The current study is the first to evaluate tonic Premarin treatment for memory and potentially associated brain variables using the rodent model. Here, we demonstrate that tonic Premarin treatment affects memory, neurotrophin protein and gene expression in the middle-aged Ovx rat. Confirming peripheral endocrine responsiveness, all three Premarin doses resulted in positive estrous vaginal smears and increased uterine weights, and the highest Premarin dose increased pituitary weights. There were also dose-related increases in serum estrone and 17β-estradiol levels. These levels were within low physiological range for ovary-intact young and middle-aged rodents (
Lerner et al., 1990;
Page and Butcher, 1982). Accordingly, estrone and 17β-estradiol levels increased to the low physiological range in women after 0.625 and 1.25 mg/tablet daily oral Premarin treatment (
O’Connell, 1995). Premarin is largely estrone sulfate, which gets converted to estrone, and then to 17β-estradiol. Therefore, the Premarin-induced elevations in 17β-estradiol correspond with the expected sequence of steroid conversion, even though Premarin itself contains only trace amounts of 17β-estradiol (
Kronenberg et al., 2008). In the current study, circulating estrone levels significantly increased with low-, medium- or high- dose Premarin treatment, while 17β-estradiol levels significantly increased only after the medium- and high- dose treatments. Further, the medium- and high- dose regimens resulted in estrone and 17β-estradiol levels that were significantly higher than the low-dose regimen. This suggests that the ratio of these two estrogens varies with Premarin dose, and provides a dissociation of hormone profiles of the subjects in this study. This affords us the opportunity to evaluate whether the ratio of estrone:17β-estradiol correlates with the assessed cognitive and brain variables.
The dose-dependent cognitive effects of Premarin in this study are likely related to the resulting circulating hormone levels. Relative to vehicle, the lowest dose tested, 12 μg daily, impaired spatial learning on two maze tasks, even though the tasks evaluated different types of spatial memory. Specifically, low-dose Premarin treatment impaired learning the MWM (spatial reference memory) and the DMS plus maze (spatial working memory), but had no effect on the WRAM (spatial working and reference memory). These effects are especially noteworthy given that the low-dose Premarin regimen was the only treatment that did not elevate circulating 17β-estradiol levels relative to Ovx-Vehicle animals, while it did increase estrone (). These estrone levels were very low physiological (
Lerner et al., 1990;
Page and Butcher, 1982); significantly lower than those resulting from the medium- or high- doses of Premarin given in the current study. It is therefore plausible that these low circulating estrone levels, in the presence of very low 17β-estradiol levels (comparable to that of Ovx animals), impairs performance on tasks that assess only reference memory place learning, or only working memory place learning, but not a task that is more complex such as the WRAM. This more difficult WRAM task likely challenged the Ovx group more so than the tasks solely testing reference or working memory, resulting in less discrimination of low-dose Premarin effects. The positive correlation we found between performance on the DMS working memory trial and estrone, and with the estrone:17β-estradiol ratio, further supports this tenet. Indeed, as levels of estrone increased, and the ratio of estrone:17β-estradiol increased, animals tended to show better working memory performance on this measure. Taken together with the dissociation of dose-specific estrogenic profiles, results suggest that higher levels of estrone, in the presence of 17β-estradiol concentrations higher than that of Ovx levels, are beneficial for memory. To our knowledge there is no animal study evaluating the cognitive effects of circulating estrone levels, neither endogenous nor exogenous after hormone treatment, although some work has been done in humans in this regard. Higher circulating estrone and 17β-estradiol levels both correlated with better verbal recall scores in oopherectomized women given estrogen-containing hormone therapy (
Phillips and Sherwin, 1992), and several cognitive measures improved after estrogen or estrogen-androgen therapy in oopherectomized women, concordant with increases in circulating estrone and 17β-estradiol levels (
Sherwin, 1988). Other studies have correlated estrone and 17β-estradiol with cognitive measures in menopausal women that have not been given estrogen therapy. Findings range from higher estrone or 17β-estradiol levels corresponding to better cognitive scores or a lower frequency of mild cognitive impairment (
Lebrun et al., 2005;
Wolf and Kirschbaum, 2002) to no correlation (
Almeida et al., 2005), to higher 17β-estradiol levels corresponding to worse cognitive scores (
Barrett-Connor and Goodman-Gruen, 1999). Interestingly, in the latter study, higher endogenous estrone levels were marginally related to better performance on a verbal memory test in menopausal women not on hormone therapy (p=.07,
Barrett-Connor and Goodman-Gruen, 1999, p. 1291). While these studies provide support that circulating estrone and 17β-estradiol levels relate to cognition, there has been no methodical assessment of whether the balance
between estrone and 17β-estradiol impacts the direction or efficacy of estrone’s cognitive effects. 17β-estradiol’s presence should be presumed when referring to estrone, and vice versa, due to interconversion of these two estrogens by oxidoreductase 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (
Khan et al., 2004). Thus, it could be argued one can truly not dissociate them. However, this does not preclude estrogenic effects on brain functions due to: (1) total steroid level and/or (2) the balance of estrone and 17β-estradiol.
In vitro, Premarin induced neuroprotection against β-amyloid, hydrogen peroxide and glutamate-induced toxicity in neurons derived from cognitive brain regions including the hippocampus, basal forebrain and cortex; in several cases Premarin was effective at multiple doses (
Brinton et al., 2000). Other in vitro work showed that high nanomolar to micromolar estrone concentrations exerted dose-dependent neuroprotective effects on cultured neurons (
Bae et al., 2000;
Green et al., 1997;
Regan and Guo, 1997;
Zhao and Brinton, 2006;
Brinton et al., 1997), although other components of Premarin were more effective than estrone (
Brinton et al., 1997). We do not know the physiological concentrations of estrone or the estrone:17β-estradiol ratio in the brains of our animals, or how the effects may be distributed across various brain networks mediating our effects. However, collectively, the findings suggest that estrone can exert neurotrophic properties and neuroprotection (
Prokai and Simpkins, 2007), which could translate to enhanced brain function, at least in the presence of 17β-estradiol concentrations that are higher than Ovx levels.
Using 17β-estradiol treatment, dose dependent mnemonic effects are shown in rodent studies. High physiological 17β-estradiol levels enhanced learning a place strategy on a plus maze in young rats (
Korol and Kolo, 2002) and on the MWM in young and middle-aged rats (
Talboom et al., 2008). The WRAM, MWM, and DMS tests used in the current study were spatial tasks. While no Premarin dose used in this study enhanced learning of these tasks, it is possible that a higher Premarin dose would have resulted in higher 17β-estradiol levels that could have improved spatial task acquisition. Indeed, the 17β-estradiol levels resulting from even our highest Premarin dose treatment were low physiological. The spatial learning enhancements noted previously were seen with 17β-estradiol levels in the higher physiological range (
Korol and Kolo, 2002;
Talboom et al., 2008). In the current study, the two highest Premarin doses tested, 24 and 36 μg daily, enhanced memory retention when subjected to an extended temporal challenge. Specifically, high-dose Premarin treatment improved retention of numerous items of information across a 4-hour delay on the WRAM, and the two highest Premarin doses enhanced 6-hour retention of one item of information on the DMS task. Both of these tasks require working- or short- term memory. There was no effect of an overnight delay on the spatial reference memory MWM, suggesting that tonic Premarin does not influence overnight forgetting. These findings suggest that the memory enhancing effects of Premarin are task specific and moreover, require a mnemonic challenge across hours to be manifested. Our findings that the two highest doses of Premarin improved memory retention correspond with other studies showing that a higher 17β-estradiol dose may be necessary to enhance memory, especially in rats approaching old age. Specifically, we have shown that higher circulating 17β-estradiol replacement levels correlate with better spatial reference memory in young and middle-aged Ovx rodents (
Talboom et al., 2008). The necessity of a higher dose during aging may be especially poignant for memory retention (
Foster et al., 2003). While findings are not yet reconciled, studies report that higher levels of 17β-estradiol given via daily injection (
Holmes et al., 2002), or an intermediate, but not high, 17β-estradiol dose given via drinking water (
Fernandez and Frick, 2004), impairs spatial maze performance. Also of note, while it is hypothesized that 17β-estradiol and estrone are two Premarin components largely responsible for the estrogenic effects of Premarin (
Sitruk-Ware, 2002), there are other estrogens and metabolites present in Premarin that could alter efficacy of estrone effects and/or initiate effects on their own. Thus, although we found correlations between memory performance and estrone, and the estrone:17β-estradiol ratio, cognitive effects due to Premarin treatment could also be related to metabolites of Premarin such as delta 8,9 dehydroestrone, dihydroequilin-17β or equilin (
Kuhl, 2005).
Many factors other than dose likely also play a role in estrogenic effectiveness on memory and the brain. The amount of time between hormone loss and subsequent treatment likely impacts efficacy of estrogenic therapy. Women who participated in the WHIMS were between 65-79 years old, and many had experienced ovarian hormone deprivation for a substantial amount of time before receiving Premarin-containing treatment (
Shumaker et al., 1998). In the rodent, 17β-estradiol replacement initiated immediately after Ovx enhanced spatial memory performance in middle-aged rats, but imparted no benefit when given 5 months after Ovx (
Daniel et al., 2006). Age-related changes in responsiveness may also influence the effectiveness of estrogen treatment. Aged Ovx rats were not responsive to the 17β-estradiol replacement regimen that was effective in young and middle-aged Ovx rats (
Talboom et al., 2008), concurring with Age × 17β-estradiol replacement interactions for spatial memory shown by others (
Foster et al., 2003). The current study controlled for these factors since time after Ovx and age were constant for all groups. However, whether Premarin-induced memory enhancements would have completely reversed any observed age-related memory retention decrements cannot be determined from the current experiment, as young animals were not assessed for comparison. Future studies incorporating this comparison group would be helpful in determining extent of Premarin-induced improvements during aging.
Interestingly, we have previously shown in middle-aged Ovx rats that 10 μg of Premarin, given via two injections 24 hours apart, followed by 48 hours without injection, enhanced learning of the DMS task used in the current study (
Acosta et al., 2009). In contrast, the 12 μg tonic Premarin dose used herein
impaired performance on this same measure. Intermittent cyclic vs. tonic regimens are a plausible explanation for the difference in findings. Differences in estrogen receptor expression, with cyclic estrogen treatment facilitating estrogen receptor recycling, and tonic estrogen treatment down-regulating estrogen receptors, indicate divergent neural mechanisms of action for cyclic and tonic administration that likely impact learning and memory changes (
Blaustein, 1993;
Brown et al., 1996;
Kassis and Gorski, 1981;
Rosser et al., 1993). There are age-related alterations in the number and activity of estrogen receptors, which could influence responsivity as aging ensues (
Chakraborty and Gore, 2004). The animals in our current and prior (
Acosta et al., in 2009) Premarin studies were middle-aged. Data suggest an estrogen-receptor dependent mechanism of 17β-estradiol-induced benefits on spatial memory (
Zurkovsky et al., 2006). Thus, changes in estrogen receptors with age and with type of estrogen regimen could influence responsiveness to estrogen for spatial memory. Further, for 17β-estradiol, tonic treatment only enhanced memory when cyclic treatment was initiated first in older Ovx rats (
Markowska and Savonenko, 2002).
In addition to Premarin-induced dose-dependent effects on cognition, we found dose-dependent effects on neurotrophin protein levels in the cingulate and perirhinal cortices. In the cingulate cortex, all Premarin doses increased BDNF, while only the two highest doses increased NGF. In the perirhinal cortex, only the highest Premarin dose affected neurotrophin levels, decreasing BDNF. BDNF and NGF proteins are implicated in learning and memory (
Backman et al., 1996;
Fischer et al., 1987;
Frick et al., 1997;
Mizuno et al., 2000.
Scali et al., 1994). Neurotrophins may play a role in estrogenic-induced memory changes, as indicated by the current study using Premarin and prior studies using 17β-estradiol. 17β-estradiol replacement increased BDNF and NGF proteins in the entorhinal cortex in aged Ovx rats (
Bimonte-Nelson et al., 2004) and increased levels of TrkA, the high-affinity neurotrophin receptor, in the basal forebrain (
McMillan et al., 1996;
Singer et al., 1998). The neurotrophin findings in the current study also implicate the cingulate gyrus and perirhinal cortex as potential sites of action for Premarin treatment. These brain regions play critical roles for cognition in rodents, including for spatial and object memory (
Bachevalier and Nemanic, 2008;
Cain et al., 2006; Ennacuer et al., 1997;
Lee et al., 2006;
Lukoyanov et al., 2005;
Ramos, 2008), and in humans as shown for spatial tasks (Kindermann et al., 2004;
Moffat et al., 2006) and for degenerative changes with Alzheimer’s disease (
Hirono et al., 1998;
Liang et al., 2008;
Reiman et al., 2004). It is currently unknown how or whether Premarin-induced growth factor changes are related to the altered memory functions seen after treatment. Hypotheses set forth include compensatory relational changes in the hippocampal/basal forebrain retrograde transport system, which could account for upregulation in some brain regions, but downregulation in others (
Granholm, 2000).
In the current report, gene expression profiling of dorsal hippocampus identified mechanisms possibly involved with Premarin-induced memory changes. The dorsal hippocampus was chosen as the region of analysis since it has well-known links with learning and memory, especially regarding spatial navigation (
Morris et al., 1982; Jarrard, 1993). While implications of gene expression changes identified in the current study have yet to be determined, the genes listed in represent molecular clues about the processes relating to Premarin-effects on the rat hippocampus. Of these, it is noted that high-dose Premarin treatment increased Homer1 expression. Homer1, which binds metabotropic glutamate receptors (
Brakeman et al., 1997), is particularly interesting due to its previously implicated role in memory functions (
Jaubert et al., 2007; Lominac et al., 2005;
Szumlinski et al., 2005). Since this study is the first to assess Premarin effects on gene expression in the brain after cognitive testing, it is recognized that further studies are necessary to distinguish those transcripts that may be altered by Premarin treatment alone, versus those transcripts that are regulated by a physiological cascade of the improved memory due to Premarin treatment.
In conclusion, this is the first study testing tonic Premarin, the estrogen component of the most commonly utilized hormone therapy given to women since 1942, on a cognitive battery in an animal model. We found that Premarin can affect cognition, with divergent effects depending on dose. In middle-aged Ovx rats, Premarin enhanced memory retention on two tasks at higher doses. Low-dose Premarin impaired some aspects of performance, specific to spatial platform localization and learning a working memory task, but had no effect on memory retention. Premarin-induced cognitive changes may relate to the ratio of estrone to 17β-estradiol, with higher levels associated with better performance, although it is recognized that other components of Premarin could account for Premarin-induced memory changes. Gene expression profiling identified Premarin-associated transcriptomic changes, which likely includes Homer1, and provides a foundation for delineating the molecular processes affected by Premarin. These findings suggest that Premarin can impact memory and the brain, and that dosing should be recognized as a clinically relevant factor possibly affecting the direction and efficacy of cognitive outcome.