Genetic correlations of direct and indirect genetic components of social dominance with fitness and morphology traits in cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within the same species, individuals show marked variation in their social dominance. Studies on a handful of populations have indicated heritable genetic variation for this trait, which is determined by both the genetic background of the individual (direct genetic effect) and of its opponent (indirect genetic effect). However, the evolutionary consequences of selection for this trait are largely speculative, as it is not a usual target of selection in livestock populations. Moreover, studying social dominance presents the challenge of working with a phenotype with a mean value that cannot change in the population, as for every winner of an agonistic interaction there will necessarily be a loser. Thus, to investigate what could be the evolutionary response to selection for social dominance, it is necessary to focus on traits that might be correlated with it. This study investigated the genetic correlations of social dominance, both direct and indirect, with several morphology and fitness traits. We used a dataset of agonistic contests involving cattle (Bos taurus): during these contests, pairs of cows compete in ritualized interactions to assess social dominance. The outcomes of 37,996 dominance interactions performed by 8789 cows over 20 years were combined with individual data for fertility, mammary health, milk yield and morphology and analysed using bivariate animal models including indirect genetic effects. RESULTS: We found that winning agonistic interactions has a positive genetic correlation with more developed frontal muscle mass, lower fertility, and poorer udder health. We also discovered that the trends of changes in the estimated breeding values of social dominance, udder health and more developed muscle mass were consistent with selection for social dominance in the population. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence that social dominance is genetically correlated with fitness traits, as well as empirical evidence of the possible evolutionary trade-offs between these traits. We show that it is feasible to estimate genetic correlations involving dyadic social traits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".