New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Dog Breeds Ideal for Studying Human Diseases, Scientists Say

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Scientists have completed a detailed DNA comparison of purebred pooches and found that a few hundred years of selective siring has resulted in significant genetic differences among breeds.

Elaine Ostrander of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington and her colleagues collected tissue samples from 414 pedigreed dogs representing 85 breeds. By analyzing so-called microsatellites--short sequences of DNA that serve as signposts for genes--the team compared similarities and differences among the various kinds of dogs. According to the report, the microsatelite sequences from dogs of the same breed were much more similar to one another than they were to sequences from dogs belonging to different breeds. "These differences are so distinct that we could just feed a dog¿s genetic pattern into the database, and the computer could match it to a breed," notes study co-author Leonid Kruglyak, also at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

The findings, published today in the journal Science, could prove useful in the fight against a variety of human diseases. "There are more than 400 breeds of dog, and each is an isolated breeding population," Ostrander explains. "What that means is that each dog breed is like a little Iceland--an isolated population that allows us to simplify a complicated genetic problem." Because dogs suffer from many of the same afflictions that can strike people--cancer, heart disease and diabetes, among them--the authors hope that Fido¿s genome will help narrow the search for disease-causing genes in his owner.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe