The X Factor

[StoneCity]

I first heard about this theory when breeding horses. Since then, I try to apply it all the time. It explains how the female Chromosome X is larger and carries more genetic information than the Male Chromosome Y which is smaller and carries less genetic information. They noticed that females were responsible for transmitting certain traits or characteristics in the breed 68% of the time and males only 32%.

You can apply this theory to dogs when breeding. Now the first thing you need to know is how to read the peds using the X Factor. The second thing you need to know is the traits or characteristics expressed by each individual in that pedigree or at least the majority of them.

Let me show you how to look at a ped using the X Factor:

Let’s use an example of Mayday a male expressed as YX chromosomes

[attachment=1:dylvupqk]X Factor Male.jpg[/attachment:dylvupqk]


In order for Mayday become a Male, he received the Chromosome Y from his sire Gr. Ch. Yellow (Follow the Yellow Color Markings) and Yellow got his Y from Yellow John and Yellow John from Red Boy. Now, the question is Has Miss Jocko contributed to the genetic formation of Mayday? The X Factor theory says No. Why? Because Miss Jocko been a female as 2 X chromosomes and she gave 1 of her X chromosomes to Gr. Ch. Yellow but Yellow gave his Y chromosome to Mayday so no X chromosome information was passed on to Mayday from Miss Jocko. Mayday received his X chromosome from Dolly (follow the red marking) as she only had 2 X chromosomes to give one. Dolly receive her 2 X chromosomes one from Yazoo Cody and the other one from Lady in Red.


Now let’s do the same analysis using Dragon Lady as an example a full belly sister to Mayday. Dragon Lady is a female expressed as XX chromosomes.

[attachment=0:dylvupqk]X Factor Female.jpg[/attachment:dylvupqk]


Now Dragon Lady is a female and is made of 2 X chromosomes (XX). The X received from Dolly (Follow red color) is the only chromosome she could have received as Dolly itself is a female with only 2 X chromosomes.

Now let’s look at the top of the pedigree. Dragon Lady received the other X chromosome from her sire Gr. Ch. Yellow Male (YX). Gr. Ch. Yellow received that X from Miss Jocko. Now the question is Has Dragon Lady received any genetic information from Gr. Ch. Yellow John? According to the X Factor theory the answer is NO.

If you follow the colors you can understand how to apply the X Factor theory when you are evaluating a male and when evaluating a female. I strongly believe in applying this to all the breeding’s I do when selecting a male and a female to cross.

This approach will change the way you look at peds. It will give you a better perspective of the contributions that females brings to the breeding and will help you understand which individuals are actually contributing to the genetic characteristics of each individual.

Hope it helps more than it confuse.

[Officially Retired]

I first heard about this theory when breeding horses. Since then, I try to apply it all the time. It explains how the female Chromosome X is larger and carries more genetic information than the Male Chromosome Y which is smaller and carries less genetic information. They noticed that females were responsible for transmitting certain traits or characteristics in the breed 68% of the time and males only 32%.

First of all, thank you for the time and effort you put into this interesting theory and sharing it with us.

I have not heard of this before, but I will go through it to see if I can understand/agree with the concepts.

My opening thought is to seek clarification if it is an actual fact that the Y chromosome carries less genetic information from the sire than if he passed the X, or is this too just a theory?





You can apply this theory to dogs when breeding. Now the first thing you need to know is how to read the peds using the X Factor. The second thing you need to know is the traits or characteristics expressed by each individual in that pedigree or at least the majority of them.
Let me show you how to look at a ped using the X Factor:
Let’s use an example of Mayday a male expressed as YX chromosomes
In order for Mayday become a Male, he received the Chromosome Y from his sire Gr. Ch. Yellow (Follow the Yellow Color Markings) and Yellow got his Y from Yellow John and Yellow John from Red Boy.

Okay, I completely follow you here, as far as the sex of Mayday goes; however what I find myself doubting is the idea that all of the genetic traits are tied in to the sex chromosome (or, should I say, are lost in the absence of a Y chromosome).





Now, the question is Has Miss Jocko contributed to the genetic formation of Mayday? The X Factor theory says No. Why? Because Miss Jocko been a female as 2 X chromosomes and she gave 1 of her X chromosomes to Gr. Ch. Yellow but Yellow gave his Y chromosome to Mayday so no X chromosome information was passed on to Mayday from Miss Jocko. Mayday received his X chromosome from Dolly (follow the red marking) as she only had 2 X chromosomes to give one. Dolly receive her 2 X chromosomes one from Yazoo Cody and the other one from Lady in Red.


Okay, here is where I disagree with this theory: While Mayday is clearly a male, and while he clearly got his 'Y' chromosome from Yellow to make him that way, the fact remains Mayday is a YX dog, and likewise Yellow was a YX dog.. In other words, Mayday and his daddy Yellow weren't just "Y" dogs, they were YX dogs, and that 'X' is coming from their respective mamas, is it not? I think the X is being falsely omitted in the mind's eye, just because the dog is a male. What needs to be remembered is any male is a YX, and any female is XX, which means the "X" influence of the dam is still clearly present in the pups, regardless of the sex. In other words, just because Mayday is a male doesn't mean he lost his mama's influence, it just means his daddy's Y (rather than his daddy's X) chromosome obtained, but Mayday's mama's X is still present in the YX Mayday regardless. (This same truth applies to Yellow and Miss Jocko.)

In fact, if it really is true that the sire's Y chromosome only offers 32% genetic influence, while the dam's X chromosome offers 68% genetic influence, then according to this X Factor theory Mayday would actually be more influenced by his mama's genes (if Yellow's 'Y' isn't carrying the same weight as Dolly's 'X'), and Yellow would be more influenced by Miss Jock's genes as well.

Now, regarding these alleged percentages, I admit to being confused as to how they add up. If X chromosomes carry 68% of the information, I understand how it all add-up to 100% if the X is paired with a 32% Y, but what happens when two 68% X chromosomes obtain to produce a female? I mean a 68% and a 68% contribution from each side would add up to 136%, which of course is impossible. So, unless I am missing something (and I may well be!) each chromosome has to contribute only 50% - 50% from each parent, to add-up to 100%, regardless if it's an X or a Y.





Now let’s do the same analysis using Dragon Lady as an example a full belly sister to Mayday. Dragon Lady is a female expressed as XX chromosomes.
Now Dragon Lady is a female and is made of 2 X chromosomes (XX). The X received from Dolly (Follow red color) is the only chromosome she could have received as Dolly itself is a female with only 2 X chromosomes.
Now let’s look at the top of the pedigree. Dragon Lady received the other X chromosome from her sire Gr. Ch. Yellow Male (YX). Gr. Ch. Yellow received that X from Miss Jocko. Now the question is Has Dragon Lady received any genetic information from Gr. Ch. Yellow John? According to the X Factor theory the answer is NO.


I understand the thinking which prompted the theory, but to my way of interpreting this there seem to be three false premises being made. Before I get into them, I would like to point out that Hollingsworth's Dolly was a red/rednose, and yet DragonLady was a buckskin/blacknose which coloration she had to get from Yellow. Dragon Lady could not possibly have gotten her black nose from the rednosed Dolly. This brings us to the three major errors that are being made with this theory, which IMO are:

1) The idea that all of the genes are linked to the Y chromosome (I believe this is false);
2) The idea that if the 'Y' chromosome gets passed to the pup from the sire ... and a male pup obtains ... that somehow the genetic 'X' influence of the dam is lost (I believe this is false); and
3) The idea that if the 'X' chromosome gets passed to the pup from the sire ... and a female pup obtains ... that somehow the entire genetic influence of the sire is lost, just because he didn't throw a Y (I believe this is false).
It is my belief that the male's genetic influence is always passed on (whether he passes his Y or his X chromosome, it's still his genes), and I further believe that the female's genes are always passed on via her "X" contribution. I think which influence is the greatest is more of a "roll of the dice," genetically, but the influence of both is always there to some degree.




If you follow the colors you can understand how to apply the X Factor theory when you are evaluating a male and when evaluating a female. I strongly believe in applying this to all the breeding’s I do when selecting a male and a female to cross.


Hmm, well, again this theory actually can't explain Dragon Lady's color. If there was absolutely no genetic influence to Dragon Lady from Yellow (by virtue of Dragon Lady being an "XX" bitch), then DL should be a red/rednose like her mama Dolly. To my way of thinking, the very fact that DragonLady was a buckskin/blacknose proves Yellow's genetic influence, by way of his passed X chromosome, for it would be genetically-impossible for Dolly to have thrown a buckskin/blacknose gene, when she herself is a red/rednose animal. Therefore, the idea that all of the "genetic information" that dogs receive is absolutely linked to the sex chromosomes can't possibly be true. While Yellow may not have thrown a Y chromosome to Dragon Lady, he nonetheless did throw his genetic influence with the X chromosome he passed on to her.




This approach will change the way you look at peds. It will give you a better perspective of the contributions that females brings to the breeding and will help you understand which individuals are actually contributing to the genetic characteristics of each individual.
Hope it helps more than it confuse.

Well, the theory definitely made me think more, and it did make me rub my chin a bit, but (unless I am misunderstanding something), the way I interpret the theory would give me the opposite conclusion. Namely, if the Y chromosome only carries 32% of the sire's genetic coding, and if the X chromosome carries 68% of the dam's genetic coding, then Gr Ch Mayday would actually be 68% influenced by his mama (and only 32% influenced by his sire). However, I am still unclear as to whether it is an actual fact that the Y chromosome only throws 32% of the sire's make-up.

I also personally believe there is more of a genetic "roll of the dice" going on than these absolutely strict 32% / 68% (or 50% / 50%) numbers reflect. For example, 5 out of 7 pups may strongly resemble (and carry the traits of) the stud dog, regardless of their sexes, while maybe 2 carry the traits (and the looks of) the bitch. Like flipping a coin, "in theory" the results are supposed to be 50-50%, but in actual practice you may get 7 straight "heads" or 7 straight "tails" when you actually flip that coin. And so it is with breeding dogs IMO. In theory, the male contributes 50%, and so does the female, but in actual practice 5 pups may totally favor the male, while only 2 favor the female. And then there is the issue of "throwbacks!"

In closing, I think this is a great topic for debate and consideration. And while I personally don't subscribe to it, I do see the logic that created it, but I believe there are some faulty premises to the theory which make it unsound. (At least as I interpret it, but I may have made a mistake of my own somewhere.)

If you have any rebuttals or corrections to where I may have made an error in calculation, I certainly would like to hear it!

Thanks again for the great topic,

Jack

[StoneCity]

Jack,

Thanks for reading the article and challenge the theory. I will try to address each challenge to the best of my abilities. Remember that must studies have been made in Horses and just recently they started doing the sames studies in canines.


My opening thought is to seek clarification if it is an actual fact that the Y chromosome carries less genetic information from the sire than if he passed the X, or is this too just a theory?

That is a fact. It is larger thus carries more information.

"The X-chromosome is considerably larger than the Y-chromosome in size and Y-chromosome carries lesser inheritable materials. Different mammals have different sized X- and Y-chromosomes. For instance, the X-chromosome in a horse is 70% larger than the Y-chromosome. Canine X-chromosome’s size is 139 Mb* which is the largest chromosome among the 39 chromosome pairs. As the Y-chromosome’s size is just 27 Mb, the canine X-chromosome is over 80% larger than the Y-chromosome."


Okay, I completely follow you here, as far as the sex of Mayday goes; however what I find myself doubting is the idea that all of the genetic traits are tied in to the sex chromosome (or, should I say, are lost in the absence of a Y chromosome).



Remember that the X factor theory relates to particular traits transmitted in the X factor and FROM WHO are they getting the information from.

"According to different chromosomes, a region of DNA, e.g., quantitative trait locus (QTL) can be found that is related to a particular phenotypic trait. X-chromosomes have been shown to carry genes in relation to sex, reproduction, mental functions, muscle and a part of skeletal traits."



Okay, here is where I disagree with this theory: While Mayday is clearly a male, and while he clearly got his 'Y' chromosome from Yellow to make him that way, the fact remains Mayday is a YX dog, and likewise Yellow was a YX dog.. In other words, Mayday and his daddy Yellow weren't just "Y" dogs, they were YX dogs, and that 'X' is coming from their respective mamas, is it not? I think the X is being falsely omitted in the mind's eye, just because the dog is a male. What needs to be remembered is any male is a YX, and any female is XX, which means the "X" influence of the dam is still clearly present in the pups, regardless of the sex. In other words, just because Mayday is a male doesn't mean he lost his mama's influence, it just means his daddy's Y (rather than his daddy's X) chromosome obtained, but Mayday's mama's X is still present in the YX Mayday regardless. (This same truth applies to Yellow and Miss Jocko.)

The point here is that Mayday is a male YX and he got his Y from Yellow and his X from Dolly. That means two things:

The Information on his Y chromosome comes from Yellow and all the male ascendants. However, The Y chromosome in Mayday does not have any genetic information from Yazoo Cody who is the sire of Dolly who is the Dam of Mayday. Now in the X chromosome found in Mayday was given to him by Dolly which means he does not carry any information from Miss Jocko.

In the case of Dragon Lady she is a female XX and she got the one X from Yellow and one X from Dolly. This means:

Males determine the sex.

The X Dragon Lady received from Gr. Ch. Yellow has no genetic information from Yellow John. Why? Because for Gr. Ch. Yellow to become a male he received the Y chromosome from Yellow John and we already know that Gr. Ch. Yellow gave his X chromosome to Dragon Lady NOT THE Y.

The X Factor is a guide to follow a path regarding the pass down on genetic information. In the case of Dragon Lady even thou she is a grand daughter of Yellow John on top, she is not carrying genetic information from him.

In terms of the percentages, when it is YX, the Y brings 27 mb and X brings 139 mb or 16%/84%. When it is XX, it is 50%/50% as both X are the same size.

In terms of dominants, recesive genes, it continues to be the same rule regardless.

That is the basics for the X Theory.

[Bojacc357]

Background on DNA

Animals have two types of DNA, nuclear (nDNA) and mitochondrial (mtDNA). Nuclear DNA is found in the nucleus of a cell. The genes coded for by nDNA are responsible for external characteristics and for behavior, but they also have important regulatory functions inside the cells. Mitochondrial DNA is separate and distinct from nDNA and is found in the mitochondria of the cell. The gene coding here is strictly regulatory and has little effect on external characteristics or behavior in comparison to nDNA.

Nuclear DNA occurs in the cell as tightly packed units called chromosomes and each cell has two copies of each chromosome. One pair of chromosomes are involved in sex-determination and are, therefore, called sex chromosomes; females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y. The other chromosomes are called autosomes. All mammals have only one pair of sex chromosomes, but the number of autosomes varies according to species.

Genes are discrete pieces of DNA on the chromosomes that code for particular gene products, which are proteins. Slightly different forms of the same gene are referred to as alleles and each chromosome pair has two alleles; some alleles are dominant and are always expressed, while others are recessive and are only expressed when both alleles of a gene are recessive.

It is a myth that female (or male) genetics are stronger. Certain forms of genes (alleles) are dominant and these are expressed over recessive alleles, but dominant alleles do not occur in a higher frequency in males or females. However, there are sex-linked genes (e.g., male pattern baldness in humans) and these recessive alleles--slightly different forms of the same gene--occur in nDNA, specifically on the X chromosome. Though we know much about sex-linked genes in humans, I personally know of no such studies that have been done on canids.

If you know of any new research that has been conducted on canid genetics or have anything to offer/counter, please reply or send via e-mail to me at Gwragedd Annwn as I would be interested in reading any scientific papers or hearing any comments.

[Bojacc357]

.
How is DNA Inherited?

Mitochondrial DNA comes solely from the female parent; the egg carries mitochondria as there is no room in the part of the sperm that fuses with the egg at fertilization. Here are a couple of examples to clarify how DNA is passed from parent to offspring:

A female pure wolf breeds with a pure male dog--the pups will all have the wolf mtDNA of the mother. There will be a half-and-half mixing of dog and wolf nuclear DNA. The male pups will have a pure dog Y chromosome and a pure wolf X chromosome, with all genes of the latter being expressed. The female pups would have an X chromosome from the mother (wolf) and an X chromosome from the father (dog) and the genes on these two X chromosomes will "compete" with each other, with dominant alleles being expressed and recessive being suppressed.
A female pure dog breeds with a pure wolf male--the pups will have the dog mtDNA of the mother while the nuclear DNA of the parents would again mix. The male pups will have a pure wolf Y chromosome and a pure dog X chromosome, with all the genes therein being expressed. The female pups will have an X chromosome from the female (dog) and an X from the male (wolf) and the genes on these 2 X chromosomes will "compete" with each other (dominant being expressed and recessive being suppressed).
A female wolfdog breeds with a male wolf/wolfdog/dog (it doesn't matter)--the pups would ALWAYS have the mitochondria from the mother and could never have both dog and wolf mitochondria. There will be a mixing of nuclear DNA, but the mtDNA will always remain pure dog or wolf depending on the mothers and the mothers' mothers and so on. To simplify, mtDNA is matriarchal. The nuclear DNA would mix as indicated in the two examples above.
It is important to bear in mind two things with regard to what has been said: (1) that the terms "wolf gene" and "dog gene" were used for simplicity rather than actually being two separate and distinct genes; and (2) that mtDNA is regulatory and is NOT coding for looks or temperament. When a wolf and a dog mate, the outcome as far as looks are concerned is a crap shoot. The DNA to look at in this case would be nuclear DNA, not mtDNA.

[Bojacc357]

Though it says female genetic are not stronger I can see how it's possible to thinks so. I mean if the chromosomes DNA is equal but the mitochondria DNA is only in females than she has a great influence overall. Also I did read the X Chromosome is larger. Still, reading this it does seem the female has more influence.

[StoneCity]

Here is more detail information about the X Factor and studies results. Here is one address with info http://www.utopialands.com/xfactorbreeding.htm
There are various sites where you can get information. Just search for "X Factor Breeding". This studies started with horses and proved certain traits and characteristics were transmitted by the female. Now some studies had been done in canines with very similar conclusions. Pay special attention to the conclusions of the M Factor.

X-Factor Breeding



“THE X FACTOR points out the brood bitch may be more important than previously realized.” – Another Puzzle piece, Patricia Craige, 1998

Thoroughbred breeding has made a great impact in canine breeding because of the revolutionary and exciting new insights gained by the genetics experts in thoroughbreds. In 1997, Patricia Craige published a well-known canine breeding book “Born to Win – Breed to Succeed”. Mrs Craige can be called a pioneer with the introduction of the thoroughbred’s X-Factor theory into the Canine world.

Canines have 39 chromosome pairs. Like most mammals, canines have one pair of sex chromosomes in each cell. Each sire carries one Y-chromosome and one X-chromosome, denoted as XY, while each dam carries two X-chromosomes, denoted as XX. The sire receives the X-chromosome from his dam and then passes on it to his daughters while he inherits the Y-chromosome from his sire and then passes it on to his sons. The X-chromosome is considerably larger than the Y-chromosome in size and Y-chromosome carries lesser inheritable materials. Different mammals have different sized X- and Y-chromosomes. For instance, the X-chromosome in a horse is 70% larger than the Y-chromosome. Canine X-chromosome’s size is 139 Mb* which is the largest chromosome among the 39 chromosome pairs. As the Y-chromosome’s size is just 27 Mb, the canine X-chromosome is over 80% larger than the Y-chromosome.

Different mammals' chromosomes carry different inheritable materials. For instance, the X-chromosome of the horse carries large heart characteristics. According to different chromosomes, a region of DNA, e.g., quantitative trait locus (QTL) can be found that is related to a particular phenotypic trait. X-chromosomes have been shown to carry genes in relation to sex, reproduction, mental functions, muscle and a part of skeletal traits.

As mentioned above, the X-chromosome contains the genes associated with reproduction, mental function, skeletal muscle and a part of the skeleton characteristics. The sire carries only one X chromosome while the dam carries two. Following careful breeding plans, the quality brood bitches in the breed can usually carry two quality X-chromosomes and when a brood bitch carries on two quality X-chromosomes, she can possibly produce the same quality male and female offspring. Hence, selecting a quality dam is very important.

When a breeder chooses a dam for breeding, the breeder must select a well-constructed bitch with a good producing record. When selecting a stud dog for breeding, the breeder must study the structure and the reproductive record of the stud dog’s dam. In order to produce good brood bitches in the breeding program, the breeder should only use the stud dogs that are produced by great dams since the X of the sire will be passed onto his daughters. In this respect, mediocre bitches must be avoided in the breeding programs.

Referring to figure 2.1, Venus must contain one of Vanna’s X-Chromosomes and she has a 50% chance to carry Jordan’s X-chromosome and a 50% chance to carry one of two Marilyn’s X-chromosomes.

Parents


2nd Generation


3rd Generation

TITUS XY




CHIEF XY


FROSTY

ERLENE

VANNA XX


JOE

SISKA

PIXIE XX OR XX


JORDAN XY


SPECS

Maggie

Marilyn XX


Chief

SPREE

Figure 2.1. Venus’s pedigree

Just like every other breeding methodology, the X-factor also has its limitations. Breeders need to be aware of the sex linked diseases, which is an abnormal gene contained in the X chromosome. Normally, sex linked diseases are linked with X-chromosome. It is extremely rare for sex linked diseases to be contained in the Y-chromosome. For example, XL-PRA disease is linked with the X-chromosome in the Siberian Husky.

*Chromosome size in Mb based on bivariate flow cytometry measurements

M-Factor



While both muscle and structure are important to provide support and movement to the dogs, the metabolic system also has equal importance in relation to movement. Its chemical reaction, which occurs in all living organisms generates energy and maintains life. Due to the extremely heterogeneous tissue of the mammalian skeletal muscle, its different muscle fibres can metabolically satisfy various functional demands. The Siberian Husky is an example of this. The Siberian Husky is required to have an explosive movement to start, which is provided by Type II (fast twitch) muscle fibre, and endurance, which is provided by Type I (slow twitch) muscle fibre.

Mitochondria are structures within cells that convert the energy from food into a form that cells can use. The number of Mitochondrion depends on the biochemical metabolic level. The more exuberant the metabolic activities are, the more mitochondria there are present in the cell. Mitochondria can be described as "cellular power plants" because its organic matter oxidation can convert energy into Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Mitochondria have a small amount of their own DNA, which is called as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). mtDNA contains thirty-seven genes, which are essential to normal mitochondrial function.

Oxidative phosphorylation is defined as the process of using oxygen and sugars to create the main energy source of the cell, which is ATP. In order to make enzymes in oxidative phosphorylation, instructions are given by thirteen of mtDNA genes. The more a muscle is capable of oxidizing organic matter into ATP, the better the muscle will be.

M-Factor, so called by thoroughbred breeding theorist Ken McLean, refers to mtDNA. Biologists also discovered the following three points in regards to Mitochondria:

1) They possess their own DNA with its slightly different genetic code. mtDNA is independent and non-Mendelian.

2) Mitochondria can only be passed onto the next generation by the mother. She can pass on some of her mitochondria in the cytoplasm of the egg.

3) The rate of evolution of mtDNA appears to be approximately ten times faster than that of Nuclear DNA (i.e. DNA found in the nucleus of cells.

In reproduction, since mitochondria are inherited only from the dam, the dam’s egg cell will destroy the mitochondria in mammalian sperm after fertilization.

Ken McLean believes that in racing horse breeding, superior mitochondria can be transmitted via direct female line for generations. “Perhaps some race horses inherit far superior mitochondria from their dams in direct female-line descent. This might explain why some families can produce a consistent number of stakes winners.”, he wrote in Genetic Heritage.

What does M-Factor have done with canine breeding? Because the sire cannot pass on mtDNA to his offspring, it is essential that breeders select a dam with a correct musculoskeletal system. When breeders apply X-factor theory and understand the importance of M-factor in breeding, they can begin to structure the pedigree and phenotype together in the hope of obtaining a quality brood bitch for their future breeding programs.

[kingkong1]

VERY NICE POSTING STONECITY !!!! IVE DONE ALOT OF RESEARCH ON THE X-FACTOR PRINCIPLE AN DO FEEL IT HAS ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS IN BREEDING PROGRAMS.WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS HOUNDS JUST DONT BREED TRUE LIKE (ex.GAMEFOWL).IVE HAD GREAT SUCCESS USING THE X-FACTOR METHOD AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AND WILL RECORD MY RESULTS AFTER THE CULLING,TESTING AND PERCENTAGES ARE TALLIED.
THANKS STEWCOLE KENNELS

[StoneCity]

Happy to hear that someone else is also applying the X factor when breeding.

It will be great to tally all observations and see the results.

Best Luck!

[Bojacc357]

It makes plenty sense looking at it.

[Bojacc357]

Question though, it would seem after searching for info on the Y chromosome. The only reason there's so much info dedicated and genetics attributed to the X is because there's not much of any on the Y chromosome. Do you know of any on the genetic attributes of the Y Chromosomes?

[Officially Retired]

Jack,
Thanks for reading the article and challenge the theory. I will try to address each challenge to the best of my abilities. Remember that must studies have been made in Horses and just recently they started doing the sames studies in canines.
That is a fact. It is larger thus carries more information.

Okay, sure, and once again thank you for sharing with all of us a theory I have never heard of.

In analyzing this theory as best as I can, I have come up with some preliminary impressions that I will try to give here:




Jack,
.... The point here is that Mayday is a male YX and he got his Y from Yellow and his X from Dolly. That means two things:
The Information on his Y chromosome comes from Yellow and all the male ascendants. However, The Y chromosome in Mayday does not have any genetic information from Yazoo Cody who is the sire of Dolly who is the Dam of Mayday. Now in the X chromosome found in Mayday was given to him by Dolly which means he does not carry any information from Miss Jocko.


Okay, here is where I agree/disagree with this theory, as best as I am able to follow it:

1) I agree that Mayday got his Y chromosome from from Yellow, as that is the only way he could have gotten it;
2) I disagree that he absolutely has no information from Yazoo Cody. He may not have gotten Yazoo Cody's Y male-information, but Yazoo Cody still passed-on his X chromosome to Dolly, so the potential does exist for Yellow to be influenced to some degree by Yazoo Cody's genetic make-up, albeit from the X-side. In other words (as discussed below) there is a distinction between sex-linked Y-X chromosomes and behavior/characteristic-linked autosomes.
This is how I interpret what you've presented here anyway.




Jack,
In the case of Dragon Lady she is a female XX and she got the one X from Yellow and one X from Dolly. This means:
Males determine the sex.
The X Dragon Lady received from Gr. Ch. Yellow has no genetic information from Yellow John. Why? Because for Gr. Ch. Yellow to become a male he received the Y chromosome from Yellow John and we already know that Gr. Ch. Yellow gave his X chromosome to Dragon Lady NOT THE Y.


I do see the logic here. What I am not so clear on is whether these sex-linked chromosomes are 100% linked to all other attributes/traits in the dog that are contained in the autosomes. For instance, Bojacc357 posted the following (and thank you for your contribution too Bojac!):

"Animals have two types of DNA, nuclear (nDNA) and mitochondrial (mtDNA). Nuclear DNA is found in the nucleus of a cell. The genes coded for by nDNA are responsible for external characteristics and for behavior, but they also have important regulatory functions inside the cells. Mitochondrial DNA is separate and distinct from nDNA and is found in the mitochondria of the cell. The gene coding here is strictly regulatory and has little effect on external characteristics or behavior in comparison to nDNA ... One pair of chromosomes are involved in sex-determination and are, therefore, called sex chromosomes; females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y. The other chromosomes are called autosomes. All mammals have only one pair of sex chromosomes, but the number of autosomes varies according to species ... It is a myth that female (or male) genetics are stronger ... the pups will have the dog mtDNA of the mother while the nuclear DNA of (BOTH) the parents would again mix ... When a wolf and a dog mate, the outcome as far as looks are concerned is a crap shoot. The DNA to look at in this case would be nuclear DNA, not mtDNA."
If I am understanding The X-Factor Theory correctly, its shortcoming is there is no actual "external" nDNA genetic dominance by the female, but only the internal (mitochondrial) mtDNA dominance. Therefore, as far as the physical looks, abilities, temperament, etc. go ... how the pups turn out still remains a genetic crapshoot which can obtain from either side of the pedigree.

And yet there is a massive strength to The X-Factor Theory, regardless, because (again, if my preliminary interpretation of this is correct) the mtDNA is responsible for the basic mitochondrial cell fitness of the animal, which directly translates to its exercise tolerance and staying power in the pit. Therefore, having a brood bitch with whatever internal blood-function/components yield exceptional stamina and staying power would be foundational to success! I personally have always believed that strong brood bitches are vital to success, and even though my best-known bulldog is the stud dog Poncho, he was produced by the inbred brood bitch Miss Trinx. In thinking back, my most consistent producers of deep game, longwinded dogs were Screamer and Wild Red Rose, both of whom were structurally-perfect bitches of tireless stamina. All of my inbred Screamer/Rosey dogs were longwinded animals (mtDNA-dependent, through these bitches).

Therefore, again, if I am understanding this right, the "external variables" of intelligence, looks, and ability are still the "genetic crapshoot" of the nDNA that can be passed on to the pups from either the sire or the damn, but the internal cell mitochondrial fitness of the pups are all matriarchal and come from the female, and therefore having a good, strong, physically fit female(s) upon which a yard is based is critical.

I don't know if my interpretation of this Theory you have presented here is correct or not, but if it is it's kind of poetic for me, in the sense that I am now linebreeding on Silverback (based on his physical abilities), but I am always trying to place SUPER-longwinded, high-staying-power bitches underneath him, which natural staying power and physical health of the cells HAS to be genetic (mtDNA?). Some dogs are simply able to go an hour off the chain, and some dogs simply cannot, and that has to be related to the presence of "basic genetic cell health/function," does it not?

At any rate, I am not sure if you (or anyone) agrees with my attempts to make sense of this theory, but I very much do see it as a valuable tool. I never knew anything about mtDNA or nDVA, but I have always believed in having truly superior brood bitches, and I for one am fascinated by the potential applications of this theory, so thanks once again for sharing :)

Cheers,

Jack

[StoneCity]

This is a very fascinating topic. Too much information with many variables and very few studies made on canines. It will be great if someone makes a study of how specific traits that matter to US in this sport are passed on and by Who.

At the end of the day, we are all looking for the best possible results and consistently repeat them.

My goal with this topic is to bring to peoples attention the females larger contribution to the end product. In order to a male be successful, he needs a good female.

Actually, I strongly believe that a female will make a male much better than the opposite.

I hope that with this instead of people talking about the Sire and Grand Sire, they start paying more attention to the Dam, Grand Dam. I will get rid of all males I have in my yard with no regrets if need to, but the females I will really keep at all cost.

IMHO, The longevity of this breed rest in the breeding of high quality females.

[Bojacc357]

This is very interesting. In reality this shows the cross within litters, lines, and families genetically. If you want to maintain a line off a male you would inbreed and keep sons or line breed and do the same to stack the y chromosomes. It's really not taking away from the males it's just adding more precision and perspective to breeding. Male and female equally give 39 chromosomes but with the larger X chromosone in females. The Y chromosomes of males carry less INHERITABLE MATERIALS.This makes picking a female very important. It shows why picking a solid family or line is important rather than just breeding peds. It seems after reading autosomes the other 37 chromosomes influence features. With just this info it's saying the 1/8th great grandmother behind the sire never has any influence nor 3rd generation grandfather on X chromosome. Only influence they have is appearance through autosomal DNA. This means breeding heavy on individuals not aligned right in the ped renders there sex, reproduction, mental functions, muscle and a part of skeletal traits useless. This is cause the are passed by the X and Y chromosomes and these where they are located in this theory have no effect there. It is interesting and is heavily influenced by the fact that more is known about the female genetics and contribution on the X chromosomes. It only makes me want to know more bout the Y chromosomes and it limitations do to being small annd what it brings in function. It is called a theory and in fact has validity through science but It all still comes back to quality and culling.

[Officially Retired]

This is a very fascinating topic. Too much information with many variables and very few studies made on canines. It will be great if someone makes a study of how specific traits that matter to US in this sport are passed on and by Who.


Agreed.





At the end of the day, we are all looking for the best possible results and consistently repeat them.


Agreed.





My goal with this topic is to bring to peoples attention the females larger contribution to the end product. In order to a male be successful, he needs a good female.
Actually, I strongly believe that a female will make a male much better than the opposite.


You certainly achieved your goal, and I do agree with you on the importance of a foundational bitch.

Still, I can't help but add a fly to the ointment by thinking of some pretty mediocre bitches that were bred to Poncho, with world class results obtaining. In fact, one of these females was bred to Poncho's uncle and I got all garbage, but when bred to Poncho I got all B+ to A+ caliber dogs. So I do think some stud dogs are simply prepotent, and can produce regardless of the bitch that gets put under them. The proverbial, "Breed em to a fence post and get game splinters," kind of dogs.

And I also think more people are willing to breed a lousy bitch to a great stud, "hoping" to get something, than would ever take a great bitch and experiment with her on a lousy stud.





I hope that with this instead of people talking about the Sire and Grand Sire, they start paying more attention to the Dam, Grand Dam. I will get rid of all males I have in my yard with no regrets if need to, but the females I will really keep at all cost.

I agree with you. Certainly, your own story with the all-time-great producer Awesome Baby proves your theory. Boyles and Hollingsworth likewise proved the ability to erect monumental bloodlines all based around a key brood matron. Waccamaw, too, built their own line around Saber.

In fact, in my book I specifically state that the quickest way a person can go from beginning to winning is to first buy himself the very best bitch he can possibly afford (not "a pup," not a "prospect," but a truly excellent bitch, from a truly excellent bloodline), and then through selective breeding build a monument around her.

Although I am personally building my yard around Silverback right now, his origination all started when I bought the key brood matron Miss Trinx, and bred her to Ch Hammer to get his mama Missy, who was one of the best bitches I have ever bred in my life. In going forward with her outstanding son Silverback, I am doing so with him being bred to quality bitches, and there are plenty of great programs built around key stud dogs too (Yellow, Bolio, Redboy, ect.), where the linebreeding program was built around the great stud dog, but this has to be implemented around the framework of quality bitches.




IMHO, The longevity of this breed rest in the breeding of high quality females.

Certainly, when I was heavily-active as a breeder, the pups I kept were always the ones that were out of my best bitches ... and these pups also commanded the highest prices. And, while I absolutely agree with you that going down to just "one" quality bitch would be better than going down to just "one" quality male, in the end I believe that a truly quality program relies on the maintenance of quality in both.

I think the revelation brought here in this discussion, that I certainly was never aware of, namely that the mtDNA of an animal (its cell fitness, etc.) is entirely dependent upon the matriarchal (bitch) influence is absolutely vital to keep a sense of direction in a breeding program. And I sincerely thank you for sharing this GEM of information with me and with the community here.

The way I am personally going to interpret this information you've shared here is to continue with my plans as-is, which was to make sure that I breed the longest-winded, most naturally-athletic bitches I can to Silverback. IMHO, I believe staying power to be a basic health & fitness phenomenon, where animals that truly do have World Class Staying Power are simply superior to animals to those who do not, even if the other animals initially have "more ability" out of the gate, because (if they can't sustain it) then it all amounts to nothing in the end. Anyway, I digress :)

Sincerely appreciate the discussion!

Cheers,

Jack

[Officially Retired]

This is very interesting. In reality this shows the cross within litters, lines, and families genetically. If you want to maintain a line off a male you would inbreed and keep sons or line breed and do the same to stack the y chromosomes. It's really not taking away from the males it's just adding more precision and perspective to breeding.

I agree with this; well said.

There are plenty of time-proven bloodlines around males to show that, when the right bitches are put under him, the male's superior traits can be reliably and consistently passed on.




Male and female equally give 39 chromosomes but with the larger X chromosone in females. The Y chromosomes of males carry less INHERITABLE MATERIALS.This makes picking a female very important. It shows why picking a solid family or line is important rather than just breeding peds. It seems after reading autosomes the other 37 chromosomes influence features. With just this info it's saying the 1/8th great grandmother behind the sire never has any influence nor 3rd generation grandfather on X chromosome. Only influence they have is appearance through autosomal DNA.

I would modify your first conclusion by saying picking solid individuals is more important than just breeding peds.

It would be my interpretation that autosomal influence is EVERYTHING, as far as ability and outward traits go, while the mitochondrial influence has more subtle influence "under the hood" of the basic fitness of the animal.

I would disagree with the statement that the 1/8th grandmother etc. "never" has any influence; I think she may, or may not, depending on the individual pup we're talking about. Again, this is where selection comes in.




This means breeding heavy on individuals not aligned right in the ped renders there sex, reproduction, mental functions, muscle and a part of skeletal traits useless. This is cause the are passed by the X and Y chromosomes and these where they are located in this theory have no effect there. It is interesting and is heavily influenced by the fact that more is known about the female genetics and contribution on the X chromosomes. It only makes me want to know more bout the Y chromosomes and it limitations do to being small annd what it brings in function. It is called a theory and in fact has validity through science but It all still comes back to quality and culling.

What you just said is critical not aligned right in the ped. IMO there are basic, time-proven linebreeding patterns ... that repeatedly and consistently work, precisely because they line things up right ... but that also is dependent upon IF the right dogs are used in the equation :)

I would also say "culling" has nothing to do with breeding dogs at all; selection is what breedings are based on. For example, I could have 85 curs on my yard, that I never bothered to cull, but 15 truly world class animals, and so if I only select the truly world class dogs to breed, then I can keep breeding world class dogs, culling or no culling. That is one of the biggest non-truths repeated in the dog world: "hard culling = great yard." Nothing could be further from the truth. "Culling" creates nothing; it only destroys.

What creates great dogs is GOOD SELECTION, wise choices in mating pairs, and proper genetic alignment between individual ancestors (and a little bit of luck!), not "culling."

Case in point, perhaps the greatest dog produced out of Stone City's Ch Nico Jr. (Gr Ch Awesome Beast ROM (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=255908)) came from a breeding a woman made, who had never rolled (or culled) a dog in her life ... but she sure did her homework on bloodlines, and she sure did know how to line the genes up in her breeding choices ...

Jack

[Bojacc357]

Thanks for cleaning up a couple things which were exactly what I meant. Solid individuals in a family most def. Small yard means culling is a must for me to move on in selection and many others. Not in a barberian way. Just for need of the chainspots. Culling is simply removing them from the program. The 1/8th grandmother if you notice does lend a X chromosome to male are female offspring in the X Factor. That would be the sire granddam on his sires side. She does however lend autosomal DNA which brings genes for appearances, color, and othe physical features. Her alignment doesn't let her effect sex, reproduction, mental function, and part of the skeletal structure as those are left to the X Chromosome. Only the Y generation to generation is passed in males which leaves her out. Then in females only the sires dam X is passed alone with his mates to make XX. Also the mitochondria DNA and Y and X skeletal genes would be what allows ability. This is in the since of with form comes function and also the X chromosome gives mental function. With the mitochondria DNA helping build muscle building proteins most compatible with structure as part of its inner workings with the cells. Since autosomes allow the brain to connect with cells I can see your point. Still if it doesn't have the form how can it perform it limits abilities. I guess you are looking at the ability to do anything with helping cells and brain communicate and I myself am thinking of talent and other aspects of ability as in fluent motion. Atleast this is what I gathered. The X Factors main focus is inheritable material genes wise on the X and Y chromosomes and the larger X has more inheritable material. I still think more needs to be none bout what inheritable material the Y Chromosome does posess.

[MinuteMan]

I'm sorry, but I have to say this is just plain false… I mean, in middle school I could have debunked this theory based on the simple steps of sexual reproduction.

The thought that a males Y chromosome comes only from the males on his sires side is incorrect. Yes his father HAD to pass the Y chromosome, as the female can only pass the X, BUT the Y chromosome the father passes down, is not a direct link to the dogs, grand father, great grand father, etc as your suggesting.

In the first stage of sexual reproduction, cells undergo Meiosis. During Meiosis, the chromosomes undergo recombination which “shuffles the deck” and creates a new gamete with a combination of each parents chromosomes.

Here is my easiest thoughts on debunking this, based on your explanation of the theory above, ALL males out of the litter would be twins. As they would be receiving the SAME Y chromosome.

Obviously this is not the case, and the reason for this is the “shuffling of the deck” of chromosomes during meiosis. Meiosis begins with one diploid cell containing two copies of each chromosome one from the dogs mother and one from its father. It then divides into four haploid cells containing one copy of each chromosome. Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, ensuring that offspring are genetically different from either parent, and from siblings.

Also, during sexual reproduction, a gamete from each parent (sperm cell and egg cell) combine and fuse. Resulting in an EXACT 50/50 contribution of genes from each parent. The only reason offspring may seem to “pull” to one side or the other, is because of the contribution of dominant or recessive genes form either parent, not because on parent is making a greater contribution. This is why selection and breeding choices are key. Selecting dogs with dominant genes will pass the selected trait along. OR, selecting two individuals who both posses the SAME recessive gene, will LOCK that trait in, as there is no ther possible option for them to pas along.

All that said, I DO totally agree that female selection is of the utmost importance. As said previous, the mitochondrial DNA ALL comes from the gyp, and this does have a direct effect on energy output.

Regards,

MinuteMan

[Bojacc357]

I'm sorry, but I have to say this is just plain false… I mean, in middle school I could have debunked this theory based on the simple steps of sexual reproduction.

The thought that a males Y chromosome comes only from the males on his sires side is incorrect. Yes his father HAD to pass the Y chromosome, as the female can only pass the X, BUT the Y chromosome the father passes down, is not a direct link to the dogs, grand father, great grand father, etc as your suggesting.

In the first stage of sexual reproduction, cells undergo Meiosis. During Meiosis, the chromosomes undergo recombination which “shuffles the deck” and creates a new gamete with a combination of each parents chromosomes.

Here is my easiest thoughts on debunking this, based on your explanation of the theory above, ALL males out of the litter would be twins. As they would be receiving the SAME Y chromosome.

Obviously this is not the case, and the reason for this is the “shuffling of the deck” of chromosomes during meiosis. Meiosis begins with one diploid cell containing two copies of each chromosome one from the dogs mother and one from its father. It then divides into four haploid cells containing one copy of each chromosome. Each of the resulting chromosomes in the gamete cells is a unique mixture of maternal and paternal DNA, ensuring that offspring are genetically different from either parent, and from siblings.

Also, during sexual reproduction, a gamete from each parent (sperm cell and egg cell) combine and fuse. Resulting in an EXACT 50/50 contribution of genes from each parent. The only reason offspring may seem to “pull” to one side or the other, is because of the contribution of dominant or recessive genes form either parent, not because on parent is making a greater contribution. This is why selection and breeding choices are key. Selecting dogs with dominant genes will pass the selected trait along. OR, selecting two individuals who both posses the SAME recessive gene, will LOCK that trait in, as there is no ther possible option for them to pas along.

All that said, I DO totally agree that female selection is of the utmost importance. As said previous, the mitochondrial DNA ALL comes from the gyp, and this does have a direct effect on energy output.

Regards,

MinuteMan

Minuteman I'm going to post info on recombination and also why the X chromosome contributes more. Y Chromosome simply doesn't have enough inheritable material.

[Bojacc357]

Recombination inhibition

Recombination between the X and Y chromosomes proved harmful—it resulted in males without necessary genes formerly found on the Y chromosome, and females with unnecessary or even harmful genes previously only found on the Y chromosome. As a result, genes beneficial to males accumulated near the sex-determining genes, and recombination in this region was suppressed in order to preserve this male specific region.[6] Over time, the Y chromosome changed in such a way as to inhibit the areas around the sex determining genes from recombining at all with the X chromosome. As a result of this process 95% of the human Y chromosome is unable to recombine.
Inefficient selection

Without the ability to recombine during meiosis, the Y chromosome is unable to expose individual alleles to natural selection. Deleterious alleles are allowed to "hitchhike" with beneficial neighbors, thus propagating maladapted alleles in to the next generation. Conversely, advantageous alleles may be selected against if they are surrounded by harmful alleles (background selection). Due to this inability to sort through its gene content, the Y chromosome is particularly prone to the accumulation of "junk" DNA. Massive accumulations of retrotransposable elements are scattered throughout the Y.[6] The random insertion of DNA segments often disrupts encoded gene sequences and renders them nonfunctional. However, the Y chromosome has no way of weeding out these "jumping genes". Without the ability to isolate alleles, selection cannot effectively act upon them.

A clear, quantitative indication of this inefficiency is the entropy rate of the Y chromosome. Whereas all other chromosomes in the human genome have entropy rates of 1.5–1.9 bits per nucleotide (compared to the theoretical maximum of exactly 2 for no redundancy), the Y chromosome's entropy rate is only 0.84.[12] This means the Y chromosome has a much lower information content relative to its overall length; it is more redundant.

Gene conversion

In 2003, researchers from MIT discovered a process which may slow down the process of degradation. They found that human Y chromosome is able to "recombine" with itself, using palindrome base pair sequences.[14] Such a "recombination" is called gene conversion.

In the case of the Y chromosomes, the palindromes are not noncoding DNA; these strings of bases contain functioning genes important for male fertility. Most of the sequence pairs are greater than 99.97% identical. The extensive use of gene conversion may play a role in the ability of the Y chromosome to edit out genetic mistakes and maintain the integrity of the relatively few genes it carries. In other words, since the Y chromosome is single, it has duplicates of its genes on itself instead of having a second, homologous, chromosome. When errors occur, it can use other parts of itself as a template to correct them.

Findings were confirmed by comparing similar regions of the Y chromosome in humans to the Y chromosomes of chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. The comparison demonstrated that the same phenomenon of gene conversion appeared to be at work more than 5 million years ago, when humans and the non-human primates diverged from each other.

[MinuteMan]

I'm sorry Bojac, I should have been more specific.

I'm not saying there is no merrit to the "x factor" I was more focusing on Stone City's diagrams and statements saying that Mayday recieved no influence from Miss Jocko and the like. If his staement had been, Mayday recieved no SEX linked characteristics, well that's a whole new ball game.

What you posted above states that the X and Y chromosome THEMSELVES are resistant to recombination, which makes sense, as certain traits are REQUIRED for each sex. It also makes sense then, that there ARE sex linked traits. Yet, everyone seems to be forgetting the 38 other chromosomes passed down from each parent.

I think the post above by stone city that speaks of the horses shows how the "x factor" "COULD" come in handy. IE, Horse researchers have shown that the large heart is directly linked to the X chromosome. I know of no such sex linked traits in our dogs, although I would love to see some examples, and with the discovery of such you could use the "x factor" as valuable breeding tool.

[Bojacc357]

Do you see what you confused Minuteman. The Y chromosome itself is single and only has identical genes to repare itself so nothing changes. The recombination you speak of in meiosis is the X and Y joining and which genes actually combine and are dominant. Even at this state they only join at the tip cause if they recombined completely the y chromosome would overtake the X and make all male sex. Here is another article explain how the Y chromosome links all males back.

The decay of the Y has to do with nature barring the Y chromosome from recombining (forming new genetic combinations) with the X, except for at the tips. If not for this, the male-determining gene on the Y chromosome would sneak into the X, making everyone male. In the mid 1990’s The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, MA and Washington University’s Genome Institute began a collaboration to sequence the human Y chromosome. This historic sequence and analysis was published in 2003, representing the first and only Y chromosome (from any species) to be sequenced.

Because the Y chromosome changes relatively slowly over time and is only passed along the direct male line, it may be used to trace paternal lineage. It was also found that the Y chromosome contains genes which are implicated in cancer, Turners syndrome, stress response, high blood pressure, graft rejection and harbors many genes essential for male fertility.

[Bojacc357]

The other 38 don't control sex, reproduction, mental function, and part of the skeletal genetics as the X chromosome. The Y chromosome is maintainly tied to fertility. The other chromosomes called autosomes link the brain to cells, control color, appearance of physical features, and

they aid in the growth and repairing of cells. Simple as that.
by SIPHO P. KUNENE

[MinuteMan]

Your Correct. My mistake.

I should have thought my response out better as I typed it. The Y Chromosome ITSELF will be pretty much the same one passed down, as the Y is resistant to recombination. Yet it is not immune to it.

YET, the male will be passing 38 OTHER chromosomes which HAVE been recombined. I was thinking of these 38 other chromosomes as I typed, yet only spoke of the Y originally.

So my original point was, (now stated correctly) Mayday will STILL have 38 other chromosomes with links to Miss Jocko

[MinuteMan]

The other 38 don't control sex, reproduction, mental function, and part of the skeletal genetics as the X chromosome. The Y chromosome is maintainly tied to fertility. The other chromosomes called autosomes link the brain to cells, control color, appearance of physical features, and

they aid in the growth and repairing of cells. Simple as that.
by SIPHO P. KUNENE


Yet are we not interested in passing all of those things down? Are those traits (brain function and physical features) not VITAL to the success of a performance dog, and actually what we base our choices of selection on?

[Bojacc357]

Exactly Minuteman, just not with the sex linked trait mental function or behavior, skeleton, sex, and reproduction. Only in appearance, recovery and durability do to growth and repair of cells being linked to autosomes. Not so much instinctive nature basically which is what most breed and think of getting looking at individuals in peds. It all comes back to where they are aligned in a ped and the sires granddam on his sires side has no input. She's does carry a Y chromosome so she want effect males and only the mate of a male and his mothers X which she passed him effect his daughters. This leaves the great grandmother on the sire topside 1/8th out as far as sex linked traits go. These Below are Y Chromosome sex linked traits I was able to find.

SHOX
SRY
USP9Y


What is the official name of the SHOX gene?
The official name of this gene is “short stature homeobox.”
SHOX is the gene's official symbol. The SHOX gene is also known by other names, listed below.
Read more about gene names and symbols on the About page.
What is the normal function of the SHOX gene?
The SHOX gene provides instructions for making a protein that regulates the activity of other genes. On the basis of this role, the SHOX protein is called a transcription factor. The SHOX gene is part of a large family of homeobox genes, which act during early embryonic development to control the formation of many body structures. Specifically, the SHOX gene is essential for the development of the skeleton. It plays a particularly important role in the growth and maturation of bones in the arms and legs.
One copy of the SHOX gene is located on each of the sex chromosomes (the X and Y chromosomes) in an area called the pseudoautosomal region. Although many genes are unique to either the X or Y chromosome, genes in the pseudoautosomal region are present on both chromosomes. As a result, both females (who have two X chromosomes) and males (who have one X and one Y chromosome) have two functional copies of the SHOX gene in each cell.

What is the official name of the SRY gene?
The official name of this gene is “sex determining region Y.”
SRY is the gene's official symbol. The SRY gene is also known by other names, listed below.
Read more about gene names and symbols on the About page.
What is the normal function of the SRY gene?
The SRY gene provides instructions for making a transcription factor called the sex-determining region Y protein. A transcription factor is a protein that attaches (binds) to specific regions of DNA and helps control the activity of particular genes. The sex-determining region Y protein causes a fetus to develop as a male.
People normally have 46 chromosomes in each cell. Two of the 46 chromosomes, known as X and Y, are called sex chromosomes because they help determine whether a person will develop male or female sex characteristics. Females have two X chromosomes (46,XX), and males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (46,XY). The SRY gene is located on the Y chromosome.

What is the official name of the USP9Y gene?
The official name of this gene is “ubiquitin specific peptidase 9, Y-linked.”
USP9Y is the gene's official symbol. The USP9Y gene is also known by other names, listed below.
Read more about gene names and symbols on the About page.
What is the normal function of the USP9Y gene?
The USP9Y gene provides instructions for making a protein called ubiquitin-specific protease 9. This gene is found on the Y chromosome. People normally have 46 chromosomes in each cell. Two of the 46 chromosomes are sex chromosomes, called X and Y. Females have two X chromosomes (46,XX), and males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (46,XY).
Because it is located on the Y chromosome, the USP9Y gene is present only in males. It occurs in a region of the Y chromosome called azoospermia factor A (AZFA). Azoospermia is the absence of sperm cells. The USP9Y gene is believed to be involved in sperm cell development, but its specific function is not well understood.

[Bojacc357]

The other 38 don't control sex, reproduction, mental function, and part of the skeletal genetics as the X chromosome. The Y chromosome is maintainly tied to fertility. The other chromosomes called autosomes link the brain to cells, control color, appearance of physical features, and

they aid in the growth and repairing of cells. Simple as that.
by SIPHO P. KUNENE


Yet are we not interested in passing all of those things down? Are those traits (brain function and physical features) not VITAL to the success of a performance dog, and actually what we base our choices of selection on?

It all ties in but the most precise we can get genetically is following the X and Y chromosomes. The reality is focusing on quality. To many skip this and say the genetics are there when the quality shows genetics. And yes I see how the skeletal, mental function(intelligence and will or gameness), reproduce, and sex that are sex linked genes go hand and hand with the autosomes of all ancestors passed. Speed in response of brains to cells are important but the outward response is only as fast as they are built to respond. You definitely can't take one without the other. One is still a better starting point in performing dogs.

[Officially Retired]

Thanks for cleaning up a couple things which were exactly what I meant. Solid individuals in a family most def. Small yard means culling is a must for me to move on in selection and many others. Not in a barberian way. Just for need of the chainspots. Culling is simply removing them from the program.

Okay, good deal.

I understand limited space = limited space, and the need to keep dog numbers down. The point I was making was that you can "remove a dog from the program" simply by selecting a better dog to breed to. In other words, if a Dog X isn't what I want in a dog, but the one behind him (Dog A) is everything I want in a dog, whether or not I "cull" Dog X has no relevance to a program, but breeding to Dog A does ... and I can choose to breed to Dog A whether or not Dog X is there or not 8-)




The 1/8th grandmother if you notice does lend a X chromosome to male are female offspring in the X Factor. That would be the sire granddam on his sires side. She does however lend autosomal DNA which brings genes for appearances, color, and othe physical features. Her alignment doesn't let her effect sex, reproduction, mental function, and part of the skeletal structure as those are left to the X Chromosome. Only the Y generation to generation is passed in males which leaves her out. Then in females only the sires dam X is passed alone with his mates to make XX.

Well, there was a statement made that the great-great grandfather (or mother) would have "no effect" on the dog in question, and I responded by "it may or it may not." I think if you look at the thread on Avila's Ouch! (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=127), if you follow his pedigree you can clearly see that Ouch! got his chocolate coloring from an unbroken string of chocolate/seal dogs in his pedigree ... all the way back to his great-great granddam Jessop's Pitfall.

I believe what Minute Man said is correct, namely that there isn't some progressive "diminishing" of an ancestor's influence; rather, I believe that the genes either pass/dominate to an offspring, or pass/recess to an offspring/or are LOST in an offspring. In other words, Ouch and Silverback aren't "watered-down" chocolate- and seal-colored dogs, respectively, they simply ARE chocolate- and seal-colored dogs respectively. This chocolate color trait either passes dominantly, or it does not pass. The red/rednose trait either passes dominantly, passes recessively, or it does not pass. The genes from both parents re-combine and are either THERE or are NOT there ... there is no "diminishing" going on with each successive generation.

And so it is with other traits, like being a head dog or a finisher. The propensity to be a head dog, or a true finisher, is either THERE and passed on, or it is NOT there and failed to pass-on (or, possibly, is there but is recessive). With Silverback, no dog I know of in his pedigree was a "true finisher" like he is, until you get back to the Ted Jessop blood. I promise you this desire to finish is not "diminished" in Silverback, after all these generations, it is simply THERE in him ... and like no ancestor I personally am aware of (which is a lot of them) until that pedigree point.

Thus I simply reject the idea that all traits "diminish by 50%" with each successive generation; I believe they are either passed on or they are not (albeit, sometimes passed on, yet remain recessive).




Also the mitochondria DNA and Y and X skeletal genes would be what allows ability. This is in the since of with form comes function and also the X chromosome gives mental function. With the mitochondria DNA helping build muscle building proteins most compatible with structure as part of its inner workings with the cells. Since autosomes allow the brain to connect with cells I can see your point.

Exactly, if the mental ability to "be quick and smart" isn't there, then you simply have a well-formed animal without the right control center. There are plenty of conformationally-flawless ADBA show champions ... that couldn't whip a puppy and would quit cold if they broke a nail in the carpet ... and there are plenty of undershot, cow-hocked animals that are multi-winners (Untouchable's Gr Ch Chewy comes to mind ;) )




Still if it doesn't have the form how can it perform it limits abilities. I guess you are looking at the ability to do anything with helping cells and brain communicate and I myself am thinking of talent and other aspects of ability as in fluent motion. Atleast this is what I gathered.

It is my absolute conviction that talent starts in the brain, which controls speed, timing, reflexes, judgment, etc. Stormbringer, for example, was oddly-built ... and didn't have the body of Duke Nukem (who won the ADBA Nationals) ... but Stormy had 10x the pit-savvy, power, and desire to finish that Duke Nukem did. Duke even had the superior-conformed, long-winded Screamer for a mother, while Stormy had the stubby, short-winded Coca Cola for a mother.




The X Factors main focus is inheritable material genes wise on the X and Y chromosomes and the larger X has more inheritable material. I still think more needs to be none bout what inheritable material the Y Chromosome does posess.

I agree that more needs to be known, rather than theorized, but I do think it is fascinating to discuss 8-)

I won't sit here and try to pretend that I understand all of this stuff. However, I do see the value in attempting to do so!

I don't want to be stubborn, but my own experience leads me to believe that what MM originally said is true, meaning that (of the important outward performance traits) these are a combining of the male and female, where there is either a "mix" or where one dominates while the other does not. Again, I re-confirm my belief that the greatest value that my exposure to The X Factor has given me is the concept that mtDNA is matriarchal. This would explain the wide disparity of results that have been obtained through some of my poorly-structured bitches. Yet, even here, some short-winded bitches can produce longwinded pups, either by throwing what's "behind them" (recessive) or by having the male's influence dominate. (It's hard to say which!)

For example, my own Diamond Girl (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=1045) bitch had terrible body structure. She was cow-hocked, under-shot, and barrel-chested. The only good thing about her was 1) her pedigree was full of game dogs, and 2) the fact Diamond Girl was herself absolutely GAME TO THE BONE (although it took her till 3 years to get it straight). I bred DG back to Poncho, and got a bunch of game dogs that were better-structured than Diamond Girl, but likewise had bad ass-ends. I did the same thing with Phoenix and got the same thing again: game dogs with better structure than DG, but that weren't as athletic as I like my dogs to be. Therefore, even though she was a game bitch, I sold Diamond Girl because I did not want to inbreed on these physical traits ... I thought she would produce better as a cross-dog ... and, ironically to this discussion, Diamond Girl's new owner actually bred her to Stone City's own Ch Nico Jr (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/modules.php?name=Public&file=printPedigree&dog_id=9002).

Well, this breeding produced Slingshot Kennels' Ch Buster 4xW (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/modules.php?name=Public&file=printPedigree&dog_id=145185), who looked nothing like Diamond Girl and did not carry her physique at all. Now then, maybe this proves Stone City's theory that the Y chromosome of Nico dominated, and so the male's traits obtained, but I have had plenty of my bitches inherit 100% of their daddy's looks and style, even though they were bitches. Further, if all the skeletal formation was X-(bitch-)dependent, then Ch Buster should not have been built that way.

Thus, in the end, while this is absolutely fascinating stuff, I don't think everything is cut-and-dry at all about which side influences what in a performance dog :?

Cheers,

Jack

[StoneCity]

Jack,

You should have called me before selling Diamond Girl. :P


Actually, I would have done a repeat breeding or breed a female of that cross back to Nico Jr and another one back to Poncho.

[Officially Retired]

Jack,
You should have called me before selling Diamond Girl. :P


Ah yes, the benefits of hindsight 8-)





Actually, I would have done a repeat breeding or breed a female of that cross back to Nico Jr and another one back to Poncho.

Well, maybe we'll have to get together at some point and hook their descendants together ... as a matter of fact, the two half-sisters I just finished breeding to Silverback (Little D (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=272907) and Dirty Hammer (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=201218)) are both daughters of Diamond Girl's game daughter Dirty Diamond (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=80384). In both cases, I bred the highly-inbred Dirty Diamond to super-athletic segments of my family (Rocko and Silverback), in an attempt to increase the ability, while losing none of the genetic prepotency.

I think it's pretty clear that your own family of dogs retains its consistent prepotency as well or better as any family alive, so there is no reason we couldn't re-create another dog like Ch Buster or better if we hooked a couple together. As a matter of fact, the only two times my bitches were bred to Nico Jr., Champions were produced in both litters, so it's something to think about anyway :ugeek:

Jack

[Bojacc357]

Good stuff all around and I agree it is much more to be learn and many angles to look at it. Great discussion piece and good to just talk dogs. Minuteman as Jack said I don't believe you were wrong and as you said it was just how you first came at it. Looking forward to more good topics and discussions. I really knew nothing of this and have been reading and learned some things.

[Fool Killer]

I am staying on the outside as I am not at all familiar with the complex mechanics, but good read and great discussion!! Thank you all for the input.

[STONEWALL]

Great stuff, The X factor. For those interested studying breeding/genetics a lot can be learned by studying what breeders of other perfomance animals have learned and achieved. I've gleaned information on breeding from the studies and research of Thoroughbreds, Gamefowl, Racing Pigeons, Roller Pigeons, Hunting Beagles, and APBTs. I've bred all of those breeds and the breeding principles are the same for each. I adopted the breeding principles of the Greatest thoroughbred horse breeder, Fredrico Tesio and applied his methods to all of my breeding endeavers and the results have far exceeded what I accomplished before I adopted his methods. I also incorporate the Rasmussen factor of inbreeding to superior females in all of my breeding programs.

[Dillinger]

Thanks to Stone City for starting this and for Jack's considerable insight and observations and all the others that took the time to ask questions. Many years ago, I visited with Jerry Clemmons and discussed breedings. He said to me that he always examines the parents and their breeding and then if he liked the mother's side better, he chose males and if he liked the father's side better, he would choose females. Seems to follow along with this discussion also.

[kmcg]

If you want to maintain a line off a male you would inbreed and keep sons or line breed and do the same to stack the y chromosomes. It's really not taking away from the males it's just adding more precision and perspective to breeding
if you do this and end up with only females where do you go? appologize if this is already covered, very pressed for time

[Bojacc357]

If you want to maintain a line off a male you would inbreed and keep sons or line breed and do the same to stack the y chromosomes. It's really not taking away from the males it's just adding more precision and perspective to breeding
if you do this and end up with only females where do you go? appologize if this is already covered, very pressed for time

Go get a male thats heavy on the male line you want to breed on. With out using the X Factor its the samething Jack did by adding Silverback after poncho was gone. Then you will have it in the X Chromosome too of the Sires mom to pass to his daughters. Most of all SHOULD be good quality individuals with good % in immediate family and surrounding but its not always the way it goes and works out.

Poncho
http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/pu ... og_id=1033 (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=1033)

Now look at Silverback. Male line saved and insured even more.
http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/pu ... g_id=57819 (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=57819)

[Officially Retired]

Good stuff all around and I agree it is much more to be learn and many angles to look at it. Great discussion piece and good to just talk dogs. Minuteman as Jack said I don't believe you were wrong and as you said it was just how you first came at it. Looking forward to more good topics and discussions. I really knew nothing of this and have been reading and learned some things.

Agreed!

(Also, it is interesting, you mentioned how this relates to my dogs and bloodline now. My line is based primarily on the Hammer/Trinx blood, where Poncho was the Y dominant force of this mating that was bred to many bitches, and (because I never got too many pups out of her) the X force of Missy was pretty much on the sideline. Now, as you pointed out, I have a triple-bred Hammer dog (and son of Missy) in Silverback, and am breeding him to my Poncho bitches, almost reversing the roles of Poncho and Missy in my pedigrees, not to mention adding the other blood through Ouch. Ponchoback (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=273253) demonstrates this perfectly 8-)




I am staying on the outside as I am not at all familiar with the complex mechanics, but good read and great discussion!! Thank you all for the input.

Glad you enjoyed it, I sure have too :)




Great stuff, The X factor. For those interested studying breeding/genetics a lot can be learned by studying what breeders of other perfomance animals have learned and achieved. I've gleaned information on breeding from the studies and research of Thoroughbreds, Gamefowl, Racing Pigeons, Roller Pigeons, Hunting Beagles, and APBTs. I've bred all of those breeds and the breeding principles are the same for each. I adopted the breeding principles of the Greatest thoroughbred horse breeder, Fredrico Tesio and applied his methods to all of my breeding endeavers and the results have far exceeded what I accomplished before I adopted his methods. I also incorporate the Rasmussen factor of inbreeding to superior females in all of my breeding programs.

Thank you for adding your perspective, Stonewall, and thank you for mentioning the name of Federico Tesio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Tesio). I Googled the name and added the link, and the man was indeed a legend. (Pardon my ignorance for not knowing this already, but I have not studied racehorses, so both you and Stone City have taught this old dog some new tricks :mrgreen: )

At any rate, WOW, he must have been a legend because a hardcopy of his book, Tesio: In His Own Words (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tesio-federico-tesio/1007288947), is selling for $776.58 on Barnes & Noble, while another copy (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0929346769/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=7519467191&ref=pd_sl_1kefqdqun8_e) is selling on Amazon for $625 :shock:

I would be fascinated to read what he has to say, but I will have to wait until someone real nice lets me borrow their book :lol:




Thanks to Stone City for starting this and for Jack's considerable insight and observations and all the others that took the time to ask questions. Many years ago, I visited with Jerry Clemmons and discussed breedings. He said to me that he always examines the parents and their breeding and then if he liked the mother's side better, he chose males and if he liked the father's side better, he would choose females. Seems to follow along with this discussion also.

You're welcome, and I am grateful for all the other input as well!

While I have always been pretty confident in my breeding knowledge, this thread made me realize how much I really don't know, and how much more there is to learn, which I think is great. To me, the prospect of being able to learn just one new, useful principle is literally "the spice of life" :idea:

Jack

[red dog]

does this theory only potentially hold true when line or inbreeding , or can the same results be reached by stacking the brood gyp and the sires ped with high % females of different lines ?

[evolutionkennels]

It's an interesting read. However, as it pertains to genes, it is much more complicated than that. In the 1980's , two groups of scientist , one in phili and one in Cambridge , made a surprising discovery, They tried to create a uniparental mouse- a mouse with only one parent. Since strict cloning from a body cell was impossible in mice (post- Dolly, this is quickly changing) , the Phili team swapped the "pronuclei" of the two fertalised eggs. When an egg has been fertalised by a sperm, the sperm nucleus containing the choromosone enters the egg, but does not first fuse with the egg nucleus: the two nuclei are known as "pronuclei". A clever scientist can sneak in with his pipette and suck out the sperm pronuclei, replacing it with the egg pronucleus from another egg- and vice versa. The result is two viable eggs, but one genetically speaking with two fathers and no mother and one with two mothers and no father. The Cabridge team used slightly different tecnique, but achieved the same result. But in both cases, such embryos failed to develop properly and soon died in the womb. In the two mothers case, the embryo itself was properly organized, but it could not make a placenta with wich to sustain itself. In the two father case, the embryo grew a large and healthy placenta and most of the membranes that surround the foetus. But inside, where the embryo should be, there was a disorganized blob of cells with no discernible head.

This result led to an extraordinary conclusion. PATERNAL GENES INHERITED FROM THE FATHER, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAKING OF THE PLACENTA: MATERNAL GENES, INHERITED FROM MOTHER, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE GREATER PART OF THE EMBRYO, ESPECIALLY IT'S HEAD AND BRAIN. As it turns out, the placenta is not a maternal organ designed to give sustanance to the foetus, or a paternal organ, but rather a FOETAL organ designed to parasitize the maternal blood supply and brook no opposition in the process. The placenta literally bores its way into the mothers vessels, forcing them to dilate, and then proceeds to produce hormones which raise the mother's blood pressure and blood sugar. The mother responds by raising her insulin levels to combat this invasion. yet for some reason if the foetal hormone is missing, the mother does not need to raise her insulin levels and a normal pregnancy ensues. In other words, although a mother and foetus have a common purpose, they argue fiercly about how much of the mother's resources the foetus may have. - exactly as they later will during weaning.

The foetus is built partly with the maternal genes albeit a very small part. , so it's not surprising that the genes find themselves with a situational conflict of interests. The father's genes in the Foetus have no such worries. They do not have the mother's interests at heart, except insofar as she provides a home for them. To turn briefly anthropomophic, the father's genes do not trust the mother's genes to make a sufficiently invasive placenta; so they do the job themselves. Hence the paternal imprinting of placental genes as discovered by the two-fathered embryos.

Mind blowing stuff eh.. yes the female is responsible for the core of mammal , but the male plays a pivotal role.

[Officially Retired]

This is simply fascinating Evo.

[evolutionkennels]

So the old find yourself the best brood bitch you can possibly buy and breed her to the best performing male you can find that has some common dogs in the ancestry is not bad advice. Deductive reasoning can say that if the mother produces the head and brain in the foetus, that the paternal genes are forming the body and limbs. What I take from this is to try and get the gamest well bred gyp that you can find and breed it to the most ATHLETIC dog that you can find. The dam's mind will be there and the sires athleticism. Of course.. this is all theory and not set in stone. if I compare MAyday to Yellowbuck which were two of the BEST EVER, it would still be a super hard decision because Dolly was a rugged well built game to the bone gyp that was bred to Gr.Ch.Yellow, a performing high ability I'll do whatever it takes to figure you out dog. Yellowbuck, (One of the best of all times) was out of a cold Awwesome BAby (ROM) gyp bred to one of if not the best performing most athletic dogs of all times (Buck) . However the amazing thing is when Victor bred Blondie (littermate to Yellowbuck) to MAyday the results were ONCE IN A LIFETIME DOGS. The original Macho had it all, and if not for running into the dog that beat CML, Havannah Chico, and Strictly Business, would have made Gr.Ch. and not just 1XW. but he made ROM in just 4 breedings. His siter Macha produced Machobuck. I like the X-Factor theory, but like I said, it's much more complicated than that.

[Officially Retired]

Interesting breakdown in thinking, Evo, and it makes perfect sense. It falls in line with what I am doing by breeding an awesome athlete to the most rock-solid, game longwinded bitches I can.

[Bojacc357]

Its a old way of thinking just with genetic giving reason. Just not the end all be all. I did the exactly same thing in my last breeding. My bitch Shady Baby was a good solid inbred bitch daddy daughter bred on her daddy and her dad was bred the same. I took her to Ch Nacho a very talented male with good structure and from the same family. He gave a quarter out to the put with 1/8th being of common ancestry with a twist. The litter is very uniformed, intelligent, athletic, full of vigor, and great structure. I bred them this way in hopes of keeping performance and production with the traits I desire in a high %. They are just pups now but plenty of drive as in work ethic. I believe the X Factor shows true in my breeding but I also believe the sire made a great difference. There is plenty more to be known but this is a fascinating and very informative in the fact it supports what many have thought for years in a single aspect of breeding.

[drz]

Great thread.

[EGK]

Bumping this up for you Steely as I think its what you were speaking of with sex related crossing off the X and Y chromosome.

[SteelyDan]

Thanks EGK. Musta missed this one. Great info.

[EGK]

No problem bro, the board was still in testing when we were talking bout this. When you brought this up today it had me going again. Salute

[EWO]

Great series of posts. I think this one was a little before I signed up unless I missed it altogether. EWO

[Bolioman]

Great topic and read interesting prospective from all who contributed, awesome way to learn thx everyone.

[MOSES]

I’ll apologize in advance for rehashing an old thread. However, I found the X-Factor Breeding Theory tread to be very interesting and worthy of study. The potential impacts on a given breeding program could be profound. If there is a quantitative method of reinforcing a potential breeding output, I am all in….

So, I found what I think was a very good example:
http://royalpitbulls.tripod.com/BWPedBreakDown.htm

I objectively back check this against the 4 generation peds on a few of the dogs that I have, and I thought it was fairly accurate.

IMHO, the “Black Holes” mentioned in the article can NOT “have little or NO effect on the offspring.” Rather I think that these preserved voids house the respective recessive traits of the sire and/or dam. I think that these holes are the traits that “skip” a generation (based on the logic) and are more obscure. I can’t manage to get my head around the idea of something being there and then it’s just not? That defies logic and some basic genetic principles and physics, IMO.

[apeman]

Thoughts?

[EWO]

A bit deep for me but an interesting read.

James Edwards used some of these type theories/practices but may or may not knew them as X-Factor or anything else for that matter) He started with different color rabbits and let the color and phenotype of the rabbit dictate who the sire was or was not in the baby rabbits. When he felt like he had a grip on reproducing rabbits he started on his dogs.

He was excused of hanging paper more than once, as there were a lot of dogs registered to one dog but looked and acted just like another dogs on James' s yard.

The kicker is that the more you know about your dogs the better decision will be made. I could buy two of the tightest, well bred dogs in the world and without that experience you will be hard pressed to make good dogs over and over.