Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29385171›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Sex differences in circadian food anticipatory activity are not altered by individual manipulations of sex hormones or sex chromosome copy number in mice.

Antonio Aguayo, Camille S Martin, Timothy F Huddy, Maya Ogawa-Okada, Jamie L Adkins, Andrew D Steele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Multiple oscillators underlie circadian food anticipation in mice.Neurobiology of sleep and circadian rhythms · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Sexes on the brain: Sex as multiple biological variables in the neuronal control of feeding.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Antonio AguayoDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, CA, United States of America.
Camille S MartinDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, CA, United States of America.
Timothy F HuddyDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, CA, United States of America.
Maya Ogawa-OkadaDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, CA, United States of America.
Jamie L AdkinsDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, CA, United States of America.
Andrew D SteeleDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State Polytechnic University Pomona, Pomona, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8777-4970

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies in mice have demonstrated a sexual dimorphism in circadian entrainment to scheduled feeding. On a time restricted diet, males tend to develop food anticipatory activity (FAA) sooner than females and with a higher amplitude of activity. The underlying cause of this sex difference remains unknown. One study suggests that sex hormones, both androgens and estrogens, modulate food anticipatory activity in mice. Here we present results suggesting that the sex difference in FAA is unrelated to gonadal sex hormones. While a sex difference between males and females in FAA on a timed, calorie restricted diet was observed there were no differences between intact and gonadectomized mice in the onset or magnitude of FAA. To test other sources of the sex difference in circadian entrainment to scheduled feeding, we used sex chromosome copy number mutants, but there was no difference in FAA when comparing XX, XY-, XY-;Sry Tg, and XX;Sry Tg mice, demonstrating that gene dosage of sex chromosomes does not mediate the sex difference in FAA. Next, we masculinized female mice by treating them with 17-beta estradiol during the neonatal period; yet again, we saw no difference in FAA between control and masculinized females. Finally, we observed that there was no longer a sex difference in FAA for older mice, suggesting that the sex difference in FAA is age-dependent. Thus, our study demonstrates that singular manipulations of gonadal hormones, sex chromosomes, or developmental patterning are not able to explain the difference in FAA between young male and female mice.

Indexed as

FoodSex CharacteristicsAnimalsAnticipation, PsychologicalCircadian RhythmEstradiolFemaleGene DosageGonadal Steroid HormonesMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLSex ChromosomesEstradiolGonadal Steroid Hormones

Identifiers

PMID29385171
PMCPMC5792018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.