Sex Differences in the Spatial Behavior Functions of Adult-Born Neurons in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult neurogenesis modifies hippocampal circuits and behavior, but removing newborn neurons does not consistently alter spatial processing, a core function of the hippocampus. Additionally, little is known about sex differences in neurogenesis since few studies have compared males and females. Since adult-born neurons regulate the stress response, we hypothesized that spatial functions may be more prominent under aversive conditions and may differ between males and females given sex differences in stress responding. We therefore trained intact and neurogenesis-deficient rats in the spatial water maze at temperatures that vary in their degree of aversiveness. In the standard water maze, ablating neurogenesis did not alter spatial learning in either sex. However, in cold water, ablating neurogenesis had divergent sex-dependent effects: relative to intact rats, male neurogenesis-deficient rats were slower to escape the maze and female neurogenesis-deficient rats were faster. Neurogenesis promoted temperature-related changes in search strategy in females, but it promoted search strategy stability in males. Females displayed greater recruitment (Fos expression) of the dorsal hippocampus than males, particularly in cold water. However, blocking neurogenesis did not alter Fos expression in either sex. Finally, morphologic analyses revealed greater experience-dependent plasticity in males. Adult-born neurons in males and females had similar morphology at baseline but training increased spine density and reduced presynaptic terminal size, specifically in males. Collectively, these findings indicate that adult-born neurons contribute to spatial learning in stressful conditions and they provide new evidence for sex differences in their behavioral functions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".