Brain gene expression differences are associated with abnormal tail biting behavior in pigs

Brunberg, Emma; Jensen, Per; Isaksson, Anders; Keeling, Linda J.

doi:10.1111/gbb.12002

Cited by 39 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Single nucleotide polymorphism markers of biting and victim pigs (in contrast to non-biting controls from the same pen) have been identified (Wilson et al, 2012). Brain gene expression studies also suggest that biters and victims have more in common than unaffected pigs from the same group (Brunberg et al, 2013a) or a different group (Brunberg et al, 2013b). These authors suggest that unaffected pigs may show a 'tail biting resistant' phenotype.…”

Section: Controlling Tail Biting Without Tail Dockingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

148

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting is a serious animal welfare and economic problem in pig production. Tail docking, which reduces but does not eliminate tail biting, remains widespread. However, in the EU tail docking may not be used routinely, and some 'alternative' forms of pig production and certain countries do not allow tail docking at all. Against this background, using a novel approach focusing on research where tail injuries were quantified, we review the measures that can be used to control tail biting in pigs without tail docking. Using this strict criterion, there was good evidence that manipulable substrates and feeder space affect damaging tail biting. Only epidemiological evidence was available for effects of temperature and season, and the effect of stocking density was unclear. Studies suggest that group size has little effect, and the effects of nutrition, disease and breed require further investigation. The review identifies a number of knowledge gaps and promising avenues for future research into prevention and mitigation. We illustrate the diversity of hypotheses concerning how different proposed risk factors might increase tail biting through their effect on each other or on the proposed underlying processes of tail biting. A quantitative comparison of the efficacy of different methods of provision of manipulable materials, and a review of current practices in countries and assurance schemes where tail docking is banned, both suggest that daily provision of small quantities of destructible, manipulable natural materials can be of considerable benefit. Further comparative research is needed into materials, such as ropes, which are compatible with slatted floors. Also, materials which double as fuel for anaerobic digesters could be utilised. As well as optimising housing and management to reduce risk, it is important to detect and treat tail biting as soon as it occurs. Early warning signs before the first bloody tails appear, such as pigs holding their tails tucked under, could in future be automatically detected using precision livestock farming methods enabling earlier reaction and prevention of tail damage. However, there is a lack of scientific studies on how best to respond to outbreaks: the effectiveness of, for example, removing biters and/or bitten pigs, increasing enrichment, or applying substances to tails should be investigated. Finally, some breeding companies are exploring options for reducing the genetic propensity to tail bite. If these various approaches to reduce tail biting are implemented we propose that the need for tail docking will be reduced.

show abstract

Section: Controlling Tail Biting Without Tail Dockingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

D’Eath

Arnott

Turner

et al. 2014

Animal

148

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individual pigs may therefore be predisposed to develop tail biting behaviour. Tail biting behaviour has comparable characteristics with for instance feather pecking in laying hens [7] and feather picking in parrots [8]. The behaviours involved may be perceived as maladaptive as they seem an inadequate response given the living circumstances [9], [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tail Biting in Pigs: Blood Serotonin and Fearfulness as Pieces of the Puzzle?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tail biting in pigs is a widespread problem in intensive pig farming. The tendency to develop this damaging behaviour has been suggested to relate to serotonergic functioning and personality characteristics of pigs. We investigated whether tail biting in pigs can be associated with blood serotonin and with their behavioural and physiological responses to novelty. Pigs (n = 480) were born in conventional farrowing pens and after weaning at four weeks of age they were either housed barren (B) or in straw-enriched (E) pens. Individual pigs were exposed to a back test and novel environment test before weaning, and after weaning to a novel object (i.e. bucket) test in an unfamiliar arena. A Principal Component Analysis on behaviours during the tests and salivary cortisol (novel object test only) revealed five factors for both housing systems, labeled ‘Early life exploration’, ‘Near bucket’, ‘Cortisol’, ‘Vocalizations & standing alert’, and ‘Back test activity’. Blood samples were taken at 8, 9 and 22 weeks of age to determine blood platelet serotonin. In different phases of life, pigs were classified as tail biter/non-tail biter based on tail biting behaviour, and as victim/non-victim based on tail wounds. A combination of both classifications resulted in four pig types: biters, victims, biter/victims, and neutrals. Generally, only in phases of life during which pigs were classified as tail biters, they seemed to have lower blood platelet serotonin storage and higher blood platelet uptake velocities. Victims also seemed to have lower blood serotonin storage. Additionally, in B housing, tail biters seemed to consistently have lower scores of the factor ‘Near bucket’, possibly indicating a higher fearfulness in tail biters. Further research is needed to elucidate the nature of the relationship between peripheral 5-HT, fearfulness and tail biting, and to develop successful strategies and interventions to prevent and reduce tail biting.

show abstract

“…Therefore, in this family, although it is possible that only one of these two variants underlie ARID, it is more likely that both variants are pathogenic. Tbrg1 −/− knockout mice have reduced protein expression in brain (Reed et al 2014), while in a pig model with abnormal behavior TBRG1 expression is upregulated (Brunberg et al 2013). Not much is known about the function of GRAMD1B in brain, except that it is differentially expressed in cerebellar cortex in the adult human brain and in basal nuclei during development (Table 4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel candidate genes and variants underlying autosomal recessive neurodevelopmental disorders with intellectual disability

Santos‐Cortez

Khan

et al. 2018

Hum Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification of Mendelian genes for neurodevelopmental disorders using exome sequencing to study autosomal recessive (AR) consanguineous pedigrees has been highly successful. To identify causal variants for syndromic and non-syndromic intellectual disability (ID), exome sequencing was performed using DNA samples from 22 consanguineous Pakistani families with ARID, of which 21 have additional phenotypes including microcephaly. To aid in variant identification, homozygosity mapping and linkage analysis were performed. DNA samples from affected family member(s) from every pedigree underwent exome sequencing. Identified rare damaging exome variants were tested for co-segregation with ID using Sanger sequencing. For seven ARID families, variants were identified in genes not previously associated with ID, including: EI24, FXR1 and TET3 for which knockout mouse models have brain defects; and CACNG7 and TRAPPC10 where cell studies suggest roles in important neural pathways. For two families, the novel ARID genes CARNMT1 and GARNL3 lie within previously reported ID microdeletion regions. We also observed homozygous variants in two ID candidate genes, GRAMD1B and TBRG1, for which each has been previously reported in a single family. An additional 14 families have homozygous variants in established ID genes, of which 11 variants are novel. All ARID genes have increased expression in specific structures of the developing and adult human brain and 91% of the genes are differentially expressed in utero or during early childhood. The identification of novel ARID candidate genes and variants adds to the knowledge base that is required to further understand human brain function and development.

show abstract

Brain gene expression differences are associated with abnormal tail biting behavior in pigs

Cited by 39 publications

References 33 publications

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Injurious tail biting in pigs: how can it be controlled in existing systems without tail docking?

Tail Biting in Pigs: Blood Serotonin and Fearfulness as Pieces of the Puzzle?

Novel candidate genes and variants underlying autosomal recessive neurodevelopmental disorders with intellectual disability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About