Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.


Durham Research Online
You are in:

Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography.

Larson, Greger and Karlsson, Elinor K. and Perri, Angela and Webster, Matthew T. and Ho, Simon Y. W. and Peters, Joris and Stahl, Peter W. and Piper, Philip J. and Lingaas, Frode and Fredholm, Merete and Comstock, Kenine E. and Modiano, Jaime F. and Schelling, Claude and Agoulnik, Alexander I. and Leegwater, Peter A. and Dobney, Keith and Vigne, Jean-Denis and Vilà, Carles and Andersson, Leif and Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin (2012) 'Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography.', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America., 109 (28). pp. 8878-8883.

Abstract

The dog was the first domesticated animal but it remains uncertain when the domestication process began and whether it occurred just once or multiple times across the Northern Hemisphere. To ascertain the value of modern genetic data to elucidate the origins of dog domestication, we analyzed 49,024 autosomal SNPs in 1,375 dogs (representing 35 breeds) and 19 wolves. After combining our data with previously published data,we contrasted the genetic signatures of 121 breeds with a worldwide archeological assessment of the earliest dog remains. Correlating the earliest archeological dogswith the geographic locations of 14 so-called “ancient” breeds (defined by their genetic differentiation) resulted in a counterintuitive pattern. First, none of the ancient breeds derive fromregionswhere the oldest archeological remains have been found. Second, three of the ancient breeds (Basenjis, Dingoes, and New Guinea Singing Dogs) come from regions outside the natural range of Canis lupus (the dog’s wild ancestor) and where dogs were introduced more than 10,000 y after domestication. These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixturewith other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication.

Item Type:Article
Full text:PDF - Published Version (319Kb)
Status:Peer-reviewed
Publisher Web site:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203005109
Record Created:22 May 2012 11:50
Last Modified:12 Jun 2012 14:36

Social bookmarking: del.icio.usConnoteaBibSonomyCiteULikeFacebookTwitterExport: EndNote, Zotero | BibTex
Usage statisticsLook up in GoogleScholar | Find in a UK Library