scholarly journals Mistimed feeding disrupts circadian rhythms of male mating behavior and female preovulatory LH surges in mice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayaka Kukino ◽  
Thijs J Walbeek ◽  
Lori J Sun ◽  
Alexander T Watt ◽  
Jin Ho Park ◽  
...  

In rodents, eating at atypical circadian times, such as during the biological rest phase when feeding is normally minimal, reduces fertility. Prior findings suggest this fertility impairment is due, at least in part, to reduced mating success. However, the physiological and behavioral mechanisms underlying this reproductive suppression are not known. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that mistimed feeding-induced infertility is due to a disruption in the normal circadian timing of mating behavior and/or the generation of pre-ovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) surges (estrogen positive feedback). In the first experiment, male+female mouse pairs, acclimated to be food restricted to either the light (mistimed feeding) or dark (control feeding) phase, were scored for mounting frequency and ejaculations over 96 hours. Male mounting behavior and ejaculations were distributed much more widely across the day in light-fed mice than in dark-fed controls and fewer light-fed males ejaculated. In the second experiment, the timing of the LH surge, a well characterized circadian event driven by estradiol (E2) and the SCN, was analyzed from serial blood samples taken from ovariectomized and E2-primed female mice that were light-, dark-, or ad-lib-fed. LH concentrations peaked 2h after lights-off in both dark-fed and ad-lib control females, as expected, but not in light-fed females. Instead, the normally clustered LH surges were distributed widely with high inter-mouse variability in the light-fed group. These data indicate that mistimed feeding disrupts the temporal control of the neural processes underlying both ovulation and mating behavior, contributing to subfertility.

Genetics ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 186 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Morton ◽  
Rachel Clemens-Grisham ◽  
Dennis J. Hazelett ◽  
Anke Vermehren-Schmaedick

Cytoskeleton ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 74 (10) ◽  
pp. 390-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian P. Piasecki ◽  
Thomas A. Sasani ◽  
Alexander T. Lessenger ◽  
Nicholas Huth ◽  
Shane Farrell

1991 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Robacker ◽  
Robert L. Mangan ◽  
Daniel S. Moreno ◽  
Aleena M. Tarshis Moreno

1991 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 246-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E. Ritke ◽  
Raymond D. Semlitsch

We studied mating behavior and male mating success in a population of gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) during 1987 and 1988 in western Tennessee. During 1988, individual males called from 1 to 7 nights ([Formula: see text]) and mated 0–4 times ([Formula: see text]). The number of nights that males called or achieved amplexus was not related to body size, but males that called on more nights had a relatively greater chance of mating. There was no significant difference in body size between mated and unmated males on any of the nights tested. Males that mated or called on a previous night were not more likely to achieve amplexus than males that had not mated previously or those that were new to the population. We have no strong evidence to suggest that assortative mating was characteristic of our population or that male–male aggression directly influences female choice.


Evolution ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 365-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. S. Filice ◽  
Rajat Bhargava ◽  
Reuven Dukas

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document