| Literature DB >> 25706994 |
Mariana Angoa-Pérez1, Nieves Herrera-Mundo1, Michael J Kane1, Catherine E Sykes1, John H Anneken1, Dina M Francescutti1, Donald M Kuhn1.
Abstract
It was reported recently that male mice lacking brain serotonin (5-HT) lose their preference for females (Liu et al., 2011, Nature, 472, 95-100), suggesting a role for 5-HT signaling in sexual preference. Regulation of sex preference by 5-HT lies outside of the well established roles in this behavior established for the vomeronasal organ (VNO) and the main olfactory epithelium (MOE). Presently, mice with a null mutation in the gene for tryptophan hydroxylase 2 (TPH2), which are depleted of brain 5-HT, were tested for sexual preference. When presented with inanimate (urine scents from male or estrous female) or animate (male or female mouse in estrus) sexual stimuli, TPH2-/- males show a clear preference for female over male stimuli. When a TPH2-/- male is offered the simultaneous choice between an estrous female and a male mouse, no sexual preference is expressed. However, when confounding behaviors that are seen among 3 mice in the same cage are controlled, TPH2-/- mice, like their TPH2+/+ counterparts, express a clear preference for female mice. Female TPH2-/- mice are preferred by males over TPH2+/+ females but this does not lead to increased pregnancy success. In fact, if one or both partners in a mating pair are TPH2-/- in genotype, pregnancy success rates are significantly decreased. Finally, expression of the VNO-specific cation channel TRPC2 and of CNGA2 in the MOE of TPH2-/- mice is normal, consistent with behavioral findings that sexual preference of TPH2-/- males for females is intact. In conclusion, 5-HT signaling in brain does not determine sexual preference in male mice. The use of pharmacological agents that are non-selective for the 5-HT neuronal system and that have serious adverse effects may have contributed historically to the stance that 5-HT regulates sexual behavior, including sex partner preference.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25706994 PMCID: PMC4338231 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Male preference for urine scents from TPH2+/+ males versus TPH2+/+ females or TPH2-/- females.
(A) % time spent investigating urine scents by TPH2+/+ (WT) or TPH2-/- (KO) males when given the choice between urine from a WT male versus urine from a receptive WT or KO female, (B) % time investigating urine scents by WT or KO males when given the choice between scents from a receptive WT female versus a receptive KO female. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM for groups containing 9 WT and 10 KO males. Symbols indicate significant difference from the WT male. * p < 0.05; **** p < 0.0001.
Fig 2Male sexual preference in one-on-one encounters.
(A) # of mounts when a single WT or KO male was exposed to a single, receptive WT or KO female, (B) latency to mount by WT and KO males when exposed to a receptive WT or KO female, (C) # of intromissions by WT and KO males when exposed to a receptive WT or KO female. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM for groups containing 10 WT and 10 KO males. Symbols indicate significant difference from the indicated comparison. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Fig 3Male sexual preference when exposed to two mice simultaneously.
(A) # of mounts by WT or KO males when exposed simultaneously to a WT male versus a WT female or to a WT male versus a KO female, (B) # of intromissions by WT and KO males when exposed simultaneously to two mice as described in A, (C) # of aggressive attacks by WT and KO males when exposed simultaneously to two mice as described in A, (D) # of mounts by WT or KO males when exposed simultaneously to a receptive WT female and a receptive KO female, (E) % investigation time when WT or KO males were exposed simultaneously to a “caged” WT male versus a “caged” WT female or to a “caged” WT male versus a “caged” KO female. Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM for groups containing 6–11 WT and 10 KO males. Symbols indicate significant difference from the WT control (female or male). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; **** p < 0.0001.
Mating success rates in TPH2+/+, TPH2+/- and TPH2-/- mice.
| ♀ genotype | ♂ genotype | # successful matings | # unsuccessful matings | Total matings | % success | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TPH2+/+ | TPH2+/+ | 88 | 11 | 99 | 88.9 |
| 2 | TPH2+/- | TPH2+/- | 29 | 1 | 30 | 96.7 |
| 3 | TPH2+/- | TPH2+/+ | 7 | 1 | 8 | 87.5 |
| 4 | TPH2+/- | TPH2-/- | 40 | 28 | 68 | 58.8 |
| 5 | TPH2-/- | TPH2+/- | 43 | 16 | 59 | 72.9 |
| 6 | TPH2-/- | TPH2-/- | 79 | 115 | 194 | 40.7 |
Mating pairs of the indicated genotypes were caged together for 21 days after which the male was removed. From this time forward, the female was housed alone until pups were born or until the passage of an additional 21 days. Matings were scored as successful if pups were born and matings that extended beyond the 21 day post-mating period without births were deemed unsuccessful. Statistical comparisons among rows and the level of significance is indicated below: row 1 different from rows 4 (p < 0.0001), 5 (p = 0.015) and 6 (p < 0.0001); row 2 different from rows 4 (p < 0.0001), 5 (p = 0.008) and 6 (p < 0.0001); row 3 different from row 6 (p = 0.011); row 4 different from rows 1 (p < 0.0001), 2 (p < 0.0001), and 6 (p = 0.011); row 5, different from 1 (p = 0.015), 2 (p = 0.008), and 6 (p < 0.0001); and row 6, different from rows 1 (p < 0.0001), 2 (p < 0.0001), 3 (p = 0.011), 4 (p = 0.011), and 5 (p < 0.0001).
Fig 4Expression levels of TRPC2 and CNGA2.
(A) Immunoblot analysis of TRPC2 in VNO tissue from WT and KO male mice, (B) immunoblot analysis of CNGA2 in MOE tissue from WT and KO male mice. Expression levels of TRPC2 and CNGA2 were normalized to GAPDH levels. Data presented in the bar charts are expressed in arbitrary units and are the mean ± SEM for groups containing 5–6 WT and 4–5 KO males for each tissue. The insets above each bar chart are representative immunoblots for each protein.