The process of domestication

Clutton‐Brock, Juliet

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1992.tb00122.x

Cited by 113 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Much like cats, donkeys have often been treated as an exception to the accepted rules for domestication and, by definitions that focus on reproductive isolation (6,8), they could, perhaps, not even be considered a domestic animal.…”

Section: Management and Gene Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Darwin's (5) seminal research, heavily influenced by European animal breeding practices during the 19th century, led subsequent scholars studying animal domestication to prioritize the central roles of human intentionality, directed or controlled breeding of individuals, and genetic isolation of captive herds from wild relatives (6). This anthropocentric legacy is evident in various widely used definitions of domestication that emphasize isolation of captive animals from wild species and total human control over breeding and animal care (6)(7)(8). However, a growing body of archaeological, genetic, and ethnohistorical evidence discussed here shows that neither reproductive isolation nor intentional breeding of individuals was as significant as traditionally thought.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow in animal domestication

Marshall

Dobney

Denham

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

115

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the last 150 y scholars have focused upon the roles of intentional breeding and genetic isolation as fundamental to understanding the process of animal domestication. This analysis of ethnoarchaeological, archaeological, and genetic data suggests that long-term gene flow between wild and domestic stocks was much more common than previously assumed, and that selective breeding of females was largely absent during the early phases of animal domestication. These findings challenge assumptions about severe genetic bottlenecks during domestication, expectations regarding monophyletic origins, and interpretations of multiple domestications. The findings also raise new questions regarding ways in which behavioral and phenotypic domestication traits were developed and maintained.reproductive isolation | selected breeding | zooarchaeology | donkey | pig Domestication resulted in diverse phenotypic and behavioral changes to wild animals, including decreased flight responses, increased sociality, earlier reproduction, and modification of endocrine and metabolic systems (1-4). Darwin's (5) seminal research, heavily influenced by European animal breeding practices during the 19th century, led subsequent scholars studying animal domestication to prioritize the central roles of human intentionality, directed or controlled breeding of individuals, and genetic isolation of captive herds from wild relatives (6). This anthropocentric legacy is evident in various widely used definitions of domestication that emphasize isolation of captive animals from wild species and total human control over breeding and animal care (6-8). However, a growing body of archaeological, genetic, and ethnohistorical evidence discussed here shows that neither reproductive isolation nor intentional breeding of individuals was as significant as traditionally thought. Our findings indicate long-term gene flow between managed and wild animal populations, and little control of breeding of domestic females. These findings challenge assumptions about severe genetic bottlenecks during domestication and interpretations of genetic variability in terms of multiple instances of domestication. The findings also raise questions about ways in which behavioral and phenotypic domestication traits were maintained.Research into dog and pig domestication over the last several decades has drawn attention to the roles of nonhuman drivers in the domestication process (9, 10)

show abstract

Section: Management and Gene Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow in animal domestication

Marshall

Dobney

Denham

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

115

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traits affected by domestication can be largely grouped in three categories: morphological, physiological, and behavioural. Morphological changes include general reduction of brain size, depigmentation of fur, skin and feathers, and reduction of bone size [8,9]. Physiological changes include an earlier onset of sexual maturity and an increased frequency of oestrus cycles, neotony, and an altered temporal sensitive period of socialization [8][9][10][11][12].…”

Section: '[Domestication Is] That Process By Which a Population Of Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morphological changes include general reduction of brain size, depigmentation of fur, skin and feathers, and reduction of bone size [8,9]. Physiological changes include an earlier onset of sexual maturity and an increased frequency of oestrus cycles, neotony, and an altered temporal sensitive period of socialization [8][9][10][11][12]. Behavioural changes include reduced fear, aggressiveness and antipredator responses, increased sociability, and altered vocalization patterns [1,[13][14][15][16].…”

Section: '[Domestication Is] That Process By Which a Population Of Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chicken domestication : Effects of tameness on brain gene expression and DNA methylation

Bélteky¹

2016

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestication greatly increases phenotypic variation in a short time span, with selection for a single phenotype and a plethora of associated phenotypic changes as an outcome of the process. The domestication process influences the underlying genomic architecture of a species, and the success and speed of the process is likely influenced by it. The main aims of my thesis was to study how domestication affects the brain of chickens: specifically changes in morphology, gene expression, and DNA methylation. Differences in gene expression and DNA methylation between White Leghorn and Red Junglefowl chickens were mapped, and inheritance of these patterns were quantified, indicating a faithful transmission of breed-specific epigenetic markers. Selection on the behavioral trait fearfulness, generated high and low fearful lines of Red Junglefowl. Both the parental population and the fifth selected generation were used for the analyses in this thesis. One experiment studied morphological changes in the brain and other vital organs, and found that relative total brain size increased in high fearful birds, as a consequence of an increase in cerebral hemisphere size in high fearful birds and not in low fearful birds. Also, the relative heart, liver, spleen and testis size increased in high fearful birds, indicating correlated morphological changes with selection for fearfulness. Two additional experiments examined differential gene expression in the hypothalamus and the anterior cerebral hemisphere. The hypothalamus differed in expression of genes with reproductive and immunological functions, whilst the cerebral hemisphere differed in expression of genes related to social behaviors and neurological functions especially those upregulated in low fearful birds. These results indicate the occurrence of tissue-and species-specific changes in gene expression as overlap with other domestication events were nearly nonexistent. A fourth experiment sought to associate the change in fear levels and gene expression differences with DNA methylation. Chromosomal regions with differential DNA methylation between high and low fearful birds were identified, and genes in these regions had annotated functions relevant to phenotypic differences between the selection lines. This thesis is the first to study the genetic alterations of domestication using the wild ancestor of an already domesticated species to repeat the domestication process selecting against fear of humans. The findings corroborate results from previous comparisons of wild and domestic animals, and further support the theory that rigorous selection for a behavioral trait can cause a cascade of genetic and epigenetic changes facilitating the domestication of a population. Populärvetenskaplig sammanfattningDomesticering, när en population djur anpassas till ett liv i fångenskap och nära kontakt med människor, är en process som under kort tid ger upphov till stora förändringar hos djuret under selektion, såsom skillnader i beteende, fysiologi, storlek, reproduktion och fä...

show abstract

“…The process of animal domestication, one of the most significant developments in the culture and economy of ancient civilizations, has shaped human societies and their environment to this day (e.g., [23,24,[29][30][31]39,75]). It is therefore not surprising that a large volume of literature has focused on understanding the evolution of cultural control of natural resources (examples of major publications are [23,29,31,39,114]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%