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

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. 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 factors studied 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 %), colour 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 %). That was the first demonstration of 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 from 1.5-month age to 4.1-month age. It was found that the age-related changes in the behavior of sows depend on the indirect selection of individuals with a quiet phenotype, and the frequency of this phenotype increases from 29 % (the rearing stock) to 63 %. Social isolation and food motivation significantly influence the response in piglets at ages of 1.5 and 4.1 months, but not in sows at ages of 10.4 and 22.5 months. An adverse consequence of the environmental influence of food motivation and its interaction is a broad variability (CV 95–120 %) of the withdrawal response. The results will contribute to the study of the genetics of the fearful-defensive response to humans and to correction of the method for evaluating this behavior, valuable for breeding, in ICG minipigs.

minipigs, human withdrawal response, environmental factors, genotype–environment interaction, coat colour

1. Ашуев Ж.А., Кулаков А.А., Капанадзе Г.Д. Использование мини-свиней в экспериментальной дентальной имплантации. Биомедицина. 2007;6: 81-88.

2. Животовский Л.А. Популяционная биометрия. М.: Наука, 1991.

3. Капанадзе Г.Д., Ашуев Ж.А. Светлогорская популяция мини-свиней. Биомедицина. 2007;6:70-80.

4. Козловская М.М. Выявление психотропной активности на модели экспериментально вызванных сдвигов эмоционального состояния. Нейрофармакологическая регуляция системных процессов. Л.: Наука, 1974.

5. Ланкин В.С. Доместикационное поведение овец. Генетика. 1997; 33(8):1119-1125.

6. Ланкин В.С. Доместикационное поведение овец. Роль полиморфизма поведения в регуляции стрессовых реакций. Генетика. 1999;35(8):1109-1117.

7. Ланкин В.С., Буиссу М.Ф. Факторы изменчивости доместикационного поведения у животных продуктивных видов. Генетика. 2001;37(7):947-961.

8. Ланкин В.С., Буиссу М.Ф., Навю Ж., Бурлот Т., Сигнорет Ж.П. Факторы изменчивости доместикационного поведения свиней специализированных линий. С.-х. биология. 2007;4:34-52.

9. Ланкин В.С. Генотипическая и модификационная изменчивость пассивно-оборонительного поведения домашних свиней по отношению к человеку. Вавиловский журнал генетики и селекции. 2013;17(3):452-468.

10. Никитин С.В., Князев С.П., Шатохин К.С. Миниатюрные свиньи ИЦиГ – модельный объект для изучения формообразовательного процесса. Вавиловский журнал генетики и селекции. 2014; 18(2):279-293.

11. Станкова Н.В., Капанадзе Г.Д. Селекционно-генетическая и экспериментальная работа с мини-свиньями светлогорской популяции. Биомедицина. 2012;1:49-53.

12. Тихонов В.Н. Лабораторные мини-свиньи. Новосибирск, 2010. Трапезов О.В., Трапезова Л.И., Сергеев Е.Г. Влияние мутаций, затрагивающих окраску меха, на поведенческий полиморфизм в промышленных популяциях американской норки (Mustela vison Schreber, 1777) и соболя (Martes zibellina Linnaeus, 1758). Генетика. 2008;44(8):516-523.

13. Трут Л.Н., Плюснина И.З., Прасолова Л.А. Мутации hooded и nonagouti у серых крыс (Rattus norvegicus): эффекты отбора по поведению и фотопериода. Генетика. 2000;30(6):813-822.

14. Фолконер Д.С. Введение в генетику количественных признаков. М.: Агропромиздат, 1985.

15. Хайнд Р. Поведение животных. М.: Мир, 1975.

16. Шатохин К.С., Запорожец В.И., Гончаренко Г.М., Никитин С.В. Характеристика миниатюрных свиней по экстерьерным и поведенческим показателям. Сиб. вестн. с.-х. науки. 2013;4:32-36.

17. Bigelow J.A., Houpt T.R. Feeding and drinking patterns in young pigs. Physiol. Behav. 1988;43:99-109.

18. Christoffersen B., Golozoubova V., Pacini G., Svendsen O., Raun K. The young Gottingen minipig as a model of Childhood and adolescent obesity: influence of diet and gender. Obesity. 2013;21(1): 149-158. DOI: 1038/oby.2012.176

19. Forkman B., Boissy A., Meunier-Slaun M.-C., Canali E., Jones R.B. A critical review of fear tests used on cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry and horses. Physiol. Behav. 2007;92:340-374. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.03.016

20. Hemsworth P.H., Barnett J.L., Coleman G.J., 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;23: 301-314.

21. Kohn F., Sharifi A.R., Simianer H. Genetic analysis of reactivity to humans in Gottingen minipigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;120:68-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.006

22. Kulikov V.A., Khostskin N.V., Nikitin S.V., Lankin V.S., Kulikov A.V., Trapezov O.V. Application of 3-D imagins sensor for tracking minipigs in the open field test. J. Neurosci. Meth. 2014;235:219-225.

23. Lind N.M., Arnfred S.M., Hemmingsen R.P., Hansen A.R., Jensen K.H. Open field behaviour and reaction to novelty in Gottingen minipigs: effects of amphetamine and haloperidol. Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sct. 2005;32(2):103-110.

24. Rauw W.M., Kanis E., Noordhuizen-Stassen E.N., Grommers F.J. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Prod. Sci. 1998;56:15-33. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00147-X

25. 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;38:9-24.

26. Simianer H., Kohn F. Genetic management of the Gottingen minipig population. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Meth. 2010;62:221-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.vascn.2010.05.004

27. Sondergaard L.V., Jensen K.H., Hemmingsen R., Hansen A.K., Lind N.M. Characterisation of spontaneous behaviour in Gottingen minipigs in the homepen. Scand. J. Lab. Anim. Sci. 2007;34(2): 91-103.

28. Sondergaard L.V., Herskin M.S., ladevig J., Holm I.E., Dagnes-Hansen F. Effect of genetic homogenity on behavioural variability in an object recognition test in cloned Gottingen minipigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012;141:20-24.

29. Tanida H., Nagana Y. The ability of miniature pigs to discriminate between a stranger and their familiar handler. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998;56:149-159.

30. Tsutsumi H., Morikawa N., Niki R., Tanigawa M. Acclimatization and response of minipigs toward humans. Lab. Anim. 2001;35:236-241. DOI: 10.1258/0023677011911688

31. Veenema A.H., Meijer O.C., Kloet E.R., Koolhaas J.M. Genetic selection for coping style predicts stressor susceptibility. J. Neuroendocrinol. 2003;15:256-267.

32. Wilcock J. Gene action and behavior: an evaluation of major gene pleiotropism. Psychol. Bull. 1969;72(1):1-29.