Sociality genes are associated with human-directed social behaviour in golden and Labrador retriever dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dogs have human-directed social skills that allow them to communicate and cooperate with humans. We have previously identified two loci on chromosome 26 associated with human contact-seeking behaviors during an unsolvable problem task in laboratory beagles (Persson et al., 2016). The aim of the present study was to verify the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in additional dog breeds. We also studied how the allele frequencies have changed during domestication and recent selection. Methods Dogs of two breeds, 61 golden retrievers and 100 Labrador retrievers, were phenotyped and genotyped, and 19 wolves were genotyped. The Labrador retrievers were divided into common and field type by pedigree data to make it possible to study the effects of recent selection. All dogs were tested in an unsolvable problem task where human-directed social behaviors were scored. DNA from dogs (buccal swabs) and wolves (blood or brain tissue) was analyzed for genotype on two of the previously identified SNP markers, BICF2G630798942 (SNP1) and BICF2S23712114 (SNP2), by pyrosequencing. Results There was genetic variation for SNP1 in both dog breeds whereas the wolves were fixed for this polymorphism, and for SNP2 there was variation in both dogs and wolves. For both SNPs, Labrador retriever types differed significantly in allele frequencies. We found associations between SNPs and human-directed social behavior in both dog breeds. In golden retrievers, SNP1 was associated with physical contact variables, for example, with the duration of physical contact with the owner ( F 2,56 = 4.389, p = 0.017). SNP2 was associated with several behavioral variables in both breeds, among others owner gazing frequency in both golden retrievers ( F 2,55 = 6.330, p = 0.003) and Labradors ( F 1,93 = 5.209, p = 0.025). Discussion Our results verify the association between the previously identified SNPs and human-directed social behavior scored in an unsolvable problem task. Differences in allele frequencies suggest that these loci have been affected by selection. The results indicate that these genomic regions are involved in human-directed social behavior in not only beagles but in other dog breeds as well. We hypothesize that they may have been important during dog domestication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".