Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain

Madhura Ingalhalikar, Alex Smith, Drew Parker, Theodore D. Satterthwaite, Mark A. Elliott, Kosha Ruparel, Hakon Hakonarson, Raquel E. Gur, Ruben C. Gur, and Ragini Verma
  1. aSection of Biomedical Image Analysis and
  2. cCenter for Magnetic Resonance and Optical Imaging, Department of Radiology, and
  3. bDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; and
  4. dCenter for Applied Genomics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS January 14, 2014 111 (2) 823-828; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316909110
Madhura Ingalhalikar
aSection of Biomedical Image Analysis and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex Smith
aSection of Biomedical Image Analysis and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Drew Parker
aSection of Biomedical Image Analysis and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theodore D. Satterthwaite
bDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark A. Elliott
cCenter for Magnetic Resonance and Optical Imaging, Department of Radiology, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kosha Ruparel
bDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hakon Hakonarson
dCenter for Applied Genomics, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Raquel E. Gur
bDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruben C. Gur
bDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ragini Verma
aSection of Biomedical Image Analysis and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ragini.verma@uphs.upenn.edu
  1. Edited by Charles Gross, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved November 1, 2013 (received for review September 9, 2013)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

Sex differences are of high scientific and societal interest because of their prominence in behavior of humans and nonhuman species. This work is highly significant because it studies a very large population of 949 youths (8–22 y, 428 males and 521 females) using the diffusion-based structural connectome of the brain, identifying novel sex differences. The results establish that male brains are optimized for intrahemispheric and female brains for interhemispheric communication. The developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood. The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.

Abstract

Sex differences in human behavior show adaptive complementarity: Males have better motor and spatial abilities, whereas females have superior memory and social cognition skills. Studies also show sex differences in human brains but do not explain this complementarity. In this work, we modeled the structural connectome using diffusion tensor imaging in a sample of 949 youths (aged 8–22 y, 428 males and 521 females) and discovered unique sex differences in brain connectivity during the course of development. Connection-wise statistical analysis, as well as analysis of regional and global network measures, presented a comprehensive description of network characteristics. In all supratentorial regions, males had greater within-hemispheric connectivity, as well as enhanced modularity and transitivity, whereas between-hemispheric connectivity and cross-module participation predominated in females. However, this effect was reversed in the cerebellar connections. Analysis of these changes developmentally demonstrated differences in trajectory between males and females mainly in adolescence and in adulthood. Overall, the results suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.

  • diffusion imaging
  • gender differences

Footnotes

  • ↵1M.I. and A.S. contributed equally to this work.

  • ↵2To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ragini.verma{at}uphs.upenn.edu.
  • Author contributions: M.I., T.D.S., H.H., R.E.G., R.C.G., and R.V. designed research; A.S., M.A.E., K.R., and H.H. performed research; A.S. and D.P. analyzed data; and M.I., R.E.G., R.C.G., and R.V. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • See Commentary on page 577.

  • Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been deposited in the dbGaP database, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap (accession no. phs000607.v1.p1).

View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Sex differences in structural connectome
Madhura Ingalhalikar, Alex Smith, Drew Parker, Theodore D. Satterthwaite, Mark A. Elliott, Kosha Ruparel, Hakon Hakonarson, Raquel E. Gur, Ruben C. Gur, Ragini Verma
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2014, 111 (2) 823-828; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1316909110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Sex differences in structural connectome
Madhura Ingalhalikar, Alex Smith, Drew Parker, Theodore D. Satterthwaite, Mark A. Elliott, Kosha Ruparel, Hakon Hakonarson, Raquel E. Gur, Ruben C. Gur, Ragini Verma
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2014, 111 (2) 823-828; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1316909110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Neuroscience

This article has a Letter. Please see:

  • Relationship between Research Article and Letter - January 29, 2014

See related content:

  • Sex difference in human brain architecture
    - Dec 31, 2013

See related content:

  • On misreading and shooting the messenger
    - Jan 29, 2014
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 111 (2)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Water from a faucet fills a glass.
News Feature: How “forever chemicals” might impair the immune system
Researchers are exploring whether these ubiquitous fluorinated molecules might worsen infections or hamper vaccine effectiveness.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Dmitry Naumov.
Reflection of clouds in the still waters of Mono Lake in California.
Inner Workings: Making headway with the mysteries of life’s origins
Recent experiments and simulations are starting to answer some fundamental questions about how life came to be.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Radoslaw Lecyk.
Cave in coastal Kenya with tree growing in the middle.
Journal Club: Small, sharp blades mark shift from Middle to Later Stone Age in coastal Kenya
Archaeologists have long tried to define the transition between the two time periods.
Image credit: Ceri Shipton.
Mouse fibroblast cells. Electron bifurcation reactions keep mammalian cells alive.
Exploring electron bifurcation
Jonathon Yuly, David Beratan, and Peng Zhang investigate how electron bifurcation reactions work.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490