Cited by 540Human-Animal Interaction StudiesGenetic diversity and population structureForensic and Genetic Research

Rethinking Dog Domestication by Integrating Genetics, Archeology, and Biogeography

Open access
Larson, Greger, Karlsson, Elinor K., Perri, Angela, Webster, Matthew T., Ho, Simon Y. W., Peters, Joris, Stahl, Peter W., Piper, Philip J. +12 more·2012·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The dog was the first domesticated animal but it remains uncertain when the domestication process began and whether it occurred just once or multiple times across the Northern Hemisphere. To ascertain the value of modern genetic data to elucidate the origins of dog domestication, we analyzed 49,024 autosomal SNPs in 1,375 dogs (representing 35 breeds) and 19 wolves. After combining our data with previously published data, we contrasted the genetic signatures of 121 breeds with a worldwide archeological assessment of the earliest dog remains. Correlating the earliest archeological dogs with the geographic locations of 14 so-called “ancient” breeds (defined by their genetic differentiation) resulted in a counterintuitive pattern. First, none of the ancient breeds derive from regions where the oldest archeological remains have been found. Second, three of the ancient breeds (Basenjis, Dingoes, and New Guinea Singing Dogs) come from regions outside the natural range of Canis lupus (the dog’s wild ancestor) and where dogs were introduced more than 10,000 y after domestication. These results demonstrate that the unifying characteristic among all genetically distinct so-called ancient breeds is a lack of recent admixture with other breeds likely facilitated by geographic and cultural isolation. Furthermore, these genetically distinct ancient breeds only appear so because of their relative isolation, suggesting that studies of modern breeds have yet to shed light on dog origins. We conclude by assessing the limitations of past studies and how next-generation sequencing of modern and ancient individuals may unravel the history of dog domestication.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1203005109

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dogs were domesticated from grey wolves at least 15 000-50 000 years ago, through both natural and artificial selection.

    “Dogs were domesticated from grey wolves at least 15 000–50 000 years ago, through both natural and artificial selection [16,17].”

    From Are dark-eyed dogs favoured by humans? Domestication as a potential driver of iris colour difference between dogs and wolves (2023) · cites this paper as [17]

    The introduction (p. 1) says dogs descend from gray wolves, and the Conclusion (p. 5) says clear signs of domestication were visible 15,000 years ago. The paper does not establish a 15,000–50,000-year domestication range. Its introduction describes the likely initial pathway as neither deliberate nor directed, rather than attributing that process to both natural and artificial selection. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wolves inhabit the Northern Hemisphere of Eurasia and North America, whereas domestic dogs expanded to all continents except Antarctica.

    “Wolves inhabit the Northern Hemisphere of Eurasia and North America, whereas domestic dogs expanded to all continents, except Antarctica [17].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Lawrence B (1968) Antiquity of large dogs in North America. Tebiwa. The Journal the Idaho State University Museum 11(2):43 -48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larson, G., Karlsson, E. K., Perri, A., Webster, M. T., Ho, S. Y. W., Peters, J., Stahl, P. W., Piper, P. J., Lingaas, F., Fredholm, M., Comstock, K. E., Modiano, J. F., Schelling, C., Agoulnik, A. I., Leegwater, P. A., Dobney, K., Vigne, J.-D., Vilà, C., Andersson, L., & Lindblad-Toh, K.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Department of Basic Sciences and Aquatic Medicine, Division of Genetics, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, 0033 Oslo, Norway;
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Michigan–Dearborn (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Estación Biológica de Doñana (ES)
  • Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge MA 02142;
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2012-05-21
Volume
109
Issue
23
Pages
8878-8883
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2031395929
Cited by
540
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 7
FWCI
20.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • British Association for Japanese Studies
  • European Science Foundation
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/F003382/2, NE/F003382/1, NE/H005552/1, NE/H005269/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
Keywords
dog domestication, dog origin, Basenji, dingo, wolf, genetic admixture, biogeography, autosomal SNPs, dog breeds
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Domestic, Archaeology, Demography, Dogs, Species Specificity, Genetic Variation, Cluster Analysis, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Phylogeography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review