Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Disorders of the Nervous System

Ovarian Cycle Stages Modulate Alzheimer-Related Cognitive and Brain Network Alterations in Female Mice

Lauren Broestl, Kurtresha Worden, Arturo J. Moreno, Emily J. Davis, Dan Wang, Bayardo Garay, Tanya Singh, Laure Verret, Jorge J. Palop and Dena B. Dubal
eNeuro 3 December 2018, 5 (6) ENEURO.0132-17.2018; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0132-17.2018
Lauren Broestl
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lauren Broestl
Kurtresha Worden
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kurtresha Worden
Arturo J. Moreno
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily J. Davis
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
2Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emily J. Davis
Dan Wang
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bayardo Garay
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bayardo Garay
Tanya Singh
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laure Verret
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
4Gladstone Institute of Neurological Disease, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Laure Verret
Jorge J. Palop
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
2Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
3Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
4Gladstone Institute of Neurological Disease, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jorge J. Palop
Dena B. Dubal
1Department of Neurology and Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
2Biomedical Sciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Francisco, California 94158
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Dena B. Dubal
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Extended Data
  • Figure1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Altered ovarian cycling in female hAPP mice. A, Representative images of vaginal cytology classified as proestrus (nucleated epithelial cells), estrus (cornified squamous epithelial cells), metestrus (mix of cell types), or diestrus (leukocytes). Scale bar, 50 μm. B, Ratio of estradiol (pg/ml) to progesterone (ng/ml; E/P) at each stage of the mouse estrous cycle, adapted from characterized hormone levels (Walmer et al., 1992; Fig. 1-1). C, Quantification of the number of ovarian cycles spanning ∼3 weeks in NTG and hAPP mice. D, Quantification of cycle length in days for NTG and hAPP mice during this same period. E, Percentage time spent in stages of the cycle with a High E/P ratio (proestrus, estrus). **p < 0.01c. F, Number of pups per litter born to NTG and hAPP female mice. G, Representative estrous cycles in female NTG and hAPP mice. The dashed line represents a demarcation between High E/P and Low E/P cycle stages (n = 12–18 mice per genotype for C–F, age 2.5–4 months). Data are mean ± SEM. See also Figure 1-1.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Proestrus increases spontaneous epileptiform activity in female hAPP mice. NTG and hAPP female mice were cycled to determine ovarian cycle stage (Pro, Est, Met, Di) and another group was Gnx. All groups underwent network activity analysis with EEG. A, Representative EEG traces from NTG and hAPP female mice during Low E/P (metestrus/diestrus), High E/P (proestrus/estrus), and Gnx states. B, Number of spikes graphed by hour from 15:00 to 05:00 in proestrus (red), Low E/P (metestrus/diestrus; blue), and Gnx (black) hAPP mice. Mixed-model ANOVA: ovarian status by hour interaction p < 0.01e1, ovarian status effect ***p < 0.0001e2; p < 0.0001e3 High E/P (proestrus) vs Low E/P (metestrus/diestrus), p < 0.05e4 High E/P (proestrus) versus Gnx. C, Number of spikes during representative hours before (15:00) and after (03:00) E2 surge. One-way ANOVA: after E2 surge, p = 0.01f3, *p < 0.05 versus Low E/P (metestrus/diestrus)f4 and Gnxf5 or as indicated by bracketf1. (n = 3–5 mice per genotype, age 2.5–4 months). Data are mean ± SEM.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    High E/P ovarian cycle stages, proestrus and estrus, worsen fear memory in female hAPP but not NTG mice. NTG and hAPP female mice were cycled to determine ovarian cycle stage (Pro, Est, Met, Di) and another group was Gnx. All groups were tested in the passive avoidance task. A, Latency to enter the dark chamber during training in NTG and hAPP female mice by ovarian status: High E/P (proestrus/estrus), Low E/P (metestrus/diestrus), and Gnx. B, Latency to enter the dark chamber during testing (minus latency during training) in NTG and hAPP female mice by ovarian status. Two-way ANOVA: ovarian status by genotype interaction, p < 0.05h1, *p < 0.05 versus NTGh5 or as indicated by bracketh4. Dashed line indicates average of Gnx group. C, Correlation between percentage of time spent in High E/P (proestrus/estrus) over a 3 week period and latency to enter the dark chamber in intact mice; R 2 = 0.714. (n = 4–9 mice per group for A and B; n = 9–12 mice per group for C; age 2.5-4 months). Data are mean ± SEM.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Proestrus and estrus, High E/P ovarian cycle stages, worsen spatial and working memory in female hAPP but not NTG mice. NTG and hAPP female mice were cycled to determine ovarian cycle stage (Pro, Est, Met, Di). All groups were then tested in the two-trial Y-maze that assesses exploration of a familiar and novel arm of the maze. A, Distance (meters) traveled in novel (black bars) and familiar (white bars) arms of the two-trial Y-maze during testing. Total distance did not differ across groups (Fig. 4-1). B, Percentage of time spent in the novel arm. **p < 0.01j1-2, *p < 0.05j5 as indicated by brackets (A) or versus NTG values (two-tailed one-sample t tests) in B. Dashed gray line is NTG average of percentage time in novel arm (n = 5–13 mice per group, age 3.5–5.5 months). Data are mean ± SEM. See also Figure 4-1.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Proestrus and estrus, High E/P cycle stages, worsen locomotor hyperactivity in female hAPP but not NTG mice as detected in the context of an open field. NTG and hAPP female mice were cycled to determine ovarian cycle stage (Pro, Est, Met, Di) and another group was Gnx. All groups underwent testing in the open-field apparatus. Total number of movements during exploration of an open field in NTG and hAPP female mice by ovarian status: High E/P (proestrus/estrus), Low E/P (metestrus/diestrus), and Gnx. Two-way ANOVA: ovarian status effect, p < 0.05k2; genotype effect, p < 0.0001k3. *p < 0.05 as indicated by bracketk4. (n = 3–11 mice per group, age 2.5–4 months). Data are mean ± SEM.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Levels of Aβ1-42 surge in the hippocampus of hAPP female mice during proestrus. NTG and hAPP female mice were cycled to determine ovarian cycle stage (Pro, Est, Met, Di) and another group was Gnx. Hippocampal homogenates were assessed for hAPP and pathogenic proteins related to AD. A, Aβ1-42 levels determined by ELISA in hAPP mice at each stage of the ovarian cycle. B, Aβ1-42 levels during metestrus/diestrus compared to proestrus (n = 4–13 mice per group, age 2.5–4 months). **p < 0.01 versus metestrus/diestrus.l C, Relative hAPP mRNA levels determined by qPCR in hAPP mice at each stage of the ovarian cycle. D, Relative hAPP mRNA levels during metestrus/diestrus compared to proestrus (n = 4–14 mice per group, age 2.5–4 months). E, Representative Western blot showing hippocampal levels of hAPP, total mouse tau, phosphorylated mouse tau, and the loading control actin, in metestrus/diestrus, proestrus, and Gnx NTG and hAPP mice. F–H, Relative hAPP (F), total Tau (G), and phosphorylated Tau (H) protein levels determined by Western blot in hAPP mice during metestrus/diestrus compared to proestrus. All values are relative to Gnx hAPP levels as represented by dashed gray lines. (n = 7–13 mice per group for F–H; age 2.5–4 months). Data are mean ± SEM.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Estradiol treatment worsens excitotoxicity and seizure-associated death in gonadectomized female hAPP mice and attenuates these measures in gonadectomized female NTG mice. Gnx NTG and Gnx hAPP female mice were treated (i.p.) with 100 μl vehicle (Veh) or 5 μg in 100 μl of 17β-estradiol benzoate (E2), a dose that mimics in vivo levels of estradiol during proestrus (Akinci and Johnston, 1997); 24 h later, mice were injected with 35 mg/kg (i.p.) of GABA-A receptor blocker PTZ. Behavioral activity using the Racine’s seizure scale was monitored for 20 min and scored from 1 (pausing) to 8 (death). A, Latency to reach increasing levels of seizure severity following PTZ injection in Gnx NTG and Gnx hAPP female mice treated with Vehicle or E2. Increased latencies indicate greater resistance to seizure, whereas decreased latencies indicate greater susceptibility to seizure. Mixed model ANOVA: genotype by treatment effect, p < 0.05q. B, Latency to reach increasing levels of seizure severity in Gnx NTG and Gnx hAPP female mice treated with Vehicle or E2, averaged across late seizure stages (Stages 4–8). Two-way ANOVA: genotype by treatment interaction, p < 0.05r1, genotype effect, p < 0.01r2. **p < 0.01 as indicated by bracket.r4 C, Percentage seizure-induced death in NTG and hAPP female mice treated with Vehicle or E2. **p < 0.01s1. D, Aβ1-42 levels of hAPP mice treated with either Vehicle or E2 24h before PTZ-induced seizures. *p < 0.05t (n = 7–8 mice per group for A–C, age 6–7 months; n = 10–11 mice per group for D, age 2–4.5 months). Data are mean ± SEM.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Extended Data
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Paper statistics

    FigureComparisonData structure (Shapiro–Wilk normality test unless otherwise stated)Type of testStatisticConfidence, 95% CI
    a1CNTG vs hAPPNormal distribution (D’Agostino & Pearson normality test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Unpaired two-tailed t testt = 0.04476 df = 29p = 0.9646; CI: −0.8191 to 0.7841
    b1DNTG vs hAPPNormal distribution (D’Agostino & Pearson Normality Test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Unpaired two-tailed t testt = 0.3928 df = 27p = 0.6975; CI: −0.9669 to 1.425
    c1ENTG vs hAPPNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 3.093 df = 28p = 0.0045; CI: −15.53 to -3.156
    d1FNTG vs hAPPNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 0.1181 df = 31p = 0.9067; CI: −2.015 to 1.794
    e12BOvarian status by hour interactionNormal distributionMixed-model ANOVAF(22,88) = 2.05p = 0.0097
    e22BOvarian status effectNormal distributionMixed Model ANOVAF(2,110) = 20.89p < 0.0001
    e32BMetestrus/Diestrus vs ProestrusNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Corrected p < 0.0001; CI: −18.615 to -9.899
    e42BProestrus vs GnxNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Corrected p = 0.0156; CI: 4.538 to 32.026
    e52BMetestrus/Diestrus vs GnxNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Corrected p = 0.5581; CI: −9.719 to 17.769
    f12CProestrus after vs beforeNormal distributionPaired one-tailed t testt = 3.851 df = 2p = 0.0307; CI: 8.136 to ∞
    f22CBefore E2 surgeNormal distributionOne-way ANOVAF(2,8) = 0.2880p = 0.7572
    f32CAfter E2 surgeNormal distributionOne-way ANOVAF(2,8) = 8.534p = 0.0104
    f42CAfter surge: metestrus/diestrus vs proestrusNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 3.129 df = 8p = 0.0421; CI: −66.77 to -1.234
    f52CAfter surge: proestrus vs GnxNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 3.986 df = 8p = 0.0121; CI: 9.427 to 68.04
    f62CAfter surge: metestrus/diestrus vs GnxNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 0.4871 df = 8p > 0.9999; CI: −24.57 to 34.04
    g13AOvarian status by genotype interactionNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(2,34) = 1.365p = 0.2690
    g23AOvarian status effectNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(2,34) = 1.776p = 0.1846
    g33AGenotype effectNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(1,34) = 0.01396p = 0.9066
    g43A,BTraining vs testing latencyNormal distributionLinear regressionF(1,35) =1.559p = 0.2202; p = 0.1049-0.7498 for each experimental group
    h13BOvarian status by genotype interactionNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(2,31) = 4.88p = 0.0144
    h23BOvarian status effectNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(2,31) = 0.497p = 0.631
    h33BGenotype effectNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(1,31) = 2.323p = 0.1376
    h43BhAPP-High E/P vs hAPP-Low E/PNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 3.126 df = 6p = 0.041; CI: −186.5 to −22.73
    h53BhAPP-High E/P vs NTG-High E/PNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 3.969 df = 6p = 0.022; CI: −211.1 to −50.07
    h63BhAPP-Low E/P vs NTG-Low E/PNormal distributionBonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 1.149 df = 10p = 0.275; CI: −34.47 to 107.8
    h73BGnx hAPP vs Gnx NTG, Reference for Cycling MiceNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 0.04699 df = 15p = 0.9631; CI: −71.92 to 68.82
    i13ChAPP: % Time in High E/P & LatencyNormal distributionLinear regressionR 2 = 0.7144p = 0.0041; CI (slope): −5.078 to −1.411
    i23CNTG: % Time in High E/P & LatencyNormal distributionLinear regressionR 2 = 1.334e-005p = 0.9910; CI (slope): −3.702 to 3.664
    j14ANTG-High E/P: Novel vs FamiliarNormal distributionPaired one-tailed t testt = 3.367 df = 9p = 0.0042; CI: 0.5634 to ∞
    j24ANTG-Low E/P: Novel vs FamiliarNormal distributionPaired one-tailed t testt = 7.912 df = 3p = 0.0021; CI: 1.212 to ∞
    j34AhAPP-High E/P: Novel vs FamiliarNormal distributionPaired one-tailed t testt = 0.9654 df = 11p = 0.1775; CI: −0.3776 to ∞
    j44AhAPP-Low E/P: Novel vs FamiliarFamiliar: normal distribution; Novel : not-normal (p = 0.0167)Paired one-tailed t testt = 2.066 df = 6p = 0.0422; CI: 0.05542 to ∞
    j54BhAPP-High E/P vs theoretical mean (31.33)Normal distributionTwo-tailed one sample t testt = 2.525 df = 11p = 0.0282; CI: −6.665 to -0.4568
    j64-1Ovarian status effectNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(1,35) = 0.5209p = 0.4752
    j74-1Genotype effectNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(1,35) = 1.448p = 0.2370
    j84-1Ovarian status by genotype interactionNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAF(1,35) = 0.17p = 0.6826
    k15Ovarian status by genotype interactionNormal distribution except hAPP Met/Di (p = 0.0382)Two-way ANOVAF(2,41) = 0.9277p = 0.4036
    k25Ovarian status effectNormal distribution except hAPP Met/Di (p = 0.0382)Two-way ANOVAF(2,41) = 3.501p = 0.0395
    k35Genotype effectNormal distribution except hAPP Met/Di (p = 0.0382)Two-way ANOVAF(1,41) = 36.95p < 0.0001
    k45hAPP-High E/P vs hAPP-Low E/PNormal distribution except hAPP Met/Di (p = 0.0382)Unpaired two-tailed t testt = 2.559 df = 8p = 0.0337; CI: −1211 to −62.90
    l6BhAPP Met/Di vs ProestrusNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 4.319 df = 10p = 0.0015; CI: −0.8811 to −0.2814
    m6DhAPP Met/Di vs ProestrusNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 1.107 df = 11p = 0.2921; CI: −0.1201 to 0.3628
    n6FhAPP Met/Di vs ProestrusNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 1.798 df = 10p = 0.1024; CI: −0.4675 to 0.04995
    o6GhAPP Met/Di vs ProestrusNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 0.4533 df = 11p = 0.6591; CI: −0.3629 to 0.2389
    p6HhAPP Met/Di vs ProestrusNormal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 0.149 df = 11p = 0.8842; CI: −0.5582 to 0.4874
    q7AGenotype by Treatment InteractionNormal distribution (D’Agostino & Pearson normality test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Linear mixed-model p = 0.017; CI: −829.9 to -80.8
    r17BGenotype by treatment interactionNormal distribution for NTG and hAPP Veh; N too small to determine if Gaussian for NTG and hAPP E2 (D’Agostino & Pearson normality test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Two-way ANOVAF(1,26) = 5.157p = 0.0317
    r27BGenotype effectNormal distribution for NTG and hAPP Veh; N too small to determine if Gaussian for NTG and hAPP E2 (D'Agostino & Pearson normality test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Two-way ANOVAF(1,26) = 7.982p = 0.009
    r37BTreatment effectNormal distribution for NTG and hAPP Veh; N too small to determine if Gaussian for NTG and hAPP E2 (D’Agostino & Pearson normality test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Two-way ANOVAF(1,26) = 0.7303p = 0.4006
    r47BGnx-E2: NTG vs hAPPNormal distribution for NTG and hAPP Veh; N too small to determine if Gaussian for NTG and hAPP E2 (D’Agostino & Pearson normality test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Bonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 3.701 df = 12p = 0.006; CI: 301.7 to 1165
    r57BGnx-Veh: NTG vs hAPPNormal distribution for NTG and hAPP Veh; N too small to determine if Gaussian for NTG and hAPP E2 (D’Agostino & Pearson normality test chosen due to multiple duplicate values)Bonferroni–Holm Correctedt = 0.3877 df = 14p = 0.7041; CI: −521.3 to 361.7
    s17CGnx-E2: NTG vs hAPPCategorical dataχ2 TestPearson χ2(1,n = 14) = 7.7778p = 0.005
    s27CGnx-Veh: NTG vs hAPPCategorical dataχ2 TestPearson χ2(1,n = 16) = 0.2909p = 0.590
    t7DGnx-hAPP: Veh vs E2Normal distributionUnpaired two-tailed t testt = 2.239 df = 19p = 0.0373; CI: −0.6 to −0.02019

Extended Data

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Figure 1-1

    Estradiol to progesterone ratio across the mouse estrous cycle. A, B, Ratio of estradiol to progesterone at (A) each stage of the mouse estrous cycle and (B) averaged across High E/P (proestrus and estrus) and Low E/P (metestrus and diestrus) stages. C, Hormone levels used to calculate ratios, adapted from Walmer et al. (1992). Download Figure 1-1, EPS file

  • Figure 4-1

    Total distance traveled in the two trial Y-maze does not differ between groups. Total distance (meters) traveled in the two trial Y-maze during testing of NTG and (hAPP transgenic mice grouped by those in high estrogen phase (High E/P) status (proestrus/estrus) and low estrogen phase (Low E/P; metestrus/diestrus). Two-way ANOVA: ovarian phase status effect, p = 0.475j6; genotype effect, p = 0.237j7; interaction effect, p = 0.683j8. n = 6–14 mice per group, age 3.5–5.5 months. Download Figure 4-1, EPS file

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 6
November/December 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ovarian Cycle Stages Modulate Alzheimer-Related Cognitive and Brain Network Alterations in Female Mice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Ovarian Cycle Stages Modulate Alzheimer-Related Cognitive and Brain Network Alterations in Female Mice
Lauren Broestl, Kurtresha Worden, Arturo J. Moreno, Emily J. Davis, Dan Wang, Bayardo Garay, Tanya Singh, Laure Verret, Jorge J. Palop, Dena B. Dubal
eNeuro 3 December 2018, 5 (6) ENEURO.0132-17.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0132-17.2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Ovarian Cycle Stages Modulate Alzheimer-Related Cognitive and Brain Network Alterations in Female Mice
Lauren Broestl, Kurtresha Worden, Arturo J. Moreno, Emily J. Davis, Dan Wang, Bayardo Garay, Tanya Singh, Laure Verret, Jorge J. Palop, Dena B. Dubal
eNeuro 3 December 2018, 5 (6) ENEURO.0132-17.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0132-17.2018
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Alzheimer’s disease
  • estrogen
  • hormones
  • mice
  • network
  • sex

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
  • Hsc70 Ameliorates the Vesicle Recycling Defects Caused by Excess α-Synuclein at Synapses
Show more New Research

Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Investigating the Role of Cortical Microglia in a Mouse Model of Viral Infection-Induced Seizures
  • Functional-Structural Coupling: Brain Reorganization in Presbycusis Is Related to Cognitive Impairment
  • GABAB Receptor signaling in CA1 Pyramidal Cells is not Regulated by Aging in the APP/PS1 Mouse Model of Amyloid Pathology
Show more Disorders of the Nervous System

Subjects

  • Disorders of the Nervous System
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.