The inheritance of behavioral wildness in house mice (Mus musculus L.)

Abstract

Fourteen behavioral measures were ranked according to their ability to differentiate performances of a wild population of mice from three domestic inbred strains. These "wildness" rankings were then analyzed for their ability to predict genetic and Genotype by Environment interactions. Genetic parameters were derived from analysis of three inbred domestic strains and their three hybrid crosses via the diallel technique of genetic analysis. Genotype by Environment interactions were assessed both as mean differences in stock performances resulting from rearing in a laboratory vs naturalistic environment and as differences in environmental variability within stock genotypes. Behavioral characters ranking high on "wildness" failed to demonstrate any unitary pattern of Genotype by Environment interactions. The diallel genetic analysis revealed many examples of additive variation but relatively few examples of dominant variation. An extremely wide range of interactions occurred between genotype and rearing environments, with "wildness" and "developmental homeostasis" concepts both failing to account for all the observed interactions.Since the origin of behavioral psychology as an independent discipline, many studies have attempted to define "wildness" and determine the nature of its inheritance (

A rating scale for wildness and ease of handling laboratory mice: results for 21 inbred strains tested in two laboratories

“…Although some behavioral studies of mice captured in the wild (Smith & Connor 1974) as well as the wild-derived inbred strains CAST/Ei (Koide et al 2000;LeRoy et al 1998) and SPRET/Ei (Laghmouch et al 1997) made no mention of difficulties working with these animals, our experiences and tales from many colleagues suggest otherwise. Mouse tales, despite their charm, are subjective and difficult to grasp.…”

“…Reaction of laboratory rodents to human handling is a behavioral phenotype of special interest because the Mouse Phenome Project (MPP, Paigen & Eppig 2000; see http://http://www.jax.org/phenome) has brought researchers into close contact with several strains of mice that are recently wild‐derived from species other than Mus musculus domesticus . Although some behavioral studies of mice captured in the wild (Smith & Connor 1974) as well as the wild‐derived inbred strains CAST/Ei (Koide et al . 2000; LeRoy et al .…”

Domestication and comparative psychology: Status and strategy.

“…In other words, genetic and environmental factors are viewed as essentially separate and distinct entities that can be partitioned in the phenotype and understood in isolation from the other. Although a large number of studies in several disciplines have attempted to experimentally manipulate genetic and environmental factors independently of one another, the fact that no behavioral or physiological study has successfully parceled out phenotypic traits to genetic and environmental influences thought to be involved in the domestication process (e.g., see Barnett, Dickson, & Hocking, 1979;Conner, 1975;Huck & Price, 1975;Price, 1970Price, , 1978Smith, 1972;Smith & Conner, 1974) strongly suggests that additive models of domestication are, like the more simplistic genetic and environmental models from which they are derived, incomplete and in need of a systems perspective.…”

“…However, although captivity over a number of generations may indeed result in varied changes in the genetic composition of a population because of random and selective genetic mechanisms, the extent to which such changes in gene frequencies are responsible for observed phenotypic differences between wild and captive animals remains far from clear (e.g., Berry, 1969; Lore & Flannelly, 1981; Smith & Conner, 1974). This is due, at least in part, to the fact that nearly all genetic hypotheses of domestication have failed to address how developmental or ecological factors may also serve to influence or contribute to phenotypic change.…”