Journal of Applied Genetics

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 193–201 | Cite as

Asymmetries, heterosis, and phenotypic profiles of red junglefowl, White Plymouth Rocks, and F1 and F2 reciprocal crosses

  • D. A. T. Sutherland
  • C. F. Honaker
  • B. Dorshorst
  • L. Andersson
  • P. B. Siegel
Animal Genetics • Original Paper

Abstract

During the domestication of farm animals, humans have manipulated genetic variation for growth and reproduction through artificial selection. Here, data are presented for growth, reproductive, and behavior traits for the red junglefowl, a line of White Plymouth Rock chickens, and their F1 and F2 reciprocal crosses. Intra- and intergenerational comparisons for growth related traits reflected considerable additive genetic variation. In contrast, those traits associated with reproduction exhibited heterosis. The role of sexual selection was seen in the evolution of prominent secondary sexual ornaments that lend to female choice and male-male competition. The large differences between parental lines in fearfulness to humans were only mitigated slightly in the intercross generations. Whereas, overall F1 generation heterosis was not transferred to the F2, there was developmental stability in the F2, as measured by relative asymmetry of bilateral traits. Through multigenerational analyses between the red junglefowl and the domestic White Plymouth Rocks, we observed plasticity and considerable residual genetic variation. These factors likely facilitated the adaptability of the chicken to a broad range of husbandry practices throughout the world.

Keywords

Chickens Body weight Breast weight Fat Symmetries 

Notes

Author contributions

DATS, BD, CFH and PBS performed the experiment; DATS, BD, LA and PBS designed the experiments; DATS and PBS analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript; all authors reviewed manuscript drafts.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures were carried out in accordance with the guidelines approved by Virginia Tech Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Conflict of interests

There are no potential conflicts of interests

Studies with human participants

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

References

  1. Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21:296–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beilharz RG, Luxford BG, Wilkinson JL (1993) Quantitative genetics and evolution: is our understanding of genetics sufficient to explain evolution? J Anim Breed and Genet 110:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brisbin IL, Peterson AT, Okimore R, Amato G (2002) Characterization of the genetic status of populations of Red Junglefowl. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 99:217–223Google Scholar
  4. Brisbin IL, Peterson AT (2007) Playing chicken with red junglefowl: identifying phenotypic markers of genetic purity in Gallus gallus. Anim Conserv 10:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunnington EA, Honaker CF, McGilliard ML, Siegel PB (2013) Phenotypic responses of chickens to long-term, bidirectional selection for juvenile body weight—historical perspective. Poult Sci 92:1724–1734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunnington EA, Siegel PB, Cherry JA, Soller M (1983) Relationship of age and body weight at sexual maturity in selected lines of chickens. Archiv fur Gefluegelk 47:85–89Google Scholar
  7. Dunnington EA, Siegel PB (1996) Long-term divergent selection for eight-week body weight in white Plymouth rock chickens. Poult Sci 75:1168–1179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Emmerson DA (1997) Commercial approaches to genetic selection for growth and feed conversion in domestic poultry. Poult Sci 76:1121–1125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eriksson J, Larson G, Gunnarsson U, Bed’hom T-BM, Strömstedt L, Wright D, Jungerius A, Vereijken A, Randi E, Jensen P, Andersson L (2008) Identification of the yellow skin gene reveals a hybrid origin of the domestic chicken. PLoS Genet 4:e1000010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairfull RW (1990) Heterosis. In: Crawford RD (ed) Poultry breeding and genetics. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam pp, pp 913–934Google Scholar
  11. Hale EB (1962) Domestication and the evolution of behaviour. In: Hafez ESE (ed) The behaviour of domestic animals. Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, London pp, pp 21–53Google Scholar
  12. Haldane JBS (1949) Suggestions as to quantitative measurement of rates of evolution. Evolution 3:51–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Havenstein GB, Ferket PR, Scheideler SE, Rives DV (1994) Carcass composition and yield of 1991 vs 1957 meat-type chickens when fed “typical” 1957 and 1991 broiler diets. Poult Sci 73:1795–1804CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. JMP version 13 (2015) SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  15. Katanbaf MN, Siegel PB, Dunnington EA (1988) Organ growth of selected lines of chickens and their F1 crosses to a common body weight or age. Theor Appl Genet 76:540–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Marquez GC, Siegel PB, Lewis RM (2010) Genetic diversity and population structure in lines of chickens divergently selected for high and low 8-week body weight. Poult Sci 89:2580–2588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mauldin JM, Siegel PB (1979) “Fear”, head shaking and production in five populations of caged chickens. British Poult Sci 20:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McBride G, Parer IP, Foenander F (1969) The social organization and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl. Anim Behav Monographs 2:125–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moller AP (1991) Sexual ornament size and the cost of fluctuating asymmetry. Proc Royal Soc London B: Biol Sci 243:59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Møller AP, Swaddle JP (1997) Asymmetry, developmental stability and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Park HB, Jacobsson L, Wahlberg P, Siegel PB, Andersson L (2006) QTL analysis of body composition and metabolic traits in an intercross between chicken lines divergently selected for growth. Physiol Genomics 25:216–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rauw WM (2009) Resource allocation theory applied to farm animal production. CABI, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Robinson FE, Fasenko GM, Renema RA (2003) Female reproduction: control of ovarian function. In: Optimizing chick production in broiler breeder. Vol 1 Spotted Cow Press, Edmonton pp 3-10Google Scholar
  24. Robinson TP, Wint GW, Conchedda G, Van Boeckel TP, Ercoli V, Palamara E, Cinardi G, D'Aietti L, Hay SI, Gilbert M (2014) Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS One 9:e96084.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096084 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubin C-J, Zody MC, Eriksson J et al (2010) Whole-genome resequencing reveals loci under selection during chicken domestication. Nature 464:587–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Saeki Y, Inoue Y (1979) Body growth, egg production, broodiness, age at first egg and egg size in red jungle fowls, and an attempt at their genetic analyses by the reciprocal crossing with white leghorns. Japanese Poult Sci 16:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sefton AE (1976) The interactions of cage size, cage level, social density, fearfulness, and production of single comb white leghorns. Poult Sci 55:1922–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegel PB (1962) Selection for body weight at 8 weeks of age. I. Short term response and heritabilities. Poult Sci 41:954–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegel PB, Honaker CF, Rauw WM (2009) Selection for high production. In: Rauw WM (ed) Poultry resource allocation theory applied to farm animal production. CABI, Cambridge, pp 230–242Google Scholar
  30. Stevens L (1991) Genetics and evolution of the domestic fowl. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sturkie PD (1965) Avian physiology, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  32. Washburn KW, Siegel PB (1963) Influence of thiouracil on chickens selected for high and low body weights. Poult Sci 42:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams SM, Price SE, Siegel PB (2002) Heterosis of growth and reproductive traits in fowl. Poult Sci 81:109–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright D, Kerje S, Brändström H, Schütz K, Kindmark A, Andersson L, Jensen P, Pizzari T (2008) The genetic architecture of a female sexual ornament. Evolution 62:86–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Yang A, Dunnington EA, Siegel PB (1997) Developmental stability in stocks of White Leghorn chickens. Poult Sci 76:1632–1636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang A, Emmerson DA, Dunnington EA, Siegel PB (1999) Heterosis and developmental stability of body and organ weights at hatch for parental line broiler breeders and specific crosses among them. Poult Sci 78:942–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. T. Sutherland
    • 1
  • C. F. Honaker
    • 1
  • B. Dorshorst
    • 1
  • L. Andersson
    • 2
  • P. B. Siegel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Poultry SciencesVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medical Biochemistry and MicrobiologyUppsala University, Uppsala Biomedical CenterUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations