WOLF CONTENT

Everything about Tamaskan Dogs that does not fit within the other topics in this section.
User avatar
TerriHolt
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3274
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:56 am
Location: UK, East Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by TerriHolt » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:28 pm

Well, for a 1st post... you sure made it count ;) Hi and welcome :D
Image

There’s a battle between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It’s anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego.
The other is Good. It’s joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness and truth.

The wolf that wins? The one you feed!

~ Cherokee Proverb

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... I'm not sure about the former.

~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
DTucker
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:42 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by DTucker » Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:09 pm

Thanks for the kind welcome folks. :)
Rhokk wrote:Wouldn't reverse engineering entail capturing both behavior and aesthetics? If so, that would mean breeding out 'dog-like' qualities and breeding in 'wolf-like' qualities. Then again, I know next to nothing about breeding or genetics. Just wondering! :)
Not necessarily! I meant it just in the sense that we're kind of "putting a wolf back together" out of dogs only with the qualities that we're looking for. I am very curious to know what the markers they're looking for are and where they're at, there's always the possibility that something that's getting flagged as "wolf" is something related to a quality we've been selecting for in our dogs. Maybe something that affects pointy ears and snouts, coat color/type... who knows! Genetics is this huge, convoluted puzzle that we barely understand. I think it's kind of fun. :geek:

User avatar
Tiantai
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
Location: Canada (North York, Ontario)

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Tiantai » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:57 pm

Thanks Denver,
You've hit the weak spot on the testing result.
Image

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:21 pm

tigerstedt wrote:
Sylvaen wrote:GREAT post, Denver! Welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing this info - it certainly does provide plenty of food for thought! :D
Second that!

You rock!
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:33 am

DTucker wrote:
The population analysis uses 38 DNA markers for the subject which are compared against populations of known wolves and dogs.
For comparison sake, when telling one of our clients the difference between different strains of mice, we use a panel of 96 markers (plus a few as controls). When telling our clients how much their mouse resembles a certain strain of mice, we use either a panel with >377 markers, or >1447 markers for the best accuracy. It's only at that point that we can give a confident result. Can it really be done with 38? Their response from the first post mentions that they use 3 or 4 different methods so I'm sure this isn't all of it, but they don't describe the mitochondrial or Y-chromosome aspects in depth.

--Denver
Awesome post and it was wonderful to finally meet you and Lorianne!

I do have a question about the above information.

Is it possible that fewer genes (as few as 38) *could* be sufficient when searching for genetic contributions from a much less similar organisim?

I mean, to tell one white lab mouse from another white lab mouse, you would have to look very closely. But to tell a wolf from a dog you just need a quick glance.

If instead of discerning a white mouse from lab A from a white mouse from lab B you were just discerning any white lab mouse from... say... a wild field mouse, would you need all 1447 markers for accuracy?
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
DTucker
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:42 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by DTucker » Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:48 am

AngieH wrote:Awesome post and it was wonderful to finally meet you and Lorianne!

I do have a question about the above information.

Is it possible that fewer genes (as few as 38) *could* be sufficient when searching for genetic contributions from a much less similar organisim?

I mean, to tell one white lab mouse from another white lab mouse, you would have to look very closely. But to tell a wolf from a dog you just need a quick glance.

If instead of discerning a white mouse from lab A from a white mouse from lab B you were just discerning any white lab mouse from... say... a wild field mouse, would you need all 1447 markers for accuracy?
It was great to meet you too Angie! As well as everybody from the NTCA, we had a blast. :)

I think the correct answer here unfortunately is "it depends," though I think a big factor of it is how the markers are selected. Having more markers gives you better accuracy of course, but even the tests we have with 96 markers can give us a lot of info about different mice. But then again we compare mice to mice, not mice to rats (usually!). Having the high accuracy of a 1447 marker test is just really helpful when trying to quantify how much of a given animal is in your sample, but I don't think that's what UC Davis is trying to accomplish anyways, I just wanted to use that as an example of what could be done. I guess in the end it's a matter of what the community is confident in.

What's hard for me to swallow is that we just don't know enough about their testing. :( Best-case scenario is that they've identified what they believe are 38 markers that don't occur anywhere in dogs but do in wolves, and that these markers are specific enough--despite how closely dogs and wolves are related--that they think they won't throw false positives in pure dogs. It's really hard for them to prove. Dogs and wolves (and pretty much all mammals, if I recall correctly) are really similar on the DNA-level.


Edit: I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm a fancy PhD here or anything because I'm certainly not, so I'm doing my own research here right along with everybody else. I found an abstract from a somewhat related paper on PubMed, but unfortunately I can't get to the whole paper. Anyways, the last few sentences in the abstract may support what I was saying about them being so closely related:
The mitogenomic distance between the wolf and the dog was shown to be at the same level as that of basal human divergences. The wolf and the dog are commonly considered as separate species in the popular literature. The mitogenomic result is inconsistent with that understanding at the same time as it provides insight into the time of the domestication of the dog relative to basal human mitogenomic divergences.
In normal english, it sounds like this research from 2007 concluded that the only mitochondrial DNA difference (one of UC Davis' test areas) between dogs and wolves is no more than the kind of difference you'd see between humans. More food for thought!

Source: Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships -- If there are any other lab types in here who might have a subscription to that journal or something like that....... ;)

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:41 am

DTucker wrote:
AngieH wrote:Awesome post and it was wonderful to finally meet you and Lorianne!

I do have a question about the above information.

Is it possible that fewer genes (as few as 38) *could* be sufficient when searching for genetic contributions from a much less similar organisim?

I mean, to tell one white lab mouse from another white lab mouse, you would have to look very closely. But to tell a wolf from a dog you just need a quick glance.

If instead of discerning a white mouse from lab A from a white mouse from lab B you were just discerning any white lab mouse from... say... a wild field mouse, would you need all 1447 markers for accuracy?
It was great to meet you too Angie! As well as everybody from the NTCA, we had a blast. :)

I think the correct answer here unfortunately is "it depends," though I think a big factor of it is how the markers are selected. Having more markers gives you better accuracy of course, but even the tests we have with 96 markers can give us a lot of info about different mice. But then again we compare mice to mice, not mice to rats (usually!). Having the high accuracy of a 1447 marker test is just really helpful when trying to quantify how much of a given animal is in your sample, but I don't think that's what UC Davis is trying to accomplish anyways, I just wanted to use that as an example of what could be done. I guess in the end it's a matter of what the community is confident in.

What's hard for me to swallow is that we just don't know enough about their testing. :( Best-case scenario is that they've identified what they believe are 38 markers that don't occur anywhere in dogs but do in wolves, and that these markers are specific enough--despite how closely dogs and wolves are related--that they think they won't throw false positives in pure dogs. It's really hard for them to prove. Dogs and wolves (and pretty much all mammals, if I recall correctly) are really similar on the DNA-level.


Edit: I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm a fancy PhD here or anything because I'm certainly not, so I'm doing my own research here right along with everybody else. I found an abstract from a somewhat related paper on PubMed, but unfortunately I can't get to the whole paper. Anyways, thMe last few sentences in the abstract may support what I was saying about them being so closely related:
The mitogenomic distance between the wolf and the dog was shown to be at the same level as that of basal human divergences. The wolf and the dog are commonly considered as separate species in the popular literature. The mitogenomic result is inconsistent with that understanding at the same time as it provides insight into the time of the domestication of the dog relative to basal human mitogenomic divergences.
In normal english, it sounds like this research from 2007 concluded that the only mitochondrial DNA difference (one of UC Davis' test areas) between dogs and wolves is no more than the kind of difference you'd see between humans. More food for thought!

Source: Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships -- If there are any other lab types in here who might have a subscription to that journal or something like that....... ;)
Thanks. I appreciate your insight (*and* your skepticism!) I hope John is able to secure some of those glaringly omitted details for us. Thanks for your annalysis!
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
BinBin
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:35 am
Location: Keuruu, Finland

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by BinBin » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:19 am

DTucker wrote: I can't get behind it if it hasn't been published yet. The process of publishing requires peer review and allows the scientific community (which is vastly educated and equipped) to poke holes and make sure that every base is covered before a test/protocol/finding/procedure becomes "official," and until it's published I can't give it the benefit of the doubt that there isn't a reason it's not in a journal somewhere yet. I don't even know how you can sell a service that hasn't been publicly proven yet.
There are several published articles on canine hybrids and DNA analysis of them available. This is very common "every day" stuff in conservation ecology etc. Just a few I have read before:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/4/553.full.pdf
http://klamathconservation.org/docs/blo ... w_supp.pdf
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v90/n ... 00175a.pdf
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0003333
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 565a0.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7921357
http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/fi ... 08_phd.pdf

Comparing wolf and dog genomes:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/11/2331.full

Species-specific markers:
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ ... 0a55a4.pdf
(see also the carnivore concervation link above)
DTucker wrote: What variants? How do they know? Prove it to me, UC Davis! The last time I checked (~ a month ago), the common gray wolf hadn't even been sequenced yet, so where is the marker information coming from? It's DNA after all, and you need to know where to look to establish a marker, plus it needs to be shown that at your marker there is a distinct difference between dogs and wolves, not just a correlation, at least as far as I'm concerned.
There is absolutely no need for a complete genome to asses hybridization. If there was, the above researches would be of no use. As these research articles were published in major publications (one cannot get higher than Nature..), I'm quite sure the scientific peers see hem as useful. We dont need full genomes to prove paternity, or much older ancestry of people either. And the bigger problem re using whole genomes is the reason it is not done. As I'm sure you know, dog and wolf are very closely related, both have 78 chromosomes: 38 pairs of autosomes and two sex chromosomes. The whole genome does not evolve in the same manner nor does it transfer in same way from parent to offspring. Hence the comparison of full genomes would be a waste of time and money and lab equipment. The above studies show a various array of markers, have a look. Basically comparing markers in all paternal, maternal AND biparental DNA is of more use. In the last link there is a paper of Spanish wolves and both mDNA and Y chromosome had haplotypes that were species-specific. Which means the full analysis of comparing complete DNA is not necessary.
DTucker wrote: This is what leads to their disclaimer, that there are no false positives only false negatives, but it in itself is contradictory. Because they are so close, there may be false negatives, but we are to believe that despite them being that close that there will never be a false positive? I don't think I can buy that. I believe the disclaimer is more a cover-your-tail statement which prevents them from being pursued legally in the event that they were wrong, an animal they said was negative was actually from a recent wolf cross, and the animal hurts someone.
If there are species-specific markers, a false positive is not possible unless there is a mistake in the sample or in the procedures, i.e. human error. If there is a marker in the sample that is specific to wolves only, it has to have wolf ancestry. Same goes for paternity tests etc, there cannot be a false positive. Unless human error is included somewhere in the analysis. Remember this is done on species to species level, not individual to individual as your mouse analyses are.

I would also remind that this test is used by USA officials to determine wolf hybrids.
Image

User avatar
BinBin
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:35 am
Location: Keuruu, Finland

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by BinBin » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:57 am

DTucker wrote:
The population analysis uses 38 DNA markers for the subject which are compared against populations of known wolves and dogs.
BTW, where is this quote from? I couldnt find it.
Image

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:30 am

Thank you for the collection of articles! It's just what I need for distraction over the next couple of days.
I am fascenated and look forward to reading them.

But since, as you pointed out, the *legal* community accepts these tests as fact, no one here has the luxury of rejecting them.

In addition, if we consider the public relations aspect of this. We would look pretty foolish if, even after being shown scientific proof of wolf content in our dogs, we continued to challenge or deny it. If, after ignoring those who "tried to tell us" and rejecting the evedence others tried to bring to our attention and after cutting off those who knew (but could not rise to the level of "proof" we demanded of them) that something was rotten in the books. And if, after accusing these brave whistle-blowers of having a personal agenda or grudge. If, after all that we *continue* to avoid facing the fact that modern wolves have been used in Tamaskan breed development, we are a bunch of fools with our hard heads burried in the sand. No one will take us seriously, trust us, or support a position so out of touch with reality.

Do we really want to be *that* kind of organization?

At what point is it time to change the dialog from "is this *really* an issue?" to "What can we do about this issue?"
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
DTucker
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:42 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by DTucker » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:55 am

BinBin wrote:There are several published articles on canine hybrids and DNA analysis of them available. This is very common "every day" stuff in conservation ecology etc. Just a few I have read before:
Thanks for your response! I've got to get to work so I won't be able to reply until this evening, but I wanted to say that the quote you were asking about was from the first post of this big thread, which I reckon was a direct response from the testing lab.

I didn't realize that the US was officially using this test for wolf determinations, I must have missed that here somewhere. :( If that's the case, then I think Angie hit the nail on the head.

User avatar
Sylvaen
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 5202
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 3:53 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Sylvaen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:34 pm

BinBin wrote:If there are species-specific markers, a false positive is not possible unless there is a mistake in the sample or in the procedures, i.e. human error. If there is a marker in the sample that is specific to wolves only, it has to have wolf ancestry. Same goes for paternity tests etc, there cannot be a false positive. Unless human error is included somewhere in the analysis. Remember this is done on species to species level, not individual to individual as your mouse analyses are.
I would be interested to know how MANY markers are required for the UC Davis DNA test to produce a 'positive' result: is it just 1 of the 38 markers (which could, hypothetically, be attributed to gene mutation) or does it require a set number of markers to make the distinction: 5/38, 10/38, 50%, 75%, or all 38 markers? IF a dog has 3/38 markers, could it logically be deduced that it has LESS wolf content than a dog that has 36/38 markers? Or perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree and ALL wolfdogs are guaranteed to have all of these 38 markers in their DNA? I'm just very curious to know more about the whole procedure and analysis process.
Image
The future lies before you, like a path of pure white snow...
Be careful how you tread it, for every step will show.

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:50 pm

Sylvaen wrote:
BinBin wrote:If there are species-specific markers, a false positive is not possible unless there is a mistake in the sample or in the procedures, i.e. human error. If there is a marker in the sample that is specific to wolves only, it has to have wolf ancestry. Same goes for paternity tests etc, there cannot be a false positive. Unless human error is included somewhere in the analysis. Remember this is done on species to species level, not individual to individual as your mouse analyses are.
I would be interested to know how MANY markers are required for the UC Davis DNA test to produce a 'positive' result: is it just 1 of the 38 markers (which could, hypothetically, be attributed to gene mutation) or does it require a set number of markers to make the distinction: 5/38, 10/38, 50%, 75%, or all 38 markers? IF a dog has 3/38 markers, could it logically be deduced that it has LESS wolf content than a dog that has 36/38 markers? Or perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree and ALL wolfdogs are guaranteed to have all of these 38 markers in their DNA? I'm just very curious to know more about the whole procedure and analysis process.

Debby, you posted the UC Davis info yourself.  And your question above might have been relevant if those wolf markers were the only thing they tested for or measured. But, according to your documentation, they only use those 38 markers in 1 out of 3-4 cross-referenced measurements to inform their assessments. 

It is fascinating and I also look forward to learning more about how the test "works" but we don't have to wait for that esoteric information before we can effectively leverage this test in a practical way.

The test information you posted claims to be able to discern a %-lieklyhood that the "wolf" is recent (within 3 generations) or is more remote.  Bear in mind that you can "compound" genetic content if two dogs with wolf genes are bred together and each give a share of wolf genes to the offspring resulting in a pup that tests "more wolf" than either of it's parents! (This could increase the risk to pets and their owners of having to deal with law enforcement, housing and zoning regulations and peer/social stigma in dog enthusiast venues.) 

Sounds like pretty useful information that a breeder would want to help select good parings and minimize or water down wolf content until its gone from the breed. The test is already accepted and being used in research and law enforcement.

http://www.adn.com/2011/06/16/1920515/t ... alley.html

http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska ... _3473.html

http://www.kens5.com/news/in-depth/chas ... 88362.html

http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/howl ... 1ddb0.html

So why are we still trying to shoot holes in it's basic validity? Shouldn't we accept the test so we can move forward to the discussion of how breeders can constructively use this test to insure a bright future for the Tamaskan? What a blessing to be able to use this test to minimize wolf-influence in future generations of Tamaskans!

Are we still questioning the "wolf-dog" evedence when, in my opinion, we should be talking about how to protect Tamaskan puppies from "wolf-dog" stigma the way we protect them for DM or seizures? 

Are we trying to say the objective evidence provided by genetics is *still* not enough "proof" for this online community?  (As we see from the links provided, the rest of the world has no trouble accepting and using the test we are questioning.)
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
Sylvaen
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 5202
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 3:53 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Sylvaen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:49 pm

This part was particularly interesting:
However, even a DNA test wasn’t strong enough evidence for Fairbanks assistant district attorney Ben Seekins. Charges were dropped against Terry Delbene of Healy, who had three large, wolflike pets in a fenced enclosure at his home in late January 2011. According to Wildlife Trooper Ralf Lysdahl, Delbene admitted knowing wolf hybrids were illegal in Alaska. But he called his animals Inuits. An Inuit dog is either a breed originating in northern Canada that typically looks a lot less like a wolf than Delbene’s three pets, or it’s a breed developed in the late 1980s that is supposed to resemble a wolf but looks more like a Malemute mix. An Internet search notes both possibilities.

Nevertheless, DNA tests confirmed two of Delbene’s animals had recent wolf ancestry. Seekins could have reduced the charge to a violation -- like being charged with an unwitting speeding violation -- and prosecuted Delbene under the strict liability mental state, instead of holding him to the higher criminal standard of possessing two wolf hybrids “intentionally, knowingly, negligently or with criminal intent.” He chose not to prosecute at all because recent wolf ancestry was not detected in one of the three females, which looked more or less like the other two. In other words, as Delbene said, he may have not known his pets were wolf hybrids.

Seekins' decision not to prosecute may have placed too much faith in the DNA tests. According to Beth Wictum, director of the veterinary forensics unit at UC Davis, an “animal certainly could have a lot of wolf in it and not have uniquely wolf DNA at the markers we test … this is particularly true if it is a female,” because nuclear DNA doesn’t include Y-chromosomes from the male lineage.

“It’s possible to have a full-blooded wolf,” Wictum said, “with no uniquely wolf alleles in the nuclear DNA.” In other words, the DNA test used to determine wolf ancestry in Delbene’s pets is conservative. If the test says the animal is a wolf hybrid, then it’s a good bet it is. If the test can’t find evidence of recent wolf ancestry, then prosecutors may need to rely on physical and behavioral characteristics, statements by the owner and seller, or other evidentiary means. Delbene was advised that his animals were potentially wolf hybrids and he could eventually be charged for possessing them.

http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska ... _3473.html
AngieH wrote:So why are we still trying to shoot holes in it's basic validity? Shouldn't we accept the test so we can move forward to the discussion of how breeders can constructively use this test to insure a bright future for the Tamaskan? What a blessing to be able to use this test to minimize wolf-influence in future generations of Tamaskans!

Are we still questioning the "wolf-dog" evedence when, in my opinion, we should be talking about how to protect Tamaskan puppies from "wolf-dog" stigma the way we protect them for DM or seizures? 

Are we trying to say the objective evidence provided by genetics is *still* not enough "proof" for this online community?  (As we see from the links provided, the rest of the world has no trouble accepting and using the test we are questioning.)
On the contrary, no one is doubting the evidence - just that we are trying to learn MORE about the evidence, and what it means. As far as I am aware, all the Tamaskans that tested positive as "wolf-hybrids" are, technically, "legal" (in most areas) as they are all F5+. However, there are some areas that have a Zero Tolerance policy so I completely agree that (in an ideal world) all breeding dogs should be tested so we can ensure the puppies are properly placed in suitable homes, according to local laws... perhaps it should be up to the individual breeders if they want to do this test, and up to the potential buyers to seek out those breeders, over breeders that don't want to / can't afford it / can't be bothered / or are worried that the results could be used against them / etc. One thing to keep in mind, can we be certain that 2 'clear' parents (testing negative for wolf content) won't produce a puppy that will test positive (depending what combination of genes are inherited)? This is just one of the many factors we must consider, and there is plenty of food for thought here, which is why we must find out as much as possible... it is still too early to draw any concrete conclusions until more dogs are tested (including purebred Czech, Saarloos, etc).
Image
The future lies before you, like a path of pure white snow...
Be careful how you tread it, for every step will show.

User avatar
Tiantai
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
Location: Canada (North York, Ontario)

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Tiantai » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:13 pm

Luckily Czech and Saarloos are recognized as domestic dogs, which they are, and in Canada anything over F5 is domestic so the diluted Czech and Saarloos heritage in those sired by Bobbi won't be a problem. A lot of people are walking those breeds out in the open here in North York and they're all fine. Ontario is more open to wolfdogs (ironic for a province that bans certain breeds) which is why so many people here are owning them without a licence and if they're over five generations away from the pure wolf then they're not allowed by-law to be called "wolfdogs". I'm not sure about the other provinces but in Ontario you can't legally call what's pedigreed over 5 generations away a wolfdog plus many officers I know here discourage labelling wolfdogs on many mutts unless you have a legitimate pedigree to confirm that there was a wolf within the five generation range. One of my friends is a cop and once told me when I was in highschool "if you dare to sell a dog as a wolfdog without proof, we're going to bust your @$$". ;) Given that, I don't think the Tamaskan would have a hard time here as the breed, much like the Czech and Saarloos, is NOT a true wolfdog. Even those from the Boogie lines will do fine.
Image

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:12 pm

Sylvaen wrote: ... perhaps it should be up to the individual breeders if they want to do this test, and up to the potential buyers to seek out those breeders, over breeders that don't want to / can't afford it / can't be bothered / or are worried that the results could be used against them / etc.
I would hope that a breed who's original goal was to produce a dog with excelent working ability that looked and moved like a wolf but contained no wolf content, would make achieving a wolf-free population a higher priority than that. :shock: But OK, if, for the sake of compromise, that is what the TDR decides, I would hope the UC Davis test results would be on the breed database as "not tested" or "tested, not disclosed" or "tested X% dog with (or without) wolf content >3 generations back" or some-such *useful* information and not simply relegated to a general comment in the the "other" box on the data base. Since you would put the burden on the buyer, it would be a good public relations move to highlight that information and make it as easy as possible the buyer to find it.
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
DTucker
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:42 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by DTucker » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:27 pm

Thanks Angie for linking those articles. I think that you're right, either way, if the rest of the country is using it especially in prosecution, we can't just ignore it or dismiss it. I still would love to find out more about the test, but you're right, I don't think whether or not it's valid is going to be relevant anymore. :)
Sylvaen wrote:I would be interested to know how MANY markers are required for the UC Davis DNA test to produce a 'positive' result: is it just 1 of the 38 markers (which could, hypothetically, be attributed to gene mutation) or does it require a set number of markers to make the distinction: 5/38, 10/38, 50%, 75%, or all 38 markers? IF a dog has 3/38 markers, could it logically be deduced that it has LESS wolf content than a dog that has 36/38 markers? Or perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree and ALL wolfdogs are guaranteed to have all of these 38 markers in their DNA? I'm just very curious to know more about the whole procedure and analysis process.
I can say that if you had a lot more markers, you could use a % result to estimate the wolf content, but in this case and with their disclaimer (which is saying that just because they didn't see wolf at their 38 markers, doesn't mean there isn't wolf somewhere else) that there are plenty of other locations where one would see "wolf" that they don't have markers for yet. Imagine there are hypothetically 200 such spots, and a pure wolf reads "wolf" in all 200, but only 90 get randomly passed to its offspring. Those 50 may or may not include the 38 markers that UC Davis is looking for, so if you only see 1/38, they might have a lot of the others that they don't have markers on yet.
Sylvaen wrote:One thing to keep in mind, can we be certain that 2 'clear' parents (testing negative for wolf content) won't produce a puppy that will test positive (depending what combination of genes are inherited)?
In theory, yes, the pups should not test positive. If they do, then there might be an issue with a test (or mystery double breedings or whatever goes on sometimes :)). These kinds of markers are specific to certain locations in their DNA, so in order for a pup to get a wolf allele, they would have to get it from one of their parents. If neither had it, the pup won't be able to get it. So if both parents have 0 "wolf" at the 38 markers, their pups should be fine.

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:49 am

DTucker wrote:
Sylvaen wrote:One thing to keep in mind, can we be certain that 2 'clear' parents (testing negative for wolf content) won't produce a puppy that will test positive (depending what combination of genes are inherited)?
In theory, yes, the pups should not test positive. If they do, then there might be an issue with a test (or mystery double breedings or whatever goes on sometimes :)). These kinds of markers are specific to certain locations in their DNA, so in order for a pup to get a wolf allele, they would have to get it from one of their parents. If neither had it, the pup won't be able to get it. So if both parents have 0 "wolf" at the 38 markers, their pups should be fine.

Nice! So for breeders, pups could be declared "wolf-free" by parentage just like they can be declared "DM negative" by parentage making it unnecessary to test a litters produced by wolf-free dogs. This could really cut down on the ammount of testing necessary to get a clear picture of how widespread the wolf-markers are in the Tamaskan.
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
DTucker
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:42 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by DTucker » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:08 pm

AngieH wrote:Nice! So for breeders, pups could be declared "wolf-free" by parentage just like they can be declared "DM negative" by parentage making it unnecessary to test a litters produced by wolf-free dogs. This could really cut down on the ammount of testing necessary to get a clear picture of how widespread the wolf-markers are in the Tamaskan.
Yup! Although based on them having those 38 markers and their might-be-false-negatives disclaimer, the term "wolf-free" might be a little misleading. But as far as the test goes, if the parents are clear, the pups will be too.

Maybe.... "Minimally wolfy?" "Wolfiness Undetectable?" Hahah, I have no idea. :lol:

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:24 pm

DTucker wrote:
AngieH wrote:Nice! So for breeders, pups could be declared "wolf-free" by parentage just like they can be declared "DM negative" by parentage making it unnecessary to test a litters produced by wolf-free dogs. This could really cut down on the ammount of testing necessary to get a clear picture of how widespread the wolf-markers are in the Tamaskan.
Yup! Although based on them having those 38 markers and their might-be-false-negatives disclaimer, the term "wolf-free" might be a little misleading. But as far as the test goes, if the parents are clear, the pups will be too.

Maybe.... "Minimally wolfy?" "Wolfiness Undetectable?" Hahah, I have no idea. :lol:
Sorry, that was just a clumsy short hand term I coined. I wonder if UC Davis has a term for it, like "100% UCD certified dog" LOL
(though I kind of like "Minimally wolfy" ;)
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
Nimwey
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 8:44 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nimwey » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:35 pm

Would it be possible for any kind and generous soul out there to provide a summary of this thread? :)

It seems we now know that the Tamaskan isn't the wolfdog without the wolf, that some have wolf blood in them, but which dogs/lines? And how do we know this?

And why have breeders lied, if they first say there is absolutely no wolf in them, and then we find out there is? :(
(I despise lying.)
Image
Mother Nature does not rule by fear and anger, but by calm strength and assertiveness - Cesar Millan

weylyn

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by weylyn » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:43 pm

I know I will not make myself popular with this question and I really do not want to bump some heads
But how many of you really think that you can make a breed looking like a wolf when never used wolf blood in anyway ????
Sorry to say and I really do not mean anything to anyone personal by it but thinking like that is quit naif.......

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:49 pm

weylyn wrote:I know I will not make myself popular with this question and I really do not want to bump some heads
But how many of you really think that you can make a breed looking like a wolf when never used wolf blood in anyway ????
Sorry to say and I really do not mean anything to anyone personal by it but thinking like that is quit naif.......
Well I do think that if you had enough breeding material and time available it would be possible.. but in 10-15 years? I don't really think so.. I was caught in the lie myself I admit.. but I have become wiser since then..
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
nivenj
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: UK

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by nivenj » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:02 pm

weylyn wrote:I know I will not make myself popular with this question and I really do not want to bump some heads
But how many of you really think that you can make a breed looking like a wolf when never used wolf blood in anyway ????
Sorry to say and I really do not mean anything to anyone personal by it but thinking like that is quit naif.......
As my mum is fond of saying, "You cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs"
Image
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” --Aristotle *

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:56 pm

nivenj wrote:
weylyn wrote:I know I will not make myself popular with this question and I really do not want to bump some heads
But how many of you really think that you can make a breed looking like a wolf when never used wolf blood in anyway ????
Sorry to say and I really do not mean anything to anyone personal by it but thinking like that is quit naif.......
As my mum is fond of saying, "You cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs"
You could.. but that would take time too :lol:
>> Nino <<
Image

weylyn

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by weylyn » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:32 pm

Nino wrote:
nivenj wrote:
weylyn wrote:I know I will not make myself popular with this question and I really do not want to bump some heads
But how many of you really think that you can make a breed looking like a wolf when never used wolf blood in anyway ????
Sorry to say and I really do not mean anything to anyone personal by it but thinking like that is quit naif.......
As my mum is fond of saying, "You cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs"
You could.. but that would take time too :lol:
Wanna see you do that :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:47 am

weylyn wrote:
Nino wrote:
nivenj wrote:
As my mum is fond of saying, "You cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs"
You could.. but that would take time too :lol:
Wanna see you do that :lol: :lol:
Just enough of doing this :lol:
Image
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
Tiantai
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
Location: Canada (North York, Ontario)

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Tiantai » Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:23 am

Nino wrote:
weylyn wrote:I know I will not make myself popular with this question and I really do not want to bump some heads
But how many of you really think that you can make a breed looking like a wolf when never used wolf blood in anyway ????
Sorry to say and I really do not mean anything to anyone personal by it but thinking like that is quit naif.......
Well I do think that if you had enough breeding material and time available it would be possible.. but in 10-15 years? I don't really think so.. I was caught in the lie myself I admit.. but I have become wiser since then..
Nino is right, I was initially skeptic when I first learnt about the breed. Although I did believe that it was possible to breed a mutt to have a phenotype "close" to a mid-content appearance, I too was eventually tricked into believing that there is no wolf at all and believed that the no wolf group on facebook was a lie. Although from the way I see it now, in the future it won't matter anymore as from my understanding of the Saarloos and Czech, they are both recognized domestic dogs and behave mostly like dogs and less like wolves and soon the Tamaskan breed won't be any different from them. Like what's already been said, the German Shepherd breed also had wolves far back in the foundation line and now they're just dogs. I personally would just continue to call the Tamaskan a domestic dog but without denying the wolf-content from the past. Also because I don't want any Tamaskan dogs seized and euthanized much like what's already happened with countless mutts labelled as wolfdogs.
Image

weylyn

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by weylyn » Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:56 am

Of course in time you can have the Tamaskan to be as the Saarloos and the Czech but that is what you are both saying: In Time. Remember that the Tamaskan isn't that old yet and so that is why I think it is a bit naief to think you could have a breed like that without it. The Saarloos and the Czech also began with wolfblood......
And I hope people do not want to be the Tamaskan as these breeds. Besides that the wolfblood is farther away they do have some behavior though and I think that people do not want that in the Tamaskan......

Karen
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Karen » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:46 am

weylyn wrote: But how many of you really think that you can make a breed looking like a wolf when never used wolf blood in anyway ????.
Asked so many people this question.... As long as people still believe this, the lies will go on and breeders can go one doing what they are doing.

Karen
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Karen » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:49 am

Nino wrote:
Image
But it still means you have to use an egg to make your omelet ;)
As you have to use a wolf/wolfdog to make a wolf-look-a-like.

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:31 pm

It appears the visit to PolarSpeed kennels for wolf dogs happened after the development of the Utinogen and Northern Inuit.
The most beautiful and "wolfy-ist" Tamaskan I have personally seen so far is Woulf (Blustag MenomineeOwl at J&J)
She was reclassified "Tamaskan" though innitaly registered Utinogen. There is no "PolarSpeed" in her pedigree and none of the dogs suspected of Czk, Sar, or WD on the "Fable" website.

Does anyone know how much, if any, of the dogs from RedKite are suspected CzhkWD, Saarloose, and Wolf-dog is in her?

I'm thinking this "oh, it's impossible anyway - lets just resign ourselves to the fact we need wolf content" is all what my grandfather called "lazy-talk" (making a case for not working toward something great because it's too hard.)

We have seen the public attention and desire for a wolf-free wolf-look-a-like is pretty high. Speeking for the pet entheusiast public, I would love to see how close we can get. (Maybe the answer is "Ute and NI"?)
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
BinBin
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 6:35 am
Location: Keuruu, Finland

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by BinBin » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:54 pm

AngieH wrote:The most beautiful and "wolfy-ist" Tamaskan I have personally seen so far is Woulf (Blustag MenomineeOwl at J&J)
She was reclassified "Tamaskan" though innitaly registered Utinogen. There is no "PolarSpeed" in her pedigree and none of the dogs suspected of Czk, Sar, or WD on the "Fable" website.
I have Luna from this litter, she is Blustag Pawnee Lynx. Sylka is of Redkite line, so I dont think much wolf there. Anzara is a grandson of Taz, who I believe to be a wolfdog of some sort. See his photos in the Fb group (not mine, Lynn's :D).

I'll attach a picture of Luna, this was taken by Aino Pikkusaari.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Image

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:13 pm

BinBin wrote:
AngieH wrote:The most beautiful and "wolfy-ist" Tamaskan I have personally seen so far is Woulf (Blustag MenomineeOwl at J&J)
She was reclassified "Tamaskan" though innitaly registered Utinogen. There is no "PolarSpeed" in her pedigree and none of the dogs suspected of Czk, Sar, or WD on the "Fable" website.
I have Luna from this litter, she is Blustag Pawnee Lynx. Sylka is of Redkite line, so I dont think much wolf there. Anzara is a grandson of Taz, who I believe to be a wolfdog of some sort. See his photos in the Fb group (not mine, Lynn's :D).

I'll attach a picture of Luna, this was taken by Aino Pikkusaari.
She is lovely! And I can see the family resemblance.
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
Tiantai
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
Location: Canada (North York, Ontario)

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Tiantai » Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:03 am

Luna is so cute! ♥
Image

User avatar
Tatzel
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:17 am
Location: Berlin

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Tatzel » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:58 pm

Wow, Luna really looks so wolfy!! Totally awesome :D

as for needing wolfdogs to create wolfy looking dogs; I think it's bogus.
People have created so many weird looking dog breeds and they all stem off the wolf and no other animal, so I don't think it's impossible to recessively breed the dog-looks out of the breed, but I guess it would take a lot less time and breeding with wolf-content blood added.
Image

Karen
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Karen » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Maybe I have an other idea with the idea "wolfy" look ;)
In my opinion you will just have a nice looking dog with a nice facial mask.

SEO
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:21 pm
Location: Alsace

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by SEO » Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:18 pm

Hi...just new here, and my pup too. I spent loooong time to understand the most recents problems wich failed on Tamaskan's breed. Wolf content is one of the most serious. (I'm coming from the Czech Wolf Dog, french communauty ; and we also have our bloody battles).
But, just for a short laugh :
"...Modern science proves that your Dog shares the DNA of the Wolf..."

I am not the brillant one who found this assertion in the early morning. This is the slogan wich introduce each big pack of dry food TOW !!!! Isn't that cute ? I just received two by now and I told to myself "well, our problems with wolf content are ok, for sure."
I don't know if they taste good or not. Shall I try ? But I like the picture on !

User avatar
Hawthorne
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Pennsylvania | USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Hawthorne » Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:10 pm

Oh my goodness, I miss reading this thread for a week and now I have too much to say.

Denver, thank you so very much for your thoughts on all of this. I'm sorry we didn't talk more at the show--I had no idea what your background was. You will be very valuable to this community so thanks for your time! I have a biology background too and have had a couple of genetics courses at the college and graduate level...but that was some time ago.

I have some questions about the test, too. From day one I have wondered if siblings from the same litter could test differently. So, one pup could test positive, and one negative because genes are randomly inherited. Or is mtDNA always inherited as an exact copy of the mothers? The y-chromosome would be an exact copy of the father's, too wouldn't it (outside of mutation)? If pups from the same litter would come back with different results we would all feel like we had to test our dogs. But if testing one litter member clears the whole litter, then Freyja and Darwin are clear.

And a side question--the lab mice--are they the kind who have markers that have been put there by humans for identification purposes? Just curious. Or are these essentially unaltered mice? haha. this could get funny. Do you have the glow in the dark kind?

Yes, UC Davis has developed a test. And yes, many of the details are missing. Those details are probably missing because if they have not published yet, the protocol would be a guarded secret, wouldn't it? Proprietary information in the science community is very important. I wouldn't expect UC Davis to give us all of the details (the kind of details that would allow us to conduct our own testing at our own site). The purpose of publishing is so that you are the "first out there" who developed / created / discovered something so that then everyone can take your paper and go and replicate the testing in other labs. Re-testing in other labs creates validity and upholds the hypothesis of the paper (or disproves it). So, until they publish and other labs do the same exact test and can uphold the hypothesis, I don't think we, as breeders, should be running out and testing all of our dogs. It's too much of a gamble in my mind. I want more testing, and testing of that testing. Of course I support the decision of others if they feel like they should test their dogs. Just please remember that behavior is not entirely inherited, but learned. Animals are not the 'machines' as they were once thought to be.

That isn't to say that I doubt the results so far. I think the PR damage has been done to the breed and we need to figure out where to go from here as a community. This will take time and we're all anxious. I know I am. But that's because, just like others here, I care and want to see the breed succeed, too. I actually found an old email to John dated 10/2009 where I was asking questions about the Fable website. I made a statement about how the "shortcut" to make a wolfy breed would be to start with wolfdogs or wolves and breed the content out or water it down over generations. I always suspected that the information was true, but hoped it was not. DNA is much more solid proof, for me, than pedigrees. As others have said, positive is positive.

But as far as authorities using this test--here's an unnerving tidbit for you. As I mentioned in previous posts I discussed with our special permits officer here in our law enforcement bureau where I work... *the* guy for exotic wildlife permits. He deals directly with the lab who does the wolf content testing for our agency. The lab manager told him all dogs will test positive for wolf content at some level. He told her to leave that detail out of the courtroom. So even there the geneticist is trying to caution about the test results. Just a thought.

And the "guess the breed" quiz won't work for this. I checked a short time ago and none of the labs who run tests to see what your mutt makeup is have a wolf content test.

I don't know if anyone posted this paper --but there were many papers written about DNA testing coyote populations in various US locations for wolf content. mtDNA was used. Some research is unpublished but DNA *can* distinguish between gray wolves and red wolves (subspecies) and red wolves and coyotes enough to tell who has bred with who. Even to the point of coyotes closer to Algonquin Park have a higher concentration of wolf content that coyotes who are further south--such as in New York state. Reds / Algonquin and coyotes are so close that they should be reclassified. Anyhow--similar to domestic dog genes and gray wolf genes. UC Davis also need more wolf species markers. And Sarloos and Czech dogs tested, too to see what happens there. More data is needed to make this something I would want to consider. I just want to know if the UC Davis lab intends to try and get other wolf species, or to try and get swabs from Sarloos or Czech populations.

I don't personally deny the wolf ancestry in the breed. But for those coming late to this discussion--none of the "newer" breeders here were in on the shenanigans of creating the breed. I just don't want to jump on the UC Davis ship yet. I want to see it sail around a bit before I decide to get on board to make sure it's not full of holes. Accepting the test as a Theory (true) is jumping the gun. DNA doesn't lie, but it is a hypothesis until it is retested and retested and retested. From here on out I don't think any of us are denying wolf content in some of these dogs. We are just each enough of a scientist to know that we need to be cautious about using the test as the be all end all. And let me just point out that it sounds like we are treating the wolf content as a disease. This makes me sad. For so few dogs in a rare breed we could endanger our diversity if we start to place restrictions on who can breed and who cannot. This isn't a disease and if we say 'so and so can't breed their champion Tamaskan because it has one genetic marker for wolf content' then I will be very nervous for the breed's future. It would be like banning DM carriers, or banning dogs with higher than the mean score hip results. I think if our goal is to 'breed the wolf content out" then it will be a slow process that will be diluted over time. Not done in one generation. Thoughts?
Tracy Graziano
http://www.hawthornetamaskan.com

bark as if no one can hear you
catch the ball on the fly
lick like there's no end to kissing
sleep on a sofa nearby
jump like the sky is the limit
sit by the fire with friends
stay with the ones who love you
run like the road never ends

User avatar
Tiantai
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
Location: Canada (North York, Ontario)

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Tiantai » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:55 pm

Agree, it took a long time to breed the wolf out of the German Shepherd, Lupo Italiano, and Kunming Chuan and it's NOT impossible to breed the wolf content out of the Tamaskans coming from lines with wolf-content.
Image

User avatar
AZDehlin
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3039
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:52 am
Location: Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA (for now)
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AZDehlin » Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:39 am

Hawthorne wrote:Oh my goodness, I miss reading this thread for a week and now I have too much to say.

Denver, thank you so very much for your thoughts on all of this. I'm sorry we didn't talk more at the show--I had no idea what your background was. You will be very valuable to this community so thanks for your time! I have a biology background too and have had a couple of genetics courses at the college and graduate level...but that was some time ago.

I have some questions about the test, too. From day one I have wondered if siblings from the same litter could test differently. So, one pup could test positive, and one negative because genes are randomly inherited. Or is mtDNA always inherited as an exact copy of the mothers? The y-chromosome would be an exact copy of the father's, too wouldn't it (outside of mutation)? If pups from the same litter would come back with different results we would all feel like we had to test our dogs. But if testing one litter member clears the whole litter, then Freyja and Darwin are clear.

And a side question--the lab mice--are they the kind who have markers that have been put there by humans for identification purposes? Just curious. Or are these essentially unaltered mice? haha. this could get funny. Do you have the glow in the dark kind?

Yes, UC Davis has developed a test. And yes, many of the details are missing. Those details are probably missing because if they have not published yet, the protocol would be a guarded secret, wouldn't it? Proprietary information in the science community is very important. I wouldn't expect UC Davis to give us all of the details (the kind of details that would allow us to conduct our own testing at our own site). The purpose of publishing is so that you are the "first out there" who developed / created / discovered something so that then everyone can take your paper and go and replicate the testing in other labs. Re-testing in other labs creates validity and upholds the hypothesis of the paper (or disproves it). So, until they publish and other labs do the same exact test and can uphold the hypothesis, I don't think we, as breeders, should be running out and testing all of our dogs. It's too much of a gamble in my mind. I want more testing, and testing of that testing. Of course I support the decision of others if they feel like they should test their dogs. Just please remember that behavior is not entirely inherited, but learned. Animals are not the 'machines' as they were once thought to be.

That isn't to say that I doubt the results so far. I think the PR damage has been done to the breed and we need to figure out where to go from here as a community. This will take time and we're all anxious. I know I am. But that's because, just like others here, I care and want to see the breed succeed, too. I actually found an old email to John dated 10/2009 where I was asking questions about the Fable website. I made a statement about how the "shortcut" to make a wolfy breed would be to start with wolfdogs or wolves and breed the content out or water it down over generations. I always suspected that the information was true, but hoped it was not. DNA is much more solid proof, for me, than pedigrees. As others have said, positive is positive.

But as far as authorities using this test--here's an unnerving tidbit for you. As I mentioned in previous posts I discussed with our special permits officer here in our law enforcement bureau where I work... *the* guy for exotic wildlife permits. He deals directly with the lab who does the wolf content testing for our agency. The lab manager told him all dogs will test positive for wolf content at some level. He told her to leave that detail out of the courtroom. So even there the geneticist is trying to caution about the test results. Just a thought.

And the "guess the breed" quiz won't work for this. I checked a short time ago and none of the labs who run tests to see what your mutt makeup is have a wolf content test.

I don't know if anyone posted this paper --but there were many papers written about DNA testing coyote populations in various US locations for wolf content. mtDNA was used. Some research is unpublished but DNA *can* distinguish between gray wolves and red wolves (subspecies) and red wolves and coyotes enough to tell who has bred with who. Even to the point of coyotes closer to Algonquin Park have a higher concentration of wolf content that coyotes who are further south--such as in New York state. Reds / Algonquin and coyotes are so close that they should be reclassified. Anyhow--similar to domestic dog genes and gray wolf genes. UC Davis also need more wolf species markers. And Sarloos and Czech dogs tested, too to see what happens there. More data is needed to make this something I would want to consider. I just want to know if the UC Davis lab intends to try and get other wolf species, or to try and get swabs from Sarloos or Czech populations.

I don't personally deny the wolf ancestry in the breed. But for those coming late to this discussion--none of the "newer" breeders here were in on the shenanigans of creating the breed. I just don't want to jump on the UC Davis ship yet. I want to see it sail around a bit before I decide to get on board to make sure it's not full of holes. Accepting the test as a Theory (true) is jumping the gun. DNA doesn't lie, but it is a hypothesis until it is retested and retested and retested. From here on out I don't think any of us are denying wolf content in some of these dogs. We are just each enough of a scientist to know that we need to be cautious about using the test as the be all end all. And let me just point out that it sounds like we are treating the wolf content as a disease. This makes me sad. For so few dogs in a rare breed we could endanger our diversity if we start to place restrictions on who can breed and who cannot. This isn't a disease and if we say 'so and so can't breed their champion Tamaskan because it has one genetic marker for wolf content' then I will be very nervous for the breed's future. It would be like banning DM carriers, or banning dogs with higher than the mean score hip results. I think if our goal is to 'breed the wolf content out" then it will be a slow process that will be diluted over time. Not done in one generation. Thoughts?

Well put, I very much agree!

weylyn

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by weylyn » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:51 am

Anyhow--similar to domestic dog genes and gray wolf genes. UC Davis also need more wolf species markers. And Sarloos and Czech dogs tested, too to see what happens there. More data is needed to make this something I would want to consider. I just want to know if the UC Davis lab intends to try and get other wolf species, or to try and get swabs from Sarloos or Czech populations.
I have not the money to do it for myself but if you all or UC Davis is interested I can deliver swabs of a Saarloos, Czech and a mid content with European wolf.........

User avatar
Booma
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:59 am
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Booma » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:24 am

weylyn wrote:
Anyhow--similar to domestic dog genes and gray wolf genes. UC Davis also need more wolf species markers. And Sarloos and Czech dogs tested, too to see what happens there. More data is needed to make this something I would want to consider. I just want to know if the UC Davis lab intends to try and get other wolf species, or to try and get swabs from Sarloos or Czech populations.
I have not the money to do it for myself but if you all or UC Davis is interested I can deliver swabs of a Saarloos, Czech and a mid content with European wolf.........

How much are the tests? I would be willing to chip in to have the dogs tested as I am very interested in the results.
Image Image

User avatar
DTucker
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:42 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by DTucker » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:42 am

AZDehlin wrote:Well put, I very much agree!
Same here! :D

I'm sorry I missed your post yesterday, let me answer a few questions before work.
Or is mtDNA always inherited as an exact copy of the mothers? The y-chromosome would be an exact copy of the father's, too wouldn't it (outside of mutation)? If pups from the same litter would come back with different results we would all feel like we had to test our dogs. But if testing one litter member clears the whole litter, then Freyja and Darwin are clear.
Comparing littermates to littermates, I think that this would be true for the mtDNA and Y-chromosome aspects of the test. They're both (relatively) prone to some spontaneous mutations over time, but I think it would be a long shot for that to really affect the outcome of the wolf test. It sounds like you would need a "clear" score in all three/four? tests though to be officially declared a dog. I'm trying to think if you could be negative for the two but positive for the other two but Kumho keeps ruining my train of thought!!
Do you have the glow in the dark kind?
Yes. :) I haven't seen them in person yet, but Lori has. Almost all our mouse/rat lines are modified in one way or another, either for some academic research or pharmaceutical use. We even have some mice that have immune systems pretty close to humans for drug metabolism. It's pretty neat on a big-picture level. The markers we test for though are just to determine what strain of mouse from another (B6 vs 129 vs Swiss Webster, etc), using a lot of the same kind of tech that I think people use in determining dog breeds from one another, and presumably wolves from dogs.


Completely agree with everything you posted, especially in regards to publishing. It would be so nice if there was a paper about it somewhere!

User avatar
Sylvaen
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 5202
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 3:53 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Sylvaen » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:14 pm

DTucker wrote:
Do you have the glow in the dark kind?
Yes. :) I haven't seen them in person yet, but Lori has. Almost all our mouse/rat lines are modified in one way or another, either for some academic research or pharmaceutical use.
I know it sounds wrong, but I really want a glow-in-the-dark Tamaskan :D
Image
The future lies before you, like a path of pure white snow...
Be careful how you tread it, for every step will show.

User avatar
TerriHolt
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3274
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:56 am
Location: UK, East Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by TerriHolt » Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:48 pm

Sylvaen wrote:
DTucker wrote:
Do you have the glow in the dark kind?
Yes. :) I haven't seen them in person yet, but Lori has. Almost all our mouse/rat lines are modified in one way or another, either for some academic research or pharmaceutical use.
I know it sounds wrong, but I really want a glow-in-the-dark Tamaskan :D
It would decrease the amount of tripping accidents while fumbling round in the dark :D
Image

There’s a battle between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It’s anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego.
The other is Good. It’s joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness and truth.

The wolf that wins? The one you feed!

~ Cherokee Proverb

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... I'm not sure about the former.

~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
Hawthorne
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 11:07 pm
Location: Pennsylvania | USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Hawthorne » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:42 pm

Kylievr wrote:
weylyn wrote:
Anyhow--similar to domestic dog genes and gray wolf genes. UC Davis also need more wolf species markers. And Sarloos and Czech dogs tested, too to see what happens there. More data is needed to make this something I would want to consider. I just want to know if the UC Davis lab intends to try and get other wolf species, or to try and get swabs from Sarloos or Czech populations.
I have not the money to do it for myself but if you all or UC Davis is interested I can deliver swabs of a Saarloos, Czech and a mid content with European wolf.........

How much are the tests? I would be willing to chip in to have the dogs tested as I am very interested in the results.
I think the test is $150 per dog (that's US dollars).
I think perhaps this would be something the TDR or Breed clubs could chip in for, too. Clearly it is an important point for the Tam as well. But I would think that a handful of dogs wouldn't be enough--they'd need a larger data set--don't you think?
Tracy Graziano
http://www.hawthornetamaskan.com

bark as if no one can hear you
catch the ball on the fly
lick like there's no end to kissing
sleep on a sofa nearby
jump like the sky is the limit
sit by the fire with friends
stay with the ones who love you
run like the road never ends

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:56 pm

it is 150$ I have just done one and handled the paper work today..


Debby.. I also know it is wrong but I would also take one.. would be so much easier to let them off leash on winter nights if you could see them in the dark :lol:
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:38 pm

Does the TDR have an official treasurer?

If you set it up, I would be willing to contribute to a fund for Wolf-testing dogs in the database. (provided the results of any dog tested from that fund has the results published in the database)

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who would help financially with an effort like this.

Perhaps the committee can recommend individual dogs for testing based on either the magnitude of the genetic contributuion a dog has already made to the present breed population or based on the dog's potential desirability for future breeding.

Individual owners can, of course, decline having their dogs tested. But those that do test from this fund, would have results sent to the TDR who notifies the owner, publishes the results in the database and then forwards the UC Davis paperwork to the owner.

Thoughts?
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:32 pm

I think it might be a good Idea to ask UC Davis if they are interested in doing on different breeds with known European wolfdog in the background, they might be willing to do this for free..
>> Nino <<
Image

Post Reply