Taimyr wolf and the origins of dog

Taimyr wolf and the origins of dog

There’s an ongoing debate about where and when dogs originated. The when part might be closer to an answer now. Genetic drift is used by evolutionary biologist to try to recreate the lineage of species. The discovery of a 35,000-year-old wolf rib bone in the Taimyr peninsula in northern Siberia was the key to this story. The DNA from that bone suggests that it diverged from a common ancestor of present-day wolves and dogs near the beginning of the domestic dog lineage. Their technique uses genetic drift of ‘regular’ DNA and mitochondrial DNA.

► Genetic Drift

There are non-lethal random mutations in DNA that survive to the next generation due to natural selection and sometimes due to ‘luck’. Surviving by natural selection makes sense, a mutation affords an advantage so that offspring should excel and survive. Genetic drift is when a mutation doesn’t necessarily result in an advantage but is nevertheless passed on ‘by chance’. Tracing these mutations help create a lineage for evolutionary biologists.

► Mitochondrial DNA vs. Nuclear DNA

Mitochondria are the energy power plants inside cells. They have a few genes necessary for oxidative phosphorylation, which is a fancy term for making energy. The nucleus of the cell is where the chromosomes are. Nuclear DNA is the DNA that you hear about in the news, for example in forensic science. In the figure below, you can see that mitochondrial DNA is passed on only by the mother while nuclear DNA is passed along by both parents. Genetic drift in mitochondrial DNA is much slower and helps refine the lineage of a species. It is slower because it is only inherited by half of the genetic source, i.e., the mother.

You can read a summary of the article in layman’s terms here:

Arctic find confirms ancient origin of dogs

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/05/arctic-find-confirms-ancient-origin-dogs

Full article and source of the very cool graphical abstract:

Ancient Wolf Genome Reveals an Early Divergence of Domestic Dog Ancestors and Admixture into High-Latitude Breeds

Skoglund et al

Current Biology May 2015

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00432-7

Source for the mitochondria DNA figures:

University of California Museum of Paleontology’s Understanding Evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.eduhttp://goo.gl/WZgKRV

A bit more reading:

How the wolf became the dog (full article behind paywall)

http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/04/how-wolf-became-dog

Late for #FidoFriday  but always on time for #ScienceEveryday  

Skepticism doesn’t equal question all teh things

Skepticism doesn’t equal question all teh things

This is a great PSA from the folks who moderate the Science on Google+ community. There is also confusion about love for science and skepticism. As a moderator and someone who writes science posts, I get people who argue that everyone should be a skeptic. However, the list below has no room for skepticism in general. Scientists certainly debate new findings in those areas but the foundations (evolution for example) are not up for debate and skepticism.

Originally shared by Science on Google+

PSA: Evidence-Based Science on Google+

Some scientific facts aren’t up for debate in our science community. As scientists, we follow where the evidence leads, and the overwhelming evidence supports anthropogenic climate change, the efficacy of vaccines, the soundness of evolutionary theory, and the safety of GMO. There is vigorous debate within various scientific disciplines on how these settled areas of science work and what future outcomes of (for example) climate change or evolution will be. However, debate over mechanisms and outcomes should never be considered debate over the basic facts of a subject. A person claiming, for example, that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax is making an extraordinary claim against a huge body of peer-reviewed evidence, and barring extraordinary, credible, peer-reviewed evidence to support that claim, a post making such a claim will be removed from this community. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The focus of our community is on research trying to address these issues, and not to rehash or debate the evidence. Unlike politicians, we don’t take positions to win votes or gain popularity. Rather, we ground our positions in the best evidence available to us, recognizing that scientific evidence may be incomplete but is constantly self-correcting. 

What is scientific consensus? :  https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Scienceongoogleplus/posts/5LRg4oTFAFU

Cartoon credit: http://joyreactor.com/post/805720

 

#ScienceSunday