liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Similar recent selection criteria associated with different behavioural effects in two dog breeds
Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1262-4585
Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2329-2635
Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
2016 (English)In: Genes, Brain and Behavior, ISSN 1601-1848, E-ISSN 1601-183X, Vol. 15, no 8, p. 750-756Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Selection during the last decades has split some established dog breeds into morphologically and behaviourally divergent types. These breed splits are interesting models for behaviour genetics since selection has often been for few and well-defined behavioural traits. The aim of this study was to explore behavioural differences between selection lines in golden and Labrador retriever, in both of which a split between a common type (pet and conformation) and a field type (hunting) has occurred. We hypothesized that the behavioural profiles of the types would be similar in both breeds. Pedigree data and results from a standardized behavioural test from 902 goldens (698 common and 204 field) and 1672 Labradors (1023 and 649) were analysed. Principal component analysis revealed six behavioural components: curiosity, play interest, chase proneness, social curiosity, social greeting and threat display. Breed and type affected all components, but interestingly there was an interaction between breed and type for most components. For example, in Labradors the common type had higher curiosity than the field type (F1,1668 = 18.359; P < 0.001), while the opposite was found in goldens (F1,897 = 65.201; P < 0.001). Heritability estimates showed considerable genetic contributions to the behavioural variations in both breeds, but different heritabilities between the types within breeds was also found, suggesting different selection pressures. In conclusion, in spite of similar genetic origin and similar recent selection criteria, types behave differently in the breeds. This suggests that the genetic architecture related to behaviour differs between the breeds.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Inc., 2016. Vol. 15, no 8, p. 750-756
Keywords [en]
Behavioural genetics, behavioural test, dog behaviour, dogs, golden retriever, heritability, Labrador retriever, selection
National Category
Evolutionary Biology Zoology Behavioral Sciences Biology Genetics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-132746DOI: 10.1111/gbb.12317ISI: 000393079000007PubMedID: 27520587OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-132746DiVA, id: diva2:1048906
Note

Funding agencies: research council, Formas; Advanced Research Grant from the European Research Council (ERC) [322206]

Available from: 2016-11-22 Created: 2016-11-22 Last updated: 2019-04-17Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Dog behaviour: Intricate picture of genetics, epigenetics, and human-dog relations
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Dog behaviour: Intricate picture of genetics, epigenetics, and human-dog relations
2019 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Dogs, Canis familiaris, share the lives of humans all over the world. That dogs, and the behavior of dogs, are of interest to many is therefore no surprise. In this thesis, the main aim has been to identify factors that affect dogs’ behaviours.

The dog, Canis familiaris, is our first domesticated animal. Since domestication, various types of dogs have developed through adaptation to an environment shared with humans and through our selective breeding, resulting in a unique variation in morphology and behaviour. Although there is an individual variation in the behaviour of dogs, there is also a difference between breeds. Moreover, selection during the last decades has split some breeds into divergent types. Labrador and golden retrievers are divided into a common type, for show and companionship, and a field type, for hunting. By comparing the breed types, we can study the effects of recent selection. In Paper I, we investigate differences in general behavioural traits between Labrador and golden retriever and between common and field type within the two breeds by using results from the standardized behaviour test Dog Mentality Assessment. There were differences between breeds and types for all behavioural traits. However, there was also an interaction between breed and type. Thus, a common/field-type Labrador does not behave like a common/field-type golden retriever. Even though they have been selected for similar traits, the selection has affected the general behavioural traits differently in the two breeds.

In paper II, we were interested in dogs’ human-directed social skills. Dogs have a high social competence when it comes to humans. Two experiments commonly used to study these skills are the problem-solving test, where dogs’ human-directed behaviours when faced with a problem are measured, and the pointing test, where dogs are tested on how well they understand human gestures. We compared the social skills of German shepherds and Labrador retrievers, and of common- and field-type Labradors. Labradors were more successful in the pointing test and German shepherds stayed closer to their owners during the problem solving. Among Labrador types, the field type had more human eye contact than the common type. Importantly, when comparing the two experiments, we found no positive correlations between the problem-solving test and the pointing test, suggesting that the two tests measure different aspects of human-directed social behaviour in dogs.

A previous study has identified two suggestive genetic regions for human-directed social behaviours during the problem-solving test in beagles. In paper III, we show that these SNPs are also associated to social behaviours in Labrador and golden retrievers. Moreover, the Labrador breed types differed significantly in allele frequencies. This indicates that the two SNPs have been affected by recent selection and may have a part in the differences in sociability between common and field type.

The behaviour of dogs cannot simply be explained by genetics, there is also an environmental component. In paper IV, we study which factors that affect long-term stress in dogs. Long-term cortisol can be measured by hair samples. We found a clear synchronization in hair cortisol concentrations between dogs and their owners. Neither dogs’ activity levels nor their behavioural traits affected the cortisol, however, the personality of the owners did. Therefore, we suggest that dogs mirror the stress level of their owners.

The mediator between genes and the environment is epigenetics, and one epigenetic factor is DNA methylation. In paper V, we compared methylation patterns of wolves and dogs as well as dog breeds. Between both wolves and dogs and among dogs there were substantial differences in methylated DNA regions, suggesting that DNA methylation is likely to contribute to the vast variation among canines. We hypothesize that epigenetic factors have been important during domestication and in breed formation.

In this thesis, I cover several aspects on how dogs’ behaviours can be affected, and paint an intricate picture on how genetics, epigenetics, and human-dog relations forms dog behaviour.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, 2019. p. 49
Series
Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations, ISSN 0345-7524 ; 1989
National Category
Evolutionary Biology Zoology Behavioral Sciences Biology Genetics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-156353 (URN)10.3384/diss.diva-156353 (DOI)9789176850725 (ISBN)
Public defence
2019-05-09, Planck, Fysikhuset, Campus Valla, Linköping, 09:15 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2019-04-17 Created: 2019-04-17 Last updated: 2019-04-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(313 kB)321 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 313 kBChecksum SHA-512
b684156ca38629c8a8ee008e27a05f8734c9b4dad5d0dcb5a423344cfd970ef4713d8b2fd883b22814f898c3d9eb1556adb70b2aa099533bb05324b4459ad66e
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sundman, Ann-SofieJohnsson, MartinWright, DominicJensen, Per
By organisation
BiologyFaculty of Science & Engineering
In the same journal
Genes, Brain and Behavior
Evolutionary BiologyZoologyBehavioral Sciences BiologyGenetics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 321 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 247 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf