4.1 Article

Threshold for copulation-induced analgesia varies according to the ejaculatory endophenotypes in rats

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPOTENCE RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 195-202

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-00390-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. CONACYT [1134291, 487025/277841, 400424]
  2. [PROMEP/103.5/09/1294]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Copulation-induced analgesia is related to ejaculatory endophenotypes, with rapid and intermediate ejaculating rats exhibiting higher levels of analgesia during two consecutive ejaculatory series.
Analgesia may be modulated by multiple internal and external factors. In prior studies, copulatory-induced analgesia was demonstrated using the vocalization threshold to tail shock (VTTS) in male and female rats. Three ejaculatory endophenotypes have been characterized in male Wistar rats based upon their ejaculation latency (EL). Since intromissions and ejaculations produce analgesia, and these copulatory patterns are performed with different frequency depending on the male's ejaculatory endophenotype, we hypothesized that copulation-induced analgesia would vary in relation to these endophenotypes. In the present study, we used three groups according to the EL (medians): rapid ejaculators (236 s; n = 21), intermediate ejaculators (663.2 s; n = 20) and sluggish ejaculators (1582.2 s; n = 8). Our aim was to evaluate whether copulation-induced analgesia is related to the ejaculatory endophenotypes during two consecutive ejaculatory series (EJS). In the first EJS, the VTTS of the rapid ejaculators was significantly higher than that of intermediate and sluggish rats. At the onset of the second EJS, the VTTS of the rapid and intermediate ejaculators was significantly higher than that of the sluggish rats. No differences in VTTS were observed during the first or second post-ejaculatory intervals among the three groups. These findings provide evidence that the more intromissions that occurred per unit time, the higher was the level of analgesia.

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

4.1
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