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

Why dogs are sloppy drinkers (and cats aren't)

11/25/2014

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD

You probably lie awake at night wondering about this. How do dogs get water into their mouth without putting their face in it. And how do they manage to get so much of it on the floor?

Science now knows.

As I'm sure you are aware, dogs can't suck. It has to do with the fact that they have "incomplete cheeks" (yours are "complete"), so they can't pucker up and generate negative pressure to pull water into their mouth. What they do is actually more interesting - they essentially "pull" water into their mouth. They dip their tongue into the water and curl it back on itself forming a cup that contains water, then they draw it quickly into the mouth. This creates a column of water behind the accelerating tongue that also draws the water into the mouth. And they don't do this especially carefully. Cats don't make such a mess because they dip their tongue in the water more delicately. It's finesse, really. (The link above also has a cat video.)

Easier to watch than explain -

More here...

The complexity of coat color

11/21/2014

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD

Those with a fascination for the genetics of coat color in dogs will no doubt be familiar with the excellent website Genetics of Coat Color and Type in Dogs created by Dr Sheila Schmutz, a geneticist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada.

A new paper by Schmutz and D.L. Dreger ( 2014) adds a few new wrinkles to our understanding of the complexity of canine coat color, focusing on three genes in the pigmentation pathway: the Agouti signal protein (ASIP), Melanocortin receptor 1 (MC1R), and Beta-defensin 103 (DEFB103). They argue that the usual characterization of non-additive genetic interactions of coat color genes as either dominance deviation or epistasis is too simplistic. They suggest that some additional types of non-additive genetic interactions should be considered, including "multiple modification" and "specific modification", and they provide some examples of each.

You can download a copy of this interesting paper from the link below.

Picture
  • Schumutz SM & DL Dreger 2014 Genetic interatinos among three pigmentation loci in domestic dogs. Proc 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; August 2014.  (pdf).

Epilepsy incidence and mortality in 35 dog breeds

11/18/2014

 
INCIDENCE
By Carol Beuchat PhD

A new study just published (Heske et al 2014) documents the incidence of epilepsy (both idiopathic and symptomatic) and mortality rate in 35 breeds of dogs in Sweden, and the Boxer is (unfortunately) the clear winner by far in terms of both.

The study was based on insurance data for the years 1995-2006, and the data were expressed as either incidence or mortality per 10,000 dog-years at-risk (DYAR; equivalent to 10,000 dogs followed for 1 year). The study population consisted of 665,249 dogs, for which there were insurance claims for epilepsy from 5013 dogs. Males had both higher incidence and higher mortality than females (1.4:1). They found that breeds likely to be kept only as companions had higher rates of survival than those likely to be dual purpose - companion as well as hunting, herding, and working, perhaps reflecting a willingness to invest more in treatment of companion dogs. Females survived longer than males after diagnosis. In general, dogs lived only 1.5 years after diagnosis.

NOTE: These data are for ONLY the 35 breeds with the most records in the Swedish database. So for example the boxer is not necessarily the breed worst affected by epilepsy; it is the breed with the highest rate and mortality among the breeds used in this analysis. Most dogs in Sweden are insured, so this is a reasonably accurate assessment of incidence and mortality for the breeds they studied.



Picture
Picture
SURVIVAL AFTER DIAGNOSIS
Picture


MORTALITY
Picture
Picture
Heske l, A nodtvedt, K Hultin Jaderlund, M Berendt, A Egenvall. 2014. A cohort study of epilepsy among 665,000 insured dogs- incidence, mortality and survival after diagnosis.  Vet J (in press).

Reducing genetic risk

11/9/2014

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD

Many canine genetic disorders are caused by autosomal recessive mutations. A dog with only one copy is usually unaffected if the other copy of the gene is the normal version.  But if two animals that both have one copy of the mutation are bred, there is one chance in four that an offspring will be affected because it receives two copies of the mutation. This is from the simple Punnett square - 25% of the offspring will get two copies of the normal gene, 50% will be carriers, and 25% will be homozygous for the mutation.

With the availability of DNA tests for many genetic disorders caused by autosomal recessive mutations, breeders can determine the carrier status of a dog and completely eliminate the risk of producing affected animals. Because these DNA tests reduce the potential risk of producing an affected dog from 25% to 0%, they are a very powerful way to manage specific genetic disorders in purebred dogs.

Unfortunately we have DNA tests for only a fraction of the known mutations in dogs, and there are probably hundreds more recessive mutations lurking in the gene pools of our dogs that we know nothing about. It's easy to see how we can manage the risk of problems from recessive mutations that we can test for, but what can we do about all the ones we don't?

This is a really important question, and one we don't often consider. The question we should ask first is whether we really need to worry about those unknowns. We don't know what they are or what problems they might cause (and of course, a mutation might be "neutral" and not cause a problem at all), so how big of a problem could they be? Consider that the mutations that we now have tests for only showed up on the radar because people starting seeing dogs affected by a genetic disorder. Before this, the mutation could have been passed from parent to offspring without harm for dozens or even hundreds of generations. As a general rule of thumb, we can expect every animal to carry a few mutations that would be lethal in a homozygous offspring, and many more will have some significant impact on health. So there are no doubt many, many more recessive mutations in the genomes of our dogs that will surface and cause problems if puppies get two copies.

If we can agree that we should assume that the genome of every dog will carry some mutations we don't know about that have the potential of causing trouble, then it is important for us to consider the risk not just from known mutations, but from those unknown mutations as well. We know that we can reduce the risk of affected offspring to zero with a simple DNA test, and that is certainly worth doing. But what can we do about the mutations we can't test for? Can we do better than just cross our fingers and hope?

Fortunately, we can. We understand how recessive mutations work. Puppies that get two copies will be affected, so our goal should be to find a way to reduce the risk of breeding two carriers. (There is no risk from breeding a carrier with a dog that is clear of the mutation.) But since we can't know who carriers are, or how many there might be in the population, how can we approach this problem?

If a mutation is recessive, a puppy that gets two copies will be affected, so the risk of producing affected puppies is equal to the probability of inheriting two copies of the allele, which is the same as the coefficient of inbreeding. As in this graph, the risk is therefore directly proportional to COI.
Picture
We know that if we breed two carriers, the risk of affected offspring is 25%. If we can do the DNA test for that mutation, we don't need to use COI to estimate risk; whatever the COI, we can know the specific risk from that mutation from our test. We can breed a litter with a COI of 10%, or 25%, or 50%, or whatever - and know absolutely that the risk of producing affected puppies is zero as long as only one parent carries the mutation.  So in this case, our graph looks like this:
Picture
So this is great. If we have a DNA test, we can reduce the risk of affected puppies from 25% to zero.

Now, how do we deal with all of the mutations we don't have tests for? These will behave as we described above - the COI of the puppy (the probability of homozygosity) will be the same as the risk of being affected. The higher the COI, the greater the risk of producing puppies affected by some genetic disorder caused by one of the recessive mutations that we know nothing about.
Picture
If you are DNA testing your dogs (and you should be!), you are reducing the risk of a known genetic disorder from 25% to zero. But that doesn't affect the risk from unknown mutations. Presumably, if a new mutation is discovered and a DNA test is available, you would see the value in testing for that as well if there is any question that it might be in your lines.

A responsible breeder can't know the risk of producing affected puppies from an unknown mutation, but they CAN manage that risk, and the rule is simple:

Risk goes down when COI goes down, for both the known and the unknown mutations.


This means that you can reduce the risk of problems from any and ALL recessive mutations by reducing the COI of the litters you produce. Instead of adding each new DNA test to the expense of health testing your dogs, you could effectively manage the risk of genetic disease by managing the risk of homozygosity, using COI as the yardstick.
Picture
You will argue that COI is a probability, not a known value. You're right; but we can estimate COI and be confident that on average, the COI will be about what we predict. Apart from doing DNA analysis, this statistical estimate of inbreeding is the very best way to predict the outcome of a breeding. Note that your estimate of COI will only be as good as your pedigree database. It needs to go back as far as possible, preferably to founders (and this is why), and missing data will result in an underestimate of the actual COI value, so making the data as complete as possible is important. But even with all the caveats, COI is still an extremely powerful tool in the hands of a knowledgeable breeder that appreciates the benefit of reducing the risk of genetic disease caused by any mutation, not just the ones we know about and can test for. And even though the measure of benefit being considered might just be in the reduction of genetic disease, there are also very real benefits in terms of fertility and litter size, puppy survival and growth, lifespan, and general good health (see some data about benefits of reducing inbreeding here).

If you're paying to do DNA testing, don't turn around a breed a litter with a COI of 25% or more. You will have paid to swap a known risk with an unknown one. If the known risk was worth the cost of a test, consider also the value of reducing the unknown risks. Larger litters of healthier, more fertile, and longer-lived puppies can be had simply by reducing COI. That's a great payoff, and it won't cost you a thing.

Take the breeder quiz!

11/7/2014

 
By Carol Beuchat PhD


Try this little quiz testing your knowledge of the genetics of breeding:

1) What would you do if you wanted to increase the number of genetic diseases caused by recessive mutations in your breed?

2) What would you do if you wanted to reduce the size of the current gene pool?

3) What would you do to make a particular mutation "go viral" in your breed?

4) What would you do to reduce the effectiveness of the immune system?

5) What would you do if you wanted to increase the risk that a line of dogs or even a breed would go extinct just by chance because of the accidental loss of some critical gene?


ANSWERS

1)  Breed related dogs because they are most likely to have the same mutations.

2)  Restrict the number of dogs that are bred so their genes don't get passed to the next generation.

3)  Breed a dog that has that mutation as many times as possible, to get many copies of that gene into the offspring of the next generation.

4)  Because the immune system requires high genetic heterogeneity to function properly, breed for homozygosity and lower genetic diversity by breeding related dogs generation after generation.

5)  Keep the breeding population small by restricting breeding to just a fraction of the population and breeding as few dogs per litter as possible.


Well, how did you do?

In fact, we do all of these things, but for each we are trying to accomplish some "positive" goal (for example, to fix the traits we want by inbreeding or line breeding, get a bit of that popular sire into our own line, etc.). But we fail to consider the negative consequences that will also result. It doesn't matter how good a breeder you are, or how many years of experience you have, you can't gain the positives without also risking the negatives.

The high rate of genetic disorders in dogs is a direct and predictable consequence of the way we are breeding. There is no mystery to this, no difference of opinion among scientists, no bad luck involved. And it's not rocket science - you don't need a degree in genetics to understand why this is happening.

Unfortunately, the best way to get more of what we have is to keep doing what we're doing.



Check out ICB's online courses and our Breeding for the Future Facebook group

Dealing with those pesky mutations

11/6/2014

 
By Carol  Beuchat PhD

The nice thing about models is that they allow you to do "what if" experiments on paper to assess how a system will behave under particular conditions. In population genetics, this can be extremely useful, because you can test different breeding strategies without having to actually produce many litters of puppies.

For example, let's say that a new genetic disorder has been discovered in your breed that is caused by a recessive mutation (we'll call it a), so individuals that are homozygous for the mutation (aa) are identified because they are "affected". To keep it simple, we'll say that affected animals can be easily identified at birth. Breeders will understandably want to eliminate the mutation from the breed, so they begin a rigorous program of removing all affected animals from the breeding population. How long will it take to eliminate the mutation from the breed?

We can use the Hardy-Weinberg equation to address this question:
Picture
We will assume that selection against animals that are homozygous aa is complete, and that breeding is otherwise random in the population (i.e., a is the only allele under selection). Let's say that this particular disorder was recognized when the frequency of affected animals in the population was 4%; that is, the frequency of genotype aa is 0.04.

I've made this little table using the Hardy-Weinberg equation -
Picture
Okay, stay with me here:


If we know the frequency of
 aa is 0.04 (= q x q; in the table above as the 0 generation aa in yellow), then the frequency of a (= q) must be the square root of 0.04, or 0.2 (= 20%; in the table above as the 0 generation a in red). 


If 20% of the alleles in the population are a, then 80% must be A (in red for generation 0).


With this information we can fill in AA (as p x p; or, 0.8 x 0.8 = 0.64) and likewise Aa (as 2pq, or 2 x 0.8 x 0.2).


So, we now have both the gene frequencies and genotype frequencies in our population when the mutation is discovered. And, since we know that our mutation is recessive, we know that Aa will have the same phenotype (i.e., appearance) as AA, so we can also compute the phenotypes in the population (blue in the table above).

So now we want to see how long it will take to remove the mutation from the population if we remove all of the aa animals every generation. I've filled in the results in this table for generations from 1 to 40, and I've graphed the results below to make it easier to see what happens.
 


At generation 0, the frequency of allele a is 0.2, and you can see that it drops quickly by about half in the first 5 generations or so of selection. After that, however, the rate of progress slows down, and you can see that even 40 generations later we still have that pesky allele in the population.
Picture








And if we look at this graph, we can see that the frequency of affected dogs (
aa, the blue points and line) goes almost - but not quite - to zero.

 




Picture
The reason, of course, is that we are only selecting against the affected animals because we can recognize them by phenotype; animals that are carriers can't be detected, and when two carriers are bred they will produce affected offspring.

We will reduce the carrier frequency through selection, but even after generations of strong selection against affected animals, we will still have carriers in the population and therefore the risk of producing affected animals.
Picture
So even if we remove EVERY affected animal from the breeding population, we will NEVER eliminate the offending mutation from the breed. The only way we can do this (unless genetic drift removes it just by chance) is to also remove carriers - which we could do if we had a DNA test. But now we're talking about getting rid of a lot of dogs.

Go back to the table above, and look at the column in green. This is the percentage of the population each generation that would be carriers. Gosh, we would be throwing out more than 30% of the entire breed population for the first two generations, and another 20% or more for several generations after that (remember we're throwing out aa as well).

That's a LOT of dogs - and their genes - to eliminate, just to deal with that one nasty mutation. It's hard to imagine that you could do this without having serious consequences to the gene pool of the breed. Have a look at this chart of the biochemical steps that need to occur for proper energy metabolism. (Here's a tiny bit of it, just to give you an idea. If you've had some biology, you might remember that circular reaction, which is the Krebs cycle. It's too small to read, don't even try; look at the big version at the link above.)

Picture
You'll notice that everything is connected to everything else in very complicated ways - if step 4 in a 6 step sequence doesn't happen because the enzyme in step 3 is missing, then the entire pathway gets shut down. While you're selecting away to improve visible phenotype (topline, tail carriage, foot shape, herding instinct, pigmentation), you are also inadvertently running the risk of mucking up some complicated bit of chemistry that will make or break an animal. Already there are many examples of exactly this in dogs, where one broken step has huge consequences for function. Something this complex is extremely easy to break. (You might want to read Genetic disorders in dogs: breaking the machinery of life.)

It seems obvious that just tossing random genes out of the gene pool could get you into some trouble. Unfortunately, many breeds have done exactly this. Time and time again, a genetic disorder popped up suddenly out of nowhere, breeders decided to manage it by eliminating all dogs with the gene, both affected and carriers, and they decimated their gene pool. Then invariably some other, previously unknown mutation starts causing problems, and the purge cycle begins again. This isn't genetic management. This is breed suicide. But it happens over and over. And it might not be an overt policy to eliminate carrier animals, but if people refuse to breed from them, the effect is the same - eventually, it's a genetic catastrophe that breeders will be unable to reverse.

The original point here was to look at how we can use a simple model like the Hardy-Weinberg equation to see what might happen under certain conditions. We could elaborate on a simple model like this, and for instance add into consideration that breeding is not random apart from the mutation we're trying to get rid of, but instead there is some level of deliberate inbreeding. We could see how a specific rate of inbreeding would affect allele and genotype frequencies in the population over time, and what it would mean to our efforts to manage a damaging allele. Population geneticists now have sophisticated software that allows them to model breeding strategies to determine the most effective way to reach a certain goal, or to determine how long it would take a population to reach a certain size, or how the frequency of a genetic disease would change over time. The permutations are infinite. But at the core of all of these population genetic models is the Hardy-Weinberg law that describes how gene frequencies vary in populations.
Check out ICB's online courses and our Breeding for the Future Facebook group!

    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