Search

Olfaction may play an important role in regulating bird behavior, and has been suggested to be involved in feather-pecking. We investigated possible differences in the body odors of red junglefowl females by using an automated olfactometer which assessed the ability of trained mice to discriminate between the odors of uropygial gland secretions (the main carrier of potential individual odors in chickens) of six feather-pecked and six non-pecked birds. All mice were clearly able to discriminate between all individual red junglefowl odors, showing that each bird has an individual body odor. We analyzed whether it was more difficult to discriminate between the odors of two feather-pecked, or two non-pecked birds, than it was to discriminate between the odors of two randomly selected birds. This was not the case, suggesting that feather-pecked birds did not share a common odor signature. Analyses using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry showed that the composition of aliphatic carboxylic acids in uropygial gland secretions differed consistently between individuals. However, chemical composition did not vary according to feather-pecking status. We conclude that red junglefowl have individual body odors which appear to be largely based on differences in the relative abundance of aliphatic carboxylic acids, but there is no evidence of systematic differences between the body odors of pecked and non-pecked birds. Original Publication: Anna-Carin Karlsson, Per Jensen, Mathias Elgland, Katriann Laur, Timmy Fyrner, Peter Konradsson and Matthias Laska, Red junglefowl have individual body odors, 2010, JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY, (213), 10, 1619-1624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.040279 Copyright: The Company of Biologists Ltd http://www.biologists.com/

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the Dominant white mutation (causing a hypopigmented phenotype in chicken) affects the visual ability and gives rise to ocular abnormalities in chickens (Gallus gallus). PROCEDURE: Chickens homozygous for either the Dominant white mutation or the wild-type alleles were tested in a visual contrast behavioral test and subjected to histological and ophthalmologic examination. RESULTS: There were no differences between the genotypes in the visual contrast behavioral test, and there were no abnormal structures among the Dominant white chickens in the ophthalmic examination. The histological sections from the Dominant white chickens did not differ from the wild-type chicken in structure, photoreceptor density, or RPE pigmentation. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the Dominant white mutation in PMEL17 does not seem to affect the visual ability or eye structures in chickens.

Domestication, the process when animals adapt to captivity, tends to modify a whole array of traits towards what has been termed “the domesticated phenotype”, where the domesticated animal differs ...

The thyroid stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR) has been suggested to be a “domestication locus” in the chicken, due to a strong selective sweep over the gene found in domesticated chickens, but not in their wild ancestor the Red Junglefowl (RJF). We investigated the effect of the mutation on development (incubation time), behaviour and thyroid hormone levels in intercross chickens homozygous for the mutation (d/d), wild type homozygotes (w/w) or heterozygotes (d/w). This allowed an assessment of the effect of genotype at this locus against a random mix of RJF and WL genotypes throughout the rest of the genome. The (d/d) genotype showed a longer incubation time, less fearful behaviours, lower number of aggressive behaviours and decreased levels of the thyroid hormone T4, in comparison to the (w/w) genotype. The difference between TSHR genotypes (d/d vs. w/w) in these respects mirrors the differences in development and behaviour between pure domesticated White Leghorns and pure RJF chickens. Our study indicates that the TSHR mutation affects typical domestication traits and may therefore have been important during the evolution of the domestic chicken. At the time for thesis presentation publication was in status: ManuscriptFunding agencies|Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, FORMAS (Formel Excel) [221-2010-35]; Swedish Research Council, VR [621-2011-4731]; European Research Council (ERC grant GENEWELL) [322206]

Chickens homozygous for the Dominant white or wild-type allele of PMEL17 were subjected to a broad phenotyping in order to detect consistent differences between genotypes. To exclude feather pecking, the chickens were individually housed without physical contact, from the day of hatching, and tested for social, aggressive, fear and exploratory behaviors, and corticosterone and testosterone levels were assessed. In a principal component analysis, 53.2% of the behavior variation was explained by two factors. Factor one was an activity and social factor, and there was a significant effect of genotype on the factor scores. On factor two, related to aggressive behavior, there were significant effects of genotype, sex and their interaction. There were no genotype effects on hormone levels or any other measured non-behavioral phenotypes. Hence, differences in behavior between PMEL17 genotypes remained when negative social experiences were excluded, indicating a direct pleiotropic effect of the gene on behavior. The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com:Anna-Carin Karlsson, Pierre Mormede, Susanne Kerje and Per Jensen, Genotype on the Pigmentation Regulating PMEL17 Gene Affects Behavior in Chickens Raised Without Physical Contact with Conspecifics, 2011, BEHAVIOR GENETICS, (41), 2, 312-322.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10519-010-9379-4Copyright: Springer Science Business Mediahttp://www.springerlink.com/

1. We studied behaviour and brain gene expression in homozygous PMEL17 genotypes, using chickens originating from an advanced White Leghorn x red junglefowl intercross. The behavioural studies consisted of three social and one explorative behaviour test. There were significant differences between the genotypes in both social and explorative behaviour. 2. Gene expression studies showed no PMEL17 expression in brain, so the genotype differences must depend on extra-neural gene expression or expression during embryonic development. However, linkage or spurious family effects (genetic drift) can not be excluded. 3. The study strongly suggests a correlated effect between plumage colour and behaviour, and we conclude that PMEL17 may have a pleiotropic effect on social and explorative behaviour in chickens.