Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dog News and Articles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-08-2006, 08:54 PM
Boxer*Mom's Avatar
Boxer*Mom Boxer*Mom is offline
It wasn't me
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Georgia, U.S.
Posts: 1,740
Default Boxer is first dog to have full genome revealed

Link to below info. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8430

Very Interesting. What do y'all think?

Quote:
* 18:00 07 December 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Rowan Hooper


A female boxer dog has provided the DNA for the first complete sequence of the dog genome, putting into the doghouse the patchy, 80% coverage of a poodle called Shadow, published two years ago.

A publicly funded consortium led by Kerstin Lindblad-Toh of the Broad Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, used the shotgun sequencing technique to map the genome of Tasha, an inbred boxer. With this technique the genome is first broken into fragments and the DNA sequence of each determined. Then a computer stitches the fragments back together.

The process must be repeated several times to ensure accuracy, and the new draft is the product of 7.5 repetitions. The genome of Shadow, the poodle owned by gene-entrepreneur Craig Venter, had only 1.5 times coverage. The boxer was chosen as it is highly inbred. That means the difference between its paired chromosomes are smaller, making sequencing easier.

Domestic dogs vary wildly in appearance, yet their genomes are 99.85% similar. The boxer and the poodle, for example, differ by about a single nucleotide change in every 900 bases. “A dog is a dog in a genomic sense,” says Lindblad-Toh.

Cancer, epilepsy and diabetes

Dogs also have more genes in common with humans than do mice, despite splitting from our common ancestor before mice did. So the more detailed coverage will greatly improve our understanding of the genes underlying appearance and some diseases.

“Dogs and humans share many diseases, including cancer, epilepsy and diabetes,” says co-author Elinor Karlsson, also at the Broad Institute. “By directly comparing the disease genes found in dogs to genes in humans, discoveries made in dogs can benefit human medicine.”

As well as Tasha’s genome, the researchers sequenced smaller parts of the genomes from 10 other dog breeds, such as the German shepherd, beagle and Italian greyhound, as well as closely related species, the grey wolf and the coyote. They catalogued some 2.5 million individual DNA differences between breeds.

The greater than 99% coverage of the 2.4 billion letters of Tasha’s genome has also revealed an important twist in our understanding of how natural selection works on DNA. Much of the non-coding DNA in dogs is the same as that in humans, indicating that it is under strong natural selection.

“Hence, non-coding DNA is not just ‘junk’,” says Hans Ellegren, of the department of evolutionary biology at Uppsala University, Sweden. Instead, he says that such sequences may constitute non-coding RNA or may have a regulatory function.

Journal reference: Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature04338)
This is Tasha
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-09-2006, 08:23 AM
Amstaffer's Avatar
Amstaffer Amstaffer is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milwaukee WI
Posts: 3,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxer*Mom
Dogs also have more genes in common with humans than do mice
I hope this doesn't lead to more dogs be used for animal testing.

Interesting story however.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:17 PM
Boxer*Mom's Avatar
Boxer*Mom Boxer*Mom is offline
It wasn't me
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Georgia, U.S.
Posts: 1,740
Default

Guess it goes along with this thread, http://www.chazhound.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16249
__________________
My website, http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/myboxerandme/

John's website, http://www.colorcrayon.com



change is the only constant in work and life
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-09-2006, 01:25 PM
minismom's Avatar
minismom minismom is offline
Show Dog
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: missouri
Posts: 249
Default

Amstaffer, I just wanted to take this opritunity to tell you that my hubby and I noticed how absolutely gorgeus Saladin is. He has such a distiguished face!!! Athena is beautiful too!
__________________
KAT





TO LOVE AND BE LOVED IS LIFES GREATEST TREASURE
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-09-2006, 09:02 PM
Amstaffer's Avatar
Amstaffer Amstaffer is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milwaukee WI
Posts: 3,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by minismom
Amstaffer, I just wanted to take this opritunity to tell you that my hubby and I noticed how absolutely gorgeus Saladin is. He has such a distiguished face!!! Athena is beautiful too!
Thank you
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2006, 08:07 AM
evenstar7139 evenstar7139 is offline
Big Dog
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 143
Default

WHOA! Too cool. That's neat! I can't wait until we have genetic tests to determine carries of hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, and SAS. That would help my breed heaps! Maping the geneome is defintealy a closer step to this.
__________________
Mean people suck.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2006, 08:12 AM
evenstar7139 evenstar7139 is offline
Big Dog
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amstaffer
I hope this doesn't lead to more dogs be used for animal testing.

Interesting story however.
Animal testing sucks but is a necessary evil in some circumstances (e.g. testing lifesaving drugs) However I am not blind to the fact that some animal testing is just plain bizzare and merely to satasfy the cruel person rendering the test o.0 I don't support unnecessary animal testing but I believe that animals used in necessary tests did not suffer in vain and did a good service to mankind. And for that I think they should be honored, someway somehow.
__________________
Mean people suck.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2006, 09:11 PM
amymarley amymarley is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 719
Default

I always try to find the "other" stance on certain subjects.... Therefore, here goes. I will not (and people who have read my posts in the past, know I won't pull a punch.)

When I moved to Nevada, after my animal shows, I read this "ad" that was working with exotics....husbandry, enrichment etc... that's all it really said.

I HAD to fax my resume in, within hours, I received a call....

I went down there, pressed a button, stated my name and purpose there. I was buzzed in. Mind you, this whole area looks like a really nice warehouses, corporate...

I was hired as a Vet. Tech II, which is just under a vet. Yes, it was a medical testing facility for monkeys.

Now, before everyone gets upset, please keep reading. If any of you know me from my posts, than you will know my background and feelings. Yes, I took the job, which paid a lot of money, 401k, stocks, insurance etc....that was not my concern. My concern, was almost like an undercover reporter... I wanted, needed to see what this was all about.

I am against fur...and cosmetic testing...NO DOUBT! This facility, which was like getting into NASA, was so clean, the people and vets so loving. Basically, they have monkeys to test for toxic medications. To see how much a human can handle. No, they did not let the monkeys die, they were treated so well, had a huge enrichment program and soooo very clean. Unfort. the monkeys are going to live and die there, that is why I couldn't do it forever, but they have found ways to help the monkeys, find ways to test a cancer drug, not hair spray or eye shadow.... Everyone was educated on a reg. basis. Plus, I had to wear bio-medical gear (tons...won't even go into that). These monkeys carry the herpes-B virus which is deadly to every human except maybe 1% (I know a guy and he sells his blood to help find a cure).
I am not the kind of person who can make a career out of that, or become a vet, or a doctor....I can't handle that. I just rescue and train and love.

But, I have to say, if it was not for these animals doing medical testing, we, including animals, would be screwed.

Again, I took the job to get the insight and RIGHT information before I judged.

Even though this is not the exact topic written, I hope everyone takes a moment of silence to "THANK" these precious creatures for unwillingly giving up their lives to help us humans and animals in general.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-25-2006, 09:11 AM
Amstaffer's Avatar
Amstaffer Amstaffer is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milwaukee WI
Posts: 3,276
Default

Well I am not going to be popular with my response but its my opinion so here it goes.....

I feel testing animals in any way that causes them pain is wrong...Period. Why are we soooo arrogant as a species to think that we can torture other animals to make our lives better? I think one day we will look back at this period of history (animal testing) with shame. Animals are innocent and should not be abused. Why are we on some quest to live so long anyway. Why should we torture others just to add a few years to our own. A lot of the testing done isn't even to save lives anyway, it is to test things that support our vanity .

Now this is where you guys will really get mad at me, but it is how I feel..... First, all of our test subjects (animals) are different than humans (dogs geneticlly are much different) so many of the tests done are later found to be worthless and animals are tortured for nothing. If we must test then why not use a subject that would be much closer or even the same?

I was a Corrections officer for 9 years before I finished my degrees, and I knew many inmates who were serving life sentences without possiblity of parole. Several of those I spoke with said they would volunteer for testing in attempt to help repay society, get more privileges, for money to give their families and to beable to have conjugal visits. So we have perfect matches that volunteer for testing.....Why continue to test subjects who don't match us?

If we ran out of volunteers I would also have no problem with testing inmates who have multiple murders and rapist or child molesters. I think they should be put to death anyway so why not use them to save and extend all the lives that the innocent animals are?

Humans could tell you what hurts and would be way better subjects.

Ok...let the flaming begin It sounds radical but if you calmly and logically think about it....It makes sense. If you get over the arrogance of our species and think logically doesn't it make more sense morally and scientifically.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-25-2006, 10:53 AM
Boxerowner's Avatar
Boxerowner Boxerowner is offline
Show Dog
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amstaffer
Well I am not going to be popular with my response but its my opinion so here it goes.....

I feel testing animals in any way that causes them pain is wrong...Period. Why are we soooo arrogant as a species to think that we can torture other animals to make our lives better? I think one day we will look back at this period of history (animal testing) with shame. Animals are innocent and should not be abused. Why are we on some quest to live so long anyway. Why should we torture others just to add a few years to our own. A lot of the testing done isn't even to save lives anyway, it is to test things that support our vanity .

Now this is where you guys will really get mad at me, but it is how I feel..... First, all of our test subjects (animals) are different than humans (dogs geneticlly are much different) so many of the tests done are later found to be worthless and animals are tortured for nothing. If we must test then why not use a subject that would be much closer or even the same?

I was a Corrections officer for 9 years before I finished my degrees, and I knew many inmates who were serving life sentences without possiblity of parole. Several of those I spoke with said they would volunteer for testing in attempt to help repay society, get more privileges, for money to give their families and to beable to have conjugal visits. So we have perfect matches that volunteer for testing.....Why continue to test subjects who don't match us?

If we ran out of volunteers I would also have no problem with testing inmates who have multiple murders and rapist or child molesters. I think they should be put to death anyway so why not use them to save and extend all the lives that the innocent animals are?

Humans could tell you what hurts and would be way better subjects.

Ok...let the flaming begin It sounds radical but if you calmly and logically think about it....It makes sense. If you get over the arrogance of our species and think logically doesn't it make more sense morally and scientifically.


All i have to say is I totally agree with you!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 PM.


©1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site