Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 395–404 | Cite as

Dominance and reproductive behavior of wild house mice in a seminatural environment correlated with T-locus genotype

  • Patricia Franks
  • Sarah Lenington
Article

Summary

Behavior of mice whose T-locus genotype was either +/+ or +/t was observed in a seminatural environment. Heterozygous females were less likely to be dominant, less likely to go into behavioral estrus, and less likely to become pregnant than were +/+ females. The relative fitness of +/t as compared with +/+ females was 0.32:1.00. In contrast, +/t males produced 35% more young than did +/+ males. The higher fitness of +/t males was primarily due to a greater production of young on the part of +/t as compared with +/+ subordinate males. Little evidence was found under these naturalistic conditions, of non-random mating with respect to T-locus genotype. The indication of overdominance for +/t males makes it unlikely that heterozygote disadvantage will be sufficient to account for the frequency of t-alleles in natural populations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267Google Scholar
  2. Bateman N (1960) Selective fertilization at the T-locus of the mouse. Genet Res 1:226–238Google Scholar
  3. Bennett D (1975) The T-locus of the mouse. Cell 6:441–454Google Scholar
  4. Bennett D (1978) Population genetics of T/t complex mutations. In: Morse H (ed) Origins of Inbred Mice Academic Press, New York, pp 615–632Google Scholar
  5. Braden AWH (1958) Influence of time of mating on segregation ratio of alleles at the T-locus in the house mouse. Nature 181:786–787Google Scholar
  6. Bruck D (1957) Male segregation ratio advantage as a factor in maintaining lethal alleles in wild populations of house mice. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 43:152–158Google Scholar
  7. Cox DR (1977) Analysis of binary data. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewsbury DA (1978) The comparative method in studies in reproductive behavior. In: McGill TE, Dewsbury DA, Sachs BJ (eds) Sex and Behavior. Plenum Press, New York, pp 83–112Google Scholar
  9. Dunn LC (1960) Variations in the transmission ratios of alleles through egg and sperm in Mus musculus., Am Nat 94:385–393Google Scholar
  10. Dunn LC, Bennett D (1967) Maintenence of gene frequencies of a male sterile semi-lethal t-allele in a confined population of wild house mice. Am Nat 101:535–538Google Scholar
  11. Dunn LC, Levene H (1961) Population dynamics of a variant t-allele in a confined population of wild house mice. Evolution 15:385–393Google Scholar
  12. Dunn LC, Suckling J (1955) A preliminary comparison of the fertilities of wild house mice with and without a mutant a locus T. Am Nat 89:231–233Google Scholar
  13. Dunn LC, Beasley AB, Tinker H (1958) Relative fitness of wild house mice heterozygous for a lethal allele. Am Nat 92:215–230Google Scholar
  14. Egid K, Lenington S (1985) Responses of male mice to odors of females: Effects of T and H-2 locus genotype. Behav Gen 15:287–295Google Scholar
  15. Franks P (1984) Dominance and reproductive success of wild house mice in a seminatural environment. Unpubl Ph D Dissertation, Rutgers University NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammerberg G, Klein J (1975) Linkage relationships of markers on chromosome 17 of the house mouse. Genet Res 26:203–211Google Scholar
  17. Hartl DL (1970) A mathematical model for recessive lethal segregation distorters with differential viabilities in the sexes. Genetics 66:147–164Google Scholar
  18. Ivanyi P (1978) Some aspects of the H-2 system the Major Histocompatibility System in the mouse. Proc R Soc Lond B 202:117–159Google Scholar
  19. Ivanyi P, Hample R, Mickova M, Starka L (1976) The influence of the H-2 system on blood serum testosterone. Folia Biol Praha 22:42–43Google Scholar
  20. Johrston PG, Brown GH (1969) A comparison of the relative fitness of genotypes segregating for the t-allele in laboratory stock and its possible effects on gene frequency in the mouse populations. Am Nat 103:5–21Google Scholar
  21. Kleih J, Sipos P, Figueroa F (1984) Polymorphism of t-complex genes in European wild mice. Genet Res 44:39–46Google Scholar
  22. Lacy R (1978) Dynamics of t-alleles in Mus musculus populations: Review and speculation. The Biologist 60:41–47Google Scholar
  23. Larntz K (1978) Small-sample comparisons of exact levels for chi-squared goodness-of-fit statistics J Am Stat Ass 73:253–263Google Scholar
  24. Lenington S (1983) Social preferences for partners carrying “good genes” in wild house mice. Anim Behav 31:325–333Google Scholar
  25. Lenington S (in press) Phenotypic correlates of T-locus geno-type in wild mice: implications for evolutionary models. In: Komisaruk B, Seigal H (eds) JS Rosenblatt FestschriftGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenington S, Egid K (1985) Female discrimination of male odors correlated with male genotype at the T-locus in Mus musculus: A response to T-locus or H-2 locus variability? Behav Genetics 15:37–51Google Scholar
  27. Levene L, Rockwell RC, Grossfield J (1980) Sexual selection in mice. V. Reproductive competition between +/+ and +/tw5 males. Am Nat 116:150–156Google Scholar
  28. Levin BR, Petras ML, Rassmussen DI (1969) The effect of migration on the maintenance of a lethal polymorphism in the house mouse. Am Nat 103:647–661Google Scholar
  29. Lewontin RC (1962) Interdeme selection controlling a polymorphism in the house mouse. Am Nat 96:65–78Google Scholar
  30. Lewontin RC (1968) The effect of differential viability on population dynamics of t-alleles in the house mouse. Evolution 22:262–273Google Scholar
  31. Lewontin RC, Dunn LC (1960) The evolutionary dynamics of a polymorphism in the house mouse. Genetics 45:705–722Google Scholar
  32. Martin PG, Andrewartha HG (1962) Success in fighting of two varietites of mice. Am Nat 96:375–376Google Scholar
  33. Pennycuik PR, Johnston PG, Lidicker WZ, Westwood NH (1978) Introduction of a male sterile allele (tw2) into a population of house mice housed in a large outdoor enclosure. Aust J Zool 26:69–81Google Scholar
  34. Petras ML (1967) Studies of natural populations of Mus II. Polymorphism at the T-locus. Evolution 21:466–478Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Franks
    • 1
  • Sarah Lenington
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Animal BehaviorRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations