The Institute of Canine Biology
  • HOME
  • Blog
  • Courses
    • COI BootCamp (FREE!)
    • Basic Population Genetics (FREE)
    • The Science of Canine Husbandry
    • Managing Genetics For the Future >
      • Syllabus - Managing Genetics for the Future
    • The Biology of Dogs (Open Reg )
    • DNA For Dog Breeders >
      • Syllabus - DNA for Dog Breeders
      • Open Reg - DNA For Dog Breeders
    • Understanding Hip & Elbow Dysplasia >
      • Open Reg - Understanding Hip & Elbow Dysplasia
    • Genetics of Behavior & Performance >
      • Syllabus - Genetics Behavior & Performance
      • Open Reg - Genetics of Behavior & Performance (Open Reg)
    • Strategies for Preservation Breeding >
      • Open Reg - Strategies for Preservation Breeding
    • Group Discounts
    • MORE FREE COURSES >
      • Quickie Genetics (Free!)
      • Heredity & Genetics (Free!)
      • Useful Genetics (Free!)
      • Basic Genetics Videos
  • Breed Preservation
    • Breed Status
    • Breeding for the future >
      • BFF Breed Groups
    • The "Elevator Pitch"
    • What's in the Gene Pool?
    • The Pox of Popular Sires
    • What population genetics can tell us about a breed
    • What population genetics can tell you...Tollers & Heelers
    • How to use kinship data
    • Using EBVs to breed better dogs >
      • How population size affects inbreeding
      • EBV Examples
    • How to read a dendrogram
    • Global Pedigree Project >
      • The Database
    • Finding the genes without DNA
    • How to read a heat map
  • Health Data
    • Bloat (Purdue Study)
    • Body Condition Score >
      • % Dysplastic vs BCS
    • Breed Comparions
    • Cancer
    • Cardiac
    • Cataracts
    • Caesareans
    • Deafness
    • Degenerative Myelopathy
    • Elbow Dysplasia
    • Epilepsy
    • Genetic Diversity
    • Genetic Diversity (MyDogDNA)
    • Hip Dysplasia >
      • Hip Dysplasia (Hou et al 2013)
    • Inbreeding Effects
    • Inbreeding (Gubbels)
    • Inbreeding (Dreger)
    • Lifespan
    • Litter size
    • Metabolic
    • mtDNA
    • Orthopedic
    • Mode of Inheritance
    • Patella Luxation
    • Thyroid
    • Portosystemic shunt
    • Purebred vs Mixed (UC Davis)
    • Purebred vs Mixed Breed (Bonnett)
    • Spay & Neuter Effects
    • Calboli et al 2008
    • Hodgman (1963)
    • Scott & Fuller (1965)
    • Stockard: Purebred crosses
    • Summers (2011)
  • Projects
    • How To Interpret Breed Analyses
    • Afghan Hound
    • More details about the Toller study
    • Belgian Tervuren >
      • Belgian Terv p2
      • Belgians- why population size matters
    • Bernese Mountain Dog
    • Boxer
    • Brussels Griffon
    • Bullmastiff
    • Canaan Dog >
      • Canaan analyses
    • Cesky Terrier >
      • Cesky genetic history
    • Chinook
    • Curly-coated Retriever
    • Doberman
    • Entelbucher Mountain Dog
    • Flatcoat Retriever
    • French Bulldog
    • German Shorthair
    • Golden Retriever >
      • Golden Retriever Pedigree Charts
    • Irish Water Spaniel >
      • IWS (6 Nov 17)
    • Labrador Retriever
    • Manchester Terrier
    • Mongolian Bankhar >
      • Research Updates
      • Bankhar 1
    • Norwegian Lundehund
    • Plummer Terrier
    • Otterhound
    • Portuguese Water Dog >
      • Portuguese Water Dog (pt 2)
    • Ridgeback
    • Schipperke
    • Standard Poodle >
      • The Problem With Poodles
      • 3poodle pedigree charts
      • 3Poodle Wycliff dogs
      • Poodle Genetics
    • Tibetan Spaniel
    • Tibetan Mastiff
    • West Highland White Terrier
    • Whippet
    • Wirehaired Pointing Griffons
    • UK KC Graphs >
      • UK KC Breed Status
      • UK Groups
      • KC Gundogs
      • KC Hounds
      • KC Terriers >
        • Terriers (select breeds)
      • KC Pastoral
      • KC Toys
      • KC Working
      • KC Utility
      • Australian KC
    • Breed outcrossing programs
  • Resources
    • Genetics Databases
    • Stud Books >
      • American Kennel Club stud books
      • Field Dog stud books
      • The Kennel Club (UK)
    • Learn
    • Videos about dog genetics
    • The Amazing Things Dogs Do! (videos) >
      • Livestock Management
      • Livestock guarding
      • Transportation, exploration, racing
      • Conservation & wildlife management
      • Detection Dogs
      • Medicine & Research
      • Entertainment
      • AKC/CHF Podcasts
    • Read & Watch
    • Bookshelf
  • Preventing Uterine Inertia

The history of purebred dogs in the UK

1/9/2015

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD

The genetic status of a dog breed today was shaped by its history. The number of founder animals, population explosions and crashes, geographic separation, popular sires, and many other things have effects that shape the genetic trajectory of a breed.

A few days ago a breeder forwarded to me the population statistics for her breed in the UK, and to my surprise it contained not just the registration records her breed but for all the UK breeds back to 1908. Digging through data is like an archaeological investigation; you never know what you will find. I love discovery so I dove in, and I am truly astonished at the information in these tables and tables of numbers. Maybe this is all old hat to somebody out there, but it was a real eye-opener for me.

The data are just registrations by year with the UK Kennel Club. The database I was sent runs up to 2009, and I added the data to 2013 using the 10 year summaries available on the UK KC website. I graphed the registrations per year for each breed and also by groups. The numbers varied wildly by breed - Labradors are registering more than 40,000 dogs per year, while many breeds log fewer than a hundred. To save time I didn't want to draw separate graphs for every breed, so I tried to group them as I went, and as it happened this proved to be quite revealing. Some of the breeds should be graphed again on a different scale, but for now I hope that the information will be useful for most breeds. (The website location of the graphs is at the bottom of the page.)

The first thing that struck me as I started graphing was a dip in registrations between 1970 and 1980. It is very obvious in this graph of sporting dogs, looking a bit like somebody stuck their finger in the cake. As you will see, this dip appears in almost all of the breeds in every group. It is not a dip in popularity of a breed, but a very large, systematic drop in registrations. It doesn't seem to correspond to a war (you can see a dip around WW II in many breeds), and I'm at a loss to explain it. A plunge in the popularity of dogs? A postal strike? A rebellion against registration? I have no idea. It is not just the odd dip, but a steep decrease for several years followed by a rise over several years, usually to about the level of registrations before the crash. If anybody has an explanation for this, I would love to hear it. [A little homework turns up two possible explanations - a parvo outbreak in the 1970s and a severe economic downturn. More on the possible implications of those events later. (Sorry K, you were 11 hours and about 6 people too late to take credit for parvo. But keep playing - anyone can win!)]
Picture
Apart from just being an interesting anomaly, if this drop in registrations reflects a real drop in breeding, then it represents a bottleneck that lasts more than a generation. It is likely that there was a loss of genetic diversity from the breed as the population plunged, then in the rapid recovery the relatively small numbers of breeding dogs would produce a founder effect. It's not likely that breeders were being vigilant to avoid losing lines as the population crashed, and the "best" dogs might have done than their fair share of breeding on the up side. Together, these two events could substantially change the composition of the gene pool (see Hitting the bottle: the genetics of boom and bust). And the really puzzling thing is that it was like a global extinction event, exactly the same in breed after breed. This wasn't a bottleneck for a breed, it was a bottleneck for purebred dogs in the UK, and it was profound.

The next thing that is so striking in these data really shouldn't come as a surprise. Many breeds have gone through not just the bottleneck in the late 1970s, but others as well and some were even more dramatic. The English Cocker was enormously popular at the time of WW II (graph above), when registrations for most breeds dropped. And surging with the English Cocker was an odd mix of other breeds - the English Setter, Pointer, Whippet, Norwegian Elkhound, Smooth Dachshund, Scottie, Cairn Terrier, Bedlington, German Shepherd, Pekingese, Chow Chow, Bulldog, Keeshond, and an amazing boom and bust in the Pembroke Welsh Corgi. In many breeds there was also a dip in registrations around the time of WW I (1914-1918).

Picture

Apart from these bottlenecks explained by major historical events, there were many very severe population explosions, crashes, and bottlenecks. The Yorkshire Terrier went from 26,000 registrations in 1990 to only 5,000 a decade later. The Pug has gone from 1,000 in 2003 to about 8,000 in little more than a decade. In French Bulldogs, registrations have gone from 700 to 7,000 in only 7 years, and the Bulldog is gaining ground fast as well. You will find other really remarkable shifts in breed popularity if you explore the graphs.

Most of the Working breeds, Terriers, and Pastoral breeds are all headed down. Registrations of German Shepherds have been dropping since before 2000, and the one herding breed on the upswing is the Belgian Malinois although registrations are still less than 200 per year. It's fascinating to see how surges in popularity of one breed mesh with the drop in registrations of another. In the late 60s, everybody wanted a Beagle, Basset, or Afghan, then just as quickly the registrations of those breeds dropped off. Weimaraners have been steadily dropping for the last 15 years, while Vizslas have been increasing steadily since 1990.
Picture
Picture

I don't know what to make of the Poodles. I have talked elsewhere about the explosive growth in the Poodle population beginning in about 1965, but the data for Poodles in the UK have scarcely a bump at that time. There was, however, a huge surge in popularity of Miniature Poodles in about 1950, and a smaller one in Toy Poodles about 5 years later; both were way down by 1975. [I'll be taking a closer look at the poodle data.]
Picture
There are booms and busts aplenty, but there is also a large number of breeds that are hanging on my fingernails. The UK now has a list of native breeds threatened with extinction because of low registration numbers. There was a gasp of surprise when the English Setter showed up on that list, but a glance at the registration statistics show that it has been losing ground for 30 years. The alarm should have been raised long ago. There is more than just a handful of breeds that are registering only 20 to 50 dogs a year. A population this small cannot be genetically stable over the long term. Even a tiny push from artificial selection can head such a small population off in a different genetic direction, and of course the effect of genetic drift is greater in smaller populations. 
Unfortunately, wild swings in population size are usually not a good thing. If growth is uncontrolled, and especially if it favors popular animals, genetic diversity suffers as the less popular dogs are left at the curb. After narrowing the diversity of the gene pool during rapid growth, an uncontrolled crash narrows it further. The gene pools on either side of the boom and bust are likely to look very different, and almost certainly for the worse. A population can grow if reproduction is balanced so the the number of dogs increases but the allele frequencies in the gene pool are held stable. Likewise, a cull that includes the full breadth of the gene pool in the downsizing breeding population will help protect as much as diversity. But it's not likely that either of these happen during the dramatic swings in popularity of dog breeds. Everyone rushes to breed to the most popular dogs during the surge, and most of the smaller breeders probably fall out as the population crashes. Every breed will have a different story, but overall the histories of these pedigreed dogs in the UK provide example after example of inadequate genetic management that has surely been to the detriment of the gene pools of the breeds.

There is lots to be learned in these graphs and I've only just begun to explore. If you understand a bit about population genetics, you will probably find them unsettling. You will also see that there are changes happening now in many dog breeds (decreases as well as increases) that breeders should recognize have the potential for producing long-term genetic damage to the breed if not managed. It would be great if there was a comparable database for dogs in the US, but I don't have one and the AKC no longer publishes their registration statistics. If it's because of falling numbers, they can see here that this is happening in the UK as well. But surely publishing only a list of AKC's "most popular" dogs each year only serves to drive the popularity of those breeds, to the detriment of the breeds at the bottom of the list.  The UK is registering 25,000 German Shepherds a year, and 45,000 Labradors. A few thousand off each of those and distributed to the breeds at the bottom of the list would help many breeds that are really struggling with very low numbers. (At the same time, however, the numbers of both of those breeds are dropping, and it would be useful to know why.)
All of the graphs are under the "Breed Projects" tab (as UK KC Graphs) on the ICB website for lack of a better place.

My apologies in advance if the graph of your breed would be better graphed on a different scale. In time they will all be redone, but I hope that you will nevertheless find them useful. And I want to know whose finger it was in the cake.

January 07th, 2015

1/7/2015

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD


Picture
Picture

Genetic test for renal dysplasia (Caution advised)

1/5/2015

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD

Renal dysplasia is a serious and complex genetic disorder that occurs in many breeds of dogs. In 2011, a paper by Mary Whiteley and others was published in the respected journal PLoS ONE that claimed to have found a marker for the disorder (you can access that publication here). A DNA test was subsequently made available through Whiteley's company DOGenes.

After the publication of that study, serious concerns were raised about its validity. In 2012 the editors of the journal PLoS published an extraordinary "Expression of Concern" above the abstract of the online article, which I have reproduced below (and you can read here).

In short, the journal editors state that some issues of concern were not addressed during the peer review process, and that they undertook their own review of the study. From that, they concluded that the study was seriously flawed, and that the Cox-2 promotor suggested to be linked to the disorder was in fact a neutral DNA variant.

This is what they said:

"In light of the concerns outlined above, the PLoS ONE editors are issuing this Expression of Concern in order to make readers aware of the concerns about the reliability of the results and conclusions reported in the article."

Nevertheless, DOGenes continues to offer their DNA test based on that study and there is no mention on their site of actions of the journal editors.

The DOGenes test is NOT listed among available DNA tests on the website of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals.


However, it continues to be listed in the University of Pennsylvania PennGen genetic testing database. In October 2014 I contacted PennGen and asked about this test. They told me that PennGen cannot be responsible for the validity of the DOGenes test, and that a more recent paper by the same author did not address the original concerns.
Breeders should understand that the current DOGenes test for renal dysplasia is based on a study about which the journal editors expressed very serious concerns subsequent to publication.
Note that in the absence of a valid DNA test for renal dysplasia, it can be managed effectively using Estimated Breeding Values like any other heritable trait.

Picture

Whiteley MH. 2014. Allelic variation in the canine Cox-2 promotor causes hypermethylation of the canine Cox-2 promoter in clinical cases of renal dysplasia. Clin Epigen 6: 7 (doi:10.1186/1868-7083-6-7)


Whiteley MH. 2011. Novel allelic variants in the canine cyclooxgenase-2 (Cox-2) promoter are associated with renal dysplasia in dogs. PLoS ONE 6:e16684. (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016684)


A better way to pick 'em: using EBVs to reduce genetic disorders in dogs

1/2/2015

 
Many of the traits in dogs that we would like to select for or against are influenced by more than one gene. In fact, there can be dozens or even hundreds of genes behind a trait, each having only a small effect, but collectively they can substantially influence phenotype. For instance, osteosarcoma is an aggressive cancer of the bone that is relatively common in larger breeds of dogs like the Greyhound, Irish Wolfhound, and Rottweiler. DNA studies have identified 33 loci associated with osteosarcoma that together explain 55-85% of the phenotypic variance in these three breeds, indicating that this cancer is highly heritable (Karlsson et al 2013). Many of these genes are found in regions of the chromosome associated with bone differentiation and growth, but they appear to be different regions in each breed. So far, at least, there is no "osteosarcoma gene" in dogs, and with dozens of potential risk loci it seems unlikely that there will be a simple genetic test coming anytime soon - or perhaps ever.
If we can't look to the molecular geneticists for solutions, then we must go back to basic principles of inheritance and the science of animal breeding for help. We know that osteosarcoma is highly heritable. In Scottish Deerhounds, the heritability of osteosarcoma is 0.7, which means that 70% of the variability in the occurrence of  the cancer in Deerhounds can be attributed to genetics. The other 30% we attribute to "environment", our catch-all term for everything that is "not genetic". (If a trait has no genetic basis, heritability is 0%; if the trait is entirely determined by genes, then heritability is 100%.) The higher the heritability of a trait, the easier it is to change the frequency of the phenotype in the population by selection.

A heritability of 70% for osteosarcoma in Deerhounds means that a selection program can be very effective in reducing the incidence of the disease in the breed. And the most efficient way to run such a selection program is not by selecting against the phenotype directly, but by using information about the breeding value of each dog for the trait.
Picture
We talked about breeding values in an earlier post, using examples of hip dysplasia in Hovawarts and cryptorchidism in Boxers. (If you missed that post, you should read it now.) In both of these cases, the best efforts of breeders to manage a genetic problem - even over decades - were unsuccessful. But rapid and significant progress was made when they based selection on estimates of breeding values that were determined using statistical analysis of the occurrence of the disorder among relatives. In essence, instead of making selection decisions based on phenotype, they made them based on genotype. This technique allowed breeders to separate the genetic influence from the non-genetic factors that could affect the trait, making selection much more efficient.

Heritabilities of Various Traits in Dogs
Picture

With no hope of a genetic test anytime soon for osteosarcoma in dogs, breeders should be able to significantly reduce the incidence of this cancer in their breed by using estimated breeding values. This requires only a pedigree database and the information about affected animals among a dog's relatives. A computer generates a number that reflects the "genetic value" of a dog for a particular trait, in this case osteosarcoma. By using this estimated breeding value (EBV) to identify dogs at lower risk for osteosarcoma, breeders can efficiently reduce the incidence of this cancer in the breed.

The real beauty of EBVs is that you don't need to know the genes involved in a trait or how it is inherited. You don't need to base selection decisions on a phenotype that might be only partially determined by genetics. The estimated breeding value is a numerical estimate of the what an animal will produce in its offspring.

EBVs can be used to improve selection against many genetic disorders. Heritability of other cancers are also relatively high: lymphoma in Golden Retrievers has a heritability of 44%, and histiocytosis in Bernese Mountain Dogs is 30%. Heritability of hypothyroidism in Beagles is 33%, mitral valve disease in Cavaliers is 33%, and epilepsy in Belgian Tervuren is 77%.

When a disorder pops up in a breed, breeders usually rush to identify the responsible gene so they can develop a test and select against. However, for many disorders a test is not likely to be forthcoming - not soon, and maybe not ever. Estimated breeding values offer a way to select against a problem much more efficiently than using phenotype alone, and all you need is a health database.

Several kennel clubs are already providing EBVs to breeders for hips (e.g., Finland and the UK), and these resources will continue to develop for other disorders. A website that will provide EBVs for hip and elbow dysplasia for dogs in the US based on the public data in the OFA database is in the works at Cornell, and ICB will be working with several groups of breeders in 2015 to get their data online and train them how to use it. For breeders that have been struggling to manage genetic disorders, sometimes for decades, we should be able to start seeing improvement soon if breeders will use it.The website is under development, but you can have a look here.

We will have an EBV course available online sometime in the next few months, but if there is a group in your breed that is interested in getting in on the initial stage of training and implementation of EBVs, please contact ICB and we can discuss what would be involved.

ICB's Population Genetics course lays the foundation for understanding how EBVs can be used as part of a strategy for managing genetic disorders in purebred dogs. The next class starts 5 January.

Sources

Benjamin SA, LC Stephens, BF Hamilton, WJ Saunders, AC Lee, GM Angleton, & CH Mallinckrodt. 1996. Associations between lymphocytic thyroiditis hypothyroidism, and thyroid neoplasia in Beagles. Vet Pathol 33: 486-494.

Beuing R, N Janssen, & H Brand. Analysis of fertility in canine populations in respect to genetic and environmental influences. (MS)

Beuing R, G Beuing, P Pracht, & N Janssen. 2003. Cryptorchidism in dogs: prevention by breeding. Icelandic Sheepdog meeting; powerpoint presentation.

Cargill EJ, TR Famula, GM Strain, & KE Murphy. 2004. Heritability and segregation analysis of deafness in US Dalmatians. Genetics 166: 1385-1393.

Courreau J-F & B Langlois. 2005. Genetic parameters and environmental effects which characterize the defence ability of the Belgian shepherd dog. App Anim Behav Sci 91: 233-245.

De Risio L, T Lewis, J Freeman, A de Stefani, L Matiasek, & S Blott. 2010. Prevalence, heritability and genetic correlations of congenital sensorineural deafness and pigmentation phenotypes in the Border Collie. Vet J 188: 286-290.

Famula TR, EJ Cargill, & GM Strain. 2007. Heritability and complex segregation analysis of deafness in Jack Russell Terriers. BMC Vet Res 3: 31.

Famula TR, AM Oberbauer, & KN Brown. 1997. Heritability of epileptic seizures in the Belgian Tervuren. J Small Anim Prac 38: 349-352. 

Ginja, MMD, AM Silvestre, AJA Ferreira, JM Gonzalo-Orden, MA Orden, P Melo-Pinto, MP Llorens-Pena, & J Colaco. 2008. Passive hip laxity in Estrella Mountain Dog- distraction index, heritability and breeding values. Acta Vet Hungarica 56: 303-312.

Guthrie S & HG Pidduck. 1990. Heritability of elbow osteochondrosis within a closed population of dogs. J Small Anim Pract 31: 93-96.

Hare E & SG Thomas. 2009. Heritability of motivation-related traits in Labrador Retriever detector dogs. J Vet Behav 4: 238-239.

Jeglum KA & TR Famula. Heritability and segregation analysis of lymphoma in Golden Retrievers. (MS)

Karlsson EK, S Sigurdsson, E Ivansson, R Thomas, and others. 2013. Genome-wide analyses implicate 33 loci in heritable dog osteosarcoma, including regulatory variants near CDKN2A/B. Genome Biol 14: R132.

Leighton EA. 1999. Using estimated breeding values to reduce the incidence of genetic diseases in dogs. 

Lewis TW, SC Blott, & JA Woolliams. 2013. Comparative analyses of genetic trends and prospects for selection against hip and elbow dysplasia in 15 UK dog breeds. BMC Genetics 14 :16.

Lewis TW, JJ Ilska, SC Blott, JA Wooliams. 2011 Genetic evaluation of elbow scores and the relationship with hip scores in UK Labrador retrievers. Vet J 189: 227-233.

Lewis T, C Rusbridge, P Knowler, S Blott, & JA Wolliams. 2010. Heritability of syringomyelia in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Vet J 183: 345-347.

Lewis T, S Swift, JA Wolliams, & S Blott. 2011. Heritability of premature mitral valve disease in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Vet J 188: 73-76.

Liinamo A-E, L Karjalainen, M Ojala, & V Vilva. 1997. Estimates of genetic parameters and environmental effects for measures of hunting performance in Finnish Hounds. J Anim Sci 75: 622-629.

Mackenzie SA, EAB Oltenacu, & E Leighton. 1985. Heritability estimate for temperament scores in German Shepherd Dogs and it's genetic correlation with hip dysplasia. Behav Gen 15: 475-482.

Nielen L, J Nielen, LLG Janss, & BW Knol. 2001. Heritability estimations for dieases, coat color, body weight, and height in a birth cohort of Boxers. Am J Vet Res 62: 1198-1`206.

Padgett GA, BR Madewell, ET Kellert, L Jodar, & M Parkard. 1995. Inheritance of histiocytosis in Bernese Mountain Dogs. J Small Anim Practice 36: 93-98.

Phillips JC, B Stephenson, M Hauck, & J Dillberger. 2007. Heritability and segregation analysis of osteosarcoma in the Scottish Deerhound. Genomics 90: 354-363.

Reist S. 2008. Inheritance of subaortic stenosis of the Newfoundland.

Schmutz SM & JK Schmutz. 1998. Heritability estimates of behaviors associated with hunting in dogs. J Heredity 89: 231-237.

Wilson BJ, FW Nicholas, JW James, CM Wade, I Tammen, HW Raadsma, K Castle, & PC Thompson. 2012. Heritability and phenotypic variation of canine hip dysplasia radiographic traits in a cohort of Australian German Shepherd Dogs. PLoS ONE 7: e39620.

Verryn SD & JMP Geerthsen. 1987. Heritabilities of a population of German Shepherd Dogs with a complex interrelationship structure. Theor Appl Gen 75: 144-146.

Zhang Z, L Zhu, J Sandler, SS Friedenberg, and others. 2009. Estimation of heritabilities, genetic correlations, and breeding values of four traits that collectively define hip dysplasia in dogs. Am J Vet Res 70: 483-492.




You can learn more about the genetics of dogs in ICB's online courses.


*** Online course "Population Genetics for Dog Breeders" starts 5 January ***

Visit our Facebook Groups

ICB Institute of Canine Biology
...the latest canine news and research

ICB Breeding for the Future
...the science of animal breeding 

Estimating the breeding value of a dog

1/1/2015

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD

The first step in planning a breeding is to evaluate the traits you want (and don't want) in potential sires. For the ones that are heritable - i.e., at least partially determined by genetics, what you would really like to know is whether the dog has the specific genes to produce the traits you want in the offspring. We have DNA tests for a few useful things like coat color and some diseases, but for the most part the genes that are actually in the dog are an unknown.

If you're an experienced breeder, you know that you can look at a dog's relatives - parents, aunts and uncles, litter mates, and especially offspring to get an idea of what a dog is likely to throw. What you are trying to do is predict the "breeding value" of a dog; that is, how likely it is to produce offspring with a particular trait. Sometimes the picture is clear, but sometimes it's complicated and you are left to trust your gut with fingers crossed behind your back. And the very best you can do is make a subjective, no-doubt biased, and very qualitative guess.

There are better ways to do this. If you know a trait is inherited, and you also know that a dog gets half of its genes from the sire and half from the dam, then you can make some predictions about how likely a dog is to be carrying the genes of a particular ancestor. You do this sort of thing when you use coefficient of inbreeding to estimate the probability of producing puppies that will be homozygous for a recessive allele inherited from both sides of the pedigree. We can do the same thing to come up with a quantitative (i.e., numerical) estimate of a dog's breeding value for a particular trait, called the "estimated breeding value" (EBV).

You will remember that phenotype (P) depends upon both genetics (G) and environment (E):
P = G + E
Here, "environment" includes any factor that could influence the trait that isn't genetic. If we can figure out what G is, we will have information about how likely a dog is to have the genes for a particular trait. For example, when you're looking at hip scores, or at one descended testicle, or an x-ray of dysplastic elbows, or the MRI of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel suspected to have syringomyelia, you are assessing phenotype only. You have no idea how much of the variation you see from animal to animal for that trait is attributable to genetics and how much to things that are not genetic. Because selection can only operate on genes, knowing the true breeding value for a trait in a particular dog is extremely valuable.

EBVs have been used with great success for many decades by breeders of other domestic animals. "But", I hear you say, "dogs aren't livestock". Can EBVs be used successfully in dogs?

Yes. Here are a couple of examples. You will see that in both, the efforts of breeders to control a genetic problem by selecting against an undesirable phenotype had little success before the adoption of EBVs.

Cryptorchidism in Boxers
Cryptorchidism (the failure of a testicle to descend) is a problem in many breeds, and historically, Boxers have had a high incidence of cryptorchidism. If neither testicle descends, the dog will be sterile because the heat of the body interferes with sperm production. But a dog with one testicle is fertile (although prone to testicular tumors). 

Most living Boxers can trace their pedigrees to four German stud dogs - Sigurd von Dom and his three grandsons, Utz von Dom, Dorian von Marienhof, and Lustig von Dom. All four of these dogs produced cryptorchid offspring. The first efforts to reduce the frequency of cryptorchidism in Boxers began in 1942, with a total ban on breeding cryptorchids (see the graph below). Nevertheless, the incidence of cryptorchidism increased in East German dogs over the next 40 years from about 6% in 1941 to 10% in 1981. In West German dogs, it increased from 7% in 1959 to 14% in 1985. In 1985, concerns about genetic diversity in the breed prompted the kennel club to encourage breeders to use lesser known males and breed away from popular sires, but this still did not improve the incidence of cryptorchidism. 

The unification of Germany in 1990 increased access to a broader gene pool, but cryptorchidism continued to increase unabated. In 1996, once again strict regulations on breeding were imposed. Bitches were excluded from breeding if they produced cryptorchid offspring in 2 litters, and sires were culled that produced more than 15% cryptorchids in at least 20 offspring. This policy reduced the frequency of cryptorchids, but it also removed 84% of the reproductive dogs from the breeding pool (not a good thing), and in any case improvement tailed off after a few years.

Picture
Finally in 2000, Germany removed all restrictions related to cryptorchidism and instituted the use of estimated breeding values (EBVs) to improve selection against cryptorchidism. Within only a few years they saw marked improvement (red in the graph).

Hip dysplasia in Hovawarts
EBVs have been used to successfully reduce the frequency of canine hip dysplasia (CHD) in several breeds. The data in the graph below are from a breeding program against CHD in the Hovawart. After efforts to reduce hip dysplasia using selection against phenotype failed to produce consistent improvement, severe breeding restrictions were instituted in 1984 that banned all affected dogs from breeding. This actually made things worse, reducing the number of unaffected dogs and increasing the number of dogs classed as borderline.

In 1989, selection based on EBVs was instituted, and this produced immediate, significant improvement in hip scores. In only 5 years more than 80% of all dogs had normal hips, and severely afflicted animals were nearly eliminated.
Picture
These are dramatic, but not atypical, examples of the improvements that can be achieved in just a few years by using EBVs to guide selection instead of phenotype. EBVs allow breeders to distinguish between dogs with bad hips and dogs with the genes for bad hips - essentially separating the potential influence of environment from the underlying genotype that the breeder is really interested in. This means that fewer animals will get removed from the gene pool, because dogs with a bad phenotype but good genotype for the trait of interest can be kept in the breeding stock for potential use.

Using EBVs for selection can produce one problem that is common to phenotypic selection as well. If everybody rushes to breed to the dog with the best EBV score, this will create a bottleneck and increase inbreeding if care is not taken to balance the reproduction of animals across the breadth of the gene pool. This should be a basic part of sound genetic management of a breeding population of animals anyway, regardless of the scheme breeders are using to make breeding decisions.

EBVs will be new to many dog breeders, but in fact they have been used for decades to guide breeding decisions of service dogs by Guiding Eyes for the Blind, Seeing Eye, and other organizations. Using EBVs, a well-run organization can manage genetic disorders, limit inbreeding even in a closed gene pool, and produce dogs with the traits that are important in a service dog. This improves the efficiency of the breeding program because more of the dogs produced are suitable for service.

Dog breeders can use EBVs to improve selection for the traits they want and reduce the ones they don't (Lewis et al 2013). EBVs can be used on any trait that can be evaluated by the breeder - temperament, size, herding ability, coat quality, heart disease, "showiness", hip dysplasia - anything you can judge to be better or worse, desirable or not desirable. EBVs are becoming available in more and more countries through the kennel clubs, and they are the most powerful tool now available for improving the health and well being of dogs.


Beuing R, G Beuing, P Pracht & N Janssen.l 2003 Cryptorchidism in dogs: prevention by breeding (from a seminar in 2003) (pdf)

Beuing R. Strategies in modern dog breeding. (pdf)

Lewis TW, SC Blott, & JA Wooliams. 2013. Comparative analysis of genetic trends and prospects for selection against hip and elbow dysplasia in 15 UK dog breeds. BMC Genetics 14:16 (pdf)


You can learn more about the genetics of dogs in ICB's online courses.

Visit our Facebook Groups

ICB Institute of Canine Biology
...the latest canine news and research

ICB Breeding for the Future
...the science of animal breeding 

    Archives

    January 2025
    November 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    December 2020
    January 2020
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    October 2017
    August 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    March 2013
    July 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    Behavior
    Border-collie
    Herding

Blog

News


About Us

Contact Us








Copyright © 2012-2017 Institute of Canine Biology
Picture
Picture