CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 201Animal Behavior and ReproductionAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior

Biological Significance, Genetics and Evolutionary Origin of Variability in Behaviour Within and Between Inbred Strains of Mice (Mus Musculus)

Van Oortmerssen, G.A.·1971·Behaviour
DOI 10.1163/156853971x00014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The biological significance, the origin and the genetical causation of differences in behaviour between inbred strains of mice have been studied. Three inbred strains with different origins were used, these were CPBs (Balb), CBA and C57Black. Exploratory behaviour, nestbuilding behaviour and agonistic behaviour have been observed in environments, which varied with respect to familiarity, presence or absence of nesting material and the possibility of social contact. A comparison of the behaviour of these strains showed the presence of differences in all aspects of the behaviour studied. None of these differences, however, was a qualitative one. The behaviour of each strain was strain specific as appeared from a comparison with earlier reports on related substrains. CPBs mice were territorial with a sensitive aggression-flight balance. They showed a relatively elaborate courtship. They were able to build spherical nests at the surface without support of walls because they treated the nesting material in a special way (fraying). Their exploratory behaviour was mainly directed to open space. C57Black mice were not territorial and did not show a sensitive aggression-flight balance. They hardly showed any courtship. They were not able to build a spherical nest at the surface without support of walls, because they hardly fraved the nesting material. They showed much digging, especially when confronted with nesting material. This digging was well directed and in a suitable substrate holes were made. Their exploratory behaviour was mainly directed to the surface. CBA mice were generally less aggressive than the CPBs mice, but some individuals showed clear territorial behaviour. Their courtship was intermediate to that of the other two strains. CBA mice as a rule did not build proper nests at the surface, either because they did not try to make a nest at all or because they treated the nesting material in such a way that they chopped it up to pieces which were too small to shape more than a simple platform at the surface. They showed much digging but this digging was randomly directed resulting in turning over the whole substrate; no holes resulted from such digging. The exploratory behaviour of the CBA mice was mainly directed to the surface. The nestbuilding behaviour element fraying was chosen for a genetical analysis to find out whether differences in the kind of behaviour studied here were genetically determined or not. Genetical determination appeared to play an important role. Heritabilities for F2 animals and their progeny varied between 17 and 47 per cent. A cross-fostering test between CPBs and C57 Black did not show any cultural influence on the fraying performance in these mice. CPBs mice, which showed a relatively high variability for fraying, appeared to be heterozygous for this character. The heritability found showed a similar size as was found for hybrids (43 per cent). Selection experiments on fraying in this strain were not successful because the lines died out. One selection line for high fraying survived for six generations. It showed no significant reaction to the selection exerted. Heterozygosity in CPBs mice for fraying appeared to be maintained by a kind of balanced system which worked partly by sterility of the high and low fraying types and partly by a negative influence of such types on the physical condition and thus on the fertility of their progeny. Intermediate fraying mice got selective advantage over high and low fraying types in this way, even under inbreeding conditions. Probably only one effective factor is involved in the determination of fraying. Hypotheses concerning the maintenance of genetic variability under inbreeding conditions have been discussed. An analysis of the function and the origin of the differences found between strains suggested that the differences between strains showed strain specific adaptations to habitats in which their ancestors lived. This holds for CPBs mice and for C57Black mice, the ancestors of the first being surface living mice, the ancestors of the second being hole living mice. The behaviour of the CBA mice appeared to be disrupted from a functional point of view, which is in agreement with the fact that CBA mice originate from a cross between two other inbred lines. A specially designed cage to test a differential habitat preference to be present in CPBs and C57Black mice confirmed the hypothesis about the habitat adaptations in these mice and clearly showed that preferences for these habitats are still present in the inbred mice. The results of CBA mice in this test confirmed the unpredictable character of these mice. A comparison for adaptations of this kind between laboratory mice and wild mice revealed that the differences have probably arisen in mice before they were taken into the laboratory. The scarce data available for wild mice suggested that similar adaptations as found here for inbred mice, can also be found in wild mice of differen

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/156853971x00014

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Laboratory mice can be much more violent than rats; cases of death due to aggression are not uncommon, especially after placing stranger mice into a common cage.

    “Laboratory mice can be much more violent than rats-cases of death due to aggression are not uncommon, especially after placing stranger mice into a common cage. 68,69”

    From Ecological validity of social interaction tests in rats and mice (2019) · cites this paper as [68]

  • Laboratory mice have a tendency to group together and display all of the amicable behaviors mentioned previously for rats.

    “They also have a tendency to group together and display all of the amicable behaviors mentioned previously.51,68”

    From Ecological validity of social interaction tests in rats and mice (2019) · cites this paper as [68]

  • There are some reports about mice living in nature peacefully in big family groups, but they are much less common.

    “It should be mentioned that there are some reports about mice living in nature peacefully in big family groups; however, they are much less common 85 (cited by References 68,76,86).”

    From Ecological validity of social interaction tests in rats and mice (2019) · cites this paper as [68]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Van Oortmerssen, G. A.
Venue
Behaviour
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
1971
Volume
38
Issue
1-2
Pages
1-91
ISSN
  • 0005-7959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1568-539X
DOI
10.1163/156853971x00014
OpenAlex
W2070575466
Cited by
201
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Keywords
inbred mouse strains, exploratory behavior, courtship behavior, territoriality, burrowing behavior, heritability, cross-fostering, social learning, behavioral variability, CBA mice, BALB/c mice, evolution of behavior
MeSH terms
Aggression, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review