Category: Domestication

Posted on

Fido decoded

An article by Elaine Ostrander in the latest American Scientist summarizes recent advances in canine genomics, which have been considerable:

The dog genome has been mapped and sequenced. A host of disease loci have been mapped, and in many cases the underlying mutations identified. Our understanding of how dog breeds relate to one another is beginning to develop, and we have a fundamental understanding of the organization of the canine genome. The issue of complex traits is no longer off-limits. We have begun to understand the genetic portfolio that leads to variation in body size and shape, and even some performance-associated behaviors.

Some snippets:

  1. Between-breed genetic variation is about 27.5% of the total, compared to about 5% between human populations.
  2. Dog breeds fall into 4 main groups: Asian and African dogs, plus grey wolves; mastiffs; herding dogs and sight hounds; and modern huntings dogs.
  3. 75% of the 19,000 genes that have been identified in the dog genome show close similarities with their human counterparts.
  4. Variation in a single gene (IGF1) explains a lot of the size differences among and within breeds.

What to do with all this information?

It is certainly hoped that the disease-gene mapping will lead to the production of genetic tests and more thoughtful breeding programs associated with healthier, more long-lived dogs. It will be easier to select for particular physical traits such as body size or coat color… Finally, canine geneticists will have a chance to develop an understanding of the genes that cause breed-specific behaviors (why do pointers point and herders herd?).

Posted on

Backyard domestication

There’s a “dump heap” hypothesis of agricultural origins which suggests that people first got interested in actively managing and manipulating plants for food or other products when they saw them sprouting out of piles of garbage in and about settlements. There they could observe them daily and experiment with them. A slight variation on this theme — involving corrals in pastoralist campsites rather than garbage dumps — has been proposed for the domestication of quinoa.

One of the things that might have happened in these fertile micro-environments in close proximity to human habitations is that different related species might have been brought accidentally together, leading to hybridization and the development of interesting new — polyploid — types. But there really hasn’t been much empirical evidence for this.

No more. A new paper ((Colin E. Hughes, Rajanikanth Govindarajulu, Ashley Robertson, Denis L. Filer, Stephen A. Harris, and C. Donovan Bailey. Serendipitous backyard hybridization and the origin of crops. PNAS published August 17, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0702193104.)) looks at the domestication of the legume tree Leucaena in Mexico, where it is grown for food (it is also used as a fodder in some parts of the world). A variety of evidence is discussed which suggests that there has indeed been much hybridization among up to 13 different wild species of Leucaena in Mexican backyards. This has proved “a potent trigger for domestication.” The authors think a similar thing also happened in Mexico with two other perennial crops, Agave and Opuntia.

Posted on

Rusty conclusions about iron deficiency

Iron deficiency anaemia is a big problem. WHO estimates that about 2 billion people — that’s roughly one in three — lack enough iron in the diet. And the consequences are grave for health and the economies of developing countries. So of course people are focused on ways to combat iron deficiency. Two hog the limelight: supplementation by adding iron to the diet and biofortification, breeding to add more iron to the staples that make up the diet. A recent paper in The Lancet reviews the story of iron deficiency and how to treat it. ((Michael B Zimmermann and Richard F Hurrell, Nutritional iron deficiency, The Lancet, 370 (9586), 11 August 2007-17 August 2007, Pp 511-520.)) Perhaps not surprisingly, the study concludes that “targeted iron supplementation, iron fortification of foods, or both, can control iron deficiency in populations”. And yet, having said that “dietary iron bioavailability is low in populations consuming monotonous plant-based diets,” the authors do not appear to have seriously considered the idea of trying to attack that monotony instead. Maybe enriching and diversifying those plant-based diets to include more dark green leafy vegetables and more pulses would be as effective, with additional benefits in other realms. But that kind of intervention isn’t nearly as glamorous, and gets little attention.

Of course, it could be that solving the problem of iron deficiency will just give rise to other difficulties. Another paper suggests that iron deficiency protects us against some of the epidemic contagious diseases that have hitched along as people crowded together in agriculturally-fed cities. ((S Denic and M Agarwal, Nutritional iron deficiency: an evolutionary perspective. Nutrition. 2007, 23:603-14. Epub 2007 Jun 20.)) Maybe iron deficiency — at least in moderation — is a good thing?

Posted on

A second helping of rice

More today to satisfy your hunger for rice information, hot on the heels of the recent paper trying to explain the pattern of genetic variation across and within two subspecies of cultivated rice, discussed by Jeremy a couple of days ago.

First there’s a paper ((Global Dissemination of a Single Mutation Conferring White Pericarp in Rice. Sweeney MT, Thomson MJ, Cho YG, Park YJ, Williamson SH, et al. PLoS Genetics Vol. 3, No. 8.)) looking at how the red pericarp of wild rice became the white pericarp of cultivated rice. The answer is that a mutation arose in the japonica subspecies, crossed to the indica and became fixed in both under very strong selection pressure by ancient rice farmers. They must have really liked those funny mutant white grains when they first noticed them! Oh to have been a fly on the wall — or a brown plant hopper on the rice stalk — when the white pericarp mutation was first noticed in some ancient paddy…

Then comes news that the three CGIAR centres with an interest in rice — IRRI, WARDA and CIAT — are to boost their collaboration to solve the pressing production problems of Africa. There’s talk of forming a consortium. More flags being prepared.

Posted on

Diversity in rice varieties: what caused it?

Larry Moran has a very good article on the genetic diversity found in the DNA of rice varieties. I won’t try to summarize what he has to say, because he says it so well. But I will emphasize something that he doesn’t. The biologists who looked at rice wanted to know what caused the pattern of diversity they see across rice vareties. One possibility is selection. The other is the founder effect, where a very small subset of a larger population gives rise to a new species (or variety) so that the new species contains less diversity than the ancestor population from which it sprang. In rice, neither explanation on its own is sufficient.

An agricultural scientist might not care one bit, or might simply assume that it was all due to selection by farmers. But the truth is that it needed a combination of the founder effect and positive selection to create modern rice diversity. The founder effect relates to the fact that Oryza sativa indica and Oryza sativa japonica were both domesticated independently from the wild Oryza rufipogon, maybe a few times. The results of those early events set up the foundation genes for rice. Then selection was brought to bear and created the diversity we now see. Luck and hard work, every time.