Literature DB >> 1801946

Of mice and kin: the functional significance of kin bias in social behaviour.

C J Barnard1, J L Hurst, P Aldhous.   

Abstract

1. Sharing recent ancestry (kinship) increases the degree of genetic similarity between individuals, where genetic similarity could mean anything from sharing a particular allele to sharing an entire genome. 2. Genetic similarity can influence behavioural and other responses between individuals in a number of ways, discriminatory and non-discriminatory. All are likely to result in kin bias, because of the correlation between genetic similarity and kinship, but only some should be regarded as involving kin discrimination. 3. Non-discriminatory kin bias could arise through close relatives sharing, for instance, physical characteristics (such as those influencing competitive ability), thresholds of behavioural response or requirements for particular resources. 4. Discriminatory kin bias could arise through the direct perception of genetic similarity between individuals (direct similarity discrimination) or the use of cues likely to correlate with genetic similarity (indirect similarity discrimination--of which kin discrimination is one form). Alternatively, it could arise incidentally through mistaken identity or discrimination at some other level, such as species identification. 5. Experiments with laboratory and wild house mice have revealed kin bias in a number of contexts, including (a) parental and infanticidal behaviour, (b) sexual development and behaviour and (c) investigatory behaviour and passive body contact among juveniles and adults. 6. While kin bias in mice has been interpreted as evidence for kin discrimination, there are several problems with such an interpretation. These include (a) pronounced and complex effects of familiarity on discrimination, (b) a high risk of error-proneness in the indirect cues used in apparent kin discrimination and (c) weak and easily disrupted kin bias effects in certain contexts. 7. Consideration of social structure and discriminatory responses within populations of wild house mice leads to an alternative explanation for some kin bias in terms of incidental discrimination based on social group membership. 8. Several results from laboratory experiments suggest incidental discrimination is a more parsimonious explanation than kin discrimination for some intrasexual kin bias in behaviour. However, kin or direct similarity discrimination appears to be the most likely explanation for other aspects of intrasexual kin bias and for intersexual kin bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1801946     DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.1991.tb01147.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc        ISSN: 0006-3231


  9 in total

1.  The consequences of inbreeding for recognizing competitors.

Authors:  C M Nevison; C J Barnard; R J Beynon; J L Hurst
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2000-04-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  MHC-mediated spatial distribution in brown trout (Salmo trutta) fry.

Authors:  B O'Farrell; J A H Benzie; P McGinnity; J Carlsson; E de Eyto; E Dillane; C Graham; J Coughlan; T Cross
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Scent marking behavior in male C57BL/6J mice: sexual and developmental determination.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Arakawa; Keiko Arakawa; D Caroline Blanchard; Robert J Blanchard
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Autism-related neuroligin-3 mutation alters social behavior and spatial learning.

Authors:  Thomas C Jaramillo; Shunan Liu; Ami Pettersen; Shari G Birnbaum; Craig M Powell
Journal:  Autism Res       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 5.216

Review 5.  Scent marking behavior as an odorant communication in mice.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Arakawa; D Caroline Blanchard; Keiko Arakawa; Christopher Dunlap; Robert J Blanchard
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 8.989

6.  Parasitized female mice display reduced aversive responses to the odours of infected males.

Authors:  M Kavaliers; D D Colwell; E Choleris
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1998-06-22       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Characterization and comparison of major urinary proteins from the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, and the aboriginal mouse, Mus macedonicus.

Authors:  Duncan H L Robertson; Jane L Hurst; Jeremy B Searle; Islam Gündüz; Robert J Beynon
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.626

Review 8.  To Group or Not to Group? Good Practice for Housing Male Laboratory Mice.

Authors:  Sarah Kappel; Penny Hawkins; Michael T Mendl
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 2.752

9.  The genetic basis of inbreeding avoidance in house mice.

Authors:  Amy L Sherborne; Michael D Thom; Steve Paterson; Francine Jury; William E R Ollier; Paula Stockley; Robert J Beynon; Jane L Hurst
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 10.834

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.