4.4 Review

How age, sex and genotype shape the stress response

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF STRESS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages 44-56

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2016.11.004

Keywords

Stress; Stress models; Age; Sex differences; Genotype

Categories

Funding

  1. FEDER through the Operational Programme Competitiveness Factors - COMPETE
  2. National Funds through FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007038]
  3. Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE) under the PORTUGAL Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000013]
  4. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/72710/2010, SFRH/BD/69311/2010, ANR/NEU-OSD/0258/2012]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/69311/2010, FCT-ANR/NEU-OSD/0258/2012, SFRH/BPD/72710/2010] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exposure to chronic stress is a leading pre-disposing factor for several neuropsychiatric disorders as it often leads to maladaptive responses. The response to stressful events is heterogeneous, underpinning a wide spectrum of distinct changes amongst stress-exposed individuals'. Several factors can underlie a different perception to stressors and the setting of distinct coping strategies that will lead to individual differences on the susceptibility/resistance to stress. Beyond the factors related to the stressor itself, such as intensity, duration or predictability, there are factors intrinsic to the individuals that are relevant to shape the stress response, such as age, sex and genetics. In this review, we examine the contribution of such intrinsic factors to the modulation of the stress response based on experimental rodent models of response to stress and discuss to what extent that knowledge can be potentially translated to humans. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available