The Ins and Outs of Pedigree Analysis, Genetic
Diversity, and Genetic Disease Control
by Jerold S. Bell, D.V.M.
(This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared
in the American Kennel Club Gazette in September 1992 entitled, “Getting What
You Want From Your Breeding Program.” It
is reprinted with the permission of Dr. Bell.)
IT’S ALL IN THE
GENES
As dog
breeders, we engage in genetic "experiments" each time we plan a
mating. The type of mating selected
should coincide with your goals. To some breeders, determining which traits
will appear in the offspring of a mating is like rolling the dice ‑ a
combination of luck and chance. For
others, producing certain traits involves more skill than luck ‑ the
result of careful study and planning. As
breeders, we must understand how we manipulate genes within our breeding stock
to produce the kinds of dogs we want. We
have to first understand dogs as a species, then dogs as genetic individuals.
The species, Canis familiaris, includes all
breeds of the domestic dog. Although we can argue that there is little
similarity between a
When evaluating
your breeding program, remember that most traits you're seeking cannot be
changed, fixed or created in a single generation. The more information you can obtain on how
certain traits have been transmitted by your dog's ancestors, the better you
can prioritize your breeding goals. Tens
of thousands of genes interact to produce a single dog. All genes are inherited in pairs, one pair
from the father and one from the mother.
If the pair of inherited genes from both parents is identical, the pair
is called homozygous. If the genes in
the pair are not alike, the pair is called heterozygous. Fortunately, the gene pairs that make a dog a
dog and not a cat are always homozygous.
Similarly, the gene pairs that make a certain breed always breed true
are also homozygous. . Therefore, a large proportion of homozygous non-variable
pairs - those that give a breed its specific standard - exist within each
breed. It is the variable gene pairs, like those that control color, size and angulation, which produce variations within a breed.
BREEDING BY
PEDIGREE
Outbreeding
brings together two dogs less related than the average for the breed. This promotes more heterozygosity, and gene
diversity within each dog by matching pairs of unrelated genes from different
ancestors. Outbreeding
can also mask the expression of recessive genes, and allow their propagation in
the carrier state.
Most outbreeding
tends to produce more variation within a litter. An exception would be if the parents are so
dissimilar that they create a uniformity of heterozygosity. This is what usually occurs in a mismating between two breeds. The resultant litter tends to be uniform, but
demonstrates "half‑way points" between the dissimilar traits of
the parents. Such litters may be phenotypically uniform, but will rarely breed true due to
the mix of dissimilar genes.
A reason to
outbreed would be to bring in new traits that your breeding stock does not
possess. While the parents may be genetically dissimilar, you should choose a
mate that corrects your dog's faults but phenotypically
complements your dog's good traits.
It is not
unusual to produce an excellent quality dog from an outbred
litter. The abundance of genetic
variability can place all the right pieces in one individual. Many top‑winning show dogs are outbred. Consequently,
however, they may have low inbreeding coefficients and may lack the ability to
uniformly pass on their good traits to their offspring. After an outbreeding,
breeders may want to breed back to dogs related to their original stock, to
increase homozygosity and attempt to solidify newly
acquired traits.
Linebreeding attempts to concentrate the
genes of a specific ancestor or ancestors through their appearance multiple
times in a pedigree. The ancestor should
appear behind more than one offspring.
If an ancestor always appears behind the same offspring, you are only linebreeding on the approximately 50 percent of the genes
passed to the offspring and not the ancestor itself.
It is better for linebred
ancestors to appear on both the sire's and the dam's sides of the pedigree.
That way their genes have a better chance of pairing back up in the resultant
pups. Genes from common ancestors have a
greater chance of expression when paired with each other than when paired with
genes from other individuals, which may mask or alter their effects.
A linebreeding may produce a puppy with magnificent
qualities, but if those qualities are not present in any of the ancestors the
pup has been linebred on, it may not breed true. Therefore, careful selection of mates is
important, but careful selection of puppies from the resultant litter is also
important to fulfill your genetic goals.
Without this, you are reducing your chances of concentrating the genes
of the linebred ancestor.
Increasing an
individual's homozygosity through linebreeding
may not, however, reproduce an outbred ancestor. If an ancestor is outbred
and generally heterozygous (Aa),
increasing homozygosity will produce more AA and aa. The way to reproduce an outbred
ancestor is to mate two individuals that mimic the appearance and pedigree of
the ancestor's parents.
Inbreeding
significantly increases homozygosity, and therefore
uniformity in litters. Inbreeding can
increase the expression of both beneficial and detrimental recessive genes
through pairing up. If a recessive gene
(a) is rare in the population, it will almost always be masked by a dominant
gene (A). Through inbreeding, a rare
recessive gene (a) can be passed from a heterozygous (Aa) common ancestor through both the sire and dam, creating
a homozygous recessive (aa) offspring. Inbreeding
does not create undesirable genes, it simply increases
the expression of those that are already present in a heterozygous state.
Inbreeding can
exacerbate a tendency toward disorders controlled by multiple genes, such as
hip dysplasia and congenital heart anomalies. Unless you have prior knowledge of what
milder linebreedings on the common ancestors have
produced, inbreeding may expose your puppies (and puppy buyers) to
extraordinary risk of genetic defects.
Research has shown that inbreeding depression, or diminished health and
viability through inbreeding is directly related to the amount of detrimental
recessive genes present. Some lines
thrive with inbreeding, and some do not.
PEDIGREE ANALYSIS
Geneticists'
and breeders' definitions of inbreeding vary. A geneticist views inbreeding as
a measurable number that goes up whenever there is a common ancestor between
the sire's and dam's sides of the pedigree; a breeder considers inbreeding to
be close inbreeding, such as father‑to‑daughter or brother‑to‑sister
matings. A common ancestor, even in the eighth
generation, will increase the measurable amount of inbreeding in the pedigree.
The inbreeding coefficient (or Wright’s
coefficient) is an estimate of the percentage of all the variable gene pairs
that are homozygous due to inheritance from common ancestors. It is also the average chance that any single
gene pair is homozygous due to inheritance from a common ancestor. In order to determine whether a particular
mating is an outbreeding or inbreeding relative to
your breed, you must determine the breed's average inbreeding coefficient. The average inbreeding coefficient of a breed
will vary depending on the breed's popularity or the age of its breeding
population. A mating with an inbreeding
coefficient of 14 percent based on a ten generation pedigree, would be
considered moderate inbreeding for a Labrador Retriever (a popular breed with a
low average inbreeding coefficient), but would be considered outbred for an Irish Water Spaniel (a rare breed with a
higher average inbreeding coefficient).
For the
calculated inbreeding coefficient of a pedigree to be accurate, it must be
based on several generations. Inbreeding
in the fifth and later generations (background inbreeding) often has a profound
effect on the genetic makeup of the offspring represented by the pedigree. In studies conducted on dog breeds, the
difference in inbreeding coefficients based on four versus eight generation
pedigrees varied immensely. A four
generation pedigree containing 28 unique ancestors for 30 positions in the
pedigree could generate a low inbreeding coefficient, while eight generations
of the same pedigree, which contained 212 unique ancestors out of 510 possible
positions, had a considerably higher inbreeding coefficient. What seemed like an outbred
mix of genes in a couple of generations, appeared as a linebred
concentration of genes from influential ancestors in extended generations.
The process of
calculating coefficients is too complex to present here. Several books that include how to compute
coefficients are indicated at the end of this article; some computerized canine
pedigree programs also compute coefficients.
The analyses in this article were performed using CompuPed,
by RCI Software.
Pedigree of Gordon Setter Laurel Hill Braxfield Bilye
( a spayed female owned by Dr.
Jerold and Mrs. Candice Bell, and co-bred by Mary Poos
and Laura Bedford.)
|
Dual
CH CH Sutherland MacDuff
| CH Sutherland Dunnideer Waltz CH
Sutherland Gallant | | CH Afternod
Kyle of Sutherland | CH Sutherland Pavane | CH Sutherland CH Loch Adair
Foxfire | | Afternod Fidemac | |
CH | |
| CH Wee Laurie
Adair | CH
Sutherland Lass of Shambray | | CH Afternod Callant | CH Afternod
Karma | CH
Afternod Amber CH Braxfield
Andrew of | | Afternod Fidemac | | Am.Cn.CH Afternod
Scot of Blackbay, CD | | | CH Afternod
Alder | |
Am.Cn.CH Forecast Trade Winds, CD | |
| | Bud O'Field
Brookview | |
| CH Oak | |
|
Borderland Taupie | CH Afternod
Ember VI, CD | | CH Afternod Simon | | Afternod
Profile of | | | CH Afternod
Heiress of | CH Afternod
Ember V | | CH Afternod Callant | CH Afternod
Maud MacKenzie | CH
Afternod Amber | CH Afternod Callant | Dual CH | | | CH Sutherland
MacDuff | | | CH Afternod
Anagram | | CH Sutherland Dunnideer
Waltz | | CH Hi‑Laway's Calopin | CH Kendelee Pendragon | |
| CH Afternod Callant | |
| CH Wee Jock Adair, CD | |
| | | |
CH Afternod Nighean
Kendelee | | | CH Afternod
Simon | | CH Afternod
Wendee | | Afternod CH Halcyon Belle‑Amie | Dual CH | CH Sutherland
MacDuff | | CH Sutherland Dunnideer Waltz | CH Sutherland
Gallant | |
| CH Afternod Kyle of Sutherland | |
CH Sutherland Pavane | | CH Sutherland CH Loch Adair
Firefly, WD | Afternod Fidemac | CH Loch Adair Peer of Sutherland, CD | | CH Wee Laurie Adair CH
Sutherland Lass of Shambray
| CH Afternod Callant
CH Afternod Karma CH Afternod Amber |
To visualize some of these concepts, please refer to the above
pedigree. Linebred ancestors in this pedigree are in
color, to help visualize their contribution.
The paternal grandsire, CH Loch Adair Foxfire, and the maternal grandam, CH Loch Adair Firefly WD, are full siblings, making
this a first‑cousin mating. The
inbreeding coefficient for a first cousin mating is 6.25%, which is considered
a mild level of inbreeding. Lists of
inbreeding coefficients based on different types of matings
are shown in the accompanying table.
In Bilye’s pedigree, an inbreeding
coefficient based on four generations computes to 7.81%. This is not
significantly different from the estimate based on the first‑cousin
mating alone. Inbreeding coefficients
based on increasing numbers of generations are as follows: five generations,
13.34%; six generations, 18.19%; seven generations, 22.78%; eight generations,
24.01%; ten generations, 28.63%; and twelve generations, 30.81%. The inbreeding coefficient of 30.81 percent
is more than what you would find in a parent‑to‑offspring mating
(25%). As you can see, the background inbreeding has far more influence on the
total inbreeding coefficient than the first‑cousin mating, which only appears to be its strongest influence.
Knowledge of the degree of inbreeding in a pedigree does not
necessarily help you unless you know whose genes are being concentrated. The
percent blood coefficient measures the relatedness between an ancestor and the
individual represented by the pedigree.
It estimates the probable percentage of genes passed down from a common
ancestor. We know that a parent passes
on an average of 50% of its genes, while a grandparent passes on 25%, a great‑grandparent
12.5%, and so on. For every time the
ancestor appears in the pedigree, its percentage of passed‑on genes can
be added up and its "percentage of blood" estimated.
In many breeds, an influential
individual may not appear until later generations, but then will appear so many
times that it necessarily contributes a large proportion of genes to the
pedigree.
This can occur in breeds, due either prolific ancestors (usually stud
dogs), or a small population of dogs originating the breed. Based on a twenty-five generation pedigree of
Bilye, there are only 852 unique ancestors who appear
a total of over twenty-million times.
Pedigree
Analysis of Laurel Hill Braxfield Bilye
(computed to 25 generations)
|
1st
Generation Linebred Ancestors |
Percentage
of Blood |
Of
Appearance in Pedigree |
Number
Times in Pedigree |
|
CH Afternod Drambuie |
33.20% |
6 |
33 |
|
CH Afternod Sue |
27.05% |
7 |
61 |
|
CH Afternod Callant |
26.56% |
5 |
13 |
|
Grand-Parents |
25.00% |
2 |
1 |
|
CH
Sutherland Gallant |
25.00% |
3 |
2 |
|
CH
Sutherland MacDuff |
25.00% |
3 |
3 |
|
CH
Sutherland Lass of Shambray |
25.00% |
3 |
2 |
|
CH
Wilson's Corrie, C.D. |
22.30% |
7 |
200 |
|
CH Afternod Buchanon |
20.22% |
7 |
48 |
|
|
17.97% |
5 |
12 |
|
CH EEGs |
17.76% |
8 |
181 |
|
Afternod Ember of Gordon Hill |
17.14% |
8 |
76 |
|
CH Afternod |
16.21% |
6 |
27 |
|
CH
Black Rogue of Serlway |
15.72% |
9 |
480 |
|
CH Afternod Woodbine |
14.45% |
6 |
15 |
|
CH Fasts Falcon of Windy Hill |
13.82% |
8 |
66 |
|
Afternod Fidemac |
13.67% |
5 |
7 |
|
CH
Page's MacDonegal II |
13.43% |
7 |
56 |
|
Afternod Hedera |
13.38% |
7 |
56 |
|
CH
Downside Bonnie of Serlway |
12.90% |
10 |
708 |
|
Peter
of Crombie |
12.76% |
11 |
3,887 |
|
Great-Grand-Parents |
12.50% |
3 |
1 |
|
CH Afternod Amber |
12.50% |
5 |
5 |
|
Ben of Crombie |
11.83% |
11 |
7,584 |
|
Stylish
William |
11.18% |
13 |
23,764 |
|
Stylish
Billie |
11.08% |
14 |
70,542 |
|
Stylish
Ranger |
10.80% |
15 |
297,331 |
|
CH Afternod Kate |
10.74% |
6 |
17 |
|
Heather
Grouse |
10.61% |
16 |
1,129,656 |
|
Afternod Hedemac |
10.45% |
7 |
28 |
The above analysis shows the ancestral contribution of the linebred ancestors in Bilye’s
pedigree. Those dogs in color were
present in the five-generation pedigree.
CH Afternod Drambuie
has the highest genetic contribution of all of the linebred
ancestors. He appears 33 times between
the sixth and eighth generations. One
appearance in the sixth generation contributes 1.56% of the genes to the
pedigree. His total contribution is
33.2% of Bilye’s genes, second only to the
parents. Therefore, in this pedigree, the most influential ancestor doesn't even
appear in the five-generation pedigree. His
dam, CH Afternod Sue, appears 61 times between the
seventh and tenth generations, and contributes more genes to the pedigree than
a grandparent.
Foundation dogs that formed the Gordon Setter
breed also play a great role in the genetic makeup of today’s dogs. Heather Grouse appears over one million times
between the sixteenth and twenty-fifth generations, and almost doubles those
appearances beyond the twenty-fifth generation.
He contributes over ten percent of the genes to Bilye’s
pedigree. This example shows that the
depth of the pedigree is very important in estimating the genetic makeup of an
individual. Any detrimental recessive
genes carried by Heather Grouse or other founding dogs, would be expected to be
widespread in the breed.
BREEDING BY APPEARANCE
Many breeders plan matings solely on the
appearance of a dog and not on its pedigree or the relatedness of the
prospective parents. This is called assortative mating. Breeders use positive assortative
matings (like‑to‑like) to solidify
traits, and negative assortative matings
(like‑to‑unlike) when they wish to correct traits or bring in
traits their breeding stock may lack.
Some individuals may share desirable characteristics, but they
inherit them differently. This is
especially true of polygenic traits, such as ear set, bite, or length of
forearm. Breeding two phenotypically similar but genotypically
unrelated dogs together would not necessarily reproduce these traits. Conversely, each individual with the same
pedigree will not necessarily look or breed alike.
Breedings should not
be planned solely on the basis of the pedigree or appearance alone. Matings should be
based on a combination of appearance and ancestry. If you are trying to solidify a certain trait
‑ like topline ‑ and it is one you can
observe in the parents and the linebred ancestors of two
related dogs, then you can be more confident that you will attain your goal.
GENETIC DIVERSITY
Some breed clubs advocate codes of ethics that discourage linebreeding or inbreeding, as an attempt to increase breed
genetic diversity. The types of matings
utilized do not cause the loss of genes from a breed gene pool. It occurs through selection; the use and
non-use of offspring. If some breeders linebreed to certain dogs that they favor, and others linebreed to other dogs that they favor, then
breed-wide genetic diversity is maintained.
In a theoretical mating with four offspring, we are dealing with
four gene pairs. The sire is homozygous
at 50% of his gene pairs (two out of four), while the dam is homozygous at 75%
of her gene pairs. It is reasonable to
assume that she is more inbred than the sire.
A basic tenet
of population genetics is that gene frequencies do not change from the parental
generation to the offspring. This will
occur regardless of the homozygosity or heterozygosity of the parents, or whether the mating is an outbreeding, linebreeding, or
inbreeding. This is the nature of
genetic recombination.
There is a lack of gene diversity at the first (olive) gene pair,
so that only one type of gene combination can be produced: homozygous
olive. As the sire is homozygous lime at
the third gene pair, and the dam is homozygous blue, all offspring will be
heterozygous at the third gene pair.
Depending on the dominant or recessive nature of the blue or lime genes,
all offspring will appear the same for this trait due to a uniformity of heterozygosity.
If offspring D is used as a prolific breeder,
and none of the other offspring are bred to a great extent, gene frequencies in
the breed will change. As dog D lacks
the orange gene in the second pair and the purple gene in the fourth pair, the
frequencies of these genes will diminish in the breed. They will be replaced by higher frequencies
of the red and pink genes. This shifts
the gene pool, and the breed’s genetic diversity. Of course, dogs have more than four gene
pairs, and the overuse of dog D to the exception of others can affect the gene
frequency of thousands of genes. Again,
it is selection (for example of dog D to the exception of others), and not the
types of matings he is involved in that alters gene
frequencies.
Breeders should select the best individuals from all kennel lines,
so as to not create new genetic bottlenecks.
There is a tendency for many breeders to breed to a male; who produced
no epileptics in matings to several epileptic dams,
to an OFA excellent stud, or to the top winning dog in the show ring. Regardless of the popularity of the breed, if
everyone is breeding to a single studdog, (the popular sire syndrome) the gene pool
will drift in that dog’s direction and there will be a loss of genetic
diversity. Too much breeding to one dog
will give the gene pool an extraordinary dose of his genes, and also whatever
detrimental recessives he may carry, to be uncovered in later generations. This can cause future breed related genetic
disease through the founders effect.
Dogs who are poor examples of the breed
should not be used simply to maintain diversity. Related dogs with desirable qualities will
maintain diversity, and improve the breed.
Breeders should concentrate on selecting toward a breed standard, based
on the ideal temperament, performance, and conformation, and should select
against the significant breed related health issues. Using progeny and sib-based information to
select against both polygenic disorders and those without a known mode of
inheritance will allow greater control.
Rare breeds with small gene pools have concerns about genetic
diversity. What constitutes acceptable diversity versus too restricted
diversity? The problems with genetic diversity
in purebred populations concern the fixing of deleterious recessive genes,
which when homozygous cause impaired health.
Lethal recessives place a drain on the gene pool either prenatally, or before reproductive age. They can manifest themselves through smaller
litter size, or neonatal death. Other
deleterious recessives cause disease, while not affecting reproduction.
Problems with a lack of genetic diversity arise at the gene locus
level. There is no specific level or
percentage of inbreeding that causes impaired health or vigor. It has been shown that some inbred strains of
animals thrive generation after generation, while others fail to thrive. If there is no diversity (non-variable gene
pairs for a breed) but the homozygote is not detrimental, there is no effect on
breed health. The characteristics that
make a breed reproduce true to its standard are based on non-variable gene
pairs. A genetic health problem arises
for a breed when a detrimental allele increases in frequency and homozygosity.
GENETIC CONSERVATION
The perceived problem of a limited gene pool has caused some breeds
to advocate outbreeding of all dogs. Studies in genetic conservation and rare
breeds have shown that this practice actually contributes to the loss of genetic
diversity. By uniformly crossing all
“lines” in a breed, you eliminate the differences between them, and therefore
the diversity between individuals. This
practice in livestock breeding has significantly reduced diversity, and caused
the loss of unique rare breeds. The
process of maintaining healthy “lines” or families of dogs, with many breeders
crossing between lines and breeding back as they see fit maintains diversity in
the gene pool. It is the varied opinion
of breeders as to what constitutes the ideal dog, and their selection of
breeding stock that maintains breed diversity.
The Doberman Pincher breed is large, and genetically diverse. The breed has a problem with von Willibrand’s disease, an autosomal
recessive bleeding disorder. Based on genetic
testing, the frequency of the defective gene is 52.5% (23% normal, 49% carriers
and 28% affected). Therefore, there is
diminished genetic diversity in this breed at the von Willibrand’s
locus. Doberman Pincher breeders can
identify carrier and affected dogs, and decrease the defective gene frequency
through selection of normal-testing offspring for breeding. By not just eliminating carriers, but
replacing them with normal-testing offspring, genetic diversity will be
conserved.
Dalmatians have a defective autosomal
recessive purine metabolism gene that can cause urate bladder stones and crystals, and/or a skin disorder
called Dalmatian Bronzing Syndrome. It
is believed that all Dalmatians are homozygous recessive for the defective
gene. At one time, the breed and the AKC
approved a crossbreeding program to a few Pointers, to bring normal-purine metabolism genes into the gene pool. The program was abandoned by the National
club for several reasons including; concern about the impact of other Pointer
genes foreign to the Dalmatian gene pool, and unacceptable spotting patterns in
the crossbreds. The crossbreeding
program still exists, and greater than ten generations from pure pointer
influence is producing properly spotted, normal-purine
Dalmatians. If the breed ever allows
these dogs into the gene pool, they will have to be concerned about popular
sire effects and limited diversity from using the normal-purine
dogs too extensively.
The
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Decisions to linebreed, inbreed or
outbreed should be made based on the knowledge of an individual dog's traits
and those of its ancestors. Inbreeding
will quickly identify the good and bad recessive genes the parents share in the
offspring. Unless you have prior
knowledge of what the pups of milder linebreedings on
the common ancestors were like, you may be exposing your puppies (and puppy
buyers) to extraordinary risk of genetic defects. In your matings,
the inbreeding coefficient should only increase because you are specifically linebreeding (increasing the percentage of blood) to
selected ancestors.
Don't set too many goals in each generation, or your selective
pressure for each goal will necessarily become weaker. Genetically complex or dominant traits should
be addressed early in a long‑range breeding plan, as they may take
several generations to fix. Traits with major dominant genes become fixed more
slowly, as the heterozygous (Aa)
individuals in a breed will not be readily differentiated from the homozygous‑dominant
(AA) individuals. Desirable recessive
traits can be fixed in one generation because individuals that show such
characteristics are homozygous for the recessive genes. Dogs that breed true
for numerous matings and generations should be
preferentially selected for breeding stock. This prepotency is due to homozygosity of dominant (AA) and recessive (aa) genes.
If you linebreed and are not happy with
what you have produced, breeding to a less related line immediately creates an outbred line and brings in new traits. Repeated
outbreeding to attempt to dilute detrimental
recessive genes is not a desirable method of genetic disease control. Recessive genes cannot be diluted; they are
either present or not. Outbreeding carriers multiples and further spreads the
defective gene(s) in the gene pool. If a
dog is a known carrier or has high carrier risk through pedigree analysis, it
can be retired from breeding, and replaced with one or two quality
offspring. Those offspring should be
bred, and replaced with quality offspring of their own, with the hope of losing
the defective gene.
Trying to develop your breeding
program scientifically can be an arduous, but rewarding, endeavor. By taking
the time to understand the types of breeding schemes available, you can
concentrate on your goals towards producing a better dog.
* * *
About Dr. Jerold Bell
Dr. Bell is director of the Clinical Veterinary Genetics Course for
the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine and national project
administrator for numerous genetic disease control programs of pure-bred
dogs. He performs genetic counseling
through Veterinary Genetic Counseling and practices small animal medicine in
Further
If you are interested in learning more about these subjects,
consult the following books:
Abnormalities of Companion Animals: Analysis of Heritability. C.W.
Foley, J.F. Lasley, and G.D. Osweiler,
Genetics for Dog Breeders.
F.B. Hutt, W.H. Freeman Co,
Genetics for Dog Breeders. R. Robinson, Pergamon Press,
Genetics of the Dog. (equally applicable to cats & other
animals) M.B. Willis,
Howell Book House,
Veterinary Genetics. F. W. Nicholas, Clarendon Press,