| Literature DB >> 28374006 |
Tenzin Kunkhyen1, Elizabeth A McCarthy2, Wayne J Korzan1, Danielle Doctor2, Xue Han3, Michael J Baum2, James A Cherry1.
Abstract
Surgical or genetic disruption of vomeronasal organ (VNO)-accessory olfactory bulb (AOB) function previously eliminated the ability of male mice to processes pheromones that elicit territorial behavior and aggression. By contrast, neither disruption significantly affected mating behaviors, although VNO lesions reduced males' investigation of nonvolatile female pheromones. We explored the contribution of VNO-AOB pheromonal processing to male courtship using optogenetic activation of AOB projections to the forebrain. Protocadherin-Cre male transgenic mice received bilateral AOB infections with channelrhodopsin2 (ChR2) viral vectors, and an optical fiber was implanted above the AOB. In olfactory choice tests, males preferred estrous female urine (EFU) over water; however, this preference was eliminated when diluted (5%) EFU was substituted for 100% EFU. Optogenetic AOB activation concurrent with nasal contact significantly augmented males' investigation compared to 5% EFU alone. Conversely, concurrent optogenetic AOB activation significantly reduced males' nasal investigation of diluted urine from gonadally intact males (5% IMU) compared to 5% IMU alone. These divergent effects of AOB optogenetic activation were lost when males were prevented from making direct nasal contact. Optogenetic AOB stimulation also failed to augment males' nasal investigation of deionized water or of food odors. Finally, during mating tests, optogenetic AOB stimulation delivered for 30 s when the male was in physical contact with an estrous female significantly facilitated the occurrence of penile intromission. Our results suggest that VNO-AOB signaling differentially modifies males' motivation to seek out female vs male urinary pheromones while augmenting males' sexual arousal leading to intromission and improved reproductive performance.Entities:
Keywords: olfactory; optogenetic; reproduction; vomeronasal
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28374006 PMCID: PMC5362934 DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0010-17.2017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: eNeuro ISSN: 2373-2822
Figure 2.Top, Multiunit activity in the medial amygdala of an anesthetized, Pcdh21-Cre male mouse virally infected with ChR2 in the AOB is shown following optogenetic stimulation of the AOB. Traces are shown following stimulation at laser power levels of 20 and 5 mW. Bottom, ChR2-mCherry fluorescing axons appear coursing through the medial amygdala. MeA, anterior medial amygdala; OT, optic tract; IIIv, third ventricle. The boxed region in the MeA is ∼ 250 × 250 microns
Summary of experimental details and AAV-ChR2 infection rates for male subjects
| Group | Genotype | AOB AAV-ChR2 infection | Access to olfactory stimuli | Olfactory preference tests | Mating tests | Average number of infected cells per section | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L | R | |||||||
| 1 | 9 | Pcd21-Cre+ | Y | Volatiles + nonvolatiles | EFU vs water; | N | 11.1±0.74 | 9.44±0.8 |
| IMU vs water; | ||||||||
| food vs water | ||||||||
| 2 | 8* | Pcd21-Cre+ | Y | Volatiles only | EFU vs water; | Y | 13.4±1.41 | 12±1.21 |
| IMU vs water; | ||||||||
| food vs water | ||||||||
| 3 | 7 | C57BL/6 | N | Volatiles + nonvolatiles | EFU vs water; | N | - | - |
| IMU vs water | ||||||||
*Only seven males were used in the mating tests.
Summary of statistical analyses for data shown in Figures 3–7
| Type of test | Analysis | Test value | Observed power | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.88 | 0.052 | |
| b | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.08 | 0.427 | |
| c | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.11 | 0.358 | |
| d | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.005 | 0.923 | |
| e | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, trial | 0.007 | 0.861 | |
| f | Two-way RM ANOVA | Interaction, odor port × trial | 0.009 | 0.841 | |
| g | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trial 4 | 0.005 | 0.925 | |
| h | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trial 4 | 0.009 | 0.856 | |
| i | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trials 3 and 5 | 0.026 | 0.668 | |
| j | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.218 | 0.219 | |
| k | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, trial | 0.088 | 0.528 | |
| l | Two-way RM ANOVA | Interaction, odor port × trial | 0.004 | 0.924 | |
| m | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trials 4 and 6 | 0.722 | 0.062 | |
| n | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trials 4 and 6 | 0.012 | 0.802 | |
| o | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trials 1 and 2 | 0.003 | 0.955 | |
| p | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.0001 | 1.000 | |
| q | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1, 2 and 6 vs trial 4 | 0.0001 | 1.000 | |
| r | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1, 2 and 6 vs trials 3 and 5 | 0.0001 | 1.000 | |
| s | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trial 4 | 0.059 | 0.491 | |
| t | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.0007 | 0.998 | |
| u | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trial 4 | 0.002 | 0.980 | |
| v | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trial 4 | 0.195 | 0.237 | |
| w | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, trial | 0.0001 | 0.998 | |
| x | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.925 | 0.051 | |
| y | Two-way RM ANOVA | Interaction, odor port × trial | 0.285 | 0.404 | |
| z | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trials 4 and 6 | 0.014 | 0.790 | |
| aa | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trials 3 and 5 | 0.015 | 0.785 | |
| bb | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trials 4 and 6 | 0.876 | 0.052 | |
| cc | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.0002 | 1.000 | |
| dd | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1, 2 and 6 vs trial 4 | 0.0002 | 1.000 | |
| ee | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1, 2 and 6 vs trials 3 and 5 | 0.001 | 0.999 | |
| ff | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trial 4 | 0.282 | 0.173 | |
| gg | Third water trial vs first IMU trial | 0.04 | 0.604 | ||
| hh | Third IMU trial vs first EFU trial | 0.006 | 0.926 | ||
| ii | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.0006 | 1.000 | |
| jj | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, trial | 0.0001 | 0.999 | |
| kk | Two-way RM ANOVA | Interaction, odor port × trial | 0.0001 | 1.000 | |
| ll | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trial 4 | 0.006 | 0.931 | |
| mm | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trials 3 and 5 | 0.001 | 0.998 | |
| nn | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trial 4 | 0.113 | 0.347 | |
| oo | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, odor port | 0.223 | 0.210 | |
| pp | Two-way RM ANOVA | Main effect, trial | 0.107 | 0.445 | |
| Two-way RM ANOVA | Interaction, odor port × trial | 0.075 | 0.526 | ||
| rr | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trials 4 and 6 | 0.174 | 0.256 | |
| ss | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 1 and 2 vs trials 3 and 5 | 0.101 | 0.372 | |
| tt | Two-way RM ANOVA | Planned comparison, trials 3 and 5 vs trials 4 and 6 | 0.221 | 0.212 | |
| uu | Timed: intromissions, laser-ON vs laser-OFF | 0.711 | 0.063 | ||
| vv | Triggered: intromissions, laser-ON vs laser-OFF | 0.017 | 0.777 |
Letters in first column refer to tests shown in the Results. RM, repeated measures.
All tests based on normal distribution.
Tests that violated the sphericity assumption are shown after Hunyh-Feldt correction.
Figure 1.Examples of the distribution of ChR2-mCherry-infected mitral cells in the AOB in three sagittal sections from medial, middle, and lateral regions of a single representative AOB. mCherry-labeled cells and fibers can be seen throughout the mitral cell layer, and fibers are also prevalent in the glomerular layer (Gl) and lateral olfactory tract (Lot). A photomicrograph of a Nissl-stained section from the AOB is shown on the bottom left panel. Gr, granule cell layer; MC, mitral cell layer. Scale bar = 100 microns.
Figure 3.Blue laser stimulation of the AOB when paired with the investigation of water in one test port failed to either augment or reduce the time that male mice spent investigating at that port. , group 1, Protocadherin-Cre subjects in which AOB mitral cells were infected with ChR2 virus (AAV-ChR2); nasal access to the water stimuli was allowed. , group 2, Protocadherin-Cre subjects in which AOB mitral cells were infected with AAV-ChR2; nasal access to the water stimuli was blocked. , group 3, C57Bl/6 subjects without viral infection; nasal access to the water stimuli was allowed.
Figure 4.Effect of optogenetic stimulation of the AOB on the preference of male mice (group 1) to investigate (nose poke) ports containing water versus one of three different odors in trials given on separate days. Subjects were permitted nasal access to odors/water in all trials. , Overall, male subjects preferred to investigate female urinary odors over water (main effect of odor port). A planned contrast revealed that optogenetic AOB stimulation significantly augmented males’ preference for 5% EFU compared with 5% EFU alone. Other planned contrasts (not indicated) showed that males investigated 100% EFU more than either 5% EFU or 5% EFU coupled with laser. , Overall, male subjects showed no preference to investigate IMU over water (no main effect of odor port). A planned contrast showed that optogenetic AOB stimulation significantly reduced males’ investigation of 5% IMU relative to 5% IMU alone. An additional planned contrast (not indicated) showed that there was no difference in the investigation of 100% IMU versus 5% IMU. , Male subjects preferred to investigate food odors over water (main effect of odor port). A planned contrast showed that pairing optogenetic AOB stimulation with 5% food odors failed to affect males’ investigation of this stimulus.
Figure 5.Effect of optogenetic stimulation of the AOB on the preference of male mice (group 2) to investigate (nose poke) ports containing water versus one of three different odors in trials given on separate days. Nasal access to odors/water was blocked, thereby making only volatile odor stimuli available to subjects. , Male subjects preferred to investigate EFU over water (main effect of odor port). A planned contrast showed that in absence of nasal contact with the stimuli optogenetic AOB stimulation failed to influence males’ preference for 5% EFU over 5% EFU alone. Other planned contrasts (not indicated) showed that investigation of volatiles from 100% EFU was greater in comparison to 5% EFU or 5% EFU plus laser stimulation. , Male subjects showed no preference to investigate IMU over water (main effect of odor port). In the absence of nasal contact with the stimuli, a planned contrast showed that optogenetic AOB stimulation failed to affect males’ investigation of 5% IMU. , Male subjects preferred to investigate food odors over water (main effect of odor port). A planned contrast shows that pairing optogenetic AOB stimulation with 5% food odors failed to affect males’ investigation of this stimulus.
Figure 6.Effects of laser stimulation of the AOB in control (uninfected, nontransgenic) C57Bl/6 male mice (group 3) on the investigation (nose poking) of ports containing water versus urinary odors in trials given on separate days. Nasal access to odors/water was permitted on all trials. , Male mice preferred to investigate (nose-poke) EFU over water (main effect of odor port); however, a planned contrast found that laser stimulation of the AOB in the absence of ChR2 expression in AOB mitral cells failed to augment males’ investigation of diluted, 5% EFU. , Male mice never displayed a preference for IMU over water (no main effect of odor port), and a planned contrast showed that laser stimulation of the AOB in the absence of ChR2 expression in AOB mitral cells did not modulate these preferences.
Additional data from mating tests
| Baseline | Timed | Triggered | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measure | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Test value† | Observed power | |
| Test duration (s) | 1005.7 | 1137.6 | 1048.9 | F1.1,6.4=0.40 | 0.564 | 0.085 | |||
| Total number of mounts | 37.3 | 36.7 | 36.3 | 0.992 | 0.051 | ||||
| Total number of intromissions | 15.1 | 18.7 | 19.7 | 0.729 | 0.091 | ||||
| % mounts with intromissions | 48.5 | 40.1 | 51.7 | 0.716 | 0.093 | ||||
| Total duration of investigation (s) | 32.4 | 42.7 | 28 | 0.678 | 0.073 | ||||
| % time spent investigating[ | 4.32 | 4.34 | 2.82 | 0.708 | 0.094 | ||||
| % time spent investigating while laser ON[ | - | - | 5.4 | 7.87 | - | - | - | ||
| % time spent investigating while laser OFF[ | - | - | 9.58 | 9.03 | - | - | - | ||
†F tests are from one-way, repeated measures ANOVAs comparing data from baseline, timed, and triggered tests; Hunyh-Feldt correction was applied where appropriate; n = 7 for each test.
Tests lasted until an ejaculation was achieved or until 20 min had elapsed; the first 2.5 min was allowed for habituation during which no data were collected.
aDefined as (total investigation time/test duration) × 100.
bDefined as (investigation time while laser ON/laser ON duration) × 100.
cDefined as (investigation time while laser OFF/laser OFF duration) × 100.
Figure 7.In mating tests, optogenetic stimulation of AOB mitral cells significantly augmented the occurrence of penile intromission in male mice when the laser was switched on following nasal contact the stimulus estrous female or a direct mount of the female (triggered). * denotes a significant difference in the percentage of mounts with intromission during the laser-ON versus laser-OFF portions of the triggered test (paired t test, p = 0.017). By contrast, there was no difference (n.s.) in males’ intromission success during laser-ON compared with laser-OFF periods when optogenetic AOB stimulation was applied at arbitrary (2.5 min) intervals (timed). Results are also shown from a single baseline test during which the male subjects were allowed to mate with an estrous female in the absence of any optogenetic AOB stimulation.