Literature DB >> 30038313

It is time to integrate sex as a variable in preclinical and clinical studies.

Heisook Lee1,2, Youngmi Kim Pak3, Eui-Ju Yeo4, Yong Sung Kim5, Hee Young Paik1,6, Suk Kyeong Lee7.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30038313      PMCID: PMC6056479          DOI: 10.1038/s12276-018-0122-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Mol Med        ISSN: 1226-3613            Impact factor:   8.718


× No keyword cloud information.
Clinical studies have historically been largely composed of male subjects, even though physiology and disease pathology between men and women may differ beyond just their reproductive organs[1]. As a result, drug side effects that may affect women preferentially—or more drastically—have often not been discovered until after marketing approval[2]. Importantly, the situation continues to improve as females become better represented in clinical trials. The use of animals and/or cells to investigate disease pathophysiology or the therapeutic potential of experimental drugs optimizes clinical trial design. Clinical trials have often failed to confirm the expected benefits of new drugs that show favorable benefit:risk profiles in preclinical studies. These failures may be due to the fact that preclinical studies are often conducted on only male animals, while clinical trials include both men and women. Thus, better monitoring for potential differences in the efficacy and side effects of a drug based on the sex of subjects during preclinical studies may maximize the success rate of clinical drug development. Few animal experiments use both sexes, and subgroup analyses (by sex) are not reported even if experiments do include both sexes[3]. Additionally, few scientists consider that the sex of cells can impact experimental results (e.g., cell proliferation, differentiation, response to stimulus, and apoptosis)[4]. Recently, funding agencies including the European Commission (EC), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have taken steps to integrate sex and gender into the whole research process (i.e., study design and preclinical/clinical study reports)[5]. In 2016, Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines were published for an equitable approach to gender medicine[6]. Accordingly, influential scientific journals are revising their editorial policies requiring clear reporting of the sex/gender of research subjects (including cells, animal models, and humans) and to analyze data by sex[7]. Experimental & Molecular Medicine would also benefit from revised guidelines reflecting these changes. The guidelines may include the following: (1) Correct usage of the terms “sex” and “gender”. Sex is related to reproductive organs, hormones, and chromosomal complement. Sex is used for both humans and animals and refers to the whole organism or related materials (e.g., cells or tissue). Gender is generally used only for humans and refers to socio-culturally constructed roles, norms, identities, and power relations that shape “feminine” and “masculine” behaviors[8]. (2) Clear reporting on sex/gender of research subjects. (3) An effort to balance the male to female ratio in animal experiments; if that is not possible, discuss the limitation of the study or provide scientific rationale for using only one sex of animals. The need to integrate sex and gender as biological variables in basic, preclinical, and clinical studies should no longer be overlooked in unbiased and reproducible research. Researchers often refer to previously published papers when setting up research hypotheses, designing experiments, and interpreting results. As more papers that consider sex as a biological variable are published, more researchers will consider sex differences in their studies and accelerate these changes.
  6 in total

1.  In pursuit of scientific excellence: sex matters.

Authors:  Virginia M Miller
Journal:  Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 4.052

Review 2.  Immune cells have sex and so should journal articles.

Authors:  Sabra L Klein
Journal:  Endocrinology       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 4.736

3.  Sex And Gender Equity in Research (SAGER): reporting guidelines as a framework of innovation for an equitable approach to gender medicine. Commentary.

Authors:  Paola De Castro; Shirin Heidari; Thomas F Babor
Journal:  Ann Ist Super Sanita       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.663

Review 4.  Sex Differences in Human and Animal Toxicology.

Authors:  Michael Gochfeld
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 1.902

5.  Sloppy reporting on animal studies proves hard to change.

Authors:  Martin Enserink
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 6.  Balance of the Sexes: Addressing Sex Differences in Preclinical Research.

Authors:  Yasmin Zakiniaeiz; Kelly P Cosgrove; Marc N Potenza; Carolyn M Mazure
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2016-06-27
  6 in total
  5 in total

Review 1.  Understanding sex differences in the regulation of cancer-induced muscle wasting.

Authors:  Ryan N Montalvo; Brittany R Counts; James A Carson
Journal:  Curr Opin Support Palliat Care       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.302

2.  Recent developments in in vitro and in vivo models for improved translation of preclinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data.

Authors:  Jaydeep Yadav; Mehdi El Hassani; Jasleen Sodhi; Volker M Lauschke; Jessica H Hartman; Laura E Russell
Journal:  Drug Metab Rev       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 6.984

3.  Sexual dimorphism of gut microbiota at different pubertal status.

Authors:  Xin Yuan; Ruimin Chen; Ying Zhang; Xiangquan Lin; Xiaohong Yang
Journal:  Microb Cell Fact       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 5.328

Review 4.  Sex Differences in Gut Microbiota.

Authors:  Yong Sung Kim; Tatsuya Unno; Byung Yong Kim; Mi Sung Park
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 5.400

Review 5.  Recovering from depression with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies.

Authors:  Luisa De Risio; Marta Borgi; Mauro Pettorruso; Andrea Miuli; Angela Maria Ottomana; Antonella Sociali; Giovanni Martinotti; Giuseppe Nicolò; Simone Macrì; Massimo di Giannantonio; Francesca Zoratto
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 6.222

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.