OT: for the dog people—and maybe genetics or stats folks—NYT: Has Dog Breeding…

[jadmt]

Originally Posted by stackie

OMG. Please stop with the adorable dog pics. Makes we want one but we have ptsd from the last rescue dog. We’ve said never again. But, c40, your pup makes me doubt our stance.

Obviously I’m kidding I still offer the neighbors to dog sit their dogs. Kind of like being a grandpa. Send them back at the end of week and no vet bills

Jon

got this little guy from a rescue at only 8 or 9 weeks old. had no idea what he was as he came from a boutique breeding hot bed (Merced Ca.) 8 years later I would't sell him for a million dollars. My cat I got from a homeless person outside of walmart for $20 and vet told me he would never be a good cat because he was not weened from his mother so would always be mean. I would sell him for a Million but not any less.....dude seriously has clung to me for 10 years like this. When I get home he runs and wraps his paws around me and pushes his head into me like there is no tomorrow. the dog and cat are best friends. If I could clone my dog and get an exact copy I would do it. I know all dog owners say this but he really is the best dog ever.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by benb

It would be really interesting if some of the breeders actually started and tried to make a new breed that minimized that coefficient of inbreeding and tried to get it down below 0.03-0.05 while still trying to have some semblance of still being the same breed.

That doesn't really work. Essentially, breeders are only looking at phenotypes- physical traits. In genetics, certain traits tend to be linked, so the physical traits tend to be inherited together. It's non-random. It's why you expect red-heads to have freckles -> both traits are influenced by the MC1R gene. The MC1R gene in animals like dogs and cats, influences the fur color.

If you want the animals to look a certain way, you are very limited on which particular genes are needed. To make matters worse, many physical traits are poly-genetic, so you need an exact set of multiple genes to interact. Change one and you get a mutt. That's why pure breds need to be almost identical. It won't work otherwise. It's also why you see a drift in phenotype over time. That also has to happen. I do not think a purebred can remain stable without drift in type. The drift is probably always in a negative direction too.


And if you really want to make matters worse, the physical traits - our genes, are only about 2% of our genome. What the other 98% of the genome does, scientists are still guessing. Some of it may have to do with stability of the genome itself and the ability to repair itself.

Truth be told, modern human selected plants, and animals are all a bit Frankenstein's Monsters.

[benb]

If they genetically tested every potential dog they were going to breed and relaxed some of those physical standards they could certainly improve. All I meant was specifically test to make sure they are as genetically diverse as possible.

But maybe it only works for true working breeds that are not based on appearance standards.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by benb

If they genetically tested every potential dog they were going to breed and relaxed some of those physical standards they could certainly improve. All I meant was specifically test to make sure they are as genetically diverse as possible.

But maybe it only works for true working breeds that are not based on appearance standards.

Maybe dogs can be like humans, where everyone is a mutt. Otherwise, we'd all look funny like a Hapsburg.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

Essentially, breeders are only looking at phenotypes- physical traits. In genetics, certain traits tend to be linked, so the physical traits tend to be inherited together. It's non-random. It's why you expect red-heads to have freckles -> both traits are influenced by the MC1R gene.

Interestingly, I read an article a few years ago about a biologist (in Russia, maybe?) who studied the domestication of the red fox. Over the course of decades, they bred red foxes in captivity, only selecting on the "friendliest" examples. It ended up looking very much like the genes that control "friendly" also control floppy ears and puppy dog eyes - as the experiment went on, not only did the foxes become more docile, but they started to look more like domesticated dogs.

BTW - even after 20+ years, the foxes still weren't truly domesticated and prone to wild animal stuff.

[benb]

Yah this isn't exactly rocket science.

Two people can meet on a dating app and if they wanted to it is quite easy to go Ancestry or 23 and me or such and if you pair yourselves in the ancestry app it will tell you how far apart you are.

They could do *something* to mix in other cross breeds in a way to try and increase diversity while still getting somewhere in the ballpark of what they wanted.

But it seems the hardest part of this would be breaking the incredible desire to malform the dogs for appearance.

This for example is a fascinating article that shows just how much they want the inferior physical traits:

https://dognews.com/german-shepherd-...og-shows-today

Basically the AKC champion GSD from 1937 wouldn't rate today because of things like having a more functional spine/hip shape.

Agreed that fox experiment article was fascinating.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

Maybe dogs can be like humans, where everyone is a mutt. Otherwise, we'd all look funny like a Hapsburg.

I always wondered how much genetic traits like hair and eye color play into mate selection...

A blue-eyed man might select blue-eyed mates - if any brown-eyed children appear, he knows it's not his.

And the inverse, a blue-eyed woman who wanted multiple mates might be averse to selecting a blue-eyed partner.

(yes I realize eye colors isn't a strictly simple Mendelian trait).

[.RJ]

I have no idea what breeds they are, and that's ok.

[mstateglfr]

Interesting article and discussion so far.

I wont knock those who like pure bred dogs, but I will say they are not what our family wants and I cant see a time when we will ever intentionally seek out a pure bred dog.

My first dog as an adult was a dog I adopted at college in Mississippi, and my wife adopted one at college in New Orleans. Its been 3 other adopted dogs since.
We definitely have a type- 50-70# dogs that are athletic, but we have had hounds and terriers. Our current younger dog is a mix between a Border Collie and the Devil.


Each time we have gotten a dog it has been due to us going to an adoption group and asking about a specific dog that we saw on their website. There are too many dogs looking for homes for me to be interested in paying 4-8x more to get a purebred dog that is often times not even born yet.

[coffeecherrypie]

Originally Posted by benb

It would be really interesting if some of the breeders actually started and tried to make a new breed that minimized that coefficient of inbreeding and tried to get it down below 0.03-0.05 while still trying to have some semblance of still being the same breed.

I agree. But it would be a lot of work and they wouldn’t win their categories at the shows.

I guess that there are actually two somewhat distinct issues. First, unconditionally deleterious mutations that are fixed in the breed by founder effects and/or inbreeding. These in principle could be removed by a sustained breeding program (or CRISPR if the alleles in question can be identified) without notable change to the physical characteristics. Second bucket is when the breed standard itself creates unhealthy dogs, like the extremely short nosed pugs—that means the human conception of the breed needs to change.

[coffeecherrypie]

Originally Posted by christian

It's shocking, but also not surprising when you think about it. If you consider that most modern dog breeds stem from the late 1800s with chokepoints at the World Wars, it's not inconceivable that the initial stock of some dogs only amounted to a couple dozen dogs and that almost all subsequent dogs of that breed are bred from descendants of those ancestors. For instance, Felix Dobermann began breeding Dobermanns in 1880 and died in 1894, when Otto Goeller became the pre-eminent breeder. I think it's safe to assume the total number of Dobermanns in 1900 was fewer than 500, and nearly all had parentage from those two breeders. At that point, it doesn't really matter how you interbreed the subsequent generations... without outcrosses, you're going to have this result.

Fascinating. I actually would have thought that a bottleneck of ~500 would not be hugely problematic. But I suppose it wasn’t exactly an outbreeding population then either.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by jadmt

got this little guy from a rescue at only 8 or 9 weeks old. had no idea what he was as he came from a boutique breeding hot bed (Merced Ca.) 8 years later I would't sell him for a million dollars. My cat I got from a homeless person outside of walmart for $20 and vet told me he would never be a good cat because he was not weened from his mother so would always be mean. I would sell him for a Million but not any less.....dude seriously has clung to me for 10 years like this. When I get home he runs and wraps his paws around me and pushes his head into me like there is no tomorrow. the dog and cat are best friends. If I could clone my dog and get an exact copy I would do it. I know all dog owners say this but he really is the best dog ever.

What a lucky pair!

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by .RJ

I have no idea what breeds they are, and that's ok.

Luna is a purebred Redbone Derphound.

Leo has to be a rat terrier / Tasmanian devil cross.

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by benb

Two people can meet on a dating app and if they wanted to it is quite easy to go Ancestry or 23 and me or such and if you pair yourselves in the ancestry app it will tell you how far apart you are.

Is this even reality? What a sad world we live in if it is. Yeah, I'm an old geezer shouting at the clouds.

Oh, and I'm serious. Do people really do this before committing to a relationship?

[christian]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Interestingly, I read an article a few years ago about a biologist (in Russia, maybe?) who studied the domestication of the red fox.

Yes, this was done in Russia. One of the interesting findings was that selecting for domesticability also meant that the foxes started getting white toes/socks - just like many domestic dogs have. Apparently, there is some genetic interplay between those traits.