4.7 Review

Defining Valid Chronic Stress Models for Depression With Female Rodents

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 90, 期 4, 页码 226-235

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.03.010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR PJT-156024]
  2. New Frontiers in Research Fund [NFRFE-2018-00514]
  3. Ludmer Centre for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women are twice as likely to experience depression than men, but previous studies have predominantly focused on male rodents. As interest in sex differences grows, new chronic stress models are being applied to female rodents, though not all have been systematically validated.
Women are twice as likely to experience depression than men, yet until recently, preclinical studies in rodents have focused almost exclusively on males. As interest in sex differences and sex-specific mechanisms of stress susceptibility increases, chronic stress models for inducing depression-relevant behavioral and physiological changes in male rodents are being applied to females, and several new models have emerged to include both males and females, yet not all models have been systematically validated in females. An increasing number of researchers seek to include female rodents in their experimental designs, asking the question what is the ideal chronic stress model for depression in females? We review criteria for assessing female model validity in light of key research questions and the fundamental distinction between studying sex differences and studying both sexes. In overviewing current models, we explore challenges inherent to establishing an ideal female chronic stress model, with particular emphasis on the need for standardization and adoption of validated behavioral tests sensitive to stress effects in females. Taken together, these considerations will empower female chronic stress models to provide a better understanding of stress susceptibility and allow the development of efficient sex-specific treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据