Effects of social isolation on mRNA expression for corticotrophin-releasing hormone receptors in prairie voles

Previous studies have demonstrated that various type of stressors modulate messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) for type 1 corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) receptor (CRH-R1 mRNA) and type 2 CRH receptor (CRH-R2 mRNA). The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of social isolation stress of varying durations on the CRH, CRH-R1 and CRH-R2 mRNAs expression in the hypothalamus, hippocampus and pituitary of socially monogamous female and male prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Isolation for 1 h (single isolation) or 1 h of isolation every day for 4 weeks (repeated isolation) was followed by a significant increase in plasma corticosterone levels. Single or repeated isolation increased hypothalamic CRH mRNA expression, but no changes in CRH-R1 mRNA in the hypothalamus were observed. Continuous isolation for 4 weeks (chronic isolation) showed no effect on hypothalamic CRH or CRH-R1 mRNAs in female or male animals. However, hypothalamic CRH-R2 mRNA was significantly reduced in voles exposed to chronic isolation. Single or repeated isolation, but not chronic isolation, significantly increased CRH-R1 mRNA and decreased CRH-R2 mRNA in the pituitary. Despite elevated CRH mRNA expression, CRH-R1 and CRH-R2 mRNAs were not modulated in the hippocampus following single or repeated isolation. Although, chronic isolation did not affect hippocampal CRH or CRH-R1 mRNAs, it did increase CRH-R2 mRNA expression in females and males. The results of the present study in prairie voles suggest that social isolation has receptor subtype and species-specific consequences for the modulation of gene expression for CRH and its receptors in brain and pituitary. Previous studies have revealed a female-biased increase in oxytocin in response to chronic isolation; however, we did not find a sex difference in CRH or its receptors following single, repeated or chronic social isolation, suggesting that sexually dimorphic processes beyond the CRH system, possibly involving vasopressin, might explain this difference.