The effects of dopamine receptor 1 and 2 agonists and antagonists on sexual and aggressive behaviors in male green anoles

Abstract

The propensity to exhibit social behaviors during interactions with same-sex and opposite-sex conspecifics is modulated by various neurotransmitters, including dopamine. Dopamine is a conserved neurotransmitter among vertebrates and dopaminergic receptors are also highly conserved among taxa. Activation of D₁ and D₂ dopamine receptor subtypes has been shown to modulate social behaviors, especially in mammalian and avian studies. However, the specific behavioral functions of these receptors vary across taxa. In reptiles there have been few studies examining the relationship between dopaminergic receptors and social behaviors. We therefore examined the effects of D₁ and D₂ agonists and antagonists on sexual and aggressive behaviors in the male green anole lizard (Anolis carolinensis). Treatment with high doses of both D₁ and D₂ agonists was found to impair both sexual and aggressive behaviors. However, the D1 agonist treatment was also found to impair motor function, suggesting that those effects were likely nonspecific. Lower doses of both agonists and antagonists failed to affect social behaviors. These findings provide some evidence for D2 receptor regulation of social behaviors, but in contrast with previous research, these effects are all inhibitory and no effects were found for manipulations of D1 receptors. A potential reason for the lack of more widespread effects on social behaviors using moderate or low drug doses is that systemic injection of drugs resulted in effects throughout the whole brain, thus affecting counteracting circuits which negated one another, making measurable changes in behavioral output difficult to detect. Future studies should administer drugs directly into brain regions known to regulate sexual and aggressive behaviors.

About the Authors:

Alexandra N. Smith

Affiliations Department of Biology, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America, Program in Neuroscience, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America

David Kabelik

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Biology, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America, Program in Neuroscience, Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee, United States of America

ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1196-8071

Introduction

Animal social behaviors are regulated by a social behavior neural network that interacts with the mesolimbic reward system to form a social decision-making network [1,2]. The catecholamine dopamine is one of the primary signaling molecules that regulates activity within this neural network. Dopamine is known to be involved in motivation and reward-seeking behaviors [3], locomotion [4], and social behaviors, including sexual [5] and aggressive [6] behaviors. Established dopamine-mediated social behaviors include sexual behavior in birds [7–9], mammals [10–12], and reptiles [13,14], as well as aggressive behaviors in mammals [15,16] and birds [17,18]. However, dopamine’s involvement in sexual and aggressive behaviors across species is varied in its effects [14,17–20].

Reptiles are a taxonomic group that has been largely overlooked in studies on dopamine’s involvement in sexual and aggressive behaviors; however, they are a potentially important model for examining the effects of dopamine on social behaviors, since they are the closest living relatives to birds and mammals [21,22]. Previous research suggests that the structure of the dopaminergic system exhibits a conserved pattern among reptiles [21], as well as across amniotic vertebrates [23]. However, it is unknown whether the functions of this dopaminergic system are similar across taxa.

Only minimal evidence currently exists in lizards for causal dopaminergic regulation of social behaviors. In terms of aggression, green anole (A. carolinensis) males fed crickets injected with the dopamine precursor L-3,4-dihyrdoxyphenylalanine (L-DOPA) were found to possess higher central dopamine (but not serotonin or norepinephrine) concentrations and to concurrently exhibit lower aggression scores than control subjects [24]. Also in green anoles, extracellular dopamine levels increased in the nucleus accumbens and amygdala in males after exposure to a mirror, which the animals perceive as a social challenge from another invading male [25]. Similarly, green anole males that were paired with a perceived dominant individual showed increased dopamine in the raphe and amygdalar regions, whereas males paired with perceived subordinate individuals exhibited increased dopamine in the striatum, nucleus accumbens, hypothalamus, and midbrain tegmentum [26]. Further evidence linking dopamine with social behaviors was provided by a study of male brown anoles (Anolis sagrei), which detailed various populations of neurons immunoreactive for tyrosine hydroxylase, an enzyme involved in dopamine synthesis [27]. The percentage of these neurons colocalizing Fos, a protein used as an indicator of neural activation [28], correlated with the frequency of courtship and aggressive behaviors in a number of dopaminergic cell populations [27]. Catecholamines in the peripheral nervous system are also involved in social behaviors in lizards: the postorbital patch of skin behind the eye of a male green anole, known as an eye spot, darkens as a display of and response to aggression due to an increase in plasma catecholamine levels [29].

Most studies addressing dopamine’s causal effects on social behavior focus on activation or inactivation of the D₁ and D₂ receptors subtypes. The little direct evidence that exists for dopaminergic regulation of lizard social behavior is limited to the effects of D₁ agonists and antagonists on sexual behavior in three lizard species: two related species of whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus inoratus and C. uniparens) and leopard geckos (Eublepharis macularius) [13,14]. In whiptail lizards, systemic injection of a D₁ agonist increased mounting behavior [14], while in leopard geckos, systemic injection of a D₁ antagonist inhibited courtship behavior [13]. However, in the whiptail lizard study, the D₁ agonist doses that caused a significant change in behavior were extremely small at 0.005 (in the hybrid triploid species) and 0.05 μg/mg (in the parental diploid species) [14]. Additionally, only consummatory sexual behaviors (i.e. mounting and copulation), and not appetitive sexual behaviors (i.e. anticipatory behaviors) were examined in this study. Appetitive courtship behaviors were examined in the leopard geckos experiment, but these data are unpublished and only referred to in a review, and they involve fairly high doses of D₁ antagonists (4–8 mg/kg) [13]. The effects of D₂ receptor activation on lizard social behaviors are completely unknown. We hypothesize that D₁ and D₂ receptor activation modulates both sexual and aggressive behaviors in male green anoles because these receptors play such roles in other amniote species. We predict that the activation of D₁ receptors will have similar effects as seen in other species [18,19,30,31], specifically, that a D₁ agonist will increase sexual and aggressive behaviors in male green anoles. However, while D₂ receptor activation has been shown to be involved in sexual and aggressive behaviors in other species, the effects do not alter behavior in a consistent manner [17–20,32,33]. Therefore, we predict that the D₂ agonist will have an effect, but we do not make a prediction on the directionality of this effect.

Methods

Subjects

The subjects used in this experiment were male green anoles (Anolis carolinensis). They were purchased from Sullivan Amphibians in Nashville, TN, and housed on a 14:10 hour light-dark schedule, and a temperature range of 24–31°C (temperature peaking at mid-day), with additional heat provided by a 60-watt light bulb suspended above half of each terrarium (30.5 cm H x 26 cm W x 51 cm L). The preferred daytime body temperature of these lizards is between 30–34°C [34]. The focal males were housed individually, while the stimulus males were each housed with two stimulus females. All the focal males were kept in visual isolation from each other with an opaque divider between terraria. All animals were monitored daily and fed live crickets three times a week. Five animals died of natural causes during the course of these experiments and were excluded from analyses. All procedures were approved by the Rhodes College Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol 101) and are in accordance with federal guidelines.

Behavioral testing

Testing was conducted during breeding-condition periods between June 2014 and April 2016. Each focal male was sized-matched with a stimulus male based on snout-vent length, with the stimulus male being no more than 0.2 cm longer or shorter than the focal male. The aggressive and sexual display behaviors (Table 1) examined in this study were the same as those observed in other studies investigating courtship and aggression in lizards [14,27,35].

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. An ethogram of behaviors recorded for the focal males and stimulus animals during behavioral trials.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172041.t001

All drugs were dissolved in 0.9% NaCl, and administered intraperitoneally at a volume of 0.05 mL, 30–60 min prior to behavioral testing. Repeated-subjects experiments were run with subjects given at least two-week breaks between different treatments. The two-week gap between testing minimized the possibility of recognition between the male anoles as male green anoles exhibit recognition of opponents of aggressive encounters for seven to ten days [36]. Within experiments, the same focal males were also always paired with the same stimulus males to minimize behavioral variation between drug and saline treatments.

For the courtship trials, 2 females were placed in the focal male’s terrarium and the behaviors of both stimulus females and the focal male were recorded for 10 minutes. Once the females were removed, a mirror aggression trial was run by placing a mirror on the outside of the focal male’s terrarium opposite of the heat lamp and opposite the top of the perch, and behaviors were again recorded for 10 minutes. The mirror trial was included to test for the initiation of aggressive behavior; the animals do not recognize their reflection, so the focal males view the image as an intruding male [25]. The mirror was then removed and a stimulus male was placed in the focal male’s terrarium for the aggression trial, and both focal and stimulus males’ behaviors were recorded for 10 minutes. These same behavioral trial methods were used in all experiments.

Drugs

The D₁ agonist SKF 38393 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA; catalog item DO47) was injected at 10, 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 mg/kg and 0.05 and 0.005 μg/kg doses. The 1 mg/kg dose is a standard dose that has achieved effects on social behaviors in other species [17,19,30]. The 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 mg/kg doses were chosen to test the effects of small doses akin to those used by Balthazart et al. [19]. The 0.05 and 0.005 μg/kg doses were chosen to test the effects of even smaller doses, akin to those used by Woolley et al. [14]. The D₂ agonist quinpirole (Sigma-Q111) was injected at 10 and 1 mg/kg doses. The D₁ antagonist SCH-23390 (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA; catalog item D054) was injected at 1 and 0.1 mg/kg doses. The D₂ antagonist raclopride (Sigma-R121) was injected at 1 and 0.1 mg/kg doses.

A small follow-up D₁ agonist study was also run to test the repeatability of a significant result obtained for the 0.001 mg/kg D₁ agonist dose in the mirror aggression trials.

Data analysis

All analyses utilized non-parametric tests because the data did not meet the assumptions of parametric tests. The frequencies and latencies of social behaviors following drug or saline treatment were analyzed using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests or Friedman non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA, with significance set at p < 0.05. Post-hoc analyses were conducted using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests. Instead of adjustments for running multiple tests, we ran follow-up repeatability experiments on significant results.

Results

D₁ agonist

There were significant differences found in the 10 mg/kg treatment with SKF 38393 relative to control (N = 20). Behavioral frequencies (Z = -3.62, p<0.001, Z = -3.92, p<0.001) and latencies (Z = -3.01, p = 0.003, Z = -3.57, p<0.001) were both affected in the mirror trial and intermale aggression trials, respectively. Fig 1 depicts results from experiments using the D₁ agonist. Additionally, the latency (Z = -2.41, p = 0.016), but not frequency (Z = -1.06, p = 0.29), of behaviors in the courtship trial was also significantly greater following drug treatment relative to saline. A transient cessation of all locomotor activity at approximately 50 minutes was noted following this high agonist dose and subjects remained in a state of very low motor activity for a period of minutes to hours, but subsequently regained normal motor functions. Separate analyses of the frequencies and latencies of the dorsal crest and eye spot did not offer any additional insight into the role of D₁ and D₂ receptors on social behaviors, so those data are not reported for any experiment.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. A dose response graph of the frequencies of (Top) and latencies to first display (Bottom) of sexual and aggressive behaviors in experiments using the D₁ agonist SKF 38393.

The control values were averaged from all experiments using D₁ agonists. The error bars represent ± S.E.M. The * represents significance of p < 0.05 compared to control.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172041.g001

There were no significant differences (p>0.05 for all) in recorded behaviors following the D₁ agonist treatment at the 1 mg/kg dose (N = 20).

Following 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 mg/kg doses (N = 22), only one value was significant: the frequency of aggressive behaviors in the mirror trial was significantly lower in the 0.001 mg/kg dose than saline treatment (χ² = 11.89, df = 3, p = 0.008; p>0.05 for all other comparisons). However, a follow-up replication of this behavioral analysis (N = 22) failed to find a significant difference between the 0.001 mg/kg (mean = 6.2, S.E. = 2.12) and saline (mean = 4.1, S.E. = 1.93) groups (Z = -1.34, p = 0.18).

Finally, there were no significant differences (p>0.05 for all) in recorded behaviors following treatment with the 0.05 and 0.005 μg/kg doses, relative to saline (N = 10).

D₂ agonist

The lizards treated with 10 mg/kg of the D₂ agonist quinpirole (N = 20) displayed significantly fewer aggressive behaviors in the intermale trials than lizards treated with saline (Z = -2.29, p = 0.022; Fig 2). The latency to display courtship behaviors (Z = -2.57, p = 0.010), as well as aggressive behaviors in both the mirror (Z = -2.35, p = 0.019) and intermale aggression (Z = -2.74, p = 0.006) trials were greater when given the 10 mg/kg dose. There was no effect on behavioral frequency within courtship and mirror aggression trials. While there was no noticeable motor impairment as with the D₁ agonist at 10.0 mg/kg, there was an increase in latency for all behaviors.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. A dose response graph of the frequencies of (Top) and latencies to first display (Bottom) of sexual and aggressive behaviors in experiments using the D2 agonist quinpirole.

The control values were averaged from all experiments using D2 agonists. The error bars represent ± S.E.M. The * represents significance of p < 0.05 compared to control.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172041.g002

There were no significant differences (p>0.05 for all) in recorded behaviors following the D₂ agonist treatment at the 1 mg/kg dose (N = 20).

D₁ antagonist

Following treatment with 1.0 and 0.1 mg/kg doses of the D₁ antagonist SCH-23390 (N = 10), there were no significant differences or trends (p>0.05 for all) found between the behavioral frequencies and latencies of the males treated with saline and either drug dose (data not shown).

D₂ antagonist

As with the D1 antagonist, treatment with 1.0 and 0.1 mg/kg doses of the D₂ antagonist raclopride (N = 10), there were no significant differences or trends (p>0.05 for all) found between the behavioral frequencies and latencies of the males treated with saline and either drug dose (data not shown).

Discussion

Despite evidence for robust effects of D₁ and D₂ receptor activation on sexual and aggressive behaviors in other species, we were solely able to detect a general inhibition of social behaviors with high doses (10 mg/kg) of the D₂ receptor agonist in male green anoles. An inhibition of social behaviors also occurred following high dose treatment with the D₁ receptor agonist, but these were thought to be nonspecific effects given that they occurred concurrently with visible impairment of locomotion, thus making it impossible to separate social behavior effects from motor system effects. This cessation of locomotion lasted for a period of minutes to hours. Effects on motor function are unsurprising, given that both D₁ and D₂ receptors are involved in regulating motor function [4]. The D₂ agonist did not qualitatively inhibit locomotion as did the D₁ agonist. Therefore, the D₂ effects on social behavior may be specific to social behavior circuitry. However, we must still be caution in accepting such an interpretation, as it is also possible that these high drug doses induced some nausea/discomfort that nonspecifically suppressed behaviors.

All lower doses of D₁ and D₂ agonists failed to affect any measure of social behavior, except for a decrease in the frequency of mirror trial aggression following the 0.001 mg/kg dose of the D₁ agonist relative to saline treatment. Hence, we replicated this mirror trial as our multiple statistical comparisons may have resulted in false positive results due to chance. The replicated test failed to reproduce the original significant difference, suggesting that that difference had indeed arisen due to chance.

The lack of significant effects of the very low D₁ agonist doses (0.005 and 0.05 μg/kg), which had previously been found to be effective in whiptail lizards, could be due to species differences or to the different type of agonists used between the studies [14]. The drug SKF 81297, used in Woolley et al. [14], is a full D₁ receptor agonist with an efficacy rate comparable to dopamine itself [37]; however, SKF 81297 has now been found to act not only on D₁ receptors but also partly on D₂ receptors, as well as on D₁-D₂ receptor heterodimers, thus leading to changes in neural activity within target brain regions that differ from changes elicited by solely D₁ receptor-specific drugs [38]. Perhaps the different results obtained here and in Woolley et al. [14] are therefore due to their use of a more promiscuous dopamine agonist. The presence of a relevant D₁-D₂ receptor heterodimer mechanism could also explain the lack of specific effects on social behavior in our study relative to manipulations of the whole dopaminergic system via L-DOPA treatment by Höglund et al. [24].

To further address our hypotheses, the effects of D₁ and D₂ antagonists were also examined in order to determine if a ceiling effect resulting from large amounts of endogenous dopamine release may have obscured potential roles of these receptors that were not apparent following agonist treatment. However, no significant effects on social behavior were found for either the D₁ or D₂ antagonist.

The lack of extensive effects of dopamine receptor manipulation on social behaviors in this study could be due to the peripheral administration of the drugs. Such an approach targets the entire brain and thus acts simultaneously on multiple brain regions that may all regulate social behaviors, but not all in the same manner. Simplistically, some regions may promote while others inhibit given behaviors, and thus one drug acting on both types of regions could cause effects that cancel each other out or at least create enough noise to impair detection of any actual effects. A more direct approach of drug delivery to brain regions involved in social behaviors might yield more telling results. For example, the nucleus accumbens, amygdala, prefrontal cortex, and parts of the hypothalamus are regions known to be involved in regulating aggression in mammals, but not all in the same manner [24,39–41]. And the release of dopamine in some of these regions during aggression encounters in green anoles appears to depend on whether the subject perceives that it is winning or losing an encounter [26]. A direct method of individually delivering dopaminergic drugs into these or homologous regions of the lizard brain might prevent the drug from binding to various counteracting brains regions and thus allow for the unmasking of further effects on social behavior. The case for direct administration of drugs to brain regions in future is bolstered by findings in the literature that detail differing effects of peripheral, intra-cerebroventricular, and brain-region-specific dopaminergic drug administration [9,42–44].

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drs. Sarah Boyle and Kim Gerecke for their helpful feedback regarding this study.

Author Contributions

1. Conceptualization: ANS DK.

2. Formal analysis: ANS DK.

3. Funding acquisition: DK.

4. Investigation: ANS.

5. Methodology: ANS DK.

6. Project administration: DK.

7. Resources: DK.

8. Supervision: DK.

9. Visualization: ANS DK.

10. Writing – original draft: ANS DK.

11. Writing – review & editing: ANS DK.

Citation: Smith AN, Kabelik D (2017) The effects of dopamine receptor 1 and 2 agonists and antagonists on sexual and aggressive behaviors in male green anoles. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0172041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172041

References

1. Goodson JL, Kabelik D. Dynamic limbic networks and social diversity in vertebrates: From neural context to neuromodulatory patterning. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 2009;30(4):429–41. pmid:19520105

2. O’Connell LA, Hofmann HA. The vertebrate mesolimbic reward system and social behavior network: A comparative synthesis. J. Comp. Neurol. 2011;519(18):3599–639. pmid:21800319

3. Abraham AD, Neve KA, Lattal KM. Dopamine and extinction: A convergence of theory with fear and reward circuitry. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2014;108:65–77. pmid:24269353

4. Clemens S, Belin-Rauscent A, Simmers J, Combes D. Opposing modulatory effects of D1-and D2-like receptor activation on a spinal central pattern generator. J. Neurophysiol. 2012;107(8):2250–9. pmid:22262823

5. Giuliano F, Allard J. Dopamine and male sexual function. Eur. Urol. 2001;40(6):601–8. pmid:11805404

6. Miczek KA, Fish EW, de Bold JF, de Almeida RM. Social and neural determinants of aggressive behavior: pharmacotherapeutic targets at serotonin, dopamine and γ-aminobutyric acid systems. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2002;163(3):434–58.

7. Kleitz-Nelson HK, Dominguez JM, Ball GF. Dopamine release in the medial preoptic area is related to hormonal action and sexual motivation. Behav. Neurosci. 2010;124(6):773–9. pmid:21133533

8. Kleitz-Nelson HK, Dominguez JM, Cornil CA, Ball GF. Is sexual motivational state linked to dopamine release in the medial preoptic area? Behav. Neurosci. 2010;124(2):300–4. pmid:20364890

9. Kleitz-Nelson HK, Cornil CA, Balthazart J, Ball GF. Differential effects of central injections of D1 and D2 receptor agonists and antagonists on male sexual behavior in Japanese quail. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2010;32(1):118–29. pmid:20597974

10. Dominguez JM, Hull EM. Dopamine, the medial preoptic area, and male sexual behavior. Physiol. Behav. 2005;86(3):356–68. pmid:16135375

11. Foreman MM, Hall JL. Effects of D2-dopaminergic receptor stimulation on male rat sexual behavior. J. Neural Transm. 1987;68(3):153–70.

12. Hull EM, Du J, Lorrain DS, Matuszewich L. Extracellular dopamine in the medial preoptic area: implications for sexual motivation and hormonal control of copulation. J. Neurosci. 1995;15(11):7465–71. pmid:7472498

13. Woolley SC, Sakata JT, Crews D. Evolutionary insights into the regulation of courtship behavior in male amphibians and reptiles. Physiol. Behav. 2004;83(2):347–60. pmid:15488550

14. Woolley SC, Sakata JT, Gupta A, Crews D. Evolutionary changes in dopaminergic modulation of courtship behavior in Cnemidophorus whiptail lizards. Horm. Behav. 2001;40(4):483–9. pmid:11716577

15. Ferrari PF, Van Erp AMM, Tornatzky W, Miczek KA. Accumbal dopamine and serotonin in anticipation of the next aggressive episode in rats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2003;17(2):371–8. pmid:12542674

16. Sweidan S, Edinger H, Siegel A. The role of D1 and D2 receptors in dopamine agonist-induced modulation of affective defense behavior in the cat. Brain Res. Elsevier; 1991;549(1):127–37.

17. Kabelik D, Kelly AM, Goodson JL. Dopaminergic regulation of mate competition aggression and aromatase-Fos colocalization in vasotocin neurons. Neuropharmacology. 2010;58(1):117–25. pmid:19540858

18. Dennis RL, Cheng HW. The dopaminergic system and aggression in laying hens. Poult. Sci. 2011;90(11):2440–8. pmid:22010227

19. Balthazart J, Castagna C, Ball GF. Differential effects of D1 and D2 dopamine-receptor agonists and antagonists on appetitive and consummatory aspects of male sexual behavior in Japanese quail. Physiol. Behav. 1997;62(3):571–80. pmid:9272666

20. Pfaus JG, Phillips AG. Role of dopamine in anticipatory and consummatory aspects of sexual behavior in the male rat. Behav. Neurosci. American Psychological Association; 1991;105(5):727.

21. Smeets W. Catecholamine systems in the CNS of reptiles: structure and functional correlations. Phylogeny Dev. Catech. Syst. CNS Vertebr. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1994;103–33.

22. Benton MJ, Donoghue PCJ. Paleontological evidence to date the tree of life. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007;24(1):26–53. pmid:17047029

23. Smeets WJA. Phylogeny and Development of Catecholamine Systems in the CNS of Vertebrates. Cambridge University Press; 1994.

24. Höglund E, Korzan WJ, Watt MJ, Forster GL, Summers TR, Johannessen HF, et al. Effects of L-DOPA on aggressive behavior and central monoaminergic activity in the lizard Anolis carolinensis, using a new method for drug delivery. Behav. Brain Res. 2005;156(1):53–64. pmid:15474650

25. Watt MJ, Forster GL, Korzan WJ, Renner KJ, Summers CH. Rapid neuroendocrine responses evoked at the onset of social challenge. Physiol. Behav. 2007;90(4):567–75. pmid:17187831

26. Korzan WJ, Forster GL, Watt MJ, Summers CH. Dopaminergic activity modulation via aggression, status, and a visual social signal. Behav. Neurosci. 2006;120(1):93–102. pmid:16492120

27. Kabelik D, Alix VC, Singh LJ, Johnson AL, Choudhury SC, Elbaum CC, et al. Neural activity in catecholaminergic populations following sexual and aggressive interactions in the brown anole, Anolis sagrei. Brain Res. 2014;1553:41–58. pmid:24472578

28. Kovács KJ. Measurement of immediate-early gene activation- c-fos and beyond. J. Neuroendocrinol. 2008;20(6):665–72. pmid:18601687

29. Korzan WJ, Summers TR, Ronan PJ, Summers CH. Visible sympathetic activity as a social signal in Anolis carolinensis: Changes in aggression and plasma catecholamines. Horm. Behav. 2000;38(3):193–9. pmid:11038294

30. Beck J, Biały M, Kostowski W. Effects of D(1) receptor agonist SKF 38393 on male rat sexual behavior and postcopulatory departure in the goal compartment–runway paradigm. Physiol. Behav. 2002;76(1):91–7. pmid:12175592

31. D’Aquila PS, Panin F, Cossu M, Peana AT, Serra G. Dopamine D1 receptor agonists induce penile erections in rats. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2003;460(1):71–4. pmid:12535862

32. Bitran D, Thompson JT, Hull EM, Sachs BD. Quinelorane (LY163502), a D2 dopamine receptor agonist, facilitates seminal emission, but inhibits penile erection in the rat. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1989;34(3):453–8. pmid:2533690

33. Ahlenius S, Larsson K. Effects of selective dopamine D1 and D2 antagonists on male rat sexual behavior. Experientia. 1990;46(10):1026–8. pmid:2226717

34. Licht P. Influence of temperature and photoperiod on the annual ovarian cycle in the lizard Anolis carolinensis. Copeia. 1973;1973(3):465–72.

35. Kabelik D, Alix VC, Burford ER, Singh LJ. Aggression- and sex-induced neural activity across vasotocin populations in the brown anole. Horm. Behav. Elsevier Inc.; 2013;63(3):437–46.

36. Forster GL, Watt MJ, Korzan WJ, Renner KJ, Summers CH. Opponent recognition in male green anoles, Anolis carolinensis. Anim. Behav. 2005;69(3):733–40.

37. Andersen PH, Jansen JA. Dopamine receptor agonists: selectivity and dopamine D1 receptor efficacy. Eur. J. Pharmacol. Mol. Pharmacol. Elsevier; 1990;188(6):335–47.

38. Rashid AJ, So CH, Kong MMC, Furtak T, El-Ghundi M, Cheng R, et al. D1–D2 dopamine receptor heterooligomers with unique pharmacology are coupled to rapid activation of Gq/11 in the striatum. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2007;104(2):654–9. pmid:17194762

39. Puglisi-Allegra S, Cabib S. Effects of defeat experiences on dopamine metabolism in different brain areas of the mouse. Aggress. Behav. 1990;16(3–4):271–84.

40. Noda K, Miczek KA, Kream R. Regional monoamine activity, sensitivity to amphetamine and aggressive behavior in mice. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 1985;11:549.

41. van Erp AMM, Miczek KA. Aggressive behavior, increased accumbal dopamine, and decreased cortical serotonin in rats. J. Neurosci. 2000;20(24):9320–5. pmid:11125011

42. Hull EM, Bitran D, Pehek EA, Warner RK, Band LC, Holmes GM. Dopaminergic control of male sex behavior in rats: Effects of an intracerebrally-infused agonist. Brain Res. 1986;370(1):73–81. pmid:3011196

43. McHenry JA, Bell GA, Parrish BP, Hull EM. Dopamine D1 receptor signaling in the medial preoptic area facilitates experience-induced enhancement of mating behavior in male rats. Behav. Neurosci. 2012;126(4):523–9. pmid:22708956

44. Castagna C, Ball GF, Balthazart J. Effects of dopamine agonists on appetitive and consummatory male sexual behavior in Japanese quail. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1997;58(2):403–14. pmid:9300599