Sex differences in the rodent medial prefrontal cortex - What Do and Don't we know?

The prefrontal cortex, particularly its medial subregions (mPFC), mediates critical functions such as executive control, behavioral inhibition, and memory formation, with relevance for everyday functioning and psychopathology. Despite broad characterization of the mPFC in multiple model organisms, the extent to which mPFC structure and function vary according to an individual's sex is unclear - a knowledge gap that can be attributed to a historical bias for male subjects in neuroscience research. Recent efforts to consider sex as a biological variable in basic science highlight the great need to close this gap. Here we review the knowns and unknowns about how rodents categorized as male or female compare in mPFC neuroanatomy, pharmacology, as well as in aversive, appetitive, and goal- or habit-directed behaviors that recruit the mPFC. We propose that long-standing dogmatic concepts of mPFC structure and function may not remain supported when we move beyond male-only studies, and that empirical challenges to these dogmas are warranted. Additionally, we note some common pitfalls in this work. Most preclinical studies operationalize sex as a binary categorization, and while this approach has furthered the inclusion of non-male rodents it is not as such generalizable to what we know of sex as a multidimensional, dynamic variable. Exploration of sex variability may uncover both sex differences and sex similarities, but care must be taken in their interpretation. Including females in preclinical research needs to go beyond the investigation of sex differences, improving our knowledge of how this brain region and its subregions mediate behavior and health. This article is part of the Special Issue on "PFC circuit function in psychiatric disease and relevant models".

Sex contextualism in laboratory research: Enhancing rigor and precision in the study of sex-related variables

Understanding sex-related variation in health and illness requires rigorous and precise approaches to revealing underlying mechanisms. A first step is to recognize that sex is not in and of itself a causal mechanism; rather, it is a classification system comprising a set of categories, usually assigned according to a range of varying traits. Moving beyond sex as a system of classification to working with concrete and measurable sex-related variables is necessary for precision. Whether and how these sex-related variables matter-and what patterns of difference they contribute to-will vary in context-specific ways. Second, when researchers incorporate these sex-related variables into research designs, rigorous analytical methods are needed to allow strongly supported conclusions. Third, the interpretation and reporting of sex-related variation require care to ensure that basic and preclinical research advance health equity for all.

Considering hormones as sex- and gender-related factors in biomedical research: Challenging false dichotomies and embracing complexity

The inclusion of sex and gender considerations in biomedicine has been increasing in light of calls from research and funding agencies, governmental bodies, and advocacy groups to direct research attention to these issues. Although the inclusion of both female and male participants is often an important element, overreliance on a female-male binary tends to oversimplify the interactions between sex- and gender-related factors and health, and runs a risk of being influenced by cultural stereotypes about sex and gender. When biomedical researchers are examining how hormones associated with gender and sex may influence pathways of interest, it is of crucial importance to approach this work with a critical lens on the rhetoric used, and in ways that acknowledge the complexity of hormone physiology. Here, we document the ways in which discourses around sex, gender and hormones shape our scientific thinking and practice in biomedical research, and review how the existing scientific knowledge about hormones reflects a complex and dynamic reality that is often not reflected outside of specialist niches of hormone biology. Where biomedical scientists take up sex- and gender-associated hormones as a way of addressing sex and gender considerations, it is valuable for us to bring a critical lens to the rhetoric and discourses used, to employ a sex contextualist approach in designing experimentation, and be rigorous and reflexive about the approaches used in analysis and interpretation of data. These strategies will allow us to design experimentation that goes beyond binaries, and grapples more directly with the material intricacies of sex, gender, and hormones.

Deconstructing sex: Strategies for undoing binary thinking in neuroendocrinology and behavior

The scientific community widely recognizes that "sex" is a complex category composed of multiple physiologies. Yet in practice, basic scientific research often treats "sex" as a single, internally consistent, and often binary variable. This practice occludes important physiological factors and processes, and thus limits the scientific value of our findings. In human-oriented biomedical research, the use of simplistic (and often binary) models of sex ignores the existence of intersex, trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people and contributes to a medical paradigm that neglects their needs and interests. More broadly, our collective reliance on these models legitimizes a false paradigm of human biology that undergirds harmful medical practices and anti-trans political movements. Herein, we continue the conversations begun at the SBN 2022 Symposium on Hormones and Trans Health, providing guiding questions to help scientists deconstruct and rethink the use of "sex" across the stages of the scientific method. We offer these as a step toward a scientific paradigm that more accurately recognizes and represents sexed physiologies as multiple, interacting, variable, and unbounded by gendered preconceptions. We hope this paper will serve as a useful resource for scientists who seek a new paradigm for researching and understanding sexed physiologies that improves our science, widens the applicability of our findings, and deters the misuse of our research against marginalized groups.

Sins of inquiry: How to criticize scientific pursuits

Criticism is a staple of the scientific enterprise and of the social epistemology of science. Philosophical discussions of criticism have traditionally focused on its roles in relation to objectivity, confirmation, and theory choice. However, attention to criticism and to criticizability should also inform our thinking about scientific pursuits: the allocation of resources with the aim of developing scientific tools and ideas. In this paper, we offer an account of scientific pursuitworthiness which takes criticizability as its starting point. We call this the apokritic model of pursuit. Its core ideas are that pursuits are practices governed by norms for asking and answering questions, and that criticism arises from the breach of these norms. We illustrate and advertise our approach using examples from institutional grant review, neuroscience, and sociology. We show that the apokritic model can unify several indices of criticizability, that it can account for the importance of criticizing pursuits in scientific practice, and that it can offer ameliorative advice to erstwhile pursuers.

Transcending the Male-Female Binary in Biomedical Research: Constellations, Heterogeneity, and Mechanism When Considering Sex and Gender

Accounting for the influences of sex- and gender-related factors on health is one of the most interesting and important challenges in contemporary health research. In biomedical research, models, experimental designs, and statistical analyses create particular challenges in attempting to incorporate the complex, dynamic, and context-dependent constructs of sex and gender. Here, we offer conceptual elaborations of the constructs of sex and gender and discuss their application in biomedical research, including a more mechanism-oriented and context-driven approach to experimental design integrating sex and gender. We highlight how practices of data visualization, statistical analysis, and rhetoric can be valuable tools in expanding the operationalization of sex and gender biomedical science and reducing reliance on a male–female binary approach.

Lost in translation? Beyond sex as a biological variable in animal research

In this article, I develop a feminist posthumanist account of biomedical policymaking as a material-discursive intervention that shapes the emergence of phenomena in the scientific laboratory. The setting is United States (U.S.) biomedicine, where a recent policy of the National Institutes of Health has mandated the consideration of sex in basic and preclinical research. Called Sex as a Biological Variable (SABV), the mandate configures cell lines and animal models as the next frontier in the project of advancing gender equity in biomedical research. Given sex and gender are increasingly recognised as having complex, entangled, and dynamic effects on human health and illness, how do laboratory animals respond to their attempted enrolment in this regulatory intervention? Through a qualitative analysis of this policy domain, I show how laboratory animals reveal the context-specific character of sex, its multiplicity and elusiveness as a so-called biological variable, and the considerable work needed to shore up human ideologies of sex as a pervasive cross-species form of binary difference. I suggest that while regulatory interventions constrain patterns of mattering, they also serve as agential openings in which laboratory animals can 'kick back' and reconfigure the pursuit of knowledge, particularly as it relates to difference and health.

Challenging the binary: Gender/sex and the bio-logics of normalcy

BACKGROUND

We are witnessing renewed debates regarding definitions and boundaries of human gender/sex, where lines of genetics, gonadal hormones, and secondary sex characteristics are drawn to defend strict binary categorizations, with attendant implications for the acceptability and limits of gender identity and diversity.

AIMS

Many argue for the need to recognize the entanglement of gender/sex in humans and the myriad ways that gender experience becomes biology; translating this theory into practice in human biology research is essential. Biological anthropology is well poised to contribute to these societal conversations and debates. To do this effectively, a reconsideration of our own conceptions of gender/sex, gender identity, and sexuality is necessary.

METHODS

In this article, we discuss biological variation associated with gender/sex and propose ways forward to ensure we are engaging with gender/sex diversity. We base our analysis in the concept of "biological normalcy," which allows consideration of the relationships between statistical distributions and normative views. We address the problematic reliance on binary categories, the utilization of group means to represent typical biologies, and document ways in which binary norms reinforce stigma and inequality regarding gender/sex, gender identity, and sexuality.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We conclude with guidelines and methodological suggestions for how to engage gender/sex and gender identity in research. Our goal is to contribute a framework that all human biologists can use, not just those who work with gender or sexually diverse populations. We hope that in bringing this perspective to bear in human biology, that novel ideas and applications will emerge from within our own discipline.

Co-production, multiplied: Enactments of sex as a biological variable in US biomedicine

In 2016 the US National Institutes of Health introduced a policy mandating consideration of Sex as a Biological Variable (SABV) in preclinical research. In this article, I ask what, precisely, is meant by the designation of sex as a 'biological variable', and how has its inclusion come to take the form of a policy mandate? Given the well documented complexity of 'sex' and the degree to which it is politically and scientifically contested, its enactment via policy as a biological variable is not a given. I explore how sex is multiply enacted in efforts to legitimate and realize the SABV policy and consider how the analytical lens of co-production sheds light on how and why this occurs. I show that the policy works to reassert scientific and political order by addressing two institutional concerns: the so-called reproducibility crisis in preclinical research, and pervasive gender inequality across the institution of biomedicine. From here, the entity that underpins this effort - sex as a biological variable - becomes more than one thing, with enactments ranging from an assigned category, to an outcome, to a causal biological force in its own right. Sex emerges as simultaneously entangled with yet distinct from gender, and binary (female/male) yet complex in its variation. I suggest that it is in the very attempt to delineate natural from social order, and in the process create the conditions to privilege a particular kind of science and account of embodied difference, that ontological multiplicity becomes readily visible. That this multiplicity goes unrecognized points to the unifying role of an overarching ideological commitment to sex as a presumed binary and biological scientific object, the institutional dominance of which is never guaranteed.

Large-scale labeling and assessment of sex bias in publicly available expression data

BACKGROUND

Women are at more than 1.5-fold higher risk for clinically relevant adverse drug events. While this higher prevalence is partially due to gender-related effects, biological sex differences likely also impact drug response. Publicly available gene expression databases provide a unique opportunity for examining drug response at a cellular level. However, missingness and heterogeneity of metadata prevent large-scale identification of drug exposure studies and limit assessments of sex bias. To address this, we trained organism-specific models to infer sample sex from gene expression data, and used entity normalization to map metadata cell line and drug mentions to existing ontologies. Using this method, we inferred sex labels for 450,371 human and 245,107 mouse microarray and RNA-seq samples from refine.bio.

RESULTS

Overall, we find slight female bias (52.1%) in human samples and (62.5%) male bias in mouse samples; this corresponds to a majority of mixed sex studies in humans and single sex studies in mice, split between female-only and male-only (25.8% vs. 18.9% in human and 21.6% vs. 31.1% in mouse, respectively). In drug studies, we find limited evidence for sex-sampling bias overall; however, specific categories of drugs, including human cancer and mouse nervous system drugs, are enriched in female-only and male-only studies, respectively. We leverage our expression-based sex labels to further examine the complexity of cell line sex and assess the frequency of metadata sex label misannotations (2-5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate limited overall sex bias, while highlighting high bias in specific subfields and underscoring the importance of including sex labels to better understand the underlying biology. We make our inferred and normalized labels, along with flags for misannotated samples, publicly available to catalyze the routine use of sex as a study variable in future analyses.

Sex bias and omission in neuroscience research is influenced by research model and journal, but not reported NIH funding

Neuroscience research has historically demonstrated sex bias that favors male over female research subjects, as well as sex omission, which is the lack of reporting sex. Here we analyzed the status of sex bias and omission in neuroscience research published across six different journals in 2017. Regarding sex omission, 16% of articles did not report sex. Regarding sex bias, 52% of neuroscience articles reported using both males and females, albeit only 15% of articles using both males and females reported assessing sex as an experimental variable. Overrepresentation of the sole use of males compared to females persisted (26% versus 5%, respectively). Sex bias and omission differed across research models, but not by reported NIH funding status. Sex omission differed across journals. These findings represent the latest information regarding the complex status of sex in neuroscience research and illustrate the continued need for thoughtful and informed action to enhance scientific discovery.

Transwomen in elite sport: scientific and ethical considerations

The inclusion of elite transwomen athletes in sport is controversial. The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women's division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women. Science demonstrates that high testosterone and other male physiology provides a performance advantage in sport suggesting that transwomen retain some of that advantage. To determine whether the advantage is unfair necessitates an ethical analysis of the principles of inclusion and fairness. Particularly important is whether the advantage held by transwomen is a tolerable or intolerable unfairness. We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness. This does not mean transwomen should be excluded from elite sport but that the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness.