Responses of mice to odors associated with stress.
01 May 1970-Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology (J Comp Physiol Psychol)-Vol. 71, Iss: 2, pp 223-228
About: This article is published in Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology.The article was published on 1970-05-01. It has received 104 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Data show a requirement for the MC5-R in multiple exocrine glands for the production of numerous products, indicative of a coordinated system for regulation of exocrine gland function by melanocortin peptides.
481 citations
Cites background from "Responses of mice to odors associat..."
...The core temperature ofRigby, 1968; Carr et al., 1970)....
[...]
TL;DR: Olfactory communication is defined as the process whereby a chemical signal is generated by a presumptive sender and transmitted to a presumptive receiver who by means of adequate receptors can identify, integrate, and respond (either be haviorally or physiologically) to the signal.
Abstract: In the broad perspective chemical communication has been the subject of several recent reviews (Wilson 138; Johnston, Moulton & Turk 59; Wilson 137). The present review will be more restrictive; we will deal with one as pect of chemical communication in one class of vertebrates, i.e., olfaction in the Mammalia. For the purposes of this review, olfactory communication is defined as the process whereby a chemical signal is generated by a presumptive sender and transmitted (generally through the air) to a presumptive receiver who by means of adequate receptors can identify, integrate, and respond (either be haviorally or physiologically) to the signal. It is assumed that the sender-re ceiver relationship is in some way the result of natural selection so that signal production by the sender leads to an increased likelihood that the sender or the species will benefit from the transmission of the message; the whole pro cess of communication is subject to the pressures of natural selection. A chemical signal which serves to trigger a response in a conspecific re ceiver is generally referred to as a pheromone (Wilson 137)-in contrast to an allomone, which is a signal used to communicate with a member of an other species (Brown 16). By thus defining olfactory communication, we have eliminated from consideration in this review problems of food selection, habitat selection, etc, which do involve the chemical senses but which result from different sorts of interactions of the organism with the environment. Olfactory communication has certain advantages, since it allows a re ceiver to assess certain parameters of its social environment very specifically. There is a disadvantage to chemical communication since in general there is no inherent directionality in the propagation of the signal and, in order to orient toward the source of chemical information, the presumptive receiver must make use of a gradient. The "active space" of a chemical signal has been the subject of extensive discussion by Wilson (137) and Wilson & Bos sert (139). A tremendous advantage of using chemical signals instead of vi sual and auditory ones is that chemical traces persist for some period of time
457 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the occurrence and effects of scent marking are considered in particular, and a number of areas for further research are made apparent, including the role of marking in aggression.
419 citations
TL;DR: Rodent sex differences in the following tests are reviewed: the open field, emergence from the home cage, active and passive avoidance learning, reaction to shock, and heart rate responses to novelty.
405 citations
TL;DR: Scent-marking is a ubiquitous form of olfactory signaling in male mammals and both territorial males in resource-defense mating systems and dominant males in dominance mating systems scent-mark, and it is argued that the mechanisms are used conditionally, depending on information available and potential costs and benefits to receivers.
Abstract: Summary Scent-marking is a ubiquitous form of olfactory signaling in male mammals and both territorial males in resource-defense mating systems and dominant males in dominance mating systems scent-mark. A large body of evidence suggests a link between scent-marking by male mammals and intrasexual competition. Resource holders appear to mark to help establish and maintain their status. They may do this because scent marks allow potential opponents to assess the status or RHP of the signaler. Nonresource holding competitors benefit because they can adjust the level of escalation in relation to potential costs and benefits and avoid risky contests. Resource holders benefit through reduced costs because many nonresource holders withdraw to avoid escalated contests. Three basic mechanisms allow receivers to make decisions after detecting scent marks. Receivers may (1) detect intrinsic properties of scent marks (e.g., concentrations of androgen-dependent volatiles), (2) remember past contests and the odor of each individual involved and associate these with the odor of scent marks, and (3) remember the smell of marks recently encountered and match this smell with potential opponents that they meet subsequently. It is now known that all of these mechanisms are used, sometimes within one species (e.g., mice) and we argue that the mechanisms are used conditionally, depending on information available and potential costs and benefits to receivers. Game theoretical analysis has recently shown how territorial intruders may switch from using intrinsic properties of marks to scent-matching when making decision about whether to remain in a territory. Scent-marking may be a uniquely cheat-proof signal of status because males must be able to defend their territory or dominance status over the time taken to mark it. A pattern of marks is thus a signal of status that has been tested in intrasexual competition. It also seems likely that marks are intrinsically costly both in energetic terms and by increasing predation risk. Mice can detect whether urine is from a parasitized or nonparasitized individual and these odors could potentially signal immunocompetence if mediated by variation at the MHC region of the genome. This remains to be tested. It is known that mice can detect relatedness via urine volatiles mediated by the MHC and it has been predicted that males should modify their competitive behavior in the light of this information. Again this remains to be tested. Information about disease status and genetic relatedness does not explain why males maintain patterns of scent marks. Most, perhaps all, territories are scent-marked. This may be because most intruders are of lower RHP than resource holders and these males should usually withdraw after assessing the resource holder by its scent marks. The costs of defending a territory may thus be substantially reduced. The obligate link between scent-marking and territoriality suggests that resource-defense polygyny in mammals may not be economically viable without this reduction in the costs of area defense. A little information is available to show that females use information from patterns of scent marks and a great deal of information shows that they use intrinsic information. It is not known whether males signal to females to enable mate choice or if females eavesdrop on signals sent between male competitors. Most known responses are to male urine by female rodents. For example, females show physiological (priming) responses to male odors (e.g., advancing and synchronizing estrus, inducing abortion). Other research has identified factors responsible for female mate preferences in choice tests. For example, the dominance status of the signaling male is a predictor of female interest and such studies have identified androgen-dependent volatiles responsible for the response. More recently, females have been shown to use odor mediated by the MHC locus to choose mates in relation to their genetic relatedness and to use odor to distinguish healthy and diseased mates. Most of these studies have been on mice and most use male urine, but the effect of patterns of urine scent marks has not been investigated. The only studies that explicitly use scent marks are those showing that females match the odor of potential mates with marks previously found in the environment to select mates. Future research should aim to clarify how information about the quality of potential mates is transmitted and how females trade-off such information against genetic relatedness.
350 citations
References
More filters
345 citations
TL;DR: Mice discriminated between two male mice of the same inbred strain on the basis of olfactory cues and could also discriminate between two different species and between males and females.
Abstract: Mice discriminated between two male mice of the same inbred strain on the basis of olfactory cues. Mice could also discriminate by olfactory cues between two different species, C3H Mus musculus and Peromyscus maniculatus, and between males and females.
257 citations
217 citations
TL;DR: A substantial reduction of aggression occurred when the animals' natural odours were masked by scent, and the latency of responding aggressively increased threefold and the mean number of attacks decreased by the same factor.
201 citations