Table 1.
Group | Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intromission latency | |||||
Saline | 716 ± 236 s | 440 ± 161 s | 842 ± 310 s | 365 ± 162 s | 42 ± 12 sb |
CNO | 434 ± 117 s | 175 ± 64 s | 315 ± 115 s | 154 ± 49 s | 42 ± 13 sb |
Copulation efficiency [intromissions/( mounts + intromissions)] | |||||
Saline | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.0 |
CNO | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
Mounts (% of males) | |||||
Saline | 70 | 80 | 90 | 90 | 91 |
CNO | 91 | 91 | 73 | 100 | 91 |
Intromissions (% of males) | |||||
Saline | 90 | 80 | 100 | 90 | 100 |
CNO | 91 | 100 | 73 | 100 | 100 |
Ejaculations (% of males) | |||||
Saline | 70 | 80 | 90 | 90 | 100 |
CNO | 64 | 91 | 73 | 100 | 100 |
aCNO did not affect sexual behavior during acquisition of sexual experience. Quantitative analysis of intromission latencies (in seconds), copulation efficiency, percentages of males that display mounts, intromissions, and ejaculations, during 5 consecutive days of sexual behavior in saline-pretreated (n = 10) and CNO-pretreated (n = 11) TH::Cre transgenic rats expressing Gi DREADD in VTA TH cells. Data represent mean ± SEM.
bSignificant difference compared to day 1.