Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Re-Opening the Critical Window for Estrogen Therapy

Linda A. Bean, Ashok Kumar, Asha Rani, Mike Guidi, Awilda M. Rosario, Pedro E. Cruz, Todd E. Golde and Thomas C. Foster
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2015, 35 (49) 16077-16093; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1890-15.2015
Linda A. Bean
1Department of Neuroscience, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashok Kumar
1Department of Neuroscience, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Asha Rani
1Department of Neuroscience, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mike Guidi
2Noldus Information Technology, Leesburg, Virginia 20176, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Awilda M. Rosario
3Department of Neuroscience, Center for Translational Research in Neurodegenerative Disease, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida 32610
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pedro E. Cruz
3Department of Neuroscience, Center for Translational Research in Neurodegenerative Disease, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida 32610
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Todd E. Golde
3Department of Neuroscience, Center for Translational Research in Neurodegenerative Disease, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida 32610
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas C. Foster
1Department of Neuroscience, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Experimental timeline. Female Fischer 344 rats were received at 14 months of age and lavaged to examine the estrous cycle before removal of the ovaries at 15 months. Five to 6 weeks after OVX, the animals were behaviorally tested in the spatial water maze and assigned to ER or EB/oil treatment groups. Eight weeks later, 14 weeks after OVX, stereotaxic surgery was used to deliver viral vectors encoding ERα, ERβ, or GFP bilaterally into the dorsal hippocampi. The animals were allowed 1 week to recover and were then given cyclic injections of EB or oil for 5 weeks. Final behavioral assessment in the water maze was at 20 months of age and initiated 48 h after the seventh cycle of EB/oil treatment. Cyclic EB/oil treatments continued (1–7 additional cycles) and rats were sacrificed (Sac) 48 h after a final EB/oil treatment for electrophysiology, histology, and Western blot analysis.

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

    Plasmid maps. ESR1 cDNA for ERα expression (A) and ESR2 cDNA for ERβ expression (B) were cloned into vectors containing a CBA promoter with a CMV enhancer element. Plasmids were packaged into an AAV1 capsid before stereotaxic injections into the dorsal hippocampus of aged OVX female rats.

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

    Analysis of functionality and in vivo expression of viral vectors. A, Plasmids expressing cmyc-tagged ERα, cmyc-tagged ERβ, or GFP were cotransfected with an ERE-SEAP reporter plasmid in HEK293T cells with the addition of 1 or 10 nm EB treatment or vehicle. SEAP reporter levels were measured 24 h after application of treatments and compared with control groups. These results confirm functionality of the encoded ERs in vitro. Asterisks indicate a significant (p < 0.05) increase in SEAP expression relative to control. B, Western analysis of HEK293T cells treated with AAV-ERα, AAV-ERβ, or the GFP control virus. Top, For cells treated with AAV-ERα, antibodies for ERα (Ab17) and cmyc-tag (A21281) detected the 67 kDa full-length protein for ERα. Bottom, For cells treated with AAV-ERβ, antibodies for ERβ (H-150) and cmyc-tag (A21281) detected a band at ∼56 kDa. Note that HEK293T cells treated with the GFP virus exhibit a band at ∼56 kDa, which is increased in cultures treated with AAV-ERβ-cmyc. C, D, Immunofluorescent staining for the cmyc-tag, verified hippocampal expression of ERα and ERβ 4 weeks after injection of ER-encoding vectors. AAV-GFP was mixed with the ER virus in a 1:4 ratio to visualize distribution of expression vectors.

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

    Water maze Pretest indicates no initial difference in performance of the treatment groups. Rats were pseudorandomly assigned to ER and EB/oil treatment groups. For this and all subsequent figures, circle = ERα, triangle = ERβ, square = GFP, open = EB, and filled = oil. Five to 6 weeks after OVX and before virus injections, animals were tested on the cue task (A) and spatial discrimination task (B). The symbols indicate the mean escape distance (±SEM) for each training block. Individual DI scores and mean (bar) for the acquisition (C) and 24 h retention probe (D) trials. No group differences were observed. Across all groups, animals exhibited acquisition of a spatial discrimination with impaired retention 24 h later.

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

    Spatial discrimination performance after differential expression of ER and EB/oil treatment. A, Mean swim speed (+ SEM) across training Blocks 1–5 for EB (filled bars)- and oil (open bars)-treated animals. Symbols indicate the mean (±SEM). B, Escape path length to the submerged platform for the ER and treatment groups. C, Mean (±SEM) escape path length collapsed across EB/oil treatments (gray) for each ER group, illustrating the shortest and longest escape distances in ERα and ERβ groups, respectively. The asterisks indicate trial blocks during acquisition training with significant (p < 0.05) differences between ERβ and other groups.

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

    Expression of AAV-ERα in conjunction with EB treatment improved retention of spatial information for platform location. A–C, Bars represent the mean (±SEM) DI score calculated from performance on the probe trials for rats injected with AAV vectors encoding ERα, ERβ, or GFP and subsequently treated with EB (filled bars) or oil (open bars). A, Acquisition probe trial directly followed Block 4 of the spatial discrimination task. B, Retention probe trial followed a 1 h delay between Blocks 5 and 6. Superior performance was seen in EB-treated rats injected with the AAV expressing ERα. Asterisk indicates significant difference (p < 0.05). C, The probe trial immediately followed a refresher block the day after spatial training. The p-values above the bars indicate for differences between the ERα and GFP groups and animals with viral-mediated expression of ERβ.

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

    Expression of ERα, ERβ, or GFP and EB/oil treatments did not influence sensory-motor abilities examined as average swim speed (A) or distance (B) to find the visible platform across the training blocks on a cue discrimination task administered after the completion of the probe trial on day 2.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Expression of ERα in conjunction with EB treatment enhanced the NMDAR-synaptic response in the hippocampus of aged female rats. Input–output curves are illustrated for the mean slope of the total-fEPSP (A) and NMDAR-fEPSP (B). EB treatment was associated with an increase in the total-fEPSP response, which was particularly evident for animals that received AAV-ERα. After collection of the total-fEPSP, the NMDAR component of the synaptic response was isolated. In contrast to the total-fEPSP, the EB-mediated increase in NMDAR-fEPSP was specific to animals that received AAV-ERα. The insets in A and B show representative traces of synaptic responses from animals injected with AAV-GFP (top) and AAV-ERα (bottom) and treated with EB (black line) or oil (gray line). C, The ratio of the NMDAR-fEPSP/total-fEPSP for the highest stimulation intensities (32–40 V) was increased in the ERα + EB group. Asterisks indicate significant (p > 0.05) treatment effect, with greater NMDAR-fEPSP/total-fEPSP ratio in the ERα + EB group relative to the ERα + oil group. Pound signs indicate a significant ER group effect with a greater NMDAR-fEPSP/total-fEPSP ratio in ERα + EB group relative to GFP + EB group. The inset shows the total-fEPSP and isolation of NMDAR-fEPSP from the same slice.

  • Figure 9.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 9.

    Western blots and histology were used to confirm increased ER expression in neurons of the dorsal hippocampus. Immunofluorescent chemistry (A–C) showing expression of ERα within the CA1 region of the hippocampus. A, Merged image shows expression of AAV-ERα tagged with cmyc (green), and ERα (red). B, C, Cmyc (green) tagged to ERα was expressed mainly in neurons immunostained with a neural marker (NeuN, red; B), but not in astrocytes immunostained with the glial marker, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP, red; C). Images A–C were counterstained with the nuclear marker DAPI (blue). D, E, Western blots using an antibody selective against the human ERα (D) or rat ERα (E) confirmed a band at ∼67 kDa. Animals injected with virus carrying ERα exhibited increased expression of the human ERα and no difference was observed for endogenous ERα. F, G, An antibody against ERβ confirmed that the ERβ vector increased the expression of human ERβ (∼56 kDa; F) in the absence of a change in the 63 and 61 kDa bands (G). For these and subsequent Western blots, the numbers in or above the bars indicate the number of samples used in the analysis.

  • Figure 10.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 10.

    Western blots to assess the possible growth of dendritic spines in the CA1 region of the hippocampus for animals expressing ERα or GFP. The bars represent the means (±SEM) for the expression of the synaptic proteins PSD95 (A) and synaptophysin (B).

  • Figure 11.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 11.

    Western blots of glutamate receptor expression in the CA1 region of the hippocampus for animals expressing ERα or GFP. The bars represent the means (±SEM) for the expression of the NR2B subunit (A), the NR2A subunit (B), and the GluR1 subunit (C).

  • Figure 12.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 12.

    Western blots to assess possible changes in phosphorylation and kinase activity in the CA1 region of the hippocampus for animals expressing ERα or GFP. The bars represent the means (±SEM) for the phosphorylation of NR2B at S1303 (A), GluR1 at S831 (B), and ERK1/2 (C).

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 35 (49)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 35, Issue 49
9 Dec 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience 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.
Re-Opening the Critical Window for Estrogen Therapy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
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
Re-Opening the Critical Window for Estrogen Therapy
Linda A. Bean, Ashok Kumar, Asha Rani, Mike Guidi, Awilda M. Rosario, Pedro E. Cruz, Todd E. Golde, Thomas C. Foster
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2015, 35 (49) 16077-16093; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1890-15.2015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Re-Opening the Critical Window for Estrogen Therapy
Linda A. Bean, Ashok Kumar, Asha Rani, Mike Guidi, Awilda M. Rosario, Pedro E. Cruz, Todd E. Golde, Thomas C. Foster
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2015, 35 (49) 16077-16093; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1890-15.2015
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Keywords

  • aging
  • ERα and ERβ
  • estrogen
  • hippocampus
  • learning and memory
  • NMDA receptor

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

Articles

  • Choice Behavior Guided by Learned, But Not Innate, Taste Aversion Recruits the Orbitofrontal Cortex
  • Maturation of Spontaneous Firing Properties after Hearing Onset in Rat Auditory Nerve Fibers: Spontaneous Rates, Refractoriness, and Interfiber Correlations
  • Insulin Treatment Prevents Neuroinflammation and Neuronal Injury with Restored Neurobehavioral Function in Models of HIV/AIDS Neurodegeneration
Show more Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Decoding reach direction in early “visual” cortex of congenitally blind individuals
  • Signatures of Electrical Stimulation Driven Network Interactions in the Human Limbic System
  • Dissociable Neural Mechanisms Underlie the Effects of Attention on Visual Appearance and Response Bias
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • 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
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci 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 JNeurosci.