The presence of a human pheromone
One of the best documented aspects of human pheromone function in mammals is certainly in the control of the estrous cycle of the laboratory mouse (Whitten 1956b; 1959). While typically thought of as ...
One of the best documented aspects of human pheromone function in mammals is certainly in the control of the estrous cycle of the laboratory mouse (Whitten 1956b; 1959). While typically thought of as 4 to 5-day periodicity; estrous cycles ranging up to 11-1 2 days may be easily produced and should be considered perfectly normal depending upon the presence or absence of male odors and the genetic strain under consideration (Bronson 1968). Two distinct phenomena interact to produce this variation; a) the suppression of estrous cycling by a poorly under to the elucidation of the ability of primers to regulate this cycle.
With specific regard to the phenomena of estrus-suppression by grouping of females in the absence of male odor, this presumed pheromonal action may result in either a prolongation of the quiescent phase of the estrous cycle (Whitten 1959) or spontaneous pseudopregnancy (Lee and Boot 1956). Thus depending upon the strain under investigation, the density of the population of grouped females, and/or probably some other unknown factors, grouped females tend to cycle slowly and erratically and may even become pseudopregnant.
Even two females housed together tend to suppress each other’s cycles to some degree (Champlin 1971). The evidence for a pheromonal basis for such cycle-lengthening rests on reports that suppression is alleviated by olfactory bulbectomy and is independent of vision, audition, and physical contact (Whitten 1959; Biancifiori and Caschera 1963). in addition, Champlin (op. cit.) has succesfully slowed the cycle of the isolated females by housing them on bedding previously soiled by other females. These observations seem most easily explained by postulating a female primer; each female having the ability to accommodate to her own pheromone but not to those produced by other females. Thus, as is presumed for the pregnancy blocking effect which will be discussed later, some aspect of individuality must be associated with the primer. Whether this is a coupling of individual odors with a core primer pheromone or not remains to be seen according to http://hartch25.weebly.com/our-marketing-blog/my-relationship-with-women-using-pheromones
The presence of a human pheromone has been better established as the stimulus associated with a male that can override the suppressive effects of all-female grouping and, therefore, synchronize the estrous cycles and, hence, ovulation among a group of females (Whitten 1956b). The odor of male urine of the appropriate species induces estrous synchrony in both mice and deermice (Bronson and Marsden 1964; Marsden and Bronson 1964).
The human pheromone is apparently of small enough molecular size to be transported at least eight feet on a 0.25-mph air current (Whitten et al. 1968). As little as 0.1 ml of male urine per day for two days (applied to the bedding) will effectively accelerate cycling among groups of wild house mouse females; 0.01 ml is effective in deermice (Bronson 1971). Additionally, it has been shown that just the presence of males in the same animal room is sufficiently stimulating to influence cycle duration in wild house mouse females (Chip- man and Fox 1966).
Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alexander P is a blogger that studies pheromones.