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 poop about dog diets

10/24/2015

 
NOTE: An earlier version of this post indicated that Balance It was affiliated with UC Davis. It is not.

If I learned anything from my last post, it's that if you want to talk to dog people about what they feed their dogs, you had better be prepared to step in some poop.

You would think the discussion would be largely about nutrition - things like protein content, mineral ratios, digestibility, minimum daily requirements, and those sorts of things. But no. The discussion is strongly ideological, with several camps that firmly believe that what they feed their dogs is the only right way and everyone else is wrong, and of course the commercial dog food companies are just plain evil.

​The religions are many: Prey Model Raw, BARF (which is a registered trademark!), Meat With Bone, the Ultimate Diet, the Volhard Diet, and others, and proponents of each vigorously debunk the claims of the others. Much of the discussion centers on whether dogs are carnivores (facultative? obligate?) or omnivores (with "carnivorous tendencies"?), and the arguments are largely based on personal perceptions of the biology of the wolf (many of which are incorrect) and opinions about the diets of dogs during domestication.

Picture
@ Carol Beuchat. All Rights Reserved.
This is addressed in a recent paper evaluating the benefits and risks of raw meat-based diets (Freeman et al 2013):
"A founding premise in popular lay publications and on the Internet regarding RMBDs [raw meat-based diets] is that these are the diets that wild, nondomesticated dog and cat species ate during their evolution into pets, which may provide an important rationale for some owners to feed these diets to their dogs and cats. Cats have remained obligate carnivores during domestication, and their natural diet includes a range of small prey species such as mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects that can be hunted, captured, and eaten by the cats. Conversely, dogs have adapted to eating an omnivorous diet and can consume a variety of plant and animal products to meet their essential nutrient requirements. However, both cats and dogs are able to digest and metabolize many nutrients provided from plant-based ingredients. Additionally, dogs have undergone an incredible variety of selection pressures resulting in large phenotypic differences from their ancestors and among current breeds. In fact, it was reported that there are 36 regions of the genome that differ between dogs and wolves, 10 of which play a critical role in starch digestion and fat metabolism. The authors of that study conclude that these genetic differences in the genome between dogs and wolves and hence the ability to digest starch and fat constituted a crucial step in the early domestication of dogs. Therefore, even if the typical diet eaten by a wild, non-domesticated dog or cat can be considered optimal for reproduction and survival in those animals, in which the lifespan is typically quite short, these diets may not be optimal for domestic dogs and cats living in a home environment, with owners who anticipate that their pets will have long and healthy lives." (Freeman et al 2013)
So the arguments rage, not about verifiable facts, but about opinions, perceptions, anecdotal experiences, myths, and folklore. If you look up "raw feeding" on Wikipedia, you will see an odd caveat at the top of the page:

"This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."

Yep, that about sums it up.

One meme that appeared in the discussions of my post that unfortunately included the word "diet" in the title was the oft-repeated notion that "we don't know much about ____ diet because nobody wants to pay for the research, least of all the commercial dog food companies." Well, in fact, there IS information about non-commercial diets for dogs if you take the time to look.

A 2013 study performed a nutritional evaluation of 200 homemade diets made from recipes published in books (including pet care books and veterinary textbooks), on the internet, and other sources. About 65% of these were written by veterinarians. Of these, only four (4!) were nutritionally complete, and those were designed by veterinary nutrition specialists.

"Most (184 [92%]) recipes contained vague or incomplete instructions that necessitated 1 or more assumptions
for the ingredients, method of preparation, or supplement-type products. Supplement-type products were not included in 58 (29%) recipes. Most (169 [84.5%]) recipes did not provide specific feeding instructions; instead, some included general instructions to modify amounts on the basis of each individual pet’s size and body weight (including any patterns of weight gain or loss). Similarly, most (171 [85.5%]) recipes did not provide calorie information or the target body weight for a pet. Additionally, some sources provided recipes that differed widely in calorie content for the same-size pet. Thirteen (6.5%) recipes included garlic or onion, which are foods associated with hemolytic anemia in dogs.

Many proponents of less structured recipes for home-prepared diets assert that although each day’s
meal is not necessarily complete, rotation and variety will provide a balanced diet overall. Our analysis indicated
that this assumption was unfounded because evaluation of 3 recipe groups, each of which comprised 7 separate recipes, did not eliminate deficiencies. In addition, many recipes had similar deficiencies, with 14
nutrients provided at inadequate concentrations in at least 50 recipes. Thus, even the use of a strategy for
rotation among several recipes from multiple sources would be unlikely to provide a balanced diet. A greater number of recipes written by nonveterinarians had deficiencies, those recipes had significantly (P = 0.001) more nutrients that were deficient, and the deficiencies were more severe, compared with results for recipes written by veterinarians (Table 2). The lower number of deficiencies per recipe in those written by veterinarians may have been associated with a better understanding of canine nutrition by veterinary professionals, although most of the veterinarian-written recipes had at least 1 nutrient deficiency. Only 4 recipes written by board-certified veterinary nutritionists were available for evaluation; all 4 had nutrient profiles that were within the AAFCO-recommended ranges for an adult canine maintenance diet."
(Stockman et al 2013)
​
Note that the authors state that while 129 (65%) of the recipes they tested were written by veterinarians, only 4 were nutritionally complete. If the veterinarians aren't getting it right, it's clear that there is a need for better, more accessible information for both owners and their veterinarians.

So, in the interest of education (ICB loves education!) and the belief that if you want to make progress you have to start somewhere, we've included some links (below) to places you can get information (both free and fee-based) about canine nutrition. You can get assistance in evaluating the diet for your own dog, whether you feed a commercial diet or your own custom blend of moose, kiwi fruit, almond butter, carrot, collards, and canned pineapple (really!).

I don't know if those already wed to their diet philosophy will have any interest in doing some research about their diet, but for those trying to work through advice from friends, dodgy websites, magazine articles, and the many lay experts on Facebook, here are some great places to start.

The other thing ICB would like to do is create an evidence-based course in canine nutrition. There is clearly a need, and we'll be talking with some veterinary nutritionists to get help putting something together that will address many of the issues dog owners have to grapple with when they worry about what to feed their dogs. We will also see if we can have some of the relevant published studies made more freely available instead of locked down behind a pay wall. (There is a link to a free download of one of the studies cited here in the References below.)

RESOURCES
Veterinary schools have board certified nutritionists that offer both free and fee-based information and consulting to both dog owners and veterinarians. They can provide general information about commercial and home made diets (e.g., what should you feed a nursing bitch?), and they can also design a custom diet specific for your dog's age, medical conditions, allergies, and your personal preferences about feeding. There are links to these resources at the bottom.

There is a great online tool, "Balance It", for assessing the nutritional quality of the diet you're feeding your dog, and it will recommend how a diet should be modified to be nutritionally balanced. Or, you can use it to design a custom diet for your dog from scratch, using the specific ingredients you select (like the moose and canned pineapple, yummm!). This tool uses the same algorithms the veterinary nutritionists use to evaluate diets, so it's a great (and free!) resource for dog owners. They also sell some supplements to fill in the gaps of your recipe if necessary.

Picture

This is a list of organizations that provide professional nutrition expertise. (From the Balance It website.)


WEST COAST USA
All Creatures Veterinary Nutrition Consulting, Dr. Stratton-Phelps in CA +1-707-429-2433
University of California, Davis +1-530-752-7892

EAST COAST USA
Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine +1-508-839-5395 ext. 84696
Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine +1-607 253-3060 or +1-203-595-2777
University of Pennsylvania Veterinary Medicine +1-215-746-8387
Oradell Animal Hospital, Dr. Laura Eirmann in NJ +1-201-262-0010
Red Bank Veterinary Hospital, Drs. Cline and Murphy in NJ +1-732-747-3636
VA-MD Regional College of Veterinary Medicine +1-540-231-4621

MIDWEST USA
The Ohio State University College of Vet Med Veterinary Medical Center +1-614-292-3551
University of Minnesota Veterinary Medical Center +1-612-626-8387
University of Missouri +1-573-882-7821

SOUTHERN USA
Veterinary Nutritional Consultations, Dr. Rebecca Remillard in NC +1-252-257-1959
University of Tennessee +1-865-974-8387
North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine +1-919-513-6999
The University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine +1-706-542-5870
University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine Small Animal Hospital +1-352-392-2235

CANADA
University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary College Teaching Hospital In-person appointments only +1-519-823-8830

AUSTRALASIA
Massey University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Dr. Nick Cave in New Zealand +64 06 350 5329

GENERAL ACVN INFORMATION
Information about the American College of Veterinary Nutrition

EUROPE
Royal Veterinary College Queen Mother Hospital for Animals, Dr. Dan Chan in London +44 (0)1707 666366
Universiteit Utrecht +030 253 9411 
VetsNow Referrals, Dr. Marge Chandler Email: Glasgow.reception@vetsnow.com, Phone: +44 (0)141 332 3212
Weeth Nutrition Services, Dr. Lisa Weeth Email: weethnutrition@gmail.com
​

GENERAL ECVCN INFORMATION
When the new page loads, click on the "download the list of ECVCN Diplomates here" link 

REFERENCES

Freeman LM, ML Chandler, BA Hamper, & LP Weeth. 2013. Current knowledge about the risks and benefits of raw meat-based diets for dogs and cats. JAVMA 243: 1549-1558. (free download)

Stockman J, AJ Fascetti, PH Kass, JA Larsen. 2013. Evaluations of recipes of home-prepared maintenance diets for dogs. JAVMA 242: 1500-1505.

​Don't miss a post - subscribe to our blog!

Check out
ICB's online courses
​

*******************

Coming up NEXT -
​
Managing Genetics for the Future
Starts 9 November 2015

​Sign up now!



***************************************

Visit our Facebook Groups

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

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

New, improved title: Is (unbalanced, homemade) diet the problem?

10/12/2015

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD

(NOTE 1: For those that just read the first sentence or two before typing a rebuttal, this post has nothing to do with cancer.)

(NOTE 2: There is nothing here that endorses a commercial diet, so no need to write a rebuttal about that either.)

(NOTE 3: If the comment you're going to write starts with "I haven't read it yet, but...", just stop. Read it first. It doesn't say what you think it does.)

(NOTE 4: Before you fire off a rebuttal about anything else, download the paper towards the bottom with the bannerhead "Timely Topics in Nutrition", which addresses many of the comments that are likely to come up in responses. Please.)

(NOTE 5: The title is new and improved. More about this in a future post...)

I got a flood of interesting feedback from my post asking if rates of cancer are higher in dogs than other mammals. Mostly, people had objections of one sort or another about the data - no control for how often the animals are screened,  no information about whether the dogs were dying young or old, no consideration of wild vs domestic animals, and so on. The other category of responses was explanations for the data, and here there was clearly a theme: dogs have higher rates of cancer because of a) diet, b) vaccines, and/or c) environmental toxins. I will do a separate blog post about these topics because they are worth addressing, as well as some background on the process of science and why it is useful to toss together a bunch of data with obvious issues in the first place.

But this morning something popped up on my Facebook feed that prompted me to take the time to address one aspect of the diet issue. It was a photo of a 3 month old puppy of a good sized breed, cute as a button, and proudly introduced as "raw fed". Now, I suspect that those that suggested diet as a cause of cancer in dogs believe that commercial, processed foods are the problem and that a raw diet is better for dogs. I have never seen any studies that document commercial dog food as a risk factor for cancer, except perhaps as incidental to obesity, but that doesn't rule it out. On the other hand, I have seen many studies that looked at other risk factors associated with raw diets, and most noted that bacterial contamination of raw meat is common. I'm sure you all know that.

But the raw fed puppy highlights a very serious problem that I suspect many don't consider when they lovingly whip up a batch of their home-formulated diet, and that is the difficulty in providing a diet that is nutritionally complete, especially for a puppy. Fortunately, there is published information about the problems this can cause. Here are two examples.

Saint Bernard (8 months)
Picture
Picture
Below is information about the diet of the Saint Bernard puppy, the recipe used and the nutritional analysis compared to dietary recommendations. 
Picture
Picture
This Saint Bernard puppy was getting only 27% of the recommended minimum level of calcium for growth in dogs. Look at the cascade of problems this caused.
Picture

Shetland Sheepdog (8 months)
​
This Sheltie was fed a commercial dried food, Sojos European Style dog and cat food mix, to which the owner added raw hamburger.
​
Picture
I try to stick with genetics here, but the sorts of problems that sent these pups to the doggie hospital could have been mistaken for genetic problems. It should be clear that especially for puppies, getting the diet wrong by even a little can have significant consequences. As the authors in these two papers recommend, get the diet you're using tested at a laboratory to make sure that it contains the right nutrients in the right balance. And don't assume that the advice in the "everything natural" magazine is correct; check with your veterinarian and do your own homework.

A good place to start are these papers about risks and benefits of raw diets, and the nutritional guidelines for dogs and cats.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE TWO PAPERS BELOW. JUST CLICK ON THE PAGE
Picture

Picture

Don't miss a post - subscribe to our blog!

To learn more about the genetics of dogs, check out
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

Do dogs have more cancer than other mammals?

10/10/2015

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD
Two very interesting papers have appeared this week that are getting lots of buzz in the press about cancer in elephants - or rather, why elephants don't get cancer. One has just been published and the other has been submitted for review but is available online (see below); together they offer up a fascinating story.

There has been a paradox stewing for decades in the scientific literature about why large animals that have more cells and live longer don't also have an increased risk of cancer. The logic says that every time a cell divides, there is opportunity for a mutation to occur; so in larger animals that have more cells and also live longer, we should expect to see higher rates of cancer. But this is Peto's Paradox: rates of cancer don't seem to vary with body size at all, and in fact the cancer rate is especially low in the world's largest land mammal, the elephant (Peto et al 1975). How can this be?
We know that the body has various ways to kill off defective cells before they grow out of control and become cancer. One of these involves a gene called p53, which produces a protein that monitors cells for signs of DNA damage. If there is a problem, p53 can trigger an on-the-spot repair or actually cause the cell to self-destruct. In people born without the p53 gene, the lifetime risk of cancer goes from 10-25% normally to more than 90%. In essence, the body lacks a key weapon to do battle with broken cells that go rouge, and many more mutation events escape detection and go on to produce cancer.

Scientists wondering why elephants have exceptionally low rates of cancer started poking around in the elephant genome. What they found is that the elephants have stockpiled extra copies of the p53 gene. Whereas humans have only one pair of p53 genes, elephants have 20 pairs. In effect, the extra copies of p53 make elephants resistant to cancer.

Both papers are fascinating and explain this in much more detail, and I've provided links to the free downloads at the end so you can read more about this yourself. 

But as fun as the elephant story is, though, what I was really excited to see was a table (in the supplementary materials of the paper by Abegglen et al) with data for rates of cancer for a variety of mammal species. I wanted to have a look at those data myself, so I got them into an Excel spreadsheet and made a graph. 

Sure enough, as you can see in the graph below, over a range in size from mice to elephants, there is no evidence that cancer rates are higher in larger animals. There is a noteworthy outlier on this graph. The Tasmanian Devil is native to the Australian island of Tasmania, and the interesting thing about them is that they are being devastated by an infectious cancer that produces grotesque facial tumors and eventually results in death. Apparently it is spread when the animals nip or bite each other and transfer some of the cancerous cells. The immune system should kill these cells but it fails to recognize them a cancerous. In essence, the cancer cells are invisible to the immune system. So rates of cancer in the Tasmanian Devil are off the charts because of this extraordinary transmittable cancer.
Picture
What I really wanted to know was how cancer rates in dogs compare with those of mammals in general. I used the data from a paper about breed predispositions to cancer published in 2013 (info here), dug out some data for body weight of dog breeds, and created a graph comparable to the one above for all mammals. (Note that these data are for a European population of dogs, and the same breeds might have higher or lower cancer statistics in other subpopulations; Golden Retrievers, for example, have a cancer rate of about 60% in the US; see Hoven.)
Picture
The first thing you'll notice on this graph is that, unlike the graph above for a variety of mammal species, cancer rates DO increase with body size in dogs. Is this the proof of Peto's Paradox?

The reason cancer was expected to increase with body mass is because large animals live longer, and more cell divisions over a lifespan provides more opportunities to produce a cell that becomes cancerous. But dogs don't fit the lifespan rule either; larger dogs have shorter livespans, not longer. But could the shorter lifespans of larger dogs be a consequence of their higher cancer rates? We would need to know why the large dogs are dying - is it cancer, or some other trait associated with larger body size that limits lifespan?  Unfortunately, we can't answer these questions with the data at hand. But we can address the question we started with: Do dogs have more cancer than other mammals?
Picture
(Jones et al 2008)
To look at this question, I've taken the data for mammals and dogs and superimposed them both on a single graph so they are easy to compare. (The dog data get all smushed together because the x-axis is on a log scale and the range in body size of dogs is much less than for mammals in general.)

This is not a happy picture, and it answers the question very clearly. Yes, rates of cancer in dogs are higher- spectacularly so, in fact - compared to those for mammals in general. Cancer rates in other mammals are largely less than 20%, while in dogs there are only a handful of breedsin that range, and there are none at all lower than about 15%, where most of the mammals are. In fact, the Tasmanian Devil with its contagious cancer is matched by the Flatcoated Retriever and even outdone by the Irish Water Spaniel, with a half dozen more breeds almost as high.
Picture
Cancer is a problem not just in a few dog breeds but in many. Cancer rates of 20% or 30% are taken as "normal" because they are so much lower than the levels in breeds that are notorious for cancer - the ones up at 50% and 60%. Clearly, however, what is considered normal for dogs is much higher than what we see in mammals in general, and cancer rates that are "abnormally high" in dogs are actually off the charts.

Quite a bit of money is being spent on canine cancer research. Most of these studies focus on exploring possibilities for earlier detection and better treatment, both of which could do much to improve the lives and lifespans of dogs diagnosed with cancer, and they usually focus on one or a few specific breeds in which cancer rates are (perceived to be) high. But these data for dogs, especially in the context of information for mammals in general, suggest that there is a systematic problem here that is related somehow to body size: larger dogs have more cancer. Not only is there a stark difference in rates of cancer of dogs compared to other mammals of the same size, but there is also a clear difference between small and large dogs. Why? Maybe it has something to do with growth hormones (I have mentioned this here). Perhaps this is the manifestation of Peto's Paradox. We don't know because as far as I know, nobody is addressing the problem of cancer from a broad perspective that recognizes these patterns in the data.

A few clever scientists, knowing a bit about cancer in other mammals, have discovered a really interesting thing about the genomes of elephants that makes them especially resistant to cancer, something that tells us a bit more about the biology of cancer in all animals. I think dogs have much to tell us about this awful disease if we back away from addressing it as a breed problem resulting from genetic bad luck, and instead see it as evidence that there might be some unknown but fundamental process that is driving the risk of cancer in dogs. We just need to figure out what it is.

Wondering where a particular breed would be on the graph above? The cancer data for dogs are from Dobson 2013 and are compiled HERE.

Abegglen LM, AF Caulin, A Chan, and others. 2015 Potential mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and comparative cellular response to DNA damage in humans. JAMA ( doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13134). (pdf)

Peto R, FJ Roe, PN Lee, L Levy, J Clack. 1975. Cancer and ageing in mice and men. Br. J. Cancer 32: 411-426.

Sulak M, L Fong, K Mika, and others. MS. TP53 copy number expansion correlates with the evolution of increased body size and an enhanced DNA damage response in elephants. BioRxiv (doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/028522). (pdf)
Don't miss a post - subscribe to our blog!

To learn more about the genetics of dogs, check out
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