Turkish Journal of Biology
Turk J Biol
(2013) 37: 176-183
© TÜBİTAK
doi:10.3906/biy-1203-64
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/biology/
Research Article
Genetic variability among native dog breeds in Turkey
1,
2
3
1
Metin ERDOĞAN *, Cafer TEPELİ , Bertram BRENIG , Mine DOSAY AKBULUT ,
1
4
5
Cevdet UĞUZ , Peter SAVOLAINEN , Ceyhan ÖZBEYAZ
1
Department of Medical Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
2
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey
3
Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany
4
Division of Gene Technology, KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, Solna, Sweden
5
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
Received: 30.03.2012
Accepted: 07.09.2012
Published Online: 25.03.2013
Printed: 25.04.2013
Abstract: In this study, the genetic structures and relationships of native Turkish dog breeds were investigated using 20 polymorphic
loci (17 microsatellites and 3 proteins). For this aim, a total of 141 blood samples were taken from Turkish shepherd dogs and Turkish
Greyhounds located in several geographical regions of Turkey. Multilocus FST values indicated that around 1.92% of the total genetic
variation could be explained by breed differences and the remaining 98.08% by differences among individuals. The gene flow between
populations within each generation varied between 8.4 (Akbash–White Kars Shepherd dog pairs) and 62.3 (Black–Grey Kars Shepherd
dog pairs). Four different groups appeared in the 3-dimensional factorial correspondence analysis, and among these, dogs from the
Akbash, Kangal, Kars Shepherd, and Turkish Greyhound breeds grouped in clearly separated clusters in distant parts of the 3-dimensional
graph. These results clearly show that Akbash and Kangal Shepherd dogs are different populations with different genetic structures.
Therefore, the generalised grouping of Turkish shepherd dogs into a single breed called Anatolian or Turkish shepherd dogs is incorrect.
Key words: Turkish dog breeds, microsatellite, F-statistics, genetic variability, factorial correspondence analysis, genetic distance
1. Introduction
Archaeological findings show the presence of domestic
dogs in Germany, Israel, and North Iraq at 14,000–16,000
years before the present (BP) (1,2). Still earlier dates for
the presence of domestic dog have been suggested from
Europe (3), but the evidence does not seem conclusive
(4). Morphological, behavioural, and genetic data clearly
indicate that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) originated
from domesticated wolves (5–7). It is not clear from
archaeological findings whether dogs originated from one
or more wolf population(s).
Studies of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal
DNA diversity world-wide indicate that dogs originated
in the southern part of East Asia (8–10). A study of
genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism variation
among domestic dogs and wolves showed dogs to share
more unique multilocus haplotypes with wolves from the
Middle East than with wolves from North China, Europe,
and America, but did not include samples from southern
East Asia (7). According to archaeological findings, dogs
similar to mastiff breeds lived in Anatolia at 9000 years
BP (11). It has been suggested that these dogs served as
*Correspondence: [email protected]
176
the origin of today’s dog breeds in Turkey. Dogs brought
by different cultures or nations conquering Anatolia also
contributed to forming the modern dog breeds in Turkey
(11,12), e.g., the Turkish immigrants from Central Asia
who settled in Anatolia and brought dogs. However,
possible traces of the origins of Turkish dog breeds can be
found from across the Anatolian Plateau to Central Asia as
well as to the plateau of Afghanistan (13), and the history
of Turkish dog breeds is still obscure. Carvings of dog
pictures in caves (approximately 6000 BP) discovered in
Tibet resemble the modern shepherd dogs in Turkey, as
well as mastiff breeds, Greyhound, and Saluki (11,12).
Kırmızı (11) claimed that the origins of Turkish
shepherd dogs were in Central Asia and that these breeds
spread to Anatolia, the Middle East, and Europe through
the emigration and immigration of Turks from Central
Asia to Anatolia and Europe. These dogs were brought
to Europe by Turks during the Ottoman era or earlier,
possibly serving as the origin of shepherd dog breeds
such as the Great Pyrenees, Chuvatch, Greek Shepherd
dog, Kuvasz, Sharplaninatz, Komondor, and Maremma
Shepherd dog in Europe (12,14).
ERDOĞAN et al. / Turk J Biol
There is no consensus on the origin of Akbash and
Kangal Shepherd dogs and their subvarieties (12). In a
study carried out by Erdoğan and Özbeyaz (15), Kangal
and Akbash Shepherd dogs were found to be located in
different clusters and to have different genetic structures
according to data from polymorphic loci. These findings
changed the perception about the idea that these 2 breeds
have a close relationship.
The aim of the present study was to determine the
microsatellite polymorphism in Turkish Greyhound,
Kangal, Akbash, and Kars Shepherd dog breeds, to estimate
the genetic relatedness among these dog breeds, and to
address the following questions: What are the current
levels of gene flow between breeds? Has gene flow been the
main factor in the current genetic similarity between these
populations from different regions of Turkey?
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Animal samples and microsatellite markers analysed
In this study, a total of 141 dogs from 6 breeds were used.
Kangal Shepherd dogs (n = 30), Akbash Shepherd dogs (n
= 33), White Kars Shepherd dogs (KW, n = 15), Black Kars
Shepherd dogs (KB, n = 23), Grey Kars Shepherd dogs (KG,
n = 9), and Turkish Greyhounds (TG, n = 31) were chosen
as nonrelative to each other and as best representing their
breed characteristics (Figure 1). In the phenotyping of the
transferrin, postalbumin-1 (Poa-1) and postalbumin-3
(Poa-3), with the methods described by Erdoğan and
Özbeyaz (15), were used. DNA from blood samples was
extracted according to standard phenol–chloroform
methods (16). DNA concentrations were determined
using a NanoDrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Peqlab,
Erlangen, Germany) and adjusted to 25 ng/µL. One
microlitre of each DNA was mixed with primer mix 1
(PEZ1, FHC2054, FHC2010 labelled with FAM; PEZ5,
PEZ12 labelled with JOE; PEZ6, PEZ8, FHC2079 labelled
with NED), primer mix 2 (FH2247, FH2164 labelled
with FAM; FH2001, FH2326 labelled with JOE; PEZ22,
FH2289 labelled with NED), or primer mix 3 (PEZ11,
FH2324 labelled with FAM; FH2161 labelled with NED).
The PCR buffer supplied by QIAGEN (Hilden, Germany)
contained 6 mM MgCl2. In a total reaction volume of 14
µL with HotStar HiFidelity Taq polymerase (QIAGEN),
32 cycles were performed on an MJ Research Dyad Tetra
4D thermocycler (MJ Research Inc., Waltham, MA, USA).
The DNA samples were denatured for 15 min at 95 °C and
then subjected to cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 1.5 min at 59 °C,
and 1 min at 72 °C. Next, 1.5 µL of the PCR products was
loaded on an ABI Prism 3100 Genetic Analyser (Applied
Biosystems, Darmstadt, Germany). Profiles were analysed
using Software 3100 GeneScan Analysis Module 2 and
Genotyper V3.5 NT.
2.2. Statistical analysis
The average heterozygosity in a population was calculated
according to the method of Nei (17) by using the values
of heterozygosity calculated in each locus. The significant
differences on an estimated average heterozygosity index
between populations were calculated with the t-test.
F-statistics were estimated in the form of F, θ, and ƒ
as described by Weir and Cockerham (18) according to
FIT, FST, and FIS, respectively. The gene flow (Nem) between
populations was calculated with Nem = (1 ‒ FST) / 4 FST
based on the FST value of one locus and all loci (17,19).
These were calculated using the GENETIX 4.05 computer
programme (20).
Classification of dogs according to their neighbourhood
in the factorial space was drawn using the GENETIX 4.05
computer packet programmes (20). Further assessments
of genetic structures of populations were performed with
STRUCTURE version 2.3.2 (21).
Figure 1. Geographical locations and illustrations of the 6 Turkish dog breeds’ samples collected.
177
ERDOĞAN et al. / Turk J Biol
3. Results
The estimated values of the heterozygosity index (He
and Ho) of the investigated dog breeds based on each
locus and over all loci are given in Table 1. The average
heterozygosity values were between 0.664 (KW) and 0.778
(KB). The mean heterozygosity values calculated for each
breed were not statistically significant.
The population differentiation was tested with a fixation
index, with FIT, FST, and FIS values for each locus and over
all loci. The results of the F-statistical analysis of the 20
loci for all investigated breeds are shown in Table 2. The
lack of heterozygosity level was around 3.27% (P < 0.001)
for each of the analysed breeds and 5.12% (P < 0.001) for
the whole population. The genetic differentiation between
breeds, FST, was calculated to be 1.92% (P < 0.001), which
was relatively low. The gene flow value, assigned for the
number of individuals migrating between populations for
each generation and calculated from all loci, was 12.8.
The gene flow between the population pairs and the FST
estimations are shown in Table 3. After 1000 permutations
between breed pairs, all FST values were found to be
significantly different from 0 (P < 0.001). The gene flow
occurring between populations in each generation varied
between 8.4 (Akbash–KW pairs) and 62.3 (KB and KG
pairs).
The Reynolds genetic distance matrix is given in Table
4. The genetic distance values vary between 0.0011 and
0.0358. The smallest genetic distance value (0.0011) was
Table 1. The heterozygosity index, calculated according to locus and all loci of dog breeds (He and Ho), average heterozygosity, and allele
numbers.
Akbash
(n = 33)
Locus
Allele
He
Kangal
(n = 30)
Ho
Allele
He
KW
(n = 15)
Ho
Allele
He
KB
(n = 23)
Ho
Allele
He
KG
(n = 9)
Ho
Allele
He
TG
(n = 31)
Ho
Allele
He
Ho
FH2001
6
0.840 0.684
6
0.808 0.833
5
0.683 0.615
8
0.854 0.923
5
0.824 0.889
7
0.815 0.750
FH2161
5
0.789 0.818
8
0.823 0.733
7
0.708 0.539
11
0.836 0.913
5
0.758 0.667
9
0.809 0.625
FH2164
14
0.886 0.833
12
0.838 0.867
8
0.831 0.846
9
0.851 0.769
11
0.948 0.889
13
0.902 0.969
FH2247
24
0.950 0.976
26
0.957 0.967
15
0.954 0.923
21
0.953 1.000
9
0.909 0.889
23
0.950 0.969
FH2289
16
0.918 0.854
17
0.893 0.867
10
0.779 0.461
15
0.919 0.923
10
0.915 0.864
14
0.891 0.844
FH2324
17
0.917 0.758
19
0.918 0.867
11
0.877 0.692
12
0.863 0.826
12
0.954 0.901
11
0.880 0.813
FH2326
15
0.915 0.878
16
0.912 0.833
13
0.939 0.846
16
0.911 0.808
9
0.928 0.876
18
0.940 0.781
FHC2010
7
0.740 0.737
7
0.580 0.548
5
0.742 0.692
4
0.655 0.692
4
0.765 0.444
5
0.675 0.625
FHC2054
9
0.870 0.868
10
0.852 1.000
6
0.803 0.769
8
0.847 0.889
7
0.863 0.889
7
0.844 0.831
FHC2079
6
0.679 0.658
3
0.579 0.710
2
0.409 0.231
6
0.661 0.741
6
0.758 0.778
3
0.514 0.500
PEZ1
9
0.803 0.806
12
0.786 0.807
6
0.825 0.846
4
0.750 0.889
4
0.712 0.667
10
0.816 0.844
PEZ5
7
0.767 0.686
8
0.749 0.742
4
0.754 0.846
6
0.741 0.667
4
0.726 0.778
5
0.719 0.719
PEZ6
15
0.882 0.842
19
0.918 0.839
10
0.902 0.846
16
0.895 0.815
7
0.869 0.889
11
0.865 0.656
PEZ8
11
0.820 0.632
11
0.841 0.839
10
0.905 0.846
12
0.873 0.692
8
0.889 0.667
10
0.843 0.844
PEZ11
13
0.893 0.727
11
0.847 0.800
10
0.892 0.769
12
0.893 0.870
9
0.928 0.889
9
0.836 0.625
PEZ12
15
0.861 0.895
15
0.810 0.741
6
0.628 0.692
10
0.809 0.778
8
0.876 0.667
11
0.836 0.813
PEZ22
13
0.875 0.838
11
0.816 0.900
7
0.794 0.692
9
0.895 1.000
7
0.863 0.667
10
0.827 0.813
Tf
2
0.504 0.559
2
0.509 0.400
2
0.443 0.308
2
0.485 0.409
2
0.400 0.250
2
0.482 0.516
Poa-1
2
0.395 0.529
2
0.325 0.400
3
0.489 0.500
2
0.426 0.500
2
0.458 0.625
2
0.252 0.290
Poa-3
2
0.479 0.706
2
0.503 0.633
2
0.271 0.308
2
0.495 0.455
2
0.533 0.500
2
0.389 0.452
7.1
0.731 0.664
9.25
0.781 0.778
6.55
0.794 0.735
9.1
0.754 0.715
Mean
estimates
178
10.4
0.789 0.764 10.85 0.763 0.766
ERDOĞAN et al. / Turk J Biol
Table 2. F-statistic values and number of individuals migrating between populations in each generation.
Locus
FIS = ƒ
FIT = F
FST = θ
FH2001
0.0485
0.0533
0.0050
FH2161
0.0781
0.0896
0.0124
FH2164
0.0129
0.0212
0.0084
FH2247
–0.0186
–0.0035
0.0148
FH2289
0.0693
0.0887
0.0209
FH2324
0.1033
0.1282
0.0278
FH2326
0.0966
0.1038
0.0080
FHC2010
0.0522
0.0590
0.0072
FHC2054
–0.0434
–0.0285
0.0144
FHC2079
–0.0320
0.0068
0.0376
PEZ1
–0.0455
–0.0444
0.0011
PEZ5
0.0322
0.0672
0.0362
PEZ6
0.1019
0.1037
0.0021
PEZ8
0.1177
0.1490
0.0355
PEZ11
0.1343
0.1519
0.0203
PEZ12
0.0292
0.0463
0.0176
PEZ22
–0.0027
0.0089
0.0116
0.0763
0.1058
0.0320
Poa-1
–0.2302
–0.2189
0.0091
Poa-3
–0.2124
–0.0937
0.0979
Tf
Mean estimates
0.0327 (0.016)***
0.0512 (0.016)***
Nem
0.0192 (0.003)***
12.8
ƒ, estimation of pure breeding within the population; F, estimation of total pure breeding; θ, measure of
population differentiation. The standard deviation is given in parentheses.
***P < 0.001, from permutation tests in the TFPGA programme.
Table 3. The FST statistics (vertical triangle) and gene migration Nem (inverted vertical triangle) among dog breeds in
Turkey.
Breeds
Akbash
Kangal
KW
KG
KB
TG
Akbash
***
17.6
8.4
35.5
35.5
10.2
Kangal
0.014
***
9.0
14.5
15.4
9.8
KW
0.029
0.027
***
41.4
12.9
10.2
KG
0.007
0.017
0.006
***
62.3
11.1
KB
0.007
0.016
0.019
0.004
***
11.7
TG
0.024
0.025
0.024
0.022
0.021
***
179
ERDOĞAN et al. / Turk J Biol
Table 4. The Reynolds genetic distance matrix among the 6 Turkish dog breeds.
Breeds
Akbash
Kangal
KW
KG
KB
TG
Akbash
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kangal
0.0141
-
-
-
-
-
KW
0.0358
0.0320
-
-
-
-
KG
0.0020
0.0145
0.0150
-
-
-
KB
0.0076
0.0147
0.0289
0.0011
-
-
TG
0.0244
0.0269
0.0307
0.0214
0.0232
-
a structure test analysis using K = 6 to determine which
breed or breeds an individual belongs to, and to group the
individuals (Figure 3).
4. Discussion
The observed heterozygosity values from all loci in all
breeds were found to be between 0.664 (KW) and 0.778
(Kangal) (Table 1). These estimates of heterozygosity
values show that the genetic variations are high in all
animals investigated in this study, and that there is no
statistically significant difference between the breeds for
the heterozygosity values. This means that all the dogs
have the same level of genetic variations, and it is difficult
to differentiate the dog breeds from each other in terms of
mean heterozygosity levels.
It has been reported that the Ho and He values for
Akbash, Kangal, and Turkish Greyhound breeds are
0.715, 0.701, and 0.710, and 0.620, 0.701, and 0.705 (22),
respectively, and that the average heterozygosity values for
Akbash and Kangal are 0.367 and 0.410, respectively (15).
Axis 2 (22.51%)
found between KB and KG. In terms of genetic distance
analysis, the breeds Akbash and KW were genetically far
away from each other. The genetic distance value between
these 2 breeds was 0.0358.
To investigate and show the relationship between
individuals, 3-dimensional factorial correspondence
analysis (3D-FCA) and the GENETIX 4.05 computer
packet programme (20) were employed (Figure 2).
The 3D-FCA grouped all populations into 4 clusters.
The Akbash breed, Turkish Greyhound breed, and Kangal
breed formed 3 of these groups, which were clearly separated
and located in different parts of the 3-dimensional graph.
The dogs from the Kars region (KB, KG, KW) constituted
a single fourth group placed in the middle of all the other
groups (Figure 2). Within this fourth group, it could be
seen that there were 3 breeds: KB, KG, and KW. However,
the breeds KW and KB were grouped into the same cluster
but settled in different positions (Figure 2).
It can be seen that the Turkish Greyhound is more
pure or a closer relative compared to the other breeds in
Axis 3 (21.22%)
Axis 1 (26.63%)
Figure 2. Three-dimensional factorial correspondence analysis depiction of the genetic
relationships among indigenous dog breeds in Turkey.
180
ERDOĞAN et al. / Turk J Biol
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
AKBASH
KANGAL
KARS KARS
WHITE GREY
KARS
BLACK
TURKISH
GREYHOUND
Figure 3. Structure analysis of dog breeds of Turkey.
The estimated Ho and He values for Akbash, Kangal, and
Turkish Greyhound are 0.764, 0.766, and 0.715, and 0.789,
0.763, and 0.754, respectively (Table 1). The heterozygosity
levels for Akbash, Kangal, and Turkish Greyhound are
higher than those reported by Erdoğan and Özbeyaz
(15) and Altunok et al. (22); for dog breeds in Japan (23),
Bangladesh (24), Germany (25), and Finland (26); in
Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, and Rottweiler (27),
and Beagle and Labrador Retriever (28); and in 16 street
dogs (29), 11 East Asian domestic dog breeds (30), 28 dog
breeds (31), Bali street dogs (32), and Hannover hunting
dogs (33). The reason for attaining higher heterozygosity
values in comparison to other researchers could be
the selection of dogs from different regions that were
unrelated to each other, and the fact that the loci searched
have multiple alleles.
Population differentiation was tested with a fixation
index of FIT, FST, and FIS for each locus and all loci. The
F-statistics results, calculated from all 20 loci for all 6
dog breeds, are given in Table 2. The observed mean
heterozygote deficiency was 3.27% for each investigated
breed and 5.12% in all populations, and these values
are statistically significant (P < 0.001). The frequency in
homozygote genotypes in all populations is higher than
that expected in the Hardy–Weinberg balance. This means
that there is not random mating in populations or that
there is inbreeding. The genetic differentiation among
breeds or the calculated FST was 1.92% (P < 0.001). This
value of FST shows that the populations have different
genetic structures.
The FIS, FIT, and FST values calculated from all loci were
0.085, 0.083, and 0.160, respectively, for 7 dog breeds in
Turkey (15), whereas the FIS, FIT, and FST values were 0.072,
0.214, and 0.154, respectively, in 11 East Asian domestic
dog breeds (30), and the values of FIS and FIT vary between
0.01 and 0.13 and the FST value varies between 0.602 and
0.975 in 5 dog breeds of Finland (26). However, Altunok
et al. (22) determined that the pairwise FST values were
0.167 and 0.121 in Kangal–Akbash and Kangal–Turkish
Greyhound, respectively. The calculated F-statistic values
in this study are much lower than those of other reports
(15,22,26,30).
For population mating at random, genes are equally
related within or between individuals. In this case, FIT =
FST or FIS = 0. Therefore, the significant difference in the
estimates of FIT and FST indicates a departure from random
mating. Avoidance of mating between relatives will cause
positive FST values that exceed the negative values of FIT
and FIS. Generally, if FIS is positive (FIT > FST), it could be
interpreted as evidence of inbreeding (34). FIS was positive
(0.0327) while FIT was 0.0512, which was greater than the
0.0192 value of FST (Table 1). The estimate of the FIT and
FIS values was positive for some loci. This means that the
frequencies of heterozygote genotypes are in accordance
with the Hardy–Weinberg balance, but they are lower
than those of expected heterozygote values in these
loci in all breeds. It is possible that the selection factors
have a positive effect on the frequencies of homozygote
genotypes based on selected loci at individual and
population levels. Neglecting the effects of migration, and
assuming a low contribution of mutations to the genetic
diversity between these breeds, the differences in allele
frequencies may be interpreted as primarily the result of
random genetic drift. The genetic differentiation (1.92%)
may be seen as the result of an increased mean inbreeding
coefficient FIT over a rather short period of time. We
therefore consider the relatively low mean FIS value
(0.0327) to be the result of a reduction of heterozygosity
within the breeds studied and the relatively low mean FIT
value (0.0512) as indicative of ineffective barriers to gene
flow between populations.
It has been reported that the genetic distance among
Spanish dog breeds ranges from 0.000 to 0.051 (35).
Although there was not a dramatic difference among dog
breeds, the genetic distance varied between 0.013 and
0.242 for 7 dog breeds (15). The genetic distance between
Akbash and Kangal Shepherd dogs has been estimated
to be 0.093 and the Nem value to be 1.3 (15). The genetic
distance between dog breeds ranged from 0.0836 to 0.3235
and the Nem value ranged between 0.43 and 10.83 (30),
while Koskinen and Bredbacka (26) demonstrated that the
genetic distance between dog breeds ranged between 0.182
and 0.291. In this study, the estimated genetic distance
value ranged from 0.0011 (KB–KG) to 0.0358 (Akbash–
181
ERDOĞAN et al. / Turk J Biol
KW), and the Nem value ranged between 8.4 (Akbash–
KW) and 62.3 (Akbash–KW). The expected Nem value
calculated from all loci was 12.8. The calculated genetic
distance among dog breeds in this study is in accordance
with the findings in Spanish dog breeds (35), but lower
than those in other reports. The Nem value was higher
than other researchers’ findings, as well.
The mean estimation of genetic differentiation (FST)
among breeds was 1.92% (P < 0.001). This value is lower
than that of other breeds, and the effective number of
individuals exchanged between populations per generation
was 12.8 (Table 3). The gene flow ranges from 8.4 to 62.3
between populations. If gene flow is higher than 1 (in an
endless island model), this means that Nem is large enough
to decrease the genetic differentiation between populations
(36). Genetic drift could be a factor supporting genetic
differentiation between breeds. If gene exchange occurs
between breeds at a high frequency, the FST value gets lower,
which means that genetic differentiation occurs through
gene flow. These results could be interpreted to indicate
that the investigated shepherd dog breeds originated from
a common ancestor a long time ago and lived together
in the same geographical area. Gene flow plays a very
important role in populations living within the same or
close geographical areas. The reason for high gene flow
occurring among the investigated dog breeds could be that
the dogs (except the Turkish Greyhound) live in the same
geographical areas. Although the Turkish Greyhound is
not considered among shepherd dogs, this breed has a
high rate of gene flow with the other dog breeds (Table 3).
The high gene flow between Turkish Greyhound and other
dog breeds could be due to uncontrolled mating between
Turkish Greyhound and other dog breeds.
Four different clusters were obtained as a result of
3D-FCA applied to determine and show the relationship
between individuals (Figure 2). The 3-dimensional graph
shows that Akbash, Turkish Greyhound, and Kangal dogs
are distinctly separated and positioned in different sectors.
In between these 3 groups, the 3 Kars breeds constitute
a fourth group. Populations are genetically separated
into distinct clusters. Direct evidence supporting this
conclusion derives from 3D-FCA analyses (Figure 2).
Interestingly, despite their different exterior morphology,
the Kars dog breeds do not show a clear genetic divergence.
However, KW and KB were grouped into the same cluster
but in different positions. KG was also situated in the
middle of other Kars dog breeds. These findings indicate
that KW and KB are a variety of Kars Shepherd dogs
separately, and KG is also a crossbreed of these 2 Kars
Shepherd dog breeds.
In conclusion, our analysis indicates that native
Turkish dog breeds have different genetic structures on the
basis of the analysed loci, since they are located in clearly
separated clusters in 3D-FCA. These findings disprove
the beliefs that Kangal, Akbash, and Kars Shepherd dogs
are close relatives of each other. The results clearly show
that Akbash, Kangal, and Kars Shepherd dogs are different
populations. Therefore, the generalised grouping of
Turkish shepherd dogs into a single breed called Anatolian
or Turkish shepherd dogs is not correct. It is proper
to differentiate between Kangal Shepherd and Akbash
Shepherd dogs as separate breeds.
To determine the genetic structure of the dogs,
polymorphic biochemical systems and microsatellite loci
can be employed to compare the dog populations and
the average heterozygosity values, and F-statistics, the
individual numbers migrating in each generation, and the
FCA method can be used for successful classification of
the breeds.
Since Turkey is located in both Asia and Europe as a
junction for migration roads, and since it is the cradle of
many different cultures, further determination of genetic
structure in Turkish dog breeds is important for better
understanding of the genetic origin of dogs in Asia and
Europe. The determination of genetic structure and genetic
relatedness in Turkish dogs will also help to determine the
migration paths not only for dogs but also for people or
civilisations in history.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK
TOVAG 103V024), and additional support was provided
by Afyon Kocatepe University (AKÜ BAPK 041 VF 06). We
are grateful to S. Rose and S. Loos for excellent technical
assistance. Peter Savolainen is a Royal Swedish Academy
of Sciences Research Fellow supported by a grant from the
Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.
References
1.
Clutton-Brock J. Evolution of domesticated animals. In: Mason
IL. ed. Dog. Longman; 1984: pp. 198–211.
3.
Sablin MV, Khlopachev GA. The earliest ice age dogs: evidence
from Eliseevichi I. Curr Anthropol 43: 795–799, 2002.
2.
Zeder MA. Domestication and early agriculture in the
Mediterranean basin: origins, diffusion, and impact. P Natl
Acad Sci-Biol 105: 11597–11604, 2008.
4.
Napierala H, Uerpmann HP. A ‘new’ palaeolithic dog from
Central Europe. Int J Osteoarchaeol 22: 127–137, 2010.
182
ERDOĞAN et al. / Turk J Biol
5.
Fiennes R, Fiennes A. The Natural History of the Dog.
Wedenfeld & Nicolson Press. London; 1968.
22. Altunok V, Koban E, Chikhi L et al. Genetic evidence for the
distinctness of Kangal dogs. B Vet I Pulawy 49: 249–254, 2005.
6.
Savolainen P, Zhang Y, Luo J et al. Genetic evidence for an East
Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science 298: 1610–1613, 2002.
7.
vonHoldt BM, Pollinger JP, Lohmueller KE et al. Genome-wide
SNP and haplotype analyses reveal a rich history underlying
dog domestication. Nature 464: 898–902, 2010.
23. Tanabe Y, Ôta K, Ito S et al. Biochemical-genetic relationships
among Asian and European dogs and the ancestry of the
Japanese native dogs. J Anim Breed Genet 108: 455–478, 1991.
8.
Pang JF, Kluetsch C, Zou XJ et al. mtDNA data indicate a single
origin for dogs south of Yangtze River, less than 16,300 years
ago, from numerous wolves. Mol Biol Evol 26: 2849–2864,
2009.
9.
Ding ZL, Oskarsson M, Ardalan A et al. Origins of domestic
dog in Southern East Asia is supported by analysis of
Y-chromosome DNA. Heredity 108: 507–514, 2012.
26. Koskinen MT, Bredbacka P. Assessment of the population
structure of five Finnish dog breeds with microsatellites. Anim
Genet 31: 310–317, 2000.
10. Ardalan A, Kluetsch CFC, Zhang A et al. Comprehensive
study of mtDNA among Southwest Asian dogs contradicts
independent domestication of wolf, but implies dog–wolf
hybridization. Ecology and Evolution 3: 373–385, 2011.
27. Altet L, Francino O, Sánchez A. Microsatellite polymorphism
in closely related dogs. J Hered 92: 276–279, 2001.
11. Kırmızı E. Türk çoban köpeklerinin tarihçesi. Türk Veteriner
Hekimliği Dergisi 6: 39–41, 1994.
24. Kobayashi R, Miyakawa H, Tanabe Y et al. Blood protein
polymorphism in Bangladesh native dogs. Report of the
Society for Researches on Native Livestock 12: 269–289, 1987.
25. Lachmann C. Verteilung genetischer Polymorphismen bei
einigen deutschen Hunderassen. PhD, University of Veterinary
Medicine, Hannover, 1993.
28. Ichikawa Y, Takagi K, Tsumagari S et al. Canine parentage
testing based on microsatellite polymorphisms. J Vet Med Sci
63: 1209–1213, 2001.
12. Nelson DD. A general classification of the native dogs of
Turkey. In: The International Symposium on Turkish Shepherd
Dogs, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey; 1996: pp. 19–94.
29. Jouquand S, Priat C, Hitte C et al. Identification and
characterization of a set of 100 tri- and dinucleotide
microsatellites in the canine genome. Anim Genet 31: 266–
272, 2000.
13. Özbeyaz C. Kangal köpeklerinde bazı morfolojik özellikler.
Lalahan Hayvancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi 34: 38–46,
1994.
30. Kim KS, Tanabe Y, Park CK et al. Genetic variability in East
Asian dogs using microsatellite loci analysis. J Hered 92: 398–
403, 2001.
14. Reed S. The history of Turkish shepherd dogs. In: The
International Symposium on Turkish Shepherd Dogs, Selçuk
University, Konya, Turkey; 1996: pp. 97–109.
31. Irion DN, Schaffer AL, Famula TR et al. Analysis of genetic
variation in 28 dog breed populations with 100 microsatellite
markers. J Hered 94: 81–87, 2003.
15. Erdoğan M, Özbeyaz C. Investigation of blood protein
polymorphism and estimation of genetic distances in some
dog breeds in Turkey. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 28: 583–590, 2004.
32. Irion DN, Schaffer AL, Grant S et al. Genetic variation analysis
of the Bali street dog using microsatellites. BMC Genet 6: 1–13,
2005.
16. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. Molecular Cloning: A
Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Press. Cold Spring
Harbor, NY, USA; 1989.
33. Lupke L, Distl O. Microsatellite marker analysis of the genetic
variability in Hanoverian hounds. J Anim Breed Genet 122:
131–139, 2005.
17. Nei M. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia University
Press. New York; 1987.
34. Weir BS. Genetic Data Analysis. Sinauer Associates Press.
Sunderland, MA, USA; 1996.
18. Weir BS, Cockerham CC. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis
of population structure. Evolution 38: 1358–1370, 1984.
35. Jordana J, Piedrafita J, Sánchez A. Genetic relationships
in Spanish dog breeds, II. The analysis of biochemical
polymorphism. Genet Sel Evol 24: 245–263, 1992.
19. Hartl DL, Clark AG. Principles of Population Genetics. Sinauer
Associates Press. Sunderland, MA, USA; 1989.
20. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L et al. GENETIX 4.00 WindowsTM
Software for Population Genetics. University of Montpellier
Press. Montpellier, France; 1996.
36. Trexler JC. Hierarchical organization of genetic variation in the
Sailfin Molly, Poecilia latipinna (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Evolution
42: 995–1005, 1988.
21. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P. Inference of population
structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155: 945–
959, 2000.
183