Difference Between Mutts and Jeffs? A Gene
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: April 6, 2007

quote
Scientists have just discovered which gene fragment controls the
size of dogs, the mammal with the greatest range in size: no
other species produces adults with 100-fold differences, like
that between a 2-pound Chihuahua and a 200-pound Newfoundland.

In a study to be published today in the journal Science,
researchers analyzed 3,241 purebreds from 143 breeds.
Genetically, the yapper arguing with your ankle is almost
identical to the drooling behemoth bred to hunt bears, except for
a tiny bit of DNA — universally present in small breeds and
largely absent in big ones — that suppresses the “insulin-like
growth factor 1” gene.
/quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/sc...ml?ref=science

FurPaw
--
My family values don't involve depleted uranium.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:16:58 -0600, FurPaw
wrote:

Difference Between Mutts and Jeffs? A Gene
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: April 6, 2007

quote
Scientists have just discovered which gene fragment controls the
size of dogs, the mammal with the greatest range in size: no
other species produces adults with 100-fold differences, like
that between a 2-pound Chihuahua and a 200-pound Newfoundland.

In a study to be published today in the journal Science,
researchers analyzed 3,241 purebreds from 143 breeds.
Genetically, the yapper arguing with your ankle is almost
identical to the drooling behemoth bred to hunt bears, except for
a tiny bit of DNA — universally present in small breeds and
largely absent in big ones — that suppresses the “insulin-like
growth factor 1” gene.
/quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/sc...ml?ref=science

"Dog owners have unwittingly been selecting for it since the last ice
age. Dogs emerged from the wolf about 15,000 years ago, and as far
back as 10,000 years ago domesticated dogs as big as mastiffs and as
small as Jack Russells were trotting the earth."

But unwittingly?

I'm not so sure that's the right word to use here.

Breeders have long known that they were selecting for genes that
regulated size, color, etc.

It's what selective breeding is all about.

One gets what one *selects* for.

Size is a selection.

BYW, the IGF-1 gene is also thought to have an effect on aging, too.

Which might help to explain why small dogs generally live longer than
large ones.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Left-wing blogs get punked! Maroons.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007246.htm
Top Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html
So long! Ta-ta! Somewhere Winston's weeping.
http://www.farsnews.com/plarg.php?nn=M234959.jpg
More "crazy ****":
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001412.html
Secretary of State Nancy Pelosi’s Muddle Diplomacy:
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1731
Washington Post Slams Pelosi - A "Shadow Presidency" (to be filed in the "Be careful what you wish for" category)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...residency&only
Another conspiracy theory for Sandman and Mel Shore to believe in!
http://maddox.xmission.com/
Way to go, Madame Speaker! Olmert denies peace message to Assad!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Your United Nations at work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEw0lZ3k_Y&eurl=
Gore's Global Warming Religion:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19927
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature':
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm
Liberal eco-preeners: Do as we say, not as we do!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...599714,00.html
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science...-012154-7403r/
Scientists threatened with death for 'climate denial'!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen211.xml
The Great Global Warming Swindle - the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467

"FurPaw" wrote


Scientists have just discovered which gene fragment controls the size of
dogs, the mammal with the greatest range in size: no other species
produces adults with 100-fold differences, like that between a 2-pound
Chihuahua and a 200-pound Newfoundland.

Oh, goodie. Does this mean we can now have 200-pound Chihuahuas?

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:16:58 -0600, FurPaw
wrote:

Difference Between Mutts and Jeffs? A Gene
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: April 6, 2007

quote
Scientists have just discovered which gene fragment controls the
size of dogs, the mammal with the greatest range in size: no
other species produces adults with 100-fold differences, like
that between a 2-pound Chihuahua and a 200-pound Newfoundland.

In a study to be published today in the journal Science,
researchers analyzed 3,241 purebreds from 143 breeds.
Genetically, the yapper arguing with your ankle is almost
identical to the drooling behemoth bred to hunt bears, except for
a tiny bit of DNA — universally present in small breeds and
largely absent in big ones — that suppresses the “insulin-like
growth factor 1” gene.
/quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/sc...ml?ref=science

"Dog owners have unwittingly been selecting for it since the last ice
age. Dogs emerged from the wolf about 15,000 years ago, and as far
back as 10,000 years ago domesticated dogs as big as mastiffs and as
small as Jack Russells were trotting the earth."

But unwittingly?

I'm not so sure that's the right word to use here.

It's not the word I would have chosen, but I think that the
author means that breeders haven't known that they are selecting
for this particular gene fragment.

Breeders have long known that they were selecting for genes that
regulated size, color, etc.

Yes, at least after Mendel proposed the gene theory in the late
1800s, and others later related it to chromosomes. For a few
thousand years before that, they just bred dogs that had the
characteristics that they wanted, and didn't breed dogs that had
undesirable characteristics.

It's what selective breeding is all about.

One gets what one *selects* for.

Often, depending on whether the gene is dominant or recessive and
how it is expressed or interacts with the prenatal and
postnatal environment. And one sometimes gets other undesired or
unexpected characteristics that go along with what is selected for.

Size is a selection.

So is hip dysplasia, which is more likely to appear in large,
fast-growing breeds of dogs.

Juvenilization of adults (behavior and morphological) emerged in
the fox farm experiment, when foxes were bred for friendliness
and ease of handling by humans.
http://www.americanscientist.org/tem.../assetid/15642

BYW, the IGF-1 gene is also thought to have an effect on aging, too.

Which might help to explain why small dogs generally live longer than
large ones.

That's an interesting hypothesis.

FurPaw
--
My family values don't involve depleted uranium.

To reply, unleash the dog.

Opinicus wrote:
"FurPaw" wrote


Scientists have just discovered which gene fragment controls the size of
dogs, the mammal with the greatest range in size: no other species
produces adults with 100-fold differences, like that between a 2-pound
Chihuahua and a 200-pound Newfoundland.

Oh, goodie. Does this mean we can now have 200-pound Chihuahuas?

Or 3-lb Great Danes?

FurPaw


--
My family values don't involve depleted uranium.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:46:40 -0600, FurPaw
wrote:

[...]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/sc...ml?ref=science

"Dog owners have unwittingly been selecting for it since the last ice
age. Dogs emerged from the wolf about 15,000 years ago, and as far
back as 10,000 years ago domesticated dogs as big as mastiffs and as
small as Jack Russells were trotting the earth."

But unwittingly?

I'm not so sure that's the right word to use here.

It's not the word I would have chosen, but I think that the
author means that breeders haven't known that they are selecting
for this particular gene fragment.

Breeders have long known that they were selecting for genes that
regulated size, color, etc.

Yes, at least after Mendel proposed the gene theory in the late
1800s, and others later related it to chromosomes. For a few
thousand years before that, they just bred dogs that had the
characteristics that they wanted, and didn't breed dogs that had
undesirable characteristics.

And to the same results. They didn't know that genes (per se) were
involved, but they knew that "something" they were selecting for was
being passed along.

It's what selective breeding is all about.

One gets what one *selects* for.

Often, depending on whether the gene is dominant or recessive and
how it is expressed or interacts with the prenatal and
postnatal environment. And one sometimes gets other undesired or
unexpected characteristics that go along with what is selected for.

I didn't mean to suggest that one gets only what one selects for, only
that one gets what one selects for.

Size is a selection.

So is hip dysplasia, which is more likely to appear in large,
fast-growing breeds of dogs.

Yep, lots of "bad" things can come along with the "good" ones.

Juvenilization of adults (behavior and morphological) emerged in
the fox farm experiment, when foxes were bred for friendliness
and ease of handling by humans.
http://www.americanscientist.org/tem.../assetid/15642

Yep, same principle.

BYW, the IGF-1 gene is also thought to have an effect on aging, too.

Which might help to explain why small dogs generally live longer than
large ones.

That's an interesting hypothesis.

Yep.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

Left-wing blogs get punked! Maroons.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007246.htm
Top Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html
So long! Ta-ta! Somewhere Winston's weeping.
http://www.farsnews.com/plarg.php?nn=M234959.jpg
More "crazy ****":
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001412.html
Secretary of State Nancy Pelosi’s Muddle Diplomacy:
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1731
Washington Post Slams Pelosi - A "Shadow Presidency" (to be filed in the "Be careful what you wish for" category)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...residency&only
Another conspiracy theory for Sandman and Mel Shore to believe in!
http://maddox.xmission.com/
Way to go, Madame Speaker! Olmert denies peace message to Assad!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Your United Nations at work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEw0lZ3k_Y&eurl=
Gore's Global Warming Religion:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19927
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature':
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm
Liberal eco-preeners: Do as we say, not as we do!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...599714,00.html
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science...-012154-7403r/
Scientists threatened with death for 'climate denial'!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen211.xml
The Great Global Warming Swindle - the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...35300469846467

"FurPaw" wrote

Oh, goodie. Does this mean we can now have 200-pound Chihuahuas?
Or 3-lb Great Danes?

A 3-lb Marmaduke I could live with. Love even. But a 200-lb Ren? I don't
think the Universe is ready for that.

--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com

In article ,
Opinicus wrote:
Oh, goodie. Does this mean we can now have 200-pound Chihuahuas?

Based on what I've been seeing at the vet's office I think
we're getting there (although it's not actually bone
structure that's making the difference).
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
Opinicus wrote:
Oh, goodie. Does this mean we can now have 200-pound Chihuahuas?

Based on what I've been seeing at the vet's office I think
we're getting there (although it's not actually bone
structure that's making the difference).

You're seeing a lot of fat chihuahuas?

If Chile had her way, she'd weigh about 15 lb. At 7.2 lb, she's
a little on the thin side - large boned for a chi, mom and dad
weighed 6 and 5 lb., and we probably fed her too many vitamins as
she was growing up.

FurPaw

--
My family values don't involve depleted uranium.

To reply, unleash the dog.

In article ,
FurPaw wrote:
You're seeing a lot of fat chihuahuas?

I'm seeing a lot of fat everything. There was a grossly
obese elderly Lab down there a few weeks ago, who was
obviously moving very badly. The owner was picking up
Rimadyl. I'm never sure what owners are thinking. I do
know a lot of people with fat dogs don't think of their dogs
as fat, and that includes toy dogs.

If Chile had her way, she'd weigh about 15 lb. At 7.2 lb, she's
a little on the thin side - large boned for a chi, mom and dad
weighed 6 and 5 lb., and we probably fed her too many vitamins as
she was growing up.

All the more reason to keep her at a good weight, I'd guess.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community