4.6 Article

Pair bond formation is impaired by VPAC receptor antagonism in the socially monogamous zebra finch

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 272, 期 -, 页码 264-268

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.06.042

关键词

Vasoactive intestinal polypeptide; Monogamy; Bird

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH092331]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A variety of recent data demonstrate that vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) and VPAC receptors (which bind VIP, and to a lesser extent, pituitary adenylatecyclase activating peptide) are important for numerous social behaviors in songbirds, including grouping and aggression, although VIP relates to these behaviors in a site-specific manner. In order to determine the global effects of central VPAC receptor activation on social behavior, we here infused a VPAC receptor antagonist or vehicle twice daily into the lateral ventricle of colony-housed male and female zebra finches and quantified a wide range of behaviors. Aggressive behaviors were not altered by ventricular infusions, consistent with known opposing, site-specific relationships of VIP innervation to aggression. Courtship and self-maintenance behaviors were likewise not altered. However, VPAC antagonism produced significant deficits in pair bonding. Antagonist subjects took longer to form a pair bond and were paired for significantly fewer observation sessions relative to control subjects (median 1.5 of 6 observation sessions for antagonist subjects versus 4 for control subjects). Antagonist subjects were also significantly less likely to be paired in the final observation session. Based on the known distribution of VPAC receptors in finches and other vertebrates, we propose that VPAC receptors may mediate pair bonding via a variety of brain areas that are known to be important for the establishment of partner preferences in voles, including the lateral septum, ventral tegmental area, nucleus accumbens and ventral pallidum. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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