Estrogen synthesis and signaling in the brains of vertebrates has pleotropic effects ranging from neurogenesis to modulation of behaviors. The majority of studies on brain‐derived estrogens focus on males, but estrogenic signaling in females likely plays important roles in regulation of reproductive cycling and social behaviors. We used females of the mouth brooding African cichlid fish,
Estrogenic signaling is an important focus in studies of gonadal and brain sexual differentiation in fishes and vertebrates generally. This study examined variation in estrogenic signaling (1) across three sexual phenotypes (female, female‐mimic initial phase [IP] male, and terminal phase [TP] male), (2) during socially‐controlled female‐to‐male sex change, and (3) during tidally‐driven spawning cycles in the protogynous bluehead wrasse (
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10308013
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology
- Volume:
- 337
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2471-5638
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 24-34
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract Astatotilapia burtoni , to test for reproductive state‐dependent changes in estrogenic signaling capacity within microdissected brain nuclei that are important for social behaviors. Expression levels of the rate‐limiting enzyme aromatase, but not estrogen receptors, measured by qPCR changes across the reproductive cycle. Gravid females that are close to spawning had higher aromatase levels in all brain regions compared to females with lower reproductive potential. This brain aromatase expression was positively correlated with circulating estradiol levels and ovarian readiness. Using chromogenic in situ hybridization we localized aromatase‐expressing cells to ependymal regions bordering the ventricles from the forebrain to the hindbrain, and observed more abundant staining in gravid compared to mouth brooding females in most regions. Staining was most prominent in subpallial telencephalic regions, and diencephalic regions of the preoptic area, thalamus, and hypothalamus, but was also observed in sensory and sensorimotor areas of the midbrain and hindbrain. Aromatase expression was observed in radial glial cells, revealed by co‐localization with the glial marker GFAP and absence of co‐localization with the neuronal marker HuC/D. Collectively these results support the idea that brain‐derived estradiol in females may serve important functions in reproductive state‐dependent physiological and behavioral processes across vertebrates. -
more » « less
Abstract The transient receptor potential cation channel 2 (TRPC2) conveys pheromonal information from the vomeronasal organ (VNO) to the brain. Both male and female mice lacking this gene show altered sex‐typical behavior as adults. We asked whether TRPC2, highly expressed in the VNO, normally participates in the development of VNO‐recipient brain regions controlling mounting and aggression, two behaviors affected by TRPC2 loss. We now report significant effects of TRPC2 loss in both the posterodorsal aspect of the medial amygdala (MePD) and ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (VMH) of male and female mice. In the MePD, a sex difference in neuron number was eliminated by the TRPC2 knockout (KO), but the effect was complex, with fewer neurons in the
right MePD of females, and fewer neurons in theleft MePD of males. In contrast, MePD astrocytes were unaffected by the KO. In the ventrolateral (vl) aspect of the VMH, KO females were like wildtype (WT) females, but TRPC2 loss had a dramatic effect in males, with fewer neurons than WT males and a smaller VMHvl overall. We also discovered a glial sex difference in VMHvl of WTs, with females having more astrocytes than males. Interestingly, TRPC2 lossincreased astrocyte number in males in this region. We conclude that TRPC2 normally participates in the sexual differentiation of the mouse MePD and VMHvl. These changes in two key VNO‐recipient regions may underlie the effects of the TRPC2 KO on behavior. -
more » « less
Abstract Arginine vasopressin (AVP) is a neuropeptide which acts centrally to modulate numerous social behaviors. One receptor subtype through which these effects occur is the AVP 1a receptor (AVPR1A). The modulatory effects of Avp via the AVPR1A varies by species as well as sex, since both AVP and the AVPR1A tend to be expressed more prominently in males. Beyond these neuromodulatory effects there are also indications that the AVP system may play a role in early development to, in part, organize sex‐specific neural circuitry that is important to sexually dimorphic social behaviors in adulthood. However, to date, AVP's role in early development is poorly understood, particularly with respect to its differential effect on males and females. In order to determine the timing and distribution of the AVP system in early brain development, we examined the brains of male and female C57BL/6J mice between embryonic day (E) 12.5 and postnatal day (P) 2 and quantified
Avp andAvpr1a mRNA using qPCR and AVPR1A protein using receptor autoradiography. The mRNA forAvp was measurable in males and females starting at E14.5, with males producing more than females, whileAvpr1a mRNA was found as early as E12.5, with no difference in expression between sexes. AVPR1A binding was observed in both sexes starting at E16.5, and while there were no observed sex differences, binding density and the number of neuroanatomical areas did increase over time. These data are significant as they provide the first whole‐brain characterization of the vasopressin system in the embryonic mouse. Further, these findings are consistent with data from other species, that have documented a sex difference in the vasopressin system during early brain formation. -
more » « less
Abstract Background Sexually dimorphic mating behaviors differ between sexes and involve gonadal hormones and possibly sexually dimorphic gene expression in the brain. However, the associations among the brain, gonad, and sexual behavior in teleosts are still unclear. Here, we utilized germ cells-free
tdrd12 knockout (KO) zebrafish, and steroid synthesis enzymecyp17a1- deficient zebrafish to investigate the differences and interplays in the brain–gonad–behavior axis, and the molecular control of brain dimorphism and male mating behaviors.Methods Tdrd12 +/−;cyp17a1 +/−double heterozygous parents were crossed to obtaintdrd12 −/− ;cyp17a1 +/ +(tdrd12 KO ),tdrd12 +/ +;cyp17a1 −/− (cyp17a1 KO ), andtdrd12 −/− ;cyp17a1 −/− (double KO) homozygous progenies. Comparative analysis of mating behaviors were evaluated using Viewpoint zebrafish tracking software and sexual traits were thoroughly characterized based on anatomical and histological experiments in these KOs and wild types. The steroid hormone levels (testosterone, 11-ketotestosterone and 17β-estradiol) in the brains, gonads, and serum were measured using ELISA kits. To achieve a higher resolution view of the differences in region-specific expression patterns of the brain, the brains of these KOs, and control male and female fish were dissected into three regions: the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain for transcriptomic analysis.Results Qualitative analysis of mating behaviors demonstrated that
tdrd12 −/− fish behaved in the same manner as wild-type males to trigger oviposition behavior, whilecyp17a1 −/− and double knockout (KO) fish did not exhibit these behaviors. Based on the observation of sex characteristics, mating behaviors and hormone levels in these mutants, we found that the maintenance of secondary sex characteristics and male mating behavior did not depend on the presence of germ cells; rather, they depended mainly on the 11-ketotestosterone and testosterone levels secreted into the brain–gonad regulatory axis. RNA-seq analysis of different brain regions revealed that the brain transcript profile oftdrd12 −/− fish was similar to that of wild-type males, especially in the forebrain and midbrain. However, the brain transcript profiles ofcyp17a1 −/− and double KO fish were distinct from those of wild-type males and were partially biased towards the expression pattern of the female brain. Our results revealed important candidate genes and signaling pathways, such as synaptic signaling/neurotransmission, MAPK signaling, and steroid hormone pathways, that shape brain dimorphism and modulate male mating behavior in zebrafish.Conclusions Our results provide comprehensive analyses and new insights regarding the endogenous interactions in the brain–gonad–behavior axis. Moreover, this study revealed the crucial candidate genes and neural signaling pathways of different brain regions that are involved in modulating brain dimorphism and male mating behavior in zebrafish, which would significantly light up the understanding the neuroendocrine and molecular mechanisms modulating brain dimorphism and male mating behavior in zebrafish and other teleost fish.
Graphical Abstract -
BACKGROUND Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex tackled the two main controversies arising from the Origin of Species: the evolution of humans from animal ancestors and the evolution of sexual ornaments. Most of the book focuses on the latter, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Research since supports his conjecture that songs, perfumes, and intricate dances evolve because they help secure mating partners. Evidence is overwhelming for a primary role of both male and female mate choice in sexual selection—not only through premating courtship but also through intimate interactions during and long after mating. But what makes one prospective mate more enticing than another? Darwin, shaped by misogyny and sexual prudery, invoked a “taste for the beautiful” without speculating on the origin of the “taste.” How to explain when the “final marriage ceremony” is between two rams? What of oral sex in bats, cloacal rubbing in bonobos, or the sexual spectrum in humans, all observable in Darwin’s time? By explaining desire through the lens of those male traits that caught his eyes and those of his gender and culture, Darwin elided these data in his theory of sexual evolution. Work since Darwin has focused on how traits and preferences coevolve. Preferences can evolve even if attractive signals only predict offspring attractiveness, but most attention has gone to the intuitive but tenuous premise that mating with gorgeous partners yields vigorous offspring. By focusing on those aspects of mating preferences that coevolve with male traits, many of Darwin’s influential followers have followed the same narrow path. The sexual selection debate in the 1980s was framed as “good genes versus runaway”: Do preferences coevolve with traits because traits predict genetic benefits, or simply because they are beautiful? To the broader world this is still the conversation. ADVANCES Even as they evolve toward ever-more-beautiful signals and healthier offspring, mate-choice mechanisms and courter traits are locked in an arms race of coercion and resistance, persuasion and skepticism. Traits favored by sexual selection often do so at the expense of chooser fitness, creating sexual conflict. Choosers then evolve preferences in response to the costs imposed by courters. Often, though, the current traits of courters tell us little about how preferences arise. Sensory systems are often tuned to nonsexual cues like food, favoring mating signals resembling those cues. And preferences can emerge simply from selection on choosing conspecifics. Sexual selection can therefore arise from chooser biases that have nothing to do with ornaments. Choice may occur before mating, as Darwin emphasized, but individuals mate multiple times and bias fertilization and offspring care toward favored partners. Mate choice can thus occur in myriad ways after mating, through behavioral, morphological, and physiological mechanisms. Like other biological traits, mating preferences vary among individuals and species along multiple dimensions. Some of this is likely adaptive, as different individuals will have different optimal mates. Indeed, mate choice may be more about choosing compatible partners than picking the “best” mate in the absolute sense. Compatibility-based choice can drive or reinforce genetic divergence and lead to speciation. The mechanisms underlying the “taste for the beautiful” determine whether mate choice accelerates or inhibits reproductive isolation. If preferences are learned from parents, or covary with ecological differences like the sensory environment, then choice can promote genetic divergence. If everyone shares preferences for attractive ornaments, then choice promotes gene flow between lineages. OUTLOOK Two major trends continue to shift the emphasis away from male “beauty” and toward how and why individuals make sexual choices. The first integrates neuroscience, genomics, and physiology. We need not limit ourselves to the feathers and dances that dazzled Darwin, which gives us a vastly richer picture of mate choice. The second is that despite persistent structural inequities in academia, a broader range of people study a broader range of questions. This new focus confirms Darwin’s insight that mate choice makes a primary contribution to sexual selection, but suggests that sexual selection is often tangential to mate choice. This conclusion challenges a persistent belief with sinister roots, whereby mate choice is all about male ornaments. Under this view, females evolve to prefer handsome males who provide healthy offspring, or alternatively, to express flighty whims for arbitrary traits. But mate-choice mechanisms also evolve for a host of other reasons Understanding mate choice mechanisms is key to understanding how sexual decisions underlie speciation and adaptation to environmental change. New theory and technology allow us to explicitly connect decision-making mechanisms with their evolutionary consequences. A century and a half after Darwin, we can shift our focus to females and males as choosers, rather than the gaudy by-products of mate choice. Mate choice mechanisms across domains of life. Sensory periphery for stimulus detection (yellow), brain for perceptual integration and evaluation (orange), and reproductive structures for postmating choice among pollen or sperm (teal). ILLUSTRATION: KELLIE HOLOSKI/ SCIENCEmore » « less
