4.4 Article

Early acoustic experience alters genome-wide methylation in the auditory forebrain of songbird embryos

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 755, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2021.135917

关键词

Aves; Epigenetics; Methylation; Prenatal; Recognition systems; Song learning

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP190102894]
  2. US National Science Foundation (IOS) [1953226]
  3. City University of New York Graduate Center
  4. City University of New York Hunter College
  5. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [1953226] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early exposure to familiar sounds can shape social behaviors in birds, with different chronic acoustic playbacks altering genome-wide methylation. Immediate early gene activation in response to different types of songs is negatively correlated with methylation extent, indicating a neuroepigenomic mechanism for the impacts of early acoustic experiences in songbirds.
Early exposure to salient cues can critically shape the development of social behaviors. For example, both oscine birds and humans can hear and learn to recognize familiar sounds in ovo and in utero and recognize them following hatching and birth, respectively. Here we demonstrate that different chronic acoustic playbacks alter genome-wide methylation of the auditory forebrain in late-stage zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) embryos. Within the same subjects, immediate early gene activation in response to acute con- or heterospecific song exposure is negatively correlated with methylation extent in response to repeated daily prior exposure to the same type of stimuli. Specifically, we report less relative global methylation following playbacks of conspecific songs and more methylation following playbacks of distantly-related heterospecific songs. These findings offer a neuroepigenomic mechanism for the ontogenetic impacts of early acoustic experiences in songbirds.

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