Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 49–59 | Cite as

I Smell a Mouse: Indirect Genetic Effects on Voluntary Wheel-Running Distance, Duration and Speed

  • Ian Dewan
  • Theodore GarlandJr.
  • Layla Hiramatsu
  • Vincent Careau
Original Research

Abstract

Indirect genetic effects (IGEs; the heritable influence of one organism on a conspecific) can affect the evolutionary dynamics of complex traits, including behavior. Voluntary wheel running is an important model system in quantitative genetic studies of behavior, but the possibility of IGEs on wheel running and its components (time spent running and average running speed) has not been examined. Here, we analyze a dataset from a replicated selection experiment on wheel running (11,420 control and 26,575 selected mice measured over 78 generations) in which the standard measurement protocol allowed for the possibility of IGEs occurring through odors because mice were provided with clean cages attached to a clean wheel or a wheel previously occupied by another mouse for 6 days. Overall, mice ran less on previously occupied wheels than on clean wheels, and they ran significantly less when following a male than a female. Significant interactions indicated that the reduction in running was more pronounced for females than males and for mice from selected lines than control mice. Pedigree-based “animal model” analyses revealed significant IGEs for running distance (the trait under selection), with effect sizes considerably higher for the initial/exploratory phase (i.e., first two of six test days). Our results demonstrate that IGEs can occur in mice interacting through scent only, possibly because they attempt to avoid conspecifics.

Keywords

Artificial selection Exercise Experimental evolution Heritability Physical activity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the many members of the Garland lab who collected the wheel-running data, and the vivarium staff for decades of excellent animal care.

Funding

This study was funded by U.S. NSF grants to T.G. (most recently IOS-1121273 and DEB-1655362), a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council to V.C. and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Undergraduate Student Research Award to I.D. (USRA-511395-2017).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Statement of human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10519_2018_9930_MOESM1_ESM.docx (87 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 87 KB)

References

  1. Butler D, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel DJ (2007) ASReml-R reference manual release 2.0. VSN International Ltd., Hemel HempsteadGoogle Scholar
  2. Camerlink I, Ursinus WW, Bijma P, Kemp B, Bolhuis JE (2015) Indirect genetic effects for growth rate in domestic pigs alter aggressive and manipulative biting behaviour. Behav Genet 45(1):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Careau V, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Ordonez G, Garland T Jr (2012) Are voluntary wheel running and open-field behavior correlated in mice? Different answers from comparative and artificial selection approaches. Behav Genet 42(5):830–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Careau V, Wolak ME, Carter PA, Garland T Jr (2013) Limits to behavioral evolution: the quantitative genetics of a complex trait under directional selection. Evolution 67(11):3102–3119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Careau V, Wolak ME, Carter PA, Garland T Jr (2015) Evolution of the additive genetic variance–covariance matrix under continuous directional selection on a complex behavioural phenotype. Proc R Soc B 282(1819):20151119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter PA, Swallow JG, Davis SJ, Garland T Jr (2000) Nesting behavior of house mice (Mus domesticus) selected for increased wheel-running activity. Behav Genet 30(1):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dingemanse NJ, Araya-Ajoy YG (2015) Interacting personalities: Behavioural ecology meets quantitative genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 30(2):88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Drickamer LC, Evans TR (1996) Chemosignals and activity of wild stock house mice, with a note on the use of running wheels to assess activity in rodents. Behav Proc 36(1):51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feder ME, Garland T Jr, Marden JH, Zera AJ (2010) Locomotion in response to shifting climate zones: not so fast. Annu Rev Physiol 72:167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garland T Jr, Kelly SA, Malisch JL, Kolb EM, Hannon RM, Keeney BK, Van Cleave SL, Middleton KM (2011) How to run far: multiple solutions and sex-specific responses to selective breeding for high voluntary activity levels. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:574–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garland T Jr, Zhao M, Saltzman W (2016) Hormones and the evolution of complex traits: insights from artificial selection on behavior. Integr Comp Biol 56:207–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Germain RR, Wolak ME, Arcese P, Losdat S, Reid JM (2016) Direct and indirect genetic and fine-scale location effects on breeding date in song sparrows. J Anim Ecol 85(6):1613–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson CR (1973) Sire evaluation and genetic trends. J Anim Sci 1973:10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly SA, Nehrenberg DL, Peirce JL, Hua K, Steffy BM, Wiltshire T, Pardo Manuel de Villena F, Garland T Jr, Pomp D (2010) Genetic architecture of voluntary exercise in an advanced intercross line of mice. Physiol Genom 42:190–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelly SA, Nehrenberg DL, Hua K, Garland T Jr, Pomp D (2011) Exercise, weight loss, and changes in body composition in mice: phenotypic relationships and genetic architecture. Physiol Genom 43:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leamy LJ, Pomp D, Lightfoot JT (2008) An epistatic genetic basis for physical activity traits in mice. J Hered 99:639–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lynch M, Walsh JB (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Mather JG (1981) Wheel-running activity: a new interpretation. Mammal Rev 11(1):41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAdam AG, Garant D, Wilson AJ (2014) The effects of others’ genes: maternal and other indirect genetic effects. In: Charmantier A, Garant D, Kruuk LEB (eds) Quantitative genetics in the wild. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Meijer JH, Robbers Y (2014) Wheel running in the wild. Proc R Soc B 281(1786):20140201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore AJ, Brodie ED, Wolf JB (1997) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process: I. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 51(5):1352–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mousseau TA, Fox CW (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13(10):403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nehrenberg DL, Hua K, Estrada-Smith D, Garland T Jr, Pomp D (2009) Voluntary exercise and its effects on body composition depend on genetic selection history. Obesity 17:1402–1409Google Scholar
  24. Novak CM, Burghardt PR, Levine JA (2012) The use of a running wheel to measure activity in rodents: Relationship to energy balance, general activity, and reward. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:1001–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perrigo G, Bronson FH (1985) Sex differences in the energy allocation strategies of house mice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17(3):297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sartori C, Mantovani R (2013) Indirect genetic effects and the genetic bases of social dominance: evidence from cattle. Heredity 110:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stewart CC (1898) Variations in daily activity produced by alcohol and by changes in barometric pressure and diet, with a description of recording methods. Am J Physiol 1(1):40–56Google Scholar
  28. Swallow JG, Carter PA, Garland T Jr (1998) Artificial selection for increased wheel-running behavior in house mice. Behav Genet 28.3:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swallow JG, Hayes JP, Koteja P, Garland T Jr (2009) Selection experiments and experimental evolution of performance and physiology. In: Garland T Jr, Rose MR (eds) Experimental evolution. Concepts, methods, and applications of selection experiments. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  30. Vargas-Pérez H, Sellings L, Grieder T, Díaz J-L (2009) Social dominance rank influences wheel running behavior in mice. Neurosci Lett 457:137–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallace IJ, Garland T Jr (2016) Mobility as an emergent property of biological organization: insights from experimental evolution. Evol Anthropol 25:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson AJ, Gelin U, Perron M-C, Réale D (2009) Indirect genetic effects and the evolution of aggression in a vertebrate system. Proc R Soc B 276(1656):533–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson AJ, Réale D, Clements MN, Morrissey MM, Postma E, Walling CA, Kruuk LEB, Nussey DH (2010) An ecologist’s guide to the animal model. J Anim Ecol 79:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson AJ, Morrissey MB, Adams MJ, Walling CA, Guinness FE, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2011) Indirect genetic effects and evolutionary constraint: an analysis of social dominance in red deer, Cervus elaphus. J Evol Biol 24:772–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolak ME (2012) nadiv: an R package to create relatedness matrices for estimating non-additive genetic variances in animal models. Methods Ecol Evol 3(5):792–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolak ME, Keller LF (2014) Dominance genetic variance and inbreeding in natural populations. In: Charmantier A, Garant D, Kruuk LEB (eds) Quantitative genetics in the wild. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolf JB (2003) Genetic architecture and evolutionary constraint when the environment contains genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(8):4655–4660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ (1998) Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol Evol 13(2):64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu S, Garland T Jr (2017) A mixed model approach to genome-wide association studies for selection signatures, with application to mice bred for voluntary exercise behavior. Genetics 207(2):785–799Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  4. 4.Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck SocietyTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations