Did you forget your cell sex? An update on the inclusion of sex as a variable in .

"I don't know the question, but sex is definitely the answer!," was a Woody Allen quote cited by Fuller and Insel in an Editorial Comment in 2013 on the importance of cell sex in submissions to , and in biomedical research in general. The notion that cell sex is important is axiomatic in studies on prostate cancer (LnCAP) or placental physiology (BeWo). Indeed, most researchers are aware that HeLa cells are female cervical derived, and CHO are female hamster ovary cells, yet beyond those well-known examples, it would be fair to assume that the sex of cells derived from kidney, lung, or liver, for example, is given cursory, if any thought. In the end, what possible impact could the presence or absence of a Y chromosome have on protein trafficking in a nonreproductive tissue, such as a pancreatic β cell? However, this approach to cell, and indeed organismal physiology, seems to be in conflict with accumulating data, that show that far from being irrelevant, genes expressed off sex chromosomes have a broad-ranging impact on cells as diverse as neurons and renal cells. Moreover, it is also the policy of that the source of all cells used (species, sex, etc.) should be clearly indicated when submitting an article for publication (https://journals.physiology.org/author-info.manuscript-composition). In 2013, we wrote a review examining how faithfully such requirements were adhered to in submissions to . Nearly a decade later, it seems fitting to revisit the topic and ask if any improvements have been made in the description of cells and cell lines used in publications submitted to .