PDA

View Full Version : New study on digestion and dogs



Albino Rhino
01-25-2013, 10:41 PM
Diet Shaped Dog Domestication
by Elizabeth Pennisi on 23 January 2013

Fido may prefer steak, but his digestive system is also geared up for rice and potatoes. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that dogs have evolved to eat a more varied diet than their wolf ancestors. The shift parallels genetic changes seen in people and bolsters the idea that dogs and humans share similar evolutionary stories.

Dogs evolved from wolves more than 11,000 years ago, somewhere in Eurasia, though exactly when and how is under debate. The shift from wolf pack member to family pet involved more than just the ability to get along with people, says evolutionary geneticist Erik Axelsson from Uppsala University in Sweden. He and his colleagues compared dog and wolf DNA to learn which genes were important for domestication.

They sequenced DNA from 12 wolves from around the world and from 60 dogs belonging to 14 breeds. They first looked for individual letters in DNA, called bases, that varied from one genome to the next, identifying about 4 million of these so-called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). They ignored regions with the most SNPs and instead focused on places where there were very few or no SNPs. That lack of variation signals DNA that was so important for survival during domestication that any variation there was lost, so most dogs have the same SNPs. Those regions were the ones the researchers were most interested in following up on.

The analysis turned up 36 regions, with 122 genes in all, that may have contributed to dog evolution, the team reports online today in Nature. Nineteen of these regions contain genes important for the brain, eight of which are involved with nervous system development, which makes sense given the importance of behavioral changes in the transition to becoming man's best friend, Axelsson notes.

More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome. As a result, that gene was 28-fold more active in dogs, the researchers found. More copies means more protein, and test-tube studies indicate that dogs should be fivefold better than wolves at digesting starch, the chief nutrient in agricultural grains such as wheat and rice. The number of copies of this gene also varies in people: Those eating high carbohydrate diets -- such as the Japanese and European Americans -- have more copies than people with starch-poor diets, such as the Mbuti in Africa. "We have adapted in a very similar way to the dramatic changes that happened when agriculture was developed," Axelsson says.

Dogs and wolves have the same number of copies of another gene, MGAM, which codes for maltase, another enzyme important in starch digestion. But there are four key differences between the sequence in dogs and wolves. One difference causes dogs to produce longer versions of maltase. That longer protein is also seen in herbivores, such as cows and rabbits, and omnivores, such as mouse lemurs and rats, but not in other mammals, suggesting length is important to plant-eaters. These differences make the dog maltase more efficient, the researchers report.

Axelsson thinks these results support the idea that wolves began to associate with humans who were beginning to settle down and farm. Waste dumps provided a ready source of food, albeit not meat, the usual diet. Thus early dogs that evolved more efficient starch digestion had an advantage, he notes.

The finding of these diet-related genes is "very surprising and very exciting," says Elaine Ostrander, a geneticist at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, who was not connected to the study. "It hints that there are a lot more [genes] to be found" involved in domestication, she adds. As more researchers compare wolf and dog DNA, Ostrander expects more genetic differences between dogs and wolves to emerge. "We are really going to figure [dog evolution] out."

Robert Wayne, an evolutionary biologist who studies dogs at the University of California, Los Angeles, but was not involved with the work, is also pleased with the study. He says he gets contacted often by pet owners wondering if dogs, like wolves, should eat primarily meat. "This [study] suggests no, dogs are different from wolves and don't need a wolflike diet," he says. "They have coevolved with humans and their diet."

What do you guys think?

tasoschatz
01-26-2013, 02:59 AM
Who funded this study? Could it be a kibble producer?
Also, genes etc are a serious indication, but real life observation is always the proof. We design something on paper, then we go in vitro and conclude in vivo, plain and simple. At the current time, for me always, this study is just an indication on something that could be investigated further, nothing more.

bgblok68
01-26-2013, 06:12 AM
To each his own but I dont believe it. If one here goes to the garden it goes straight to the tomatoes, watermelon or cantaloupes. I havnt seen them dig the first tater yet. Besides that I'm pretty sure raw potatoes would make them sick. Well cooked potatoes will if they eat to much of them. Tell Robert Wayne to throw down a raw piece of meat and a potatoe in front of a dog and send us a video of the results.

SGC
01-26-2013, 05:40 PM
Interesting read... Thanks for posting it. I found the link to the article, it was on a site called Science Now --

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/01/dog-domestication-tied-to-starch.html

It does not look like something that was from a kibble producer, so who knows...

SGC
01-27-2013, 08:22 AM
Here's another article on this theory --

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21142870

Dog Evolved “on the waste dump”
By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News

Anyone who owns a dog knows that it will rummage around in the kitchen bin looking for food, given half a chance.

But this annoying behaviour may have a more profound undercurrent than we realise, according to scientists.

A new study of dog genetics reveals numerous genes involved in starch metabolism, compared with wolves.

It backs an idea that some dogs emerged from wolves that were able to scavenge and digest the food waste of early farmers, the team tells Nature journal.

No-one knows precisely when or how our ancestors became so intimately connected with dogs, but the archaeological evidence indicates it was many thousands of years ago.
One suggestion is that the modern mutt emerged from ancient hunter-gatherers' use of wolves as hunting companions or guards.

But another opinion holds that domestication started with wolves that stole our food leftovers and eventually came to live permanently around humans as a result.

"This second hypothesis says that when we settled down, and in conjunction with the development of agriculture, we produced waste dumps around our settlements; and suddenly there was this new food resource, a new niche, for wolves to make use of, and the wolf that was best able to make use of it became the ancestor of the dog," explained Erik Axelsson from Uppsala University.

"So, we think our findings fit well with this theory that the dog evolved on the waste dump," he told BBC News.

When did dogs stop being wolves

Dr Axelsson and colleagues examined the DNA of more than 50 modern dogs from breeds as diverse as the cocker spaniel and the German shepherd. They then compared their generic genetic information with those of 12 wolves taken from across the world.

The Swedish-US team scanned the DNA sequences of the two types of canid for regions of major difference. These would be locations likely to contain genes important in the rise of the domesticated dog.

Axelsson's group identified 36 such regions, carrying a little over a hundred genes. The analysis detected the presence of two major functional categories - genes involved in brain development and starch metabolism.

In the case of the latter, it seems dogs have many more genes that encode the enzymes needed to break down starch, something that would have been advantageous in an ancestor scavenging on the discarded wheat and other crop products of early farmers.

"Wolves also have these genes but they don't use them as efficiently as dogs," said Dr Axelsson.

"When we look at the wolf genome, we only see one copy of the gene [for the amylase enzyme] on each chromosome. When we look at the dog genome, we see a range from two to 15 copies; and on average a dog carries seven copies more than the wolf.

"That means the dog is a lot more efficient at making use of the nutrition in starch than the wolf."

As far as the brain development genes are concerned, these probably reflect some of the behavioural differences we now see in the two canids.

The dog is a much more docile creature, the likely consequence of early humans preferentially working with animals they found easier to tame.

"Previous experiments have indicated that when you select for a reduction in aggressiveness, you obviously get a tamer animal but you also get an animal that retains juvenile characteristics much longer during development, sometimes into adulthood," said Dr Axelsson.

This might go some way to explaining the oft-repeated observation that dogs are permanently stuck in a kind of puppyhood.

The study of the origin of dogs remains, in many ways, a puzzling field.

Fossil evidence suggests some populations could have been around tens of thousands of years ago, long before the emergence of agriculture. Some researchers have tried to use the regular rate at which error patterns appear in dog DNA as a kind clock to time their rise, but this has produced contradictory results.

One confounding issue might be that domestication happened more than once.

Dr Carles Vila, from the Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics Group at the Donana Biological Station in Seville, Spain, said the debate was wide open.

"I think that modern dogs derived from multiple wolf populations," he observed.

"It could be that dog domestication started once with some animals staying with humans which were then regularly back-crossed with wolves and that could have the same effect. But there could have been completely independent domestications. What is clear is that the number of bone remains is very rare more than 14,000 years ago."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

tasoschatz
01-28-2013, 03:01 AM
I have some ideas, maybe wrong who knows, about how humanity was years ago. Lets say that the first dogs/wolves approached humans back then. They could be nomads, so hunters so obviously they would feed meat etc or early days farmers, but then what use could they have for dogs as farmers? guarding duties maybe? so I have to accept that from these farmers' dogs the dogs evolved into better digesting grains?
Also, later on, they could be owned by upper class, so meat they would eat or lower class, income etc, so could they really keep dogs and feed them? In full honesty I can never imagine a period in humanity's existance that there was a surplus of grains etc to feed dogs. Humanity was poor except from royalty plain and simple, they could throw a bone maby but, lets say, bread? I do not think so.

tasoschatz
01-28-2013, 03:06 AM
I think canine species evolve/adapt quicker than anthropoids, that is all. I recently saw on tv about a russian program of domesticating foxes. Within 20 years of selecting for breeding the better temperament animals they created fully domesticated foxes, but the interesting is other characteristics that occured. New colors and color patterns similar to dogs, tail wigling while they are happy etc, completely new for foxes never seen before habits. The only thing they still seem to retain is their urge to hide food all over the places.
Makes you wonder about animal adaptation, doesn't it?

OGDOGG
01-28-2013, 05:03 AM
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=U2lSZPTa3ho&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DU2lSZPTa3ho

evolutionkennels
01-28-2013, 06:42 AM
I think canine species evolve/adapt quicker than anthropoids, that is all. I recently saw on tv about a russian program of domesticating foxes. Within 20 years of selecting for breeding the better temperament animals they created fully domesticated foxes, but the interesting is other characteristics that occured. New colors and color patterns similar to dogs, tail wigling while they are happy etc, completely new for foxes never seen before habits. The only thing they still seem to retain is their urge to hide food all over the places.
Makes you wonder about animal adaptation, doesn't it?



I'm very familiar with that study. Yes, dogs evolve very fast, like many other mammals. Not quite like the fruit fly, but fast. I agree with the article, however, with OUR breed, I bet the genes are different, the reason for that is that we are selectively breeding performing dogs. The amount of nutrients and protein that are needed to perform What we ask them to do is enormous. That being said, we are actively changing the sets of genes by selectively breeding the dogs that perform Well, the dog that eats meat in a keep. To play devils advocate, the opposite would be true if someone decided to work a dog with just fruits and grains... not going to happen. So although that article is 100% true, I don't think that it really pertains to our breed.

tasoschatz
01-28-2013, 10:03 AM
I suspect that more or less all mammals can digest all shorts of macronutrients, the question could be how good use they make of them. For example in the vet I go there is an enormous number of dogs suffering of diabetis, obviously fed on kible, treats and leftovers from starches and no exercise at all. So, again, a study presents some results, the interpretation of these results is a completely different story. I would be less worried for a hard trained dog than a pet one. Maybe the level of performance wouldn't be the optimal but possibly less health issues?

Furious_Ford
01-28-2013, 06:37 PM
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=U2lSZPTa3ho&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DU2lSZPTa3ho

Now that's a trip...I've never heard of, or seen that before!!!

evolutionkennels
01-28-2013, 09:53 PM
Now that's a trip...I've never heard of, or seen that before!!!

TRULY INTERESTING. I wonder what would happen if you throw a baby Mayday or Big John in with the Baboon family.

OGDOGG
01-29-2013, 12:12 AM
Just imagine if humans were extinct. Apes are next in line to rule the world.

OGDOGG
01-29-2013, 12:18 AM
TRULY INTERESTING. I wonder what would happen if you throw a baby Mayday or Big John in with the Baboon family.

Which ever clan owns one of them has Weapons of Mass Destruction for sure.