Dataset Information

Domestication Explains Two-Thirds of Differential-Gene-Expression Variance between Domestic and Wild Animals; The Remaining One-Third Reflects Intraspecific and Interspecific Variation.

ABSTRACT: Belyaev's concept of destabilizing selection during domestication was a major achievement in the XX century. Its practical value has been realized in commercial colors of the domesticated fox that never occur in the wild and has been confirmed in a wide variety of pet breeds. Many human disease models involving animals allow to test drugs before human testing. Perhaps this is why investigators doing transcriptomic profiling of domestic versus wild animals have searched for breed-specific patterns. Here we sequenced hypothalamic transcriptomes of tame and aggressive rats, identified their differentially expressed genes (DEGs), and, for the first time, applied principal component analysis to compare them with all the known DEGs of domestic versus wild animals that we could find. Two principal components, PC1 and PC2, respectively explained 67% and 33% of differential-gene-expression variance (hereinafter: log2 value) between domestic and wild animals. PC1 corresponded to multiple orthologous DEGs supported by homologs; these DEGs kept the log2 value sign from species to species and from tissue to tissue (i.e., a common domestication pattern). PC2 represented stand-alone homologous DEG pairs reversing the log2 value sign from one species to another and from tissue to tissue (i.e., representing intraspecific and interspecific variation).

SUBMITTER: Chadaeva I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8465180 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Domestication Explains Two-Thirds of Differential-Gene-Expression Variance between Domestic and Wild Animals; The Remaining One-Third Reflects Intraspecific and Interspecific Variation.

Chadaeva Irina I Ponomarenko Petr P Kozhemyakina Rimma R Suslov Valentin V Bogomolov Anton A Klimova Natalya N Shikhevich Svetlana S Savinkova Ludmila L Oshchepkov Dmitry D Kolchanov Nikolay A NA Markel Arcady A Ponomarenko Mikhail M

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI 20210910 9

Belyaev's concept of destabilizing selection during domestication was a major achievement in the XX century. Its practical value has been realized in commercial colors of the domesticated fox that never occur in the wild and has been confirmed in a wide variety of pet breeds. Many human disease models involving animals allow to test drugs before human testing. Perhaps this is why investigators doing transcriptomic profiling of domestic versus wild animals have searched for breed-specific pattern ...[more]

PMID: 34573632

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHuman populations and breeds of domestic animals are composed of individuals with a multiplicity of eye (= iris) colorations. Some wild birds and mammals may have intraspecific eye color variability, but this variation seems to be due to the developmental stage of the individual, its breeding status, and/or sexual dimorphism. In other words, eye colour tends to be a species-specific trait in wild animals, and the exceptions are species in which individuals of the same age group or gender all develop the same eye colour. Domestic animals, by definition, include bird and mammal species artificially selected by humans in the last few thousand years. Humans themselves may have acquired a diverse palette of eye colors, likewise in recent evolutionary time, in the Mesolithic or in the Upper Paleolithic.Presentation of the hypothesisWe posit two previously unrecognized hypotheses regarding eye color variation: 1) eye coloration in wild animals of every species tends to be a fixed trait. 2) Humans and domestic animal populations, on the contrary, have eyes of multiple colors. Sexual selection has been invoked for eye color variation in humans, but this selection mode does not easily apply in domestic animals, where matings are controlled by the human breeder.Testing the hypothesisEye coloration is polygenic in humans. We wish to investigate the genetics of eye color in other animals, as well as the ecological correlates.Implications of the hypothesisInvestigating the origin and function of eye colors will shed light on the reason why some species may have either light-colored irises (e.g., white, yellow or light blue) or dark ones (dark red, brown or black). The causes behind the vast array of eye colors across taxa have never been thoroughly investigated, but it may well be that all Darwinian selection processes are at work: sexual selection in humans, artificial selection for domestic animals, and natural selection (mainly) for wild animals.

Project description:BackgroundSocial interactions, reproductive demands and intrinsic constraints all influence foraging decisions in animals. Understanding the relative importance of these factors in shaping the way that coexisting species within communities use and partition resources is central to knowledge of ecological and evolutionary processes. However, in marine environments, our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to and allow coexistence is limited, particularly in the tropics.MethodsUsing simultaneous data from a suite of animal-borne data loggers (GPS, depth recorders, immersion and video), dietary samples and stable isotopes, we investigated interspecific and intraspecific differences in foraging of two closely-related seabird species (the red-footed booby and brown booby) from neighbouring colonies on the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean.ResultsThe two species employed notably different foraging strategies, with marked spatial segregation, but limited evidence of interspecific dietary partitioning. The larger-bodied brown booby foraged within neritic waters, with the smaller-bodied red-footed booby travelling further offshore. Almost no sex differences were detected in foraging behaviour of red-footed boobies, while male and female brown boobies differed in their habitat use, foraging characteristics and dietary contributions. We suggest that these behavioural differences may relate to size dimorphism and competition: In the small brown booby population (n < 200 individuals), larger females showed a higher propensity to remain in coastal waters where they experienced kleptoparasitic attacks from magnificent frigatebirds, while smaller males that were never kleptoparasitised travelled further offshore, presumably into habitats with lower kleptoparasitic pressure. In weakly dimorphic red-footed boobies, these differences are less pronounced. Instead, density-dependent pressures on their large population (n > 2000 individuals) and avoidance of kleptoparasitism may be more prevalent in driving movements for both sexes.ConclusionsOur results reveal how, in an environment where opportunities for prey diversification are limited, neighbouring seabird species segregate at-sea, while exhibiting differing degrees of sexual differentiation. While the mechanisms underlying observed patterns remain unclear, our data are consistent with the idea that multiple factors involving both conspecifics and heterospecifics, as well as reproductive pressures, may combine to influence foraging differences in these neighbouring tropical species.

Dataset Information

Domestication Explains Two-Thirds of Differential-Gene-Expression Variance between Domestic and Wild Animals; The Remaining One-Third Reflects Intraspecific and Interspecific Variation.

Publications

Domestication Explains Two-Thirds of Differential-Gene-Expression Variance between Domestic and Wild Animals; The Remaining One-Third Reflects Intraspecific and Interspecific Variation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets