4.4 Article

Gonadal hormones modulate the display of submissive behavior in socially defeated female Syrian hamsters

期刊

HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 569-575

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.023

关键词

agonistic behavior; gonadal hormones; aggression; submission; hormone replacement; testosterone; estradiol; stress; sex differences

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH62044] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are striking differences in the behavioral response to social defeat between male and female Syrian hamsters. Whereas mates exhibit a prolonged behavioral response to defeat (i.e., conditioned defeat), many females remain aggressive or show only a transient submissive response following defeat. The current study tested the hypothesis that sex steroids underlie this differential behavioral responsivity to social defeat. Female hamsters were ovariectomized and implanted with Silastic capsules containing estradiol (132), testosterone (T), progesterone (P), dihydrotestosterone (DHT), or a blank capsule (no hormone replacement). After a 3-week recovery period, each subject was placed inside the home cage of a larger, more aggressive female for four 5-min defeat trials. The following day, each animal was tested for conditioned defeat by testing it in its own home cage in the presence of a smaller, non-aggressive intruder. Submissive, aggressive, social, and nonsocial behaviors were subsequently scored. Hamsters receiving E-2 or T displayed significantly lower levels of submissive behavior than did animals receiving P, DHT, or no hormone replacement. There were no significant differences in aggressive behavior among groups. These data suggest that gonadal hormones can influence submissive behavior in female hamsters. Collectively, these results suggest that the sex differences observed in conditioned defeat may, in part, be explained by sex differences in circulating gonadal hormones. (c) 2005 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

4.4
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