Female prairie voles show social and sexual preferences for males with longer avpr1a microsatellite alleles

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 82, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1117-1126

  Castelli, Frank R ^a   Kelley, Rebecca A ^a   Keane, Brian ^a   Solomon, Nancy G ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Avpr1a; Female mate choice; Female preference; Monogamy; Paternal care; Vasopressin

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; CORRELATION; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL CUE; FEMALE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC MARKER; GENOTYPE; LABORATORY METHOD; MALE; MONOGAMY; PARENTAL CARE; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION STRUCTURE; PRAIRIE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; RODENT; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SURVIVAL;

ILLINOIS; KANSAS; UNITED STATES;

MAMMALIA; MICROTUS OCHROGASTER; MURIDAE; RODENTIA;

EID: 80054727873     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
2. Arcaro K.F., Eklund A. A review of MHC-based mate preferences and fostering experiments in two congenic strains of mice. Genetica 1999, 104:241-244.
3. Aschemeier L.M., Keane B., Solomon N.G. Body size has a greater influence on female mate choice than length of microsatellite region of the avpr1a gene in male prairie voles. Journal of Young Investigators, 2008, 18, published online 25 February 2008. www.jyi.org/research/re.php?id=1447.
4. Bester-Meredith J.K., Martin P.A., Marler C.A. Manipulations of vasopressin alter aggression differently across testing conditions in monogamous and non-monogamous Peromyscus mice. Aggressive Behavior 2005, 31:189-199.
5. Boyd S.K. Arginine vasotocin facilitation of advertisement calling and call phonotaxis in bullfrogs. Hormones and Behavior 1994, 28:232-240.
6. Brotherton P.N.M., Komers P.E. Mate guarding and the evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and other Mammals 2003, 42-58. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. U.H. Reichard, C. Boesch (Eds.).
7. Burley N. Mate choice by multiple criteria in a monogamous species. American Naturalist 1981, 117:515-528.
8. Calisi R.M., Bentley G.E. Lab and field experiments: are they the same animal?. Hormones and Behavior 2009, 56:1-10.
9. Campbell P., Ophir A.G., Phelps S.M. Central vasopressin and oxytocin receptor distributions in two species of singing mice. Journal of Comparative Neurology 2009, 516:321-333.
10. Cantoni D., Brown R.E. Paternal investment and reproductive success in the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Animal Behaviour 1997, 54:377-386.
11. Carter C.S., Getz L.L. Monogamy and the prairie vole. Scientific American 1993, 268:100-106.
12. Carter C.S., Williams J.R., Witt D.M. The biology of social bonding in a monogamous mammal. Hormones, Brain and Behavior in Vertebrates. 2. Behavioral Activation in Males and Females: Social Interactions and Reproductive Endocrinology 1990, 154-164. Karger, Basel. J. Balthazart (Ed.).
13. Carter C.S., Williams J.R., Witt D.M., Insel T.R. Oxytocin and social bonding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1992, 652:204-211.
14. Carter C.S., DeVries A.C., Getz L.L. Physiological substrates of mammalian monogamy: the prairie vole model. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 1995, 19:303-314.
15. Cherry J.A., Lepri J.J. Sexual dimorphism and gonadal control of ultrasonic vocalizations in adult pine voles, Microtus pinetorum. Hormones and Behavior 1986, 20:34-48.
16. Chesh, A. S., Mabry, K. E., Keane, B., Noe, D. A. & Solomon, N. G. In press. Are body mass and parasite load related to social partnerships and mating in Microtus ochrogaster? Journal of Mammalogy.
17. Cho M.M., Devries A.C., Williams J.R., Carter C.S. The effects of oxytocin and vasopressin on partner preferences in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behavioral Neuroscience 1999, 113:1071-1079.
18. Clutton-Brock T.H. Mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1989, 236:339-372.
19. Clutton-Brock T., McAuliffe K. Female mate choice in mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology 2009, 84:3-27.
20. Cochran G.R., Solomon N.G. Effects of food supplementation on the social organization of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Journal of Mammalogy 2000, 81:746-757.
21. Cushing B.S., Kramer K.M. Microtines: a model system for studying the evolution and regulation of social monogamy. Acta Theriologica Sinica 2005, 25:182-199.
22. Cushing B.S., Okorie U., Young L.J. The effects of neonatal castration on the subsequent response of adult male prairie voles to arginine vasopressin and the expression of V1a receptors in adult male prairie voles. Journal of Neuroendocrinology 2003, 15:1021-1026.
23. Derting T.L., Kruper J.H., Wiles J.L., Carter M.L., Furlong H.M. Physiological bases of male olfactory cues and mate preferences in prairie voles. Advances in Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 1999, 463-473. Plenum, New York. R.E. Johnston, D. Muller-Schwarze, P.W. Sorenson (Eds.).
24. Dewsbury D.A. An exercise in the prediction of monogamy in the field from laboratory data on 42 species of muroid rodents. Biologist 1981, 63:138-162.
25. Dewsbury D.A. Role of male proximity in pregnancy maintenance in prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Physiology & Behavior 1995, 57:827-829.
26. Donaldson Z.R., Spiegel L., Young L.J. Central vasopressin V1a receptor activation is independently necessary for both partner preference formation and expression in socially monogamous male prairie voles. Behavioral Neuroscience 2010, 124:159-163.
27. Egid K., Brown J.L. The major histocompatability complex and female mating preferences in mice. Animal Behaviour 1989, 38:548-550.
28. Feron C., Gouat P. Paternal care in the mound-building mouse reduces inter-litter intervals. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 2007, 19:425-429.
29. Fitch H.S. Aspects of the reproduction and development in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). University of Kansas Publication Museum of Natural History 1957, 10:129-161.
30. Gannon W.L., Sikes R.S., the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 2007, 88:809-823.
31. Getz L.L., Hofmann J.E. Social organization in free-living prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1986, 18:275-282.
32. Getz L.L., McGuire B. A comparison of living singly and in male-female pairs in the prairie vole. Ethology 1993, 94:265-278.
33. Getz L.L., Carter C.S., Gavish L. The mating system of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster: field and laboratory evidence for pair-bonding. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1981, 8:189-194.
34. Getz L.L., Larson C.M., Lindstrom K.A. Blarina brevicauda as a predator on nestling voles. Journal of Mammalogy 1992, 73:591-596.
35. Getz L.L., McGuire B., Pizzuto T., Hofmann J., Frase B. Social organization of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Journal of Mammalogy 1993, 74:44-58.
36. Getz L.L., McGuire B., Hofmann J.E., Pizzuto T., Frase B. Natal dispersal and philopatry in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): settlement, survival, and potential reproductive success. Ethology Ecology and Evolution 1994, 6:267-284.
37. Getz L.L., Simms L.E., McGuire B., Snarski M.E. Factors affecting life expectancy in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Oikos 1997, 80:362-370.
38. Getz L.L., McGuire B., Pizzuto T. Does mate choice take place in free-living prairie voles Microtus ochrogaster? Evidence from field data. Acta Zoologica Sinica 2004, 50:527-534.
39. Gosling L.M., Roberts S.C. Scent marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Advances in the Study of Behavior 2001, 30:169-217.
40. Goodson J.L., Bass A.H. Social behavior functions and related anatomical characteristics of vasotocin/vasopressin systems in vertebrates. Brain Research Reviews 2001, 35:246-265.
41. Gray C.D., Dewsbury D.A. A quantitative description of copulatory behavior in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Brian, Behavior and Evolution 1973, 8:437-452.
42. Gubernick D.J., Teferi T. Adaptive significance of male parental care in a monogamous mammal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2000, 267:147-150.
43. Hammerschmidt K., Radyushkin K., Ehrenreich H., Fischer J. Female mice respond to male ultrasonic 'songs' with approach behavior. Biology Letters 2009, 5:589-592.
44. Hammock E.A.D., Young L.J. Microsatellite instability generates diversity in brain and sociobehavioral traits. Science 2005, 308:1630-1634.
45. Hammock E.A.D., Lim M.M., Nair H.P., Young L.J. Association of vasopressin 1a receptor levels with a regulatory microsatellite and behavior. Genes, Brain and Behavior 2005, 4:289-301.
46. Hoelzer G.A. The good parent process of sexual selection. Animal Behaviour 1989, 38:1067-1078.
47. Holy T.E., Guo Z. Ultrasonic songs of male mice. PLoS Biology 2005, 3:e386.
48. Horth L. Sensory genes and mate choice: evidence that duplications, mutations, and adaptive evolution alter variation in mating cue genes and their receptors. Genomics 2007, 90:159-175.
49. Insel T.R. A neurobiological basis of social attachment. American Journal of Psychiatry 1997, 154:726-735.
50. Insel T.R., Wang Z.-X., Ferris C.F. Patterns of brain vasopressin receptor distribution associated with social organization in microtine rodents. Journal of Neuroscience 1994, 14:5381-5392.
51. Kavaliers M., Agmo A., Choleris E., Gustafsson J.A., Korach K.S., Muglia L.J., Pfaff D.W., Ogawa S. Oxytocin and estrogen receptor α and β knockout mice provide discriminably different odor cues in behavioral assays. Genes, Brain and Behavior 2004, 3:189-195.
52. Keane B., Waser P.M., Creel S.R., Creel N.M., Elliott L.F., Minchella D.J. Subordinate reproduction in dwarf mongooses. Animal Behaviour 1994, 47:65-75.
53. Kime N.M., Whitney T.K., Davis E.S., Marler C.A. Arginine vasotocin promotes calling behavior and call changes in male Túngara frogs. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2007, 69:254-265.
54. Kleiman D.G. Monogamy in mammals. Quarterly Review of Biology 1977, 52:39-69.
55. Kleiman D.G., Malcolm J.R. The evolution of male parental investment in mammals. Parental Care in Mammals 1981, 347-387. Plenum, New York. D.J. Gubernick, P.H. Klopfer (Eds.).
56. Lappan S. Male care of infants in a siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) population including socially monogamous and polyandrous groups. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2008, 62:1307-1317.
57. Lenington S. The t complex: a story of genes, behavior, and populations. Advances in the Study of Behavior 1991, 20:51-86.
58. Lenington S., Coopersmith C.B., Erhart M. Female preference and variability among t-haplotypes in wild house mice. American Naturalist 1994, 143:766-784.
59. Lepri J.J., Theodorides M., Wysocki C.J. Ultrasonic vocalizations by adult prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Experientia 1988, 44:271-273.
60. Lonstein J.S., De Vries G.J. Comparison of the parental behavior of pair-bonded female and male prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Physiology & Behavior 1999, 66:33-40.
61. Lucia, K. E. & Keane, B. In press. A field test of the effects of familiarity and relatedness on social associations and reproduction in prairie voles. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
62. Mabry K.E., Streatfeild C.A., Keane B., Solomon N.G. avpr1a length polymorphism is not associated with either social or genetic monogamy in free-living prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Animal Behaviour 2011, 81:11-18.
63. McGuire B., Russell K.D., Mahoney T., Novak M. The effects of mate removal on pregnancy success in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) and meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Biology of Reproduction 1992, 47:37-42.
64. Mahady S.J., Wolff J.O. A field test of the Bruce effect in the monogamous prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2002, 52:31-37.
65. Mateo J.M., Holmes W.G., Bell A.M., Turner M. Sexual maturation in male prairie voles: effects of the social environment. Physiology & Behavior 1994, 56:299-304.
66. Miller J.R., Engstrom M.D. Vocal stereotypy and singing behavior in Baiomyine mice. Journal of Mammalogy 2007, 88:1447-1465.
67. Musolf K., Hoffmann F., Penn D.J. Ultrasonic courtship vocalizations in wild house mice, Mus musculus musculus. Animal Behaviour 2010, 79:757-764.
68. Newman K.S., Halpin Z.T. Individual odours and mate recognition in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behaviour 1988, 36:1779-1787.
69. Oliveras D., Novak M. A comparison of paternal behaviour in the meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus, the pine vole M. pinetorum and the prairie vole M. ochrogaster. Animal Behaviour 1986, 34:519-526.
70. Ophir A.G., delBarco-Trillo J. Anogenital distance predicts female choice and male potency in prairie voles. Physiology & Behavior 2007, 92:533-540.
71. Ophir A.G., Sorin A.B., Phelps S.M., Wolff J.O. Morphological, genetic, and behavioral comparisons of two prairie vole populations in the laboratory and field. Journal of Mammalogy 2007, 88:989-999.
72. Ophir A.G., Campbell P., Hanna K., Phelps S.M. Field tests of cis-regulatory variation at the prairie vole avpr1a locus: association with V1aR abundance but not sexual or social fidelity. Hormones and Behavior 2008, 54:694-702.
73. Ophir A.G., Crino O.L., Wilkerson Q.C., Wolff J.O., Phelps S.M. Female-directed aggression predicts paternal behavior, but female prairie voles prefer affiliative males to paternal males. Brian, Behavior and Evolution 2008, 71:32-40.
74. Phelps S.M. From endophenotypes to evolution: social attachment, sexual fidelity and the avpr1a locus. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 2010, 20:795-802.
75. Phelps S.M., Young L.J. Extraordinary diversity in vasopressin (V1a) receptor distributions among wild prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): patterns of variation and covariation. Journal of Comparative Neurology 2003, 466:564-576.
76. Phelps S.M., Campbell P., Zheng D., Ophir A.G. Beating the boojum: comparative approaches to the neurobiology of social behavior. Neuropharmacology 2010, 58:17-28.
77. Pierce J.D., Dewsbury D.A. Female preferences for unmated versus mated males in two species of voles (Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus montanus). Journal of Comparative Psychology 1991, 105:165-171.
78. Pierce J.D., Sawrey D.K., Dewsbury D.A. A comparative study of rodent ultrasonic vocalizations during copulation. Behavioral and Neural Biology 1989, 51:211-221.
79. Portfors C.V. Types and functions of ultrasonic vocalizations in laboratory rats and mice. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 2007, 46:28-34.
80. Roberts R.L., Williams J.R., Wang A.K., Carter C.S. Cooperative breeding and monogamy in prairie voles: influence of the sire and geographical variation. Animal Behaviour 1998, 55:1131-1140.
81. Rymer T., Pillay N. Female mate choice for paternal care behaviour in African striped mice, Rhabdomys pumilio: the role of experience. Behaviour 2010, 147:1101-1119.
82. Santangelo N., Bass A.H. Individual behavioral and neuronal phenotypes for arginine vasotocin mediated courtship and aggression in a territorial teleost. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2010, 75:282-291.
83. Schanberg S.M., Evoniuk G., Kuhn C.M. Tactile and nutritional aspects of maternal care: specific regulators of neuroendocrine function and cellular development. Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine 1984, 175:135-146.
84. Schradin C., Pillay N. The influence of the father on offspring development in the striped mouse. Behavioral Ecology 2004, 16:450-455.
85. Semsar K., Kandel F.L.M., Godwin J. Manipulations of the AVT system shift social status and related courtship and aggressive behavior in the bluehead wrasse. Hormones and Behavior 2001, 40:21-31.
86. Shapiro L.E., Dewsbury D.A. Male dominance, female choice and male copulatory behavior in two species of voles (Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus montanus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1986, 18:267-274.
87. Shapiro L.E., Austin D., Ward S.E., Dewsbury D.A. Familiarity and female mate choice in two species of voles (Microtus ochrogaster and Microtus montanus). Animal Behaviour 1986, 34:90-97.
88. Small M.F. Female choice in nonhuman primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1989, 32:103-127.
89. Smith J.E., Batzli G.O. Dispersal and mortality of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) in fragmented landscapes: a field experiment. Oikos 2006, 112:209-217.
90. Solomon N.G. Age of pairing affects reproduction in prairie voles. Laboratory Animals 1991, 25:232-235.
91. Solomon N.G. Comparison of parental behavior in male and female prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Canadian Journal of Zoology 1993, 71:434-437.
92. Solomon N.G. Body size and social preferences of male and female prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behaviour 1993, 45:1031-1033.
93. Solomon N.G., Keane B. Reproductive strategies in female rodents. Rodent Societies: an Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective 2007, 42-56. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. J.O. Wolff, P.W. Sherman (Eds.).
94. Solomon N., Keane B., Knoch L., Hogan P. Multiple paternity in socially monogamous prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Canadian Journal of Zoology 2004, 82:1667-1671.
95. Solomon N.G., Richmond A.R., Harding P.A., Fries A., Jacquemin S., Schaefer R.L., Lucia K.E., Keane B. Polymorphism at the avpr1a locus in male prairie voles correlated with genetic but not social monogamy in field populations. Molecular Ecology 2009, 18:4680-4695.
96. Streatfeild, C. A., Mabry, K. E., Keane, B., Crist, T. O. & Solomon, N. G. In press. Intraspecific variability in the social and genetic mating systems of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Animal Behaviour.
97. Thomas J.A., Birney E.C. Parental care and mating system of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1979, 5:171-186.
98. Thomas S.A. Scent marking and mate choice in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:1121-1127.
99. Trainor B.C., Rouse K.L., Marler C.A. Arginine vasotocin interacts with the social environment to regulate advertisement calling in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2003, 61:165-171.
100. Trivers R.L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971 1972, 136-179. Aldine, Chicago. B. Campbell (Ed.).
101. Wang Z., Novak M.A. Influence of the social environment on parental behavior and pup development of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and prairie voles (M. ochrogaster). Journal of Comparative Psychology 1992, 106:163-171.
102. Wang Z.X., Young L.J., De Vries G.L., Insel T.R. Voles and vasopressin: a review of molecular, cellular, and behavioral studies of pair bonding and paternal behaviors. Progress in Brain Research 1998, 119:483-499.
103. Westneat D.F. Extra-pair fertilizations in a predominantly monogamous bird: genetic evidence. Animal Behaviour 1987, 35:877-886.
104. Wiegmann D.D., Nguyen T. Mating system and demographic constraints on the opportunity for sexual selection. Theoretical Population Biology 2006, 69:34-47.
105. Williams J.R., Catania K.C., Carter C.S. Development of partner preferences in female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster): the role of social and sexual experience. Hormones and Behavior 1992, 26:339-349.
106. Winslow J.T., Hastings N., Carter C.S., Harbaugh C.R., Insel T.R. A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles. Nature 1993, 365:545-548.
107. Witt D.M., Carter C.S., Carlstead K., Read L.D. Sexual and social interactions preceding and during male-induced oestrus in prairie voles, Microtus ochrogaster. Animal Behaviour 1988, 36:1465-1471.
108. Wittenberger J.F., Tilson R.L. The evolution of monogamy: hypothesis and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1980, 11:197-232.
109. Wolff J.O. Laboratory studies with rodents: facts or artifacts?. Bioscience 2003, 53:421-427.
110. Wolff J.O., Mech S.G., Dunlap A.S., Hodges K.E. Multi-male mating by paired and unpaired female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Behaviour 2002, 139:1147-1160.
111. Wright H.W.Y. Paternal den attendance is the best predictor of offspring survival in the socially monogamous bat-eared fox. Animal Behaviour 2006, 71:503-510.
112. Wynne-Edwards K.E. Evidence for obligate monogamy in the Djungarian hamster, Phodopus campbelli: pup survival under different parenting conditions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1987, 20:427-437.
113. Wynne-Edwards K.E., Lisk R.D. Differential effects of paternal presence on pup survival in two species of dwarf hamsters (Phodopus sungorus and Phodopus campbelli). Physiology & Behavior 1989, 45:465-469.
114. Young L.J., Wang Z. The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neuroscience 2004, 7:1048-1054.