Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice

Nature

Volumn 493, Issue 7432, 2013, Pages 402-405

  Weber, Jesse N ^a,b   Peterson, Brant K ^a   Hoekstra, Hopi E ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOACCUMULATION; BURROWING; DOMINANCE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HERITABILITY; MORPHOLOGY; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION STRUCTURE; RODENT;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BACKCROSSING; BEHAVIOR; BURROWING SPECIES; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENETIC CROSS; LABORATORY; MALE; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PEROMYSCUS; PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTUS; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; SOIL; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, WILD; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; CROSSES, GENETIC; ECOSYSTEM; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; NESTING BEHAVIOR; PEROMYSCUS; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI;

MUS; PEROMYSCUS; PEROMYSCUS MANICULATUS; PEROMYSCUS POLIONOTUS;

EID: 84872589694     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature11816     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Boake, C. R. B. et al. Genetic tools for studying adaptation and the evolution of behavior. Am. Nat. 160, S143-S159 (2002).
2. West-Eberhard, M. J. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).
3. Mackay, T. F. C. The genetic architecture of quantitative traits. Annu. Rev. Genet. 35, 303-339 (2001).
4. Dawkins, R. The Extended Phenotype (W. H. Freeman, 1982).
5. Hansell, M. H. Animal Architecture (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
6. Lorenz, K. Z. The evolution of behaviour. Sci. Am. 199, 67-78 (1958).
7. Peichel, C. L. et al. The genetic architecture of divergence between threespine stickleback species. Nature 414, 901-905 (2001).
8. Steiner, C. C.,Weber, J. N.&Hoekstra, H. E.Adaptive variation in beachmice caused by two interacting pigmentation genes. PLoS Biol. 5, 1880-1889 (2007).
9. Sumner, F. B.& Karol, J. J. Notes on the burrowing habits of Peromyscus polionotus. J. Mamm. 10, 213-215 (1929).
10. Hayne, D. W. Burrowing habits of Peromyscus polionotus. J. Mamm. 17, 420-421 (1936).
11. Rand, A. L. & Host, P. Mammal notes from Highland County, Florida. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 80, 1-21 (1942).
12. Houtcooper, W. C. Rodent seed supply and burrows of Peromyscus in cultivated fields. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 81, 348-389 (1971).
13. Schwartz, C. W. & Schwartz, E. R. The Wild Mammals of Missouri (Univ. Missouri Press, 1981).
14. Baker, R. H. in Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia) (ed. King, J. A.) (AmericanSociety of Mammalogists, 1968).
15. Wolfe, J. L. & Esher, R. J. Burrowing behaviour of old-field mice (Peromyscus polionotus): a laboratory investigation. Bio. Behav. 2, 343-351 (1977).
16. Dawson, W. D., Lake, C. E. & Schumpert, S. S. Inheritance of burrow building in Peromyscus. Behav. Genet. 18, 371-382 (1988).
17. Weber, J. N. & Hoekstra, H. E. The evolution of burrowing behavior in deer mice. Anim. Behav. 77, 603-609 (2009).
18. Tan, K. H. Soil Sampling, Preparation, and Analysis (CRC Press, 2005).
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).
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).
21. Beavis, W. D. inMolecular Dissection ofComplex Traits (ed. Paterson, A. H.) 431-528 (CRC Press, 1998).
22. Bendesky, A. & Bargmann, C. I. Genetic contributions to behaviour at the gene-environment interface. Nature Rev. Genet. 12, 809-820 (2011).
23. Fitzpatrick, M. J. et al. Candidate genes for behavioural ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, 96-104 (2005).
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).
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).
26. Xu, X. et al. Modular genetic control of sexually dimorphic behaviors. Cell 148, 596-607 (2012).
27. Felthauser, M. & McInroy, D. Mapping pocket gopher burrow systems with expanding polyurethane foam. J. Wildl. Manage. 47, 555-558 (1983).
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:QTLmapping in experimental crosses. Bioinformatics 19, 889-890 (2003).
30. Lincoln, S. E.&Lander, E. S. Systematic detectionof errors in genetic linkage data. Genomics 14, 604-610 (1992).
31. Doerge, R. W. & Rebai, A. Significance thresholds for QTL interval mapping tests. Heredity 76, 459-464 (1996).
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).
33. Cheng, R. et al.Genome-wide association studies and the problemof relatedness among advanced intercross lines and other highly recombinant populations. Genetics 185, 1033-1044 (2010).
34. Cheng, R., Abney, M., Palmer, A. A.&Skol, A. D.QTLRel: anRpackage for genomewide association studies in which relatedness is a concern. BMC Genet. 12, 66 (2011).