Advertisement

The Role of Urinary Proteins and Volatiles in Competitive Scent Marking Among Male House Mice

  • Rick E. Humphries
  • Duncan H. L. Robertson
  • Charlotte M. Nevison
  • Robert J. Beynon
  • Jane L. Hurst

Abstract

Male house mice (Mus domesticus), like many other male mammals, advertise their competitive dominance and ability to defend territories by depositing numerous urinary scent marks throughout their territory (reviewed by Rails, 1971; Johnson, 1973; Gosling, 1982, 1990; Hurst, 1987). Male mice also increase their rate of marking near any competing scent marks from other males, a behaviour termed counter-marking (Hurst, 1990, 1993; Hurst and Rich, 1999). Because only those males successfully dominating their territory can ensure that their own marks are always the freshest and predominant in the area, other males can use the temporal and spatial deposition dynamics of male scent marks to assess territory ownership and competitive ability (see Hurst et al., this volume). Perhaps more importantly, female mice can also use these scent marks to assess the quality of potential mates, preferring dominant male territory owners that counter-mark scent mark challenges from competitors and which ensure that their own marks are always the freshest (Rich and Hurst, 1999).

Keywords

Urinary Protein House Mouse Scent Mark Lower Molecular Weight Fraction Urine Pool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apps, P. J., Rasa, A., and Viljoen, H. W., 1988, Quantitative chromatographic profiling of odours associated with dominance in male laboratory mice, Aggr. Behav. 14:451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacchini, A., Gaetani, E., and Cavaggioni, A., 1992, Pheromone binding proteins of the mouse, Mus musculus, Experientia 48:419–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brennan, P. A., Schellinck, H. M., and Keverne, E. B., 1999, Patterns of expression of the immediate-early gene egr-1 in the accessory olfactory bulb of female mice exposed to pheromonal constituents of male urine, Neuroscience 90 4:1463–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Finlayson, J. S., Potter, M., and Runner, R. C., 1963, Electrophoretic variation and sex dimorphism of the major urinary protein complex in inbred mice: a new genetic marker, J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 31:91–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gosling, L. M., 1982, A reassessment of the function of scent marking in territories, Z. Tierpsychol. 60:89–118.Google Scholar
  6. Gosling, L. M., 1990, Scent marking by resource holders: alternative mechanisms for advertising the costs of competition, in: Chemical Signals in Vertebrates V (D. W. Macdonald, D. Müller-Schwarze, and S. E. Natynczuk, eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 315–328.Google Scholar
  7. Harvey, S., Jemiolo, B., and Novotny, M., 1989, Pattern of volatile compounds in dominant and subordinate male-mouse urine, J. Chem. Ecol. 15:2061–2072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Humphries, R. E., Robertson, D. H. L., Beynon, R. J., and Hurst, J. L., 1999, Unravelling the chemical basis of competitive scent marking in house mice, Anim. Behav. 58:1177–1190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hurst, J. L., 1987, The functions of urine marking in a free-living population of house mice, Mus domesticus Rutty, Anim. Behav. 35:1433–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hurst, J. L., 1989, The complex network of olfactory communication in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty: urine marking and investigation within family groups, Anim. Behav. 37:705–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hurst, J. L., 1990, Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty. I. Communication between males, Anim. Behav. 40:209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hurst, J. L., 1993, The priming effects of urine substrate marks on interactions between male house mice, Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz and Schwarz, Anim. Behav. 45:55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurst, J. L., and Rich, T. J., 1999, Scent marks as competitive signals of mate quality, in: Advances in Chemical Communication in Vertebrates (R. E. Johnson, D. Müller-Schwarze, and P. Sorensen, eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurst, J. L., Robertson, D. H. L., Tolladay, U., and Beynon, R. J., 1998, Proteins in urine scent marks of male house mice extend the longevity of olfactory signals, Anim. Behav. 55:1289–1297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jemiolo, B., Xie, T. M., and Novotny, M., 1992, Urine marking in male mice: Responses to natural and synthetic chemosignals, Physiol. Behav. 52:521–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, R. P., 1973, Scent marking in mammals, Anim. Behav. 21:521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Novotny, M., Harvey, S., and Jemiolo, B., 1990, Chemistry of male dominance in the house mouse, Mus domesticus, Experientia 46:109–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Novotny, M., Ma, W., Wiesler, D., and Zidek, L., 1999, Positive identification of the puberty-accelerating pheromone of the house mouse: the volatile ligands associating with the major urinary protein, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 266:2017–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pes, D., Robertson, D. H. L., Hurst, J. L., Gaskell, S. J., and Beynon, R. J., 1999, How many major urinary proteins are produced by the house mouse Mus domesticus? in: Advances in Chemical Communication in Vertebrates, (R. E. Johnston, D. Muller-Schwarze, and P. Sorensen, eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rails, K., 1971, Mammalian scent marking, Science 171:443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rich, T. J., and Hurst, J. L., 1999, The competing countermarks hypothesis: reliable assessment of competitive ability by potential mates, Anim. Behav. 58:1027–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robertson, D. H. L., Beynon, R. J., and Evershed, R. P., 1993, Extraction, characterization, and binding analysis of two pheromonally active ligands associated with major urinary protein of House Mouse (Mus-Musculus), J. Chem. Ecol. 19:1405–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robertson, D. H. L., Hurst, J. L., Bolgar, M. S., Gaskell, S. J., and Beynon, R. J., 1997, Molecular heterogeneity of urinary proteins in wild house mouse populations, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 11:786–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robertson, D. H. L., Hurst, J. L., Hubbard, S. J-., Gaskell, S. J., and Beynon, R. J., 1998, Ligands of urinary lipocalins from the mouse: uptake of environmentally derived chemicals, J. Chem. Ecol. 24:1127–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singer, A. G., Tsuchiya, H., Wellington, J. L., Beauchamp, G. K., and Yamazaki, K., 1993, Chemistry of Odortypes in Mice - Fractionation and Bioassay, J. Chem. Ecol. 19:569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Singer, A. G., Beauchamp, G. K., and Yamazaki, K., 1997, Volatile signals of the major histocompatibility complex in male mouse urine, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 94:2210–2214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rick E. Humphries
    • 1
  • Duncan H. L. Robertson
    • 2
  • Charlotte M. Nevison
    • 1
  • Robert J. Beynon
    • 2
  • Jane L. Hurst
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Behaviour Group Faculty of Veterinary ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLeahurst, NestonUK
  2. 2.Protein Function Group, Faculty of Veterinary ScienceUniversity of Liverpool Leahurst, NestonUK

Personalised recommendations