4.2 Article

Oxytocin and Social Preference in Female House Mice (Mus musculus domesticus)

期刊

ETHOLOGY
卷 122, 期 7, 页码 571-581

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eth.12505

关键词

behavioural observations; house mice; partner preference; peripheral oxytocin; social behaviour

资金

  1. University of Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In social species, same-sex individuals may form social bonds behaviourally expressed as individual preferences, resulting in fitness benefits such as increased offspring survival, longevity and group cohesion. As a result of individual preferences, female house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) form social affiliations while communally nursing and may do so with kin or non-kin. However, the mechanisms behind the formation of such preferences are unknown. Oxytocin has been linked to a range of social behaviours including bond facilitation, social memory and parental care. Here, we experimentally increased oxytocin in pairs of unfamiliar, unrelated females and predicted that females with elevated oxytocin would demonstrate increased affiliative behaviours compared against a control. Subsequently, we tested for the formation of a social preference, using a preference test with the previous partner and a new unfamiliar female. Our results indicated no significant effect of treatment on positive and negative behaviours between females during the three initial cohabitation days. In both treatments, females demonstrated increased socio-positive behaviours and cohabitation time with their partner and decreased socio-negative behaviours and latency to meet, over the 3-d period. During the partner preference test, control but not oxytocin females demonstrated a significant preference for their cohabitation partner, and oxytocin females spent similar amounts of time with both stimulus females. Therefore, increasing peripheral oxytocin appears not to be involved in the facilitation of initial encounters with a stranger but may hinder the formation of a preference for this new partner.

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

4.2
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