ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2024
Impacts of sex differences on optogenetic, chemogenetic, and calcium-imaging tools.
Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Semi-Automatic Tool for the Standardized Analysis of Fluorescent Intensity Changes in Polarized Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Sex-dependent modulation of behavioral allocation via ventral tegmental area-nucleus accumbens shell circuitry.NeuroImmune pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Technical innovation in neuroscience introduced powerful tools for measuring and manipulating neuronal activity via optical, chemogenetic, and calcium-imaging tools. These tools were initially tested primarily in male animals but are now increasingly being used in females as well. In this review, we consider how these tools may work differently in males and females. For example, we review sex differences in the metabolism of chemogenetic ligands and their downstream signaling effects. Optical tools more directly alter depolarization or hyperpolarization of neurons, but biological sex and gonadal hormones modulate synaptic inputs and intrinsic excitability. We review studies demonstrating that optogenetic manipulations are sometimes consistent across the rodent estrous cycle but within certain circuits; manipulations can vary across the ovarian cycle. Finally, calcium-imaging methods utilize genetically encoded calcium indicators to measure neuronal activity. Testosterone and estradiol can directly modulate calcium influx, and we consider these implications for interpreting the results of calcium-imaging studies. Together, our findings suggest that these neuroscientific tools may sometimes work differently in males and females and that users should be aware of these differences when applying these methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.