Bruce effect

The Bruce effect, or pregnancy block,^[1][2] refers to the tendency for female rodents to terminate their pregnancies following exposure to the scent of an unfamiliar male.^[3] The Bruce Effect was first noted in 1959 by Hilda M. Bruce.^[4] The effect has primarily been studied in laboratory mice (Mus musculus),^[1] but is also observed in deer-mice,^[5] meadow voles,^[6] and collared lemmings.^[7] In mice, pregnancy can only be terminated prior to embryo implantation, but other species will interrupt even a late-term pregnancy.^[8] The Bruce Effect has also been observed in geladas^[9] and it has also been proposed, but not confirmed, in other non-rodent species such as the lion.^[10]

Discovery

In an experiment published in 1959, zoologist Hilda Bruce housed pregnant mice with male mice that were not the father of the carried embryo. As a result, the rate of miscarriages increased, followed by mating with the new male. No increased rate of miscarriages occurred when pregnant mice were paired with castrated or juvenile male mice.^[4]

Mechanisms of action

Detection of pheromones

The vomeronasal system serves as a “vascular pump” that, stimulated by the presence of a novel male, actively draws in substances.^[11] Male mouse urine contains MHC class I peptides that bind to receptors in the female’s vomeronasal organ,^[3][12] a mucus-filled structure in the nasal septum.^[13] These chemical signals, which are specific to each male, are learnt by the female during mating,^[14] or shortly after.^[3] The hormone vasopressin is crucial in coupling a chemosensory cue with an appropriate physiological response. When the vasopressin 1b receptor gene is knocked out in females, the presence of an unfamiliar male does not trigger pregnancy disruption.^[15]

Recognising familiar males

Exposure to a male’s urinal pheromones will activate a neuroendocrine pathway leading to pregnancy failure. However, if the pheromones correspond with those memorised by the female (usually the male mating partner), a release of noradrenaline will lower the receptivity of the accessory olfactory bulb to these pheromones.^[14] The pregnancy disruption will, thus, be averted. This role for noradrenaline has recently been called into question.^[13] The hormone oxytocin is also important in this social memory process. Females treated with an oxytocin antagonist are unable to recognise the urinary scent of their mate, and will terminate pregnancy when exposed to any male, known or unknown.^[16]

Neuroendocrine pathway

The activation of vomeronasal neuron receptors by male pheromones triggers a complex neuroendocrine pathway. The pheromonal information travels via nerves to the accessory olfactory bulb, and then to the corticomedial amygdala, accessory olfactory tract, and stria terminalis.^[13] These areas stimulate the hypothalamus to increase the release of dopamine,^[13][17] which thus prevents the secretion of prolactin from the anterior pituitary.^[3] In the absence of prolactin, an essential hormone for maintaining the corpus luteum, luteolysis takes place.^[3] As the corpus luteum can no longer release progesterone, the uterus remains unprimed for embryo implantation, and the pregnancy fails.^[17]

Role of oestrogens

Androgens and oestrogens, particularly oestradiol (E2), are also crucial chemosignals regulating the Bruce Effect.^[11] However, they are believed to act via a separate pathway to that discussed above. Small steroid molecules such as E2 can enter the bloodstream directly via nasal ingestion^[11] and travel to the uterus, which has a high density of suitable receptors. Normally, E2 is essential in preparing both the blastocyst and uterus for implantation. However, excessive E2 will prevent implantation from taking place.^[18][19] Castrated males are incapable of terminating female pregnancies,^[20] except when castrated males are given testosterone.^[11] Oestradiol, a metabolic product of testosterone, is known to disrupt pregnancy in females,^[11] and is present in male urine.

Timing

The incidence of the Bruce Effect depends on the timing of pheromone exposure. Post-mating, females experience twice-daily surges of prolactin.^[3] Pregnancy is only terminated if exposure to novel male scent coincides with two prolactin surges, one of these occurring in a daylight period.^[17]

Evolutionary benefits

In order to have evolved and persisted in the population, the Bruce Effect must afford individuals a fitness advantage.^[3] The possible advantages of pregnancy block are widely debated.

Males

When given the opportunity, male mice tend to direct their urine in the female’s direction.^[21] This allows males to improve their fitness success by “sabotaging” the pregnancy of a male competitor,^[3] and more quickly returning the female to oestrus.^[22] The Bruce Effect can also aid in maintaining social status, with dominant males leaving more urinal scent markings,^[23] and so blocking the pregnancies initiated by subordinate males.

Females

Females can control their likelihood of terminating pregnancy by pursuing or avoiding novel male contact during their most susceptible periods.^[24] In this way, females can exert a post-copulatory mate choice, reserving their reproductive resources for the highest-quality male. Certainly, females are more likely to seek proximity to dominant males.^[24] In many rodent species, males kill unrelated young; pregnancy block may avoid the wasted investment of gestating offspring likely to be killed at birth.^[8][25] The Bruce Effect is most common in polygynous rodent species, for which the risk of infanticide is highest.^[26]

See also

• Coolidge effect
• Lee-Boot effect
• Vandenbergh effect
• Whitten effect

References

Further reading

• de la Maza, Helen M.; Wolff, Jerry O.; Lindsey, Amber (1999). "Exposure to strange adults does not cause pregnancy disruption or infanticide in the gray-tailed vole". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 45 (2): 107. doi:10.1007/s002650050544. JSTOR 4601583. 
• Kenney, A. McM.; Evans, R. L.; Dewsbury, D. A. (1977). "Postimplantation pregnancy disruption in Microtus ochrogaster, M. Pennsylvanicus and Peromyscus maniculatus". Reproduction 49 (2): 365–7. doi:10.1530/jrf.0.0490365. PMID 321775. 
• Mahady, Scott; Wolff, Jerry (2002). "A field test of the Bruce effect in the monogamous prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster)". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 52: 31–7. doi:10.1007/s00265-002-0484-0. JSTOR 4602102. 
• Fraser-Smith, A. (1975). "Male-induced pregnancy termination in the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster". Science 187 (4182): 1211–3. doi:10.1126/science.1114340. PMID 1114340. 
• Stehn, R. A.; Jannett, F. J. (1981). "Male-Induced Abortion in Various Microtine Rodents". Journal of Mammalogy 62 (2): 369–372. doi:10.2307/1380713. JSTOR 1380713. 
• Storey, Anne E.; Snow, Dianne T. (1990). "Postimplantation pregnancy disruptions in meadow voles: Relationship to variation in male sexual and aggressive behavior". Physiology & Behavior 47 (1): 19–25. doi:10.1016/0031-9384(90)90037-5. PMID 2183249. 
• Storey, Anne E. (2010). "Pre-implantation Pregnancy Disruption in Female Meadow Voles Microtus pennsylvanicus (Rodentia: Muridae): Male Competition or Female Mate Choice?". Ethology 98 (2): 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1994.tb01060.x. 
• Wolff, Jerry O. (2003). "Laboratory Studies with Rodents: Facts or Artifacts?". BioScience 53 (4): 421–7. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0421:LSWRFO]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0006-3568.