Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T08:22:59.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domestication, selection, behaviour and welfare of animals — genetic mechanisms for rapid responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

P Jensen
P Jensen*
Affiliation:
IFM Biology, Division of Zoology, Linköping University, SE58183 Linköping, Sweden
*
email: perje@ifm.liu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increased production has been the major goal of animal breeding for many decades, and the correlated side-effects have grown to become a major issue in animal welfare. In this paper, the main genetic mechanisms in which such side-effects may occur are reviewed with examples from our own research in chickens. Pleiotropy, linkage and regulatory pathways are the most important means by which a number of traits may be affected simultaneously by the same selection pressure. Pleiotropy can be exemplified by the gene PMEL17 which causes a lack of black pigmentation in chickens and, simultaneously, predisposes them to become the victims of feather pecking. Linkage is a probable reason why a limited region on chicken chromosome 1 affects many different traits, such as growth, reproduction and fear-related behaviour. Gene regulation is affected by stress, and may cause modifications in behaviour and phenotype which are transferred from parents to offspring by means of epigenetic modifications. Insights into phenomena, such as these, may increase our understanding not only of how artificial selection works, but also evolution at large.

Keywords

animal welfarechickengene expressionlinkagepleiotropytameness
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Darwinian selection, selective breeding and the welfare of animals’ Bristol, 2009 , May 2010 , pp. 7 - 9
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, L and Georges, M 2004 Domestic-animal genomics: deciphering the genetics of complex traits. Nature Reviews Genetics 5: 202–212CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belyaev, DK, Plyusnina, IZ and Trut, LN 1984 Domestication in the silver fox (Vulpes fulvus) changes in physiological boundaries of the sensitive period of primary socialisation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 13: 359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, J 1999 A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Hedenskog, M 1995 Domestication increases risk proneness towards predators in sea trout (Salmo trutta L). Information fraan Soetvattenslaboratoriet, Drottningholm 13-29Google Scholar
Jackson, S and Diamond, J 1996 Metabolic and digestive responses to artificial selection in chickens. Evolution 50: 1638–1650Google ScholarPubMed
Jensen, P, Keeling, L, Schütz, K, Andersson, L, Mormède, P, Brändström, H, Forkman, B, Kerje, S, Fredriksson, R, Ohlsson, C, Larsson, S, Mallmin, H and Kindmark, A 2005 Feather pecking in chickens is genetically related to developmental patterns and behaviour in stressful situations. Physiology & Behavior 86: 52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnsson, JI, Petersson, E, Jonsson, E, Bjornsson, BT and Jarvi, T 1996 Domestication and growth hormone alter anti-predator behaviour and growth patterns in juvenile brown trout, Salmo trutta. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 1546–1554Google Scholar
Keeling, LJ, Andersson, L, Schütz, K, Kerje, S, Fredriksson, R, Cornwallis, CK, Pizzari, T and Jensen, P 2004 Feather-pecking and victim pigmentation. Nature 431: 645–646CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruska, D 1996 The effect of domestication of brain size and composition in the mink (Mustela vison). Journal of Zoology 239: 645–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuenzl, C and Sachser, N 1999 The behavioral endocrinology of domestication: a comparison between the domestic guinea pig (Cavia aperea f porcellus) and its wild ancestor, the cavy (Cavia aperea). Hormones and Behavior 35: 28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, C, Jancsak, AM, Nätt, D, Baranowska, I, Lindqvist, N, Wichman, A, Lundeberg, J, Lindberg, J, Törjesen, PA and Jensen, P 2007 Transmission of stress-induced learning impairment and associated brain gene expression from parents to offspring in chickens. PLoS ONE 10.1371/journal.pone.0000364Google Scholar
Lindqvist, ES, Schütz, KE and Jensen, P 2002 Red jungle fowl have more contrafreeloading than white leghorn layers: Effect of food deprivation and consequences for information gain. Behaviour 139: 1195–1209Google Scholar
Nätt, D, Andersson, L, Kerje, S and Jensen, P 2007 Plumage color and feather pecking: behavioral differences associated with PMEL17 genotypes in chicken (Gallus gallus). Behavior Genetics 37: 399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, EO 1997 Behavioural genetics and the process of animal domestication. In: Grandin, T (ed) Genetics and the Behaviour of Domestic Animals pp 31–65. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Grommers, FJ 1998 Undesirable side-effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56: 15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saetre, P, Lindberg, J, Leonard, JA, Olsson, K, Pettersson, U, Ellegren, H, Bergström, TF, Vilà, C and Jazin, E 2004 From wild wolf to domestic dog: gene expression changes in the brain. Molecular Brain Research 126: 198–206Google Scholar
Schütz, KE, Forkman, B and Jensen, P 2001 Domestication effects on foraging strategy, social behaviour and different fear responses: a comparison between the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and a modern layer strain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, K and Jensen, P 2001 Effects of resource allocation on behavioural strategies: a comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry. Ethology 107: 753–765Google Scholar
Setchell, BP 1992 Domestication and reproduction. Animal Reproduction Science 28: 195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricklin, WR 2001 The evolution and domestication of social behaviour. In: Keeling, LJ and Gonyou, HW (eds) Social Behaviour in Farm Animals pp 83–110. CABI: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasilyeva, LL 1995 Changes in behavioural traits of the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes) under domestication and specific genotype-environment interactions. Scientifur 19: 87–94Google Scholar
Väisänen, J, Lindqvist, C and Jensen, P 2005 Co-segregation of behaviour and production related traits in an F3 intercross between red junglefowl and White Leghorn laying hens. British Poultry Science 46: 156–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar