戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 n about its heterodimerization properties or partner preference.
2 ed for spontaneous alloparental behavior and partner preference.
3 the evolutionary significance of conditioned partner preference.
4 visual and auditory signals, to heterosexual partner preference.
5 agonist (AVPA), neither OT nor AVP induced a partner preference.
6  also showing associations with the level of partner preference.
7 cused on four regions associated with sexual partner preferences.
8 wer CSI scores but significantly more stable partner preferences.
9 hich of these processes V1aR acts to promote partner preferences.
10  such interactions can influence coiled-coil partner preferences.
11  to induce CPP failed to show mating-induced partner preferences.
12 iving vehicle at all 3 time points displayed partner preferences.
13 receptor (V1aR) to facilitate mating induced partner preferences.
14 T receptor antagonist prevented MTII-induced partner preferences.
15 in the two sexes that underlies heterosexual partner preferences.
16 KA prevented the formation of mating-induced partner preferences.
17  pair bonds can be assessed by testing for a partner preference, a choice test in which pair-bonded v
18 region, but not control males, formed strong partner preferences after an overnight cohabitation, wit
19 amphetamine (AMPH) inhibits the formation of partner preferences (an index of pair bonding) in female
20 ritability, or sexual behavior but increased partner preference and aggression.
21 ne (AVPR1A) has been implicated in increased partner preference and pair bonding behavior in mammalia
22 , we first employed receptor pharmacology in partner preference and social operant tasks to show that
23 ary for both the formation and expression of partner preferences and that these processes are dissoci
24 cluded locomotion, irritability, copulation, partner preference, and aggression.
25 into the mPFC of AMPH-exposed voles restored partner preferences, and altered NAcc DA levels, and thi
26              Fly boundaries exhibit distinct partner preferences, and pairing interactions between bo
27  significantly lower CSI scores, less stable partner preferences, and significantly higher glucocorti
28 -injected males were tethered in a 3-chamber partner preference apparatus.
29 nes play a role in sexual differentiation of partner preferences, as in the song system.
30 es of intranasal OT resulted in a deficit in partner preference behavior (a reduction of contact with
31 red for proper display of olfactory-mediated partner preference behavior.
32 us animal's life is the choice of a partner (partner preference), but the process by which this occur
33  vasopressin, can inhibit the formation of a partner preference, but do not lead to the formation of
34 hese results suggest that establishment of a partner preference depends on rewarding characteristics
35 trast, naive SD females and those exhibiting partner preferences did not differ.
36 n social bond strength predicted first-order partner preferences during mating season consortships.
37             As adults, males were tested for partner preference following 1 hr of cohabitation with a
38 rmined that (a) captive females demonstrated partner preferences for a nestmate; (b) partner preferen
39  the nucleus accumbens displayed accelerated partner preference formation after cohabitation with a m
40                           Mating facilitated partner preference formation and associated with an appr
41 ing and aggressive behavior in hamsters, and partner preference formation and paternal behavior in mo
42 es enduring pair-bonds that are initiated by partner preference formation and regulated by a variety
43 bly, adult social bonding behaviors, such as partner preference formation and selective aggression, w
44 tocin (OT) and arginine vasopressin (AVP) on partner preference formation and social contact in male
45 utyrate and trichostatin A (TSA) facilitated partner preference formation in female prairie voles in
46           Conversely, adrenalectomy inhibits partner preference formation in males and the behavioral
47           Social defeat experience inhibited partner preference formation in males but promoted prefe
48 ted the effects of MC receptor activation on partner preference formation in prairie voles, as well a
49 l-molecule MC4R agonist, Pf-446687, enhanced partner preference formation in the prairie vole, but no
50               Here we substantially increase partner preference formation in the socially promiscuous
51 hus, MORs within the dorsal striatum mediate partner preference formation via impairment of mating, w
52  MORs within dorsomedial NAc shell inhibited partner preference formation without effecting mating be
53 e voles, OT and dopamine interact to promote partner preference formation, a laboratory measure of an
54 during the cohabitation period and inhibited partner preference formation.
55 l oxytocin receptors prevents mating-induced partner preference formation.
56 sites on protein kinase A (PKA), facilitated partner preference formation.
57 DA neurotransmission in regions that mediate partner preference formation: it decreased OT and DA D2
58 eridol blocked, whereas apomorphine induced, partner-preference formation.
59  of the effects of EBP50 dynamics on binding-partner preferences identified a novel PDZ1 binding part
60  reward mechanisms that control heterosexual partner preference in both sexes.
61                                       Sexual partner preference in female rats has been difficult to
62 leus accumbens (NAcc) for the formation of a partner preference in female voles.
63 in (OT) on the subsequent tendency to form a partner preference in male prairie voles (Microtus ochro
64 prelimbic cortex) blocked the formation of a partner preference in mating voles, whereas the D2 agoni
65 edial preoptic area (mPOA) on the display of partner preference in ovariectomized, estrogen- and prog
66  Inhibition of BNST CRH neurons also blocked partner preference in stress-naive females but did not a
67 ring cohabitation with a new partner blocked partner preference in stress-naive males but promoted pr
68 t cohabitation with a new partner promoted a partner preference in stress-naive prairie voles.
69 gonist quinpirole facilitated formation of a partner preference in the absence of mating.
70 known as pair bond formation, as assessed by partner preference in the laboratory.
71 receptors in the NAcc rescued mating-induced partner preferences in AMPH-treated males.
72 ceptor in the accumbens in the regulation of partner preferences in female prairie voles, and suggest
73 n the accumbens is not sufficient to promote partner preferences in nonmonogamous species.
74 the NAcc but not the caudate putamen induced partner preferences in the absence of mating.
75 f haloperidol directly into the NAcc blocked partner preferences induced by mating and apomorphine.
76 a, and SDN function as a regulator of sexual partner preference is confirmed.
77                    However, the formation of partner preferences may require access to both AVP and O
78 osed to exogenous OT exhibited a significant partner preference, not seen in males receiving OTA or s
79 brain during mating results in a conditioned partner preference, observed as a pair bond.
80                              For LD females, partner preference onset corresponded with greater OT re
81 ges in intraspecific social organization and partner preference onset in a nonmonogamous rodent.
82 ther OT receptor binding was associated with partner preference onset.
83 bility but had no effect on sexual behavior, partner preference, or aggression.
84 the receptor-transducer structures determine partner preference; or (iii) the dynamics of GPCR bindin
85  display impaired sexual behavior and sexual partner preference over the reproductive age.
86 n actual pair formation, and data connecting partner preferences, partnership formation, and relation
87 luntary alcohol consumption can inhibit male partner preference (PP) formation (a laboratory proxy fo
88  study examined the role of dopamine (DA) in partner preference (PP) formation in female prairie vole
89 P, administered to EB+P animals reduced male partner preference, proceptive, and receptive behaviors
90                             The display of a partner preference requires at least 2 temporally distin
91 HS dimer structures, which may contribute to partner preference, RNA specificity, and subnuclear loca
92   However, SD females that failed to acquire partner preferences showed less OT binding in the LatAmy
93 y in males-a distinction not detected by the partner preference test.
94  We investigated social attachment using the partner preference test.
95 ed the amount of social interaction during a partner preference test.
96 bitation with mating or immediately prior to partner preference testing failed to display a partner p
97                                 We next used partner preference testing to determine whether MORs wit
98       Because both SD and LD females acquire partner preferences, the authors assessed whether OT rec
99 ions indicate that TSA and mating facilitate partner preference through epigenetic events, providing,
100                      Notably, mating-induced partner preference triggered the same epigenetic regulat
101 es fail to precisely recapture this synaptic partner preference upon regeneration.
102                                              Partner preference was measured as the duration of time
103                                     However, partner preference was not facilitated in nonmonogamous
104                 Furthermore, TSA-facilitated partner preference was prevented by OTR or V1aR blockade
105 ated partner preferences for a nestmate; (b) partner preferences were enduring and persisted after dy
106                                 MTII-induced partner preferences were enduring, as they were present
107 composite sociality indices (CSI) and stable partner preferences, whereas females who scored high on
108 eated control males displayed mating-induced partner preferences, whereas males pretreated with AMPH
109 rtner preference testing failed to display a partner preference, while animals receiving AVPA immedia
110 osterone treatments inhibit the formation of partner preferences, while adrenalectomized females form

 
Page Top