Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41348565›Full record

ArticleeLife2025

Sex differences in BNST signaling and BNST CRF in fear processing.

Olivia J Hon, Sofia Neira, Meghan E Flanigan, Alison V Roland, Christina M Caira, Tori Sides, Shannon L D'Ambrosio, Sophia I Lee, Yolanda Simpson, Michelle C Buccini and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors.

Olivia J HonBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Sofia NeiraBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Meghan E FlaniganBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Alison V RolandBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Christina M CairaBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Tori SidesBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Shannon L D'AmbrosioBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Sophia I LeeBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Yolanda SimpsonBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Michelle C BucciniBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Samantha MachinskiBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Waylin YuInscopix, Mountain View, United States.
Kristen M BoytBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.
Thomas L KashBowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4747-4495

Funding

NIAAA NIH HHS AA019454
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fear responses to perceived danger are critical for survival, as they prompt the individual to respond to threats and avoid harm. However, excessive fear can impede normal biological processes and become harmful. This study investigates the neural mechanisms underlying two distinct forms of fear-phasic and sustained-in male and female mice, with a focus on the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) and corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) signaling. Phasic fear is characterized by immediate responses to clear threats, while sustained fear is driven by ambiguous or uncertain cues and persists longer. Using rodent models, we found that sustained fear, modeled by partial fear conditioning, induced greater arousal and BNST activity in males, especially during ambiguous threat cues. In contrast, females exhibited reduced BNST and BNST

Indexed as

Corticotropin-Releasing HormoneFearSeptal NucleiSex CharacteristicsSignal TransductionAnimalsFemaleMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLSex FactorsCorticotropin-Releasing Hormonefearlearningmouseneurosciencepeptide

Identifiers

PMID41348565
PMCPMC12680374

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.