4.4 Article

Sex differences in vasopressin 1a receptor regulation of social communication within the lateral habenula and dorsal raphe of mice

期刊

HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104715

关键词

Sex difference; Vasopressin; Avpr1a; Mice; Social behavior; Social communication; Lateral habenula; Dorsal raphe; Ultrasonic vocalization; Scent marking

资金

  1. NIH [R21 MH111104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neuropeptide arginine-vasopressin (AVP) has long been implicated in the regulation of social behavior and communication in diverse taxa, often through its actions on the V1a receptor (V1aR) and in a sex-different and steroid-dependent way. One source of sex-different brain AVP is the steroid-sensitive and sexually-dimorphic AVP neurons in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST), a cell population that regulates social behavior in a sex-dependent manner. Potential targets of these BNST-AVP cells include the lateral habenula (LHb) and dorsal raphe (DR), areas known to be important for social behavior, yet few studies have investigated AVP action within these regions. Consequently, to test if V1aR action in the LHb or DR controls social behavior in a sexually dimorphic manner, we administered a highly-specific V1aR antagonist (or saline vehicle) in the LHb or DR of C57BL/6 male and female mice and tested its effects on social investigation, social communication (urine marking, ultrasonic vocalizations), and territorial aggression. V1aR antagonism of the LHb or DR decreased male urine marking toward unfamiliar males, but not toward unfamiliar females. Additionally, V1aR blockade of the LHb decreased ultrasonic vocalizations generated in the presence of females. Social investigation, locomotion and aggressive behavior were not altered by V1aR antagonism in either area. Blocking V1aR in the LHb or DR of females had no effect, indicating V1aR action in the DR and LHb drives sex differences in social communication.

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

4.4
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