22/12/2022
Sharing with Kim Brophey 's words:
"This is a great review that Daniel Shaw, one of our fellow members in the L.E.G.S. Applied Ethology Family Dog Mediation Professional Course group, just released. Daniel Shaw breaks down some of the primary findings from the two major studies published this year on canine genetics and behavior. It's a nice little summary discussion of some of the high points from this AWESOME mind & voice in the dog world - thank you Daniel!
I think it's critical that we dog pros and advocates can appreciate that the greatest differences between the working genetic groups of dogs behaviorally have been found to be where we would most expect them to be- resulting from the specific selective pressure for perceptions, aptitude, and motor patterns for the varied behavioral functions dogs have been artificially selected for throughout history. We are getting better answers from this new research as we are increasingly asking the right kinds of questions to get the right kinds of answers.
For example, where previous studies might have looked generally at whether some breeds of dogs are more "aggressive" than others - which does not identify in the questions the various definitions of "aggression" that might be identified as distinct between predation selective pressures ("aggression" towards other animals via hunting), hazard avoidance selective pressures ("aggression" towards those perceived as threats to property, social members and resources), etc. - these recent studies have focused increasingly on those behavioral differences one might expect to result from artificial selection for specific jobs.
Though our intentions have been good in doing so, the homogenization of dogs through the refrain of "it's all how you raise them" has set countless dogs up for misunderstanding and failure in their pet life homes as families find themselves unprepared for and often easily misinterpreting their dogs' behavior as "abnormal", when in so many cases the behavior is the direct result of generations of selective breeding for those exact behaviors we now characterize as "behavior problems".
The "evidence" that has been so often used to support this false idea that dogs are in fact the same behavioral beings in different forms, sizes, and colors - that dogs share all the same coding DNA and are not genetically distinct from each other - is sadly still used in propaganda today to further the notion that it's all NURTURE when it comes to our dogs (that NATURE is not relevant in the conversation). This most recent study confirms, yet again, that the incredible variation that we see in our dog population in both form & function (physical and behavioral traits) is in fact the result of humans historically breeding dogs for such incredibly different roles and purposes that would aid in man's survival, and that these differences in DNA lie in the regulatory DNA (non-coding) of dogs that control the expression of genes.
If we are to really meet our dogs where they are for who they are, we have to accept them for ALL of their L.E.G.S. (Learning, Environment, Genetics, and Self) rather than despite them. Dogs are not blank slates on which we write what we would like, and it is not "all how you raise them". We have not meant to harm our dogs or their adoptive families by insisting that this is the case, but we have in fact failed to fully see, provide for, understand, and manage our beloved dogs as as result of this notion that "breed doesn't matter". Their differences are rich and should be embraced if we are to share our lives with them, rather than seen as failures when they fail to conform to an arbitrary mold that bears no resemblance to what we humans actually designed them to be in the first place. We should own as a species how we have shaped dogs to these ends, and make intentional decisions about which traits will be healthy and functional for our dogs in the modern world and future and select for them accordingly (rather than continue to accidentally breed dogs for many of the exact behaviors that were so historically valuable to men that we now have so little desire or tolerance for as a society). If we bred it into them and they never asked for it, it sure as heck isn't fair to wonder why on earth they might exhibit that behavior (and even worse to punish them for it)."
GENETICS AND DOG BEHAVIOUR
Research on genetics is a fast moving field, and it can often feel hard to keep up with. But with so much new research coming out just this year, I wanted to take the opportunity to delve into this broad topic and try to pin down some of the key insights from recent research.
The New Research
Two of the big dog genetic studies published this year come from Morrill et al. (2022) and Dutrow et al. (2022). Both are fascinating papers, with Morrill et al. (2022) placing a greater focus on the relationship between genetics and temperament (focusing on eight key behavioural traits), after sequencing the DNA of 2155 dogs, and gathering survey data for a fantastic 18,385 dogs. Dutrow et al. (2022) places a greater focus on variation between dog lineages and behaviours we have specifically bred for (e.g. herding livestock or killing vermin), again they had a great sample size with both whole genome sequencing (WGS) data and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data from a total of 4261 dogs. Dutrow et al. (2022) also had access to survey based data from the C-BARQ (canine behaviour and research questionnaire) which had data from over 46,000 dogs.
This incredible dataset allowed the researchers to statistically analyse how different genotypes predicted these various different behavioural phenotypes. And we will review these in turn:
Morrill et al. (2022):
In this study, their survey data examined 8 specific behaviours associated with personality in dogs. These behaviours were human sociability, arousal level, toy-directed motor patterns, biddability, agonistic threshold, dog sociability, environmental engagement, and proximity seeking (Morrill et al., 2022).
There were some fairly predictable findings – for example genetic differences are a strongly associated with human sociability, which given that the process of domestication by definition causes heritable changes, is perhaps not a big surprise. Similarly, biddability and toy-directed motor patters were also moderately associated with genetics differences (Morrill et al., 2022).
They also identified some associations between specific breeds and these behaviours, with biddability and toy directed motor patterns being moderately associated with breed. Interestingly, toy directed motor patterns was the category most linked to working dog behaviour (as many working dogs can often perform selectively bred working behaviours on toys) so this may be an explanation as why this was a category predicted by breed (Morrell et al., 2022). Morrill et al. (2022) do touch on working dog behaviours however it is not the main focus of the study, with the main areas examined being questions on howling, retrieving, and pointing. The authors also note that intrinsic motor patterns tend to be more breed differentiated.
However, in relation to the big eight temperament factors examined, it was found that breed was often a poor predictor, for example, breed appeared to be a poor predictor of agonistic threshold (how easily a dog is provoked). Still to make things even more complicated, even this differs between breed, because although many breeds are poor predictors of agonistic threshold, there are some individual breeds that do tend to have a lower agonistic threshold (or are more “assertive”) e.g. the Belgian Malinois.
To summarise the findings made by Morrill et al. (2022), they examined the relationship between genetics, breed, and behaviour, and found breed tended to be fairly poor predictor of the eight key behaviour categories. However, there are several exceptions to this, including some behaviours that are more strongly predicted by breed (e.g. toy directed motor patterns and biddability), and although some behaviours were not generally predicted by breeds, there were exception breeds that did much more strongly predict behaviour (e.g. the Belgian Malinois).
Dutrow et al. (2022):
In this study they examined the different genetic lineages of different breeds, which gave an idea of the lineage of the different breed groups of dogs and how variation in physical condition and behaviour may have evolved. They identified ten broad breed groups that for the most part lined up well with the groups outlined by the FCI. These groups were: scent hound, pointer-spaniel, terrier, retriever, herder, sled, African and Middle Eastern, Asian spitz, dingo, and sighthound. They also examined the different locations where these breeds evolved.
Once these groups had been identified, they went to examine the relationship between these lineages and the 14 behavioural traits measured by the C-BARQ. Like Morrill et al. (2022), their results indicated some breeds lineages better predicted specific behavioural traits than others (e.g. herders tended to have significantly higher non-social fear, however there was no correlation found between sighthounds and non-social fear). It is also worth noting, the C-BARQ does has some questions related to working dog behaviour, however does not tell us a great deal about this topic.
In the final part of their study, Dutrow et al. (2022) examined how different genes were driving specific phenotypic differences between lineages (i.e. what is the function of the genetic differences between lineages). A couple of key differences noted in genes associated tissue enrichments of frontal brain areas in scent hounds and herding lineages. Specifically, genes associated with tissue enrichment of the hippocampus (a brain area associated with memory formation) in scent hounds which may relate to their tracking ability. Another interesting finding was differences in genes associated with axon guidance in herding dogs, specifically one of the biggest differences was in genes coding for dopaminergic neural projection guidance during development (a brain system associated with motor function and reward function), so this may indicate this area functions slightly differently in herding dogs.
Another key finding was that much of the diversification identified was driven by non-coding gene variants. Non-coding genes are specific regions of DNA that are not translated to build proteins (i.e. not used as recipes for building important structures used by the body). Instead, non-coding DNA is often involved in regulating the expression of DNA. For example, a particular region of non-coding DNA may increase or decrease the release of proteins involved in building new pathways in the hippocampus.
Hopefully that provides some insight into the latest findings in dog genetic research and ties together two fantastic studies released this year. If you want to learn more about canine genetics, be sure to follow our page.
By Daniel Shaw BSc (Hons), GMBPsS, CDBC
References:
Dutrow, E. V., Serpell, J. A., & Ostrander, E. A. (2022). Domestic dog lineages reveal genetic drivers of behavioral diversification. Cell, 185(25), 4737-4755.
Morrill, K., Hekman, J., Li, X., McClure, J., Logan, B., Goodman, L., ... & Karlsson, E. K. (2022). Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes. Science, 376(6592), eabk0639.
