ライフサイエンスコーパス: partner preference

1 ed for spontaneous alloparental behavior and partner preference.

2 the evolutionary significance of conditioned partner preference.

3 visual and auditory signals, to heterosexual partner preference.

4 agonist (AVPA), neither OT nor AVP induced a partner preference.

5 cused on four regions associated with sexual partner preferences.

6 wer CSI scores but significantly more stable partner preferences.

7 hich of these processes V1aR acts to promote partner preferences.

8 T receptor antagonist prevented MTII-induced partner preferences.

9 such interactions can influence coiled-coil partner preferences.

10 to induce CPP failed to show mating-induced partner preferences.

11 iving vehicle at all 3 time points displayed partner preferences.

12 receptor (V1aR) to facilitate mating induced partner preferences.

13 in the two sexes that underlies heterosexual partner preferences.

14 KA prevented the formation of mating-induced partner preferences.

15 pair bonds can be assessed by testing for a partner preference, a choice test in which pair-bonded v

16 region, but not control males, formed strong partner preferences after an overnight cohabitation, wit

17 amphetamine (AMPH) inhibits the formation of partner preferences (an index of pair bonding) in female

18 ritability, or sexual behavior but increased partner preference and aggression.

19 ne (AVPR1A) has been implicated in increased partner preference and pair bonding behavior in mammalia

20 ary for both the formation and expression of partner preferences and that these processes are dissoci

21 cluded locomotion, irritability, copulation, partner preference, and aggression.

22 into the mPFC of AMPH-exposed voles restored partner preferences, and altered NAcc DA levels, and thi

23 significantly lower CSI scores, less stable partner preferences, and significantly higher glucocorti

24 -injected males were tethered in a 3-chamber partner preference apparatus.

25 nes play a role in sexual differentiation of partner preferences, as in the song system.

26 es of intranasal OT resulted in a deficit in partner preference behavior (a reduction of contact with

27 red for proper display of olfactory-mediated partner preference behavior.

28 us animal's life is the choice of a partner (partner preference), but the process by which this occur

29 vasopressin, can inhibit the formation of a partner preference, but do not lead to the formation of

30 hese results suggest that establishment of a partner preference depends on rewarding characteristics

31 trast, naive SD females and those exhibiting partner preferences did not differ.

32 As adults, males were tested for partner preference following 1 hr of cohabitation with a

33 rmined that (a) captive females demonstrated partner preferences for a nestmate; (b) partner preferen

34 the nucleus accumbens displayed accelerated partner preference formation after cohabitation with a m

35 Mating facilitated partner preference formation and associated with an appr

36 ing and aggressive behavior in hamsters, and partner preference formation and paternal behavior in mo

37 es enduring pair-bonds that are initiated by partner preference formation and regulated by a variety

38 tocin (OT) and arginine vasopressin (AVP) on partner preference formation and social contact in male

39 utyrate and trichostatin A (TSA) facilitated partner preference formation in female prairie voles in

40 Conversely, adrenalectomy inhibits partner preference formation in males and the behavioral

41 ted the effects of MC receptor activation on partner preference formation in prairie voles, as well a

42 l-molecule MC4R agonist, Pf-446687, enhanced partner preference formation in the prairie vole, but no

43 Here we substantially increase partner preference formation in the socially promiscuous

44 hus, MORs within the dorsal striatum mediate partner preference formation via impairment of mating, w

45 MORs within dorsomedial NAc shell inhibited partner preference formation without effecting mating be

46 e voles, OT and dopamine interact to promote partner preference formation, a laboratory measure of an

47 during the cohabitation period and inhibited partner preference formation.

48 l oxytocin receptors prevents mating-induced partner preference formation.

49 sites on protein kinase A (PKA), facilitated partner preference formation.

50 DA neurotransmission in regions that mediate partner preference formation: it decreased OT and DA D2

51 eridol blocked, whereas apomorphine induced, partner-preference formation.

52 of the effects of EBP50 dynamics on binding-partner preferences identified a novel PDZ1 binding part

53 reward mechanisms that control heterosexual partner preference in both sexes.

54 Sexual partner preference in female rats has been difficult to

55 leus accumbens (NAcc) for the formation of a partner preference in female voles.

56 in (OT) on the subsequent tendency to form a partner preference in male prairie voles (Microtus ochro

57 prelimbic cortex) blocked the formation of a partner preference in mating voles, whereas the D2 agoni

58 edial preoptic area (mPOA) on the display of partner preference in ovariectomized, estrogen- and prog

59 gonist quinpirole facilitated formation of a partner preference in the absence of mating.

60 known as pair bond formation, as assessed by partner preference in the laboratory.

61 receptors in the NAcc rescued mating-induced partner preferences in AMPH-treated males.

62 ceptor in the accumbens in the regulation of partner preferences in female prairie voles, and suggest

63 n the accumbens is not sufficient to promote partner preferences in nonmonogamous species.

64 the NAcc but not the caudate putamen induced partner preferences in the absence of mating.

65 f haloperidol directly into the NAcc blocked partner preferences induced by mating and apomorphine.

66 However, the formation of partner preferences may require access to both AVP and O

67 osed to exogenous OT exhibited a significant partner preference, not seen in males receiving OTA or s

68 brain during mating results in a conditioned partner preference, observed as a pair bond.

69 For LD females, partner preference onset corresponded with greater OT re

70 ges in intraspecific social organization and partner preference onset in a nonmonogamous rodent.

71 ther OT receptor binding was associated with partner preference onset.

72 bility but had no effect on sexual behavior, partner preference, or aggression.

73 luntary alcohol consumption can inhibit male partner preference (PP) formation (a laboratory proxy fo

74 study examined the role of dopamine (DA) in partner preference (PP) formation in female prairie vole

75 P, administered to EB+P animals reduced male partner preference, proceptive, and receptive behaviors

76 The display of a partner preference requires at least 2 temporally distin

77 However, SD females that failed to acquire partner preferences showed less OT binding in the LatAmy

78 We investigated social attachment using the partner preference test.

79 bitation with mating or immediately prior to partner preference testing failed to display a partner p

80 We next used partner preference testing to determine whether MORs wit

81 Because both SD and LD females acquire partner preferences, the authors assessed whether OT rec

82 ions indicate that TSA and mating facilitate partner preference through epigenetic events, providing,

83 Notably, mating-induced partner preference triggered the same epigenetic regulat

84 es fail to precisely recapture this synaptic partner preference upon regeneration.

85 Partner preference was measured as the duration of time

86 However, partner preference was not facilitated in nonmonogamous

87 Furthermore, TSA-facilitated partner preference was prevented by OTR or V1aR blockade

88 ated partner preferences for a nestmate; (b) partner preferences were enduring and persisted after dy

89 MTII-induced partner preferences were enduring, as they were present

90 composite sociality indices (CSI) and stable partner preferences, whereas females who scored high on

91 eated control males displayed mating-induced partner preferences, whereas males pretreated with AMPH

92 rtner preference testing failed to display a partner preference, while animals receiving AVPA immedia

93 osterone treatments inhibit the formation of partner preferences, while adrenalectomized females form