Sex-specific influences of APOEε4 genotype on hippocampal neurogenesis and progenitor cells in middle-aged rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) disproportionately and uniquely affects females, and these sex differences are further exacerbated by the presence of Apolipoprotein (APOE) ε4 alleles, the top genetic risk factor for late-onset AD. To expand our understanding about how late-onset AD risk might differentially influence males and females, this study explores how APOEε4 affects hippocampal neurogenesis and microglia, key neuroplastic markers involved in AD pathogenesis, differently by sex in middle-aged rats. METHODS: A rat model expressing the humanized (h) APOEε4 allele was characterized to examine markers of adult neurogenesis (neural progenitor cells and new-born neurons) and immune cells (microglia) in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus in 13 month-old male and female rats. RESULTS: We observed basal sex differences in neurogenesis at middle age, as wildtype male rats had greater densities of neural progenitor cells and new-born neurons in the dentate gyrus than wildtype female rats. Male hAPOEε4 rats exhibited fewer neural progenitor cells, fewer new-born neurons, and more microglia than male wildtype rats. On the other hand, female hAPOEε4 rats exhibited more new-born neurons than female wildtype rats. Interestingly, females had more microglia than males regardless of genotype. Correlations were conducted to further elucidate any sex differences in the relationships between these biomarkers. Notably, there was a significant positive correlation between neural progenitor cells and new-born neurons, and a significant negative correlation between new-born neurons and microglia, but only in male rats. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the clear pattern of effects of the hAPOEε4 risk factor on hippocampal neurogenesis in males, females had unaltered levels of neural progenitor cells and increased density of new-born neurons. Furthermore, relationships between neurogenesis and microglia were significantly correlated within males, and not females. This suggests that females may be presenting a compensatory response to the hAPOEε4 genotype at middle age. Collectively, these results exemplify the importance of thoroughly examining influences of sex on AD endophenotypes, as it may reveal sex-specific pathways and protective mechanisms relevant to AD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".