Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:09:54.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Mouse is Not Just a Mouse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

F Sluyter  and
G A Van Oortmerssen
F Sluyter*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychoneuropharmacology, University of Nijmegen, Geert Grooteplein N 21, P O Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
G A Van Oortmerssen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper we describe the existence and consequences of subspecific and individual variation in the genetic make-up of house mice. The purpose is to illustrate forms of variation that are often neglected in discussions about animal care and experimental design. Towards this end, different inbred mouse strains as well as genetically selected mouse lines are compared in relation to their ecological origin. Firstly, the behaviour of BALB/c, C57BL/6J and CBA mice is described in relation to different habitats. Furthermore, their aggression is compared, as measured by two paradigms. It appears that some inbred lines (eg BALB/c and C57BL/6J) clearly show behaviour that reflects the functional adaptation to the natural habitats in which their ancestors lived. Other strains (eg CBA) show a lack of such behavioural adaptation and their phenotypes appear to be very unstable over time. Secondly, two fundamentally different characters, both present in populations of wild house mice and under genetic control, are described: on the one hand, active copers are characterized by aggressive behaviour; on the other hand, passive copers are reluctant to attack. The active, aggressive animals (manipulators) are well adapted to an invariant environment like their own territory, whereas the passive, non-aggressive copers (adjustors) are well adapted to a changing environment, eg when roaming. We discuss to what extent these coping styles are present in laboratory strains of mice. The major conclusion with regard to both phenomena is that individual and subspecific variation may have significant implications for experimental design and the welfare of the experimental animals.

Keywords

aggressionanimal welfarebehaviourgeneticsinbred linesmouse
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , May 2000 , pp. 193 - 205
Copyright
© 2000 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Benus, R F, Bohus, B, Koolhaas, J M and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1991 Heritable variation for aggression as a reflection of individual coping strategies. Experientia 47: 1008–1019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benus, R F, Den Daas, S, Koolhaas, J M and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1990 Routine formation and flexibility in social and non-social behaviour of aggressive and non-aggressive mice. Behaviour 112: 176–193Google Scholar
Benus, R F, Koolhaas, J M and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1987 Individual differences in behavioural reaction to a changing environment in mice and rats. Behaviour 100: 105–122Google Scholar
Berry, R J and Bronson, F H 1992 Life history and bioeconomy of the house mouse. Biological Reviews 67: 519–550CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bittner, J J 1941 Care and recording. In: Snell, G D (ed) Biology of the Laboratory Mouse pp 475–479. Blakiston & Co: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Bohus, B, Benus, R F, Fokkema, D S, Koolhaas, J M, Nyakas, C, Van Oortmerssen, G A, Prins, A J, De Ruiter, A, Scheurink, A J H and Steffens, A B 1987 Neuroendocrine states and behavioral physiological stress responses. In: De Kloet, E R, Wiegant, V M and De Wied, D (eds) Progress in Brain Research, Volume 72 pp 57–70. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Boursot, P, Din, W, Anand, R, Darviche, D, Dod, B, Von Deimling, F, Talwar, G P and Bonhomme, F 1996 Origin and radiation of the house mouse: mitochondrial DNA phylogeny. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9: 391–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, F R 1991 Genetic determinants of individual differences in avoidance learning: behavioral and endocrine characteristics. Experientia 47: 1051–1056CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlier, M and Roubertoux, P L 1986 Differences between CBA/H and NZB on intermale aggression. In: Médioni, J and Vaysse, G (eds) Genetic Approaches to Behaviour pp 47–57. Privât/Université Paul Sabatiér: Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Caspari, E 1958 Genetic basis of behavior. In: Roe A R and Simpson G G Behavior and Evolution pp 103127. Yale University Press: New Haven, USAGoogle Scholar
Cools, A R, Brachten, B R, Heeren, D, Willemen, A and Ellenbroek, B 1990 Search after neurobiological profile of individual-specific features of Wistar rats. Brain Research Bulletin 24: 49–69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Din, W, Anand, R, Boursot, P, Darviche, D, Dod, B, Jouvin-Marche, E, Orth, A, Talwar, G P, Cazenave, P A and Bonhomme, F 1996 Origin and radiation of the house mouse: clues from nuclear genes. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9: 519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, P and Bättig, K 1982 Behavioral emotional and neurochemical profiles of rats selected for extreme differences in active two-way avoidance performance. In: Lieblich, I (ed) Genetics of the Brain pp 95–123. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Festing, M F W and Lovell, DP 1981 Domestication and development of the mouse as a laboratory animal. In: Berry, R J (ed) Biology of the House Mouse pp 43–62. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Guillot, P V, Roubertoux, P L and Crusio, W E 1994 Hippocampal mossy fiber distributions and intermale aggression in seven inbred mouse strains. Brain Research 660: 167–169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hessing, M J C, Hagels Ø, A M, Schouten, W P G, Wiepkema, P R and Van Beek, J A M 1994 Individual behavioral and physiological strategies in pigs. Physiology & Behavior 55: 39–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koolhaas, J M, Korte, S M, De Boer, S F, Van Der Vegt, B J, Van Reenen, C G, Hopster, H, De Jong, I C, Ruis, M and Blokhuis, H J 1999 Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-physiology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 3: 925–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koolhaas, J M and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1988 Individual differences in disease susceptibility as a possible factor in the population dynamics of rats and mice. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 38: 111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korte, S M, Bouws, G A H, Koolhaas, J M and Bohus, B 1992 Neuroendocrine and behavioral responses during conditioned active and passive behavior in the defensive burying/probe avoidance paradigm: effects of ipsapirone. Physiology & Behavior 52: 355–361CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krsiak, M and Sulcova, A 1990 Differential effects of six structurally related benzodiazepines on some ethological measures of timidity aggression and locomotion in mice. Psychopharmacology 101: 396–402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, C B 1992 Clinical variation in cold adaptation in Mus domesticus·. verification of predictions from laboratory populations. American Naturalist 139: 1219–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, D M, Price, E O and Moberg, G P 1988 Individual differences in temperament of domestic dairy goats: constancy and change. Animal Behaviour 36: 1323–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J T and Sage, R D 1981 Taxonomy of the house mouse. In: Berry, R J (ed) Biology of the House Mouse pp 15–25. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Maxson, S C 1992 Methodological issues in genetic analyses of an agonistic behavior (offense) in male mice. In: Goldowitz, D, Wahlsten, D and Wimer, R (eds) Techniques for the Genetic Analysis of Brain and Behavior: Focus on the Mouse. Techniques in the Behavioral and Neural Sciences, Volume 8 pp 349–373. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Mayer, E 1963 Animal Species and Evolution pp 507–512. Belknap Press (Harvard University Press): Cambridge, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, T E 1962 Sexual behavior in three inbred strains of mice. Behaviour 19: 341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, H C III 1981 The laboratory mouse - a historical perspective. In: Foster, H L, Small, J D and Fox, J G (eds) The Mouse in Biomedical Research, Volume 1 pp 1–16. Academic Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Nachman, M W, Boyer, S N, Searle, J B and Aquadro, C F 1994 Mitochondrial DNA variation and the evolution of Robertsonian chromosomal races of house mice, Mus domesticus. Genetics 136: 1105–1120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roubertoux, P L and Carlier, M 1988 Differences between CBA/H and NZB mice on intermale aggression. II. Maternal effects. Behavior Genetics 18: 175–183CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scoifo, A, De Boer, S F, Haller, J and Koolhaas, J M 1996 Individual differences in plasma catecholamines and corticosterone stress responses of wild-type rats: relation with aggression. Physiology & Behavior 60: 1403–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J P 1964 Genetics and the development of social behavior in dogs. American Zoologist 4: 161–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sluyter, F, Bohus, B, Beldhuis, H J A and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1995 a Autosomal and Y chromosomal effects on the stereotyped response to apomorphine in wild house mice. Pharmacology Biochemistry & Behavior 52: 17–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sluyter, F, Bult, A, Lynch, C B, Van Oortmerssen, G A and Koolhaas, J M 1995b A comparison between house mouse lines selected for attack latency or nest-building: evidence for a genetic basis of alternative behavioral strategies. Behavior Genetics 25: 247–252CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sluyter, F, Jamot, L, Van Oortmerssen, G A and Crusio, W E 1994 Hippocampal mossy fiber distributions in mice selected for aggression. Brain Research 646: 145–148CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sluyter, F, Korte, S M, Bohus, B and Van Oortmerssen, G A 1996 Behavioral stress response of genetically selected aggressive and non-aggressive wild house mice in the shock-probe/defensive burying test. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior 54: 113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sluyter, F, Marican, C C M and Crusio, W E 1999 Further phenotypical characterisation of two substrains of C57BL/6J inbred mice differing by a spontaneous single-gene mutation. Behavioural Brain Research 98: 39–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, L, Bonhomme, F and Britton-Davidian, J 1981 Processes of speciation and semi-speciation in the house mouse. In: Berry, R J (ed) Biology of the House Mouse pp 27–41. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Van Oortmerssen, G A 1971 Biological significance, genetics and evolution of variability in behaviour within and between inbred strains of mice: a behaviour genetic study. Behaviour 23: 1–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oortmerssen, G A and Bakker, T C M 1981 Artificial selection for short and long attack latencies in wild Mus musculus domesticus. Behavior Genetics 11: 115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oortmerssen, G A, Benus, R F and Sluyter, F 1992 Studies on wild house mice IV: on the heredity of testosterone and readiness to attack. Aggressive Behavior 18: 143–1483.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oortmerssen, G A and Busser, J 1988 Studies in wild house mice III: disruptive selection on aggression as a possible force in evolution. In: Brain, P F, Mainardi, D and Parmigiani, S (eds) House Mouse Aggression: a Model for Understanding the Evolution of Social Behaviour pp 87–116. Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH: Chur, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
Van Oortmerssen, G A, Dijk, D J and Schuurman, T 1987 Studies in wild house mice II. Testosterone and aggression. Hormones and Behaviour 21: 139–152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Zegeren, K 1980 Variation in aggressiveness and the regulation of numbers in house mouse populations. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 30: 635–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Zutphen, L F M, Baumans, V and Beynen, A C 1993 Principles of Laboratory Animal Science. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Verbeek, M E M, Boon, A and Drent, P J 1996 Exploration, aggressive behaviour and dominance in pair-wise confrontations of juvenile male great tits. Behaviour 133: 945–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeek, M E M, Drent, P J and Wiepkema, P R 1994 Consistent individual differences in early exploratory behaviour of male great tits. Animal Behaviour 48: 1113–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar