4.5 Article

Steroid hormones alter neuroanatomy and aggression independently in the tree lizard

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 93, 期 3, 页码 492-501

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.10.008

关键词

testosterone; progesterone; aggression; agonistic behavior; lizard; reptile; amygdala; nucleus sphericus

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [F32 MH012112, F32 MH012112-03, R01 MH048564-12, MH12112, R01 MH048564-13, R01 MH048564-10, 5R01MH048564-10, R01 MH048564-11, R01 MH048564-09A2, F32 MH012112-01A2, R01 MH048564, F32 MH012112-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Steroid hormones effect changes in both neuroanatomy and aggressive behavior in animals of various taxa. However, whether changes in neuroanatomy directly underlie changes in aggression is unknown. We investigate this relationship among steroid hormones, neuroanatomy, and aggression in a free-living vertebrate with a relatively simple nervous system, the tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus). Weiss and Moore [1] manipulated testosterone and progesterone levels in adult male tree lizards and found that both hormones facilitated aggressive behavior toward a conspecific. In this study, we examined the brains of a subset of these animals to determine whether changes in limbic morphology were associated with hormone-induced changes in aggressive behavior. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that testosterone and/or progesterone cause changes in neural morphology that are necessary for the expression of testosterone's effects on aggressive behavior. We found that both hormones increased aggression; however, only testosterone induced changes in neuroanatomy. Testosterone increased the size of both the amygdala and nucleus sphericus. However, we could detect no individual correlations between neuroanatomy and aggression levels suggesting that the observed large-scale changes in neuroanatomy are not precisely reflective of changes in mechanisms underlying aggression. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据