Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

Activation of Both CB1 and CB2 Endocannabinoid Receptors Is Critical for Masculinization of the Developing Medial Amygdala and Juvenile Social Play Behavior

Kathryn J Argue, Jonathan W VanRyzin, David J Falvo, Allison R Whitaker, Stacey J Yu and Margaret M McCarthy
eNeuro 16 January 2017, 4 (1) ENEURO.0344-16.2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0344-16.2017
Kathryn J Argue
Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kathryn J Argue
Jonathan W VanRyzin
Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan W VanRyzin
David J Falvo
Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allison R Whitaker
Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stacey J Yu
Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stacey J Yu
Margaret M McCarthy
Department of Pharmacology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Margaret M McCarthy
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Juvenile social play behavior is a shared trait across a wide variety of mammalian species. When play is characterized by the frequency or duration of physical contact, males usually display more play relative to females. The endocannabinoid system contributes to the development of the sex difference in social play behavior in rats. Treating newborn pups with a nonspecific endocannabinoid agonist, WIN55,212-2, masculinizes subsequent juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior by females. Here we use specific drugs to target signaling through either the CB1 or CB2 endocannabinoid receptor (CB1R or CB2R) to determine which modulates the development of sex differences in play. Our data reveal that signaling through both CB1R and CB2R must be altered neonatally to modify development of neural circuitry regulating sex differences in play. Neonatal co-agonism of CB1R and CB2R masculinized play by females, whereas co-antagonism of these receptors feminized rates of male play. Because of a known role for the medial amygdala in the sexual differentiation of play, we reconstructed Golgi-impregnated neurons in the juvenile medial amygdala and used factor analysis to identify morphological parameters that were sexually differentiated and responsive to dual agonism of CB1R and CB2R during the early postnatal period. Our results suggest that sex differences in the medial amygdala are modulated by the endocannabinoid system during early development. Sex differences in play behavior are loosely correlated with differences in neuronal morphology.

  • amygdala
  • development
  • endocannabinoid
  • juvenile play behavior
  • neuronal morphology
  • rat

Significance Statement

Juvenile social play behavior is a critical component for proper brain development and the acquisition of social competence in the majority of mammalian species. In juvenile rats, males exhibit higher numbers of rough-and-tumble play events relative to females. This difference in rat play behavior is programmed by the actions of steroid hormones during the early postnatal sensitive period for sexual differentiation of the brain. Here we demonstrate a requirement for combined activation or inhibition of both endocannabinoid receptors for masculinization or feminization of the neural circuitry for play, respectively. Furthermore, our findings suggest a correlation between playfulness and neuronal morphology in the medial amygdala.

Introduction

Conspecific social play is a critical component of the juvenile period for a wide variety of mammalian species (Gruendel and Arnold, 1969; Byers and Walker, 1995; Arthur et al., 1999; van den Berg et al., 1999; Spinka et al., 2001; Graham and Burghardt, 2010; Pellis et al., 2010; Siviy, 2016). Deficits in social play, including delayed onset, decreased intensity, problems responding to social cues, and withdrawal from social play situations leading to isolation, are observed in children diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder, early-onset schizophrenia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Gruendel and Arnold, 1969; Byers and Walker, 1995; Arthur et al., 1999; van den Berg et al., 1999; Møller and Husby, 2000; Spinka et al., 2001; Jordan, 2003; Strous et al., 2004; Cordier et al., 2010; Graham and Burghardt, 2010; Pellis et al., 2010). Identifying variables contributing to individual playfulness and that produce a more desirable play partner will help elucidate factors critical for normal social development as well as how those factors are altered during aberrant development.

A common and trans-species form of social behavior is rough-and-tumble play, or play fighting (Henry and Herrero, 1974; Pellis and Pellis, 1997, 1998; Cordoni, 2009). In juvenile rats, rough-and-tumble play consists of a complex set of behaviors that require appropriate initiation and responses to play solicitation (Pellis et al., 1997; Himmler et al., 2014; Argue and McCarthy, 2015a). By postnatal day 20 (PN20), juvenile rats display the full repertoire of rough-and-tumble play behaviors, including initiation of play (pouncing) and responses to play solicitation (pinning; Pellis et al., 1997; Himmler et al., 2014; Argue and McCarthy, 2015a). The majority of species exhibit a sex difference in rough-and-tumble play, with males having increased frequency and duration relative to females (Leresche, 1976; Olioff and Stewart, 1978; Takahashi and Lore, 1983; Thor and Holloway, 1985, 1986; Watson and Croft, 1993; Pellis, 2002; Palagi et al., 2007; Parent and Meaney, 2008; Auger and Olesen, 2009; Krebs-Kraft et al., 2010; Argue and McCarthy, 2015a). However, there are some discrepancies in the literature regarding sex differences in rough-and-tumble play. When observations are made outside of a controlled environment, it is often difficult to determine how specific conditions of the study could have contributed to the findings. For example, in very young Gelada baboons, the sex with the greatest number of play bouts, defined by instances of play biting, mouthing, slapping, jumping at, tail pulling, object play, boxing, chasing, wrestling, and other nonspecified forms of rough-and-tumble play, varies depending on the month studied, with females playing more than males in the majority of months. However when animals of an older age cohort are observed, males consistently play more frequently (Barrett et al., 1992). In baboons, there are seasonal changes in levels of play in younger animals, with females playing more than males in the majority of months, and in older animals no sex difference is observed (Cheney 1978). This is just one example of many illustrating how different definitions of what constitutes social play, the age of the animals studied, and the specific conditions under which the animals are studied can impact the observation of sex differences in play. Sex differences in juvenile rough-and-tumble play of the popular laboratory species, Rattus norvegicus, have been found in the frequency of pouncing (play initiation), the frequency of pinning (playful defense), and the amount of time engaged in play. These observations can differ depending on the rat strain and methodology (i.e., whether play was assessed in a group or pairs and whether they consisted of same- or mixed-sex individuals; Argue and McCarthy, 2015b).

Execution of play behavior involves multiple brain regions. Meaney and McEwen (1986) determined that testosterone acting in the neonatal medial amygdala is sufficient to masculinize juvenile play behavior. In this same brain region, there is a developmental sex difference in the endocannabinoid system (Krebs-Kraft et al., 2010) which comprises two principal ligands, 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) and anandamide (AEA), and two key receptors, CB1R and CB2R (Lu and Mackie, 2015). The developing male amygdala has higher levels of 2-AG and to a lesser extent, AEA, and pharmacologically increasing the endocannabinoid signal in neonatal females via administration of the nonspecific endocannabinoid agonist, WIN55,212-2, increases juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior to the levels observed in males (Krebs-Kraft et al., 2010). To further explore which endocannabinoid receptors transduce the endocannabinoid signal to modify development of the social play circuitry, we here use specific CB1R and CB2R agonists or antagonists and explore the impact of single or combined treatment.

Materials and Methods

Animals

Sprague-Dawley rats (Harlan) mated in our facility or ordered as pregnant dams were allowed to deliver normally under standard laboratory conditions (total n = 160 pups from 16 litters). On the day of birth (PN0) pups were given paw tattoos to identify treatment groups. Pups were weaned on PN22 and housed in pairs or groups consisting of no more than three individuals of the same sex in polycarbonate cages (20 × 40 × 20 cm) with corncob bedding under a reverse 12:12 h light/dark cycle. Food and water were available ad libitum. All breeding and experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Care and Use Committee at the University of Maryland, Baltimore and performed in accordance with national animal care and use guidelines.

Play experiment 1: effect of CB1R or CB2R specific agonists or antagonists on play behavior

Pups were given daily intraperitoneal (i.p.) injections for four consecutive days (PN0–3). Females received 1 mg/kg ACEA (a CB1-specific agonist; Tocris), 1 mg/kg GP1a (a CB2-specific agonist; Tocris), or vehicle (saline with 2% ethanol). Males received 1 mg/kg AM281 (a CB1-specific antagonist/inverse agonist; Tocris), 1 mg/kg AM630 (a CB2-specific antagonist/inverse agonist; Tocris), or vehicle (saline with 2% ethanol and 2% DMSO; n = 6–9 individuals from each treatment group). The injection site was sealed with VetBond (3M) to prevent leakage. On PN27, animals were tested for 10 min in a 96 × 80 × 41-cm open field with a 16-cm2 grid to rule out potential confounds that differences in activity or anxiety-like behavior might have on play. Behavior was videorecorded and scored to determine levels of locomotion (indicated by the number of gridlines crossed) or anxiety-like behavior (time spent in the center zone). On PN28–37, juvenile social play was assessed in groups of six consisting of noncagemates from each of the different treatment groups (female vehicle, male vehicle, female ACEA, female GP1a, male AM281, and male AM630). Animals were marked with a marker for identification and placed in a 49 × 37 × 24-cm enclosure with TEK-Fresh cellulose bedding (Harland Laboratories), allowed to acclimate for 2 min, and videorecorded for 10 min. All social play behavior occurred under red-light illumination during the dark phase of the cycle. The videos were scored to determine the number of times pouncing, pinning, or boxing behaviors occurred.

Play experiment 2: effects of CB1 and CB2 receptor co-agonism on play behavior

Pups were given daily i.p. injections (PN0–3) as described in Experiment 1. Male and female pups received 1 mg/kg ACEA + 1 mg/kg GP1a, 1 mg/kg WIN55,212-2 (Tocris), or vehicle (saline with 4% ethanol; n = 6–9 individuals from each treatment group). On PN27, animals were tested in the open field, and for 8 days (PN28–37), social play was assessed as described for Experiment 1. Animals were placed in groups of six consisting of noncagemates from each of the treatment groups (female vehicle, male vehicle, female ACEA+GP1a, female WIN, male ACEA+GP1a, male WIN).

Play experiment 3: effects of CB1 and CB2 receptor co-antagonism on play behavior

Pups were given daily i.p. injections (PN0–3) as described for Experiment 1. Male and female pups received 1 mg/kg AM281 + 1 mg/kg AM630 or vehicle (saline with 4% DMSO; n = 7–10 individuals from each treatment group). On PN26, animals were tested in the open field, and on PN27–34, social play behavior was assessed as described for Experiment 1. For this experiment, animals were placed in same-sex/treatment pairs with a noncagemate partner rather than in a mixed-treatment/sex group. Pairing animals of the same sex and treatment and hence similar levels of playfulness helps to eliminate any effects that the play partners can have on an individual’s play, such as a more playful partner increasing play in a contagious manner or a less playful partner reducing play through negative reinforcement. These effects of play partners are exemplified by the observations that male-male dyads will play more than mixed-sex pairs, whereas female-female dyads will play less than both male-male and mixed-sex pairs. This paired paradigm also increases the total number of play events observed for an individual relative to what is observed with a group paradigm.

3D neuronal reconstruction

To reconstruct neurons on PN4, pups were anesthetized with FatalPlus and perfused intracardially with 0.9% saline (n = 10 animals of each sex). Brains were removed and placed into Golgi solution (1:1 solution of 5% potassium dichromate and 5% mercuric chloride that was added to 5% potassium chromate in a 2:5 ratio) and left for 48 h, after which the brains were switched to fresh Golgi solution where they remained for 8 d. Brains were removed from Golgi solution and incubated in 30% sucrose for 4 d, followed by incubation in Solution C (from Cedarlane Labs FD Ropid GolgiStain Kit) for 4 d. Brains were coronally sectioned on a cryostat at a thickness of 100 μm and mounted onto gelatin-subbed slides. Slides were developed with incubation in a 30% ammonium hydroxide solution, then 1% Dektol (Kodak) solution, and finally 18% Fix (Kodak) solution, counterstained with 0.2% methylene blue, cleared with ascending alcohol, defatted with xylenes, and coverslipped with DPX mounting medium. Six neurons from ≥3 different sections were reconstructed from the right and left hemisphere of each individual. Slides were numerically coded, blinding the tracer to the sex of each individual. Well-impregnated neurons were selected based on the presence of a filled cell body and dendrites that were filled to their ends. Because some cracking of the tissue did occur with the development protocol, only neurons that came to a natural end before reaching a crack were analyzed. These well-impregnated neurons were reconstructed under a 100× oil-immersion objective using Neurolucida (Microbrightfield) interfaced with a Nikon Eclipse E600 microscope and an MBF Bioscience CX9000 Digital Camera. Cell body area, number of primary dendrites, number of nodes (branch points on a dendritic process), spine density (total number of spines on each neuron divided by total dendritic length), total dendritic length, and average dendritic length (total dendritic length divided by number of primary dendrites) were quantified and compared (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Representative image of a PN26 Golgi-impregnated neuron. A Golgi-impregnated neuron was imaged at 40× magnification. The cell body is outlined, and a dendrite, node, and spine are indicated to illustrate the parameters of neuronal morphology that were included in our analysis.

For the reconstruction of neurons on PN26, brains were taken as described above from behaviorally naive animals that were treated (PN0–3) with 1 mg/kg ACEA, 1 mg/kg GP1a or both, or vehicle (saline with 4% ethanol), via i.p. injection (n = 3–4 animals from each treatment group). Brains were impregnated, cut, stained, and reconstructed as described above except that they were incubated in Golgi solution for 12 d after the switch to fresh solution at 48 h postmortem. As done at PN4, six neurons from each hemisphere from each individual were reconstructed.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows (IBM), GraphPad Prism, and R (version 3.2.1). All data sets were tested for normal distribution using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

The total number of play events (total number of pounces, pins, and boxing events) was combined from all days of analysis. Outliers were removed using the ROUT method with Q = 1%, and data were analyzed using either ANOVA or two-way ANOVA, as indicated for each experiment. Play was also split into its two major components, initiation of play (indicated by the number of pounces) and response to play initiation (indicated by the number of pins). Because of the infrequency of boxing events, this parameter was not analyzed independently. Pouncing and pinning were analyzed using either ANOVA or a two-way ANOVA, as indicated for each experiment. If a significant ANOVA or two-way ANOVA was obtained for frequency of play, pouncing, or pinning, t-tests with a Welch correction were performed to test a priori hypotheses. Open-field behavior (gridlines crossed and centering time) was analyzed by ANOVA or two-way ANOVA as indicated for each experiment.

Neuronal morphology at PN4 was analyzed by t-tests with a Welch correction. Parameters of neuronal morphology at PN26 were analyzed using factor analyses. The data were log transformed, and the factor analyses were performed with varimax rotation, which produces orthogonal values and preserves the variance of the original data. The resulting factors were retained if their eigenvalue was >1 (based on the Kaiser criterion), and a 0.3 significance cutoff was used to determine loading of a parameter into a factor. Individual factor scores were calculated for each cell and averaged with others from the same experimental groups. These data were analyzed using ANOVA or t-tests with a Welch correction.

For all analyses, differences were considered significant when p < 0.05. All data are depicted as mean with SEM. The results for all analyses are shown in Table 1. Superscript letters listed with p-values correspond to the statistical tests shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of statistical analysis.

Results

Effects of select CB1R or CB2R agonism or antagonism during early development on juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior

To determine whether the increase in female juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior that was observed after neonatal treatment with WIN55,212-2 was due to signaling through the CB1R or CB2R, female pups (PN0–3) were treated daily with ACEA (a CB1R-specific agonist) or GP1a (a CB2R-specific agonist). The total number of play events in ACEA- and GP1a-treated females was comparable to that of vehicle-treated femalesa (Fig. 2A, B). A breakdown of play into initiation (number of pounces) or response (number of pins) also demonstrated no effects of treatmentb,c (Figs. 3A, B and 4A, B). Open-field behavior was assessed to determine whether there were changes in locomotor (gridlines crossed) or anxiety-like (time spent in the center zone) behavior that could impact social play behavior. There was no effect of treatment with ACEA or GP1a on the number of gridlines crossedd or time spent in the center zonee (data not shown).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Activation of both CB1R and CB2R is necessary to masculinize the total frequency of female play behavior. A, B, Administration of ACEA (a CB1-specific agonist) or GP1a (a CB2-specific agonist) to neonatal (PN0–3) females did not alter the total frequency of juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior (total of all pouncing, pinning, and boxing events from PN28-37). C–E, Neonatal administration of WIN55,212-2 (WIN, a nonspecific endocannabinoid receptor agonist) or coadministration of ACEA and GP1a increased the frequency of play by juvenile females to the level observed in males but did not cause a further increase in male play. B, D, E, Insets show the average frequency of rough-and-tumble play events for each day of analysis. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, n = 6–9.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Activation of both CB1R and CB2R is necessary to masculinize female pouncing behavior. A, B, Administration of ACEA, GP1a, or WIN to neonatal (PN0–3) females did not alter the frequency of pouncing events. C–E, Neonatal coadministration of ACEA and GP1a increased female pouncing and decreased male pouncing. Frequency of pouncing is an average over all days of analysis with the average for each individual day shown in the insets (B, D, E). *p < 0.05, n = 6–9.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Activation of both CB1R and CB2R is necessary to masculinize female pinning behavior. A, B, Administration of ACEA or GP1a to neonatal (PN0–3) females did not alter the frequency of pinning events. C–E, Neonatal coadministration of ACEA and GP1a or treatment with WIN increased the frequency of pinning by females to the level observed in males and had no effect on male pinning behavior. Frequency of pinning is an average over all days of analysis with the average for each individual day shown in the insets (B, D, E). **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n = 6–9.

Neonatal treatment with the pan-CBR agonist WIN55,212-2 does not effect play in juvenile males (Krebs-Kraft et al., 2010). Therefore we sought to determine whether antagonism of the CB1R and CB2R would decrease male play behavior. Neonatal male pups (PN0–3) were treated daily with AM251 (a CB1R-specific antagonist/inverse agonist) or AM630 (a CB2R-specific antagonist/inverse agonist). Treatment with AM281 or AM630 did not alter the total number of play eventsf (Fig. 5A, B) or the number of pouncesg (Fig. 6A, B). However, CB2R antagonism increased the number of pinsh,j (Fig. 7A, B). Neither AM281 nor AM630 altered the number of gridlines crossedk or the time spent in the center of an open fieldl (data not shown).

Effects of combined CB1R or CB2R receptor agonism during early development on juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior

Because of the surprising lack of changes to juvenile social play behavior after either specific agonism or antagonism of CB1R and CB2R, we administered a combination of ACEA and GP1a or WIN55,212-2 to neonatal (PN0–3) males and females to determine whether the combination of specific agonists would recapitulate the previous findings on the effect of treatment with WIN55,212-2. When assessed for the total number of juvenile rough-and-tumble play events, there was a significant interaction between sex and drug treatmentm, with a main effect of sexn, but no main effect of treatment0 (Fig. 2C–E).

A priori post hoc t-tests were used to address our hypothesis that males would have a higher total number of play events than females. Neonatal treatment with WIN55,212-2 and ACEA+GP1a were predicted to increase female play to the level observed in males, and neither WIN55,212-2 nor ACEA+GP1a was predicted to alter male play. As expected, vehicle-treated males played more than vehicle-treated femalesp (Fig. 2C–E; see Movie 1 and Movie 2 for a comparison of typical male and female rough-and-tumble play behavior, respectively). Neonatal treatment of females with both WIN55,212-2 and ACEA+GP1a increased the number of play events relative to control femalesq,r (Fig. 2C, D). WIN55,212-2- and ACEA+GP1a-treated females and males all demonstrated a number of play events comparable to that of vehicle-treated maless,t,u,v (Fig. 2C–E).

Movie 1.

Representative example of male juvenile social play behavior. Two juvenile males (PN28) were allowed to acclimate to the chamber for 2 minutes, after which video recording was initiated. Instances of pouncing, pinning, and boxing were recorded from time 0 to 10:00.

Movie 2.

Representative example of female juvenile social play behavior. Two juvenile females (PN28) were allowed to acclimate to the chamber for 2 minutes, after which video recording was initiated. Instances of pouncing, pinning, and boxing were recorded from time 0 to 10:00.

To determine the effects of neonatal treatment with WIN55,212-2 and ACEA+GP1a on initiation of play and response to play initiation, the total number of play events was split into pounces and pins. There was a significant sex × treatment interactionw with a main effect of treatmenty, but no main effect of sexx for pouncing (Fig. 3C–E) and a significant sex × treatmentgg interaction with main effects of both sexhh and treatmentii for pinning (Fig. 4C–E).

Control males had higher levels of both pouncingz and pinningjj relative to females (Figs. 3C–E and 4C–E). Neonatal treatment with WIN55,212-2 increased pinningkk in females, but did not alter pouncingaa, whereas treatment with ACEA+GP1a increased both pouncingbb and pinningll (Figs. 3C, D and 4C, D). Both pouncingcc,dd and pinningmm,nn behavior of WIN55,212-2- and ACEA+GP1a-treated females was indistinguishable from that of vehicle-treated males (Figs. 3C–E and 4C–E). Although there were no changes in total play in males after neonatal treatment with WIN55,212-2 and ACEA+GP1a, there was a decrease in pouncing in ACEA+GP1a-treated malesff (Fig. 3C, E). During the open field test neither prior drug treatment (ACEA+GP1a or WIN55,212-2) nor the sex of the animal influenced the number of gridlines crossedqq,rr,ss or time spent in the center zonett,uu,vv of the open field (data not shown).

Effects of combined CB1R or CB2R antagonism during early development on juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior

After determining that only combined agonism of CB1R and CB2R was sufficient to masculinize social play by females, we hypothesized that combined antagonism of CB1R and CB2R would dysmasculinize social play behavior in males. Additionally, based on the finding that combined agonism of CB1R and CB2R did not alter juvenile male behavior, we hypothesized that combined antagonism of CB1R and CB2R would have no effect on juvenile female play behavior. Neonatal (PN0–3) males and females were treated with AM281 and AM630. For total numbers of juvenile rough-and-tumble play events, there was a significant sex by treatment interactionww, with a main effect of sexxx and treatmentyy (Fig. 5C–E). As observed previously, vehicle-treated males played more than vehicle-treated femaleszz (Fig. 5C–E). In support of our hypothesis, AM281+AM60-treated males played less than vehicle-treated malesaaa and were analogous to vehicle-treated femalesbbb (Fig. 5C–E). As predicted, AM281+AM630-treated females were equivalent to vehicle-treated femalesccc (Fig. 5C, E).

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

Combined antagonism of CB1R and CB2R is necessary to feminize the total frequency of male play behavior. A, B, Administration of AM281 (a CB1-specific antagonist) or AM630 (a CB2-specific antagonist) to neonatal males (PN0–3) did not alter the total frequency of rough-and-tumble play events. C–E, Coadministration of AM281 and AM630 decreased the total frequency of rough-and-tumble play events by males to the level observed in females and had no effect on female play. Frequency of play is an average over all days of analysis, with the average for each individual day shown in the insets (B, D, E). **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n = 6–10.

A breakdown of total play into pouncing and pinning resulted in an interaction between sex and treatment for both pouncingddd and pinningkkk, as well as main effects of sex and treatment for pouncingeee,fff but not pinninglll,mmm (Figs. 6C–E and 7C–E). A priori post hoc t-test confirmed our hypotheses that juvenile males pouncedggg and pinned more than femalesnnn, but males treated neonatally with AM281+AM630 pounced and pinned less than control maleshhh,000 and were comparable to control femalesiii,ppp (Figs. 6C–E and 7C–E). Neonatal treatment with AM281+AM630 did not alter female pouncingjjj or pinningqqq behaviors (Figs. 6C, E and 7C, E). Treatment with AM281+AM630 in males or females did not alter the number of gridlines crossedrrr,sss,ttt or the amount of time spent in the center zoneuuu,vvv,www of the open field on PN26 (data not shown).

Fig. 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 6.

Combined antagonism of CB1R and CB2R is necessary to feminize pouncing behavior by males. A, B, Administration of AM281 or AM630 to neonatal males (PN0–3) did not alter the frequency of pouncing behavior. C–E, Coadministration of AM281 and AM630 decreased pouncing behavior by males to the level observed in females and had no effect on female play. Frequency of pouncing is an average over all days of analysis, with the average for each individual day shown in the insets (B, D, E). **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n = 6–10.

Fig. 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 7.

Combined antagonism of CB1R and CB2R is necessary to feminize pinning behavior by males. A, B, Administration of AM281 to neonatal males (PN0–3) did not alter the frequency of pinning behavior, whereas treatment with AM630 caused an increase in pinning. C–E, Coadministration of AM281 and AM630 decreased pinning behavior by males to the level observed in females and had no effect on female play. Frequency of pinning is an average over all days of analysis, with the average for each individual day shown in the insets (B, D, E). **p < 0.01, n = 6–10.

Sex differences in neuronal morphology in the neonatal medial amygdala

We first investigated neuronal morphology at PN4 to determine whether sex differences were present during the time of our manipulation of the endocannabinoid system, which also corresponds with the sensitive period for sexual differentiation of neuronal circuitry. In the preoptic area, ventromedial nucleus, and arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus, sex differences in neuronal morphology are already present at this age (Mong et al., 1999; Amateau and McCarthy, 2004). 3D reconstruction of Golgi-impregnated neurons in the medial amygdala indicated that males have larger cell bodies in both the right and left hemispheresxxx, yyy relative to females, but there were no sex differences in numbers of dendriteszzz, aaaa or nodesbbbb, cccc, spine densitydddd, eeee, or totalffff, gggg and averagehhhh, iiii dendrite length (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 8.

Few sex differences are found in neurons in the neonatal medial amygdala. 3D reconstruction of PN4 Golgi-impregnated neurons in the medial amygdala revealed sex differences in the cell body area in both hemispheres (A), but not in number of dendrites (B), number of nodes (C), spine density (D), total dendritic length (E), or average dendritic length (F). *p < 0.05, n = 10 individuals per group, with six neurons per hemisphere reconstructed for each individual.

Sex differences in neuronal morphology in the juvenile medial amygdala

We next investigated sex differences in neuronal morphology at PN26. Cell body area, number of dendrites, number of nodes, spine density, average dendritic length, and total dendritic length were analyzed by factor analysis to identify patterns in how these parameters contributed to differences in neuronal morphology. Factor analysis identified three factors, together accounting for 73.9% of total variance, that were sufficient to explain the data. The first factor, which accounted for 34% of the total variance and was named Neuronal Complexity, contained positive loadings for number of nodes, total dendritic length, and average dendritic length. The second factor, which accounted for 23.1% of the total variance and was named Dendritic Field, contained positive loadings for the number of dendrites and total dendritic length and a negative loading for average dendritic length. The third factor, which accounted for 16.8% of the total variance and was named Spine Density, contained a positive loading for a single parameter, spine density (Fig. 10A).

To determine how these factors corresponded to visual observations of differences in neuronal morphology, neurons from males and females were separated into three different classifications based on the classes used by Nishizuka et al. (1989). Type I neurons were defined based on the presence of a spindle-shaped cell body and one to three primary dendrites with numerous spines branching into a cylindrical field. We did not find any neurons belonging to the Type II class that were described as almost entirely lacking dendritic spines (Nishizuka et al., 1989). Type III neurons had ovoid cell bodies and two to five dendrites with some spines. Type IV neurons had three to five dendrites and were distinguished from Type III neurons based on their high spine density. Data points corresponding to individual neurons were color- and shape-coded based on their classification as Type I, III, or IV and graphed according to their factor scores for Dendritic Complexity and Dendritic Field (Fig. 9). The resulting scatter plot shows a clear linear separation of data points along the y-axis, corresponding to the scores for Dendritic Field. The grouping of points along this axis was attributed to the fact that all neurons must have at least one dendrite, making it impossible for a data point to fall at a position that would correspond to zero dendrites or fractions of dendrites. We chose a representative tracing of a neuron for each quadrant of the graph to illustrate that neurons with high factor scores for Dendritic Complexity and Dendritic Field (quadrant 1) were the most complex neurons, with several long dendrites and multiple branch points; neurons with high scores for Dendritic Complexity and low scores for Dendritic Field (quadrant 4) had few long dendrites with moderate branching; neurons with a low Dendritic Complexity score and a high Dendritic Field score (quadrant 3) had several dendrites that were relatively short with minimal branching; and neurons with low Factor 1 and Factor 2 scores (quadrant 2) had few short dendrites with minimal branching (Fig. 9). Neurons that we classified as Type I grouped together within quadrants 3 and 4 on the graph, Type III neurons grouped within quadrants 2 and 4 on the graph, and Type IV neurons grouped mostly within quadrant 1 (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 9.

Factor analysis separates neurons into groups based on observable differences in neuronal morphology. 3D reconstruction of male and female PN26 Golgi-impregnated neurons in the medial amygdala, separation of the neurons into classes based on cell body shape, spine frequency, or numbers of dendrites, and graphing by factor scores for Factor 1 (Dendritic Complexity) vs. Factor 2 (Dendritic Field) shows how classes of neurons cluster together within specific quadrants. Type I neurons (blue triangles) had spindle-shaped cell bodies, 1–3 primary dendrites and clustered within quadrants 3 and 4. Type III neurons (green squares) contained ovoid cell body, 2–5 dendrites, moderate spine density, and clustered within quadrants 2 and 4. Type IV neurons (black circles) had ovoid cell bodies, 3–5 primary dendrites, numerous spines, and clustered within quadrant 1. In each quadrant, tracing for a representative neuron is shown with the corresponding data point indicated with an asterisk.

To quantify sex differences in these three factors, we calculated and compared factor scores for neurons from females and males in both the right and left hemisphere. For Dendritic Complexity, males and females were not different in the left hemispherejjjj; however, females had higher factor scores in the right hemispherekkkk, suggesting that females have greater dendritic complexity in the right hemisphere relative to males (Fig. 10B). For Dendritic Field and Spine Density, males and females did not differ significantly in either hemispherellll,mmmm,nnnn,oooo (Fig. 10C, D).

Fig. 10.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 10.

Juvenile females have greater dendritic complexity in the right hemisphere relative to males. 3D reconstruction of male and female PN26 Golgi-impregnated neurons in the medial amygdala and factor analysis of cell body area, number of dendrites, number of nodes, total dendritic length, average dendritic length, and spine density (A) identified three factors (Dendritic Complexity, Dendritic Field, and Spine Density) depicted with longer aqua (lighter) bars indicating positive loading of a parameter and teal (darker) indicating negative loading. Factor scores for neurons from vehicle males and females were plotted and compared for Dendritic Complexity (B), Dendritic Field (C), and Spine Density (D). **p < 0.01, n = 3–5 individuals per group, with six neurons per hemisphere reconstructed for each individual.

Comparison of neonatal select or dual agonism of CB1R and CB2R on neuronal morphology in the juvenile medial amygdala

Factor analysis accounted for 60.7% of the total variance (Fig. 11A). Dendritic Complexity accounted for 29.9% of the variance, whereas Dendritic Field explained 25.6% of the total variance. Spine Density accounted for 5.2% of the total variance and was excluded from further analysis. We calculated factor scores for neurons from the right and left hemisphere from each treatment group. For Dendritic Complexity, there was no effect of specific or dual agonism in either hemispherepppp, qqqq, rrrr, ssss (Fig. 11B). For Dendritic Field in the left hemisphere, there was a slight trend toward a significant effect of select agonismtttt and no effect of dual agonismuuuu, whereas in the right hemisphere there was no effect of select agonismvvvv and a trend toward a significant effect of dual agonismwwww (Fig. 11C). These trends in the data suggest a shift in morphology toward a decreased dendritic field size in the left hemisphere after neonatal specific agonism and a shift toward a larger dendritic field in the right hemisphere after neonatal dual agonism.

Fig. 11.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 11.

Combined neonatal agonism of CB1R and CB2R uniquely shifted juvenile female dendritic field relative to selective agonism of either receptor. 3D reconstruction of female PN26 Golgi-impregnated neurons in the medial amygdala from animals treated neonatally with ACEA, GP1a, ACEA+GP1a, or vehicle and factor analysis of cell body area, number of dendrites, number of nodes, total dendritic length, average dendritic length, and spine density (A) identified three factors (Dendritic Complexity, Dendritic Field, and Spine Density) depicted with longer light green bars indicating positive loading of a parameter and dark green indicating negative loading. Factor scores for neurons from ACEA, GP1a, ACEA+GP1a, and vehicle females were plotted and compared for Dendritic Complexity (B) and Dendritic Field (C). Exact p values are indicated, n = 3–5 individuals per group, with six neurons per hemisphere reconstructed for each individual.

Neonatal dual agonism of CB1R and CB2R masculinizes neuronal morphology in the juvenile medial amygdala

Factor analysis identified three factors that accounted for 67.8% of the total variance. This included Dendritic Field and Dendritic Complexity as before, but a new factor was added named Nodes, which contained positive loading for number of nodes but was excluded from further analysis (Fig. 12A). Dendritic Field accounted for 28% of the variance, and Dendritic Complexity accounted for 23.7%. For Dendritic Field, there were no differences in the left hemispherexxxx, but there was a significant effect in the right hemisphereyyyy where males had lower factor scores relative to femaleszzzz, and females treated neonatally with ACEA+GP1 had lower factor scores relative to control femalesaaaaa and were comparable to control malesbbbbb. For Dendritic Field, there were no differences in the left hemisphereccccc, and in the right hemisphere the factor scores showed trends similar to those for Dendritic Complexity, with control females loading higher than control males and ACEA+GP1a-treated females; however, these differences were not significantddddd.

Fig. 12.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 12.

Neonatal agonism of CB1R and CB2R masculinize juvenile female dendritic field in the right hemisphere. 3D reconstruction of male and female PN26 Golgi impregnated neurons in the medial amygdala from animals treated neonatally with ACEA+GP1a or vehicle and factor analysis of cell body area, number of dendrites, number of nodes, total dendritic length, average dendritic length, and spine density (A) identified three factors (Dendritic Field, Dendritic Complexity, and Nodes) depicted with longer light blue bars indicating positive loading of a parameter and dark navy blue indicating negative loading. Factor scores for neurons from vehicle male and females and ACEA+GP1a-treated females were plotted and compared for Dendritic Field (B) and Dendritic Complexity (C). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, n = 3–5 individuals per group, with 6 neurons per hemisphere reconstructed for each individual.

Discussion

Social play behavior is engaged in by juveniles but is programmed developmentally during the sensitive period for sexual differentiation of the brain, resulting in higher levels of rough-and-tumble play in males. The neurobiological mechanisms by which this sex difference is established remain poorly understood. We here build on a previous observation of a role for the endocannabinoid system in masculinizing the neural circuits of play. We found that both CB1 and CB2 receptors are essential to masculinization of juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior. Combined administration of CB1R and CB2R agonists to females during the sensitive period increased their play to the level of males, but the same treatment in males caused no further increase in play. Conversely, combined treatment with CB1R and CB2R antagonists decreased play in males to the level of females, without further decreasing play by females. The increase in female play behavior with CB1R and CB2R agonism and the decrease in male play behavior with CB1R and CB2R antagonism brought both pouncing and pinning components of play to the levels observed in the opposite sex, demonstrating full masculinization or feminization of the style of play following developmental manipulation of the endocannabinoid system. These data reveal cooperation between the CB1R and CB2R during development to direct development of the neural circuitry regulating juvenile play behavior.

For manipulations that resulted in feminization and masculinization of play, breakdown of play into the components of pouncing and pinning revealed some unexpected effects. In animals that had been treated neonatally with dual agonists, we observed an increase in female pouncing behavior, but saw a decrease in males. This opposite action between males and females could be the result of sex differences in the endocannabinoid system at the level of receptor expression or cell type localization of receptors. Additionally, our manipulations may have caused sex-specific compensatory mechanisms, such as desensitization of receptors or upregulation of endocannabinoids and their receptors. The existence of such compensatory mechanisms is supported by the observation that agonism did not produce a further increase in male play behavior and antagonism did not result in decreased female play behavior. It is unlikely that the lack of effect in the opposite sex was due to ceiling or basement levels of play, since other manipulations, such as introduction of a novel play partner or social isolation, can decrease female play and increase male and female play, respectively (for example, Beatty et al., 1982; Argue and McCarthy, 2015a). Because dual antagonism of the receptors during development decreases pinning in juvenile males, it was surprising to find increased pinning with selective CB2R antagonism in males. Pinning requires action on the part of both animals involved in the play bout: the pinner needs to be standing on top of his/her opponent which usually occurs after a pounce, and the pinnee needs to rotate to a supine position. Because this increase in pinning occurred without a corresponding increase in pouncing, it is possible that it was the result of one or more of the other animals in the group rotating to supine without being first pounced on. Such rotation to supine in the absence of a pounce is a rare event; however, the likelihood of this occurring increases when there is an increase in the distance at which defense is initiated (Himmler et al., 2013, 2016). This suggests a difference in perception of the AM630-treated male as a potential play partner causing others to rotate as he approaches rather than waiting for the pounce. Further paired play studies will be needed to determine whether the difference in pinning was the result of interaction with a specific play partner. In two cases, neonatal treatment with WIN55,212-2 produced an effect different from that of ACEA+GP1a. WIN55,212-2 treatment induced an increased total frequency of play by females that was due mostly to an effect of pinning rather than a combination of pinning and pouncing as was observed with ACEA+GP1a treatment, and the same treatment produced a decrease in male pouncing that was not observed with WIN55,212-2. We expected WIN55,212-2 and ACEA+GP1a to have similar effects. A possible reason for these discrepancies is the CB2R binding bias of WIN55,212-2, rather than more equal distribution between CB1R and CB2R that is achieved with ACEA+GP1a. WIN55,212-2 has a Ki of 62.3 nm at CB1R and 3.3 nm at CB2R, whereas ACEA has a Ki of 1.4 nm for CB1R and GP1a has a Ki of 0.037 nm for CB2R. There is also the possibility that once these agonists bind to their receptor, different downstream signaling pathways are activated, as seen by others (Delgado-Peraza et al., 2016; Dhopeshwarkar and Mackie, 2016).

Emphasis in research on the role of endocannabinoids in CNS development has been on CB1R, which is considered the most abundant G-protein–coupled receptor in the brain and is found at high to moderate levels throughout (Herkenham et al., 1990). In the adult brain CB1R is predominantly on presynaptic terminals of glutamatergic and GABA-ergic neurons, with lower expression on astrocytes and microglia (Herkenham et al., 1990; Galiègue et al., 1995; Elphick and Egertová, 2001; Stella, 2010). There is a developmental switch in CB1R distribution such that it begins in the white matter and then shifts to being more abundant in the gray matter as the brain matures (Berrendero et al., 1998).

The role of CB2R in brain development is less explored and at times contradictory. Classically, CB2R is referred to as the peripheral endocannabinoid receptor (Munro et al., 1993). In recent years, however, there is growing evidence of the presence and abundance of CB2R in the CNS. Both CB1R and CB2R messenger RNAs can be detected in the brain of the developing fetus as early as 8 d of gestation in the laboratory rat (Buckley et al., 1998). Initial reports limited CB2R expression to microglia, the immune cells of the brain, or astrocytes, with expression on neurons still reserved only for CB1R (Núñez et al., 2004; Maresz et al., 2005; Benito et al., 2008; Racz et al., 2008a, 2008b). A few studies reported CB2R abundantly expressed on neurons throughout the brain, but full validation was lacking (Gong et al., 2006; Onaivi et al., 2006, 2008). In the ventral tegmental area of adult mice, CB2R receptors are immunohistochemically identified on dopaminergic neurons, where they modulate neuronal activity and dopamine-mediated cocaine self-administration, but these effects are absent in CB2R knockout mice (Zhang et al., 2014). CB2R is also localized to CA3 and CA2 pyramidal cells, where their activation leads to prolonged hyperpolarization (Stempel et al., 2016). Important to the current findings, all of these studies on CB2R localization were conducted in adults. Exceedingly little is known regarding the expression of this receptor in the developing brain.

The endocannabinoid system is critical for many neurodevelopmental processes, including neural progenitor proliferation and survival (Rueda et al., 2002; Aguado et al., 2005; Jiang et al., 2005; Palazuelos et al., 2006, 2012; Goncalves et al., 2008; Mulder et al., 2008; Rubio-Araiz et al., 2008; Galve-Roperh et al., 2013; Díaz-Alonso et al., 2015; Rivera et al., 2015), differentiation (Aguado et al., 2006; Gomez et al., 2010; Soltys et al., 2010; Galve-Roperh et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2013), and axonal growth and guidance (Williams et al., 2003; Berghuis et al., 2007; Mulder et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2010; Tortoriello et al., 2014). Potential endpoints for the modulation of social play behavior include cell proliferation or neuronal morphology in the medial amygdala. Krebs-Kraft et al. (2010) found a sex difference in cell proliferation that was due, in part, to higher numbers of newly proliferated astrocytes in the female neonatal medial amygdala, which is reversed by administration of WIN55,212-2 during the same period that WIN55,212-2 masculinizes female social play behavior. Combined treatment with WIN55,212-2 and antagonisms for CB1R or CB2R suggested, but did not confirm, that the effects were mediated by CB2R (Krebs-Kraft et al., 2010).

There is a sex difference in neuronal morphology in the medial amygdala of prepubertal rats, and sex differences in the number of neurons in the medial amygdala in adult animals is thought to be organized during early development (Cooke et al., 2007; Morris et al., 2008). These endpoints could work together, such that altering the number and type (i.e., neuron or astrocyte) during development could result in changed neuronal morphology. Additionally, there is a sex difference in the density of dendritic spines on neurons in the medial amygdala of adult rats, with males having greater spine frequency relative to females (Nishizuka et al., 1989). We did not find these same sex differences in the neonatal medial amygdala. It is possible that sex differences are present at this young age but are only noticeable once the neurons have extended further, or that our manipulations to the endocannabinoid system acted directly on a different aspect of neurodevelopment that produced later changes in neuronal morphology. In the juvenile medial amygdala, our factor analysis revealed sex differences in a factor comprised of measures of dendritic complexity (number of nodes, total dendritic length, and average dendritic length) in the right hemisphere. Neurons from females had higher factor scores for this factor, indicating that female neurons in the right hemisphere are more complex than males. We did not observe the previously reported sex differences, where males have greater dendritic branching and length in the left hemisphere and greater numbers of spines (Nishizuka et al., 1989; Cooke et al., 2007). Methodological differences between studies could account for some of the discrepancies, such as age of the animals, Golgi impregnation versus filling with biocytin, separation of the hemispheres, and classification of the neurons by general morphology. Our second factor analysis, designed to determine whether neonatal dual agonism of CB1R and CB2R affects neuronal morphology differently than select agonism of either receptor, demonstrated trends in the data that suggest a specific effect of simultaneous agonism that is not simply an addition of the effects observed when CB1R and CB2R are activated separately. Our third factor analysis determined that neonatal dual agonism of CB1R and CB2R was sufficient to masculinize dendritic field, which consisted of a negative association between the number of dendrites and the average dendritic length, in the right hemisphere. This analysis also suggested a slight trend toward masculinization of dendritic complexity (number of dendrites and total and averaged dendritic length) in the right hemisphere. Because our factor analysis of juvenile neuronal morphology was performed on a different cohort of animals from those that were used for the analysis of play behavior, a direct association between neuronal morphology and play behavior was not possible. However, there was a clear correlation between the requirement for activation of both CB1R and CB2R during the early neonatal period to masculinize juvenile female play behavior and the ability of this same treatment paradigm to shift neuronal morphology in the right hemisphere of the female medial amygdala closer to that of males.

In the current study, endocannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists were given i.p.; therefore, we cannot rule out the potential of a peripheral mechanism of action. CB1R is lower in the periphery relative to the brain, and the opposite is true for CB2R (Galiègue et al., 1995). CB1R is mainly in the gastrointestinal tract, heart, liver, adipose tissue, lungs, adrenal glands, muscle, reproductive system, bone, and skin, whereas CB2R is associated with immune-related organs and cells, such as monocytes, macrophages, B and T cells, mast cells, keratinocytes, spleen, tonsils, thymus gland, and gastrointestinal tract (Izzo, 2004; Ständer et al., 2005; Matias and Di Marzo, 2006, 2007; Iannotti et al., 2014; Staiano et al., 2016). There is a precedent for communication between the peripheral immune system and the CNS. Under certain stress conditions, peripheral monocytes are recruited into the brain where they cause an increase in central inflammatory signaling (Weber et al., 2017). This process requires changes to blood–brain barrier permeability and a breakdown of astrocytic barriers (Weber et al., 2017). Manipulations to the endocannabinoid system could cause an increase in either pro- or anti-inflammatory signaling in peripheral immune components that then access the brain. Modulation of the endocannabinoid system may also directly induce changes to the blood–brain barrier (Engelhardt, 2003; Rom et al., 2013; Vendel and de Lange, 2014), thereby altering the inflammatory status of the brain, without acting on receptors located within the CNS. This peripheral mechanism of action is not necessarily mutually exclusive with a central mechanism of action. If we are to take the canonical classification of CB1R as central and CB2R as peripheral, then changes to CB2R signaling in the periphery may alter the peripheral immune system, which then communicates to the brain and alters CB1R signaling.

In summary, these data demonstrate sex-specific modulation of the developmental organization of juvenile rough-and-tumble play behavior via simultaneous signaling through both CB1 and CB2 receptors. Further investigation into how the endocannabinoid system interacts with sex steroid hormones and how CB1 and CB2 receptors act in cooperation to modulate acquisition of sexually differentiated play behavior will provide valuable insight into the functioning of the endocannabinoid system during early brain development and highlight potential ways in which cannabis use during pregnancy could have unintended effects on the developing fetus.

Footnotes

  • Authors report no conflict of interest.

  • This work was funded by RO1MH052716-020 and RO1DA039062-01 to MMM.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

References

  1. ↵
    Aguado T, Monory K, Palazuelos J, Stella N, Cravatt B, Lutz B, Marsicano G, Kokaia Z, Guzmán M, Galve-Roperh I (2005) The endocannabinoid system drives neural progenitor proliferation. FASEB J 19:1704–1706.
  2. ↵
    Aguado T, Palazuelos J, Monory K, Stella N, Cravatt B, Lutz B, Marsicano G, Kokaia Z, Guzmán M, Galve-Roperh I (2006) The endocannabinoid system promotes astroglial differentiation by acting on neural progenitor cells. J Neurosci 26:1551–1561. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3101-05.2006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Amateau SK, McCarthy MM (2004) Induction of PGE2 by estradiol mediates developmental masculinization of sex behavior. Nat Neurosci 7:643–650. doi:10.1038/nn1254 pmid:15156148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Argue KJ, McCarthy MM (2015a) Characterization of juvenile play in rats: importance of sex of self and sex of partner. Biol Sex Differ 6:16. doi:10.1186/s13293-015-0034-× pmid:26361539
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Argue KJ, McCarthy MM (2015b) Utilization of same- vs. mixed-sex dyads impacts the observation of sex differences in juvenile social play behavior. Curr Neurobiol 6:17–23. doi:10.4172/0975-9042.000117 pmid:26924913
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Arthur M, Bochner S, Butterfield N (1999) Enhancing peer interactions within the context of play. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 46:367–381. doi:10.1080/103491299100551
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    Auger AP, Olesen KM (2009) Brain sex differences and the organisation of juvenile social play behaviour. J Neuroendocrinol 21:519–525. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2826.2009.01871.× pmid:19500222
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Barrett L, Dunbar RIM, Dunbar P (1992) Environmental influences on play behaviour in immature gelada baboons. Anim Behav 44:111–115. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80760-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    Beatty WW, Dodge AM, Dodge LJ, White K, Panksepp J (1982) Psychomotor stimulants, social deprivation and play in juvenile rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 16:417–422. pmid:6123118
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Benito C, Tolón RM, Pazos MR, Núñez E, Castillo AI, Romero J (2008) Cannabinoid CB2 receptors in human brain inflammation. Br J Pharmacol 153:277–285. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707505 pmid:17934510
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Berghuis P, Rajnicek AM, Morozov YM, Ross RA, Mulder J, Urbán GM, Monory K, Marsicano G, Matteoli M, Canty A, Irving AJ, Katona I, Yanagawa Y, Rakic P, Lutz B, Mackie K, Harkany T (2007) Hardwiring the brain: endocannabinoids shape neuronal connectivity. Science 316:1212–1216. doi:10.1126/science.1137406 pmid:17525344
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Berrendero F, García-Gil L, Hernández ML, Romero J, Cebeira M, de Miguel R, Ramos JA, Fernández-Ruiz JJ (1998) Localization of mRNA expression and activation of signal transduction mechanisms for cannabinoid receptor in rat brain during fetal development. Development 125:3179–3188.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  13. ↵
    Buckley NE, Hansson S, Harta G, Mezey E (1998) Expression of the CB1 and CB2 receptor messenger RNAs during embryonic development in the rat. Neuroscience 82:1131–1149. pmid:9466436
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Byers JA, Walker C (1995) Refining the motor training hypothesis for the evolution of play. Am Nat 146:25. doi:10.1086/285785
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    Cheney DL (1978) The play partners of immature baboons. Anim Behav 26:1038–1050. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(78)90093-3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    Cooke BM, Stokas MR, Woolley CS (2007) Morphological sex differences and laterality in the prepubertal medial amygdala. J Comp Neurol 501:904–915. doi:10.1002/cne.21281 pmid:17311322
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Cordier R, Bundy A, Hocking C, Einfeld S (2010) Empathy in the play of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. OTJR Occup Particip Health 30:122–132. doi:10.3928/15394492-20090518-02
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Cordoni G (2009) Social play in captive wolves (Canis lupus): not only an immature affair. Behaviour 146:1363–1385. doi:10.1163/156853909X427722
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    Delgado-Peraza F, Ahn KH, Nogueras-Ortiz C, Mungrue IN, Mackie K, Kendall DA, Yudowski GA (2016) Mechanisms of biased β-arrestin-mediated signaling downstream from the cannabinoid 1 receptor. Mol Pharmacol 89:618–629. doi:10.1124/mol.115.103176 pmid:27009233
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Dhopeshwarkar A, Mackie K (2016) Functional selectivity of CB2 cannabinoid receptor ligands at a canonical and noncanonical pathway. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 358:342–351. doi:10.1124/jpet.116.232561 pmid:27194477
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Díaz-Alonso J, Aguado T, de Salas-Quiroga A, Ortega Z, Guzmán M, Galve-Roperh I (2015) CB1 Cannabinoid receptor-dependent activation of mTORC1/Pax6 signaling drives Tbr2 expression and basal progenitor expansion in the developing mouse cortex. Cereb Cortex 25:2395–2408.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Elphick MR, Egertová M (2001) The neurobiology and evolution of cannabinoid signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 356:381–408. doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0787 pmid:11316486
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Engelhardt B (2003) Development of the blood-brain barrier. Cell Tissue Res 314:119–129. doi:10.1007/s00441-003-0751-z pmid:12955493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Galiègue S, Mary S, Marchand J, Dussossoy D, Carrière D, Carayon P, Bouaboula M, Shire D, Le Fur G, Casellas P (1995) Expression of central and peripheral cannabinoid receptors in human immune tissues and leukocyte subpopulations. Eur J Biochem 232:54–61. doi:10.1111/j.1432-1033.1995.tb20780.×
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Galve-Roperh I, Chiurchiù V, Díaz-Alonso J, Bari M, Guzmán M, Maccarrone M (2013) Cannabinoid receptor signaling in progenitor/stem cell proliferation and differentiation. Prog Lipid Res 52:633–650. doi:10.1016/j.plipres.2013.05.004 pmid:24076098
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Gomez O, Arevalo-Martin A, Garcia-Ovejero D, Ortega-Gutierrez S, Cisneros JA, Almazan G, Sánchez-Rodriguez MA, Molina-Holgado F, Molina-Holgado E (2010) The constitutive production of the endocannabinoid 2-arachidonoylglycerol participates in oligodendrocyte differentiation. Glia 58:1913–1927. doi:10.1002/glia.21061 pmid:20878765
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Goncalves MB, Suetterlin P, Yip P, Molina-Holgado F, Walker DJ, Oudin MJ, Zentar MP, Pollard S, Yáñez-Muñoz RJ, Williams G, Walsh FS, Pangalos MN, Doherty P (2008) A diacylglycerol lipase-CB2 cannabinoid pathway regulates adult subventricular zone neurogenesis in an age-dependent manner. Mol Cell Neurosci 38:526–536. doi:10.1016/j.mcn.2008.05.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Gong J-P, Onaivi ES, Ishiguro H, Liu Q-R, Tagliaferro PA, Brusco A, Uhl GR (2006) Cannabinoid CB2 receptors: immunohistochemical localization in rat brain. Brain Res 1071:10–23. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.035 pmid:16472786
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Graham KL, Burghardt GM (2010) Current perspectives on the biological study of play: signs of progress. Q Rev Biol 85:393–418. pmid:21243962
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    Gruendel AD, Arnold WJ (1969) Effects of early social deprivation on reproductive behavior of male rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 67:123–128. pmid:5787805
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    Henry JD, Herrero SM (1974) Social play in the American black bear: its similarity to canid social play and an examination of its identifying characteristics. Integr Comp Biol 14:371–389. doi:10.1093/icb/14.1.371
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    Herkenham M, Lynn AB, Little MD, Johnson MR, Melvin LS, de Costa BR, Rice KC (1990) Cannabinoid receptor localization in brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87:1932–1936. pmid:2308954
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    Himmler SM, Himmler BT, Stryjek R, Pellis SM (2016) Pinning in the play fighting of rats: A comparative perspective with methodological recommendations. Int J Comp Psychol 87.
  34. ↵
    Himmler SM, Modlinska K, Stryjek R, Himmler BT, Pisula W, Pellis SM (2014) Domestication and diversification: a comparative analysis of the play fighting of the Brown Norway, Sprague-Dawley, and Wistar laboratory strains of (Rattus norvegicus). J Comp Psychol 128:318–327. doi:10.1037/a0036104
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Himmler BT, Stryjek R, Modlinska K, Derksen SM, Pisula W, Pellis SM (2013) How domestication modulates play behavior: a comparative analysis between wild rats and a laboratory strain of Rattus norvegicus. J Comp Psychol 127:453–464. doi:10.1037/a0032187
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Iannotti FA, Silvestri C, Mazzarella E, Martella A, Calvigioni D, Piscitelli F, Ambrosino P, Petrosino S, Czifra G, Bíró T, Harkany T, Taglialatela M, Di Marzo V (2014) The endocannabinoid 2-AG controls skeletal muscle cell differentiation via CB1 receptor-dependent inhibition of Kv7 channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:E2472–E2481. doi:10.1073/pnas.1406728111 pmid:24927567
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    Izzo AA (2004) Cannabinoids and intestinal motility: welcome to CB2 receptors. Br J Pharmacol 142:1201–1202. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0705890 pmid:15277313
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Jiang W, Zhang Y, Xiao L, Van Cleemput J, Ji S-P, Bai G, Zhang X (2005) Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects. J Clin Invest 115:3104–3116. doi:10.1172/JCI25509 pmid:16224541
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    Jordan R (2003) Social play and autistic spectrum disorders: a perspective on theory, implications and educational approaches. Autism Int J Res Pract 7:347–360. doi:10.1177/1362361303007004002 pmid:14678675
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Krebs-Kraft DL, Hill MN, Hillard CJ, McCarthy MM (2010) Sex difference in cell proliferation in developing rat amygdala mediated by endocannabinoids has implications for social behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:20535–20540. doi:10.1073/pnas.1005003107 pmid:21059913
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    Leresche LA (1976) Dyadic play in Hamadryas baboons. Behaviour 57:190–205. doi:10.1163/156853976X00514
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. ↵
    Lu H-C, Mackie K (2015) An introduction to the endogenous cannabinoid system. Biol Psychiatr 79:516–525.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    Maresz K, Carrier EJ, Ponomarev ED, Hillard CJ, Dittel BN (2005) Modulation of the cannabinoid CB2 receptor in microglial cells in response to inflammatory stimuli. J Neurochem 95:437–445. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2005.03380. pmid:16086683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    Matias I, Di Marzo V (2006) Endocannabinoid synthesis and degradation, and their regulation in the framework of energy balance. J Endocrinol Invest 29:15–26. pmid:16751706
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    Matias I, Di Marzo V (2007) Endocannabinoids and the control of energy balance. Trends Endocrinol Metab TEM 18:27–37. doi:10.1016/j.tem.2006.11.006 pmid:17141520
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Meaney MJ, McEwen BS (1986) Testosterone implants into the amygdala during the neonatal period masculinize the social play of juvenile female rats. Brain Res 398:324–328. pmid:3801906
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    Møller P, Husby R (2000) The initial prodrome in schizophrenia: searching for naturalistic core dimensions of experience and behavior. Schizophr Bull 26:217–232. pmid:10755683
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    Mong JA, Glaser E, McCarthy MM (1999) Gonadal steroids promote glial differentiation and alter neuronal morphology in the developing hypothalamus in a regionally specific manner. J Neurosci 19:1464–1472.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    Morris JA, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM (2008) Sexual dimorphism in neuronal number of the posterodorsal medial amygdala is independent of circulating androgens and regional volume in adult rats. J Comp Neurol 506:851–859. doi:10.1002/cne.21536 pmid:18076082
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    Mulder J, Aguado T, Keimpema E, Barabás K, Ballester Rosado CJ, Nguyen L, Monory K, Marsicano G, Di Marzo V, Hurd YL, Guillemot F, Mackie K, Lutz B, Guzmán M, Lu H-C, Galve-Roperh I, Harkany T (2008) Endocannabinoid signaling controls pyramidal cell specification and long-range axon patterning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:8760–8765. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803545105 pmid:18562289
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    Munro S, Thomas KL, Abu-Shaar M (1993) Molecular characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids. Nature 365:61–65. doi:10.1038/365061a0 pmid:7689702
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Nishizuka M, Murakami S, Arai Y (1989) Neuronal structure and male-female difference in the medial amygdala of rats. Biomed Res 10:323–327.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    Núñez E, Benito C, Pazos MR, Barbachano A, Fajardo O, González S, Tolón RM, Romero J (2004) Cannabinoid CB2 receptors are expressed by perivascular microglial cells in the human brain: an immunohistochemical study. Synap 53:208–213. doi:10.1002/syn.20050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    Olioff M, Stewart J (1978) Sex differences in the play behavior of prepubescent rats. Physiol Behav 20:113–115. pmid:662934
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Onaivi ES et al. (2008) Brain neuronal CB2 cannabinoid receptors in drug abuse and depression: from mice to human subjects. PloS One 3:e1640. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001640 pmid:18286196
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Onaivi ES, Ishiguro H, Gong J-P, Patel S, Perchuk A, Meozzi PA, Myers L, Mora Z, Tagliaferro P, Gardner E, Brusco A, Akinshola BE, Liu Q-R, Hope B, Iwasaki S, Arinami T, Teasenfitz L, Uhl GR (2006) Discovery of the presence and functional expression of cannabinoid CB2 receptors in brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1074:514–536. doi:10.1196/annals.1369.052
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    Palagi E, Antonacci D, Cordoni G (2007) Fine-tuning of social play in juvenile lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). Dev Psychobiol 49:433–445. doi:10.1002/dev.20219 pmid:17455241
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    Palazuelos J, Aguado T, Egia A, Mechoulam R, Guzmán M, Galve-Roperh I (2006) Non-psychoactive CB2 cannabinoid agonists stimulate neural progenitor proliferation. FASEB J 20:2405–2407. doi:10.1096/fj.06-6164fje pmid:17015409
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    Palazuelos J, Ortega Z, Díaz-Alonso J, Guzmán M, Galve-Roperh I (2012) CB2 cannabinoid receptors promote neural progenitor cell proliferation via mTORC1 signaling. J Biol Chem 287:1198–1209. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.291294 pmid:22102284
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    Parent CI, Meaney MJ (2008) The influence of natural variations in maternal care on play fighting in the rat. Dev Psychobiol 50:767–776. doi:10.1002/dev.20342 pmid:18846499
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    Pellis SM (2002) Sex differences in play fighting revisited: traditional and nontraditional mechanisms of sexual differentiation in rats. Arch Sex Behav 31:17–26. pmid:11910788
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    Pellis SM, Field EF, Smith LK, Pellis VC (1997) Multiple differences in the play fighting of male and female rats. Implications for the causes and functions of play. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 21:105–120. pmid:8994213
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    Pellis SM, Pellis VC (1997) The prejuvenile onset of play fighting in laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus). Dev Psychobiol 31:193–205. pmid:9386921
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    Pellis SM, Pellis VC (1998) Play fighting of rats in comparative perspective: a schema for neurobehavioral analyses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 23:87–101. pmid:9861614
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    Pellis SM, Pellis VC, Bell HC (2010) The function of play in the development of the social brain. Am J Play 279–296.
  66. ↵
    Racz I, Nadal X, Alferink J, Baños JE, Rehnelt J, Martín M, Pintado B, Gutierrez-Adan A, Sanguino E, Bellora N, Manzanares J, Zimmer A, Maldonado R (2008a) Interferon-gamma is a critical modulator of CB(2) cannabinoid receptor signaling during neuropathic pain. J Neurosci 28:12136–12145.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    Racz I, Nadal X, Alferink J, Baños JE, Rehnelt J, Martín M, Pintado B, Gutierrez-Adan A, Sanguino E, Manzanares J, Zimmer A, Maldonado R (2008b) Crucial role of CB(2) cannabinoid receptor in the regulation of central immune responses during neuropathic pain. J Neurosci 28:12125–12135.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    Rivera P, Bindila L, Pastor A, Pérez-Martín M, Pavón FJ, Serrano A, de la Torre R, Lutz B, Rodríguez de Fonseca F, Suárez J (2015) Pharmacological blockade of the fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) alters neural proliferation, apoptosis and gliosis in the rat hippocampus, hypothalamus and striatum in a negative energy context. Front Cell Neurosci 9:98. doi:10.3389/fncel.2015.00098
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. ↵
    Rom S, Zuluaga-Ramirez V, Dykstra H, Reichenbach NL, Pacher P, Persidsky Y (2013) Selective activation of cannabinoid receptor 2 in leukocytes suppresses their engagement of the brain endothelium and protects the blood-brain barrier. Am J Pathol 183:1548–1558. doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2013.07.033 pmid:24055259
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    Rubio-Araiz A, Arévalo-Martín A, Gómez-Torres O, Navarro-Galve B, García-Ovejero D, Suetterlin P, Sánchez-Heras E, Molina-Holgado E, Molina-Holgado F (2008) The endocannabinoid system modulates a transient TNF pathway that induces neural stem cell proliferation. Mol Cell Neurosci 38:374–380. doi:10.1016/j.mcn.2008.03.010 pmid:18499473
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    Rueda D, Navarro B, Martinez-Serrano A, Guzman M, Galve-Roperh I (2002) The endocannabinoid anandamide inhibits neuronal progenitor cell differentiation through attenuation of the Rap1/B-Raf/ERK pathway. J Biol Chem 277:46645–46650. doi:10.1074/jbc.M206590200 pmid:12237305
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    Siviy SM (2016) A brain motivated to play: insights into the neurobiology of playfulness. Behaviour 153:819–844. doi:10.1163/1568539X-00003349
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    Soltys J, Yushak M, Mao-Draayer Y (2010) Regulation of neural progenitor cell fate by anandamide. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 400:21–26. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.07.129 pmid:20691161
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. ↵
    Spinka M, Newberry RC, Bekoff M (2001) Mammalian play: training for the unexpected. Q Rev Biol 76:141–168. pmid:11409050
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    Staiano RI, Loffredo S, Borriello F, Iannotti FA, Piscitelli F, Orlando P, Secondo A, Granata F, Lepore MT, Fiorelli A, Varricchi G, Santini M, Triggiani M, Di Marzo V, Marone G (2016) Human lung-resident macrophages express CB1 and CB2 receptors whose activation inhibits the release of angiogenic and lymphangiogenic factors. J Leukoc Biol 99:531–540. doi:10.1189/jlb.3HI1214-584R pmid:26467187
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    Ständer S, Schmelz M, Metze D, Luger T, Rukwied R (2005) Distribution of cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) and 2 (CB2) on sensory nerve fibers and adnexal structures in human skin. J Dermatol Sci 38:177–188. doi:10.1016/j.jdermsci.2005.01.007 pmid:15927811
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    Stella N (2010) Cannabinoid and cannabinoid-like receptors in microglia, astrocytes, and astrocytomas. Glia 58:1017–1030. doi:10.1002/glia.20983 pmid:20468046
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    Stempel AV, Stumpf A, Zhang H-Y, Özdoğan T, Pannasch U, Theis A-K, Otte D-M, Wojtalla A, Rácz I, Ponomarenko A, Xi Z-X, Zimmer A, Schmitz D (2016) Cannabinoid type 2 receptors mediate a cell type-specific plasticity in the hippocampus. Neuron 90:795–809. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.034 pmid:27133464
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    Strous RD, Alvir JMJ, Robinson D, Gal G, Sheitman B, Chakos M, Lieberman JA (2004) Premorbid functioning in schizophrenia: relation to baseline symptoms, treatment response, and medication side effects. Schizophr Bull 30:265–278. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007077
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    Sun J, Fang Y, Chen T, Guo J, Yan J, Song S, Zhang L, Liao H (2013) WIN55, 212-2 promotes differentiation of oligodendrocyte precursor cells and improve remyelination through regulation of the phosphorylation level of the ERK 1/2 via cannabinoid receptor 1 after stroke-induced demyelination. Brain Res 1491:225–235. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.11.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    Takahashi LK, Lore RK (1983) Play fighting and the development of agonistic behavior in male and female rats. Aggress Behav 9:217–227. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1983)9:3<217::AID-AB2480090303>3.0.CO;2-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. ↵
    Thor DH, Holloway WR (1985) Play soliciting behavior in prepubertal and postpubertal male rats. Anim Learn Behav 13:327–330. doi:10.3758/BF03200028
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    Thor DH, Holloway WR (1986) Social play soliciting by male and female juvenile rats: effects of neonatal androgenization and sex of cagemates. Behav Neurosci 100:275–279. pmid:3964428
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    Tortoriello G, Morris CV, Alpar A, Fuzik J, Shirran SL, Calvigioni D, Keimpema E, Botting CH, Reinecke K, Herdegen T, Courtney M, Hurd YL, Harkany T (2014) Miswiring the brain: Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol disrupts cortical development by inducing an SCG10/stathmin-2 degradation pathway. EMBO J 33:668–685. doi:10.1002/embj.201386035 pmid:24469251
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    van den Berg CL, Hol T, Van Ree JM, Spruijt BM, Everts H, Koolhaas JM (1999) Play is indispensable for an adequate development of coping with social challenges in the rat. Dev Psychobiol 34:129–138. pmid:10086231
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    Vendel E, de Lange ECM (2014) Functions of the CB1 and CB 2 receptors in neuroprotection at the level of the blood-brain barrier. Neuromol Med 16:620–642. doi:10.1007/s12017-014-8314-× pmid:24929655
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    Watson DM, Croft DB (1993) Playfighting in captive red-necked wallabies, Macropus rufogriseus banksianus. Behaviour 126:219–245. doi:10.1163/156853993X00128
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. ↵
    Weber MD, Godbout JP, Sheridan JF (2017) Repeated social defeat, neuroinflammation, and behavior: monocytes carry the signal. Neuropsychopharmacology 42:46–61.
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    Williams E-J, Walsh FS, Doherty P (2003) The FGF receptor uses the endocannabinoid signaling system to couple to an axonal growth response. J Cell Biol 160:481–486. doi:10.1083/jcb.200210164 pmid:12578907
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    Wu C-S, Zhu J, Wager-Miller J, Wang S, O’Leary D, Monory K, Lutz B, Mackie K, Lu H-C (2010) Requirement of cannabinoid CB(1) receptors in cortical pyramidal neurons for appropriate development of corticothalamic and thalamocortical projections. Eur J Neurosci 32:693–706. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07337.× pmid:21050275
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    Zhang H-Y, Gao M, Liu Q-R, Bi G-H, Li X, Yang H-J, Gardner EL, Wu J, Xi Z-X (2014) Cannabinoid CB2 receptors modulate midbrain dopamine neuronal activity and dopamine-related behavior in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:E5007–E5015. doi:10.1073/pnas.1413210111 pmid:25368177
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

Synthesis

Reviewing Editor: Cheryl Sisk, Michigan State University

Decisions are customarily a result of the Reviewing Editor and the peer reviewers coming together and discussing their recommendations until a consensus is reached. When revisions are invited, a fact-based synthesis statement explaining their decision and outlining what is needed to prepare a revision will be listed below. The following reviewer(s) agreed to reveal their identity: Ismael Galve-Roperh, Sergio Pellis.

Two experts and I have reviewed your manuscript and agree that it reports interesting data that advance understanding of the role of endocannabinoids on the sexual differentiation of play behavior. To strengthen your paper, please consider the specific questions/comments below and revise your manuscript as appropriate. I also request that you double check your statistical results throughout, and make sure that the p values provided in the table accurately reflect the narrative provided in the results. Two inconsistencies were noted by reviewers: 1) Line 285-87 reports a significant interaction (m), but m in the stats table shows p=0.12; 2) Line 314 reports a treatment-dependent decrease in pouncing in males (pp) (fig 3c,e), but pp in stats table shows p=0.68. Finally, it would be helpful to include the figure captions in the body of your revised manuscript so that reviewers do not have to open the separate figure files to view the captions.

Line 92: A suitable reference to support and illustrate the point made by the first sentence would be Siviy, S. M. (2016). A brain motivated to play: Insights into the neurobiology of playfulness. Behaviour, 153, 819-844.

Lines 123-176: The first two experiments involved play encounters among 6 individuals of differing treatment and sex, whereas the third experiment involved using dyads of same sex and same treatment. The explanation offered in lines 168-176 provides a clear rationale as to why the dyad approach is advantageous for detecting sex and treatment effects. There is no rationale provided for the use of the six subject trials used for the first two experiments and indeed, the rationale for the use of dyads in the third experiment makes the choice of design in the first two experiments seem the weaker approach. Why wasn't the dyad paradigm used for all the experiments? The contagion effect could well have distorted the findings from the first two experiments. The methodology used needs to be thoroughly rationalized, with the possible pros and cons borne in mind when the findings are discussed.

Lines 178-214: A rationale needs to be provided to make clear the logic for why brains from both PN4 and PN26 rats were needed for reconstruction. Given that the animals were tested behaviorally in the juvenile period, why not just look at their brains for treatment effects at this age? The added value of the PN4 analysis needs to be provided. Also, given the many uses of independent groups of rats involved, it would be useful to state the total number of male and female rats used for the entire study up front in the Methods under “Animals” (line 111-121). This would save the reader trying to calculate overall animal usage from the separate experiments.

Lines 285-287: The ending sentence states that “When assessed for the total number of juvenile rough-and-tumble play events, there was a significant interaction between sex and drug treatment, with a main effect of sex, but no main effect of treatment”. However, in the subsequent paragraphs statistical results are given for some treatment effects on females. That is, specific comparisons are made without justification from an overall effect. If the ANOVA reported a significant interaction effect, which according to the statistical table, it did not, then this would be justified, otherwise a case needs to be made to justify the subsequent comparisons further.

Lines 312-314: The absence of a decrease in overall play in the treated males, but a decrease in pouncing, suggests that overall play may be sustained by an increased likelihood that treated males are responsive to nape contacts. That is, there may be a differential treatment-induced change on playful attack versus playful defense - consequently, the different receptors may have differential effects on different aspects of play fighting.

Lines 443-461: Please provide a possible explanation for why ECBr agonism, but not antagonism, in females masculinizes their social play, whereas the opposite is the case in males, i.e., antagonism reduces social play while agonism does not impact the behavior. For example, do you think there are ceiling or basement effects going on, and if so, are there possible mechanistic reasons why this would be the case?

Lines 462-494: Rotating to supine in the absence of a nape attack by a partner is rare (Himmler, S. M., Himmler, B. T., Stryjek, R., Modlińska, K., Pisula, W., & Pellis, S. M. (2016). Pinning in the play fighting of rats: A comparative perspective with some methodological recommendations. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 29, 1-14), consequently, if a treatment from the present experiment enhanced such behavior, this would be an important finding and one indicating separate neural controls over communication during play compared to regulating combat actions. An alternative way to increase the likelihood of rolling to supine prior to contact is to increase the distance at which defense is initiated (see Himmler, B. T., Stryjek, R., Modlińska, K., Derksen, S. M., Pisula, W., & Pellis, S. M. (2013). How domestication modulates play behavior: A comparative analysis between wild rats and a laboratory strain of Rattus norvegicus. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127, 453-464; Pellis et al., 1997, cited). That is, the defensive of the recipient is altered, not its propensity to solicit play. Indeed, some findings in the present paper (see comment above for lines 312-314) - in which playful pouncing can decrease in males even though overall play is sustained, suggesting a concomitant increase in rearing to box or in rolling to supine - would support such an alternative. Playful attack and playful defense show different age-related changes in males and females, with different patterns of hormonal organization involved in the sexes (see Pellis, 2002, cited). Therefore, it is possible that even if the CB receptors are involved in both males and females, their relative contributions to the sex differences in playful attack and playful defense may differ. This is certainly a possibility to be considered for future studies.

Lines 533-541: Please clarify how you think ECB/CB2R effects on newly proliferated astrocytes in the female medial amygdala (Krebs-Kraft et al) relate to effects (or lack thereof) of selective CB2R agonism/antagonism on play behavior.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 4 (1)
eNeuro
Vol. 4, Issue 1
January/February 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Activation of Both CB1 and CB2 Endocannabinoid Receptors Is Critical for Masculinization of the Developing Medial Amygdala and Juvenile Social Play Behavior
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Activation of Both CB1 and CB2 Endocannabinoid Receptors Is Critical for Masculinization of the Developing Medial Amygdala and Juvenile Social Play Behavior
Kathryn J Argue, Jonathan W VanRyzin, David J Falvo, Allison R Whitaker, Stacey J Yu, Margaret M McCarthy
eNeuro 16 January 2017, 4 (1) ENEURO.0344-16.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0344-16.2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Activation of Both CB1 and CB2 Endocannabinoid Receptors Is Critical for Masculinization of the Developing Medial Amygdala and Juvenile Social Play Behavior
Kathryn J Argue, Jonathan W VanRyzin, David J Falvo, Allison R Whitaker, Stacey J Yu, Margaret M McCarthy
eNeuro 16 January 2017, 4 (1) ENEURO.0344-16.2017; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0344-16.2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • amygdala
  • development
  • endocannabinoid
  • juvenile play behavior
  • neuronal morphology
  • rat

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Distinguishing fine structure and summary representation of sound textures from neural activity
  • Anatomical Connectivity of the Intercalated Cells of the Amygdala
  • Spatiotemporal regulation of de novo and salvage purine synthesis during brain development
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Distinguishing fine structure and summary representation of sound textures from neural activity
  • Dopamine Receptor Type 2-Expressing Medium Spiny Neurons in the Ventral Lateral Striatum Have a Non-REM Sleep-Induce Function
  • How Sucrose Preference Is Gained and Lost: An In-Depth Analysis of Drinking Behavior during the Sucrose Preference Test in Mice
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.