Peer attachment formation by systemic redox regulation with social training after a sensitive period

Scientific Reports

Volumn 3, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Koshiba, Mamiko ^a,b,d   Karino, Genta ^b,d   Senoo, Aya ^b,d   Mimura, Koki ^b   Shirakawa, Yuka ^b   Fukushima, Yuta ^b   Obara, Saya ^b   Sekihara, Hitomi ^b   Ozawa, Shimpei ^b   Ikegami, Kentaro ^b   Ueda, Toyotoshi ^c   Yamanouchi, Hideo ^d   Nakamura, Shun ^a,b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE   (Japan)

^b TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

^c MEISEI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d SAITAMA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

UBIQUINOL; UBIQUINONE; DRUG DERIVATIVE;

ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; ANIMAL; CHICKEN; DIET SUPPLEMENTATION; DRUG EFFECTS; EMOTION; HUMAN RELATION; LEARNING; OBJECT RELATION; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; OXIDATION REDUCTION REACTION; PEER GROUP; PHYSIOLOGY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; DRUG EFFECT;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ANIMALS; CHICKENS; DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS; EMOTIONS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LEARNING; OBJECT ATTACHMENT; OXIDATION-REDUCTION; PEER GROUP; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; UBIQUINONE;

EID: 84883303321     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep02503     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Bowlby, J. in Maternal Care and Mental Health (World Health Organization WHO, 1951).
2. Harlow, H. F., Dodsworth, R. O. & Harlow, M. K. Total social isolation in monkeys. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 54, 90-97 (1965).
3. Insel, T. R. & Young, L. J. The neurobiology of attachment, Nat Rev Neurosci. 2, 129-136 (2001). (Pubitemid 33673367)
4. Weaver, I. C. C. et al. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nat Neurosci. 7, 847-854 (2004).
5. Pedersen, C. A. Biological aspects of social bonding and the roots of human violence. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1036, 106-127 (2004). (Pubitemid 40576090)
6. Panksepp, J. Cross-species affective neuroscience decoding of the primal affective experiences of humans and related animals. PLOS ONE 6, e21236 (2012).
7. Strathern, L., Fonagy, P., Amico, J. & Montague, R. Adult attachment predicts maternal brain and oxytocin response to infant cues. Neuropsychopharmacology 34, 2655-2666 (2009).
8. Aragona, B. J., Liu, Y., Curtis, T., Stephan, F. K. & Wang, Z. A critical role for nucleus accumbens dopamine in partner-preference formation in male prairie voles. J. Neurosci. 23, 3483-3490 (2003). (Pubitemid 36531991)
9. Young, L. J. & Wang, Z. The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 1048-1054 (2004). (Pubitemid 41184443)
10. Moles, A., Kieffer, B. L. & D'Amato, F. R. Deficit in attachment behavior in mice lacking the m-opioid receptor gene. Science 304, 1983-1986 (2004). (Pubitemid 38822193)
11. Strathern, L. Maternal neglect: Oxytocin, dopamine and the neurobiology of attachment. J. Neuroendocrinol. 23, 1054-1065 (2011).
12. Wallace, D. L. et al. CREB regulation of nucleus accumbens excitability mediates social isolation-induced behavioral deficits. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 200-209 (2009).
13. Morton, J. & Johnson, M. H. CONSPEC and CONLERN: A Two-Process Theory of Infant Face Recognition. Psychol. Rev. 98, 164-181 (1991).
14. Rosa-Salva, O., Farroni, T., Regolin, L., Vallortigara, G. & Johnson, M. H. The Evolution of Social Orienting: Evidence from Chicks (Gallus gallus) and Human Newborns. PLoS ONE 6, e18802 (2011).
15. Vallortigara, G., Regolin, L. & Marconato, F. Visually Inexperienced Chicks Exhibit Spontaneous Preference for Biological Motion Patterns. PLoS Biology 3, e208 (2005).
16. Simion, F., Regolin, L. & Bulf, H. A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 809-813 (2008). (Pubitemid 351171791)
17. Klin, A., Lin, D. J., Gorrindo, P., Ramsay, G. & Jones, W. Two-year-olds with autism orient to nonsocial contingencies rather than biological motion. Nature 459, 257-261 (2009).
18. Mascalzoni, E., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Innate sensitivity for self-propelled causal agency in newly hatched chicks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4483-4485 (2010).
19. Vallortigara, G. Chicks in a Novel Environment: Effects of Conspecific Calls. Ethology 78, 241-345 (1988).
20. Morton, E. S. On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. Am. Nat. 111, 855-869 (1977).
21. Muir, D. W., Abraham, W., Forbes, B. & Harris, L. S. The ontogenesis of an auditory localization response from birth to four months of age. Can. J. Psychol. 33, 320-333 (1979).
22. Vallortigara, G. & Andrew, R. J. Olfactory lateralization in the chick. Neuropsychologia 32, 417-423 (1994). (Pubitemid 24154249)
23. Koshiba, M. et al. Familiarity perception call elicited under restricted sensory cues in peer-social interactions of the domestic chick. PLoS ONE 8(3), e58847 (2013).
24. Bolhuis, J. J., & Honey, R. C. Imprinting, learning and development: from behaviour to brain and back. Trends Neuosci. 21, 306-311 (1998). (Pubitemid 28293641)
25. Bolhuis, J. J. Development of perceptual mechanisms in birds: predispositions and imprinting. In The development of animal behavior, A reader (eds Bolhuis, J. J. & Hogan, J. A.) pp176-191 (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1999).
26. Horn, G. Pathways of the past: the imprint of memory. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 108-121 (2004).
27. Lorenz, K. The companion in the bird's word. Auk. 54, 245-273 (1937).
28. Nakamori, T. et al. Demonstration of a neural circuit critical for imprinting behavior in chicks. J. Neurosci. 30, 4467-4480 (2010).
29. Maekawa, F. et al. Imprinting modulates processing of visual information in the visual wulst of chicks. BMC Neurosci. 7, 75 (2006).
30. Hall, E. T. in The hidden dimension (Anchor; reissue edition, 1990).
31. Kennedy, D. P.,Glascher, J., Tyszka, J. M. & Adolphs, R. Personal space regulation by the human amygdale. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 1226-1227 (2009).
32. Amaral, D. G. The amygdale, social behavior, and danger detection. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1000, 337-347 (2003). (Pubitemid 38264850)
33. Koshiba, M. et al. Reading marmoset behavior 'semantics' under particular social context by multi-parameters correlation analysis. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 35, 1499-1504 (2011).
34. Senoo, A. et al. Effects of constant daylight exposure during early development on marmoset psychosocial behavior. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 35, 1493-1498 (2011).
35. Weaver, I. C. G. et al. Epigenetic programming by maternal behaviour. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 847-854 (2004).
36. Pauling, L. Orthomolecular psychiatry. Science 160, 265-271 (1968).
37. Somayajulu, M. et al. Role of mitochondria in neuronal cell death induced by oxidative stress; neuroprotection by Coenzyme Q10. Neurobiol. Disease 18, 618-627 (2005). (Pubitemid 40332719)
38. Matthews, R. T., Yang, L., Browne, S., Baik, M. & Beal, M. F. Coenzyme Q10 administration increases brain mitochondrial concentrations and exerts neuroprotective effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 8892-8897 (1998).
39. Mimura, K., Mochizuki, D., Nakamura, S. & Koshiba, M. A Sensitive Period of Peer-Social Learning. J. Clin. Toxicol. 3, 158 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0495.1000158.
40. Ten Cate, C. Does behavior contingent stimulus movement enhance filial imprinting in Japanese quail? Dev. Psychobiol. 19(6), 607-614 (1986).
41. Frankenhuis, W. E., House, B., Barrett, H. C. & Johnson, S. P. Infants' perception of chasing. Cognition. 126(2), 224-33 (2013).
42. Johnston, A. N. B., Burne, T. H. J. & Rose, S. P. R. Observation learning in day-old chicks using a one-trial passive avoidance learning paradigm. Anim Behav. 56(6), 1347-1353(1998). (Pubitemid 29049728)
43. Rosa-Salva, O., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Faces are special for newly hatched chicks: evidence for inborn domain-specific mechanisms underlying spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli. Dev. Sci. 565-577 (2010).
44. Rosa-Salva, O., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G. Inversion of contrast polarity abolishes spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli in newborn chicks. Behav. Brain Res. 228(1), 133-143 (2012).
45. Vallortigara, G. & Regolin, L. Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Curr. Biol. 16(8), R279-280 (2006).
46. Vallortigara, G. Core knowledge of object, number, and geometry: a comparative and neural approach. Cogn Neuropsychol. 29(1-2), 213-236 (2012).
47. Vallortigara, G. Aristotle and the chicken: Animacy and the origins of beliefs. In The Theory of Evolution and its Impact (ed Fasolo, A.) pp. 189-200 (Springer, New York, 2012).
48. Sambo, C. F., Forster, B.,Williams, C. & Iannetti, G. D. To Blink or Not to Blink: Fine Cognitive Tuning of the Defensive Peripersonal Space. J. Neurosci. 32, 12921-12927 (2012).
49. Valdes-Conroy, B., Roman, F. J., Hinojosa, J. A. & Shorkey, S. P. So Far So Good: Emotion in the Peripersonal/Extrapersonal Space. PLOS ONE 7, e49162 (2012).
50. Graziano, M. S. A.& Cooke, D. F. Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia 44, 845-859 (2006).
51. Lourenco, S. F., Longo, M. R. & Pathman, T. Near space and its relation to claustrophobic fear. Cognition 119, 448-453 (2011).
52. Kuenzel, W. Chicken Brain Atlas. http://avianbrain.org/atlases.html (29 July 2013).