Abstract

Distinct manifestations of sexual behavior are conceived as separate phenotypes. Each sexual phenotype is assumed to be associated with a characteristic brain. These notions have justified the phenotyping of heterosexual copulator males based upon their ejaculation’s latencies (EL) or frequencies (i.e., cumulative ejaculation number; EN). For instance, men and male rats showing premature, normal or retarded ejaculation are assumed to be distinctive endophenotypes. This concept, nonetheless, contradicts past and recent evidence that supports that sexual behavior is highly variable within each sex, and that the brain sexual functional morphology represents an intricate sexual phenotypic mosaic. Hence, for ejaculatory male endophenotypes to be considered as a valid biological concept, it must show internal consistency at various levels of organization (including genetic architectures), after being challenged by intrinsic and/or extrinsic factors. We then judged the internal consistency of the presumed ejaculatory endophenotypes by assessing whether copulatory behavior and the expression of copulation relevant genes and brain limbic structures are specific to each of the presumed EL- or EN-ejaculatory endophenotypes. To do this, copulating male rats were first phenotyped in groups consistently displaying short, average or long ejaculation latencies or very high, high, average, low or very low EN, based in their copulatory performance. Then, the internal consistency of the presumed EL- or EN-endophenotypes was tested by introducing as covariates of phenotyping other copulatory parameters (e.g., number of intromissions) in addition to EL or EN, or by analyzing the expression levels of genes encoding for estrogen receptor alpha, progesterone receptor, androgen receptor, aromatase, DNA methyl-transferase 3a and DNA methyl-transferase 1 in the amygdala, medial preoptic area, ventromedial hypothalamus and olfactory bulb. We found that even though there were group-level differences in all the variables that were studied, these differences did not add-up to create the presumed EL- or EN-ejaculatory endophenotypes. In fact, the extensive overlapping of copulatory parameters and expression levels of copulation relevant genes in limbic structures across EL- or EN-phenotyped copulating male rats, is not consistent with the hypothesis that distinct ejaculatory endophenotypes exist and that they are associated with specific brain characteristics.

Highlights

  • Distinct manifestations of sexual behavior are long thought to represent separate phenotypes (Chivers et al, 2004; de Vries and Södersten, 2009; Jordan, 2010; Cerny and Janssen, 2011; Flanagan-Cato, 2011; Rosenthal et al, 2011, 2012; Balthazart, 2016; Joel and Fausto-Sterling, 2016; Portillo and Paredes, 2019)

  • We evaluated the degree of similarity among ejaculation latency (EL)-or EN-phenotyped copulating males by combining complete linkage cluster dendrograms and heat map for all the relative expression levels of ESR1, progesterone receptor (PR), androgen receptor (AR), CPY19, DNA methyl-transferase 3a (DNMT3a) and DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1) in AMG, medial preoptic area (MPOA), ventromedial hypothalamus (VMH) and olfactory bulb (OB) (Figure 4B for EL-phenotyped males and Supplementary Figure S4B for EN-phenotyped males)

  • As shown in the boxplot and probability density plot showed in Figures 1, 2, EL-endophenotypes were not internally consistent since virtually all of them become overlapped when any of the other copulatory parameters were introduced in the analyses

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Distinct manifestations of sexual behavior (e.g., female/male heterosexuality, male/female homosexuality; female/male bisexuality and so forth) are long thought to represent separate phenotypes (Chivers et al, 2004; de Vries and Södersten, 2009; Jordan, 2010; Cerny and Janssen, 2011; Flanagan-Cato, 2011; Rosenthal et al, 2011, 2012; Balthazart, 2016; Joel and Fausto-Sterling, 2016; Portillo and Paredes, 2019) This notion embraces the behavioral display of the individuals sharing distinct sexual expressions, and the presumption that the brain of each phenotypic group displays functional morphological attributes that are specific to each sexual phenotype (Zhou et al, 1995; Fernández-Guasti et al, 2000; Kruijver et al, 2000; Savic et al, 2005, 2010; Berglund et al, 2006; Swaab, 2008; Sakamoto, 2012; Rahman and Yusuf, 2015; Taziaux et al, 2016; Burke et al, 2017; Amezcua-Gutiérrez et al, 2018). This last observation is not surprising since it has been long known that under physiological conditions, in male rats, ejaculation is minimally affected by testosterone (Whalen et al, 1961), there is a limited correlation between circulating testosterone and sexual behavior (Damassa et al, 1977), chronic sexual activity does not predict testosterone concentration (Shulman and Spritzer, 2014; see Portillo et al, 2010) and there is no association between ejaculation times and testosterone levels (Morgentaler et al, 2017)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call