Back to Authors

McCarthy, Margaret M.

0000-0003-2243-4726

Mayo Clinic

University of Maryland, Baltimore

Citations 2

Sex Matters in Health and Disease: a review of biological sex differences with an emphasis on glioma
Whitmire, Paula , Doyle, Tatum E, Ippolito, Joseph E. , Mrugała, Maciej M. , Hu, Leland , Canoll, Peter , Fitzpatrick, Susan M., Swanson, Kristin R. , Swanson, Kristin R , Ippolito, Joseph E , Massey, Susan Christine , Anderson, Alexander R.A. , Wilson, Melissa A. , McCarthy, Margaret M. , Rubin, Joshua B

No container title available | May 9, 2019 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.7287/peerj.preprints.27716v1 Get It

Humans are sexually dimorphic, with sex being the most persistent difference among humans over the course of our evolutionary history. Beyond the visible sex differences that can be considered true dimorphisms, there are also sex differences at the molecular and cellular scales. The role of these biological sex differences for human health, while being increasingly recognized, have long been underappreciated and underexplored. Frequently, these differences are only recognized in sex–specific diseases, such as genitourinary diseases and cancers. However, given the evidence for sex differences in the most basic aspects of human biology, including metabolism, cellular composition, and immune activity, these differences could have consequences for the etiology and pathophysiology of a majority of diseases. It is thus essential to consider the extent to which these differences may influence the various mechanisms underlying disease processes, response to treatment, and the maintenance of health in order to better improve patient outcomes. Here we review the evidence for a broad array of biological sex differences in humans and discuss how they may relate to observed sex differences in various diseases, with an emphasis on cancer, specifically glioblastoma. We further propose that mathematical approaches can be useful for exploring the extent to which sex differences affect disease outcomes and accounting for those in the development of therapeutic strategies.
Considering sex as a biological variable in preclinical research
Miller, Leah, Marks, Cheryl L., Hurn, Patricia D., Woodruff, Teresa K. , Sohrabji, Farida , Schiebinger, Londa , Wetherington, Cora Lee, Makris, Susan L. , Arnold, Arthur P. , Einstein, Gillian , Miller, Virginia M. , Sandberg, Kathryn , Maier, Susan, Cornelison, Terri L., Becker, Jill B. , Chen, Wei‐Jung , McCarthy, Margaret M. , Clayton, Janine A. , Schiebinger, Londa

The FASEB Journal | September 28, 2016 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 29-34

10.1096/fj.201600781r Get It

In June 2015, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a Guide notice (NOT‐OD‐15–102) that highlighted the expectation of the NIH that the possible role of sex as a biologic variable be factored into research design, analyses, and reporting of vertebrate animal and human studies. Anticipating these guidelines, the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, in October 2014, convened key stakeholders to discuss methods and techniques for integrating sex as a biologic variable in preclinical research. The workshop focused on practical methods, experimental design, and approaches to statistical analyses in the use of both male and female animals, cells, and tissues in preclinical research. Workshop participants also considered gender as a modifier of biology. This article builds on the workshop and is meant as a guide to preclinical investigators as they consider methods and techniques for inclusion of both sexes in preclinical research and is not intended to prescribe exhaustive/specific approaches for compliance with the new NIH policy.—Miller, L. R., Marks, C., Becker, J.B., Hurn, P.D., Chen, W.‐J., Woodruff, T., McCarthy, M.M., Sohrabji, F., Schiebinger, L., Wetherington, C.L., Makris, S., Arnold, A. P., Einstein, G., Miller, V. M., Sandberg, K., Maier, S., Cornelison, T. L., Clayton, J. A. Considering sex as a biological variable in preclinical research. FASEB J. 31, 29–34 (2017) www.fasebj.org