Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About DMM
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contact
    • Contact DMM
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Disease Models & Mechanisms
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Advanced search

RSS   Twitter   Facebook   YouTube

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About DMM
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contact
    • Contact DMM
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
Primer
Leading the way: canine models of genomics and disease
Abigail L. Shearin, Elaine A. Ostrander
Disease Models & Mechanisms 2010 3: 27-34; doi: 10.1242/dmm.004358
Abigail L. Shearin
1Cancer Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elaine A. Ostrander
1Cancer Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: eostrand@mail.nih.gov
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In recent years Canis familiaris, the domestic dog, has drawn considerable attention as a system in which to investigate the genetics of disease susceptibility, morphology and behavior. Because dogs show remarkable intrabreed homogeneity, coupled with striking interbreed heterogeneity, the dog offers unique opportunities to understand the genetic underpinnings of natural variation in mammals, a portion of which is disease susceptibility. In this review, we highlight the unique features of the dog, such as population diversity and breed structure, that make it particularly amenable to genetic studies. We highlight recent advances in understanding the architecture of the dog genome, which propel the system to the forefront of consideration when selecting a system for disease gene studies. The most notable benefit of using the dog for genetic studies is that dogs get many of the same diseases as humans, with a similar frequency, and the same genetic factors are often involved. We discuss two approaches for localizing disease genes in the dog and provide examples of ongoing studies.

Introduction

The domestic dog, Canis familiaris, reportedly bears over 450 diseases; approximately 360 of which are analogous to human diseases (Patterson, 2000; Parker and Ostrander, 2005; Wayne and Ostrander, 2007). As a spontaneous model for many heritable human diseases, the dog provides an excellent system for the identification and study of disease loci (Parker and Ostrander, 2005; Wayne and Ostrander, 2007; Karlsson and Lindblad-Toh, 2008), particularly cancer loci (Cadieu and Ostrander, 2007). Specific advantages of the dog system include the fact that the dog has a unique population structure, with each breed arising from a limited number of founders (American, 1998). This fact, combined with the frequent use of popular sires, means that each domestic breed is a closed population, with limited locus and disease heterogeneity (Ostrander and Kruglyak, 2000; Ostrander and Wayne, 2005; Parker and Ostrander, 2005; Karlsson and Lindblad-Toh, 2008). As a result, genetic studies in dogs are theoretically simpler and more straightforward than those conducted in complex populations, offering many of the statistical advantages of studies performed in isolated human populations, such as those carried out in Finland or Iceland (Ostrander and Kruglyak, 2000). Additional advantages are offered by the architecture of the dog genome itself (Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005); the dog is known to have long stretches of linkage disequilibrium (LD), reducing the overall number of markers needed to investigate the genome (Sutter et al., 2004; Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005). In addition, analysis of the whole-genome sequence assembly of the dog at both a 2× and 7.8× coverage shows that it is, as expected, more homologous in sequence conservation to humans than mice (Kirkness et al., 2003; Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005). Finally, with humans and dogs sharing a common environment, food, immunologic profile (Storb and Thomas, 1985) and carcinogenic load (Glickman et al., 2004), it is entirely predictable that the domestic dog would emerge as a viable model for cancer genetics.

Breed structure and disease predisposition of dogs

The domestic dog population is divided into over 350 discrete breeds worldwide, with approximately 160 breeds recognized in the USA by the American Kennel Club (AKC) (http://www.akc.org/) (American, 1998). Each breed exhibits a distinct phenotype created by selective breeding practices that took place largely during the Victorian era (Clark and Brace, 1995; Wilcox and Walkowicz, 1995). Today, kennel clubs in both the USA and Europe impose strict restrictions on dog registration; to be an official member of a breed the ancestors of each dog must be registered members as well. Thus, each dog breed represents a closed breeding population of individuals with high levels of phenotypic homogeneity. Not surprisingly, there is reduced genetic diversity within breeds and greater genetic divergence between breeds. Indeed, 27% of the total genetic variance observed in dogs is between breeds, compared with the 5–10% that exists between distinct human populations (Parker et al., 2004).

The strong selection that breeders have imposed in order to produce a homogenous population of individuals with common morphological and behavioral traits has led to an excess of inherited diseases in domestic dogs. Although this is unfortunate for the companion animal community, the fact that many breeds display an excess of disease offers a unique opportunity to identify genes that have been difficult to localize through the study of human families and populations, with cancer providing an excellent example (Cadieu and Ostrander, 2007).

The frequency of occurrence and response to treatment of canine tumors often parallels human neoplasms (Dorn, 1976; Cadieu and Ostrander, 2007; Breen and Modiano, 2008) much better than, for instance, rodent tumors. Similar to in humans, canine tumors usually appear spontaneously, whereas rodent tumors are frequently induced. In terms of the epidemiology of cancer, it is at least as common in dogs as in humans (Table 1). In a necropsy series of 2000 dogs, 23% of all dogs, and 45% of dogs that were over 10 years old, died of cancer (Bronson, 1982; Vail and MacEwen, 2000). The challenge has been to make use of this information to identify genes that are important in both human and companion animal disease; to do this, two general approaches have been used.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Tumor incidence rates (all sites) estimated in pet dogs by country and tumor characteristics

Mapping disease genes in dogs

Finding genes that predispose any disease begins with the identification of a susceptible population. For family-based studies, DNA samples are collected from both affected and unaffected individuals in families segregating an excess of disease. Phenotypes are carefully established and a genome-wide linkage scan is performed using published approaches (Fig. 1) (Acland et al., 1998; Lingaas et al., 1998; Acland et al., 1999). In the past, these scans relied on the use of microsatellite repeat-based markers (Ostrander et al., 2000; Ostrander and Wayne, 2005), and were used to identify the gene for a canine form of a kidney cancer, known as Birt-Hogg-Dubé (BHD) disease, and the genes for several vision disorders (Acland et al., 1998; Acland et al., 1999; Jónasdóttir et al., 2000; Lingaas et al., 2003). Evidence of a locus is indicated by calculation of a Lod (log of the odds) score (Ott, 1976), which indicates the likelihood that a given region of the genome is segregating with the disease state because it is genetically linked, versus the likelihood that the segregation occurs by chance.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Genome-wide association study (GWAS) versus linkage-based study. A GWAS study compares a dense set of genotypes from animals that have a particular trait (cases) with unrelated controls, in order to ascertain alleles that are associated with the trait. Specific corrections need to be applied to account for factors such as population stratification. By comparison, a linkage study analyzes a genome-wide distribution of markers through multiple generations of a pedigree. Statistical methods are used to find a marker whose alleles segregate with disease status more often then would be expected by chance. Both types of approaches can be successful in identifying a disease locus. Fine mapping with more markers is used to identify a shared pattern of alleles from adjacent markers (haplotype). Sequencing is used to ultimately identify the disease mutation. The red cross symbol indicates an individual that is affected with the disease. The polymorphic markers that are used most frequently for linkage-based studies include SNPs and microsatellites, whereas GWAS studies use SNPs exclusively.

With the completion of a 7.8× draft assembly of the dog genome sequence (Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005), a canine single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip has been developed, producing between 40,000 and 50,000 data points for each individual tested (Karlsson et al., 2007). Not only can the SNP chip be used for linkage-based studies, but this resource has also proven useful for performing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in which a population of dogs with well-documented disease is compared with a population of healthy controls of the same breed (Fig. 1). This approach is very powerful in dogs, particularly if multiple breeds are used and, for example, has resulted in the mapping of both morphologic (Salmon Hillbertz et al., 2007; Drogemuller et al., 2008; Cadieu et al., 2009; Parker et al., 2009) and disease-associated traits (Wiik, 2008; Awano, 2009). Of note, samples are relatively easy to collect for GWAS, because one can avoid the tedious process of tracking specific family members and any diseased individual who meets a pre-specified set of criteria is usually accepted into the study.

Two key factors have led to the rapid and successful growth of GWAS studies in dogs. The first is that far fewer markers are needed to perform a GWAS study in dogs than, for instance, in humans. This is largely because of the extensive LD that is observed in dogs (Sutter et al., 2004; Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005). Whereas LD in humans rarely extends for more than 10–20 Kb, it is not uncommon for LD in dogs to be in the order of megabases (Sutter et al., 2004; Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005). Thus, whereas human studies require in the order of 500,000 to a million markers, both Sutter et al. and Lind-blad-Toh et al. (Sutter et al., 2004; Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005) predicted, correctly, that 30,000–50,000 biallelic markers would more than suffice for GWAS studies in dogs. This has since been proven by the localization of genes for several canine traits (Salmon Hill-bertz et al., 2007; Drogemuller et al., 2008; Wiik, 2008; Awano, 2009; Cadieu et al., 2009; Parker et al., 2009).

The second advantage to performing genetic mapping studies in the dog is embedded in the breed structure itself. Many dog breeds can be grouped into genetic clusters (Parker et al., 2004; Parker et al., 2007). Genetic loci conferring shared phenotypes within breeds that are members of each cluster can be identified much more readily than when studies are confined to a single breed. In addition, examination of LD in regions of association for multiple, related dog breeds can be used to narrow a crucial region of linkage or association, thus facilitating the task of moving from a linked or associated marker to a gene. This was aptly demonstrated by Parker et al. who used a combination of 20 dog breeds to find an expressed retrogene that is responsible for the chondrodysplasia phenotype in several dog breeds including the Corgi, Basset Hound, Dachshund, etc (Parker et al., 2009). Cadieu et al. also demonstrated the same principle in the search for genes controlling hair type, combining data from dozens of breeds to identify genes controlling fur length, curl and texture (Cadieu et al., 2009).

Cancer

Canine malignancies have been established as strong comparative models for many types of human cancers including transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder (Knapp et al., 2000), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (Leifer and Matus, 1986; Valli et al., 2006), leukemias, osteosarcoma (Mueller et al., 2007), melanoma (particularly oral melanoma) (MacEwen, 1990; Bergman, 2007) and soft tissue sarcomas (Onions, 1984; Moore and Rosin, 1986; Affolter and Moore, 2000). Mammary (Taylor et al., 1976; Gilbertson et al., 1983) and squamous cell carcinomas (O’Brien, 1992; Henry et al., 2005) have also been reported in the dog. Many of these cancers exhibit an increased prevalence in particular breeds of dogs (Table 2), indicating a genetic predisposition (Cadieu and Ostrander, 2007). Some examples are discussed below.

Renal cystadenocarcinoma and nodular dermatofibrosis in the German shepherd dog

One of the most compelling examples of the use of genome-wide linkage scans to identify canine cancer loci comes from the study of renal cystadenocarcinoma and nodular dermatofibrosis (RCND), a hereditary kidney cancer of the German shepherd dog (GSD) that is characterized by bilateral, multifocal renal tumors, skin nodules and, in females, uterine leiomyomas (Jónasdóttir et al., 2000; Moe et al., 2000). The disease is metastasic in about 50% of cases. In 2000, following a genome-wide linkage scan, the disease locus was mapped to canine chromosome 5 (CFA5) using a large family of several sibships that originated from a single affected popular sire (Fig. 2) (Jónasdóttir et al., 2000). A mutation was found to segregate with affected dogs in exon seven of the folliculin (FLCN) gene (Lingaas et al., 2003). Mutations in folliculin cause a similar disorder in humans, also characterized by renal neoplasias, called BHD syndrome (Schmidt et al., 2001; Nickerson et al., 2002). In dogs, however, tumors develop at a much earlier age and the disease progresses at an accelerated rate, providing an excellent model for the study of this unique cancer. Although this is a relatively rare disease, this study aptly demonstrates the power of popular sires and large mapping families in establishing canine disease models.

Transitional cell carcinoma

Another disorder that lends itself to genetic studies is TCC of the bladder, the most common malignancy of the urinary tract in dogs. Epidemiological studies reveal a number of risk factors, including breed and female gender, as well as environmental factors, such as insecticide exposure (Glickman et al., 1989; Glickman et al., 2004). The tumor is difficult to remove surgically and responds poorly to chemotherapy. The human and canine forms of the disease share many similarities, including similar clinical signs and metastases in 50% of cases, and both express cyclooxygenase-2 in the majority of cases (Glickman et al., 2004).

Only about five major breeds of dog are affected by TCC, with the Scottish terrier having a 20-fold increased risk compared with other dog breeds (Hayes, 1976; Glickman et al., 2004). Other at-risk breeds include the West Highland white terrier, the Shetland sheepdog and the Beagle, each of which are reported to have an increased risk of between threefold and fivefold (Table 2) (Knapp et al., 2000). The West Highland white terrier and Scottish terrier have been shown to share a common phylogenetic lineage (Parker et al., 2007), suggesting that the consideration of these two breeds together is likely to increase the power in a GWAS. With much remaining to be learnt about the genetic factors that predispose to human TCC, studies of the canine disorder are likely to be revealing.

In addition to the value of canine TCC as a genetic model, the disease also serves as a therapeutic model. The cyclooxygenase inhibitor piroxicam has been studied in canine drug trials for the treatment of TCC. One study showed a complete remission in two dogs and a partial remission in four out of 34 dogs (Knapp et al., 1994). Another trial undertaken by Mohammed and colleagues (Mohammed et al., 2002) demonstrated a reduction in tumor volume in 12 out of 18 dogs, suggesting the need for a parallel human trial.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Breed predisposition for a variety of malignancies and associated relative risks

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Example of a linkage pedigree. The GSD pedigrees segregating RCND; this is an example of a powerful canine linkage study that was used to identify a cancer locus (Jónasdóttir et al., 2000). Several highly linked microsatellite markers established CFA5 as the location (Jónasdóttir et al., 2000), which was subsequently identified as a mutation in exon 7 of the folliculin gene (Lingaas et al., 2003). Figure reproduced from Jónasdóttir et al. (Jónasdóttir et al., 2000). Copyright (2000) National Academy of Sciences, USA.

Malignant histiocytosis in the Bernese mountain dog

Although TCC and RCND display the strong comparative power of the canine model, there is also enormous value in the study of canine diseases that do not directly mimic a human disease. For example, malignant histiocytosis (MH), also referred to as disseminated histiocytic sarcoma, is a highly aggressive cancer of the dendritic cells of the soft tissues that occurs in a small number of dog breeds such as the Bernese mountain dog (BMD), with 25% of BMDs succumbing to the disease (Abadie et al., 2009). However, malignant histiocytic neoplasms are extremely rare in the human population (Favara et al., 1997), resulting in little opportunity to study the behavior of aberrant dendritic cells in humans. MH in the BMD thus provides an opportunity to learn about genes that are essential for dendritic cell function, as well as to better understand the utility of dendritic cells in the human immune system.

Appendicular osteosarcoma

For some canine diseases, a human counterpart occurs in only a subset of the population. Osteosarcoma (OSA) occurs most frequently in children and adolescents, with 400 cases per year in the population of the USA that is less than 20 years old; 85% of OSA cases occur in the extremities (Hawkins and Arndt, 2003). However, in dogs, OSA occurs about ten times more frequently (Khanna et al., 2006). Canine OSA cells, as well as human OSA tumors, display chaotic and heterogeneous karyotypes with hypodiploidy, hyperploidy, and structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations. The dog breeds with an increased incidence include the Rottweiler, GSD, Great Dane, Scottish deerhound and Greyhound (Thomas et al., 2009). The latter three are interesting because they are all long-limbed hounds, suggesting that there is a particular physiology in dogs that is associated with disease incidence.

One approach for unraveling the relationship between the disease and its underlying genetics is to look for copy number alterations in tumors (Wang et al., 2002; Rueda and Diaz-Uriarte, 2007). When comparing Rottweiler tumors with Golden retriever tumors, Thomas et al. demonstrated breed-specific differences in copy number aberrations in OSA cells (Thomas et al., 2009). Thomas et al. hypothesized that differences in the genetic backgrounds of each breed could yield hints about the life cycle of the tumor. Indeed, several loci with known tumor suppressor or oncogenic functions, including WT1, TP53 and CDKN2A, displayed either genomic amplifications or deletions that were significantly associated with the specific dog breed.

Advantages of Canis familiaris as a model for genetic susceptibility to disease

  • The canine genome exhibits greater homology to the human genome than other mammalian models for disease

  • The dog population is divided into breeds that were generated by small founder populations and propagated by a closed breeding pool, thereby maintaining a high level of genetic homogeneity within most breeds

  • The breed structure reduces disease heterogeneity and is an attribute for identifying disease susceptibility loci in a single breed or related breeds

  • Dogs are susceptible to many of the same diseases as humans, particularly complex diseases like cancer

  • Cancer occurs spontaneously in dogs, at a rate that is at least equal to human cancer, and often closely mimics characteristics of human tumors

  • Humans and dogs share many of the same environmental factors that may influence disease onset or progression

Chronic myelogenous leukemia

In some cases, human and canine cancers share the same genetic hallmarks. For instance, Breen and Modiano recently reported that both human and canine chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) results from the production of a breakpoint cluster region (BCR)-Abl fusion gene product, which is a tyrosine kinase that is involved in cell division and apoptosis (Breen and Modiano, 2008). In humans this so-called ‘Philadelphia chromosome’ involves a translocation event between chromosomes 9 and 22, t(9;22)(q34;q11). HSA 9q34 and 22q11 correspond to CFA 9q25–26.1 and 26q23–24, respectively, in the dog, and the translocation of these loci is denoted as t(9;26)(25–26.1;23–24). Although the numbers are small, studies of tumors from five dogs affected with CML demonstrated that 11–34% of cells carry the same translocation. No published studies exist that evaluate the use of the highly touted drug imatinib, which was developed for human CML and inhibits the breakpoint cluster kinase; however, these data suggest that the dog may be a useful system in which to study appropriate targeted therapies.

Conclusions and long-term issues

In the last 15 years, the domestic dog has emerged as a powerful genetic tool for the study of heritable human diseases. Human disorders associated with immunodeficiency, narcolepsy, metabolic disease, cancer, autoimmune function, vision and epilepsy have all been studied in the dog (Jezyk et al., 1989; Lingaas et al., 1998; Lin et al., 1999; Jónasdóttir et al., 2000; Hungs et al., 2001; Sidjanin et al., 2002; Chase et al., 2005; Clark et al., 2005; Lohi et al., 2005; Zangerl et al., 2006). Advances in several disorders, particularly those associated with vision, sleep and immune function, have informed us about how to better understand the comparable human disease (Acland et al., 1998; Acland et al., 2001; Chabas et al., 2003; Lingaas et al., 2003; Chase et al., 2006). The recent introduction of cancer into the portfolio is exciting and suggests that new and relevant discoveries are around the corner (Khanna et al., 2006).

As more canine cancers are localized at a genomic level, the next steps will be the isolation of specific causative mutations. As we further define the molecular mechanisms responsible for various cancers, the assessment of those that are most similar in humans and canines will aid in targeting drug development efforts. Here, again, the dog will be of use, because it is vital to the development of new treatment modalities (Paoloni and Khanna, 2007). For example, the dog may prove useful in developing new treatments for CML patients who have developed resistance to imatinib, as we now know that the genetic translocations are the same in both humans and canines (Breen and Modiano, 2008). The advantages of the comparative disease approach are at the forefront of the minds of the collective genomics community as we now recognize that a clearer understanding of canine diseases is certain to lead to improved treatment options for both man and his best friend.

Acknowledgements

We thank the dog owners who have contributed DNA samples for our studies for their time and generosity. We gratefully acknowledge the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation and the Intramural program of the National Human Genome Research Institute for their support. Deposited in PMC for release after 12 months.

Footnotes

  • COMPETING INTERESTS

    The authors declare no competing financial interests.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Abadie, J,
    2. Hedan, B,
    3. Cadieu, E,
    4. De Brito, C,
    5. Devauchelle, P,
    6. Bourgain, C,
    7. Parker, HG,
    8. Vaysse, A,
    9. Margaritte-Jeannin, P,
    10. Galibert, F,
    11. et al.
    (2009). Epidemiology, pathology, and genetics of histiocytic sarcoma in the Bernese mountain dog breed. J Hered. 100 Suppl. 1, S19–S27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Acland, GM,
    2. Ray, K,
    3. Mellersh, CS,
    4. Gu, W,
    5. Langston, AA,
    6. Rine, J,
    7. Ostrander, EA and
    8. Aguirre, GD
    (1998). Linkage analysis and comparative mapping of canine progressive rod-cone degeneration (prcd) establishes potential locus homology with retinitis pigmentosa (RP17) in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96, 3048–3053.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Acland, GM,
    2. Ray, K,
    3. Mellersh, CS,
    4. Langston, AA,
    5. Rine, J,
    6. Ostrander, EA and
    7. Aguirre, GD
    (1999). A novel retinal degeneration locus identified by linkage and comparative mapping of canine early retinal degeneration. Genomics 59, 134–142.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Acland, GM,
    2. Aguirre, GD,
    3. Ray, J,
    4. Zhang, Q,
    5. Aleman, TS,
    6. Cideciyan, AV,
    7. Pearce-Kelling, SE,
    8. Anand, V,
    9. Zeng, Y,
    10. Maguire, AM,
    11. et al.
    (2001). Gene therapy restores vision in a canine model of childhood blindness. Nat Genet. 28, 92–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Affolter, VK and
    2. Moore, PF
    (2000). Canine cutaneous and systemic histiocytosis: reactive histiocytosis of dermal dendritic cells. Am J Dermatopathol. 22, 40–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. American, KC
    (1998). The Complete Dog Book. New York, NY: Howell Book House.
  7. ↵
    1. Awano, T,
    2. Johnson, GS,
    3. Wade, CM,
    4. Katz, ML,
    5. Johnson, GC,
    6. Taylor, JF,
    7. Perloski, M,
    8. Biagi, T,
    9. Baranowska, I,
    10. Long, S,
    11. et al.
    (2009). Genome-wide association analysis reveals a SOD1 mutation in canine degenerative myelopathy that resembles amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106, 2794–2799.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Bergman, PJ
    (2007). Canine oral melanoma. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract. 22, 55–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Breen, M and
    2. Modiano, JF
    (2008). Evolutionarily conserved cytogenetic changes in hematological malignancies of dogs and humans-man and his best friend share more than companionship. Chromosome Res. 16, 145–154.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Bronson, RT
    (1982). Variation in age at death of dogs of different sexes and breeds. Am J Vet Res. 43, 2057–2059.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Cadieu, E and
    2. Ostrander, EA
    (2007). Canine genetics offers new mechanisms for the study of human cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 16, 2181–2183.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Cadieu, E,
    2. Neff, M,
    3. Quignon, P,
    4. Walsh, K,
    5. Chase, K,
    6. Parker, HG,
    7. VonHoldt, BM,
    8. Rhue, A,
    9. Boyko, A,
    10. Byers, A,
    11. et al.
    (in press). Coat variation in the domestic dog is governed by variants in three genes. Science 326, 150–153.
  12. ↵
    1. Chabas, D,
    2. Taheri, S,
    3. Renier, C and
    4. Mignot, E
    (2003). The genetics of narcolepsy. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 4, 459–483.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Chase, K,
    2. Lawler, DF,
    3. Carrier, DR and
    4. Lark, KG
    (2005). Genetic regulation of osteoarthritis: A QTL regulating cranial and caudal acetabular osteophyte formation in the hip joint of the dog (Canis familiaris).. Am J Hum Genet. 135, 334–335.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Chase, K,
    2. Sargan, D,
    3. Miller, K,
    4. Ostrander, EA and
    5. Lark, KG
    (2006). Understanding the genetics of autoimmune disease: two loci that regulate late onset Addison’s disease in Portuguese Water Dogs. Int J Imm. 33, 179–184.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Clark, AR and
    2. Brace, AH
    (1995). The International Encyclopedia of Dogs. New York, NY: Howell Book House.
  16. ↵
    1. Clark, LA,
    2. Wahl, JM,
    3. Steiner, JM,
    4. Zhou, W,
    5. Ji, W,
    6. Famula, TR,
    7. Williams, DA and
    8. Murphy, KE
    (2005). Linkage analysis and gene expression profile of pancreatic acinar atrophy in the German Shepherd Dog. Mamm Genome 16, 955–962.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Dorn, CR
    (1976). Epidemiology of canine and feline tumors. Comp Cont Educ Pract Vet. 12, 307–312.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Drogemuller, C,
    2. Karlsson, EK,
    3. Hytonen, MK,
    4. Perloski, M,
    5. Dolf, G,
    6. Sainio, K,
    7. Lohi, H,
    8. Lindblad-Toh, K and
    9. Leeb, T
    (2008). A mutation in hairless dogs implicates FOXI3 in ectodermal development. Science 321, 1462.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Egenvall, A,
    2. Bonnett, BN,
    3. Ohagen, P,
    4. Olson, P,
    5. Hedhammar, A and
    6. von Euler, H
    (2005). Incidence of and survival after mammary tumors in a population of over 80,000 insured female dogs in Sweden from 1995 to 2002. Prev Vet Med. 69, 109–127.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Favara, BE,
    2. Feller, AC,
    3. Pauli, M,
    4. Jaffe, ES,
    5. Weiss, LM,
    6. Arico, M,
    7. Bucsky, P,
    8. Egeler, RM,
    9. Elinder, G,
    10. Gadner, H,
    11. et al.
    (1997). Contemporary classification of histiocytic disorders. The WHO Committee on histiocytic/reticulum cell proliferations. Reclassification working group of the histiocyte society. Med Pediatr Oncol. 29, 157–166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Gilbertson, SR,
    2. Kurzman, ID,
    3. Zachrau, RE,
    4. Hurvitz, AI and
    5. Black, MM
    (1983). Canine mammary epithelial neoplasms: biologic implications of morphologic characteristics assessed in 232 dogs. Vet Pathol. 20, 127–142.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Glickman, LT,
    2. Schofer, FS,
    3. McKee, LJ,
    4. Reif, JS and
    5. Goldschmidt, MH
    (1989). Epidemiologic study of insecticide exposures, obesity, and risk of bladder cancer in household dogs. J Toxicol Environ Health 28, 407–414.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Glickman, LT,
    2. Raghavan, M,
    3. Knapp, DW,
    4. Bonney, PL and
    5. Dawson, MH
    (2004). Herbicide exposure and the risk of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder in Scottish Terriers. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 224, 1290–1297.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Goldschmidt, MH and
    2. Hendrick, MJ
    (2002). Tumors of the skin and soft tissues. In: Tumors in Domestic Animals (ed. Meuten, DJ), pp. 45–118. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
  23. ↵
    1. Hawkins, DS and
    2. Arndt, CA
    (2003). Pattern of disease recurrence and prognostic factors in patients with osteosarcoma treated with contemporary chemotherapy. Cancer 98, 2447–2456.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Hayes, HJ
    (1976). Canine bladder cancer: epidemiologic features. Am J Epidemiol. 104, 673–677.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Head, KW,
    2. Else, RW and
    3. Dubielzig, RR
    (2002). Tumors of the Alimentary Tract. In Tumors in Domestic Animals (ed. Meuten, DJ), pp. 401–482. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
  25. ↵
    1. Henry, CJ,
    2. Brewer, WG Jr.,
    3. Whitley, EM,
    4. Tyler, JW,
    5. Ogilvie, GK,
    6. Norris, A,
    7. Fox, LE,
    8. Morrison, WB,
    9. Hammer, A,
    10. Vail, DM,
    11. et al.
    (2005). Canine digital tumors: a veterinary cooperative oncology group retrospective study of 64 dogs. J Vet Intern Med. 19, 720–724.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Hungs, M,
    2. Fan, J,
    3. Lin, L,
    4. Lin, X,
    5. Maki, RA and
    6. Mignot, E
    (2001). Identification and functional analysis of mutations in the hypocretin (orexin) genes of narcoleptic canines. Genome Res. 11, 531–539.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Jezyk, PF,
    2. Felsburg, PJ,
    3. Haskins, ME and
    4. Patterson, DF
    (1989). X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency in the dog. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 52, 173–189.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Jónasdóttir, TJ,
    2. Mellersh, CS,
    3. Moe, L,
    4. Heggebø, R,
    5. Gamlem, H,
    6. Ostrander, EA and
    7. Lingaas, F
    (2000). Genetic mapping of a naturally occurring hereditary renal cancer syndrome in dogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97, 4132–4137.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Karlsson, EK and
    2. Lindblad-Toh, K
    (2008). Leader of the pack: gene mapping in dogs and other model organisms. Nat Rev Genet. 9, 713–725.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Karlsson, EK,
    2. Baranowska, I,
    3. Wade, CM,
    4. Salmon Hillbertz, NHC,
    5. Zody, MC,
    6. Anderson, N,
    7. Biagi, TM,
    8. Patterson, N,
    9. Pielberg, GR,
    10. Kulbokas, EJ,
    11. et al.
    (2007). Efficient mapping of mendelian traits in dogs through genome-wide association. Nat Genet. 39, 1321–1328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Khanna, C,
    2. Lindblad-Toh, K,
    3. Vail, D,
    4. London, C,
    5. Bergman, P,
    6. Barber, L,
    7. Breen, M,
    8. Kitchell, B,
    9. McNeil, E,
    10. Modiano, JF,
    11. et al.
    (2006). The dog as a cancer model. Nat Biotechnol. 24, 1065–1066.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Kirkness, EF,
    2. Bafna, V,
    3. Halpern, AL,
    4. Levy, S,
    5. Remington, K,
    6. Rusch, DB,
    7. Delcher, AL,
    8. Pop, M,
    9. Wang, W,
    10. Fraser, CM,
    11. et al.
    (2003). The dog genome: survey sequencing and comparative analysis. Science 301, 1898–1903.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Knapp, D,
    2. Richardson, R,
    3. Chan, T,
    4. Bottoms, G,
    5. Widmer, W,
    6. DeNicola, D,
    7. Teclaw, R,
    8. Bonney, P and
    9. Kuczek, T
    (1994). Piroxicam therapy in 34 dogs with transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. J Vet Intern Med. 8, 273–278.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Knapp, D,
    2. Glickman, N,
    3. DeNicola, D,
    4. Bonney, P,
    5. Lin, T and
    6. Glickman, L
    (2000). Naturally-occurring canine transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: A relevant model of human invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. 5, 47–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Leifer, CE and
    2. Matus, RE
    (1986). Canine lymphoma: clinical considerations. Semin Vet Med Surg (Small Anim) 1, 43–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Lin, L,
    2. Faraco, J,
    3. Li, R,
    4. Kadotani, H,
    5. Rogers, W,
    6. Lin, X,
    7. Qiu, X,
    8. Jong, PJd,
    9. Nishino, S and
    10. Mignot, E
    (1999). The sleep disorder canine narcolepsy is caused by a mutation in the hypocretin (orexin) receptor 2 gene. Cell 98, 365–376.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. ↵
    1. Lindblad-Toh, K,
    2. Wade, CM,
    3. Mikkelsen, TS,
    4. Karlsson, EK,
    5. Jaffe, DB,
    6. Kamal, M,
    7. Clamp, M,
    8. Chang, JL,
    9. Kulbokas, EJ 3rd.,
    10. Zody, MC,
    11. et al.
    (2005). Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature 438, 803–819.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Lingaas, F,
    2. Aarskaug, T,
    3. Sletten, M,
    4. Bjerkas, I,
    5. Grimholt, U,
    6. Moe, L,
    7. Juneja, RK,
    8. Wilton, AN,
    9. Galibert, F,
    10. Holmes, NG,
    11. et al.
    (1998). Genetic markers linked to neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis in English setter dogs. Anim Genet. 29, 371–376.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. Lingaas, F,
    2. Comstock, KE,
    3. Kirkness, EF,
    4. Sorensen, A,
    5. Aarskaug, T,
    6. Hitte, C,
    7. Nickerson, ML,
    8. Moe, L,
    9. Schmidt, LS,
    10. Thomas, R,
    11. et al.
    (2003). A mutation in the canine BHD gene is associated with hereditary multifocal renal cystadenocarcinoma and nodular dermatofibrosis in the German Shepherd dog. Hum Mol Genet. 12, 3043–3053.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Lohi, H,
    2. Young, EJ,
    3. Fitzmaurice, SN,
    4. Rusbridge, C,
    5. Chan, EM,
    6. Vervoort, M,
    7. Turnbull, J,
    8. Zhao, XC,
    9. Ianzano, L,
    10. Paterson, AD,
    11. et al.
    (2005). Expanded repeat in canine epilepsy. Science 307, 81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. MacEwen, EG
    (1990). Spontaneous tumors in dogs and cats: models for the study of cancer biology and treatment. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 9, 125–136.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Merlo, DF,
    2. Rossi, L,
    3. Pellegrino, C,
    4. Ceppi, M,
    5. Cardellino, U,
    6. Capurro, C,
    7. Ratto, A,
    8. Sambucco, PL,
    9. Sestito, V,
    10. Tanara, G,
    11. et al.
    (2008). Cancer incidence in pet dogs: findings of the Animal Tumor Registry of Genoa, Italy. J Vet Intern Med. 22, 976–984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Misdorp, W
    (2002). Tumors of the Mammary Gland. In Tumors in Domestic Animals (ed. Meuten, DJ), pp. 575–606. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
    1. Modiano, JF,
    2. Breen, M,
    3. Burnett, RC,
    4. Parker, HG,
    5. Inusah, S,
    6. Thomas, R,
    7. Avery, PR,
    8. Lindblad-Toh, K,
    9. Ostrander, EA,
    10. Cutter, GC,
    11. et al.
    (2005). Distinct B-cell and T-cell lymphoproliferative disease prevalence among dog breeds indicates heritable risk. Cancer Res. 65, 5654–5661.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Moe, L,
    2. Gamlem, H,
    3. Jonasdottir, TJ and
    4. Lingaas, F
    (2000). Renal microcystic tubular lesions in two 1-year-old-dogs- an early sign on hereditary renal cystadenocarcinomas? J Comp Pathol. 123, 218–221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. ↵
    1. Mohammed, SI,
    2. Bennett, PF,
    3. Craig, BA,
    4. Glickman, NW,
    5. Mutsaers, AJ,
    6. Snyder, PW,
    7. Widmer, WR,
    8. DeGortari, AE,
    9. Bonney, PL and
    10. Knapp, DW
    (2002). Effects of the cyclooxygenase inhibitor, piroxicam, on tumor response, apoptosis, and angiogenesis in a canine model of human invasive urinary bladder cancer. Cancer Res. 62, 356–358.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Moore, PF and
    2. Rosin, A
    (1986). Malignant histiocytosis of Bernese mountain dogs. Vet Pathol. 23, 1–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Mueller, F,
    2. Fuchs, B and
    3. Kaser-Hotz, B
    (2007). Comparative biology of human and canine osteosarcoma. Anticancer Res. 27, 155–164.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Nickerson, M,
    2. Warren, M,
    3. Toro, J,
    4. Matrosova, V,
    5. Glenn, G,
    6. Turner, M,
    7. Duray, P,
    8. Merino, M,
    9. Choyke, P,
    10. Pavlovich, C,
    11. et al.
    (2002). Mutations in a novel gene lead to kidney tumors, lung wall defects, and benign tumors of the hair follicle in patients with the Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome. Cancer Cell 2, 157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    1. O’Brien, MG,
    2. Berg, J and
    3. Engler, SJ
    (1992). Treatment by digital amputation of subungual squamous cell carcinoma in dogs: 21 cases (1987–1988). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 201, 759–761.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Onions, DE
    (1984). A prospective survey of familial canine lymphosarcoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 72, 909–912.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Ostrander, EA and
    2. Kruglyak, L
    (2000). Unleashing the canine genome. Genome Res. 10, 1271–1274.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Ostrander, EA and
    2. Wayne, RK
    (2005). The canine genome. Genome Res. 15, 1706–1716.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Ostrander, EA,
    2. Galibert, F and
    3. Patterson, DF
    (2000). Canine genetics comes of age. Trends Genet. 16, 117–124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. ↵
    1. Ott, J
    (1976). A computer program for linkage analysis of general human pedigrees. Am J Hum Genet. 28, 528–529.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  52. ↵
    1. Paoloni, MC and
    2. Khanna, C
    (2007). Comparative oncology today. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 37, 1023–1032.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. ↵
    1. Parker, H,
    2. Kukekova, A,
    3. Akey, D,
    4. Goldstein, Ol,
    5. Kirkness, E,
    6. Baysac, K,
    7. Mosher, DS,
    8. Aguirre, G,
    9. Acland, GM and
    10. Ostrander, EA
    (2007). Breed relationships facilitate fine mapping studies: A 7.8 Kb deletion cosegregates with collie eye anomaly across multiple dog breeds. Genome Res. 17, 1562–1571.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Parker, HG and
    2. Ostrander, EA
    (2005). Canine genomics and genetics: Running with the pack. PLoS Genet. 1, e58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Parker, HG,
    2. Kim, LV,
    3. Sutter, NB,
    4. Carlson, S,
    5. Lorentzen, TD,
    6. Malek, TB,
    7. Johnson, GS,
    8. DeFrance, HB,
    9. Ostrander, EA and
    10. Kruglyak, L
    (2004). Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Science 304, 1160–1164.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Parker, HG,
    2. VonHoldt, BM,
    3. Quignon, P,
    4. Margulies, EH,
    5. Shao, S,
    6. Mosher, DS,
    7. Spady, TC,
    8. Elkahloun, A,
    9. Cargill, M,
    10. Jones, PG,
    11. et al.
    (2009). Expressed fibroblast growth factor 4 (fgf4) retrogene causes breed-defining chondrodysplasia in the domestic dog. Science 325, 995–998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Patterson, D
    (2000). Companion animal medicine in the age of medical genetics. J Vet Internal Med. 14, 1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Phillips, JC,
    2. Stephenson, B,
    3. Hauck, M and
    4. Dillberger, J
    (2007). Heritability and segregation analysis of osteosarcoma in the Scottish deerhound. Genomics 90, 354–363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Pool, RR and
    2. Thompson, KG
    (2002). Tumors of Joints. In Tumors in Domestic Animals (ed. Meuten, DJ), pp. 199–244. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
    1. Priester, WA
    (1974). Data from eleven United States and Canadian colleges of veterinary medicine on pancreatic carcinoma in domestic animals. Cancer Res. 34, 1372–1375.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Ramos-Vara, JA,
    2. Beissenherz, ME,
    3. Miller, MA,
    4. Johnson, GC,
    5. Pace, LW,
    6. Fard, A and
    7. Kottler, SJ
    (2000). Retrospective study of 338 canine oral melanomas with clinical, histologic, and immunohistochemical review of 129 cases. Vet Pathol. 37, 597–608.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Rosenberger, JA,
    2. Pablo, NV and
    3. Crawford, PC
    (2007). Prevalence of and intrinsic risk factors for appendicular osteosarcoma in dogs: 179 cases (1996–2005). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 231, 1076–1080.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Rueda, OM and
    2. Diaz-Uriarte, R
    (2007). Flexible and accurate detection of genomic copy-number changes from aCGH. PLoS Comput Biol. 3, e122.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Salmon Hillbertz, NHC,
    2. Isaksson, M,
    3. Karlsson, EK,
    4. Hellmen, E,
    5. Pielberg, GR,
    6. Savolainen, P,
    7. Wade, CM,
    8. von Euler, H,
    9. Gustafson, U,
    10. Hedhammar, A,
    11. et al.
    (2007). Duplication of FGF3, FGF4, FGF19 and ORAOV1 causes hair ridge and predisposition to dermoid sinus in Ridgeback dogs. Nat Genet. 39, 1318–1320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Schmidt, LS,
    2. Warren, MB,
    3. Nickerson, ML,
    4. Weirich, G,
    5. Matrosova, V,
    6. Toro, JR,
    7. Turner, ML,
    8. Duray, P,
    9. Merino, M,
    10. Hewitt, S,
    11. et al.
    (2001). Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome, a genodermatosis associated with spontaneous pneumothorax and kidney neoplasia, maps to chromosome 17p11.2. Am J Hum Genet. 69, 876–882.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. ↵
    1. Sidjanin, DJ,
    2. Lowe, JK,
    3. McElwee, JL,
    4. Milne, BS,
    5. Phippen, TM,
    6. Sargan, DR,
    7. Aguirre, GD,
    8. Acland, GM and
    9. Ostrander, EA
    (2002). Canine CNGB3 mutations establish cone degeneration as orthologous to the human achromatopsia locus ACHM3. Hum Mol Genet. 11, 1823–1833.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Storb, R and
    2. Thomas, ED
    (1985). Graft-versus-host disease in dog and man: the Seattle Experience. In Immunological Reviews No. 88 (ed. , MG), pp. 215–238. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
  63. ↵
    1. Sutter, NB,
    2. Eberle, MA,
    3. Parker, HG,
    4. Pullar, BJ,
    5. Kirkness, EF,
    6. Kruglyak, L and
    7. Ostrander, EA
    (2004). Extensive and breed-specific linkage disequilibrium in Canis familiaris. Genome Res. 14, 2388–2396.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Tamburini, BA,
    2. Trapp, S,
    3. Phang, TL,
    4. Schappa, JT,
    5. Hunter, LE and
    6. Modiano, JF
    (2009). Gene expression profiles of sporadic canine hemangiosarcoma are uniquely associated with breed. PLoS One 4, e5549.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Taylor, GN,
    2. Shabestari, L,
    3. Williams, J,
    4. Mays, CW,
    5. Angus, W and
    6. McFarland, S
    (1976). Mammary neoplasia in a closed beagle colony. Cancer Res. 36, 2740–2743.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Thomas, R,
    2. Wang, HJ,
    3. Tsai, PC,
    4. Langford, CF,
    5. Fosmire, SP,
    6. Jubala, CM,
    7. Getzy, DM,
    8. Cutter, GR,
    9. Modiano, JF and
    10. Breen, M
    (2009). Influence of genetic background on tumor karyotypes: evidence for breed-associated cytogenetic aberrations in canine appendicular osteosarcoma. Chromosome Res. 17, 365–377.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Thompson, KG and
    2. Pool, RR
    (2002). Tumors of Bones. In Tumors in Domestic Animals (ed. Meuten, DJ), pp. 245–318. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
  66. ↵
    1. Vail, DM and
    2. MacEwen, EG
    (2000). Spontaneously occurring tumors of companion animals as models for human cancer. Cancer Invest. 18, 781–792.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Valli, VE,
    2. Vernau, W,
    3. de Lorimier, LP,
    4. Graham, PS and
    5. Moore, PF
    (2006). Canine indolent nodular lymphoma. Vet Pathol. 43, 241–256.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. ↵
    1. Wang, TL,
    2. Maierhofer, C,
    3. Speicher, MR,
    4. Lengauer, C,
    5. Vogelstein, B,
    6. Kinzler, KW and
    7. Velculescu, VE
    (2002). Digital karyotyping. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99, 16156–16161.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Wayne, RK and
    2. Ostrander, EA
    (2007). Lessons learned from the dog genome. Trends Genet. 23, 557–567.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Welle, MM,
    2. Bley, CR,
    3. Howard, J and
    4. Rufenacht, S
    (2008). Canine mast cell tumours: a review of the pathogenesis, clinical features, pathology and treatment. Vet Dermatol. 19, 321–339.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Wiik, AC,
    2. Wade, C,
    3. Biagi, T,
    4. Ropstad, EO,
    5. Bjerkås, E,
    6. Lindblad-Toh, K and
    7. Lingaas, F
    (2008). A deletion in nephronophthisis 4 (NPHP4) is associated with recessive cone-rod dystrophy in standard wire-haired dachshund. Genome Res. 18, 1415–1421.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Wilcox, B and
    2. Walkowicz, C
    (1995). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, NJ: T.F.H. Publications.
  72. ↵
    1. Zangerl, B,
    2. Goldstein, O,
    3. Philp, AR,
    4. Lindauer, SJ,
    5. Pearce-Kelling, SE,
    6. Mullins, RF,
    7. Graphodatsky, AS,
    8. Ripoll, D,
    9. Felix, JS,
    10. Stone, EM,
    11. et al.
    (2006). Identical mutation in a novel retinal gene causes progressive rod-cone degeneration in dogs and retinitis pigmentosa in humans. Genomics 88, 551–563.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Disease Models & Mechanisms.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Leading the way: canine models of genomics and disease
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Disease Models & Mechanisms
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Disease Models & Mechanisms web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Primer
Leading the way: canine models of genomics and disease
Abigail L. Shearin, Elaine A. Ostrander
Disease Models & Mechanisms 2010 3: 27-34; doi: 10.1242/dmm.004358
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Primer
Leading the way: canine models of genomics and disease
Abigail L. Shearin, Elaine A. Ostrander
Disease Models & Mechanisms 2010 3: 27-34; doi: 10.1242/dmm.004358

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Breed structure and disease predisposition of dogs
    • Mapping disease genes in dogs
    • Cancer
    • Renal cystadenocarcinoma and nodular dermatofibrosis in the German shepherd dog
    • Transitional cell carcinoma
    • Malignant histiocytosis in the Bernese mountain dog
    • Appendicular osteosarcoma
    • Chronic myelogenous leukemia
    • Conclusions and long-term issues
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Zebrafish models flex their muscles to shed light on muscular dystrophies
  • Swatting flies: modelling wound healing and inflammation in Drosophila
  • The ferret as a model organism to study influenza A virus infection
Show more Primer

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Journal of Experimental Biology

Biology Open

Advertisement

DMM and COVID-19

We are aware that the COVID-19 pandemic is having an unprecedented impact on researchers worldwide. The Editors of all The Company of Biologists’ journals have been considering ways in which we can alleviate concerns that members of our community may have around publishing activities during this time. Read about the actions we are taking at this time.

Please don’t hesitate to contact the Editorial Office if you have any questions or concerns.


Professor Elizabeth Patton appointed as DMM’s next Editor-in-Chief

We are pleased to announce that The Company of Biologists directors have appointed Professor Elizabeth Patton as DMM's new Editor-in-Chief. As Paresh Vyas writes in his Editorial, Liz ‘brings vitality and a passion for the remit of DMM, and is deeply embedded in the community.’


Did you know DMM Conference Travel Grants can be used for online meetings?

With travel restrictions still in place, we want to continue supporting early-career researchers in their careers. DMM’s Conference Travel Grants can now be used to attend virtual and online scientific meetings, workshops, conferences and training courses.

The current application round closes on 8 February 2021 – find out more.


Identification of MYOM2 as a candidate gene in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and Tetralogy of Fallot, and its functional evaluation in the Drosophila heart

Research from Silke Sperling and colleagues uses Drosophila to identify MYOM2 as a candidate gene in congenital heart malformations in this issue’s Editor’s choice.


C. elegans as a disease model

A new Research article from Doyle et al., models spinal muscular atrophy in C. elegans to show that that targeting therapies to muscle cells is more effective than neuronal delivery. Find more research using C. elegans as a disease model in our latest subject collection.


Call for papers – The RAS Pathway: Diseases, Therapeutics and Beyond

Our upcoming special issue is now welcoming submissions until 1 April 2021. Guest-edited by Donita Brady (Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, USA) and Arvin Dar (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA), the issue will focus on the targeting the RAS pathway. Find out more about the issue and how to submit your manuscript.


Interview – Kim Landry-Truchon and Nicolas Houde

In an interview, first authors Kim Landry-Truchon and Nicolas Houde discuss their mouse model of the early stages of pleuropulmonary blastoma, reflecting on the implications of their work and the future of their field.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About DMM
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact DMM
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992