Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Athena SWAN (1)
- Call for action (1)
- Gender (1)
- Health research (1)
- Path dependency (1)
- Research impact assessment (1)
- Science policy (1)
- inflammation (1)
- nitric oxide (1)
- pain (1)
Institute
Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.
GTP cyclohydrolase (GCH1) governs de novo synthesis of the enzyme cofactor, tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4), which is essential for biogenic amine production, bioactive lipid metabolism and redox coupling of nitric oxide synthases. Overproduction of BH4 via upregulation of GCH1 in sensory neurons is associated with nociceptive hypersensitivity in rodents, and neuron‐specific GCH1 deletion normalizes nociception. The translational relevance is revealed by protective polymorphisms of GCH1 in humans, which are associated with a reduced chronic pain. Because myeloid cells constitute a major non‐neuronal source of BH4 that may contribute to BH4‐dependent phenotypes, we studied here the contribution of myeloid‐derived BH4 to pain and itch in lysozyme M Cre‐mediated GCH1 knockout (LysM‐GCH1−/−) and overexpressing mice (LysM‐GCH1‐HA). Unexpectedly, knockout or overexpression in myeloid cells had no effect on nociceptive behaviour, but LysM‐driven GCH1 knockout reduced, and its overexpression increased the scratching response in Compound 48/80 and hydroxychloroquine‐evoked itch models, which involve histamine and non‐histamine dependent signalling pathways. Mechanistically, GCH1 overexpression increased BH4, nitric oxide and hydrogen peroxide, and these changes were associated with increased release of histamine and serotonin and degranulation of mast cells. LysM‐driven GCH1 knockout had opposite effects, and pharmacologic inhibition of GCH1 provided even stronger itch suppression. Inversely, intradermal BH4 provoked scratching behaviour in vivo and BH4 evoked an influx of calcium in sensory neurons. Together, these loss‐ and gain‐of‐function experiments suggest that itch in mice is contributed by BH4 release plus BH4‐driven mediator release from myeloid immune cells, which leads to activation of itch‐responsive sensory neurons.