Finally I
have the time to present some interesting news here, that are not that quite
new anymore as the paper appeared in October 2016. But I never found the time
to cover a peer-reviewed paper properly.
In a 2015post, I mentioned the possibility of a hybrid origin for the wisent on my blog
for the first time. I cited a 2004 paper that found the mitochondrial lineage
of wisents to cluster with domestic cattle instead of American bison, although
by Y-data and morphology the wisent is clearly closest to the A. bison. This
provokes the idea that the wisent originated from hybridization of bulls of a
bison-related species with cows of a cattle-related species [1]. Actually, I
recognized some wisent individuals with a horn curvature very reminiscent of
that of the aurochs already in 2013, but was reluctant to propose hybridization
or introgression without having genetic data to back it up.
Wisent with aurochs-like horns at Hellabrunn Zoo, Munich |
Now, with
the recent paper by Soubrier et al. being published, the hypothesis of the
wisent being a hybrid of aurochs and steppe bison, Bison priscus, seems to
be confirmed [2].
The mystery
of the wisent’s origin starts with the fact that there is no Pleistocene fossil
record of this species, while there is solid evidence for the aurochs or the
Holarctic steppe bison. Now, Soubrier et al. have analysed the genome of specimen
of B. priscus, aurochs, historical
and modern wisents. They found that wisent, aurochs and cattle cluster together
on the mitochondrial genome, while yak, A. bison and Steppe bison form a clade.
Furthermore, they found that a number of Pleistocene remains form a group preliminary
called “Clade X”, which is sister to modern and historical wisents and they
diverged about 120.000 years ago. On the nuclear genome, however, the wisent is
a bison. This implicates that the wisent evolved from hybridization events of
Steppe bison bulls with aurochs cows from more than at least 120.000 years ago (for
comparison: the divergence between taurine and zebuine cattle happened about
250.000 years ago). The polygynical reproduction system of bovines probably
endorsed this asymmetrical hybridization. The hybrids must have been
ecologically different from both ancestor species, as they were reproductively
isolated from then on [2]. This lineage lead to the modern wisent, Bison bonasus. From about 20.000 years
on, wisent-like cave paintings began to show up. Prior to that, they showed a typically
Steppe bison-like morphology.
It is
exciting to have it confirmed, although it does not surprise me at all. Not
only were the occasionally very aurochs-like horns of some wisents suspicious
to me, but also its overall morphology compared to the other fossil and extant species
of Bison. The wisent has a shorter trunk and longer legs, resulting in a
square-like build like in the aurochs, it has a neck bulge and more
horizontally oriented pelvis resembling taurine cattle. Now we can be quite
confident that these traits are not a coincidence, but probably the vestiges of
hybridization with aurochs. After all, both wisent and Clade X have a
proportion of 10,9% of aurochs DNA in their nuclear genome.
Comparison of the morphology of A. bison (top), wisent (middle) and aurochs (bottom). Image source 1 & 2 |
Interestingly,
the wisent as a hybrid of two large-horned species ended up being a
short-horned species. To me, there are two explanations for that on genetic
level: either the interplay aurochs and bison genes resulted in short horns,
while respectively having only bison or aurochs alleles on all of these loci
would result in large horns in both species, or new mutations showed up. In any
case, short horns apparently were not disadvantageous to the hybrids, otherwise
they would not have become fixated in the gene pool. Whether this fixation was
the result of selective pressure or genetic drift cannot be said.
Hybridization
is not an uncommon phenomenon. Textbooks tell us that hybrids between wild
species tend to be unsuccessful due to pre- and postzygotic isolation factors
and this might be true for most cases. But it is also evident that
hybridization played a role in the speciation of a number of mammal species,
including wild goats, whales, canines, mice, and our own species, Homo sapiens*. The wisent is yet another
example, and there are probably a lot to find in other vertebrate groups too.
* It has
become well-established by genetic studies of the past several years that
modern Homo sapiens has experienced introgression
by H. neanderthalensis, the Denisova
Man and possible another yet undescribed human species.
The wisent
being an aurochs hybrid of course provokes the question if it might be possible
to obtain nuclear aurochs genes that have vanished from the modern domestic
cattle gene pool (you could expand that even further to the basis of Bos; Banteng and Gaur might share basal
genes that the aurochs also possessed but domestic cattle lost). However, I am
sceptical to this idea. Simply crossing-in wisent in “breeding back” herds and
breeding against obvious bison traits at the maxim “well, it should work
somehow” is probably not a good idea. You would have to know these specific
aurochs genes preserved in wisent and find a way to select on them. It would
probably work only with gene targeting, and with that method you could instead
try to recreate a complete aurochs with the complete genome that already has
been resolved. The influx of wisent into breeding-back herds could also be
problematic for rewilding those herds, as it might increase the tendency of
these cattle to hybridize with wisent in the wild and lower the pre- and
postzygotic isolation barriers; the (not really existent [3]) danger domestic
cattle provide to the genetic integrity of wisent in the wild is sometimes used
as an argument against rewilding wisent and cattle in the same area[3]. So I
would not opt for Frankenstein crossbreeds, also regarding Banteng and Gaur
(the Yak would be the only species for which I am open for experimental
crosses, but that is another story), for practical reasons and public
relations.
Literature
[1] Verkaar, Nijman,
Beeke, Hanekamp, Lenstra: Maternal and Paternal Lineages in Cross-breeding
bovine species. Has Wisent a Hybrid Origin?. 2004.
[2]
Soubrier et al.: Early cave art and
ancient DNA record the origin of the European bison. 2016.
[3] Vera: Do European Bison and domestic cattle cross
spontaneously? 2002.
...maybe the small horns just resulted due to natural selection. American bison also have small horns, and their ancestors had larger ones. So maybe it's an adoption to very cold climate ?
ReplyDeleteI doubt it was climate related, that would not make sense. But of course it can be the result of natural selection, as I wrote in the post.
DeleteAny chance we could "backbreed" the steppe bison from wisent?
ReplyDeleteI see no chance. We cannot "breed back" Homo heidelbergensis from Homo sapiens either.
Delete" You would have to know these specific aurochs genes preserved in wisent and find a way to select on them. "
ReplyDeleteSo it's just the same is with Auroch-genes in domestic cattle.
I think it could work to breed some more primiive cattle with some % of european bison in it. Bali catle has some Banteng in it, so why should Bison-cattle crosses have to become Frankensteins ?
If one would start with Bison-cows the offsprings would get some rare MtDna. It should be possible to include smaller cattle-breeds like Corriente or Camargue, because of the hybrid vigor of the first generation crosses. Next maybe Moronesa for horn-correction. Last maybe Pajuna. Would this result in Frankensteins ?
No project is actively selecting on specific aurochs genes, but optical traits that are either caused by the same genes as in the aurochs or similar alleles. In the case of the aurochs gene material preserved in wisents, you'd have to actively select on specific genes that are not obviously indicated by optical traits, what makes the whole thing a lot more complicated to practically unfeasible.
DeleteWell, it would be possible to select for optical traits also. I think basically it would be to try to attach longer necks and corrected horns and fur on european bison. Or, from the other perspective, to get over legs, the trumk and some hump from bison to cattle.
DeleteThis woudn't make genetically perfect Auroch-replica, but it wouldn't be much different from common breeding practice.
( i meant madura cattle, not bali in the previous comment )
The selection could be for getting over some of the legs, trunk and hump from bison to cattle. This would be basically the same strategy...
DeleteI am aware of that. But that would not be the selection for the 10% aurochs genes found in the wisent, as it is not said what kind of genes these are.
DeleteWell, they have an ancestor in common. So if there is selection for the hump and the legs maybe it's likely that one would catch up some gene that are related to the Auroch ? Otherwise the ancestor in common should have been humpless and shortlegged...
DeleteOf course there is the chance that some of the genes are the same. But that mere chance should not be the basis of a breeding program, especially when it involves hybridization. I would like to have these 10% genes identified regarding position and function before doing anything.
DeleteWell, i won't wonder if some influences of european bison could have a grater impact than chianina for example. Something like 1/2 Pajuna, 1/4 Maronesa, 1/8 Corriente and Bison each...
ReplyDeleteBut some science wouldn't hurt, of course...
Amazing blog, you should have an Instagram or even a Youtube channel, I'm very interested in the projects and science of "bringing-back" species. From the Aurochs, ancient horses and mastodons to camelids in Venezuela, maybe a bactrian camel with guanaco?
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that bos taurus indicus could be also a hybrid but with yak and maybe gaur? I was suspecting hybridization giving the location of the "Indian Aurochs" situated just in between Eurasian Auroch and yak & gaur territories; Gaur also seem to be also animals that could have hybridized naturally with bos taurus, not only the banteng but the kouprey.
ReplyDeleteAccording to my understanding of Iberian and Italic cattle: "bravo" cattle and similar breeds, and the podolic-hungarian types; most breeds you describe as European cattle are from the north of europe, thus maybe the cattle from Spain, Portugal, Italy* are the purest example of domesticated Auroch, aside the magnificent reservoir of Africa, which could give light on the actual morphology of the Aurochs and probably explain where does the phenomena of hornless fenotype comes from.
ReplyDeleteYet I need to digress a little on the curly hair theory, not only because curly hair might be a distinctive domestic fenotype as color has been observed to change in controlled experiments with "silver" foxes, although a completely different species with its own genetic reality it can serve as example of the universality of the link fenotype-domestication; aside, yaks also exhibit this feature naturally, and if we go further more and stretch the extrapolation regarding domestication we can observe how llamas and alpacas generated different hair textures according to the breed, specially Peruvian breeds of alpaca and llama seem to have evolved without crossing of significance which could also reinforce this whole speculative theory.
It's important to notice that climate also has a direct effect on fur, in Florida bison almost completely lack wool and I assume curly hair.
* which explains why the chianina is so big and different than other varieties of podolic cattle, given that this breed does not has horns or they are atrophied.