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

Testosterone or Estradiol When Implanted in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Trigger Short Low-Amplitude Songs in Female Canaries

Laura M. Vandries, Samar Ghorbanpoor, Gilles Cornez, Olesya T. Shevchouk, Gregory F. Ball, Charlotte A. Cornil and Jacques Balthazart
eNeuro 19 April 2019, 6 (2) ENEURO.0502-18.2019; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0502-18.2019
Laura M. Vandries
1GIGA Neurosciences, University of Liege, 4000 Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Samar Ghorbanpoor
1GIGA Neurosciences, University of Liege, 4000 Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gilles Cornez
1GIGA Neurosciences, University of Liege, 4000 Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olesya T. Shevchouk
1GIGA Neurosciences, University of Liege, 4000 Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory F. Ball
2Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gregory F. Ball
Charlotte A. Cornil
1GIGA Neurosciences, University of Liege, 4000 Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacques Balthazart
1GIGA Neurosciences, University of Liege, 4000 Liège, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jacques Balthazart
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Semi-schematic maps illustrating the implant locations and their content. Panels A–D are presented in a rostral to caudal order. The inset shows the content of the implants (T or E2) and whether they were considered to be located in or out of POM. One E2 implant associated with an asterisk was considered in POM but was located in a plane caudal to the plane illustrated in D. E, F, Photomicrographs of two brain sections immunostained for aromatase, one with an implant outside (dorsal) to POM (E) and one with an implant within the boundaries of the nucleus (F). The asterisk indicates the tip of the implant and the magnification bar is 1 mm in both cases. The induction of aromatase in the POM by T is clearly visible at the tip of the implant in F. III: third nerve (nervus oculomotorius); CoA: commissura anterior; DSD: decussatio supraoptica dorsalis; DSV: decussatio supraoptica ventralis; GLV: nucleus geniculatus lateralis, pars ventralis; LA: nucleus lateralis anterior thalami; POM: medial preoptic nucleus (nucleus preopticus medialis); Rt: nucleus rotundus; TSM: tractus septopallio-mesencephalicus. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries, Samar Ghorbanpoor, and Gilles Cornez performed the experiment. Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Mean ± SEM of all morphologic measures collected in the three groups of females at the end of the experiment. No significant difference could be detected among the three groups in body mass (A), cloacal protrusion (B), nor ovary mass (D) except for syrinx mass (C), but this difference disappears when two outliers in the Out group are removed (hatched bar; see text). The number of available data points is indicated in each case at the bottom of the corresponding bar. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries, Samar Ghorbanpoor, Gilles Cornez, and Olesya Shevchouk performed the experiment. Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Representative sonograms illustrating the songs produced by females treated with T or E2 implanted in or out of POM. Birds in the Out group only produced very short songs, usually consisting in the repetition of a single syllable (A, B). E2 (C–E) or T (F–H) implanted in POM increased the duration of some but not all songs that consisted in some cases of multiple syllables. H, One of the most complex songs seen in the T in POM groups. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries, Gilles Cornez, and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Summary of all measures of songs produced during 2 h of recording on days (d) 7, 14, and 28 after implantation of the steroids in the brain. The figure shows from top left to bottom right the number of songs per recording session of 2 hours (A), the average duration of these songs (B), the percentage of time that females spent singing (C) and then the maximum frequency (D), the 90% range of the bandwith (E) and the average entropy (F) of these songs. Data were analyzed by two-way GLM mixed-effect analysis with the three groups as independent factor and the three recording days as repeated factor and the results are schematically reported above each graph (Trt, treatment; time, time after implantation; Int, interaction; *p < 0.05). Significant effects were followed by post hoc Tukey tests whose results are indicated by letters above the bars (a = p < 0.05 compared to the corresponding Out group). The asterisk above a bar refers to time effects and indicates a significant difference with the D7 point. The number of available data points is indicated in each case at the bottom of the corresponding bar. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Mean (±SEM) volumes of the POM as identified by the dense cluster of ARO-ir cells (A), and of nucleus HVC as identified in Nissl-stained sections (B) and by the dense cluster of DCX-ir cells (C) in females treated with T or E2 implanted in or out of POM on the ipsilateral (left bar in each pair) or contralateral (right bar in each pair) side. Data were analyzed by two-way GLM mixed-effect analysis with the three groups as independent and the two sides of the brain as repeated factor and the results are schematically reported above each graph (TRT, treatment; SIDE, brain side with respect to the implant; INT, interaction; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). Results of Tukey post hoc tests comparing the three groups on each brain side are indicated by letters (a,b = p < 0.05 compared to the Out and E2 group, respectively, on the same brain side). The number of available data points is indicated in each case at the bottom of the corresponding bar. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries, Samar Ghorbanpoor, and Olesya Shevchouk performed the experiment. Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Representative photomicrographs of the preoptic area (A, B) or of the song control nucleus HVC (C, D) illustrating the main experimental effects. Panels in the top row show the preoptic area stained for aromatase in a female with a T implant on the right side showing the aromatase induction (A) or in a female of the Out group showing basal aromatase expression (B). Panels in the bottom row show nucleus HVC stained for DCX in a female with a T implant in POM (C) and an Out bird (D) illustrating the increase by T in POM of the density of DCX-ir cells in HVC. Magnification bars are 500 µm in both cases and refer to both panels on the same row. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries and Samar Ghorbanpoor performed the experiment. Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Correlation between the volumes of HVC as measured in Nissl-stained sections (B) and by the dense cluster of DCX-ir cells. Data were separately analyzed for volumes measured on the side ipsilateral or contralateral side to the steroid implants. The graph illustrates the significant regression line and the 95% confidence intervals. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Mean (±SEM) densities (numbers/mm3) of fusiform (A, C, E) and multipolar (B, D, F) DCX-ir cells in HVC (A, B) and in area directly ventral (C, D) or lateral (E, F) to this nucleus in the three experimental groups on the brain side ipsilateral and contralateral to the steroid implants. Data were analyzed by two-way GLM mixed-effect analysis with the three groups as independent and the two sides of the brain as repeated factor and the results are schematically reported above each graph (TRT, treatment; SIDE, brain side relative to implant; INT, interaction; *p < 0.05). Significant effects of treatments were followed by Tukey post hoc tests whose results are expressed as follows: b = p < 0.05 by comparison with the E2 group. The number of available data points is indicated in each case at the bottom of the corresponding bar. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries, Samar Ghorbanpoor, and Olesya Shevchouk performed the experiment. Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

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

    Mean (±SEM) densities (numbers/mm3) of PNN (A), of PV-ir cells (B), of PV-ir cells surrounded by PNN (C) and percentage of PNN present around PV-ir cells (D) in the three experimental groups on the side ipsilateral and contralateral side to the steroid implants. Data were analyzed by two-way GLM mixed-effect analysis with the three groups as independent and the two sides of the brain as repeated factor and the results are schematically reported above each graph (TRT, treatment; SIDE, brain side relative to implant; INT, interaction). No significant effect was detected. The number of available data points is indicated in each case at the bottom of the corresponding bar. Figure Contributions: Laura Vandries and Gilles Cornez performed the experiment. Laura Vandries and Jacques Balthazart analyzed the data.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Mean ± SEM and number of observations for each separate set of out data (T and E2 birds), and results of the two-way GLM mixed-effect analysis of these data (F and associated probabilities)

    VariableT outE2 outT vs E2DaysInteraction
    Mean ± SEM (n)Mean ± SEM (n)F, pF, pF, p
    Number of songs D727.7 ± 17.6 (4)122 ± 57 (5)
    D1437.5 ± 30.8 (4)83.8 ± 38.9 (5)
    D2831.7 ± 12.3 (4)17.0 ± 11.9 (5)F = 1.204,
    p = 0.308
    F = 1.783,
    p = 0.216
    F = 1.961,
    p = 0.177
    Song duration D70.34 ± 0.11 (4)0.28 ± 0.12 (5)
    D140.35 ± 1.12 (4)0.39 ± 0.10 (5)
    D280.44 ± 0.02 (4)0.28 ± 0.11 (5)F = 0.245,
    p = 0.629
    F = 0.303,
    p = 0.674
    F = 0.809,
    p = 0.465
    % Time singing D70.41 ± 0.22 (4)1.61 ± 0.77 (5)
    D140.53 ± 0.38 (4)1.13 ± 0.52 (5)
    D280.40 ± 0.17 (4)0.22 ± 0.15 (5)F = 1.123,
    p = 0.324
    F = 2.013,
    p = 0.187
    F = 1.792,
    p = 0.203
    Maximum frequency D73553 ± 328 (3)4095 ± 239 (3)
    D143580 ± 342 (3)3727 ± 439 (4)
    D283972 ± 403 (4)4176 ± 213 (3)F = 0.189,
    p = 0.678
    F = 0.682,
    p = 0.484
    F = 0.519,
    p = 0.614
    Bandwidth D71104 ± 167 (3)1885 ± 834 (3)
    D141128 ± 97(3)2156 ± 1185 (4)
    D28947 ± 141 (4)1268 ± 329 (3)F = 1.036,
    p = 0.348
    F = 0.499,
    p = 0.612
    F = 0.349,
    p = 0.715
    Mean entropy D72.98 ± 0.21 (3)3.29 ± 0.39 (3)
    D142.85 ± 0.24 (3)2.93 ± 0.15 (4)
    D282.74 ± 0.16 (4)2.92 ± 0.10 (3)F = 0.524,
    p = 0.496
    F = 4.037,
    p = 0.128
    F = 1.875,
    p = 0.245
    VariableT outE2 outT vs E2ipsilateral-contralateralInteraction
    POM volume ipsilateral
    contralateral
    0.06 ± 0.01 (4)
    0.05 ± 0.01 (4)
    0.02 ± 0.02 (3)
    0.02 ± 0.01 (3)
    F = 3.022, p = 0.142F = 0.811,
    p = 0.408
    F = 0.227,
    p = 0.653
    HVC volume Nissl ipsilateral
    contralateral
    0.10 ± 0.02 (4)
    0.11 ± 0.02 (4)
    0.14 ± 0.02 (4)
    0.12 ± 0.02 (4)
    F = 0.810, p = 0.403F = 0.516,
    p = 0.499
    F = 1.507,
    p = 0.265
    HVC volume DCX ipsilateral
    contralateral
    0.11 ± 0.03 (4)
    0.10 ± 0.02 (4)
    0.10 ± 0.02 (5)
    0.10 ± 0.01 (5)
    F = 0.053, p = 0.824F = 1.032,
    p = 0.343
    F = 0.002,
    p = 0.967
    Fusiform DCX in HVC ipsilateral
    contralateral
    86.2 ± 12.3 (4)
    64.5 ± 10.7 (4)
    56.0 ± 6.9 (5)
    53.6 ± 4.6 (5)
    F = 3.559, p = 0.101F = 5.143,
    p = 0.058
    F = 3.302,
    p = 0.112
    Multipolar DCX in HVC ipsilateral
    contralateral
    152.0 ± 35.2 (4)
    142.0 ± 30.7 (4)
    151.4 ± 9.7 (5)
    144.4 ± 8.0 (5)
    F = 0.001, p = 0.976F = 1.715
    p = 0.232
    F = 0.053,
    p = 0.824
    Fusiform DCX vtr. HVC ipsilateral
    contralateral
    11.2 ± 3.1 (4)
    10.0 ± 2.6 (4)
    7.8 ± 0.8 (5)
    7.8 ± 2.6 (5)
    F = 1.099, p = 0.329F = 0.110,
    p = 0.750
    F = 0.110,
    p = 0.750
    Multipolar DCX vtr. HVC ipsilateral
    contralateral
    19.0 ± 3.8 (4)
    18.5 ± 2.6 (4)
    23.0 ± 2.8 (5)
    21.4 ± 2.1 (5)
    F = 1.255, p = 0.300F = 0.161,
    p = 0.700
    F = 0.044,
    p = 0.839
    Fusiform DCX lat. HVC ipsilateral
    contralateral
    13.0 ± 3.5 (4)
    13.2 ± 2.5 (4)
    7.4 ± 0.7 (5)
    10.8 ± 2.4 (5)
    F = 1.848, p = 0.216F = 1.401,
    p = 0.275
    F = 1.043,
    p = 0.341
    Multipolar DCX lat. HVC ipsilateral
    contralateral
    8.0 ± 1.3 (4)
    6.5 ± 1.0 (4)
    7.8 ± 1.5 (5)
    8.6 ± 1.3 (5)
    F = 0.369, p = 0.562F = 0.123,
    p = 0.736
    F = 1.332,
    p = 0.286
    PNN density ipsilateral
    contralateral
    36.7 ± 7.0 (3)
    58.0 ± 22.1(3)
    34.8 ± 20.4 (5)
    46.4 ± 22.6 (5)
    F = 0.070, p = 0.800F = 0.835,
    p = 0.396
    F = 0.072,
    p = 0.796
    PV-ir density ipsilateral
    contralateral
    106.3 ± 17.1 (3)
    104.0 ± 0.0 (3)
    116.6 ± 17.6 (5)
    143.0 ± 25.7 (5)
    F = 1.289, p = 0.278F = 0.308,
    p = 0.589
    F = 0.439,
    p = 0.520
    PV+PNN density ipsilateral
    contralateral
    6.0 ± 3.5 (3)
    11.3 ± 3.9 (3)
    7.6 ± 6.4 (5)
    10.4 ± 4.6 (5)
    F = 0.003, p = 0.957F = 0.618,
    p = 0.462
    F = 0.059,
    p = 0.815
    % PNN with PV ipsilateral
    contralateral
    21.3 ± 14.9 (3)
    22.7 ± 5.4 (3)
    2.2 ± 2.2 (5)
    44.4 ± 23.1 (5)
    F = 0.006, p = 0.938F = 1.744,
    p = 0.213
    F = 1.537,
    p = 0.238
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 6 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 6, Issue 2
March/April 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
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.
Testosterone or Estradiol When Implanted in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Trigger Short Low-Amplitude Songs in Female Canaries
(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
Testosterone or Estradiol When Implanted in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Trigger Short Low-Amplitude Songs in Female Canaries
Laura M. Vandries, Samar Ghorbanpoor, Gilles Cornez, Olesya T. Shevchouk, Gregory F. Ball, Charlotte A. Cornil, Jacques Balthazart
eNeuro 19 April 2019, 6 (2) ENEURO.0502-18.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0502-18.2019

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
Testosterone or Estradiol When Implanted in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Trigger Short Low-Amplitude Songs in Female Canaries
Laura M. Vandries, Samar Ghorbanpoor, Gilles Cornez, Olesya T. Shevchouk, Gregory F. Ball, Charlotte A. Cornil, Jacques Balthazart
eNeuro 19 April 2019, 6 (2) ENEURO.0502-18.2019; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0502-18.2019
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Keywords

  • medial preoptic nucleus
  • preoptic area
  • singing motivation
  • song control system
  • songbirds
  • testosterone

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

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • TrkB Signaling Influences Gene Expression in Cortistatin-Expressing Interneurons
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • EEG Signatures of Auditory Distraction: Neural Responses to Spectral Novelty in Real-World Soundscapes
  • Excess neonatal testosterone causes male-specific social and fear memory deficits in wild-type mice
  • The effects of mindfulness meditation on mechanisms of attentional control in young and older adults: a preregistered eye tracking study
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • 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 Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 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.