PreprintCited by 203Human-Animal Interaction StudiesGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic diversity and population structure

Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication

Open access
Björnerfeldt, Susanne, Webster, Matthew T., Vilà, Carles·2006·Genome Research

Abstract

The domestication of dogs caused a dramatic change in their way of life compared with that of their ancestor, the gray wolf. We hypothesize that this new life style changed the selective forces that acted upon the species, which in turn had an effect on the dog's genome. We sequenced the complete mitochondrial DNA genome in 14 dogs, six wolves, and three coyotes. Here we show that dogs have accumulated nonsynonymous changes in mitochondrial genes at a faster rate than wolves, leading to elevated levels of variation in their proteins. This suggests that a major consequence of domestication in dogs was a general relaxation of selective constraint on their mitochondrial genome. If this change also affected other parts of the dog genome, it could have facilitated the generation of novel functional genetic diversity. This diversity could thus have contributed raw material upon which artificial selection has shaped modern breeds and may therefore be an important source of the extreme phenotypic variation present in modern-day dogs.

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 · 10.1101/gr.5117706

Cites

37 of 37 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?

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

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. 2001. Dogs. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Björnerfeldt, S., Webster, M. T., & Vilà, C.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Vilà, Carles
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2006-06-29
Volume
16
Issue
8
Pages
990-994
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097187579
Cited by
203
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet
  • Uppsala Universitet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
dog domestication, mitochondrial DNA, non-synonymous mutations, relaxed selection, gray wolf, coyote, mitochondrial genome evolution, selective breeding, phenotypic variability, genetic diversity
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Domestic, DNA, Mitochondrial, Dogs, Phylogeny, Likelihood Functions

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