Genetic variation in male sexual behaviour in a population of white-footed mice in relation to photoperiod
In natural populations, genetic variation in seasonal male sexual behaviour could affect behavioural ecology and evolution. In a wild-source population of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus, from Virginia, U.S.A., males experiencing short photoperiod show high levels of genetic variation in repr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Animal behaviour 2015-06, Vol.104, p.203-212 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 212 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 203 |
container_title | Animal behaviour |
container_volume | 104 |
creator | Sharp, Kathy Bucci, Donna Zelensky, Paul K. Chesney, Alanna Tidhar, Wendy Broussard, David R. Heideman, Paul D. |
description | In natural populations, genetic variation in seasonal male sexual behaviour could affect behavioural ecology and evolution. In a wild-source population of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus, from Virginia, U.S.A., males experiencing short photoperiod show high levels of genetic variation in reproductive organ mass and neuroendocrine traits related to fertility. We tested whether males from two divergent selection lines, one that strongly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (responder) and one that weakly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (nonresponder), also differ in photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour and responses to female olfactory cues. Under short, but not long, photoperiod, there were significant differences between responder and nonresponder males in sexual behaviour and likelihood of inseminating a female. Males that were severely oligospermic or azoospermic under short photoperiod failed to display sexual behaviour in response to an ovariectomized and hormonally primed receptive female. However, on the day following testing, females were positive for spermatozoa only when paired with a male having a sperm count in the normal range for males under long photoperiod. Males from the nonresponder line showed accelerated reproductive development under short photoperiod in response to urine-soiled bedding from females, but males from the responder line did not. The results indicate genetic variation in sexual behaviour that is expressed under short, but not long, photoperiod, and indicate a potential link between heritable neuroendocrine variation and male sexual behaviour. In winter in a natural population, this heritable behavioural variation could affect fitness, seasonal life history trade-offs and population growth.
•We examined sexual behaviour of short-day responder vs nonresponder male mice.•Short, winter-like daylength repressed sexual behaviour only in the responder line.•Sexual behaviour was eliminated only if males had very low or zero sperm counts.•Odour cues from females enhanced sexual maturation in the nonresponder line.•In nature, genetically responder mice could lack sexual behaviour in winter. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.026 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4428349</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0003347215001268</els_id><sourcerecordid>1826621390</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c561t-1b024f01df92ddf61ab3565ba4fed96a584fb9bc32145bd0e6c13e2373caa4a03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk9v1DAQxS1ERZfCRwBF4sIlwX9ir3MBoaoUpEq9tGfLsSesoyQOtrOFb1-HXSrgsqfRaH7zRn5-CL0huCKYiA99pacWdnpfUUx4hVmFqXiGNgQ3vJRU0udogzFmJau39By9jLHPreCYv0DnlDeSMcY3qL-GCZIzxV4Hp5PzU-GmYtQDFBF-Lnoofh9xfgnrQBezn5fhAPqueNi5BGXnfQJbjM7ACgU4AskX884nP0Nw3r5CZ50eIrw-1gt0_-Xq7vJreXN7_e3y801puCCpJC2mdYeJ7RpqbSeIbhkXvNV1B7YRmsu6a5vWMEpq3loMwhAGlG2Z0brWmF2gjwfdeWlHsAamFPSg5uBGHX4pr536dzK5nfru96quqWR1kwXeHwWC_7FATGp00cAw6An8EhXNRlImuTyNEkmFoIQ1-DS6ZVTihrIVffcf2mf_p2yaIkJyJjEhPFP8QJngYwzQPT2RYLVmRPXqmBG1ZkRhpnJG8t7bv_152voTigx8OgCQf2nvIKhoHEwGrAtgkrLenTjxCJli0Ro</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1685380115</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Genetic variation in male sexual behaviour in a population of white-footed mice in relation to photoperiod</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Sharp, Kathy ; Bucci, Donna ; Zelensky, Paul K. ; Chesney, Alanna ; Tidhar, Wendy ; Broussard, David R. ; Heideman, Paul D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Kathy ; Bucci, Donna ; Zelensky, Paul K. ; Chesney, Alanna ; Tidhar, Wendy ; Broussard, David R. ; Heideman, Paul D.</creatorcontrib><description>In natural populations, genetic variation in seasonal male sexual behaviour could affect behavioural ecology and evolution. In a wild-source population of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus, from Virginia, U.S.A., males experiencing short photoperiod show high levels of genetic variation in reproductive organ mass and neuroendocrine traits related to fertility. We tested whether males from two divergent selection lines, one that strongly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (responder) and one that weakly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (nonresponder), also differ in photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour and responses to female olfactory cues. Under short, but not long, photoperiod, there were significant differences between responder and nonresponder males in sexual behaviour and likelihood of inseminating a female. Males that were severely oligospermic or azoospermic under short photoperiod failed to display sexual behaviour in response to an ovariectomized and hormonally primed receptive female. However, on the day following testing, females were positive for spermatozoa only when paired with a male having a sperm count in the normal range for males under long photoperiod. Males from the nonresponder line showed accelerated reproductive development under short photoperiod in response to urine-soiled bedding from females, but males from the responder line did not. The results indicate genetic variation in sexual behaviour that is expressed under short, but not long, photoperiod, and indicate a potential link between heritable neuroendocrine variation and male sexual behaviour. In winter in a natural population, this heritable behavioural variation could affect fitness, seasonal life history trade-offs and population growth.
•We examined sexual behaviour of short-day responder vs nonresponder male mice.•Short, winter-like daylength repressed sexual behaviour only in the responder line.•Sexual behaviour was eliminated only if males had very low or zero sperm counts.•Odour cues from females enhanced sexual maturation in the nonresponder line.•In nature, genetically responder mice could lack sexual behaviour in winter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-3472</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-8282</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.026</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25983335</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANBEA8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal behavior ; Animal populations ; Animal reproduction ; Behavioral sciences ; evolution ; females ; fitness ; Genetic diversity ; genetic variation ; heritable variation ; life history ; male sexual behaviour ; males ; neuroendocrine trait ; normal genetic variation ; ovariectomy ; Peromyscus leucopus ; photoperiod ; photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour ; population growth ; Rodents ; seasonal life history trade-offs ; seasonal variation ; sexual behavior ; spermatozoa ; standing variation ; Virginia ; white-footed mouse ; winter</subject><ispartof>Animal behaviour, 2015-06, Vol.104, p.203-212</ispartof><rights>2015 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour</rights><rights>Copyright Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Ltd. Jun 2015</rights><rights>2015 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c561t-1b024f01df92ddf61ab3565ba4fed96a584fb9bc32145bd0e6c13e2373caa4a03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c561t-1b024f01df92ddf61ab3565ba4fed96a584fb9bc32145bd0e6c13e2373caa4a03</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6722-578X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347215001268$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25983335$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Kathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Donna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelensky, Paul K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chesney, Alanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tidhar, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Broussard, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heideman, Paul D.</creatorcontrib><title>Genetic variation in male sexual behaviour in a population of white-footed mice in relation to photoperiod</title><title>Animal behaviour</title><addtitle>Anim Behav</addtitle><description>In natural populations, genetic variation in seasonal male sexual behaviour could affect behavioural ecology and evolution. In a wild-source population of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus, from Virginia, U.S.A., males experiencing short photoperiod show high levels of genetic variation in reproductive organ mass and neuroendocrine traits related to fertility. We tested whether males from two divergent selection lines, one that strongly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (responder) and one that weakly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (nonresponder), also differ in photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour and responses to female olfactory cues. Under short, but not long, photoperiod, there were significant differences between responder and nonresponder males in sexual behaviour and likelihood of inseminating a female. Males that were severely oligospermic or azoospermic under short photoperiod failed to display sexual behaviour in response to an ovariectomized and hormonally primed receptive female. However, on the day following testing, females were positive for spermatozoa only when paired with a male having a sperm count in the normal range for males under long photoperiod. Males from the nonresponder line showed accelerated reproductive development under short photoperiod in response to urine-soiled bedding from females, but males from the responder line did not. The results indicate genetic variation in sexual behaviour that is expressed under short, but not long, photoperiod, and indicate a potential link between heritable neuroendocrine variation and male sexual behaviour. In winter in a natural population, this heritable behavioural variation could affect fitness, seasonal life history trade-offs and population growth.
•We examined sexual behaviour of short-day responder vs nonresponder male mice.•Short, winter-like daylength repressed sexual behaviour only in the responder line.•Sexual behaviour was eliminated only if males had very low or zero sperm counts.•Odour cues from females enhanced sexual maturation in the nonresponder line.•In nature, genetically responder mice could lack sexual behaviour in winter.</description><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animal reproduction</subject><subject>Behavioral sciences</subject><subject>evolution</subject><subject>females</subject><subject>fitness</subject><subject>Genetic diversity</subject><subject>genetic variation</subject><subject>heritable variation</subject><subject>life history</subject><subject>male sexual behaviour</subject><subject>males</subject><subject>neuroendocrine trait</subject><subject>normal genetic variation</subject><subject>ovariectomy</subject><subject>Peromyscus leucopus</subject><subject>photoperiod</subject><subject>photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour</subject><subject>population growth</subject><subject>Rodents</subject><subject>seasonal life history trade-offs</subject><subject>seasonal variation</subject><subject>sexual behavior</subject><subject>spermatozoa</subject><subject>standing variation</subject><subject>Virginia</subject><subject>white-footed mouse</subject><subject>winter</subject><issn>0003-3472</issn><issn>1095-8282</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkk9v1DAQxS1ERZfCRwBF4sIlwX9ir3MBoaoUpEq9tGfLsSesoyQOtrOFb1-HXSrgsqfRaH7zRn5-CL0huCKYiA99pacWdnpfUUx4hVmFqXiGNgQ3vJRU0udogzFmJau39By9jLHPreCYv0DnlDeSMcY3qL-GCZIzxV4Hp5PzU-GmYtQDFBF-Lnoofh9xfgnrQBezn5fhAPqueNi5BGXnfQJbjM7ACgU4AskX884nP0Nw3r5CZ50eIrw-1gt0_-Xq7vJreXN7_e3y801puCCpJC2mdYeJ7RpqbSeIbhkXvNV1B7YRmsu6a5vWMEpq3loMwhAGlG2Z0brWmF2gjwfdeWlHsAamFPSg5uBGHX4pr536dzK5nfru96quqWR1kwXeHwWC_7FATGp00cAw6An8EhXNRlImuTyNEkmFoIQ1-DS6ZVTihrIVffcf2mf_p2yaIkJyJjEhPFP8QJngYwzQPT2RYLVmRPXqmBG1ZkRhpnJG8t7bv_152voTigx8OgCQf2nvIKhoHEwGrAtgkrLenTjxCJli0Ro</recordid><startdate>201506</startdate><enddate>201506</enddate><creator>Sharp, Kathy</creator><creator>Bucci, Donna</creator><creator>Zelensky, Paul K.</creator><creator>Chesney, Alanna</creator><creator>Tidhar, Wendy</creator><creator>Broussard, David R.</creator><creator>Heideman, Paul D.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6722-578X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201506</creationdate><title>Genetic variation in male sexual behaviour in a population of white-footed mice in relation to photoperiod</title><author>Sharp, Kathy ; Bucci, Donna ; Zelensky, Paul K. ; Chesney, Alanna ; Tidhar, Wendy ; Broussard, David R. ; Heideman, Paul D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c561t-1b024f01df92ddf61ab3565ba4fed96a584fb9bc32145bd0e6c13e2373caa4a03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animal reproduction</topic><topic>Behavioral sciences</topic><topic>evolution</topic><topic>females</topic><topic>fitness</topic><topic>Genetic diversity</topic><topic>genetic variation</topic><topic>heritable variation</topic><topic>life history</topic><topic>male sexual behaviour</topic><topic>males</topic><topic>neuroendocrine trait</topic><topic>normal genetic variation</topic><topic>ovariectomy</topic><topic>Peromyscus leucopus</topic><topic>photoperiod</topic><topic>photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour</topic><topic>population growth</topic><topic>Rodents</topic><topic>seasonal life history trade-offs</topic><topic>seasonal variation</topic><topic>sexual behavior</topic><topic>spermatozoa</topic><topic>standing variation</topic><topic>Virginia</topic><topic>white-footed mouse</topic><topic>winter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Kathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Donna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zelensky, Paul K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chesney, Alanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tidhar, Wendy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Broussard, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heideman, Paul D.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Animal behaviour</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sharp, Kathy</au><au>Bucci, Donna</au><au>Zelensky, Paul K.</au><au>Chesney, Alanna</au><au>Tidhar, Wendy</au><au>Broussard, David R.</au><au>Heideman, Paul D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Genetic variation in male sexual behaviour in a population of white-footed mice in relation to photoperiod</atitle><jtitle>Animal behaviour</jtitle><addtitle>Anim Behav</addtitle><date>2015-06</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>104</volume><spage>203</spage><epage>212</epage><pages>203-212</pages><issn>0003-3472</issn><eissn>1095-8282</eissn><coden>ANBEA8</coden><abstract>In natural populations, genetic variation in seasonal male sexual behaviour could affect behavioural ecology and evolution. In a wild-source population of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus, from Virginia, U.S.A., males experiencing short photoperiod show high levels of genetic variation in reproductive organ mass and neuroendocrine traits related to fertility. We tested whether males from two divergent selection lines, one that strongly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (responder) and one that weakly suppresses fertility under short photoperiod (nonresponder), also differ in photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour and responses to female olfactory cues. Under short, but not long, photoperiod, there were significant differences between responder and nonresponder males in sexual behaviour and likelihood of inseminating a female. Males that were severely oligospermic or azoospermic under short photoperiod failed to display sexual behaviour in response to an ovariectomized and hormonally primed receptive female. However, on the day following testing, females were positive for spermatozoa only when paired with a male having a sperm count in the normal range for males under long photoperiod. Males from the nonresponder line showed accelerated reproductive development under short photoperiod in response to urine-soiled bedding from females, but males from the responder line did not. The results indicate genetic variation in sexual behaviour that is expressed under short, but not long, photoperiod, and indicate a potential link between heritable neuroendocrine variation and male sexual behaviour. In winter in a natural population, this heritable behavioural variation could affect fitness, seasonal life history trade-offs and population growth.
•We examined sexual behaviour of short-day responder vs nonresponder male mice.•Short, winter-like daylength repressed sexual behaviour only in the responder line.•Sexual behaviour was eliminated only if males had very low or zero sperm counts.•Odour cues from females enhanced sexual maturation in the nonresponder line.•In nature, genetically responder mice could lack sexual behaviour in winter.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>25983335</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.026</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6722-578X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-3472 |
ispartof | Animal behaviour, 2015-06, Vol.104, p.203-212 |
issn | 0003-3472 1095-8282 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4428349 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Animal behavior Animal populations Animal reproduction Behavioral sciences evolution females fitness Genetic diversity genetic variation heritable variation life history male sexual behaviour males neuroendocrine trait normal genetic variation ovariectomy Peromyscus leucopus photoperiod photoperiod-dependent sexual behaviour population growth Rodents seasonal life history trade-offs seasonal variation sexual behavior spermatozoa standing variation Virginia white-footed mouse winter |
title | Genetic variation in male sexual behaviour in a population of white-footed mice in relation to photoperiod |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T19%3A50%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Genetic%20variation%20in%20male%20sexual%20behaviour%20in%20a%20population%20of%20white-footed%20mice%20in%20relation%20to%20photoperiod&rft.jtitle=Animal%20behaviour&rft.au=Sharp,%20Kathy&rft.date=2015-06&rft.volume=104&rft.spage=203&rft.epage=212&rft.pages=203-212&rft.issn=0003-3472&rft.eissn=1095-8282&rft.coden=ANBEA8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1826621390%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1685380115&rft_id=info:pmid/25983335&rft_els_id=S0003347215001268&rfr_iscdi=true |