Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice (original) (raw)

Nature volume 493, pages 402–405 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Relative to morphological traits, we know little about how genetics influence the evolution of complex behavioural differences in nature1. It is unclear how the environment influences natural variation in heritable behaviour2, and whether complex behavioural differences evolve through few genetic changes, each affecting many aspects of behaviour, or through the accumulation of several genetic changes that, when combined, give rise to behavioural complexity3. Here we show that in nature, oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus) build complex burrows with long entrance and escape tunnels, and that burrow length is consistent across populations, although burrow depth varies with soil composition. This burrow architecture is in contrast with the small, simple burrows of its sister species, deer mice (P. maniculatus). When investigated under laboratory conditions, both species recapitulate their natural burrowing behaviour. Genetic crosses between the two species reveal that the derived burrows of oldfield mice are dominant and evolved through the addition of multiple genetic changes. In burrows built by first-generation backcross mice, entrance-tunnel length and the presence of an escape tunnel can be uncoupled, suggesting that these traits are modular. Quantitative trait locus analysis also indicates that tunnel length segregates as a complex trait, affected by at least three independent genetic regions, whereas the presence of an escape tunnel is associated with only a single locus. Together, these results suggest that complex behaviours—in this case, a classic ‘extended phenotype’4—can evolve through multiple genetic changes each affecting distinct behaviour modules.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boake, C. R. B. et al. Genetic tools for studying adaptation and the evolution of behavior. Am. Nat. 160, S143–S159 (2002)
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  2. West-Eberhard, M. J. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003)
    Book Google Scholar
  3. Mackay, T. F. C. The genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Annu. Rev. Genet. 35, 303–339 (2001)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Dawkins, R. The Extended Phenotype (W. H. Freeman, 1982)
    Google Scholar
  5. Hansell, M. H. Animal Architecture (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005)
    Book Google Scholar
  6. Lorenz, K. Z. The evolution of behaviour. Sci. Am. 199, 67–78 (1958)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Peichel, C. L. et al. The genetic architecture of divergence between threespine stickleback species. Nature 414, 901–905 (2001)
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Steiner, C. C., Weber, J. N. & Hoekstra, H. E. Adaptive variation in beach mice caused by two interacting pigmentation genes. PLoS Biol. 5, 1880–1889 (2007)
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  9. Sumner, F. B. & Karol, J. J. Notes on the burrowing habits of Peromyscus polionotus. J. Mamm. 10, 213–215 (1929)
    Article Google Scholar
  10. Hayne, D. W. Burrowing habits of Peromyscus polionotus. J. Mamm. 17, 420–421 (1936)
    Article Google Scholar
  11. Rand, A. L. & Host, P. Mammal notes from Highland County, Florida. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 80, 1–21 (1942)
    Google Scholar
  12. Houtcooper, W. C. Rodent seed supply and burrows of Peromyscus in cultivated fields. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 81, 348–389 (1971)
    Google Scholar
  13. Schwartz, C. W. & Schwartz, E. R. The Wild Mammals of Missouri (Univ. Missouri Press, 1981)
    Google Scholar
  14. Baker, R. H. in Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia) (ed. King, J. A. ) (American Society of Mammalogists, 1968)
    Google Scholar
  15. Wolfe, J. L. & Esher, R. J. Burrowing behaviour of old-field mice (Peromyscus polionotus): a laboratory investigation. Bio. Behav. 2, 343–351 (1977)
    Google Scholar
  16. Dawson, W. D., Lake, C. E. & Schumpert, S. S. Inheritance of burrow building in Peromyscus. Behav. Genet. 18, 371–382 (1988)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  17. Weber, J. N. & Hoekstra, H. E. The evolution of burrowing behavior in deer mice. Anim. Behav. 77, 603–609 (2009)
    Article Google Scholar
  18. Tan, K. H. Soil Sampling, Preparation, and Analysis (CRC Press, 2005)
    Book Google Scholar
  19. Wright, S. A mutation of the guinea pig, tending to restore the pentadactyl foot when heterozygous, producing a monstrosity when homozygous. Genetics 20, 84–107 (1935)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  20. Peterson, B. K., Weber, J. N., Kay, E. H., Fisher, H. S. & Hoekstra, H. E. Double digest RADseq: an inexpensive method for de novo SNP discovery and genotyping in model and non-model species. PLoS ONE 7, e37135 (2012)
    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  21. Beavis, W. D. in Molecular Dissection of Complex Traits (ed. Paterson, A. H. ) 431–528 (CRC Press, 1998)
    Google Scholar
  22. Bendesky, A. & Bargmann, C. I. Genetic contributions to behaviour at the gene–environment interface. Nature Rev. Genet. 12, 809–820 (2011)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  23. Fitzpatrick, M. J. et al. Candidate genes for behavioural ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 96–104 (2005)
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  24. Huxley, J. S. The courtship habits of the great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) with an addition to the theory of sexual selection. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 35, 253–291 (1914)
    Google Scholar
  25. Mallarino, R. et al. Two developmental modules establish 3D beak shape variation in Darwin’s finches. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4057–4062 (2011)
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  26. Xu, X. et al. Modular genetic control of sexually dimorphic behaviors. Cell 148, 596–607 (2012)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  27. Felthauser, M. & McInroy, D. Mapping pocket gopher burrow systems with expanding polyurethane foam. J. Wildl. Manage. 47, 555–558 (1983)
    Article Google Scholar
  28. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011)
  29. Broman, K. W., Wu, H., Sen, Ś. & Churchill, G. A. R/qtl: QTL mapping in experimental crosses. Bioinformatics 19, 889–890 (2003)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  30. Lincoln, S. E. & Lander, E. S. Systematic detection of errors in genetic linkage data. Genomics 14, 604–610 (1992)
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  31. Doerge, R. W. & Rebai, A. Significance thresholds for QTL interval mapping tests. Heredity 76, 459–464 (1996)
    Article Google Scholar
  32. Sen, Ś., Satagopan, J., Broman, K. W. & Churchill, G. A. R/qtlDesign: Inbred Line Cross Experimental Design (UC San Francisco: Center for Bioinformatics and Molecular Biostatistics, 2006)
    Google Scholar
  33. Cheng, R. et al. Genome-wide association studies and the problem of relatedness among advanced intercross lines and other highly recombinant populations. Genetics 185, 1033–1044 (2010)
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  34. Cheng, R., Abney, M., Palmer, A. A. & Skol, A. D. QTLRel: an R package for genome-wide association studies in which relatedness is a concern. BMC Genet. 12, 66 (2011)
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank D. Brimmer, A. Chiu, A. Goldberg, J. Hopwood, W. Tong, S. Wolff and the Hoekstra laboratory for assistance with behavioural assays and animal husbandry; D. Haig, B. Ölveczky, N. E. Pierce and J. Sanes for helpful discussions; and Harvard’s Office of Animal Resources, particularly J. Rocca and M. O’Donnell. We also thank R. Barrett, A. Bendesky, H. Fisher, E. Kay, H. Metz and W. Tong for comments on the manuscript. This research was funded by Chapman Funds for Vertebrate Locomotion to J.N.W., National Science Foundation grant (IOS-0910164) to J.N.W. and H.E.H., and an Arnold and Mabel Beckman Young Investigator Award to H.E.H.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jesse N. Weber
    Present address: Present address: Section of Integrative Biology, One University Station, University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712, USA.,

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA,
    Jesse N. Weber, Brant K. Peterson & Hopi E. Hoekstra
  2. Department of Molecular & Cellular Biology, Center for Brain Science, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA,
    Brant K. Peterson & Hopi E. Hoekstra

Authors

  1. Jesse N. Weber
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. Brant K. Peterson
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. Hopi E. Hoekstra
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.N.W. and H.E.H. conceived and designed the experiments. B.K.P. and J.N.W. generated the ddRAD genotypes. J.N.W. performed the behaviour experiments and analysed the genetic and behavioural data. J.N.W. and H.E.H. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toHopi E. Hoekstra.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Tables 1-2 and Supplementary Figures 1-4. (PDF 342 kb)

P. polionotus exiting through an escape tunnel and burrow casting method

P. polionotus erupt from an escape tunnel when intruders enter their burrow. We can take advantage of this behavior in the laboratory to remove mice from their burrows, while keeping the burrow architecture intact. Once empty, burrows size and shape can be quantified by constructing and measuring polyurethane casts of each burrow. (MOV 11455 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, J., Peterson, B. & Hoekstra, H. Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice.Nature 493, 402–405 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11816

Download citation

This article is cited by

Editorial Summary

Down-to-earth genetics

The genetics of behavioural differences between closely related species are less well understood than the genetics of morphological differences. Many animals build elaborate structures — such as hives, nests and burrows — that 'evolve' as natural selection acts on the behaviour of their builders. This study uses an example of this phenomenon to tackle the question of whether complex behaviours evolve through one or few genetic changes that each influence many aspects of behaviour, or by accumulation of several genetic changes that generate behavioural complexity only when combined. Hopi Hoekstra and colleagues show that the complex burrows created by oldfield mice are governed by several genetic modules, each controlling an aspect of burrow size or shape. This modularity in burrow architecture suggests that complex behaviour may result from the combination of genetically determined behaviours that have accumulated over time.

Associated content