Faculty Opinions recommendation of Environmental enrichment reduces the mnemonic and neural benefits of estrogen.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree to which memory is enhanced by estrogen replacement in postmenopausal women may depend on environmental factors such as education. The present study utilized an animal model of environmental enrichment to determine whether environmental factors influence the mnemonic and neural response to estrogen. Female mice were raised in standard (SC) or enriched (EC) conditions from weaning until adulthood (7 months). All mice were ovariectomized at 10 weeks, and tested in object recognition and water-escape motivated radial arm maze (WRAM) tasks at 6 months. Each day at the completion of training, mice received injections of 0.1 mg/kg cyclodextrin-encapsulated 17-beta-estradiol (E2), 0.2 mg/kg E2, or cyclodextrin vehicle (VEH). At the completion of behavioral testing, hippocampal levels of the presynaptic protein synaptophysin and of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were measured. Enrichment effects were evident in VEH-treated mice; relative to SC-VEH females, EC-VEH females committed fewer working memory errors in the WRAM and exhibited increased hippocampal synaptophysin levels. Estrogen effects depended on environmental conditions. E2 (0.2 mg/kg) improved object memory only in SC females. The same dose improved working memory in SC females, but somewhat impaired working memory in EC females. Furthermore, both doses reduced hippocampal synaptophysin levels in EC, but not SC, females. In contrast, E2 reduced hippocampal BDNF levels in SC, but not EC, females. This study is the first to compare the effects of estrogen on memory and hippocampal function in enriched and non-enriched female mice. The results suggest that: (1) estrogen benefits object and working memory more in mice raised in non-enriched environments than in those raised in enriched environments, and (2) the changes induced by estrogen and/or enrichment may be associated with alterations in hippocampal synaptic plasticity. PMID: 15381276 Funding information This work was supported by: NIMH NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: MH065460 NIMH NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R03 MH065460
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.419 | 0.146 |
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".