Sex and gonadal hormones in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease: what is relevant to the human condition?

Dubal, Dena B; Broestl, Lauren; Worden, Kurtresha

doi:10.1186/2042-6410-3-24

Biology of Sex Differences

Table 1 Sex Differences in cognition and behavior in mouse models of AD

From: Sex and gonadal hormones in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease: what is relevant to the human condition?

	Hormone Status, Age	Comparison	Cognition & Behavioral Measure and Ref.	AD Tg Model
Baseline	Intact, 8 mos (F), 12 mos (M)	Intact: F vs M	F Tg ↑ activity vs F Ntg; M Tg no deficit (OF) [114]	APPswe-PS1dE9
	Intact, 2–15 mos [115], 6–10 mos [121]	Intact: F vs M	F Tg ↓spatial/fear memory at some ages vs F Ntg & M Tg (MWM, PA) [115]	3xTg-AD [115]
	Intact, 2–15 mos [115], 6–10 mos [121]	Intact: F vs M	F Tg↔M Tg impairment in novel object recognition (NOR) [115, 121]	TASTPM [121]
	Intact, 2–14 mos	Intact: F vs M	F Tg ↓ SAB at 12-14 mos vs F Ntg and M Tg (Y-maze) [116]	3xTg-AD
	Intact, 2–17 mos	Intact: F vs M	F Tg impaired and no change with age (CTA) [127]	APPswe/ PS1dE9
	Intact, 2–17 mos	Intact: F vs M	M Tg increasingly impaired with age (CTA) [127]	APPswe/ PS1dE9
	Intact, 6 mos	Intact: F vs M	F Tg ↓activity/spatial memory/novel arm preference vs F Ntg; M Tg no deficit (OF, MWM, Y-maze) [117]	3xTg-AD
	Intact, 6 mos	Intact: F vs M	F Tg ↑ activity & ↑entries into light vs F Ntg; M Tg vice versa (OF, DLB) [118]	3xTg-AD
	Intact, 3, 9 mos	Intact: F vs M	M Tg ↑activity & ↓SAB vs M Ntg; F Tg no deficit (OF, Y-maze) [119]	APPsw
	Intact, 3, 9 mos	Intact: F vs M	F Tg ↓spatial memory vs F Ntg 3 mos; M Tg no deficit (Circular Platform)^A, [119]	APPsw
	Intact,16 mos	Intact: F vs M	F Tg↔M Tg impairment in spatial acquisition memory (Barnes Maze) [122]	APPswe/ PS1dE9
	Intact, 3, 9 mos [119], 6 mos [118]	Intact: F vs M	F↔M, Tg↔Ntg, no spatial learning impairments (MWM) [118, 119]	APPsw [119]
	Intact, 3, 9 mos [119], 6 mos [118]	Intact: F vs M		3xTg-AD [118]
	Intact, 6, 15 mos	Intact: F vs M	M Tg ↑center time vs F Tg and M Ntg (OF) [120]	3xTg-AD
Response to Manipulation	Intact, 8 mos (F), 12 mos (M)	Intact: F vs M	COX-2 overexp ↓SAB in F Tg; no change or impairment in M Tg (Y-maze) [114]	APPswe/ PS1dE9
	Intact, 8 mos (F), 12 mos (M)	Intact: F vs M	COX-2 overexp ↔ novel arm preference^B in F or M, Tg or Ntg (Y-maze) [114]	APPswe/ PS1dE9
	Intact, 6 mos	Intact: F vs M	Running ↑open arm entries in F Tg & Ntg and ↓ in M Tg & Ntg (EPM^C) [117]	3xTg-AD
	Intact, 6 mos	Intact: F vs M	Running ↑spatial memory/novel arm preference in F Tg vs non-running F Tg; no effect or impairment in M Tg (MWM, Y-maze) [117]	3xTg-AD

Symbols: ↑=increase, ↓=decrease, ↔=no change or difference.
Abbreviations: F=Female, M=Male, Ntg=non-transgenic, Tg=transgenic, mos=months, d=day, SAB=spontaneous alternating behavior (thought to reflect working memory), MWM=Morris water maze, OF=open field, PA=passive avoidance, CTA=conditioned taste aversion, NOR=novel object recognition, DLB=dark-light box, EPM=elevated plus maze, COX-2=cyclooxygenase 2, overexp=overexpression.
A, Latency to reach escape hole and number of errors.
B, Preference for the novel arm in Y-maze thought to reflect spatial recognition memory [114].
C, No 3xTg-AD effect was observed in the EPM [117].

Back to article page

ISSN: 2042-6410

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com