- #36
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,486
- 9,711
Your use of the term "wolf blood" in a scientific forum is going to repeatedly going to run into problems because the first thing someone is going to think of is acutal blood.Pleonasm said:actual wolf blood
What you seem to intend to discuss however is the inheritance of the dog-wolf hybrid from the wolf.
By using the term "wolf blood" you have created misdirection.
This is not a good way to discuss this.Pleonasm said:The DNA structure of a given animal is constituted by blood.
Even if you are taking the term "wolf blood" to mean inheritance in the genetic sense,
a person, novice to genetics, might take the statement literally and try to change their dog's genetics by transfusing wolf blood into them.
The only reasonable interpretation is inheritance or
russ_watters said:Recent cross-breeding or ancestry.
A first generation hybrid (50% wolf derived DNA) should be expected to be detectable by even a simple DNA test, if it is directed at answering that question.
Better quality (more sensitive tests, covering more genetic markers, directed to a more specific question) would cost more.
Complete sequencing of the genome combined with a competent analysis would be the ideal, but more expensive.
Crosses among 50% hybrid wolf-dogs would yield animals that would be (on average!) 50% wolf.
Crosses to pure non-dogs would reduce (on average!) reduce the % wolf DNA by .5; thus 50% would become 35% the next generation and 25% would be come 12.5% (on average). These are only averages due to variability in how much DNA from either grandparent is packaged into the particular gametes that become the zygote.
Crossing to a wolf each generation would do the opposite.
It has to do with how detailed the test is and how carefully it is analyzed.Pleonasm said:If it's hard to distinguish wolf DNA from dogs, how in the world do they genetically distinguish different dog breeds from each other?
There have been studies on the lineages of different dog strains. They probably used a lot of markers, perhaps complete genome sequences. These tests would be more expensive and difficult than a home kit.
Examples going the other way, but from a slightly different field, include the many "species" of morphologically similar appearing animals (or plants?) that DNA analysis reveals to be separate species.
To sum up some of the above arguments:
Trying to make genetic arguments based only on a handful of behavioral traits is an approach that is compromised by its many potential confounding factors (individual genetic variation, individual upbringing, variation among strains).
Too many uncontrolled factors with too few cases to tease everything apart.