» Articles » PMID: 38195639

Cranial Form Differences in Goats by Breed and Domestic Status

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2024 Jan 9
PMID 38195639
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Domestic goats (Capra hircus) are globally represented by over 300 breeds, making them a useful model for investigating patterns of morphological change related to domestication. However, they have been little studied, likely due to their poor representation in museum collections and the difficulty in obtaining truly wild goat (Capra aegagrus, the bezoar) samples. Similar studies on other species reveal that domestication correlates with craniofacial alterations in domestics, which are non-uniform and often species-specific. Here, we use three-dimensional geometric morphometric methods (3DGMM) to describe and quantify cranial shape variation in wild (n = 21) versus domestic (n = 54) goats. We find that mean cranial shapes differ significantly between wild and domestic goats as well as between certain breeds. The detected differences are lower in magnitude than those reported for other domestic groups, possibly explained by the fewer directions of artificial selection in goat breeding, and their low global genetic diversity compared to other livestock. We also find tooth-row length reduction in the domestics, suggestive of rostral shortening-a prediction of the "domestication syndrome" (DS). The goat model thus expands the array-and combinations of-morphological changes observed under domestication, notably detecting alterations to the calvarium form which could be related to the ~ 15% brain size reduction previously reported for domestic compared to wild goats. The global success of domestic goats is due more to their ability to survive in a variety of harsh environments than to systematized human management. Nonetheless, their domestication has resulted in a clear disruption from the wild cranial form, suggesting that even low-intensity selection can lead to significant morphological changes under domestication.

References
1.
Evin A, Girdland Flink L, Balasescu A, Popovici D, Andreescu R, Bailey D . Unravelling the complexity of domestication: a case study using morphometrics and ancient DNA analyses of archaeological pigs from Romania. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014; 370(1660):20130616. PMC: 4275896. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0616. View

2.
Stange M, Nunez-Leon D, Sanchez-Villagra M, Jensen P, Wilson L . Morphological variation under domestication: how variable are chickens?. R Soc Open Sci. 2018; 5(8):180993. PMC: 6124038. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.180993. View

3.
Balcarcel A, Veitschegger K, Clauss M, Sanchez-Villagra M . Intensive human contact correlates with smaller brains: differential brain size reduction in cattle types. Proc Biol Sci. 2021; 288(1952):20210813. PMC: 8188006. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0813. View

4.
Larson G, Piperno D, Allaby R, Purugganan M, Andersson L, Arroyo-Kalin M . Current perspectives and the future of domestication studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(17):6139-46. PMC: 4035915. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1323964111. View

5.
Lord K, Larson G, Coppinger R, Karlsson E . The History of Farm Foxes Undermines the Animal Domestication Syndrome. Trends Ecol Evol. 2019; 35(2):125-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011. View