How does genetics account for behavioral variations

[Pleonasm]

I am referring to the behavioral variation of dog puppies in a litter. Some may be sissies, non combative golden retriever-ish, while others were born tough as nails. This is just as true for rottweilers as Golden Retrievers.

Given that they are all raised together, thus living in the same environment, which genetic components are responsible for whether the dog is a sissy or alpha? Is it levels of hormones in the individual dog?

 

[jim mcnamara]

As a general statement - it is the result of of what Skinner called 'HE' - the heredity environment interaction. As a topic of discourse: There are physical (genetic) minor differences which are exacerbated or exaggerated by interactions with other pups in the litter.

Example: Less able pups cannot suckle frequently if there are more pups than there are teats or physical room to access one. So, the less able pup gets marginal nutrition and becomes even less physically capable compared to litter mates. This is the runt of the litter issue. Owners usually intervene with a baby bottle, but in the wild that pup is doomed.

So, they are NOT all experiencing the same environment.

Google for 'siblicide'

Likewise, in humans there are consequences of being the first born (we are mammals, dogs are mammals)- Ex: subsequent offspring may have to compete socially with the already existing oldest kid; which that kid did not have to do.
Link for human birth order: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0618-7_3

Aggressiveness in canines is under the control of hormones as well. See: https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/8/3/298/187696

PLEASE NOTE: there is a lot of psychological literature on this subject, PF is not set up to deal with posts in that discipline. When we get things we cannot fairly referee, it becomes closing time for the thread.
This is a great question and deserves discussion, please do not go off topic.

 

[Pleonasm]

As a general statement - it is the result of of what Skinner called 'HE' - the heredity environment interaction. There are physical (genetic) minor differences which are exacerbated or exaggerated by interactions other pups in the litter. Example: Less able pups cannot suckle frequently if there are more pups than there are teats. So, the less able pup gets marginal nutrition and becomes even less physically capable compared to litter mates. This is the runt of the litter issue. Owners usually intervene with a baby bottle, but in the wild that pup is doomed.

Google for 'siblicide'

Likewise, in humans there are consequences of being the first born (we are mammals, dogs are mammals)- Ex: subsequent offspring may have to compete socially with the oldest; which s/he did not have to do.
Link for human birth order: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0618-7_3

Aggressiveness is under the control of hormones as well. See: https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/8/3/298/187696

A breeder of the wolfy alaskan malamute claimed that it is possible to genetically erase, through selective breeding, attributes such as dog aggression (that is aggression towards other dogs) even in breeds like the alaskan malamute which has a history of killing dogs and being very combative.

The thing is... I have an alaskan malamute and this breed characteristic is very present. Mine was attacked by a pitbull, and it did not end well for the pitt.. It was left bleeding and shaking with the owner, while mine was still game and unfazed. This seems to refute the breeders claim that it's possible to completely erase.

 

[jim mcnamara]

When you get to specific trait of individuals in a breed you are dealing with a range of possible outcomes.

This may sound strange, but I have been in environments where dogs routinely fight without major damage to either combatant. What you saw is a function of the way we, as Westerners, raise dogs. Generally breeders and puppy mills do not let the pup stay with the mother long enough to completely socialize the pups.
Plus breeding, as you probably know, has wrought genetic havoc on dogdom. Every breed you find has characteristics which in urban environments may cause issues, and there are a lot of genetic causes for dog problems - these did not exist prior to modern mass breeding. Dalmatians are prone to deafness, for example.

Your dog is not immune to breeders either: http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/health/alaskanmalamutes.html

This is a guess: the reason your dog fared better in the fight is because of very thick fur. Plus 'city dogs' often lack proper socialization and do not respond to non-verbal queues the way they should. Which could be on either side or both sides of the dog fight. This could trigger an overreaction and more aggression simply because the dogs did not know what non-verbal signals to send. The drug clonidine is often given to overly aggressive dogs - what I said in this paragraph was from a vet who specializes in dog behavior esp. aggression - Dr. Jeff Nichol, Albuquerque, NM.

So take your breeder's suggestions with a grain of salt.

 

[Pleonasm]

This is a guess: the reason your dog fared better in the fight is because of very thick fur..

The pit was unable touch her at all. It had nothing to do with their respective furs. And the pit was bigger and older.. It had its face wrecked. My dog had ZERO scars. Mine was only a year (roughly). Imagine if I had an adult at that time. I was lucky or that pit bull would have been fried.

If you don't believe me about mals, read this:

"WHY are Malamutes dog aggressive? I don't know and I don't think anyone does. Siberians pull sleds in the arctic and they are known for the social good-pack behavior, often even with stranger dogs. Siberians were from a settled society, Malamutes from nomads. Siberians from Russia, Mals from North America. It's probably too simplistic to say that the Inuit (Malamutes) liked/tolerated dog fighting more than the Chuckhi (Siberians) and the Inuits SELECTED for that trait the same way you'd select for dark eyes, dark pigment, big feet, or a will to pull. But the fact remains that Malamutes have a reputation and a HISTORY of being dog aggressive."

http://www.wayeh.com/wayeh/faq-aggression.htm

Now the interesting thing is that the breeder I talked to claimed it no longer holds true, that selective breeding can accomplish this. He is clearly talking out of his you know what, right?...

 

[Drakkith]

A breeder of the wolfy alaskan malamute claimed that it is possible to genetically erase, through selective breeding, attributes such as dog aggression (that is aggression towards other dogs) even in breeds like the alaskan malamute which has a history of killing dogs and being very combative.

Different breeds have different levels of aggressiveness, so I can believe that it can be changed by selective breeding. The interesting question is whether or not it can be done while keeping a breeds other qualities relatively unchanged.

I think the Domesticated Red Fox is a good example of this.

 

[Pleonasm]

Different breeds have different levels of aggressiveness, so I can believe that it can be changed by selective breeding. The interesting question is whether or not it can be done while keeping a breeds other qualities relatively unchanged.

I think the Domesticated Red Fox is a good example of this.

They tried the same with the amstaff and it didn't work at all. Amstaffs are still dog aggressive, and not just in the hands of WT owners. I have met normal women who had their amstaff turn on a dog. It appears it's ingrained in the breed. My malamute LOVES a good fight, even play fighting. If selective breeding is in effect, they clearly didn't do a good job.

Do you want to know how the malamute breeders measured success? By how aggressive the malamute packs acted towards a rival polar dog pack when competiting in weight pulling...They claim the packs can nowdays stand next to each other without confrontations.

 

[r8chard]

Drakkith, it sounds to me like you are asking the readers to justify your vicarious thrill at your dog savaging another. No, I don't think so. As was mentioned earlier, that belongs in Psych thread.

As for my POV of Genetics? Frankly & Ernestly, genetics is a crapshoot. We've only had a science of genetics for what? Just over a hundred years?

What the breeder was describing was the pseudo-science of eugenics. For instance, that drove racehorses to the brink of extinction. The breeders are still scrambling to restore the health of the breeds used to placate the gambling industry.

Your own dog is a good example of how not to socialize and train a dog. You keep it in an alien environment surrounded by alien stimuli for which your dogs genetically programmed instincts are unable to resolve,

Perhaps it would be more useful to breed and train better owners? And stop blaming animals for their innate characteristics?

 

[Drakkith]

Drakkith, it sounds to me like you are asking the readers to justify your vicarious thrill at your dog savaging another.

I hope not, as I don't own a dog.

Your own dog is a good example of how not to socialize and train a dog. You keep it in an alien environment surrounded by alien stimuli for which your dogs genetically programmed instincts are unable to resolve,

Perhaps it would be more useful to breed and train better owners? And stop blaming animals for their innate characteristics?

While the environment a dog was raised in along with how it was raised and treated by their owner can have a great deal to do with how aggressive it is, genetics also plays a role as well. The domesticated fox experiment shows this pretty well in my opinion. It's just rather difficult to say if a particular dog's behavior is caused more by genetics or more by how it was raised and treated.

 

[Pleonasm]

Your own dog is a good example of how not to socialize and train a dog. You keep it in an alien environment surrounded by alien stimuli for which your dogs genetically programmed instincts are unable to resolve,

Perhaps it would be more useful to breed and train better owners? And stop blaming animals for their innate characteristics?[

No. My dog was attacked by another female in a field, and retalied. My dog has been properly socialised since day 1. She does not instigate fights, but she does end them.

 

[Pleonasm]

There are various accounts of mals in the modern day lacking the "stop command". A mail man on the job with his malamute "Chad" dutifully running next to him was attacked by a german shepherd and dragged to the ground. He then ended with "R.I.P German Shepherd dog"

lol?

 

[Pleonasm]

Alright, put it like this: What if there was a concerted effort to only breed submissive malamute individuals, across the globe. Would this result in the dominance trait in the alaskan malamute being extinguished?

The breeder I talked to claimed that 1 in 10 malamutes he breeds is dominant. Would this be a reasonable result?

 

[Drakkith]

Alright, put it like this: What if there was a conserted effort to only breed submissive malamute individuals, across the globe. Would this result in the dominance trait in the alaskan malamute being extinguished?

The breeder I talked to claimed that 1 in 10 malamutes he breeds is dominant. Would this be a reasonable result?

It's difficult to say whether it's reasonable, but it sounds possible. At least to me. But I'm no expert on any of this.

 

[Pleonasm]

It's difficult to say whether it's reasonable, but it sounds possible. At least to me. But I'm no expert on any of this.

I'm curious if submissive outliers in a breed have their dominant traits suppressed by other genes or if they are missing altogether. This would explain why dominant off-springs still crop up at a 10 procent rate. 1 in 10 is very high concidering the systematic effort.

He did not characterize the breed as submissive, though, but the easiest way to go about it is only breeding submissive individuals with each other.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm curious if submissive outliers in a breed have their dominant traits suppressed by other genes or if they are missing altogether.

They're almost certain to have certain genes either suppressed or activated more than normal rather than have them deleted. Most genes have multiple functions if I remember correctly, so deletion of an entire gene is normally highly detrimental to the organism.

 

[Pleonasm]

They're almost certain to have certain genes either suppressed or activated more than normal rather than have them deleted. Most genes have multiple functions if I remember correctly, so deletion of an entire gene is normally highly detrimental to the organism.

But if a submissive trait is the result of external circumstances nullifying the dominant trait (less able to suck or whatever), wouldn't the dominant gene be the one passed on more often when this dog has an off-spring with another submissive dog, since the submissive behavior is the product of environment, not genetics. If yes, then selective breeding to erase ingrained traits, is refuted.

One trait is genetic, the other is environmental. Guess which one wins:)

 

[BillTre]

What if there was a concerted effort to only breed submissive malamute individuals, across the globe. Would this result in the dominance trait in the alaskan malamute being extinguished?

Yes it would.
If the trait you want is genetically already present in the genetic line, you should be able to reconstruct it in increasing numbers of animals. If it were not already there, the genes required may just not be present in the population's genetics. This would require the gene be evolved anew through random mutations (or be made by someone). The required genetics may be present however, but not expressed because it is recessive and not common in the population. These could be breed to expression if you knew they were there.

However, since the desired traits seem to be present in the breed, you be able to be successful with a concerted effort to breed the trait to fixation (being the only form of that trait in the population, making it true breeding) in the population.

To me, a modern concerted breeding effort would involve:

• breeding only the animals the humans doing the concerted effort wanted to breed,
• doing research to understand what you can of the genetics involved,
• doing genetic tests on the parents before breeding them so you know what combinations will be produced in the offspring.

This is increasingly being done in agricultural organisms and in research animals.
I don't know how far these new techniques (the genetic screening) has penetrated into the dog breeding business (which seems like a mixed bag of knowledgeable and unknowledgeable individuals).

 

[Drakkith]

But if a submissive trait is the result of external circumstances nullifying the dominant trait (less able to suck or whatever), wouldn't the dominant gene be the one passed on more often when this dog has an off-spring with another submissive dog, since the submissive behavior is the product of environment, not genetics. If yes, then selective breeding to erase ingrained traits, is refuted.

One trait is genetic, the other is environmental. Guess which one wins:)

If the trait isn't a result of genetics, but of the environment modifying the expression of the trait, then you wouldn't be able to alter the frequency of this trait through selective breeding since there's no genes for selection to act upon. At least not directly. It's possible that altering another trait could indirectly alter the one in question. For example, if you altered a trait that ended up helping the animal acquire food, and the trait you're interested in is itself dependent on the availability of food, then altering the first trait indirectly alters the second trait. Then the second trait could be altered by selective breeding, but it would be more difficult since there are potentially many different unrelated genes and traits that could influence the desired trait.

If you're interested, be sure to check out the introduction to evolution thread, stickied at the top of the bio forum. Or just follow this link: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/learn-about-evolution-evolution-introduction.543950/

 

[Pleonasm]

If the trait isn't a result of genetics, but of the environment modifying the expression of the trait, then you wouldn't be able to alter the frequency of this trait through selective breeding /

So then, the first explanation in the thread is insufficient since it was an environmentally induced example (less able to suck due to smaller physique) The physique attribute is genetic, but the accessibility to sucking is of course environmental circumstances.

If it is indeed possible to extinguish dominant traits in a breed, there would have to be genetic basis for the submissive outliers, or else they wouldn't crop up more than at a random rate (environmental incidents). I'm curious how they would crop up at all.

I guess the answer to most genetic deviations is simply mutation? Mutation can occur in behavioral genes as well, right?

 

[Drakkith]

I guess the answer to most genetic deviations is simply mutation? Mutation can occur in behavioral genes as well, right?

That's right. Mutations occur in all genes.