Pregnancy Block from a Female Perspective

  • Stuart D. Becker
  • Jane L. Hurst


Within a limited time after mating, exposure of female rodents to the scent of an unfamiliar conspecific male results in pregnancy termination. Since its discovery in mice, pregnancy block (or the ‘Bruce Effect’) has been confirmed in several other murine and microtine rodent species. Adaptive explanations for this behaviour have traditionally focused on advantages to the blocking male, but the suggested benefits to females remain controversial. Consideration of potential female benefits and the implications of female advantage in pregnancy block suggest that this behaviour could evolve with little or no reference to male advantage, and may represent a potential reproductive cost to stud males.


Stud Male House Mouse Vomeronasal Organ Accessory Olfactory Bulb Female Advantage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  2. Barkley, M.S., Bradford, G.E. and Geschwind, II. (1978) Pattern of plasma prolactin concentration during first half of mouse gestation. Biol. Reprod. 19, 291–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binns, K.E. and Brennan, P. (2005) Changes in electrophysiological activity in the accessory olfactory bulb and medial amygdala associated with mate recognition in mice. Eur. J. Neurosci. 21, 2529–2537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch, S. (1974) Observations on the ability of the stud male to block pregnancy in the mouse. J. Reprod. Fertil. 38, 469–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, P. and Binns, K.E. (2005) Vomeronasal mechanisms of mate recognition in mice. Chem. Senses. 30, i148–i149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, P., Kaba, H. and Keverne, E.B. (1990) Olfactory recognition: a simple memory system. Science. 250, 1223–1226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brennan, P. and Zufall, F. (2006) Pheromonal communication in vertebrates. Nature. 444, 308–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan, P.A. and Peele, P. (2003) Towards an understanding of the pregnancy-blocking urinary chemosignals of mice. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 31, 152–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronson, F.H. and Coquelin, A. (1980) The modulation of reproduction by priming pheromones in house mice: speculations on adaptive function. In: D. Müller-Schwartze and R.M. Silverstein (Eds.), Chemical Signals: Vertebrates and Aquatic Invertebrates. Plenum, New York, pp. 243–265.Google Scholar
  10. Bruce, H.M. (1960) A block to pregnancy in the mouse caused by proximity of strange males. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1, 96–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruce, H.M. (1961) Time Relations in Pregnancy-Block Induced in Mice by Strange Males. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility. 2, 138-&.Google Scholar
  12. Bruce, H.M. (1963) Olfactory block to pregnancy among grouped mice. J. Reprod. Fertil. 6, 451–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chipman, R.K. and Fox, K.A. (1966) Oestrus synchronization and pregnancy blocking in wild house mice (Mus musculus). J. Reprod. Fertil. 12, 233–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clutton-Brock, T.H. (1988) Reproductive Success. In: T.H. Clutton-Brock (Eds.), Reproductive success: studies of individual variation in contrasting breeding systems. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 472–485.Google Scholar
  15. Coopersmith, C.B. and Lenington, S. (1998) Pregnancy block in house mice (Mus domesticus) as a function of t-complex genotype: Examination of the mate choice and male infanticide hypotheses. J. Comp. Psychol. 112, 82–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Dean, M.D., Ardlie, K.G. and Nachman, M.W. (2006) The frequency of multiple paternity suggests that sperm competition is common in house mice (Mus domesticus). Mol. Ecol. 15, 4141–4151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. deCatanzaro, D. and Murji, T. (2004) Inseminated female mice (Mus musculus) investigate rather than avoid novel males that disrupt pregnancy, but sires protect pregnancy. J. Comp. Psychol. 118, 251–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drickamer, L.C. (1989) Pregnancy block in wild stock house mice, Mus domesticus—olfactory preferences of females during gestation. Anim. Behav. 37, 690–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engelhard, V.H. (1994) Structure of peptides associated with class I and class II MHC molecules. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 12, 181–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fenner, F. (1982) Mousepox. In: H.L. Foster, J.D. Small and J.G. Fox (Eds.), The Mouse in Biomedical Research. Academic Press, New York, pp. 209–230.Google Scholar
  22. Gammie, S.C. and Stevenson, S.A. (2006) Effect of daily and acute restraint stress during lactation on maternal aggression and behavior in mice. Stress. 9, 171–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huck, U.W. (1982) Pregnancy block in laboratory mice as a function of male social status. J. Reprod. Fertil. 66, 181–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huck, U.W. (1984) Infanticide and the evolution of pregnancy block in rodents. In: G. Hausfater and S.B. Hrdy (Eds.), Infanticide: comparative and evolutionary perspectives. Aldine, New York, pp. 349–365.Google Scholar
  25. Hurst, J.L. (1987) Behavioral variation in wild house mice Mus domesticus rutty - a quantitative assessment of female social organization. Anim. Behav. 35, 1846–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurst, J.L. and Nevison, C. (1994) Do female house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) regulate their exposure to reproductive priming pheromones ? Anim. Behav. 48, 945–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurst, J.L., Payne, C.E., Nevison, C.M., Marie, A.D., Humphries, R.E., Robertson, D.H., Cavaggioni, A. and Beynon, R.J. (2001) Individual recognition in mice mediated by major urinary proteins. Nature. 414, 631–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hurst, J.L., Thom, M.D., Nevison, C.M., Humphries, R.E. and Beynon, R.J. (2005) MHC odours are not required or sufficient for recognition of individual scent owners. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 272, 715–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ims, R.A. (1987) Male spacing systems in microtine rodents. Am. Nat. 130, 475–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, M.S., Thomson, S.C. and Speakman, J.R. (2001) Limits to sustained energy intake III. Effects of concurrent pregnancy and lactation in Mus musculus. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 1947–1956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaba, H., Rosser, A. and Keverne, B. (1989) Neural basis of olfactory memory in the context of pregnancy block. Neuroscience. 32, 657–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. König, B. (1994) Components of lifetime reproductive success in communally and solitarily nursing house mice - a laboratory study. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34, 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Labov, J.B. (1981a) Male social status, physiology, and ability to block pregnancies in female house mice (Mus musculus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 8, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Labov, J.B. (1981b) Pregnancy blocking in rodents: adaptive advantages for females. Am. Nat. 118, 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leinders-Zufall, T., Brennan, P., Widmayer, P., Chandramani S., P., Maul-Pavicic, A., Jäger, M., Li, X.-H., Breer, H., Zufall, F. and Boehm, T. (2004) MHC Class I peptides as chemosensory signals in the vomeronasal organ. Science. 306, 1033–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lonstein, J.S. and De Vries, G.J. (2000) Sex differences in the parental behavior of rodents. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 24, 669–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mahady, S.J. and Wolff, J.O. (2002) A field test of the Bruce effect in the monogamous prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 52, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manning, C.J., Dewsbury, D.A., Wakeland, E.K. and Potts, W.K. (1995) Communal nesting and communal nursing in house mice, Mus musculus domesticus. Anim. Behav. 50, 741–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meagher, S., Penn, D.J. and Potts, W.K. (2000) Male–male competition magnifies inbreeding depression in wild house mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 3324–3329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Millar, J.S., Havelka, M.A. and Sharma, S. (2004) Nest mortality in a population of small mammals. Acta Theriol. 49, 269–273.Google Scholar
  41. Parker, J.C. and Richter, C.B. (1982) Viral diseases of the respiratory system. In: H.L. Foster, J.D. Small and J.G. Fox (Eds.), The Mouse in Biomedical Research. Academic Press, New York, pp. 109–158.Google Scholar
  42. Parkes, A.S. and Bruce, H.M. (1961) Olfactory stimuli in mammalian reproduction. Science. 134, 1049–1054.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peele, P., Salazar, I., Mimmack, M., Keverne, E.B. and Brennan, P.A. (2003) Low molecular weight constituents of male mouse urine mediate the pregnancy block effect and convey information about the identity of the mating male. Eur. J. Neurosci. 18, 622–628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Penn, D.J. (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the Major Histocompatibility complex. Ethology. 108, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peripato, A.C., de Brito, R.A., Vaughn, T.T., Pletscher, L.S., Matioli, S.R. and Cheverud, J.M. (2002) Quantitative trait loci for maternal performance for offspring survival in mice. Genetics. 162, 1341–1353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Refinetti, R. (2004) Daily activity patterns of a nocturnal and a diurnal rodent in a seminatural environment. Physiol Behav. 82, 285–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers, J.G. and Beauchamp, G.K. (1976) Influence of stimuli from populations of Peromyscus leucopus on maturation of young. J. Mammal. 57, 320–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosser, A.E., Remfry, C.J. and Keverne, E.B. (1989) Restricted exposure of mice to primer pheromones coincident with prolactin surges blocks pregnancy by changing hypothalamic dopamine release. J. Reprod. Fert. 87, 553–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rulicke, T., Guncz, N. and Wedekind, C. (2006) Early maternal investment in mice: no evidence for compatible-genes sexual selection despite hybrid vigor. J. Evol. Biol. 19, 922–928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan, K.D. and Schwartz, N.B. (1980) Changes in serum hormone levels associated with male-induced ovulation in group-housed adult female mice. Endocrinology. 106, 959–966.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwagmeyer, P.L. (1979) Bruce effect - evaluation of male-female advantages. Am. Nat. 114, 932–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Southwick, C.H. (1955) Regulatory mechanisms of house mouse populations: social behavior affecting litter survival. Ecology. 36, 627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spehr, M., Kelliher, K.R., Li, X.-H., Boehm, T., Leinders-Zufall, T. and Zufall, F. (2006) Essential role of the main olfactory system in social recognition of major histocompatability complex peptide ligands. J. Neurosci. 26, 1961–1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spironello-Vella, E. and deCatanzaro, D. (2001) Novel male mice show gradual decline in the capacity to disrupt early pregnancy and in urinary excretion of testosterone and 17 beta-estradiol during the weeks immediately following castration. Horm. Metab. Res. 33, 681–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stehn, R.A. and Jannett, F.J. (1981) Male-induced abortion in various microtine rodents. J. Mammal. 62, 369–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Storey, A.E. (1986) Influence of sires on male-induced pregnancy disruptions in meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) differs with stage of pregnancy. J. Comp. Psychol. 100, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stormshak, F., Zelinski-Wooten, M.B. and Abdelgadir, S.E. (1987) Comparative aspects of the regulation of corpus luteum function in various species. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 219, 327–360.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas, K.J. and Dominic, C.J. (1987) Evaluation of the role of the stud male in preventing male-induced implantation failure (the Bruce effect) in laboratory mice. Anim. Behav. 35, 1257–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. (2000) Genetic compatability, mate choice and patterns of parentage. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1013–1027.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vom Saal, F.S., Franks, P., Boechler, M., Palanza, P. and Parmigiani, S. (1995) Nest defence and survival of offspring in highly aggressive wild canadian female house mice. Physiol. Behav. 58, 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wolff, R.J. (1985) Mating behaviour and female choice: their relation to social structure in wild caught house mice (Mus musculus) housed in a semi-natural environment. J. Zool. 207, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G.K. and Wysocki, C.J. (1983) Recognition of H-2 types in relation to the blocking of pregnancy in mice. Science. 221, 186–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yoshiki, A. and Moriwaki, K. (2006) Mouse phenome research: implications of genetic background. Ilar J. 47, 94–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media,LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart D. Becker
    • 1
  • Jane L. Hurst
  1. 1.Department of Veterinary Preclinical ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLeahurstUSA

Personalised recommendations