Dog domestication revisited: A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective

Greger Larson, Elinor Karlsson, Angela Perri, Matthew Webster, Simon Ho, Joris Peters, Peter Stahl, Philip Piper, Frode Lingaas, Merete Fredholm, Kenine Comstock, Jamie Modiano, Claude Schelling, Alexander Agoulnik, Peter Leegwater, Keith Dobney, Jean-Denis Vigne, Carles Vila, Leif Andersson, Kerstin Lindblad-Toh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

209 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The dog was the first domesticated animal but it remains uncertain when the domestication process began and whether it occurred just once or multiple times across the Northern Hemisphere. To ascertain the value of modern genetic data to elucidate the origins of dog domestication, we analyzed 49,024 autosomal SNPs in 1,375 dogs (representing 35 breeds) and 19 wolves. After combining our data with previously published data, we contrasted the genetic signatures of 121 breeds with a worldwide archeological assessment of the earliest dog remains. Correlating the earliest archeological dogs with the geographic locations of 14 so-called “ancient” breeds (defined by their genetic differentiation) resulted in a counterintuitive pattern. First, none of the ancient breeds derive from regions where the oldest archeological remains have been found. Second, three of the ancient breeds (Basenjis, Dingoes, and New Guinea Singing Dogs) come from regions outside the natural range of Canis lupus (the dog’s wild ancestor) and where dogs were introduced more than 10,000 y after domestication. These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)8878-8883
Number of pages6
JournalPNAS
Volume109
Issue number23
Early online date21 May 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 5 Jun 2012

Fingerprint

domestication
breeds
dogs
dingoes
Canis lupus
New Guinea
wolves
ancestry
genetic variation
history

Cite this

Larson, G., Karlsson, E., Perri, A., Webster, M., Ho, S., Peters, J., ... Lindblad-Toh, K. (2012). Dog domestication revisited: A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective. PNAS, 109(23), 8878-8883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203005109

Dog domestication revisited : A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective. / Larson, Greger; Karlsson, Elinor; Perri, Angela; Webster, Matthew; Ho, Simon; Peters, Joris; Stahl, Peter; Piper, Philip; Lingaas, Frode; Fredholm, Merete; Comstock, Kenine; Modiano, Jamie; Schelling, Claude; Agoulnik, Alexander ; Leegwater, Peter; Dobney, Keith; Vigne, Jean-Denis; Vila, Carles; Andersson, Leif; Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin.

In: PNAS, Vol. 109, No. 23, 05.06.2012, p. 8878-8883.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Larson, G, Karlsson, E, Perri, A, Webster, M, Ho, S, Peters, J, Stahl, P, Piper, P, Lingaas, F, Fredholm, M, Comstock, K, Modiano, J, Schelling, C, Agoulnik, A, Leegwater, P, Dobney, K, Vigne, J-D, Vila, C, Andersson, L & Lindblad-Toh, K 2012, 'Dog domestication revisited: A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective' PNAS, vol. 109, no. 23, pp. 8878-8883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203005109
Larson G, Karlsson E, Perri A, Webster M, Ho S, Peters J et al. Dog domestication revisited: A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective. PNAS. 2012 Jun 5;109(23):8878-8883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203005109
Larson, Greger ; Karlsson, Elinor ; Perri, Angela ; Webster, Matthew ; Ho, Simon ; Peters, Joris ; Stahl, Peter ; Piper, Philip ; Lingaas, Frode ; Fredholm, Merete ; Comstock, Kenine ; Modiano, Jamie ; Schelling, Claude ; Agoulnik, Alexander ; Leegwater, Peter ; Dobney, Keith ; Vigne, Jean-Denis ; Vila, Carles ; Andersson, Leif ; Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin. / Dog domestication revisited : A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective. In: PNAS. 2012 ; Vol. 109, No. 23. pp. 8878-8883.
@article{6ce9c25eb5de4aa0a04959d165dbd99f,
title = "Dog domestication revisited: A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective",
abstract = "The dog was the first domesticated animal but it remains uncertain when the domestication process began and whether it occurred just once or multiple times across the Northern Hemisphere. To ascertain the value of modern genetic data to elucidate the origins of dog domestication, we analyzed 49,024 autosomal SNPs in 1,375 dogs (representing 35 breeds) and 19 wolves. After combining our data with previously published data, we contrasted the genetic signatures of 121 breeds with a worldwide archeological assessment of the earliest dog remains. Correlating the earliest archeological dogs with the geographic locations of 14 so-called “ancient” breeds (defined by their genetic differentiation) resulted in a counterintuitive pattern. First, none of the ancient breeds derive from regions where the oldest archeological remains have been found. Second, three of the ancient breeds (Basenjis, Dingoes, and New Guinea Singing Dogs) come from regions outside the natural range of Canis lupus (the dog’s wild ancestor) and where dogs were introduced more than 10,000 y after domestication. These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication.",
author = "Greger Larson and Elinor Karlsson and Angela Perri and Matthew Webster and Simon Ho and Joris Peters and Peter Stahl and Philip Piper and Frode Lingaas and Merete Fredholm and Kenine Comstock and Jamie Modiano and Claude Schelling and Alexander Agoulnik and Peter Leegwater and Keith Dobney and Jean-Denis Vigne and Carles Vila and Leif Andersson and Kerstin Lindblad-Toh",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1073/pnas.1203005109",
language = "English",
volume = "109",
pages = "8878--8883",
journal = "PNAS",
issn = "0027-8424",
publisher = "NATL ACAD SCIENCES",
number = "23",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dog domestication revisited

T2 - A new genetic, archeological, and biogeographic perspective

AU - Larson, Greger

AU - Karlsson, Elinor

AU - Perri, Angela

AU - Webster, Matthew

AU - Ho, Simon

AU - Peters, Joris

AU - Stahl, Peter

AU - Piper, Philip

AU - Lingaas, Frode

AU - Fredholm, Merete

AU - Comstock, Kenine

AU - Modiano, Jamie

AU - Schelling, Claude

AU - Agoulnik, Alexander

AU - Leegwater, Peter

AU - Dobney, Keith

AU - Vigne, Jean-Denis

AU - Vila, Carles

AU - Andersson, Leif

AU - Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin

PY - 2012/6/5

Y1 - 2012/6/5

N2 - The dog was the first domesticated animal but it remains uncertain when the domestication process began and whether it occurred just once or multiple times across the Northern Hemisphere. To ascertain the value of modern genetic data to elucidate the origins of dog domestication, we analyzed 49,024 autosomal SNPs in 1,375 dogs (representing 35 breeds) and 19 wolves. After combining our data with previously published data, we contrasted the genetic signatures of 121 breeds with a worldwide archeological assessment of the earliest dog remains. Correlating the earliest archeological dogs with the geographic locations of 14 so-called “ancient” breeds (defined by their genetic differentiation) resulted in a counterintuitive pattern. First, none of the ancient breeds derive from regions where the oldest archeological remains have been found. Second, three of the ancient breeds (Basenjis, Dingoes, and New Guinea Singing Dogs) come from regions outside the natural range of Canis lupus (the dog’s wild ancestor) and where dogs were introduced more than 10,000 y after domestication. These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication.

AB - The dog was the first domesticated animal but it remains uncertain when the domestication process began and whether it occurred just once or multiple times across the Northern Hemisphere. To ascertain the value of modern genetic data to elucidate the origins of dog domestication, we analyzed 49,024 autosomal SNPs in 1,375 dogs (representing 35 breeds) and 19 wolves. After combining our data with previously published data, we contrasted the genetic signatures of 121 breeds with a worldwide archeological assessment of the earliest dog remains. Correlating the earliest archeological dogs with the geographic locations of 14 so-called “ancient” breeds (defined by their genetic differentiation) resulted in a counterintuitive pattern. First, none of the ancient breeds derive from regions where the oldest archeological remains have been found. Second, three of the ancient breeds (Basenjis, Dingoes, and New Guinea Singing Dogs) come from regions outside the natural range of Canis lupus (the dog’s wild ancestor) and where dogs were introduced more than 10,000 y after domestication. These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication.

U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1203005109

DO - 10.1073/pnas.1203005109

M3 - Article

VL - 109

SP - 8878

EP - 8883

JO - PNAS

JF - PNAS

SN - 0027-8424

IS - 23

ER -