How wolves "became" dogs

RutlandH2O

RutlandH2O

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 January 2009
Messages
1,213
Visit site
A new study, published in the journal "Nature," suggests wolves evolved into domesticated dogs around 11,000 years ago. The study cited genetic comparisons between wolves and dogs, which revealed, unlike wolves, dogs' ability to metabolise starch. The starch came from cereals that were farmed in human settlements. The theory that wolf pups were stolen by man some 30,000 years ago, and domesticated as guards and companions has been challenged by this new study. Apparently, those wolves able to digest the starch found adjacent to their human neighbours paved the way for, what is now, our best friend.
 
I came in here specifically to ask about this :)

So, when all the people who say dogs aren't designed to eat starch say that from now on, are we allowed to tell them off? :p

Genuinely interested as to whether this in anyway changes feeding advice really.

Thought it was really interesting and ties in quite nicely with a paper I was reading about selection in horses this week too.
 
Jesstickle said:
I came in here specifically to ask about this :)

So, when all the people who say dogs aren't designed to eat starch say that from now on, are we allowed to tell them off? :p

Genuinely interested as to whether this in anyway changes feeding advice really.

Thought it was really interesting and ties in quite nicely with a paper I was reading about selection in horses this week too.
Click to expand...

I don't think the purpose of the study was to provoke debate as to the pros and cons of particular feeding regimens for our canine friends, although I'm sure it will. The focus of the study was the domestication of the wolf/dog in the scheme of human history.

The study results were published in Nature, and as such, have been picked up by dozens of news outlets. The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, to name a few, all carried the story. The science behind the research is quite interesting and illustrates the genetic detour certain members of the wolf population were able to take in their quest for survival. The fact that megamillions of dogs have and do survive on starch/grain diets is in no small part a result of this genetic modification in the evolution of some wolves.

I suppose you can tell off the starch-deniers with a bit more scientific gravitas now.
 
RutlandH2O said:
I don't think the purpose of the study was to provoke debate as to the pros and cons of particular feeding regimens for our canine friends, although I'm sure it will. The focus of the study was the domestication of the wolf/dog in the scheme of human history.

The study results were published in Nature, and as such, have been picked up by dozens of news outlets. The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, to name a few, all carried the story. The science behind the research is quite interesting and illustrates the genetic detour certain members of the wolf population were able to take in their quest for survival. The fact that megamillions of dogs have and do survive on starch/grain diets is in no small part a result of this genetic modification in the evolution of some wolves.

I suppose you can tell off the starch-deniers with a bit more scientific gravitas now.
Click to expand...

I was joking. I understand what the paper says. I read papers for a living. It was very tongue in cheek I promise :)

The horse one covered similar principles but focusing on deliberate selective breeding.
 
I was about to type out a very long quote from the study, but I'm suffering from flu or plague or something and I just can't concentrate. I don't know how to make a link, but if you go to Huffington Post, LA Times, Washington Post, you will see how the scientists, who were studying the brain development of dogs from wolves using the entire genetic codes of 12 wolves from around the globe and the genomes of 14 domesticated dogs of different breeds, found, to their surprise, "10 regions holding genes involved with diet, specifically the breakdown of starches." They found a gene called AMY2B, which is essential for amylase production (amylase is an enzyme which breaks down starches). Apparently, dogs have more copies of AMY2B than wolves. In dogs the gene is 28 times more active in the pancreas than in wolves. Dogs also have specific genes to enable the breakdown of maltose into glucose, which is another step in starch digestion.

My arms and hands feel like they are filled with lead...I must stop now. Hope you are able to access some parts of the study. It really is so interesting.
 
misterjay said:
There's a brilliant book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dogs-Unders...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359108913&sr=1-2

http://www.workingdogweb.com/coppinger.htm

A very brief quote:
Ray and Lorna Coppinger, biologists and dog trainers, offer a very different view, suggesting that dogs evolved to fill a new niche created when people began to create permanent villages.




Read their website, as I'd be interested to read your opinions on their theories.
Click to expand...


Reading the second link it is clear that the Coppingers, through their own experiences, have come to quite similar conclusions, regarding the domestication of wolves, as those of the Swedish scientists in the study published in the journal Nature. The idea that wolves filled a niche in human development is quite fascinating and does challenge the long-held belief that it was the other way round (humans taking wolf cubs/pups and domesticating them to produce what we now know of as dogs).

Have I ever told you that I adore your sig...?!!
 
Hi everyone: I am newly joined on the Horse & Hound forum and having a low-content wolf cross myself, was drawn immediately to this thread! This new research about some dogs producing the enzyme amylase, and therefore able to digest starch, is extremely interesting. Both my dogs - one a utonagan, the other is the wolf cross - are intolerant of carbohydrate, and raw fed on the BARF diet. The wolf cross is a rescue, but coincidentally is the son of an F4 male we had from a pup, and who sadly had to be put down prematurely at the age of 10 due to septocaemia following a routine operation. The wolfie boy is sick if given "ordinary" kibble, but there are some specialised kibbles available now that do not contain too much carb. We have found one that is predominantly venison, and the binding agent is sweet potato. It is very expensive, and we use it as treats. Every night when the boys go to their bedroom next door to our's, they each have 5 pieces of this kibble - otherwise they are fed on raw meat, offal, raw meaty bones, raw pureed veg and raw green tripe.

It is fascinating to me to see evolution taking place before my very eyes ... some dogs, clearly many millions of dogs, are perfectly able to live and thrive on kibble, which is of course high in carbohydrate. All the wolfie boys and girls I know, and I include GSDs in this, are intolerant of carbs and are all raw fed. It is an extremely interesting subject.

A short while ago, I watched a fascinating programme on television theorising how, without wolves, homo sapiens would have never become the top species that we are today. Wolves, according to this particular piece of research, adopted us, not the other way round, and joined us and helped us on our hunts for game in return for a share of the kill, and guarded us at night in return for scraps from our meals, thus freeing man up to be able to enjoy "leisure time", and develop a whole host of skills, including language and communication centred around story-telling.

Absolutely fascinating stuff!
 
Do any of the papers say which breeds of dogs were used? If they studied the genes of only 14 breeds of dog could it be possible that some other breeds have not adapted to digest starch to the same degree? Could it even vary between individuals according to what they inherited from their ancestors? I am not scientifically clued up at all but I am curious as to exactly how this study was carried out and how the results were interpreted.
 
planete said:
Do any of the papers say which breeds of dogs were used? If they studied the genes of only 14 breeds of dog could it be possible that some other breeds have not adapted to digest starch to the same degree? Could it even vary between individuals according to what they inherited from their ancestors? I am not scientifically clued up at all but I am curious as to exactly how this study was carried out and how the results were interpreted.
Click to expand...

You have made a good point there, planete - there are some breeds of dogs that are far more "natural" (ie wolfie) than others - most northern breeds, such as Siberian Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, Samoyeds, fall into this category. The GSD is actually a wolfcross - in the 1920's Von Stephanitz - the founding father of the modern day GSD - had a very famous dog called Horund, later changed to Hektor, who was in fact a wolf cross. All pedigree GSDs are descended from Hektor, therefore are wolf crosses. I know several GSDs who cannot tolerate carbohydrate, and all the utonagans, northern inuits, mals and huskies I know are on the BARF diet because they cannot tolerate carbs. So to answer your question, depending on the breeds used, yes it is perfectly possible that you could have a false positive, or a false negative. My boys definitely do not have the enzyme amylase, neither did my old wolf cross. He could have just one tiny piece of kibble and he would have diarrhoea. His son who we have with us now is slightly more tolerant in that he can stomach 5 tiny pieces every night, but if you fed him on, say, rice, or a large amount of kibble he would be extremely ill.

It would be interesting to look into this research in more detail to find out exactly what breeds were used.
 
planete said:
Do any of the papers say which breeds of dogs were used? If they studied the genes of only 14 breeds of dog could it be possible that some other breeds have not adapted to digest starch to the same degree? Could it even vary between individuals according to what they inherited from their ancestors? I am not scientifically clued up at all but I am curious as to exactly how this study was carried out and how the results were interpreted.
Click to expand...

Very good points. I'll quote from the article I read in the Huffington Post..."Erik Axelsson and his colleagues analysed the entire genetic codes of 12 wolves from across the globe, as well as the genomes of 60 individual domestic dogs from 14 different breeds. They pooled the domestic pups' results so that the genetic traits of individual breeds wouldn't skew the findings and then compared the pet dogs to the wolves, looking for places where the genomes diverged.

This game of 'spot the differences' led the scientists to focus on 36 different regions. They found 19 of these regions contained genes crucial for brain functioning, including eight important for the development of the nervous system.

It was no surprise to see the differences in brain genetics, Axelsson said, given that dogs had to modify their behavior to fit into human society. What did surprise the researchers, however, were 10 regions held genes involved with diet, specifically the breakdown of starches. Humans are well-quipped for starchy diets: Human saliva contains a enzyme called amylase, which starts breaking down starches as soon as food hits the mouth. Dog drool doesn't have this advantage, but dogs do excrete amylase from their pancreases, allowing for the digestion of starches in the gut."

I mentioned the gene called AMY2B in a previous post, as well as dogs' genes allowing for the breakdown of maltose into glucose, which is another key step in starch digestion.

Erik Axelsson is a researcher in the department of medical biochemistry and microbiology at Uppsala University in Sweden. Stephanie Pappas is the LiveScience Senior Writer at Huff Post. Perhaps they could be contacted through social media to find out which domestic dog breeds were used in this study.
 
RutlandH2O said:
Very good points. I'll quote from the article I read in the Huffington Post..."Erik Axelsson and his colleagues analysed the entire genetic codes of 12 wolves from across the globe, as well as the genomes of 60 individual domestic dogs from 14 different breeds. They pooled the domestic pups' results so that the genetic traits of individual breeds wouldn't skew the findings and then compared the pet dogs to the wolves, looking for places where the genomes diverged.

This game of 'spot the differences' led the scientists to focus on 36 different regions. They found 19 of these regions contained genes crucial for brain functioning, including eight important for the development of the nervous system.

It was no surprise to see the differences in brain genetics, Axelsson said, given that dogs had to modify their behavior to fit into human society. What did surprise the researchers, however, were 10 regions held genes involved with diet, specifically the breakdown of starches. Humans are well-quipped for starchy diets: Human saliva contains a enzyme called amylase, which starts breaking down starches as soon as food hits the mouth. Dog drool doesn't have this advantage, but dogs do excrete amylase from their pancreases, allowing for the digestion of starches in the gut."

I mentioned the gene called AMY2B in a previous post, as well as dogs' genes allowing for the breakdown of maltose into glucose, which is another key step in starch digestion.

Erik Axelsson is a researcher in the department of medical biochemistry and microbiology at Uppsala University in Sweden. Stephanie Pappas is the LiveScience Senior Writer at Huff Post. Perhaps they could be contacted through social media to find out which domestic dog breeds were used in this study.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. I have still to read the full research paper. This would appear to be a very good demonstration of how "dog" has evolved from "wolf", whilst still retaining a virtually identical DNA and many similar characteristics.
 
Jesstickle said:
What?!

No of course I don't. I was just saying I find these things interesting.

Blimey.
Click to expand...

Sorry, when you mentioned your questions were tongue in cheek, a few posts ago, I thought maybe I missed something. Glad to know you find these things as interesting as I do.
 
For anyone interested, these were the dogs used for SNP analysis

snapshot.jpg
 
Jesstickle: Very interesting mix of dogs. Do you think they didn't use smaller dogs like terriers and toys because of the considerable "mix" that was needed to produce them? (Which is not to say the dogs used haven't had numerous mixes, themselves.)
 
I don't know. I've picked through the methods and there is no mention of why these particular breeds were chosen (well, not that I can see). Perhaps these were just the breeds they had ready access to. I don't actually even know what some of these dogs are! :eek:
 
Nikki J said:
The GSD is actually a wolfcross - in the 1920's Von Stephanitz - the founding father of the modern day GSD - had a very famous dog called Horund, later changed to Hektor, who was in fact a wolf cross. All pedigree GSDs are descended from Hektor, therefore are wolf crosses.
Click to expand...

Fact?!!

Umm, the dog in question was once known as Hektor Linksrhein and his name was changed by Von Stephanitz to HorAnd von Grafrath.
He was born in 1895 and registered as the first ever GSD so I doubt very much if he was still kicking about in the 1920s.

The founding father of the modern GSD? The GSD is a 'modern breed', which he created, which is why I hate all this 'old fashioned, big boned sales pitch' - they never were a giant breed in the first place.

The jury is still out on whether there is much wolf in the original bloodlines, it's a claim. I am surprised none of the respected breed biographers like Dr Willis or Brian Wootton or indeed Von Stephanitz himself, who was a meticulous record keeper, didn't make more of these claims. Again, it is often used as justification/sales pitch for crossing to wolves and a big sales pitch for the woman who invented 'Shiloh Shepherds'.
 
Last edited:
OK, just checked Willis' book. Horand had a son called Hektor Schwaben, who was out of a bitch called Mores who was a soft-eared bitch who allegedly had wolf anscestry.
Von Stephanitz denied these claims in 1923 but in 1927 said a GSD bitch had been mated to a wolf in Stuttgart zoo but there was no connection to the Mores female.

To cut a long story short, Dr Willis says that if there is wolf ancestry, it relates to one bitch.
'The net conclusion can only be one of 'not proven' and it is beyond doubt that once organised registration was underway, no further opportunities for wolf blood introduction existed'.
 
Last edited:
Jesstickle said:
For anyone interested, these were the dogs used for SNP analysis

snapshot.jpg
Click to expand...

I hope everyone notices the fourth breed from the top!




About the wolf crossing with purebred dogs, then I've always heard that, even though it now and then pops up rumours saying that so and so breed have been crossed with wolves at some time during the last 100 - 200 years, with the exceptions of Saarloos wolfdog and Czechoslovakian wolfdog, the rest is, again as far as I've heard, only unconfirmed rumours. For example saying that someone saw a wolf in someone's barn etc.


There have been such rumours in Sweden also, but during that very same period, wolves came very close to extinction in Sweden. If Mr average dog owning Swede wanted to mate his bitch to a wolf, he would almost certainly have had to break in to a zoo, somehow gotten his bitch into a wolf enclosure, then somehow gotten her out again and taken his, hopefully still alive, bitch home with him. Honestly, how likely is that to have happened?


Finnish Lapphund is a Finnish/Sami dog breed that comes from the northern areas of Finland (and possibly Sweden), which also is the areas where the wolves still existed in the wild, but the Sami people is also owners of reindeers, and if I was to estimate the chance of a wolf being killed, compared to the chance for it to be able to mate with a Finnish Lapphund, I would say that it is probably 100 % chance for the wolf being killed.


So personally, I doubt any of the five Nordic breeds in the study have had any wolf crossed with them for the last 100 -200 years, they might very well have been crossed with other domesticated dogs than their own breed, but wolves, I doubt it.

:)
 
I once read that there was an attempt to cross an Irish wolfhound with a wolf..not sure which one tried to eat the other but it didn't work. Last wolf in Ireland killed in 1898 I think. :(
Always think how lonely it must have been when it howled and there was no other wolf left to answer.
 
TrasaM said:
I once read that there was an attempt to cross an Irish wolfhound with a wolf..not sure which one tried to eat the other but it didn't work. Last wolf in Ireland killed in 1898 I think. :(
Always think how lonely it must have been when it howled and there was no other wolf left to answer.
Click to expand...

In Dr Willis' book, some of the anecdotal evidence for wolf blood in the GSD was that a dog called Phylax was growled at by some Borzois at a dog show :rolleyes: - it is actually used as evidence by Shiloh Shepherd people.

Also, if that is part of an academic study - it's German ShepHERDS
 
Jesstickle said:
I don't know. I've picked through the methods and there is no mention of why these particular breeds were chosen (well, not that I can see). Perhaps these were just the breeds they had ready access to. I don't actually even know what some of these dogs are! :eek:
Click to expand...

Since I suspect that it probably is the Nordic dog breeds that you haven't heard about :

Smålandsstövare is a Swedish hunting dog, it used to be an allround hunter but now only hunts hare and fox, not a large dog breed in numbers, basically only owned by hunters, sometimes born with a natural stumpy tail and a registered purebred with SKK since 1921.

Norwegian Elkhound is a Norwegian hunting spitz dog, I presume that it is the grey version that has been used since Norwegian Elkhound black is a very small breed, the greys however are quite popular in Norway and Sweden, it has been a registered breed with NKK since 1877. In Scandinavia almost all breeding is focused on dogs that are good elk hunters.

Swedish Elkhound (Jämthund) is a Swedish hunting spitz dog, a bit larger in size than the Norwegian Elkhound and a little bit more popular, when SKK was started 1889 they tried making the Jämthund a purebreed, but due to people having trouble deciding if they were a version of grey Norwegian Elkhounds or a separate breed, they didn't become a recognised breed of their own until 1946. In Sweden you very rarely (if ever) buy a Jämthund unless you want to hunt elk.

Finnish Lapphund is a Finnish and Sami herding and sort of yard spitz dog, incredibly beautiful, sweet and perfect in all ways *oops* *hrm* I mean it is quite popular in the Nordic countries (I think it is amongst Finlands top ten most popular breeds), it hasn't been bred to herd with the same perfection as the Border Collie and when the Sami people moved with their reindeers, the Lapphunds functioned as yard dogs wherever the Sami's put up their cots. The breed was described by Linné sometime during the 1730s, recognised as a breed by FKK in 1945 but separated into Lapponian Herder and Finnish Lapphund in 1966 to 1967. Have for many years mainly been bred as a suitable family dog.

Drever is a Swedish hunting dog and probably the only breed that has gotten its name through a competition in a daily newspaper (1946 or 1947). Recognised by SKK as a breed in 1953, it is a quite popular breed in Sweden, legsize resembles that of Dachshunds, they work somewhat slowly but very carefully when hunting hare, fox and roe deer, some people measure how good quality a Drever have by how full their owner's freezer are after the hunting season, rarely, if ever, owned by a non-hunting owner.


:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top