Recent trends in genetic research on captive and wild nonhuman primate populations

Abstract

Genetic research on nonhuman primates is flourishing. Population genetic approaches are used to address microevolutionary questions about both wild and captive nonhuman primate populations. Population structure studies of wild groups have traditionally been limited by a lack of accurate pedigree and historical information. Current developments in both statistical and molecular pedigree reconstruction techniques now permit more detailed population structure studies of free-ranging populations than were previously possible. Many of these techniques are used extensively in defining pedigree structures for captive populations, as the definition is a vital aspect of genetic management. Captive colonies of nonhuman primates are managed for both maintenance of genetic variability and avoidance of inbreeding. The close evolutionary relationship between humans and nonhuman primates makes these animals well suited as models for human disease. Accordingly, nonhuman primates are being used in assessing the genetic components of complex phenotypes with increasing frequency. Information that is learned from analyses of data from captive animals can be applied to wild populations and there is great potential for interplay between these research areas. As techniques for genetic analysis of wild populations improve and as data on pedigreed captive nonhuman primate populations accumulate, genetic methods may be applied to a n increasing number of traditional interests in primatology such as behavior, morphology, and endocrinology.The field of nonhuman primate genetics is flourishing and population genetic methods are being incorporated into an increasing number of areas in primatological research. The trends in genetic research with nonhuman primates have many parallels to those observed in anthropological genetics. Eleven years ago Mielke and Crawford ( 1980) summarized current developments in anthropological genetics with a collection of papers published in a volume of that title. In the preface, they noted that population structure analyses had been the focus of much of the early work in anthropological genetics, and that while there remained many interesting questions about population structure to be addressed by new improved techniques, genetic epidemiology (i.e., the determination of the genetic components of complex phenotypes) was receiving increased emphasis. Investigations of the genetic basis of complex traits in anthropological^' populations have some unique advantages over such studies conducted in large modernized populations (Ward, 1985;Vogel, 1985;Chakraborty and Szathmary, 1985). The small, geographically restricted populations focused on by biological anthropologists provide 0 1991 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Natural Chagas disease in four baboons

“…SPC is located on a 332‐acre campus in southern Texas and currently maintains a colony of about 3600–3700 baboons as well as smaller numbers of primates such as chimpanzees, macaques, and marmosets. The colony was initiated in 1958 with founder baboons captured in the wild in Kenya and Tanzania [22, 59], and the present colony comprises five to six generations of animals. Regular introduction of new, unrelated founder baboons helps to maintain or increase overall genetic diversity in the colony.…”

Integrating genealogy and dental variation: contributions to biological anthropology

“…In terms of resources, this trend may reflect the protracted efforts required to recruit (in the case of humans), breed (in the case of captive primates), and monitor (in the case of wild primates) participants of these studies, which often yield multigenerational or longitudinal datasets (e.g., Potter et al, 1983;Sharma et al, 1984;Towne et al, 2005;Townsend & Brown, 1978a, 1978bWilliams-Blangero, 1991). Refined analytical approaches that make use of extended relatedness structure in complex or population-wide datasets were more widely adopted moving into the late 20th century, as well (e.g., Hlusko et al, 2002;Williams-Blangero, 1991). This is underscored by increased visibility of the term pleiotropy in later decades of publication, as the field progressed beyond heritability studies of individual traits toward more holistic perspectives through use of multivariate datasets to explore integration-functional, genetic, and developmental-across organismal systems and structures (Choh et al, 2001;Hardin, 2019b;Hlusko et al, 2006;Joganic et al, 2018;Koh et al, 2010;Stojanowski et al, 2018Stojanowski et al, , 2019.…”

“…This period also marked an initial uptick in the use of broader genealogical/pedigreed samples—not just representing human populations, but also wild and captive primates (Table S1) (e.g., Cheverud & Buikstra, 1981a, 1981b, 1982; McGrath et al, 1984; Miller et al, 1973). In terms of resources, this trend may reflect the protracted efforts required to recruit (in the case of humans), breed (in the case of captive primates), and monitor (in the case of wild primates) participants of these studies, which often yield multigenerational or longitudinal datasets (e.g., Potter et al, 1983; Sharma et al, 1984; Towne et al, 2005; Townsend & Brown, 1978a, 1978b; Williams‐Blangero, 1991). Refined analytical approaches that make use of extended relatedness structure in complex or population‐wide datasets were more widely adopted moving into the late 20th century, as well (e.g., Hlusko et al, 2002; Williams‐Blangero, 1991).…”

Genetic management of nonhuman primates

“…Microsatellite loci have been shown to be powerful tools for paternity exclusion in nonhuman primates [16, 17, 37, 50]. The advantage of using these molecular genetic markers as opposed to DNA fingerprinting is that the data generated not only allow resolution of paternity but also provide a wealth of information that can be used in genetic research on the primate populations [37, 58].…”