Sociality genes are associated with human-directed social behaviour in golden and Labrador retriever dogs

Abstract

BackgroundDogs have human-directed social skills that allow them to communicate and cooperate with humans. We have previously identified two loci on chromosome 26 associated with human contact-seeking behaviors during an unsolvable problem task in laboratory beagles (Persson et al., 2016). The aim of the present study was to verify the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in additional dog breeds. We also studied how the allele frequencies have changed during domestication and recent selection.MethodsDogs of two breeds, 61 golden retrievers and 100 Labrador retrievers, were phenotyped and genotyped, and 19 wolves were genotyped. The Labrador retrievers were divided into common and field type by pedigree data to make it possible to study the effects of recent selection. All dogs were tested in an unsolvable problem task where human-directed social behaviors were scored. DNA from dogs (buccal swabs) and wolves (blood or brain tissue) was analyzed for genotype on two of the previously identified SNP markers, BICF2G630798942 (SNP1) and BICF2S23712114 (SNP2), by pyrosequencing.ResultsThere was genetic variation for SNP1 in both dog breeds whereas the wolves were fixed for this polymorphism, and for SNP2 there was variation in both dogs and wolves. For both SNPs, Labrador retriever types differed significantly in allele frequencies. We found associations between SNPs and human-directed social behavior in both dog breeds. In golden retrievers, SNP1 was associated with physical contact variables, for example, with the duration of physical contact with the owner (F2,56 = 4.389, p = 0.017). SNP2 was associated with several behavioral variables in both breeds, among others owner gazing frequency in both golden retrievers (F2,55 = 6.330, p = 0.003) and Labradors (F1,93 = 5.209, p = 0.025).DiscussionOur results verify the association between the previously identified SNPs and human-directed social behavior scored in an unsolvable problem task. Differences in allele frequencies suggest that these loci have been affected by selection. The results indicate that these genomic regions are involved in human-directed social behavior in not only beagles but in other dog breeds as well. We hypothesize that they may have been important during dog domestication.

Canine Socialisation: A Narrative Systematic Review

“…Persson (2018) [ 112 ] identified specific sociality genes associated with human-directed social behaviour in Golden and Labrador Retriever dogs. Such genes may influence the levels of socialisation required to produce well-adjusted adult dogs in these breeds, compared to other breeds [ 113 ]. Scott and Fuller also recognised that genetic differences affect the speed of development in different breeds, with some giant breeds taking considerably longer to reach developmental stages than toy breeds.…”

Czechoslovakian Wolfdog Genomic Divergence from Its Ancestors Canis lupus, German Shepherd Dog, and Different Sheepdogs of European Origin

“…The SEZ6L gene has been previously associated with human autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder connected to impairment in social interactions and communication. In dogs, both COMT and SEZ6L genes were linked to social behaviour in Golden retrievers and Labradors [24,27]. The highest observed differences in genetic variability between the Grey wolf and the domesticated dog breeds were manifested by the SNPs' allelic frequency inside the GTF21 and GRF2IRD1 genes (Figure 4b), which divided the analysed groups.…”

“…Interleukin 6 plasma concentration is affected by exercise duration, intensity, and the amount of muscle mass involved [75]. Table S1 cited the references [17,24,25,27,54,58,63,66,67,69,[71][72][73][74][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88].…”

“…Moreover, Takeuchi et al [26] found several polymorphic sites connected to the success of dogs in becoming qualified as guide dogs. On the other hand, polymorphisms associated with breed-specific traits, such as obedience and aggression, are still under research [27,28].…”

A cultural selection analysis of human-dog interactions – A primer

“…The mounting interest in the evolutionary and contemporary aspects of human-dog association has resulted in rapidly growing research efforts from a wide range of disciplines with dissimilar assumptions, methodologies, and areas of emphasis; among them, anthrozoology, behavioral ecology, comparative cognition, ethology, genetics, neuroscience, psychology, social sciences, and veterinary behavior and medicine (e.g., Bennett, 2013;Carlisle et al, 2018;Fall et al, 2019;Fukuzawa & Hashi, 2017;Gray et al, 2015;Jervis et al, 2018;Ortolani et al, 2009;Persson et al, 2018;Rehn & Keeling, 2016;Seksel & Lindeman, 2001;Taylor et al, 2016;van der Borg et al, 2018;van Herwijnen et al, 2018;Yamamoto et al, 2009;Yilmaz, 2017). Despite the popularity of canine-related research among various disciplines, behavior analytic research efforts are scarce (e.g., Edwards & Poling, 2011;Feuerbacher & Wynne, 2015;Feuerbacher & Wynne, 2016;Hall, 2017;Hall et al, 2015;Pfaller-Sadovsky et al, 2017;Protopopova et al, 2016), notwithstanding their potential to contribute to the understanding of the behavioral phenomena entailed in humandog interactions, and application when needed.…”