First steps for integrating sex and gender considerations into basic experimental biomedical research

Bias against research on gender bias

The bias against women in academia is a documented phenomenon that has had detrimental consequences, not only for women, but also for the quality of science. First, gender bias in academia affects female scientists, resulting in their underrepresentation in academic institutions, particularly in higher ranks. The second type of gender bias in science relates to some findings applying only to male participants, which produces biased knowledge. Here, we identify a third potentially powerful source of gender bias in academia: the bias against research on gender bias. In a bibliometric investigation covering a broad range of social sciences, we analyzed published articles on gender bias and race bias and established that articles on gender bias are funded less often and published in journals with a lower Impact Factor than articles on comparable instances of social discrimination. This result suggests the possibility of an underappreciation of the phenomenon of gender bias and related research within the academic community. Addressing this meta-bias is crucial for the further examination of gender inequality, which severely affects many women across the world.

A simple method to assess group difference in RT-qPCR reference gene selection using GeNorm: The case of the placental sex

Normalization with proper reference genes is a crucial step in obtaining accurate mRNA expression levels in RT-qPCR experiments. GeNorm and NormFinder are two commonly used software packages that help in selecting the best reference genes, based on their expression stability. However, GeNorm does not take into account a group variable, such as sample sex, in its calculation. We demonstrate a simple calculation step to assess the variability of such parameters by multiplying the GeNorm M value with the difference of Cq values between groups. To test this, we used 28 reference gene candidates, to analyze 20 placental samples (10 of each sex), and by using HPRT1 (lower Cq values in male placentas (P = 0.017)), as a target gene. Our calculation demonstrates that the RPL30 – GAPDH reference gene combination is the better option to assess small placental sex differences in mRNA level, versus the selection obtained from GeNorm or NormFinder. The HPRT1 normalized mRNA expression level is different between placental sexes, using RPL30 and GAPDH as reference genes (P = 0.01), but not when using genes suggested by GeNorm or NormFinder. These results indicate that the proposed calculation is appropriate to assess small variations in mRNA expression between 2 groups.

Integrating sex and gender into neurodegeneration research: A six-component strategy

Introduction

Despite important sex differences, there remains a paucity of studies examining sex and gender differences in neurodegeneration. The Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA), a national network of researchers, provides an ideal platform to incorporate sex and gender.

Methods

CCNA's Women, Gender, Sex and Dementia program developed and implemented a six-component strategy involving executive oversight, training, research collaboration, progress report assessment, results dissemination, and ongoing manuscript review. The inclusion of sex and gender in current and planned CCNA projects was examined in two progress reporting periods in 2016.

Results

Sex and gender research productivity increased substantially for both preclinical (36%–45%) and human (56%–60%) cohorts. The main barrier was lack of funding.

Discussion

The Women, Gender, Sex and Dementia strategy resulted in a major increase of sex and gender into research on neurodegenerative disorders. This best practice model could be utilized by a wide variety of large multidisciplinary groups.

•

There is a paucity of research on sex and gender in neurodegenerative disorders.

•

A six-component strategy to integrate sex and gender into research was developed.

•

Strategy implemented in national network of researchers studying neurodegeneration.

•

Sex and gender research productivity increased for preclinical and human research.

•

Strategy could be adapted and utilized across various multidisciplinary groups.

Event-Related Potentials as Biomarkers of Behavior Change Mechanisms in Substance Use Disorder Treatment

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are one of the most prevalent psychiatric conditions and represent a significant public health concern. Substantial research has identified key processes related to reinforcement and cognition for the development and maintenance of SUDs, and these processes represent viable treatment targets for psychosocial and pharmacological interventions. Research on SUD treatments has suggested that most approaches are comparable in effectiveness. As a result, recent work has focused on delineating the underlying mechanisms of behavior change that drive SUD treatment outcome. Given the rapid fluctuations associated with the key neurocognitive processes associated with SUDs, high-temporal-resolution measures of human brain processing, namely event-related potentials (ERPs), are uniquely suited to expand our understanding of the underlying neural mechanisms of change during and after SUD treatment. The value of ERPs in the context of SUD treatment are discussed along with work demonstrating the predictive validity of ERPs as biomarkers of SUD treatment response. Example associations between multiple ERP components and psychosocial and/or pharmacological treatment outcome include the P3a and P3b (in response to neutral and substance-related cues), the attention-related negativities (e.g., N170, N200), the late positive potential, and the error-related negativity. Also addressed are limitations of the biomarker approach to underscore the need for research programs evaluating mechanisms of change. Finally, we emphasize the advantages of ERPs as indices of behavior change in SUD treatment and outline issues relevant for future directions in this context.

A Guide for the Design of Pre-clinical Studies on Sex Differences in Metabolism

In animal models, the physiological systems involved in metabolic homeostasis exhibit a sex difference. Investigators often use male rodents because they show metabolic disease better than females. Thus, females are not used precisely because of an acknowledged sex difference that represents an opportunity to understand novel factors reducing metabolic disease more in one sex than the other. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandate to consider sex as a biological variable in preclinical research places new demands on investigators and peer reviewers who often lack expertise in model systems and experimental paradigms used in the study of sex differences. This Perspective discusses experimental design and interpretation in studies addressing the mechanisms of sex differences in metabolic homeostasis and disease, using animal models and cells. We also highlight current limitations in research tools and attitudes that threaten to delay progress in studies of sex differences in basic animal research.

Age and sex in drug development and testing for adults

Individualization of drug therapy requires that the right drug be administered at the correct dose to patients who are likely to achieve the highest benefit and lowest risk. Female sex and age comprise two important risk factors for altered drug exposure and response. This review summarizes the current state of science for considering age and sex-related factors along the drug development pipeline, from cell culture and animal research through all phases of clinical trials in humans. A set of recommendations is provided to improve standards for integrating age and sex into the study design, analysis, and reporting of pre-clinical and clinical assessment of new molecular entities and biologics in adults.

Sex differences in obesity: X chromosome dosage as a risk factor for increased food intake, adiposity and co-morbidities

Obesity is a world-wide problem, and a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and other diseases. It is well established that sex differences influence fat storage. Males and females exhibit differences in anatomical fat distribution, utilization of fat stores, levels of adipose tissue-derived hormones, and obesity co-morbidities. The basis for these sex differences may be parsed into the effects of male vs. female gonadal hormones and the effects of XX vs. XY chromosome complement. Studies employing mouse models that allow the distinction of gonadal from chromosomal effects have revealed that X chromosome dosage influences food intake, which in turn affects adiposity and the occurrence of adverse metabolic conditions such as hyperinsulinemia, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver. The identification of X chromosome dosage as a player in the behavior and physiology related to obesity suggests novel molecular mechanisms that may underlie sex differences in obesity and metabolism.

Examples of sex/gender sensitivity in epidemiological research: results of an evaluation of original articles published in JECH 2006-2014

BACKGROUND

During the last decades, sex and gender biases have been identified in various areas of biomedical and public health research, leading to compromised validity of research findings. As a response, methodological requirements were developed but these are rarely translated into research practice. The aim of this study is to provide good practice examples of sex/gender sensitive health research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of research articles published in JECH between 2006 and 2014. An instrument was constructed to evaluate sex/gender sensitivity in four stages of the research process (background, study design, statistical analysis, discussion).

RESULTS

In total, 37 articles covering diverse topics were included. Thereof, 22 were evaluated as good practice example in at least one stage; two articles achieved highest ratings across all stages. Good examples of the background referred to available knowledge on sex/gender differences and sex/gender informed theoretical frameworks. Related to the study design, good examples calculated sample sizes to be able to detect sex/gender differences, selected sex/gender sensitive outcome/exposure indicators, or chose different cut-off values for male and female participants. Good examples of statistical analyses used interaction terms with sex/gender or different shapes of the estimated relationship for men and women. Examples of good discussions interpreted their findings related to social and biological explanatory models or questioned the statistical methods used to detect sex/gender differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified good practice examples may inspire researchers to critically reflect on the relevance of sex/gender issues of their studies and help them to translate methodological recommendations of sex/gender sensitivity into research practice.

Integrating and evaluating sex and gender in health research

Both sex (biological factors) and gender (socio-cultural factors) shape health. To produce the best possible health research evidence, it is essential to integrate sex and gender considerations throughout the research process. Despite growing recognition of the importance of these factors, progress towards sex and gender integration as standard practice has been both slow and uneven in health research. In this commentary, we examine the challenges of integrating sex and gender from the research perspective, as well as strategies that can be used by researchers, funders and journal editors to address these challenges. Barriers to the integration of sex and gender in health research include problems with inconsistent terminology, difficulties in applying the concepts of sex and gender, failure to recognise the impact of sex and gender, and challenges with data collection and datasets. We analyse these barriers as strategic points of intervention for improving the integration of sex and gender at all stages of the research process. To assess the relative success of these strategies in any given study, researchers, funders and journal editors would benefit from a tool to evaluate the quality of sex and gender integration in order to establish benchmarks in research excellence. These assessment tools are needed now amidst growing institutional recognition that both sex and gender are necessary elements for advancing the quality and utility of health research evidence.

Sex and Gender Roles in Relation to Mental Health and Allostatic Load

OBJECTIVES

Beyond male/female binaries, gender roles represent masculine and feminine traits that we assimilate and enact throughout life span development. Bem proposed that "androgynous" individuals adeptly adapt to different contexts by alternating from a strong repertoire of both masculine and feminine gender roles. By contrast, "undifferentiated" individuals may not adapt as well to social norms because of weak self-endorsed masculinity and femininity.

METHODS

Among 204 adults (mean [standard error] age = 40.4 [0.9] years; 70% women) working in a psychiatric hospital, we hypothesized that androgynous individuals would present better mental health and less physiological dysregulations known as allostatic load (AL) than undifferentiated individuals. AL was indexed using 20 biomarkers using the conventional "all-inclusive" formulation that ascribes cutoffs without regard for sex or an alternative "sex-specific" formulation with cutoffs tailored for each sex separately while controlling for sex hormones (testosterone, estradiol, progesterone). Well-validated questionnaires were used.

RESULTS

Independent of sex, androgynous individuals experienced higher self-esteem and well-being and lower depressive symptoms than did undifferentiated individuals. Men manifested higher AL than did women using the all-inclusive AL index (p = .044, ηP = 0.025). By contrast, the sex-specific AL algorithm unmasked a sex by gender roles interaction for AL (p = .043, ηP = 0.048): with the highest AL levels in undifferentiated men. Analysis using a gender index based on seven gendered constructs revealed that a greater propensity toward feminine characteristics correlated only with elevated sex-specific AL (r = 0.163, p = .025).

CONCLUSIONS

Beyond providing psychobiological evidence for Bem's theory, this study highlights how sex-specific AL formulations detect the effects of sociocultural gender.

Our evolving science: studying the influence of sex in preclinical research

The policy announcement by the National Institutes of Health that sex should be considered as a relevant variable in preclinical research has sparked considerable debate. This debate has largely centered on specific concerns regarding how the policy will be implemented. However, others have reacted to the new policy by calling into question the capacity of preclinical science to generate data that can be useful to human health. This commentary examines the basis for this contention and maintains that it is essential to expand our scientific efforts to include the influence of sex on the biology and behavior that is studied in preclinical investigations.

Perils and pitfalls of reporting sex differences

The idea of sex differences in the brain both fascinates and inflames the public. As a result, the communication and public discussion of new findings is particularly vulnerable to logical leaps and pseudoscience. A new US National Institutes of Health policy to consider both sexes in almost all preclinical research will increase the number of reported sex differences and thus the risk that research in this important area will be misinterpreted and misrepresented. In this article, I consider ways in which we might reduce that risk, for example, by (i) employing statistical tests that reveal the extent to which sex explains variation, rather than whether or not the sexes 'differ', (ii) properly characterizing the frequency distributions of scores or dependent measures, which nearly always overlap, and (iii) avoiding speculative functional or evolutionary explanations for sex-based variation, which usually invoke logical fallacies and perpetuate sex stereotypes. Ultimately, the factor of sex should be viewed as an imperfect, temporary proxy for yet-unknown factors, such as hormones or sex-linked genes, that explain variation better than sex. As scientists, we should be interested in discovering and understanding the true sources of variation, which will be more informative in the development of clinical treatments.

Beyond sex differences: new approaches for thinking about variation in brain structure and function

In the study of variation in brain structure and function that might relate to sex and gender, language matters because it frames our research questions and methods. In this article, we offer an approach to thinking about variation in brain structure and function that pulls us outside the sex differences formulation. We argue that the existence of differences between the brains of males and females does not unravel the relations between sex and the brain nor is it sufficient to characterize a population of brains. Such characterization is necessary for studying sex effects on the brain as well as for studying brain structure and function in general. Animal studies show that sex interacts with environmental, developmental and genetic factors to affect the brain. Studies of humans further suggest that human brains are better described as belonging to a single heterogeneous population rather than two distinct populations. We discuss the implications of these observations for studies of brain and behaviour in humans and in laboratory animals. We believe that studying sex effects in context and developing or adopting analytical methods that take into account the heterogeneity of the brain are crucial for the advancement of human health and well-being.

Studying both sexes: a guiding principle for biomedicine

In May 2014, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it will ensure that investigators account for sex as a biological variable (SABV) in NIH-funded preclinical research as part of the agency's rigor and transparency initiative. Herein, I describe in more detail the rationale behind the SABV policy component and provide additional detail about policy goals. In short, studying both sexes is a guiding principle in biomedical research that will expand knowledge toward turning discovery into health. NIH expects that considering SABV in preclinical research will help to build a knowledge base that better informs the design of clinical research and trials in humans. Integrating the practice of studying both sexes in preclinical research will, over time, expand our currently incomplete knowledge base that plays a critical role in informing the development of sex- and gender-appropriate medical care for women and men.

Sex and gender matter in health research: addressing health inequities in health research reporting

Attention to the concepts of 'sex' and 'gender' is increasingly being recognized as contributing to better science through an augmented understanding of how these factors impact on health inequities and related health outcomes. However, the ongoing lack of conceptual clarity in how sex and gender constructs are used in both the design and reporting of health research studies remains problematic. Conceptual clarity among members of the health research community is central to ensuring the appropriate use of these concepts in a manner that can advance our understanding of the sex- and gender-based health implications of our research findings. During the past twenty-five years much progress has been made in reducing both sex and gender disparities in clinical research and, to a significant albeit lesser extent, in basic science research. Why, then, does there remain a lack of uptake of sex- and gender-specific reporting of health research findings in many health research journals? This question, we argue, has significant health equity implications across all pillars of health research, from biomedical and clinical research, through to health systems and population health.

Is sitting worse than static standing? How a gender analysis can move us toward understanding determinants and effects of occupational standing and walking

The Yant Award was established in 1964 to honor the contributions of William P. Yant, the first president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. It is presented annually for outstanding contributions in industrial hygiene or allied fields to an individual residing outside the United States. The 2014 award recipient is Dr. Karen Messing, Professor emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal and Researcher, CINBIOSE Research Centre. Gender (socially determined) differences in occupations, employment, and working conditions, task assignments, and work methods that affect exposure to health risks are increasingly documented. Interactions of (biologically influenced) sex differences with workplace parameters may also influence exposure levels. During field studies, ergonomists learn a lot about gender and sex that can be important when generating and testing hypotheses about the mechanisms that link workplace exposures to health outcomes. Prolonged standing is common in North America; almost half (45%) of Québec workers spend more than three-quarters of their working time on their feet and 40% of these cannot sit at will. This posture has been linked to chronic back pain and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in the lower limbs, but many health professionals suggest workers should stand rather than sit at work. We ask: (1) Given the fact that roughly the same proportion of men and women stand at work, what does a gender-sensitive analysis add to our ability to detect and thus prevent work-related MSDs?; (2) How does ergonomics research inform gender-sensitive analysis of occupational health data?; and (3) What do researchers need to know to orient interventions to improve general working postures? We have sought answers to these questions through collaborative research with specialists in epidemiology, occupational medicine, biomechanics, and physiology, carried out in partnership with public health organisations, community groups, and unions. We conclude that failure to characterize prolonged static standing and to apply gender-sensitive analysis can confuse assessment of musculoskeletal and circulatory effects of working postures. We suggest that prolonged static sitting and standing postures can and should be avoided by changes to workplace organization and environments. Research is needed to define optimal walking speeds and arrive at optimal ratios of sitting, standing, and walking in the workplace.

NIH initiative to balance sex of animals in preclinical studies: generative questions to guide policy, implementation, and metrics

In May of 2014, the NIH Director together with the Director of the Office of Research on Women’s Health announced plans to take a multi-dimensional approach to address the over reliance on male cells and animals in preclinical research. The NIH is engaging the scientific community in the development of policies to improve the sex balance in research. The present, past, and future presidents of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences, in order to encourage thoughtful discussion among scientists, pose a series of questions to generate ideas in three areas: 1. research strategies, 2. educational strategies, and 3. strategies to monitor effectiveness of policies to improve the sex balance in research. By promoting discussion within the scientific community, a consensus will evolve that will move science forward in a productive and effective manner.

Does a change in health research funding policy related to the integration of sex and gender have an impact?

We analyzed the impact of a requirement introduced in December 2010 that all applicants to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research indicate whether their research designs accounted for sex or gender. We aimed to inform research policy by understanding the extent to which applicants across health research disciplines accounted for sex and gender. We conducted a descriptive statistical analysis to identify trends in application data from three research funding competitions (December 2010, June 2011, and December 2011) (N = 1459). We also conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of applicants' responses. Here we show that the proportion of applicants responding affirmatively to the questions on sex and gender increased over time (48% in December 2011, compared to 26% in December 2010). Biomedical researchers were least likely to report accounting for sex and gender. Analysis by discipline-specific peer review panel showed variation in the likelihood that a given panel will fund grants with a stated focus on sex or gender. These findings suggest that mandatory questions are one way of encouraging the uptake of sex and gender in health research, yet there remain persistent disparities across disciplines. These disparities represent opportunities for policy intervention by health research funders.