Cited by 40Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsNuclear Receptors and SignalingEstrogen and related hormone effects

Male/female differences in neuroprotection and neuromodulation of brain dopamine

Open access
Bourque, Mélanie·2011·Frontiers in Endocrinology

Abstract

The existence of a sex difference in Parkinson's disease (PD) is observed as related to several variables, including susceptibility of the disease, age at onset, and symptoms. These differences between men and women represent a significant characteristic of PD, which suggest that estrogens may exert beneficial effects against the development and the progression of the disease. This paper reviews the neuroprotective and neuromodulator effects of 17β-estradiol and progesterone as compared to androgens in the nigrostriatal dopaminergic (NSDA) system of both female and male rodents. The 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) mice model of PD and methamphetamine toxicity faithfully reproduce the sex differences of PD in that endogenous estrogen levels appear to influence the vulnerability to toxins targeting the NSDA system. Exogenous 17β-estradiol and/or progesterone treatments show neuroprotective properties against NSDA toxins while androgens fail to induce any beneficial effect. Sex steroid treatments show male and female differences in their neuroprotective action against methamphetamine toxicity. NSDA structure and function, as well as the distribution of estrogen receptors, show sex differences and may influence the susceptibility to the toxins and the response to sex steroids. Genomic and non-genomic actions of 17β-estradiol converge to promote survival factors and the presence of both estrogen receptors α and β are critical to 17β-estradiol neuroprotective action against MPTP toxicity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fendo.2011.00035

Cites

180 of 188 references verified8 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bourque, M.
Affiliations
Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
Corresponding author
Bourque, Mélanie
Venue
Frontiers in Endocrinology
Published
2011
Volume
2
Pages
35-35
ISSN
1664-2392 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2106644699
Cited by
40
References
180
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Endocrinology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nuclear Receptors and Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Estrogen and related hormone effects
Keywords
sex differences, Parkinson's disease, estradiol, progesterone, androgens, neuroprotection, neuromodulation, nigrostriatal pathway, MPTP-induced neurotoxicity, methamphetamine toxicity, estrogen receptor, sex steroids

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review