A Hidden Awakening in The Brain May Explain Why Females Age Slower
A new study has found evidence in both mice and humans that as we age, 'sleeping' X chromosomes can be 'awakened' in brain cells critical to learning and memory.
The overlooked influence of this genetic library could be a key reason why females live longer than males and exhibit slower cognitive aging.
"In typical aging, women have a brain that looks younger, with fewer cognitive deficits compared to men," explains neurologist Dena Dubal from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
"These results show that the silent X in females actually reawakens late in life, probably helping to slow cognitive decline."
The X chromosome harbors about 5 percent of the human genome, and it is largely understudied in the aging brain, explain Dubal and her co-authors from UCSF, led by neurologist Margaret Gadek.
Female mammals possess two X chromosomes - one from each parent – but in each cell of the body, a random one of those chromosomes is silenced and the other is activated.
Some select genes from the X chromosome, however, can escape inactivation, and evidence suggests that as we grow older, more X chromosomes are not held down by genetic 'gag orders'.
This means that the expression of both X chromosomes could potentially drive the different ways that male and female brains age.
To test that idea, researchers investigated brain cells in the female hippocampus, which is a brain region strongly involved in learning, memory, and emotional processing.
First, the team studied mice with X chromosomes from two different rodent 'strains', Mus musculus and M. castaneus. In their models, the X chromosome in M. musculus is missing an important gene, called Xist, which means it cannot be silenced like usual.
This means in some of their offspring the M. castaneus X chromosome is always the one getting deactivated, so if its genetic effects show up in brain cells, then it is considered an "escapee".
Using RNA sequencing, researchers looked at the nuclei of 40,000 hippocampal cells in four young and four old female mice to figure out which X chromosome is active.
Readings that rose from the X were 91.7 percent M. musculus and 8.3 percent M. castaneus. Because the M. castaneus X chromosome was supposed to be silenced, this suggests between 3 and 7 percent of its genes somehow escaped inactivation.
This was true of most cell types in the mouse hippocampus, and more so in older brains. The cells most likely to express genes of the inactive X include dentate gyrus neurons, which play a critical role in memory, and oligodendrocytes, which support the formation of neural connections.
To see if these findings extend to human brains, researchers at UCSF looked through previously published data on inactive X genes that change with age in at least one or more types of brain cells.
Around half of the aging-induced targets identified on the inactivated X chromosome caused human intellectual disability if mutated. This suggests that the inactivated X chromosome carries genes enriched for cognition-related factors.
One of these genes, called PLP1, particularly increases its expression with age in the neurons, oligodendrocytes, and astrocytes of the dentate gyrus. The PLP1 gene expresses a protein involved in the formation of myelin sheaths that surround neurons and allow them to send messages more efficiently.
"In parallel to mice, older women showed increased PLP1 expression in the parahippocampus, compared to older men," the authors explain.
Increasing the expression of the PLP1 gene in male and female mice improved cognition in the aging brain, enhancing learning and memory in the animal models. This could be a possible target for future treatments of brain aging.
"The study of female-specific biology is historically underrepresented in science and medicine but is essential and expanding fervently," the team concludes.
"What X activation broadly means for women's brain health – or for other systems of the body – is now a critical area of investigation."
The study was published in Science Advances.
Men Have Higher Risk of Parkinson's, And We May Finally Know Why
An Ancient Disease Has Reappeared in The US. This Could Be Why.
Daylight Saving Disrupts Millions of Americans. There's a Better Way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Two Thirds Of Trash Found In Global Rivers Is Plastic, Study Finds
Pieces of plastic, including bottles, bags, straws and cutlery, make up two thirds of the rubbish found in rivers around the world, according to a new analysis. The research by experts at the University of California, Santa Barbara, used on-the-ground data from Mexico, Jamaica, Panama, Ecuador, Kenya, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia. Over the three-year period, local teams collectively removed and analyzed 3.8 million kilograms of river debris, the equivalent to 380,000,000 single-use plastic water bottles, with 66% classified as microplastic. The researchers also found substantial variation in the amount of plastic pollution intercepted in rivers studied, but all contained plastic debris of some sort. Based on their findings, researchers now estimate 1.95 million metric tons of travels down rivers worldwide every year. The study has been published as negotiators in Geneva failed to reach an agreement on an international treaty to curb plastic pollution. Lead author, Chase Brewster, a project scientist in University of California, Santa Barbara's Benioff Ocean Science Laboratory, said it was largest continuous dataset, which has ever been produced on the subject of plastic pollution in rivers, in an interview. Brewster added the research helps underline and scope and the scale of the issue around the world. 'This problem is not going away and it is global,' he told me. 'We should not be ignoring in this day and age the fact two thirds of everything coming down our rivers is now plastic.' Brewster said the researchers on the project also engaged with local communities and he hoped the data would help them take targeted action 'The more involved and engaged people are, and the more empowered they feel in their communities, the more likely they are to change behavior and influence legislation in their areas. 'More often than not, these communities are not trying to pollute. It's the larger institutions who are failing them. There's no access to waste management services, or other options.' Brewster said the report makes a number of recommendations, including creating more of a value for plastic waste to discourage people from throwing it away and letting it go to waste. He added one of the big problems is that it is still cheaper to produce virgin plastic than it is to make recycled plastic, so there need to be incentives like bottle deposit fees, and virgin production caps to create better market conditions for a circular economy. The study also calls for greater support for the informal waste-picking sector in certain parts of the world and more investment in waste management and recycling infrastructure and services. It also recommends more consistent and more transparent monitoring and data collection to inform targeted upstream actions. In addition, it calls for well-designed local and national policies as well as ambitious international frameworks to address the different scales of the problem. 'Negotiators and country officials can use this data to assess the river plastic pollution problem in real life, look at differences in pollution in different places, and test ideas about what policies and systems are working,' Brewster added. Anthony Merante, senior plastics campaigner at Oceana Canada, said the oceans have become the dumping grounds for the world's plastic waste, in an email. Merante added people have over-plasticized their lives and invested in single-use, disposable systems hoping that recycling will save us. 'Not a single river studied was free from plastic, emphasizing that this is a planetary problem we all must act to correct,' he said. 'The solution is clear; we need to reduce plastic production and use and invest in solutions that actually work like refill and reuse.'
Business Insider
2 days ago
- Business Insider
I'm a psychiatrist who has treated 12 patients with 'AI psychosis' this year. Watch out for these red flags.
Dr. Keith Sakata said he has seen 12 patients hospitalized in 2025 after experiencing "AI psychosis." He works in San Francisco and said the patients were mostly younger men in fields such as engineering. Sakata said AI isn't "bad" — he uses it to journal — but it can "supercharge" people's vulnerabilities. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Dr. Keith Sakata, a psychiatrist working at UCSF in San Francisco. It has been edited for length and clarity. I use the phrase "AI psychosis," but it's not a clinical term — we really just don't have the words for what we're seeing. I work in San Francisco, where there are a lot of younger adults, engineers, and other people inclined to use AI. Patients are referred to my hospital when they're in crisis. It's hard to extrapolate from 12 people what might be going on in the world, but the patients I saw with "AI psychosis" were typically males between the ages of 18 and 45. A lot of them had used AI before experiencing psychosis, but they turned to it in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it supercharged some of their vulnerabilities. I don't think AI is bad, and it could have a net benefit for humanity. The patients I'm talking about are a small sliver of people, but when millions and millions of us use AI, that small number can become big. AI was not the only thing at play with these patients. Maybe they had lost a job, used substances like alcohol or stimulants in recent days, or had underlying mental health vulnerabilities like a mood disorder. On its own, " psychosis" is a clinical term describing the presence of two or three things: false delusions, fixed beliefs, or disorganized thinking. It's not a diagnosis, it's a symptom, just like a fever can be a sign of infection. You might find it confusing when people talk to you, or have visual or auditory hallucinations. It has many different causes, some reversible, like stress or drug use, while others are longer acting, like an infection or cancer, and then there are long-term conditions like schizophrenia. My patients had either short-term or medium to long-term psychosis, and the treatment depended on the issue. Drug use is more common in my patients in San Francisco than, say, those in the suburbs. Cocaine, meth, and even different types of prescription drugs like Adderall, when taken at a high dose, can lead to psychosis. So can medications, like some antibiotics, as well as alcohol withdrawal. Another key component in these patients was isolation. They were stuck alone in a room for hours using AI, without a human being to say: "Hey, you're acting kind of different. Do you want to go for a walk and talk this out?" Over time, they became detached from social connections and were just talking to the chatbot. Chat GPT is right there. It's available 24/7, cheaper than a therapist, and it validates you. It tells you what you want to hear. If you're worried about someone using AI chatbots, there are ways to help In one case, the person had a conversation with a chatbot about quantum mechanics, which started out normally but resulted in delusions of grandeur. The longer they talked, the more the science and the philosophy of that field morphed into something else, something almost religious. Technologically speaking, the longer you engage with the chatbot, the higher the risk that it will start to no longer make sense. I've gotten a lot of messages from people worried about family members using AI chatbots, asking what they should do. First, if the person is unsafe, call 911 or your local emergency services. If suicide is an issue, the hotline in the United States is: 988. If they are at risk of harming themselves or others, or engage in risky behavior — like spending all of their money — put yourself in between them and the chatbot. The thing about delusions is that if you come in too harshly, the person might back off from you, so show them support and that you care. In less severe cases, let their primary care doctor or, if they have one, their therapist know your concerns. I'm happy for patients to use ChatGPT alongside therapy — if they understand the pros and cons I use AI a lot to code and to write things, and I have used ChatGPT to help with journaling or processing situations. When patients tell me they want to use AI, I don't automatically say no. A lot of my patients are really lonely and isolated, especially if they have mood or anxiety challenges. I understand that ChatGPT might be fulfilling a need that they're not getting in their social circle. If they have a good sense of the benefits and risks of AI, I am OK with them trying it. Otherwise, I'll check in with them about it more frequently. But, for example, if a person is socially anxious, a good therapist would challenge them, tell them some hard truths, and kindly and empathetically guide them to face their fears, knowing that's the treatment for anxiety. ChatGPT isn't set up to do that, and might instead give misguided reassurance. When you do therapy for psychosis, it is similar to cognitive behavioral therapy, and at the heart of that is reality testing. In a very empathetic way, you try to understand where the person is coming from before gently challenging them. Psychosis thrives when reality stops pushing back, and AI really just lowers that barrier for people. It doesn't challenge you really when we need it to. But if you prompt it to solve a specific problem, it can help you address your biases. Just make sure that you know the risks and benefits, and you let someone know you are using a chatbot to work through things. If you or someone you know withdraws from family members or connections, is paranoid, or feels more frustration or distress if they can't use ChatGPT, those are red flags. I get frustrated because my field can be slow to react, and do damage control years later rather than upfront. Until we think clearly about how to use these things for mental health, what I saw in the patients is still going to happen — that's my worry. OpenAI told Business Insider: "We know people are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for guidance on sensitive or personal topics. With this responsibility in mind, we're working with experts to develop tools to more effectively detect when someone is experiencing mental or emotional distress so ChatGPT can respond in ways that are safe, helpful, and supportive. "We're working to constantly improve our models and train ChatGPT to respond with care and to recommend professional help and resources where appropriate." If you or someone you know is experiencing depression or has had thoughts of harming themself or taking their own life, get help. In the US, call or text 988 to reach the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, which provides 24/7, free, confidential support for people in distress, as well as best practices for professionals and resources to aid in prevention and crisis situations. Help is also available through the Crisis Text Line — just text "HOME" to 741741. The International Association for Suicide Prevention offers resources for those outside the US.
Gizmodo
3 days ago
- Gizmodo
Scientists Identify a New Glitch in Human Thinking
Good news, everyone! Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have coined a new term to describe our brains being dumb. In a recent study, they provide evidence for a distinct but common kind of cognitive bias—one that makes us reluctant to take the easier path in life if it means retracing our steps. The researchers have named the bias the 'doubling-back aversion.' In several experiments, they found that people often refuse to choose a more efficient solution or route if it requires them to double back on the progress already made. The findings suggest that people's subjective fear of adding more to their workload and their hesitance to wipe the slate clean contribute to this bias, the researchers say. 'Participants' aversion to feeling their past efforts were a waste encouraged them to pursue less efficient means,' they wrote in their paper, published this May in Psychological Science. The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational Psychologists have detailed all sorts of biases related to digging our feet in when faced with important new information. People tend to stick to the status quo in choosing dinner at a favorite restaurant, for example, even when someone recommends a potentially tastier option. There's also the sunk cost fallacy, or the reluctance to veer off a disastrous path and choose another simply because they've spent so much time or resources pursuing it. The researchers argue that their newly named bias is certainly a close cousin to the sunk cost fallacy and similar biases, but that it ultimately describes a unique type of cognitive pitfall. In their paper, they provide the example of someone whose flight from San Francisco to New York becomes massively delayed early on, leaving them stuck in Los Angeles. In one scenario, the traveler can get home three hours earlier than their current itinerary if they accept the airline's offer of a new flight that first stops in Denver; in the second, the person is instead offered a flight that will also shave three hours off, but they'll first have to travel back to San Francisco. Despite both flights saving the same amount of time, people are more likely to refuse the one that requires going back to their earlier destination, the paper explains (some people might even refuse the Denver flight, but that would be an example of the status quo bias and/or sunk cost fallacy at work, they note). To test their hypothesis, the researchers ran four different types of experiments. The experiments collectively involved more than 2,500 adults, some of whom were UC Berkeley students and others who were volunteers recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk. In one test, people were asked to walk along different paths in virtual reality; another asked people to recite as many words starting with the same letter as possible. Across the various tests, the researchers found that people routinely exhibited this aversion. This Is What Your Brain Looks Like When You Solve a Problem In one experiment where people had to recite words starting with 'G,' for instance, everyone was asked midway through if they wanted to stay with the same letter or switch to reciting words starting with 'T' (a likely easier letter). In the control condition, this decision was framed as staying on the same task, simply with a new letter, but in the other, people were asked if they wanted to throw out the work they had done so far and start over on a new task. Importantly, the volunteers were also given progress bars for the task, allowing them to see they would perform the same amount of work no matter the choice (though again, 'T' would be easier). About 75% of participants made the choice to switch in the control condition, but only 25% did the same when the switch was presented as needing to double back. 'When I was analyzing these results, I was like, 'Oh, is there a mistake? How can there be such a big difference?'' said lead author Kristine Cho, a behavioral marketing PhD student at UC Berkely's Haas School of Business, in a statement to the Association for Psychological Science, publishers of the study. Other researchers will have to confirm the team's findings, of course. And there are still plenty of questions to answer about this aversion, including how often we fall for it and whether it's more likely to happen in some scenarios than others. But for now, it's oddly comforting to know that there's another thing I can possibly blame for my occasional stubbornness to take the faster subway train home.
