Chicken DNA Increase in Jungle Fowl Population

A male red jungle fowl and chicken hybrid.
Has the plumage of a red jungle fowl but in a rooster shape.

The red jungle fowl and domesticated chicken share a common ancestor, but recently there has been a trend in the red jungle fowl's DNA. The fowl and chickens have been interbreeding with the jungle fowl in Southeast Asia. The domesticated chickens and jungle fowl were researched to determine if the cross was harmful to the populations. This interbreeding has resulted the modern fowls having 20-50% of the genomes that originated from domesticated chickens. Over the last century, many domesticated species have been interbreeding with the wild populations. It was expected that the two populations would have a higher genetic diversity, but the jungle fowl have lost their genetic diversity. The measure of a population's genetic diversity, heterozygosity, is only 10% of what it was a century ago which could be a result of the domestic chickens having such low genetic diversity.

Most of the traits that chickens have been bred for are for human uses, which would decrease the survival of the red jungle fowls. The genetic change of the fowl is negative for both domestic chickens and fowls. Fowls have a lower chance of survival as their survival traits are replaced for the traits that were selected for in chickens. As the red jungle fowl becomes more like chickens, humans cannot use the genetics of the fowl to help make domestic chickens more resilient to disease. 

Although the red jungle fowl and domesticated chickens appear similar, it is important to reduce the interbreeding between the two. In my opinion, the managing of the jungle fowl populations is a great initiative. Humans need the domestic chickens as a source of food, and the wild red jungle fowl are vital in improving the chickens resistance. The separation will also be beneficial to the red jungle fowl by keeping the wild-type traits as the traits with the highest survivability in the wild. 

Sources:

Science News

Smithsonian Magazine

Feline Genetics Help To Find First Ever Domestication Of Cats

Around 10,000 years ago, humans in the Middle East's Fertile Crescent transitioned from hunting and gathering to farming. They formed partnerships with cats, which aided in pest control. A University of Missouri study led by feline geneticist Leslie A. Lyons traced the domestication of cats to this period. Through DNA analysis of cats from the Fertile Crescent, Europe, Asia, and Africa, using markers like microsatellites and single nucleotide polymorphisms, the study revealed that the Fertile Crescent was likely the first site of cat domestication. Cats accompanied humans during their global travels, resulting in diverse cat populations. These semi-domesticated cats maintained much of their natural behavior. This research supports Lyons' broader aim of using cats for biomedical research, with genetic tools aiding disease studies. The study highlights the genetic similarities between cats and humans and the potential for using cats to study diseases shared by both species.

Whole-Genome Resequencing Reveals Origination of the Cannabis Plant in China

 

    A recent study was conducted at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland in order to determine the domestication history and cultivation origin of Cannabis sativa. This study added 82 further genomes to the 28 that had already been sequenced of the cannabis plant, making this the largest ever whole genome study. The resequencing of genomes unravels the previously unknown history of the cannabis plant, showing its roots in current northwest China. Cannabis was most likely first domesticated in the Neolithic Era around 12,000 years ago, and since then has spread around the world. 

    This study characterized the genetic relationships between Cannabis accessions using ML phylogeny, and the results showed a clustering into four separate groups. Each of the clusters found complete consistency with one another, showing that all current hemp and drug cultivars resulted from an ancestral gene pool represented by feral plants in China. Cannabis plants that originate in Central Asia are the “hemp” type, meaning they are tall, unbranched, and they produce fibers used for ropes and textiles. The original domestication and cultivation of Cannabis plants in the Neolithic Era around 12,000 years ago is affirmed by archaeological evidence of ancient cannabis seeds in pottery in China, Taiwan, and Japan. Overall, this study of whole-genome resequencing revealed the origination of Cannabis sativa in modern day northwest China.

Link to Study: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/29/eabg2286

Link to Article: https://www.livescience.com/cannabis-origins-largest-genetic-study.html

When Evolution hands you Citrus

 

    No other fruits other than the apple has pervaded our taste buds so distinctly than citrus. Whether lemon, lime, grapefruit, mandarin, orange or many others, the tart yet sweet flavor has no comparison to any other food. In a 2018 BBC article, the origins of citrus have been traced back parts of Southeastern Asia. The specific regions named in a Nature Article correlate to modern day Yunan province of China, Assam province in India, in the shadow of the Himalayas and Myanmar. Then from there it had spread to the Australian continent, probably by oceanic currents. Some species of citrus drifted over to other islands, becoming genetically isolated from mainland citrus and growing into new species.

    From that point on crossbreeding or interbreeding, whether by accident or intentionally by humans, diversified the citrus profile. Adding flavors, new tolerances for differing climates, or even mixing up for a change. Citrus has com a long way for the monsoon sodden Southeast Asia to becoming a fixture in supermarkets and breakfasts. 

This would be intriging to see what the future for citrus would turn out. Would they remove that orange residual on fingers when peeling them. How about a sourer flavor that would rival artificial candies? The qualities goes on and on that could be changed for citrus. 

The Complex History of Mangoes

Are you a top mango or bottom mango buyer?

Mangoes, the best fruit in the world. I don't just say that because it's my favorite. It's literally called the King of Fruits. There are over a thousand varieties of this tropical nutrient-dense produce. Thanks to an analysis of a variety of mangoes, we now know the history of mangoes is more complex than originally believed to be. Considering the domestication of mangoes, it was suspected that genetic diversity would decrease, as it does with many other crops, and lose even more diversity as it travels to a new environment. However, this fantastic fruit went against the grain and was found to have multiple different domestications that resulted in an increase in variety. Although diversity in mangoes may not seem that important, it can help us to understand the mechanisms of mangoes so they can be improved for future consumption. Although, I don't think anything can beat the taste of the current mango.

Ancient hanky panky gave modern goats their iron stomachs

GOAT: Greatest of all time. It is no wonder these amazing animals were one of, if not the first, to be domesticated. Domestication of the Capra aegagrus hircus goats was made easier due to the cross they had with the wild goat breed West Caucasian tur, giving them the important MUC6 gene. This gene is found in the lining of goats and helps protect them from parasites, which are very likely when they are in crowded areas for an extended period of time. The discovery of this gene gave more proof to researchers that the important genes for domesticated animals aren't always related to their appearance. The MUC6 gene makes maintaining goats easier for those who choose to raise them.

Using fox genes to predict the genetics of behavior

CATHLEEN O'GRADY

         Almost 60 years ago in 1969 a experiment began in Siberia by Dmitry Belyaev to explore the process of domestication in foxes. Some foxes were calmer than others when being introduced to humans so he bred foxes that were calm with each other and after a few generations, many differences were revealed. Besides being calmer around humans, they also were more baby-faced, with floppy ears, patchy coloring, curlier tails and even dog like changes such as a bark. This group and another bred with aggression then had their genomes explored looking for a connection between the genomes and domestication. These conditions are created by humans as opposed to the wild so they look for the signature of artificial selection instead of natural selection. 103 regions of fox genomes were found to be altered which points to one gene in particular. This gene has also been related to behavior in rats and bipolar disorder in humans. This research shows us how easily changes can be made in a short amount of time. This also gives us many other routes tot take to continue this research. 

         This is a very interesting active and research that is decades in the making. This could also lead to our better understanding of the behavior in animals which would make it easier to domesticate and prevent dangerous situations. This eventually could help us understand the behavior of humans with their genomes which could lead to breakthroughs in human behavior disorders. 

Article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/friendly-fox-genomes-help-us-understand-the-genetics-of-behavior/

Related Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/08/06/a-soviet-era-experiment-to-tame-foxes-may-help-reveal-genes-behind-social-behavior/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.57cf1a86448e

Who's a good... Wolf?

The loyal dog's we know today, are relatives to the wolf. They are our trusty companions but why? Where did the floppy eared, big eyed, goof we know today come from (yes there are dogs that are bread to have ears sticking up as well)? Evidence points to dogs being our longest and oldest companions being domesticated not only from a single area but from multiple points all around the world.

Many have hypothesized how wolfs ended up becoming domesticated. Some believe that we actively tried to domesticate them to be used for hunting, helping our ancestors and acted on their own accord. Others believe that the wolf  (some) began to follow our trail of scraps left behind in search of food themselves and that they had a trait in their genome that was more tame that would allow for us to allow for them to approach us.

From studies done we know that the Eurasian grey wolves around 10,000 to 40,000 years ago were domesticated. Dogs that we know of today like the Doberman, Maltese, Pitbull, Pomeranian, and ect. were not what the early traits were sought out for physical aesthetics but rather only that they do not hurt us and are friendly. It should be known that the traits for behavior and physical attributes are linked in a way. They are the NCC or neural crest cells, and biologist have focus in on these as they believe this is what was the catalyst for the domestication syndrome.

"NCCs are stem cells found in every embryo that show up first at the crest, or top edge, of the neural tube, which will eventually become the brain and spinal cord. As the embryo develops, a number of different genes signal NCCs to activate and move, along specific paths, to different areas of the body to perform different tasks. the range of activities that NCCs do it enormous: the adrenal and pituitary systems, which are involved in aggression, fear and other behaviors, are derived from NCCs, but these cells are also involved in regulating physical traits such as pigmentation of skin and hair."(1)

The group of scientists involved in this study decided to look into 429 different genes in forty three wild village dogs from four different continents. Focusing on genes that act in early embryogenesis. They then compared these village dogs to "ancient dogs older than 5,000 years" (1). What they found was a similarity in their genome sugesting that these traits were the result of original domestication. This shows that the later attempts of domestication to different specific breads was not the cause for the tame like trait we see in dogs. 

"Selecting for behavioral traits such as reduced fear of humans, a key element of tameness, favored certain genetic signatures. In turn, those genetic signatures changed how the NCCs they activated actually migrated around the body and performed."(1)

Even with this new information we do not know how domestication took place but we do have more insight into it. We may never know why or how specifically this domestication of our fury friends happened, but what we do know is that they were part of our journey so far and are not going anywhere in the near future. The dogs we know of today will continue to change in features as we deem to be necessary/aesthetically pleasing.

P.s DO NOT try to domesticate wild wolves.

references:
1- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2018/06/27/dog-genes/#.W2ELUtJKhPY
2- https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-018-0535-2

Genome editing: Pressing the 'delete' button on DNA

The Johnson lab recently created the Crispr-Cas9  a new technique for editing genomes. It can be used to delete any piece of "non-coding DNA" The lead researcher Carlos Pullido created a software  called CRISPETa, the user tells CRISPETa which region they want to delete and the software returns sgRNAs that can be used by the researchers. It is expected that CRISPR will lead to being able to reverse disease causing mutations.  Although right now CRISPR is in its experimental stages i believe this new technology could revolutionize not only  the way we approach gene therapy in humans but also lead too domestication of wild crops. Rather than mix the DNA of different species this new gene editing software can speed up the time it takes to domesticate wild foods by editing existing genetic material. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170302144002.html

http://www.seeker.com/cripsr-gene-editing-domesticate-wild-crops-frankenfoods-2305925383.html

DNA Shows That Dogs Were Domesticated More Than Once

Scientists have recently discovered that it may have been possible that dogs were domesticated not only once but twice. This quite possibly could have occurred in East Asia and Europe. Two specific breeds scientists think were found and domesticated at different times are the German Shepard and the Chinese Shar-pei. The scientists have continued to use DNA to find when and where these different dog breeds came from. It is believed that dogs were domesticated well before the time of herding and farming, which help lead other animals into being domesticated. The scientists believe that many of the breeds originally came from wolves.

Scientists recently dug up a dog thousands of years old in Ireland. The Irish dog still had well conserved DNA in the head behind the temporal lobe. This allowed scientists to extract the DNA and test it. From the DNA the scientists could tell the dog did not have white or black fur, or even spots, but probably fur similar to a wolf. The domesticated Irish Wolfhound today is still very large and does most definitely resemble a wolf. But what is truly interesting is that from the DNA scientists found the dog had enigmatic DNA, meaning the dog did not have any DNA found in other dogs or wolves. By using mitochondrial DNA scientists have also discovered quite possibly how old dogs are.

I find this so interesting because I love dogs and I love to learn about where they came from. I have a pug and I know that he is from China. It's just very cool to see how different dogs are from different areas of the world. Yet, humans can all be traced by to Africa. German shepherds are great for training and it is known that they are used in the police forces and military. On the other hand, dogs like shar-peis (I have a mix) and pugs are not exactly the same and used for other talents. It makes me wonder if it is because of where they were domesticated. I also found it amazing that scientists could take DNA from a dog that was almost five thousand years old! I just find it fascinating that we have the technology and knowledge to continue to learn about evolution and how we got to where we are.

Farming and its Effect on Dogs

Dogs were domesticated around 15,000 years ago, and as companions to hunter-gatherers ate a lot of meat and extra food not eaten by the humans that they traveled with. As farming emerged in human culture, the genome of the dog began to be transformed. More starch-filled foods were integrated into the human diet, prompting a demand for adaptations in both humans and dogs in the digestion of foods containing starchy grains like wheat and millet. 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/163677767684446630/

Eric Axelsson, an evolutionary geneticist, and his colleagues discovered that domesticated dogs have four to thirty copies of the Amy2B gene, a gene that helps digest starch. Wolves and wild dogs only have two of the Amy2B gene, suggesting that the change in the dogs genome had to do with starch consumption. To further study this discovery, scientists such as Morgane Ollivier and Ecole Normale Supeieure de Lyon collaborated with Axelsson to study DNA extracted from the bones of dogs and wolves from 7000 and 5000 year old archaeological sites. They discovered that these domestic dogs also had many of the Amy2B gene; they had eight compared to the much lower number of the Amy2B found in non-domesticated dogs and wild wolves. This indicated that the increase in the Amy2B gene was not just due to modern dog-breeding, but to the effects of farming. More recent research conducted this year also supports this research. This adaptation has allowed dogs to continue to be a big part of human life.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/how-farming-changed-dog

Genes underlying dogs' social ability revealed

Dogs were the first animal to be domesticated by humans, and it may have been as early as 16,000 years ago. In these thousands of years spent together, both species have co evolved and changed their relationship from what it started out as.  Dogs were first domesticated by early humans to serve as a wet nurse and help care for young babies while the parents were off hunting and gathering.  Since then, dogs have developed much better abilities to communicate and cooperate with humans.  Dogs often times come to humans for help, whereas their ancestral wolf would rather find solutions on its own.  A new study published in Scientific Reports searched for any relationship between this change in behavior and the genetic makeup of the dogs.

human and puppy bonding together

The study observed 500 beagles with previous experience around humans, and then presented the beagles with a problem. The problem was to open a sealed container that has food in it, and when they accepted it was too difficult, they observed if the beagles turned to human contact to solve the problem.  Of the 500 beagles studied, 200 of them were selected to have their DNA studied using a genome-wide association study (GWAS). The GWAS is able to find out if a particular gene variant is present in the dogs who exhibit a specific trait. A direct correlation was found using this method which determined that there actually were gene variants for the dogs who seeked human contact. Further support for this hypothesis would be if they performed this experiment on different dog breeds and still got similar results.

link to full article

Evolution in Action

In hatcheries, fish live in more crowded conditions and eat different food than wild fish do.  Genetic change in hatchery populations would be no surprise.  What was a surprise was the sheer amount of change found after only one generation of hatchery fish in a study conducted by the Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.  They found that first generation hatchery steelhead trout and wild steelhead trout had differences in the activity of over seven hundred genes.  Many of these genes were involved in wound healing, immunity, and metabolism.  According to Mark Christie, the study's lead author, these changes are consistent with what is expected in the early stages of domestication, when animals adapt to more crowded conditions.  The researchers hope that by better understanding the genetic changes caused by the hatchery environment, the methods of raising fish can be changed so as to maintain a closer degree of similarity to the wild fish.

It makes sense that the genetic changes associated with living in captivity would involve metabolism, because of the change in diet, as well as wound healing and immunity, because with more crowded conditions the incidence of injury and disease increases.  The number of genes involved in so short a period of time is surprising, but more understandable when you consider that a sudden change in environment will probably kill off individuals unsuited to the new environment more quickly than will a slow change.  That's not accounting for any epigenetic changes or artifical selection of the healthiest fish that may be going on at the same time.
As far as raising captive fish to be more like wild fish is concerned, it follows that if they are raised in conditions more similar to those that wild fish live in, they will be more like wild fish.  What genetics has to do with it, I don't know.

Chickens going Feral, must be Jungle Fever

      Chickens have been a domesticated part of human civilization for roughly the last 8,000 years. Before  traveling throughout the world and farming them for our needs, they were wild animals and found predominantly in Southeastern Asia. Today they remain a major part of our dietary needs for protein thanks to the size of the poultry industry. This is only possible if they stay in our care on our farms, but for various reasons their escape into the wild occurs out of our control. In the particular case of the Kauai chickens of Hawaii there has been a few decades worth of breeding through natural selection.

      Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus) are considered to be the ancestors of our cock-a-doodling feathery friends. In Kauai chickens that were raised on farms have occasionally been swept away during major storm systems and found themselves amid their ancestral partners, and they seem to have diligently contributed to what is now a hybridized population. These birds went on for decades without human dependence for their growth. What we see now is the expression of wild genes that we as consumers do not select for in our farm-raised variety of chickens. The feral variety make shorter versions of the kinds of calls that we hear on our farms at those ungodly hours, the males tend to have larger crowns, and their plumage is often speckled with various reds, greens and browns throughout. Another thing we breed chickens for is neglecting to brood their eggs so that we can go and collect them when needed. These feral chickens on the other hand don't like that at all, and it has been found that the gene for brooding is among a large number of genes that made the Red Junglefowl much more likely to survive in the wild. 

      The people of Kauai for the most part accept them as part of the local culture. It certainly gives scientists a reminder of how we consider the way species evolved. And also raises the question, is feralization the opposite of domestication?

      I've read through these articles with a pretty open mind. I can agree with Dr. Gering and the research his team made, especially for bringing up that idea. The next step after feralization should be to become a wild species, a unique species that has evolved and is well established in the environment. In my opinion the answer cannot be a clear yes or no because if left alone they will no longer be the species that we domesticated. In the research they conducted it points out that this is what is going on. These birds aren't becoming Red Junglefowl, and they definitely aren't growing up to be featured in a sandwich at McDonald's® like their cousins in poultry farms. The genes they share right now make them something in between, and while they continue to live in the wild they will eventually be considered to be a new species. I think this is what makes life and evolution so interesting to study. Distinctions between what is known and what is new in a species can be blurred by altering a few genes and their will to survive.

Cat Genome Reveals Clues to Domestication

     Although cats have been domesticated for approximately 9,000 years, this is a relatively short time period when compared to other animals like dogs that have been domesticated for at least 18,000 years. In order to find DNA proof of the domestication of cats, the genomes of domestic cats were compared to the genomes of wild cats. By determining which parts of the cat genome changed in response to living with humans, the genetics of domestication can be explored. It was found that the three areas that change the most in response to living with humans were areas involving fear, memory, and reward-seeking. Each of these different behaviors, especially when an animal will do something because it seeks a reward, are thought to be important to the process of domestication.

                               

     In order to determine the specific characteristics of domestication, the genomes of purebred cats were sequenced during the cat genome sequencing project of 2007. It turns out that docility, hair patterns, and hair color are all traits that are linked to domestication. This made sense because modern breeds are bred by humans to have some of these particular characteristics. A breed of cat called Birman were also investigated in this study. This breed of cat is notable for its characteristic white paws. After researching the reason behind this trait, it was found that Birmans have white paws due to just two small changes in the gene associated with hair color. In addition, this genetic change was shown to be present in all Birman cats. Due to this, it can be shown that humans bred these cats selectively for their white paws and that this change in their genome occurred over a short period of time.

    

     I find this article interesting because it describes the relationship between genetics and domestication. By discovering that domestication involves changing a species on a genetic level, it can be concluded that any animal can be domesticated given enough time for these changes to occur. Therefore, by domesticating new animals of different types, humans will be better able to use animals to complete tasks or keep them as pets.

Source: Cat Genome Reveals Clues to Domestication

Genetic Factors in Tameness of Rats

In 1959 Dmitri Belyaev, a Soviet scientist, began experiments in the pursuit to domesticate foxes. Through a series of multiple crosses only involving those foxes who displayed the least amount of timidness and the most amount of "kindness", Dmitri sought after a tame silver fox. It only took 20 generations for 35% of the experimental population to reach an "elite" level, meaning these foxes were not only tame and nonhostile, but were eager for human contact. 

Researchers at the University of Leipzig in Germany followed up these experiments by trying to understand the genetic variables involved of the tameness of animals. Using rats who's ancestors were the start of an experiment started by Dmitri over 40 years ago, researchers carried out the same process of breeding those rats most kind to researchers while also breeding those rats who were most hostile or timid in a separate group. Researchers found that after over 60 generations of breeding, mice from the two groups behaved very differently. The rats of the timid group were apt to running away or attacking upon contact with a researcher, while the rats of the "tame" group were easily handled and were comfortable in human presence. Researchers were able to identify gene regions that were responsible for tameness upon crossing these rats to produce hybrids. It was found that some gene regions contained gene variants that were more active in aggressive rats while some gene regions were more active in the tame rats. More research must be done to determine exactly what genes are in play when domesticating animals and how these genes work. Animals have been domesticated for thousands of years but the genetic factors involved in these domestication processes are still little known which is why more research like this must be done.

Article Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141107091658.htm
Supporting Link: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002962

Thank You Genetic Changes For My Precious Cat

Everyone knows that cats are the best animal, but little was known about how genetics influenced the domestication of the cat. A recent study showed that found some of the genes that were responsible for the differences in wildcats and house cats. The research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that also looks at a journal article released in Gigascience that was about the cat genome. This was worked on internationally because cats are just that important. Really, they are important because more than 250 diseases that are found in humans are similar in cats. Cats are useful for the study of medicine and diseases for humans.

My cat Scruffles with Goldie the Chicken. He doesn't ever attack chickens.

The study showed that that the difference in house and wild cat personalities are their genes according to Stephen O'Brien. He said that cat domestication began with the spread of agriculture and wildcats were scavenging for waste. He believes that our human ancestors worked their way up to approaching a feeding wildcat and maybe even got their hands on a few kittens.
Looking at the genome, researchers found 3 possible genetic links that lead to a change in the temperament of the cats. House cats have mutations on genes to mediate aggressive behavior, form memories, and control the ability to learn based on stimuli. These cats mated and passed these gene changes onto their precious little kittens. Humans also were found to change the genes involved in cat diets because cats began to be able to digest plant matter much more efficiently. Getting involved with humans caused cats to become more domesticated and become the lovable cuddly balls of fur they are today.
This article is exciting because the genomes of cats have been examined more and can lead to medical changes for humans as more research is done. It also shows how genome sequencing are being deciphered and how scientists can link certain genes to certain traits and discover mutations and changes. It is also just exciting because it is about cats. Overall this article is a good read though.

Article: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/genes-cat-domestication/

The Lost Identity of Man's Best Friend

We believe that the origin of Earth was caused by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, but what can we say about the origin of dogs?

Comparing the two, the origin of dogs may seem minuscule and unimportant but just how much do we know about our best friend? Some people agreed on the fact dogs came from wolves, aside that we only know dogs appeared around 15,000 to 100,000 years ago somewhere in Asia or Africa.

According to Dr. Greger Larson at University of Durham, England, it is currently improbable to trace when and where dogs originated from the DNA of modern dogs. Larson and twenty other authors have been working on a paper about the origins of dog domestication. Currently the team has analyzed 49,024 locations on dog DNA; working with 1,375 DNA samples from 121 breed, and 19 wolves.So far they have only been successful tracing back to about a hundred years.

Larson and his colleagues concluded on how modern dog breeding is making it more difficult to locate when or where dogs were first domesticated. In fact, dog breeding had been so mixed, that the genetic history for dogs became very obscured; with the exception of basenji, shar-pei, Saluki, Akita, Finnish spitz, and Eurasier bring slightly less mixed.

What Larson and his team found out was that, dogs that are most genetically distinct were not from the places where the oldest dog fossil was found. Larson expected if these breeds were closer genetically to the first domesticated dogs, they would be geographically closer to sites of early dog fossils or ancient dog breeds. However, their studies shows the more genetically distinct dogs had been geographically isolated quite recent in the history of domestication. For instance, dingoes, basenjis, and New Guinea singing dogs came from southeast Asia and southern Africa about 3,500 and 1,400 years ago.

Larson concluded that there is still hope to learn about the origin of dogs. People have burying their dogs for a long amount of history, thus somewhere, there really is a fossil of an ancient dog--we just have to find it.

I think dog breeding is one of the things we, as humans take for granted. We decide on the breed that we want for our own purposes, not knowing the consequences of our selfishness. In order to create a companion to cuddle and be dog show material--we have made our best friend lost his identity. Everyone kept saying how much they love their dogs, but just how much do we know about their history?

Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/science/dogs-genetic-roots-remain-obscure.html?_r=0

Related article: http://www.npr.org/2013/07/10/200498354/barking-up-the-family-tree-american-dogs-have-surprising-genetic-roots

Genetic Study Wolf-Dog Hybridization

         The origin of man's best friend can go back tens of thousands of years, to when men domesticated wolves. Men didn't domesticate wolves once, but there were several times when wolves were domesticated throughout our history. This topic is very important to us as we are extremely interested in exactly where this all happened and started. Now, with modern genetic research and techniques, the picture can begin to be painted. The origin of the domestic dog can be further researched from that link. Currently research is proceeding to further our knowledge of the domestication of dogs, and we know about this from articles such as these....

http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-wolf-dog-hybridization-caucasus-01853.html

.... This article is mainly talking about the genetic study that is pointing to a wolf-dog hybridization. The geneticists use certain techniques that extract the DNA from fur samples as well as blood samples. From their findings, 2 to 3 percent were first generation hybrids, which would have been the combination of shepherd dogs and wolves to protect sheep. They wanted to see the hybridization rate, so they did this by examining mitochondrial DNA. Looking into this site will further the knowledge of those who don't fully understand calculating hybridization rates. Furthermore, from this study they  found that about a third of the dogs examined shared maternal ancestry with local wolves, and not with the wolves of the Far East, like previously believed. We are still in the process of finishing this puzzle, and we seem to be on the right track.

Dog and Wolf Share Common Ancestor

A recent study in PLoS Genetics claims that dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago. This dates back to before humans transition to agricultural societies which contradicts previous notions that early farmers adopted docile, friendly wolves that would later become our domesticated companions. It is believed that the earliest dogs may have lived among hunter-gatherer societies thus adapting to agricultural life later.

The team behind this study used the highest quality genome sequences to date from three grey wolves. They chose one wolf from China, Croatia and Israel because these regions represent where dogs are believed to have originated. They then compared these sequences to those of a basenji, which originates in central Africa, and a dingo from Australia. These breeds were chosen because both of these locations are isolated from modern wolf populations.

Their analysis of the different genomes revealed that the dog breeds were more closely related to each other rather than to the wolves. Likewise, the wolves genomes were also more closely related to each other than to the dogs. This indicates that instead of the dogs being closely related to one of the wolf lineages, or each dog being related to its closest geographic counterpart, (i.e. the basenji and Israeli wolf, or the dingo and the Chinese wolf), they may have descended from an extinct, wolf ancestor common to both species. It can now be said that it’s none of these three wolves that dogs are most closely related to because these are wolves that diverged in the recent past. It most likely is something more ancient that isn’t well represented by today’s wolves.

 

The history of the domestication of dogs has always been of interest to me and to find out that dogs are less related to modern wolves than we thought really makes the domestication process of canines much more complex. This study suggests that the genetic overlap between some modern dog breeds and wolves is the result of interbreeding after dog domestication, not just a simple direct line of decent from one group of wolves. Even more intriguing to me because as a husky owner I always wanted to believe my dog was more closely related to wolves than other breeds but this and other studies have stated that is simply not the case.

Article: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116190137.htm

Related Article:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057754