Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 220–226 | Cite as

Differences in reproductive success between laboratory and wild-derived golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) as a consequence of inbreeding

  • Peter Fritzsche
  • Karsten Neumann
  • Karsten Nasdal
  • Rolf Gattermann
Original Article

Abstract

All laboratory golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) originated from a sibling pairing back in 1930. Due to this extreme founder event, domestic golden hamsters are presumed to be one of the most bottlenecked animal populations. Nevertheless, domestic hamsters show no obvious signs of inbreeding depression in commonly used breeding stocks. To explore the existence of potentially masked inbreeding effects, we compared the reproductive success of laboratory (lab) and wild-derived (wild) golden hamsters. We allowed oestrus females to mate consecutively with lab and wild males. The resulting offspring was genotyped using microsatellites to assess paternity. Finally, we compared male reproductive success to genetic variability, sexual behaviour and different sperm characteristics. Both hamster strains exhibited the expected large difference in genetic diversity (H wild =0.712±0.062 vs H lab =0.007±0.007. The reproductive success of wild males dramatically exceeded that of lab males (87% of pups were sired by wild males). Sexual behaviour of wild and lab males only varied in the number of long intromissions (intromissions without ejaculation at the end of the mating). No significant differences were observed in relation to mounting, ejaculation and intromission. There were also no apparent differences in sperm motility, velocity and density or testis histology between wild and lab hamsters. We conclude that the reduced reproductive success of lab males represents a hidden inbreeding effect, although its precise physiological cause remains unclear. These results provide first evidence for a major fitness disadvantage in captive golden hamsters.

Keywords

Sperm competition Reproductive success Inbreeding depression Genetic variability Golden hamster 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Annett Poenicke for performing the sperm tests and the team of Dr. Michael Wilhelm from Mediquant, Halle, Germany for the assistance with the sperm velocity measures. We also thank Kerstin Waegner for her technical assistance and Samantha Larimer for being our English critic. We maintained animals and conducted all procedures in agreement with the Animal rights certificate (No. 203h-42502/2-514 MLU Hal1, granted by the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt, Germany).

References

  1. Arteaga M, Velazquez-Moctezuma J (2000) Temporal pattern of recovery from sexual satiety in male golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus). Physiol Behav 68:591–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer BA, Lacy RC, Foster ML, Alaks G (1990) Inbreeding depression in insular and central populations of Peromyscus mice. J Hered 81:257–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunnell BN, Boland BD, Dewsbury DA (1976) Copulatory behaviour of golden hamster Mesocricetus auratus. Behaviour 61:180–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter CS, Schein MW (1971) Sexual receptivity and exhaustion in the female golden hamster. Horm Behav 2:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman T (2001) Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 87:511–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman T, Davies SJ (2004) Functions and analysis of the seminal fluid proteins of male Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies. Peptides 25:1477–1490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crnokrak P, Roff DA (1999) Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity 83:260–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csaikl F (1984) Electrophoretic comparison of Syrian and Chinese hamster species. Heredity 52:141–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deckard BS, Wilson JR, Schlesinger K (1989) Behavioral and reproductive differences in mice as a function of inbreeding. Behav Genet 19:433–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellegren H, Hartmann G, Johansson M, Andersson L (1993) Major histocompatibility complex monomorphism and low levels of DNA fingerprinting variability in a reintroduced and rapidly expanding population of beavers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:8150–8153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankel OH (1983) The place of management in conservation. In: Schoenwald-Cox CM, Chambers SM, McBryde B, Thomas WL (eds) Genetics and conservation: a reference for managing wild animal and plant populations. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  13. Frankel OH, Soule ME (1981) Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Fritzsche P, Neumann K, Hollak H, Gattermann R (2000) Behaviour and genetic diversity of wild and lab golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Zoology 26:103(Suppl)Google Scholar
  15. Fry CL, Wilkinson GS (2004) Sperm survival in female stalk-eyed flies depends on seminal fluid and meiotic drive. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 58:1622–1626Google Scholar
  16. Gattermann R, Fritzsche P, Neumann K, Al-Hussein I, Kayser A, Abiad M, Yakti R (2000) Notes on the current distribution and the ecology of wild golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). J Zool Lond 254:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gattermann R, Fritzsche P, Weinandy R, Neumann K (2002) Comparative studies of body mass, body measurements and organ weights of wild-derived and laboratory golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus). Lab Anim 36:445–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ginsberg JR, Huck UW (1989) Sperm competition in mammals. Trends Ecol Evol 4:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gomendio M, Roldan ERS (1993) Mechanisms of sperm competition: linking physiology and behavioural ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 8:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomendio M, Harcourt AH, Roldan ERS (1998) Sperm competition in mammals. In: Birkhead TR, Moller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 667–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Groombridge JJ, Jones CG, Bruford MW, Nichols RA (2000) “Ghost” alleles of the Mauritius kestrel. Nature 403:616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hedrick PW, Miller PS (1992) Conservation genetics: techniques and fundamentals. Ecol Appl 2:30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoogland JL (1995) The black-tailed prairie dog. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Huck UW, Lisk RD (1985) Determinants of mating success in golden hamster: II. Pregnancy initiation. J Comp Psychol 99:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huck UW, Quinn RP, Lisk RD (1985) Determinants of mating success in the golden hamster: IV. Sperm competition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huck UW, Lisk RD, Parente EJ, Principato DE (1986) Determinants of mating success in golden hamster: III. Female acceptance of multiple mating partners. J Comp Psychol 100:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnston RE (2003) Chemical communication in rodents: From pheromones to individual recognition. J Mammal 84:1141–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joron M, Brakefield PM (2003) Captivity masks inbreeding effects on male mating success in butterflies. Nature 424:191–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Komdeur JA, Kappe A, van de Zande L (1998) Influence of population isolation on genetic variation and demography in Seychelles warblers: a field experiment. Anim Conserv 1:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koyama S, Kamimura S (1999) Lowered sperm motility in subordinate social status of mice. Physiol Behav 65:665–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koyama S, Kamimura S (2003) Study on the development of sperm motility and social dominance of male mice. Physiol Behav 80:267–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krajnak K, Manzanares J, Lookingland KJ, Nunez AA (1994) Gender differences in tuberoinfundibular dopaminergic neuronal activity in a photoperiodic rodent (Mesocricetus auratus). Brain Res 634:159–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lande R, Barrowclough GF (1987) Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. In: Soulé ME (ed) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Madsen T, Stille B, Shine R (1996) Inbreeding depression in an isolated population of adders Vipera berus. Biol Conserv 75:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maecker HL (1993) Perinatal cocaine exposure inhibits the development of the male SDN. Dev Brain Res 76:288–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Margulis SW, Walsh A (2002) The effects of inbreeding on testicular sperm concentration in Peromyscus polinotus. Reprod Fertil Dev 14:63–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGuire KL, Duncan WR, Tucker PW (1985) Syrian hamster DNA shows limited polymorphism at class I-like loci. Immunogenetics 22:257–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meagher S, Penn DJ, Potts WK (2000) Male–male competition magnifies inbreeding depression in wild house mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:3324–3329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller CR, Sessions GR (1972) Effects of prolonged intromission delays on the copulatory behavior of the male golden hamster. Psychon Sci 29:288–290Google Scholar
  40. Mitton JB (1993) Theory and data pertinent to the relationship between heterozygosity and fitness. In: Thornhill NW (ed) The natural history of inbreeding and outbreeding. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 17–41Google Scholar
  41. Neubauer BL, Best KL, Blohm TR, Gates C, Goode RL, Hirsch KS, Laughlin ME, Petrow V, Smalstig EB, Stamm NB, Toomey RE, Hoover DM (1993) Ly207320 (6-Methylene-4-Pregnene-3,20-Dione) inhibits testosterone biosynthesis, androgen uptake, 5 alpha-Reductase, and produces prostatic regression in male rats. Prostate 23:181–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neumann K, Maak S, Stuermer IW, Lengerken G, Gattermann R (2001) Low microsatellite variation in laboratory gerbils. J Hered 92:71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Neumann K, Maak S, Fritzsche P, Gattermann R (2005) Microsatellites for diversity studies in the golden hamster. Mol Ecol Notes 5:876–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Brien SJ, Roelke ME, Marker L, Newman A, Winkler CA, Meltzer D, Colly L, Evermann JF, Bush M, Wildt DE (1985) Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah. Science 227:1428–1434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oglesby JM, Lanier DL, Dewsbury DA (1981) The role of prolonged copulatory behavior in facilitating reproductive success in male Syrian golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) in a competitive mating situation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pratt NC, Lisk RD (1989) Effects of social stress during early pregnancy on litter size and sex ratio in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus). J Reprod Fertil 87:763–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reed DH, Lowe EH, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2003) Inbreeding and extinction. Effects of rate of inbreeding. Conserv Genet 4:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saccheri IJ, Brakefield PM, Nichols RA (1996) Severe inbreeding depression and rapid fitness rebound in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana (Satyridae). Evolution 50:2000–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Siegel HI (1985) Male Sexual Behavior. In: Siegel HI (ed) The hamster: reproduction and behavior. Plenum, New York, pp 191–205Google Scholar
  50. Wayne RK, Lehman N, Girman D, Gogan PJP, Gilbert DA, Hansen K, Peterson RO, Seal US, Eisenhawker A, Mech LD, Krumenaker RJ (1991) Conservation genetics of the endangered Isle Royale gray wolf. Conserv Biol 5:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinert D, Fritzsche P, Gattermann R (2001) Activity Rhythms of wild and laboratory golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) under entrained and free-running conditions. Chronobiol Int 18:921–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Fritzsche
    • 1
  • Karsten Neumann
    • 1
  • Karsten Nasdal
    • 1
  • Rolf Gattermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für ZoologieHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations