4.6 Article

Defects in Ultrasonic Vocalization of Cadherin-6 Knockout Mice

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049233

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowships for Young Scientists [DC1]
  2. Nakayama Foundation for Human Science grant
  3. RIKEN Brain Science Institute general research budget

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although some molecules have been identified as responsible for human language disorders, there is still little information about what molecular mechanisms establish the faculty of human language. Since mice, like songbirds, produce complex ultrasonic vocalizations for intraspecific communication in several social contexts, they can be good mammalian models for studying the molecular basis of human language. Having found that cadherins are involved in the vocal development of the Bengalese finch, a songbird, we expected cadherins to also be involved in mouse vocalizations. Methodology/Principal Findings: To examine whether similar molecular mechanisms underlie the vocalizations of songbirds and mammals, we categorized behavioral deficits including vocalization in cadherin-6 knockout mice. Comparing the ultrasonic vocalizations of cadherin-6 knockout mice with those of wild-type controls, we found that the peak frequency and variations of syllables were differed between the mutant and wild-type mice in both pup-isolation and adult-courtship contexts. Vocalizations during male-male aggression behavior, in contrast, did not differ between mutant and wild-type mice. Open-field tests revealed differences in locomotors activity in both heterozygote and homozygote animals and no difference in anxiety behavior. Conclusions/Significance: Our results suggest that cadherin-6 plays essential roles in locomotor activity and ultrasonic vocalization. These findings also support the idea that different species share some of the molecular mechanisms underlying vocal behavior.

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

4.6
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