that sex should be considered as a relevant variable in preclinical research has sparked considerable debate. This debate has largely centered on specific concerns regarding how the policy will be implemented. However, others have reacted to the new policy by calling into question the capacity of preclinical science to generate data that can be useful to human health. This commentary examines the basis for this contention and maintains that it is essential to expand our scientific efforts to include the influence of sex on the biology and behavior that is studied in preclinical investigations.

Perils and pitfalls of reporting sex differences

The idea of sex differences in the brain both fascinates and inflames the public. As a result, the communication and public discussion of new findings is particularly vulnerable to logical leaps and pseudoscience. A new US National Institutes of Health policy to consider both sexes in almost all preclinical research will increase the number of reported sex differences and thus the risk that research in this important area will be misinterpreted and misrepresented. In this article, I consider ways in which we might reduce that risk, for example, by (i) employing statistical tests that reveal the extent to which sex explains variation, rather than whether or not the sexes 'differ', (ii) properly characterizing the frequency distributions of scores or dependent measures, which nearly always overlap, and (iii) avoiding speculative functional or evolutionary explanations for sex-based variation, which usually invoke logical fallacies and perpetuate sex stereotypes. Ultimately, the factor of sex should be viewed as an imperfect, temporary proxy for yet-unknown factors, such as hormones or sex-linked genes, that explain variation better than sex. As scientists, we should be interested in discovering and understanding the true sources of variation, which will be more informative in the development of clinical treatments.

Evaluating sex as a biological variable in preclinical research: the devil in the details

Translating policy into action is a complex task, with much debate surrounding the process whereby US and Canadian health funding agencies intend to integrate sex and gender science as an integral component of methodological rigor and reporting in health research. Effective January 25, 2016, the US National Institutes of Health implemented a policy that expects scientists to account for the possible role of sex as a biological variable (SABV) in vertebrate animal and human studies. Applicants for NIH-funded research and career development awards will be asked to explain how they plan to factor consideration of SABV into their research design, analysis, and reporting; strong justification will be required for proposing single-sex studies. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is revising their peer review accreditation process to ensure that peer reviewers are skilled in applying a critical lens to protocols that should be incorporating sex and gender science. The current paper outlines the components that peer reviewers in North America will be asked to assess when considering whether SABV is appropriately integrated into research designs, analyses, and reporting. Consensus argues against narrowly defining rules of engagement in applying SABV, with criteria provided for reviewers as guidance only. Scores will not be given for each criterion; applications will be judged on the overall merit of scientific innovation, rigor, reproducibility, and potential impact.

Multifaceted origins of sex differences in the brain

Studies of sex differences in the brain range from reductionistic cell and molecular analyses in animal models to functional imaging in awake human subjects, with many other levels in between. Interpretations and conclusions about the importance of particular differences often vary with differing levels of analyses and can lead to discord and dissent. In the past two decades, the range of neurobiological, psychological and psychiatric endpoints found to differ between males and females has expanded beyond reproduction into every aspect of the healthy and diseased brain, and thereby demands our attention. A greater understanding of all aspects of neural functioning will only be achieved by incorporating sex as a biological variable. The goal of this review is to highlight the current state of the art of the discipline of sex differences research with an emphasis on the brain and to contextualize the articles appearing in the accompanying special issue.

Preclinical studies of sex differences: a clinical perspective

The new policy from the National Institutes of Health to encourage grant applicants to consider studying both females and males in preclinical biological experiments has been met with support and opposition. Here, we will discuss implications of preclinical studies of sex differences on clinical research.

Are females more variable than males in gene expression? Meta-analysis of microarray datasets

Background

The majority of preclinical biomedical research involves studies of males rather than females. It is thought that researchers have avoided females based on the idea that female traits are more variable than those of males because of cyclic variation in effects of ovarian hormones.

Methods

To test the assumption of inherently greater female variability, we analyzed 293 microarray datasets measuring gene expression in various tissues of mice and humans, comprising analysis of more than 5 million probes.

Results

Meta-analysis showed that on average, male gene expression is slightly more variable than that of females although the difference is small. We also tested if the X chromosome of humans shows greater variability in gene expression in males than in females, as might be expected because of hemizygous exposure of polymorphic X alleles but again found little sex difference.

Conclusion

Our analysis supports and extends previous studies reporting no overall greater phenotypic variability in females.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13293-015-0036-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sex differences in metabolic homeostasis, diabetes, and obesity

There are fundamental aspects of the control of metabolic homeostasis that are regulated differently in males and females. This sex asymmetry represents an evolutionary paradigm for females to resist the loss of energy stores. This perspective discusses the most fundamental sex differences in metabolic homeostasis, diabetes, and obesity. Together, the role of genetic sex, the programming effect of testosterone in the prenatal period in males, and the activational role of sex hormones at puberty produce two different biological systems in males and females that need to be studied separately. These sex-specific differences in energy homeostasis and metabolic dysfunction represent an untested source of factors that can be harnessed to develop relevant sex-based therapeutic avenues for diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and obesity.

Sex differences in the brain: a whole body perspective

Most writing on sexual differentiation of the mammalian brain (including our own) considers just two organs: the gonads and the brain. This perspective, which leaves out all other body parts, misleads us in several ways. First, there is accumulating evidence that all organs are sexually differentiated, and that sex differences in peripheral organs affect the brain. We demonstrate this by reviewing examples involving sex differences in muscles, adipose tissue, the liver, immune system, gut, kidneys, bladder, and placenta that affect the nervous system and behavior. The second consequence of ignoring other organs when considering neural sex differences is that we are likely to miss the fact that some brain sex differences develop to compensate for differences in the internal environment (i.e., because male and female brains operate in different bodies, sex differences are required to make output/function more similar in the two sexes). We also consider evidence that sex differences in sensory systems cause male and female brains to perceive different information about the world; the two sexes are also perceived by the world differently and therefore exposed to differences in experience via treatment by others. Although the topic of sex differences in the brain is often seen as much more emotionally charged than studies of sex differences in other organs, the dichotomy is largely false. By putting the brain firmly back in the body, sex differences in the brain are predictable and can be more completely understood.