Motivational Drive in Non-copulating and Socially Monogamous Mammals

Normal or dysfunctional sexual behavior seems to be an important indicator of health or disease. Many health disorders in male patients affect sexual activity by directly causing erectile dysfunction, affecting sexual motivation, or both. Clinical evidence indicates that many diseases strongly disrupt sexual motivation and sexual performance in patients with depression, addiction, diabetes mellitus and other metabolic disturbances with obesity and diet-related factors, kidney and liver failure, circadian rhythm disorders, sleep disturbances including obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, developmental and hormonal disorders, brain damages, cardiovascular diseases, and peripheral neuropathies. Preclinical studies of these conditions often require appropriate experimental paradigms, including animal models. Male sexual behavior and motivation have been intensively investigated over the last 80 years in animal rat model. Sexual motivation can be examined using such parameters as: anticipatory behavior and 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations reflecting the emotional state of rats, initiation of copulation, efficiency of copulation, or techniques of classical (pavlovian) and instrumental conditioning. In this review article, we analyze the behavioral parameters that describe the sexual motivation and sexual performance of male rats in the context of animal experimental models of human health disorders. Based on analysis of the parameters describing the heterogeneous and complex structure of sexual behavior in laboratory rodents, we propose an approach that is useful for delineating distinct mechanisms affecting sexual motivation and sexual performance in selected disease states and the efficacy of therapy in preclinical investigations.

Section: Sexual Behavior As An Experimental Modelmentioning

confidence: 90%

The Sexual Motivation of Male Rats as a Tool in Animal Models of Human Health Disorders

Bialy

Bogacki-Rychlik

Przybylski

et al. 2019

“…In humans, dissociation between sexual arousal and sexual motivation can be observed in asexual men. They tend to avoid sexual intercourse with partners, although the frequency of masturbation is on the average level of the male population ( Portillo and Paredes, 2019 ). Furthermore, we can distinguish, during behavioral tests, the motivational component by measuring only the approach behavior ( Le Moëne and Ågmo, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurophysiology of male sexual arousal—Behavioral perspective

Bogacki-Rychlik,

Gawęda,

Bialy

2024

In the presented review, we analyzed the physiology of male sexual arousal and its relation to the motivational aspects of this behavior. We highlighted the distinction between these processes based on observable physiological and behavioral parameters. Thus, we proposed the experimentally applicable differentiation between sexual arousal (SA) and sexual motivation (SM). We propose to define sexual arousal as an overall autonomic nervous system response leading to penile erection, triggered selectively by specific sexual cues. These autonomic processes include both spinal and supraspinal neuronal networks, activated by sensory pathways including information from sexual partner and sexual context, as well as external and internal genital organs. To avoid misinterpretation of experimental data, we also propose to precise the term “sexual motivation” as all actions performed by the individual that increase the probability of sexual interactions or increase the probability of exposition to sexual context cues. Neuronal structures such as the amygdala, bed nucleus of stria terminalis, hypothalamus, nucleus raphe, periaqueductal gray, and nucleus paragigantocellularis play crucial roles in controlling the level of arousal and regulating peripheral responses via specific autonomic effectors. On the highest level of CNS, the activity of cortical structures involved in the regulation of the autonomic nervous system, such as the insula and anterior cingulate cortex, can visualize an elevated level of SA in both animal and human brains. From a preclinical perspective, we underlie the usefulness of the non-contact erection test (NCE) procedure in understanding factors influencing sexual arousal, including studies of sexual preference in animal models. Taken together results obtained by different methods, we wanted to focus attention on neurophysiological aspects that are distinctly related to sexual arousal and can be used as an objective parameter, leading to higher translational transparency between basic, preclinical, and clinical studies.

“…Distinct manifestations of sexual behavior (e.g., female/male heterosexuality, male/female homosexuality; female/male bisexuality and so forth) are long thought to represent separate phenotypes ( Chivers et al, 2004 ; de Vries and Södersten, 2009 ; Jordan, 2010 ; Cerny and Janssen, 2011 ; Flanagan-Cato, 2011 ; Rosenthal et al, 2011 , 2012 ; Balthazart, 2016 ; Joel and Fausto-Sterling, 2016 ; Portillo and Paredes, 2019 ). This notion not only embraces the behavioral display of the individuals sharing distinct sexual expressions, but also the presumption that the brain of each phenotypic group displays functional morphological attributes that are specific to each sexual phenotype ( Zhou et al, 1995 ; Fernández-Guasti et al, 2000 ; Kruijver et al, 2000 ; Savic et al, 2005 , 2010 ; Berglund et al, 2006 ; Swaab, 2008 ; Sakamoto, 2012 ; Rahman and Yusuf, 2015 ; Taziaux et al, 2016 ; Burke et al, 2017 ; Amezcua-Gutiérrez et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The construct that claims the existence of distinct sexual phenotypes is not applied only to human beings, but also to other animal species (for a comprehensive review see de Vries and Södersten, 2009 ; also Jazin and Cahill, 2010 ; Forger, 2016 ; Ventura-Aquino and Paredes, 2017 ; LaClair et al, 2019 ). In this regard, female- or male-preferring male rats ( Coria-Avila, 2012 ; Coria-Avila et al, 2014 ; Olvera-Hernández and Fernández-Guasti, 2015 ) and rams ( Alexander et al, 1993 , 1999 ; Borja and Fabre-Nys, 2012 ; Sutton et al, 2018 ), as well as copulating and non-copulating male rats ( Portillo and Paredes, 2003 , 2019 ; Portillo et al, 2006a , b ; Ventura-Aquino and Paredes, 2017 ) are good examples to keep in mind because they are thought to represent distinct copulatory phenotypes associated each to a characteristic brain. Accordingly, previous studies sustain that the expression levels of sexually relevant genes such as those encoding estrogen, progesterone and androgen receptors and the enzyme aromatase in the amygdala, medial preoptic area and the olfactory bulb, distinctively differ between non-copulating and copulating male rats ( Portillo et al, 2006a , b ; Antaramian et al, 2015 ), even though serum testosterone levels does not differ between them ( Portillo et al, 2010 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Male Ejaculatory Endophenotypes: Revealing Internal Inconsistencies of the Concept in Heterosexual Copulating Rats

Trejo-Sánchez

Pérez‐Monter

Huerta-Pacheco

et al. 2020

Distinct manifestations of sexual behavior are conceived as separate phenotypes. Each sexual phenotype is assumed to be associated with a characteristic brain. These notions have justified the phenotyping of heterosexual copulator males based upon their ejaculation’s latencies (EL) or frequencies (i.e., cumulative ejaculation number; EN). For instance, men and male rats showing premature, normal or retarded ejaculation are assumed to be distinctive endophenotypes. This concept, nonetheless, contradicts past and recent evidence that supports that sexual behavior is highly variable within each sex, and that the brain sexual functional morphology represents an intricate sexual phenotypic mosaic. Hence, for ejaculatory male endophenotypes to be considered as a valid biological concept, it must show internal consistency at various levels of organization (including genetic architectures), after being challenged by intrinsic and/or extrinsic factors. We then judged the internal consistency of the presumed ejaculatory endophenotypes by assessing whether copulatory behavior and the expression of copulation relevant genes and brain limbic structures are specific to each of the presumed EL- or EN-ejaculatory endophenotypes. To do this, copulating male rats were first phenotyped in groups consistently displaying short, average or long ejaculation latencies or very high, high, average, low or very low EN, based in their copulatory performance. Then, the internal consistency of the presumed EL- or EN-endophenotypes was tested by introducing as covariates of phenotyping other copulatory parameters (e.g., number of intromissions) in addition to EL or EN, or by analyzing the expression levels of genes encoding for estrogen receptor alpha, progesterone receptor, androgen receptor, aromatase, DNA methyl-transferase 3a and DNA methyl-transferase 1 in the amygdala, medial preoptic area, ventromedial hypothalamus and olfactory bulb. We found that even though there were group-level differences in all the variables that were studied, these differences did not add-up to create the presumed EL- or EN-ejaculatory endophenotypes. In fact, the extensive overlapping of copulatory parameters and expression levels of copulation relevant genes in limbic structures across EL- or EN-phenotyped copulating male rats, is not consistent with the hypothesis that distinct ejaculatory endophenotypes exist and that they are associated with specific brain characteristics.