Abstract
We examined changes in behavioral elements of Mus musculus musculus and Mus musculus domesticus while encountering with conspecific, allospecific animals. To do this, pure (senso lato) M. m. musculus and pure (senso lato) M. m. domesticus were obtained from the north east and the west of Iran, respectively, and mating experiments were conducted for both sub. Our study of the behavioral elements of opposite sex as the mate preference factors, within and between the two subspecies, showed that females represent more specific behavior than males in all the test groups. Also both females and males showed non-social behavior during inter-subspecies opposite sex encounters, but the aggressive behavior was just observed more when females encountered the other subspecies males. Although further studies on recognition signals (soiled bedding and urine) as a subspecies recognition system will be necessary to show inter-subspecific behavioral differences that may shape pre-mating isolation between subspecies in Iran.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barton NH, Hewitt GM (1985) Analysis of hybrid zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:113–148
Boursot P, Auffray J-C, Britton-Davidian J, Bonhomme F (1993) The evolution of house mice. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 24:119–152
Boursot P et al (1996) Origin and radiation of the house mouse: mitochondrial DNA phylogeny. J Evol Biol 9:391–415
Christophe N, Baudoin C (1998) Olfactory preferences in two strains of wild mice, Mus musculus musculus and Mus musculus domesticus, and their hybrids. Anim Behav 56:365–369
Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation, vol 37. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland
Darvish J, Orth A, Bonhomme F (2006) Genetic transition in the house mouse, Mus musculus of Eastern Iranian Plateau. Folia Zoologica-Praha- 55:349
Grant EC, Mackintosh JH (1963) A comparison of the social postures of some common laboratory rodents. Behaviour 21(3–4):246–259
Hammer Ø, Harper D, Ryan P (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis palaeontol. Electronica 4:1–9
Hashemian N, Rajabi-Maham H, Edrisi M (2017) Genetic vs environment influences on house mouse hybrid zone in Iran. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 15:483–488
Hurst JL (1990) Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus rutty. I. Communication between males. Anim Behav 40:209–222
Laukaitis CM, Critser ES, Karn RC (1997) Salivary androgen-binding protein (ABP) mediates sexual isolation in Mus musculus. Evolution 51:2000–2005
Mackintosh J (1981) Behaviour of the house mouse. In: Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, pp 337–365
Piálek J et al (2008) Development of unique house mouse resources suitable for evolutionary studies of speciation. J Hered 99:34–44
Rajabi-Maham H, Orth A, Bonhomme F (2008) Phylogeography and postglacial expansion of Mus musculus domesticus inferred from mitochondrial DNA coalescent, from Iran to Europe. Mol Ecol 17:627–641
Rajabi-Maham H, Orth A, Siahsarvie R, Boursot P, Darvish J, Bonhomme F (2012) The south-eastern house mouse Mus musculus castaneus (Rodentia: Muridae) is a polytypic subspecies. Biol J Lin Soc 107:295–306
Siahsarvie R et al (2012) Patterns of morphological evolution in the mandible of the house mouse Mus musculus (Rodentia: Muridae). Biol J Lin Soc 105:635–647
Singleton GR (1983) The social and genetic structure of a natural colony of house mice, Mus musculus, at Healesville WildlifeSanctuary. Aust J Zool 31:155–166
Smadja C, Ganem G (2002) Subspecies recognition in the house mouse: a study of two populations from the border of a hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 13:312–320
Talley HM, Laukaitis CM, Karn RC (2001) Female preference for male saliva: implications for sexual isolation of Mus musculus subspecies. Evolution 55:631–634
Terranova ML, Laviola G, Alleva E (1993) Ontogeny of amicable social behavior in the mouse: gender differences and ongoing isolation outcomes. Dev Psychobiol 26:467–481
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially supported by the Center for International Scientific Studies & Collaboration (CISSC) and the French Embassy in Tehran.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The percentage of contribution of each female in studied behavioral factors (referable to Table 1) in paired group segregation (described in Sect. 2).
DD × MM | DD × Dom-M | DD × Mus-D | MM × Dom-M | MM × Mus-D | Dom-M × Mus-D | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D | 11.07 | N | 23.48 | K | 16.83 | N | 22.27 | D | 18.21 | N | 35.91 |
K | 9.17 | B | 6.94 | B | 13.01 | D | 12 | B | 17.14 | S | 6.41 |
B | 5.94 | K | 6.48 | N | 6.62 | B | 10.61 | A | 9.23 | O | 5.77 |
A | 5.42 | S | 5.95 | D | 5.25 | S | 5.93 | H | 5.85 | K | 4.45 |
N | 3.99 | O | 5.46 | S | 4.57 | A | 5.59 | C | 5.4 | Q | 3.68 |
C | 3.65 | D | 3.32 | M | 3.51 | O | 4.42 | S | 4.41 | R | 3.5 |
H | 3.42 | R | 3.12 | O | 3.45 | H | 3.83 | F | 4.4 | B | 1.98 |
O | 3.23 | Q | 2.98 | A | 3.16 | C | 3.57 | E | 4.2 | M | 1.67 |
E | 3.16 | M | 2.1 | F | 3.1 | R | 3.17 | O | 3.79 | A | 0.97 |
F | 2.74 | F | 1.71 | L | 3.03 | F | 2.92 | G | 2.76 | P | 0.83 |
G | 2.36 | L | 1.69 | G | 1.99 | E | 2.91 | R | 2.54 | D | 0.78 |
L | 1.53 | A | 1.64 | H | 1.99 | K | 2.82 | M | 2.52 | E | 0.4 |
S | 1.5 | G | 1.12 | R | 1.96 | Q | 2.53 | N | 1.7 | G | 0 |
R | 1.08 | H | 1.12 | C | 1.62 | G | 1.79 | K | 1.1 | F | 0 |
I | 0.22 | C | 0.88 | E | 1.09 | M | 1.72 | L | 0.63 | C | 0 |
P | 0 | P | 0.61 | P | 0 | P | 0.49 | I | 0.27 | L | 0 |
M | 0 | E | 0.55 | I | 0 | L | 0.42 | P | 0 | I | 0 |
Q | 0 | I | 0 | Q | 0 | I | 0.19 | Q | 0 | H | 0 |
The percentage of contribution of each male in studied behavioral factors (referable to Table 1) in paired group segregation (described in Sect. 2).
DD × MM | DD × Dom-M | DD × Mus-D | MM × Dom-M | MM × Mus-D | Dom-M × Mus-D | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | 7.21 | A | 13.19 | A | 14.42 | B | 15.19 | B | 17.22 | O | 17.9 |
B | 6.81 | O | 13.04 | O | 12.09 | O | 11.05 | A | 10.49 | Q | 9.9 |
E | 5.46 | B | 10.04 | B | 11.81 | A | 9.95 | O | 7.97 | N | 9.03 |
D | 4.73 | E | 8.16 | E | 8.57 | Q | 6.16 | N | 5.52 | M | 4.72 |
O | 4.17 | Q | 7.43 | D | 7.57 | D | 5.01 | D | 5.3 | B | 3.49 |
N | 3.2 | N | 7.36 | M | 6.13 | N | 4.94 | M | 5.2 | R | 3.15 |
F | 2.9 | D | 6.8 | N | 4.84 | F | 3.73 | F | 3.88 | D | 2.4 |
S | 1.98 | M | 2.85 | F | 2.58 | M | 2.45 | S | 2.46 | A | 2.11 |
H | 1.37 | F | 2.46 | R | 2.21 | S | 2.37 | R | 2.06 | P | 1.15 |
J | 1.21 | P | 0.95 | S | 0.84 | E | 1.81 | E | 1.88 | S | 0.85 |
R | 1.19 | S | 0.79 | Q | 0.7 | H | 1.55 | H | 1.62 | G | 0 |
Q | 0.96 | R | 0.67 | L | 0.61 | J | 1.41 | J | 1.48 | F | 0 |
G | 0.92 | L | 0.59 | G | 0.46 | R | 1.38 | Q | 1.17 | C | 0 |
K | 0.82 | G | 0.44 | K | 0.31 | G | 1.05 | G | 1.11 | L | 0 |
L | 0.77 | K | 0.29 | P | 0 | P | 0.99 | K | 0.89 | K | 0 |
C | 0.48 | C | 0 | C | 0 | K | 0.86 | C | 0.55 | E | 0 |
P | 0.23 | J | 0 | J | 0 | C | 0.53 | L | 0.54 | J | 0 |
M | 0 | H | 0 | H | 0 | L | 0.52 | P | 0.27 | H | 0 |
The first three principal components (PCs) for female and male.
Eigenvalue | %variation | Cumulative %variation | |
---|---|---|---|
Female | |||
PC1 | 106.77 | 56.65 | 56.65 |
PC2 | 37.52 | 19.91 | 76.56 |
PC3 | 14.21 | 7.54 | 84.11 |
Male | |||
PC1 | 50.38 | 46.67 | 46.67 |
PC2 | 24.45 | 22.65 | 69.32 |
PC3 | 12.71 | 11.77 | 81.09 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Edrisi, M., Rajabi-Maham, H. & Hashemian, N. Both Environment and Genetic Makeup Influence Sexual Behavior of House Mouse. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Sci 42, 1761–1769 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-018-0483-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-018-0483-2