Behavior: A Relevant Tool for Brain-immune System Interaction Studies

Neuroimmunomodulation describes the field focused on understanding the mechanisms by which the central nervous system interacts with the immune system, potentially leading to changes in animal behavior. Nonetheless, not many articles dealing with neuroimmunomodulation employ behavior as an analytical endpoint. Even fewer papers deal with social status as a possible modifier of neuroimmune phenomena. In the described sets of experiments, we tackle both, using a paradigm of social dominance and subordination. We first review data on the effects of different ranks within a stable hierarchical relationship. Submissive mice in this condition display more anxiety-like behaviors, have decreased innate immunity, and show a decreased resistance to implantation and development of melanoma metastases in their lungs. This suggests that even in a stable, social, hierarchical rank, submissive animals may be subjected to higher levels of stress, with putative biological relevance to host susceptibility to disease. Second, we review data on how dominant and submissive mice respond differentially to lipopolysaccharide (LPS), employing a motivational perspective to sickness behavior. Dominant animals display decreased number and frequency in several aspects of behavior, particularly agonistic social interaction, that is, directed toward the submissive cage mate. This was not observed in submissive mice that maintained the required behavior expected by its dominant mate. Expression of sickness behavior relies on motivational reorganization of priorities, which are different along different social ranks, leading to diverse outcomes. We suggest that in vitro assessment of neuroimmune phenomena can only be understood based on the behavioral context in which they occur.

Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone at initiation of the 5-d timed artificial insemination (AI) program and timing of induction of ovulation relative to AI on ovarian dynamics and fertility of dairy heifers

Two experiments evaluated the effects of the first GnRH injection of the 5-d timed artificial insemination (AI) program on ovarian responses and pregnancy per AT (P/AI), and the effect of timing of the final GnRH to induce ovulation relative to AT on P/AI. In experiment 1, 605 Holstein heifers were synchronized for their second insemination and assigned randomly to receive GnRH on study d 0 (n = 298) or to remain as untreated controls (n = 307). Ovaries were scanned on study d 0 and 5. All heifers received a controlled internal drug-release (CIDR) insert containing progesterone on d 0, a single injection of PGF(2 alpha),, and removal of the CIDR on d 5, and GnRH concurrent with timed AT on d 8. Blood was analyzed for progesterone at AI. Pregnancy was diagnosed on d 32 and 60 after AI. Ovulation on study d 0 was greater for GnRH than control (35.4 vs. 10.6%). Presence of a new corpus luteum (CL) at PGF(2 alpha),, injection was greater for GnRH than for control (43.1 vs. 20.8%), although the proportion of heifers with a CL at PGF(2 alpha) did not differ between treatments and averaged 87.1%. Progesterone on the day of AT was greater for GaRH than control (0.50 +/- 0.07 vs. 0.28 +/- 0.07 ng/mL). The proportion of heifers at AI with progesterone <0.5 ng/mL was less for GURH than for control (73.8 vs. 88.2%). The proportion of heifers in estrus at AI did not differ between treatments and averaged 66.8%. Pregnancy per AI was not affected by treatment at d 32 or 60 (GnRH = 52.5 and 49.8% vs. control = 54.1 and 50.0%), and pregnancy loss averaged 6.0%. Responses to GnRH were not influenced by ovarian status on study d 0. In experiment 2, 1,295 heifers were synchronized for their first insemination and assigned randomly to receive a CIDR on d 0, PGF(2 alpha) and removal of the CIDR on d 5, and either GnRH 56 h after PGF(2 alpha) and AI 16 h later (OVS56, n = 644) or GnRH concurrent with AI 72 h after PGF(2 alpha) (COS72; n = 651). Estrus at AI was greater for COS72 than for OVS56 (61.4 vs. 47.5). Treatment did not affect P/AI on d 32 in heifers displaying signs of estrus at AI, but COS72 improved P/AI compared with OVS56 (55.0 vs. 47.6%) in those not in estrus at AI. Similarly, P/AI on d 60 did not differ between treatments for heifers displaying estrus, but COS72 improved P/AI compared with OVS56 (53.0 vs. 44.7%) in those not in estrus at AI. Administration of GnRH on the first day of the 5-d timed AI program resulted in low ovulation rate and no improvement in P/AI when heifers received a single PGF(2 alpha) injection 5 d later. Moreover, extending the proestrus by delaying the finAI GnRH from 56 to 72 h concurrent with AI benefited fertility of dairy heifers that did not display signs of estrus at insemination following the 5-d timed AI protocol.