On the Chemical and Environmental Modulation of Pheromone Release from Vertebrate Scent Marks

1977 ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred E. Regnier ◽  
Michael Goodwin
Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1180
Author(s):  
Michael B. A. Oldstone ◽  
Brian C. Ware ◽  
Amanda Davidson ◽  
Mark C. Prescott ◽  
Robert J. Beynon ◽  
...  

Mature male mice produce a particularly high concentration of major urinary proteins (MUPs) in their scent marks that provide identity and status information to conspecifics. Darcin (MUP20) is inherently attractive to females and, by inducing rapid associative learning, leads to specific attraction to the individual male’s odour and location. Other polymorphic central MUPs, produced at much higher abundance, bind volatile ligands that are slowly released from a male’s scent marks, forming the male’s individual odour that females learn. Here, we show that infection of C57BL/6 males with LCMV WE variants (v2.2 or v54) alters MUP expression according to a male’s infection status and ability to clear the virus. MUP output is substantially reduced during acute adult infection with LCMV WE v2.2 and when males are persistently infected with LCMV WE v2.2 or v54. Infection differentially alters expression of darcin and, particularly, suppresses expression of a male’s central MUP signature. However, following clearance of acute v2.2 infection through a robust virus-specific CD8 cytotoxic T cell response that leads to immunity to the virus, males regain their normal mature male MUP pattern and exhibit enhanced MUP output by 30 days post-infection relative to uninfected controls. We discuss the likely impact of these changes in male MUP signals on female attraction and mate selection. As LCMV infection during pregnancy can substantially reduce embryo survival and lead to lifelong infection in surviving offspring, we speculate that females use LCMV-induced changes in MUP expression both to avoid direct infection from a male and to select mates able to develop immunity to local variants that will be inherited by their offspring.


2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 207 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Ausband ◽  
Michael S. Mitchell ◽  
Sarah B. Bassing ◽  
Craig White

Context Conserving large carnivores can be challenging because of conflicts with human land use and competition with humans for resources. Predation on domestic stock can have negative economic impacts particularly for owners of small herds, and tools for minimising carnivore depredation of livestock are needed. Canids use scent marking to establish territories and avoid intraspecific conflict. Exploiting scent-marking behaviour may provide a means for manipulating canid movements. Aims We hypothesised that human-deployed scent marks (i.e. ‘biofence’) could be used to manipulate the movements of grey wolves (Canis lupus) in Idaho, USA. Methods We deployed 65 km of biofence within three wolf-pack territories during summer 2010 and 2011 and used location data from satellite-collared wolves and sign surveys to assess the effectiveness of biofencing. Key results Location data provided by satellite-collared wolves and sign surveys in 2010 showed little to no trespass of the biofence, even though the excluded areas were used by the packs in previous summers. We also opportunistically deployed a biofence in between a rendezvous site of a resident pack and a nearby sheep grazing allotment; the pack was not implicated in any depredations in summer 2010, even though they had killed sheep every year since 2006. Location data provided by satellite-collared wolves in summer 2011 showed that wolves did trespass biofences. Conclusions Biofencing effectively manipulated the movements of wolves in the first year of our study, but not the second. Implications Our work suggests that biofencing may be most limited by the apparent necessity to maintain a continuous presence once the biofence is established. The inherent labour and costs associated with such efforts may limit the usefulness of biofencing. Our work can be improved on through further testing that maintains biofencing over a longer timeframe (>3 months), samples several animals per treatment pack, and uses a treatment and control design.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen P. Foster ◽  
Karin G. Anderson ◽  
Jérôme Casas

2006 ◽  
pp. 183-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan H. L. Robertson ◽  
Sarah Cheetham ◽  
Stuart Armstrong ◽  
Jane L. Hurst ◽  
Robert J. Beynon
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document