| Literature DB >> 28327581 |
L Canario1, N Lundeheim2, P Bijma3.
Abstract
Social interactions among individuals are abundant, both in natural and domestic populations, and may affect phenotypes of individuals. Recent research has demonstrated that the social effect of an individual on the phenotype of its social partners may have a genetic component, known as an indirect genetic effect (IGE). Little is known, however, of nongenetic factors underlying such social effects. Early-life environments often have large effects on phenotypes of the individuals themselves later in life. Offspring development in many mammalian species, for example, depends on interactions with the mother and siblings. In domestic pigs, individuals sharing the same juvenile environment develop similar body weight later in life. We, therefore, hypothesized that offspring originating from the same early-life environment also develop common social skills that generate early-life social effects (ELSEs) that affect the phenotypes of their social partners later in life. We, therefore, quantified IGEs and ELSEs on growth in domestic pigs. Results show that individuals from the same early-life environment express similar social effects on the growth of their social partners, and that such ELSEs shape the growth rate of social partners more than IGEs. Thus, the social skills that individuals develop in early life have a long-lasting impact on the phenotypes of social partners. Early-life and genetic social effects were independent of the corresponding direct effects of offspring on their own growth, indicating that individuals may enhance the growth of their social partners without a personal cost. Our findings also illustrate how research devoted to quantifying IGEs may miss nongenetic and potentially confounded social mechanisms which may bias the estimates of IGEs.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28327581 PMCID: PMC5436026 DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2017.3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heredity (Edinb) ISSN: 0018-067X Impact factor: 3.821
Variance components (s.e.) for individual growth rate in a Swedish pig population
| 603 (68) | 590 (67) | 596 (67) | 606 (68) | 596 (67) | 600 (67) | 599 (67) | 593 (67) | 604 (68) | |
| 11.5 (2) | 4.0 (1.4) | 3.9 (1.4) | 11.9 (2.3) | 8.9 (2.0) | 5.6 (1.7) | 17.9 (2.7) | |||
| 5028 (46) | 4983 (46) | 4872 (45) | 4850 (45) | 4691 (51) | 4668 (51) | 4625 (51) | 4771 (51) | 4626 (51) | |
| 603 (68) | 1332 (184) | 752 (142) | 623 (131) | 1342 (192) | 1079 (170) | 851 (151) | 1789 (218) | 604 (68) | |
| h2 | 0.12 (0.01) | 0.11 (0.02) | 0.12 (0.01) | 0.13 (0.01) | 0.13 (0.01) | 0.13 (0.01) | 0.13 (0.01) | 0.12 (0.01) | 0.13 (0.01) |
| 0.12 (0.01) | 0.27 (0.04) | 0.15 (0.03) | 0.13 (0.03) | 0.28 (0.04) | 0.23 (0.04) | 0.18 (0.03) | 0.38 (0.05) | 0.13 (0.01) | |
| 0.07 (0.10) | −0.10 (0.15) | −0.28 (0.15) | 0.06 (0.10) | −0.02 (0.11) | −0.07 (0.13) | 0.12 (0.09) | |||
| 0.27 (0.06) | −0.02 (0.05) | −0.03 (0.05) | |||||||
| 83 (14) | 81 (13) | 81 (13) | 81 (13) | 76 (13) | 74 (13) | 77 (13) | 77 (13) | 79 (13) | |
| 502 (24) | 408 (28) | 276 (26) | 268 (26) | 258 (29) | 252 (27) | 210 (25) | 350 (29) | 218 (23) | |
| 592 (34) | 568 (33) | 533 (33) | 535 (32) | 526 (32) | 517 (32) | 515 (32) | 559 (33) | 516 (32) | |
| 16.2 (1.8) | 14.0 (2.0) | 13.1 (1.7) | 16.3 (1.7) | 19.8 (1.7) | 22.4 (1.7) | ||||
| 164 (31) | 158 (31) | 154 (30) | 146 (29) | 151 (29) | 147 (29) | 146 (29) | 151 (30) | 148 (29) | |
| 3084 (82) | 3092 (43) | 3080 (44) | 3080 (44) | 2897 (49) | 2889 (50) | 2890 (50) | 2906 (49) | 2894 (49) | |
| 6.2 (8.4) | −4.8 (7.2) | −14.6 (7.5) | 5.2 (8.5) | −1.6 (8.1) | −4.1 (7.5) | 12.5 (9.1) | |||
| 23.7 (5.1) | −1.9 (5.0) | −2.9 (5.0) | |||||||
| Log L | −203 049 | −203 006 | −202 309 | −202 298 | −202 272 | −202 250 | −202 230 | −202 310 | −202 243 |
| 6 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 19 | 19 | |
| AIC | 406 110 | 406 028 | 404 636 | 404 616 | 404 584 | 404 540 | 404 502 | 404 658 | 404 524 |
The significance of effects was tested by the change in log likelihood (Log L) at convergence between successive models. The average Information criterion (AIC) was calculated for each model using Log L and number of parameters (N para). Model 1 includes random pen effects , adult social group (nongenetic) effects , permanent environmental effects of the mother , direct litter effects and direct genetic effects . Model 2 tests for social genetic effects (IGEs), , while accounting for the correlation between direct and social genetic effects (covariance ). Model 3 tests for early-life social effects (ELSEs) . Model 4 tests for the correlation between direct and social early-life effects r (covariance σ). Models 5 and 6 arise from Model 3, and test the effect of group size on social variances (see also Figure 2). Model 5 includes a dilution factor of 1 on IGEs (da=1). In addition, Model 6 includes a dilution factor of 1 on ELSE (d=1). Model 7 tests for r in Model 6. Estimated social variances from Models 5–8 refer to the average group size (). Model 8 vs Model 7 tests for ELSE when IGEs with da=1 are included in the model. Model 9 vs Model 7 tests for IGEs when ELSE with d=1 are included in the model. For models without dilution, depends on group size. Results of for such models are presented using the average group size. With full dilution, d=1, phenotypic variance becomes independent of group size. This follows from the Equations for and the Equation for . The ratio is the classical heritability. The ratio expresses total heritable variance relative to phenotypic variance. Model 7 proved superior. Beware that estimates for social effects refer to the effect on a single group mate; the total effect on all group mates is on average a factor 7.5 greater, so that the variance of the total effect is on average a factor 7.52=56.25 greater.
Figure 1Variances of social genetic effects (IGEs) and of early-life social effects (ELSE) as a function of the dilution factor (d), with standard errors (±s.e.). Herein, the dilution factors for IGEs (d) and ELSE (d) varied from 0.1 to 1, but had the same value, d= d=d. Log-likelihood values (Log L) are given on the secondary y axis.
Figure 2Variances of social genetic effects (IGEs) and of early-life social effects (ELSE), as a function of group size, with standard errors (±s.e.) and for d=d=1 (Model (7) in Table 1).
| 585 (81) | 562 (33) | |
| 11.7 (2.1) | ||
| 104 (39) | 104 (38) | |
| 5034 (46) | 4975 (46) | |
| 587 (73) | 1401 (192) | |
| h2 | 0.12 (0.02) | 0.11 (0.02) |
| 0.12 (0.02) | 0.28 (0.04) | |
| −0.08 (0.12) | ||
| −0.21 (0.16) | −0.17 (0.16) | |
| 0.47 (0.18) | ||
| 83 (14) | 81 (13) | |
| 501 (23) | 414 (27) | |
| 585 (33) | 562 (33) | |
| 135 (35) | 114 (34) | |
| 3092 (48) | 3091 (49) | |
| −6.3 (9.7) | ||
| −51 (45) | −41 (44) | |
| 16 (7) | ||
| Log L | −203 042 | −202 347 |
| N para | 8 | 11 |
| AIC | 406 100 | 404 712 |