Differential Effects of Extended Exercise and Memantine Treatment on Adult Neurogenesis in Male and Female Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The creation of new neurons in adulthood has potential for treating a number of disorders that are characterized by neurodegeneration or impaired plasticity. Animal models of reduced neurogenesis, and studies of the volume and structural integrity of the hippocampus in humans, suggest a possible therapeutic role for adult neurogenesis in age-related cognitive decline, depression, and schizophrenia. Research over the past 20 years has identified a number of approaches for enhancing adult neurogenesis, such as exercise, NMDA receptor antagonists, antidepressant drugs and environmental enrichment. However, despite the chronic nature of many disorders that impact the human hippocampus, most animal studies have only examined the efficacy of neurogenic treatments over relatively short timescales (∼1 month or less). Additionally, investigations into the regulation of neurogenesis typically include only 1 sex, even though many disorders that affect the hippocampus differentially impact males and females. Here, we therefore tested whether two known pro-neurogenic treatments, running and the NMDA receptor antagonist, memantine, could lead to long-term increases in neurogenesis in male and female rats. We found that continuous access to a running wheel (cRUN) initially increased neurogenesis in both sexes, but effects were minimal after 1 month (both sexes) and completely absent after 5 months (males). Similarly, a single injection of memantine (sMEM) only transiently increased adult neurogenesis in both males and females. To determine whether extended increases in neurogenesis were possible with 2 months of RUN and MEM treatments, we subjected rats to interval running (iRUN), weekly memantine injections (mMEM), or combined treatments (iRUN-mMEM, mMEM-iRUN). We found that 2 months of iRUN increased DCX + cell density in females but iRUN-mMEM treatment increased DCX + cell density in males. However, analyses with thymidine analogs revealed that neurogenesis was minimally increased during the initial phases of the 2 month treatments. Collectively, our findings identify sex differences in the efficacy of neurogenic manipulations, which may be relevant for designing plasticity-promoting treatments that target the hippocampus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".