Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18565582›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2008

Scent marking behavior as an odorant communication in mice.

Hiroyuki Arakawa, D Caroline Blanchard, Keiko Arakawa, Christopher Dunlap, Robert J Blanchard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Behavioral Assays in the Study of Olfaction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hiroyuki ArakawaPacific Bioscience Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1993 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA. harakawa@binghamton.edu
D Caroline Blanchard
Keiko Arakawa
Christopher Dunlap
Robert J Blanchard

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII SNRPU54NS039406 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI NICHOLS, ROBERT · 1999 to 2009
$14.4M
NINDS NIH HHS 5U54NS039406NINDS NIH HHS U54 NS039406
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In rodents, where chemical signals play a particularly important role in determining intraspecies interactions including social dominance and intersexual relationships, various studies have shown that behavior is sensitive to conspecific odor cues. Mice use urinary scent marks for communication with individual conspecifics in many social contexts. Urinary scent involves genetic information about individuals such as species, sex, and individual identity as well as metabolic information such as social dominance, and reproductive and health status, which are mediated by chemical proteins in scent marks including the major histocompatibility complex and the major urinary proteins. The odor of the predator which can be considered to be a threatening signal for the prey also modulate mouse behavior in which scent marking is suppressed in response to the cat odor exposure in mice. These odorant chemicals are detected and recognized through two olfactory bulbs, the role of which in detection of chemosignals with biological relevant appears to be differential, but partly overlapped. Mice deposit scent marks toward conspecifics to maintain their social relationships, and inhibit scent marking in a context where natural predator, cat odor is contained. This suppression of scent marking is long-lasting (for at least 7 days) and context-dependent, while the odorant signaling to conspecifics tends to appear frequently (over 24h but less than 7 days intervals) depending on the familiarity of each signal-recipient. It has been discussed that scent marking is a communicative behavior associated with territoriality toward conspecifics, indicating that the social signaling within species are sensitive to predator odor cues in terms of vulnerability to predation risk.

Indexed as

Animal CommunicationBehavior, AnimalScent GlandsSmellSocial BehaviorAnimalsMiceOdorantsOlfactory PathwaysPheromonesSex FactorsPheromones

Identifiers

PMID18565582
PMCPMC2577770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.