Factors contributing to the variation of the fearful withdrawal response to humans in minipigs bred at ICG SB RAS

Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

The fearful withdrawal response to humans was studied with regard to the effect of hereditary and environmental factors in four consecutive generations of minipigs bred at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics (ICG). Variation in the withdrawal response was tested in four heterotypic settings. The standard aversive stimulus was the presence of a human as the animals were being given food either as a group or one-by-one after 14–16 or 2 h of food deprivation. All the studied factors are ranged with regard to their contributions to the overall phenotypic variation of the response as follows: sex (0.0–0.4%), age (0.1–4.7%), social isolation (0.1–2.1%), coloring types (2.9–7.8%), boar genotype (10.8%), food motivation (6.1–12.8%), and the genotype–food motivation interaction (2.7–56.4%). This was the first demonstration of a hereditary polymorphism of this behavioral reaction in minipigs, which includes three classes of behavioral phenotypes. Sex and age do not affect the withdrawal response in piglets aged from 1.5 months to 4.1 months. It was found that the age-related changes in the behavior of sows depend on the indirect selection of individuals with a quiet phenotype, where the frequency of this phenotype increases from 29% (the reared stock) to 63%. Social isolation and food motivation significantly influence the response in piglets aged 1.5 and 4.1 months, but not in sows aged 10.4 and 22.5 months. An adverse consequence of the environmental influence of food motivation and its interaction is a broad variability (CV within 95–120%) of the withdrawal response. The obtained results will contribute to the study of the genetics of the fearful-defensive response to humans and to the correction of the method for evaluating this behavior, valuable for breeding, in ICG minipigs.

Keywords

minipigs withdrawal response to humans environmental factors genotype–environment interaction coat colour 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bigelow, J.A. and Houpt, T.R., Feeding and drinking patterns in young pigs, Physiol. Behav., 1988, vol. 43, pp. 99–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Christoffersen, B., Golozoubova, V., Pacini, G., Svendsen, O., and Raun, K., The young Gottingen minipig as a model of childhood and adolescent obesity: Influence of diet and gender, Obesity, 2013, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 149–158.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Folkoner, D.S., Vvedenie v genetiku kolichestvennykh priznakov (Introduction to the Genetics of Quantitative Traits), Moscow: Agropromizdat, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. Forkman, B., Boissy, A., Meunier-Slaun, M.-C., Canali, E., and Jones, R.B., A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses, Physiol. Behav., 2007, vol. 92, pp. 340–374. doi 2007.03.016 doi 10.1016/j.physbehCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Coleman, G.J., and Hansen, C.H., A study of the relationships between the attitudinal and behavioural profiles of stockpersons and the level of fear of humans and reproductive performance of commercial pigs, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 1989, vol. 23, pp. 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kapanadze, G.D. and Ashuev, Zh.A., Svetlogorsk population of mini-pigs, Biomeditsina, 2007, vol. 6, pp. 70–80.Google Scholar
  7. Hinde, R.A., Animal Behaviour, McGraw-Hill Inc.,1966, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  8. Kohn, F., Sharifi, A.R., and Simianer, H., Genetic analysis of reactivity to humans in Gottingen minipigs, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 2009, vol. 120, pp. 68–75. doi 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kozlovskaya, M.M., Vyyavlenie psikhotropnoi aktivnosti na modeli eksperimental’no vyzvannykh sdvigov emotsional’nogo sostoyaniya. Neirofarmakologicheskaya regulyatsiya sistemnykh protsessov (Identification of Psychotropic Activity on the Model of Experimentally Induced Emotional State Changes. Neuropharmacological Regulation of System Processes), Leningrad: Nauka, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. Kulikov, V.A., Khostskin, N.V., Nikitin, S.V., Lankin, V.S., Kulikov, A.V., and Trapezov, O.V., Application of 3-D imagins sensor for tracking minipigs in the open field test, J. Neurosci. Meth., 2014, vol. 235, pp. 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lankin, V.S., Domestication behavior of sheep, Genetika, 1997, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1119–1125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lankin, V.S., Domestication behavior of sheep. The role of behavior polymorphism in the regulation of stress reactions, Genetika, 1999, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 947–961.Google Scholar
  13. Lankin, V.S. and Buissu, M.F., Factors of variability in domestication behavior in animals of producing species, Genetika, 2001, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 947–961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lankin, V.S., Buissu, M.F., Navyu, Zh., Burlot, T., and Signoret, Zh.P., Factors of variability in domestication behavior in specialized lines of pigs, S-kh. Biol., 2007, vol. 4, pp. 34–52.Google Scholar
  15. Lankin, V.S., Genotypic and modification variability of passive- defensive behavior toward humans in domestic pigs, Russ. J. Genet., Appl. Res., 2014, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lind, N.M., Arnfred, S.M., Hemmingsen, R.P., Hansen, A.R., and Jensen, K.H., Open field behaviour and reaction to novelty in Gottingen minipigs: Effects of amphetamine and haloperidol, Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sct., 2005, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 103–110.Google Scholar
  17. Nikitin, S.V., Knyazev, S.P., and Shatokhin, K.S., Miniature pigs of ICG as a model object for morphogenetic research, Russ. J. Genet., Appl. Res., 2014, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rauw, W.M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N., and Grommers, F.J., Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: A review, Livestock Prod. Sci., 1998, vol. 56, pp. 15–33. doi 10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00147-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roberts, R.S., The growth of mice selected for large and small size in relation to food intake and for efficiency of conversion, Genet. Res. Camb., 1981, vol. 38, pp. 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shatokhin, K.S., Zaporozhets, V.I., Goncharenko, G.M., and Nikitin, S.V., Characteristics of miniature pigs for exterior and behavior features, Sib. Vestn. S-kh. Nauki, 2013, vol. 4, pp. 32–36.Google Scholar
  21. Simianer, H. and Kohn, F., Genetic management of the Gottingen minipig population, J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Meth., 2010, vol. 62, pp. 221–226. doi 10.1016/j.vascn.2010.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sondergaard, L.V., Jensen, K.H., Hemmingsen, R., Hansen, A.K., and Lind, N.M., Characterisation of spontaneous behaviour in Gottingen minipigs in the homepen, Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sci., 2007, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 91–103.Google Scholar
  23. Sondergaard, L.V., Herskin, M.S., Holm, I.E., and Dagnes-Hansen, F., Effect of genetic homogenity on behavioural variability in an object recognition test in cloned Gottingen minipigs, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 2012, vol. 141, pp. 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stankova, N.V. and Kapanadze, G.D., Selection-genetic and experimental work with mini-pigs of the Svetlogorsk population, Biomeditsina, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 49–53.Google Scholar
  25. Tanida, H. and Nagana, Y., The ability of miniature pigs to discriminate between a stranger and their familiar handler, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 1998, vol. 56, pp. 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tikhonov, V.N., Laboratornye mini-svin’i (Laboratory Mini-Pigs), Novosibirsk, 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Trapezov, O.V., Trapezova, L.I., and Sergeev, E.G., Effect of coat color mutations on behavioral polymorphism in farm populations of American minks (Mustela vison Schreber, 1777) and sables (Martes zibellina Linnaeus, 1758), Russ. J. Genet., 2008, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trut, L.N., Plyusnina, I.Z., and Prasolova, L.A., Mutations hooded and nonagouti in the common rat (Rattus norvegicus): Effects of selection for behavior and photoperiod, Genetika, 2000, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 813–822.Google Scholar
  29. Tsutsumi, H., Morikawa, N., Niki, R., and Tanigawa, M., Acclimatization and response of minipigs toward humans, Lab. Anim., 2001, vol. 35, pp. 236–241. doi 10.1258/0023677011911688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Veenema, A.H., Meijer, O.C., Kloet, E.R., and Koolhaas, J.M., Genetic selection for coping style predicts stressor susceptibility, J. Neuroendocrinol., 2003, vol. 15, pp. 256–267.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilcock, J., Gene action and behavior: An evaluation of major gene pleiotropism, Psychol. Bull., 1969, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 1–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhivotovskii, L.A., Populyatsionnaya biometriya (Population Biometrics), Moscow: Nauka, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. S. Lankin
    • 1
  • S. V. Nikitin
    • 1
  • O. V. Trapezov
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations