#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#

Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs


To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.


Vyšlo v časopise: Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs. PLoS Genet 10(1): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016

Souhrn

To identify genetic changes underlying dog domestication and reconstruct their early evolutionary history, we generated high-quality genome sequences from three gray wolves, one from each of the three putative centers of dog domestication, two basal dog lineages (Basenji and Dingo) and a golden jackal as an outgroup. Analysis of these sequences supports a demographic model in which dogs and wolves diverged through a dynamic process involving population bottlenecks in both lineages and post-divergence gene flow. In dogs, the domestication bottleneck involved at least a 16-fold reduction in population size, a much more severe bottleneck than estimated previously. A sharp bottleneck in wolves occurred soon after their divergence from dogs, implying that the pool of diversity from which dogs arose was substantially larger than represented by modern wolf populations. We narrow the plausible range for the date of initial dog domestication to an interval spanning 11–16 thousand years ago, predating the rise of agriculture. In light of this finding, we expand upon previous work regarding the increase in copy number of the amylase gene (AMY2B) in dogs, which is believed to have aided digestion of starch in agricultural refuse. We find standing variation for amylase copy number variation in wolves and little or no copy number increase in the Dingo and Husky lineages. In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists. Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade. This result, in combination with dog-wolf admixture during the process of domestication, suggests that a re-evaluation of past hypotheses regarding dog origins is necessary.


Zdroje

1. LeviT, WilmersCC (2012) Wolves-coyotes-foxes: a cascade among carnivores. Ecology 93: 921–929.

2. RippleWJ, BeschtaRL (2012) Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conserv 145: 205–213.

3. OvodovND, CrockfordSJ, KuzminYV, HighamTFG, HodginsGWL, et al. (2011) A 33,000-Year-Old Incipient Dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the Earliest Domestication Disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS ONE 6: e22821.

4. GermonpreM, Laznickova-GaletovaM, SablinMV (2012) Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Predmosti site, the Czech Republic. J Archaeol Sci 39: 184–202.

5. GermonpreM, SablinMV, StevensRE, HedgesREM, HofreiterM, et al. (2009) Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes. J Archaeol Sci 36: 473–490.

6. LarsonG, KarlssonEK, PerriA, WebsterMT, HoSYW, et al. (2012) Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 8878–8883.

7. PangJF, KluetschC, ZouXJ, ZhangAB, LuoLY, et al. (2009) mtDNA Data Indicate a Single Origin for Dogs South of Yangtze River, Less Than 16,300 Years Ago, from Numerous Wolves. Mol Biol Evol 26: 2849–2864.

8. Pionnier-CapitanM, BemilliC, BoduP, CelerierG, FerrieJG, et al. (2011) New evidence for Upper Palaeolithic small domestic dogs in South-Western Europe. J Archaeol Sci 38: 2123–2140.

9. SavolainenP, ZhangYP, LuoJ, LundebergJ, LeitnerT (2002) Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science 298: 1610–1613.

10. vonHoldtBM, PollingerJP, LohmuellerKE, HanEJ, ParkerHG, et al. (2010) Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying dog domestication. Nature 464: 898–902.

11. BoykoAR, QuignonP, LiL, SchoenebeckJJ, DegenhardtJD, et al. (2010) A Simple Genetic Architecture Underlies Morphological Variation in Dogs. PLoS Biol 8: e1000451.

12. CadieuE, NeffMW, QuignonP, WalshK, ChaseK, et al. (2009) Coat Variation in the Domestic Dog Is Governed by Variants in Three Genes. Science 326: 150–153.

13. KarlssonEK, BaranowskaI, WadeCM, Salmon HillbertzNHC, ZodyMC, et al. (2007) Efficient mapping of mendelian traits in dogs through genome-wide association. Nat Genet 39: 1321–1328.

14. LiY, vonHoldtBM, ReynoldsA, BoykoAR, WayneRK, et al. (2013) Artificial selection on brain expressed genes during the domestication of dog. Mol Biol Evol doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst088

15. AxelssonE, RatnakumarA, ArendtM-J, MaqboolK, WebsterMT, et al. (2013) The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet. Nature 495: 360–364.

16. Miklósi A (2007) Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. xiii, 274 p.

17. SavolainenP, LeitnerT, WiltonAN, Matisoo-SmithE, LundebergJ (2004) A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 12387–12390.

18. DurandEY, PattersonN, ReichD, SlatkinM (2011) Testing for Ancient Admixture between Closely Related Populations. Mol Biol Evol 28: 2239–2252.

19. GronauI, HubiszMJ, GulkoB, DankoCG, SiepelA (2011) Bayesian inference of ancient human demography from individual genome sequences. Nat Genet 43: 1031–1034.

20. LiH, DurbinR (2011) Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences. Nature 475: 493–496.

21. LarsonG, BurgerJ (2013) A population genetics view of animal domestication. Trends Genet 29: 197–205.

22. Lindblad-TohK, WadeCM, MikkelsenTS, KarlssonEK, JaffeDB, et al. (2005) Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature 438: 803–819.

23. GrayMM, GrankaJM, BustamanteCD, SutterNB, BoykoAR, et al. (2009) Linkage Disequilibrium and Demographic History of Wild and Domestic Canids. Genetics 181: 1493–1505.

24. WangG-D, ZhaiWW, YangH-C, FanR-X, CaoX, et al. (2013) The genomics of selection in dogs and the parallel evolution between dogs and humans. Nature Commun 4: 1860 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2814

25. SkoglundP, GotherstromA, JakobssonM (2011) Estimation of Population Divergence Times from Non-Overlapping Genomic Sequences: Examples from Dogs and Wolves. Mol Biol Evol 28: 1505–1517.

26. GreenRE, KrauseJ, BriggsAW, MaricicT, StenzelU, et al. (2010) A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science 328: 710–722.

27. PeriniFA, RussoCAM, SchragoCG (2010) The evolution of South American endemic canids: a history of rapid diversification and morphological parallelism. J Evol Biol 23: 311–322.

28. PickrellJK, PritchardJK (2012) Inference of population splits and mixtures from genome-wide allele frequency data. PLoS Genet 8: e1002967.

29. VilaC, SeddonJ, EllegrenH (2005) Genes of domestic mammals augmented by backcrossing with wild ancestors. Trends Genet 21: 214–218.

30. BoykoAR, BoykoRH, BoykoCM, ParkerHG, CastelhanoM, et al. (2009) Complex population structure in African village dogs and its implications for inferring dog domestication history. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 13903–13908.

31. KumarS, SubramanianS (2002) Mutation rates in mammalian genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 803–808.

32. SunJX, HelgasonA, MassonG, EbenesersdottirSS, LiH, et al. (2012) A direct characterization of human mutation based on microsatellites. Nat Genet 44: 1161-+.

33. LeonardJA, VilaC, Fox-DobbsK, KochPL, WayneRK, et al. (2007) Megafaunal extinctions and the disappearance of a specialized wolf ecomorph. Curr Biol 17: 1146–1150.

34. McKennaA, HannaM, BanksE, SivachenkoA, CibulskisK, et al. (2010) The Genome Analysis Toolkit: A MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res 20: 1297–1303.

35. AlkanC, KiddJM, Marques-BonetT, AksayG, AntonacciF, et al. (2009) Personalized copy number and segmental duplication maps using next-generation sequencing. Nat Genet 41: 1061–1067.

36. HormozdiariF, HachF, SahinalpSC, EichlerEE, AlkanC (2011) Sensitive and fast mapping of di-base encoded reads. Bioinformatics 27: 1915–1921.

37. SiepelA, BejeranoG, PedersenJS, HinrichsAS, HouMM, et al. (2005) Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes. Genome Res 15: 1034–1050.

Štítky
Genetika Reprodukčná medicína

Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS Genetics


2014 Číslo 1
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika
nový kurz

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou
Autori: doc. MUDr. Martina Doubková, Ph.D.

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#