Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signalling in mice

Hurst, Jane L.; Beynon, Robert J.

doi:10.1002/bies.20147

Cited by 420 publications

(403 citation statements)

References 83 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

394

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…House mice can recognize and identify conspecifics via individual scent signals [38]. Specifically, male scent has been shown to influence female reproductive development [39] and function [40,41].…”

Section: (B) Social Environment Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here, we exposed maturing females to different sperm competition environments by creating variation in their perception of male density. Olfaction is the primary sensory modality in house mice, and conspecifics are recognized by individually distinct scent signals [38]. We therefore manipulated the social experience of developing females via exposure to male odours and direct encounters with conspecifics, and thus created local environments in which females perceived either a 'risk' or 'no risk' of sperm competition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sperm competition risk generates phenotypic plasticity in ovum fertilizability

Firman

Simmons

2013

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory predicts that sperm competition will generate sexual conflict that favours increased ovum defences against polyspermy. A recent study on house mice has shown that ovum resistance to fertilization coevolves in response to increased sperm fertilizing capacity. However, the capacity for the female gamete to adjust its fertilizability as a strategic response to sperm competition risk has never, to our knowledge, been studied. We sourced house mice (Mus domesticus) from natural populations that differ in the level of sperm competition and sperm fertilizing capacity, and manipulated the social experience of females during their sexual development to simulate conditions of either a future 'risk' or 'no risk' of sperm competition. Consistent with coevolutionary predictions, we found lower fertilization rates in ova produced by females from a high sperm competition population compared with ova from a low sperm competition population, indicating that these populations are divergent in the fertilizability of their ova. More importantly, females exposed to a 'risk' of sperm competition produced ova that had greater resistance to fertilization than ova produced by females reared in an environment with 'no risk'. Consequently, we show that variation in sperm competition risk during development generates phenotypic plasticity in ova fertilizability, which allows females to prepare for prevailing conditions during their reproductive life.

show abstract

Section: (B) Social Environment Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sperm competition risk generates phenotypic plasticity in ovum fertilizability

Firman

Simmons

2013

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Odour cues contain a wealth of information about the donor such as gender, sexual maturity, health, social dominance, even individual identity (6,28,29,30,62,64). In caged mice, urine marks and glandular secretions impregnate the bedding which therefore becomes secondarily reinforcing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Fitchett

Barnard

Cassaday

2006

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior studies using mice have shown that scent marks are an important source of information and can cause behavioural changes in other individuals. Studies have also shown that scent marks in the environment can affect the outcome of social interactions between mice. We used conditioned place preference tests to investigate whether CD-1 male mice (Mus musculus) are reinforced by olfactory cues from the home cage. Soiled bedding from the home cage was presented in the initially less preferred chamber of the apparatus to determine whether this association would reduce the unconditioned preference for one chamber over the other. We tested the effects of social rank and housing condition by comparing the performance of dyads that were polarised into dominant and subordinate relationships, both when paired and when separated, with mice that were isolated throughout. The development of conditioned place preference (CPP) supported by home cage odours was influenced by social rank but not by housing condition. Only subordinate mice showed CPP to home cage odours, and this effect was seen irrespective of whether they were housed with a dominant cage mate or alone. Neither dominant (paired or separated) nor isolated mice showed any change in their preference for the chamber associated with home cage odours. This suggests that the smell of home is a more powerful reinforcer for subordinate mice in that it can produce contextual conditioning to the environment in which it is experienced. Physiology & Behavior, 87,[955][956][957][958][959][960][961][962] Laboratory rodents spend a large amount of time in their home cage environment.How do they like it? It is known that the home cage can act as an effective reinforcer for mice tested in a radial maze procedure (45). However, very few studies have investigated how mice rate the home cage environment relative to alternatives, but see (59,60).An important aspect of the home environment is whether the animal is housed singly or in a group. In their natural state, house mice (Mus domesticus) typically live in social groups (24,25,26,38,48). As would be expected, what evidence there is suggests that group housing promotes welfare in laboratories (20,61,64,65).

show abstract

“…From there they are released into the blood plasma 266 and secreted by the kidneys. Mouse urine contains high concentrations of MUPs, 267 up to to 30 mg/ml in adult males, which produce three to four times as much as 268 adult females (Beynon and Hurst, 2004). …”

Section: Innate Vs Learned Chemosensory Responses 74mentioning

confidence: 99%