Holding back the genes: limitations of research into canine behavioural genetics

Canine behaviours that are both desirable and undesirable to owners have a demonstrable genetic component. Some behaviours are breed-specific, such as the livestock guarding by maremmas and flank sucking seen in Dobermanns. While the identification of genes responsible for common canine diseases is rapidly advancing, those genes underlying behaviours remain elusive. The challenges of accurately defining and measuring behavioural phenotypes remain an obstacle, and the use of variable phenotyping methods has prevented meta-analysis of behavioural studies. International standardised testing protocols and terminology in canine behavioural evaluations should facilitate selection against behavioural disorders in the modern dog and optimise breeding success and performance in working dogs. This review examines the common hurdles faced by researchers of behavioural genetics and the current state of knowledge

Work-type influences perceived livestock herding success in Australian Working Kelpies

Background Working dog handlers and breeders have very different behavioural requirements in the animals that they employ for managing livestock. The Australian Working Kelpie breed may be used in several working contexts, notably yards, paddocks and a combination of both. The working context influences the skillsets required and gives rise to three corresponding work-types: Yard, Paddock and Utility Kelpies. In particular, dogs used for working stock in the confines of yards and trucks interact with stock more forcefully than those mustering in larger areas (paddocks) where they can herd stock effectively from a greater distance. This article explores owner assessments of dog working quality and assessment of genomic similarity by multidimensional scaling, to ask whether it is sufficient for breeders to aim for a multipurpose breeding objective, or whether breeding only specialist lines maximises user satisfaction for yard and paddock work. Results Reported owner perceptions of 298 dogs assessed with the Livestock Herding Dog assessment tool showed that dog handlers across all working types were very happy with their dogs’ level of general skills. Compared with both Yard and Utility Kelpies, Paddock Kelpies had significantly lower trait scores for force(pressure applied by the dog to move livestock), willingness to back the stock (run along a sheep’s dorsum) and bite (frequency of using the mouth to grab or bite the livestock). Meanwhile, compared with both Paddock and Utility Kelpies, the Yard Kelpies had significantly higher scores for hyperactivity and excitability (both with and without stock) and impulsiveness without stock. As one would predict for all-rounders, Utility Kelpies had intermediate scores for all behaviours and working traits. Conclusions Specialist characteristics were displayed by dogs in the Yard Kelpie and Paddock Kelpie groups. In particular, Yard Kelpies demonstrate higher excitability, willingness to back the stock, and a higher tendency to bark and bite the stock. Conversely, Paddock Kelpies rarely display these characteristics. Utility Kelpies, as the name suggests, are intermediate between the other two groups and display the characteristics of both. Genetic analysis suggests that the Yard, Utility and Paddock Kelpies are not distinguishable at a DNA level. In conclusion, at this time there is no suggestion of a breed split in the Australian Working Kelpie generated by selection for work type. A common breeding objective should enable dogs to be produced that fulfil all potential working requirements. This reinforces the importance of breeder skill in recognising the phenotypic potential of pups in order to place them in appropriate working contexts

Canine separation-related distress: investigating phenotype and genetic basis

Canine separation-related distress (SRD) is a debilitating and common disorder in companion dogs. Affected dogs show physiological and behavioural signs of distress when left alone or separated from certain family members. Commonly reported signs are vocalisation, destruction and house-soiling. The disorder can reduce the quality of life of affected dogs and compromise the bond between dogs and owners. Canine SRD is likely to have a significant inherited component. The aims of this thesis were to review current knowledge of SRD, investigate the use of a questionnaire to phenotype SRD, and to identify associated genomic regions of interest. Populations of Labrador retrievers and golden retrievers from across Australia were phenotyped using an owner-based behaviour questionnaire that was validated by comparing the owner’s questionnaire responses to video footage of the dogs when left alone. To explore the genes that may influence the disorder, both a quantitative genome-wide association study and case/control candidate studies were performed. Four candidate genes associated with attachment were examined: oprm1, drd2, avpr1a and oxtr. One haplotype flanking drd2 demonstrated a significant association with SRD in a cohort of 55 golden retrievers. Genome-wide association analysis of our cohort of 90 Labrador retrievers identified a novel locus on chromosome 1 to be the most strongly associated with SRD. These findings of this work are preliminary. Future steps include validating our findings in a larger naïve phenotyped population, and sequencing the region of interest to identify mutations. Identifying the genetic basis of the disorder enables us to capture that elusive biology linking inheritance and behaviour. This can potentially lead to the development of more targeted pharmacological treatments or early identification of at-risk dogs, allowing for early therapeutic interventions

Mortality Resulting from Undesirable Behaviours in Dogs Aged Three Years and under Attending Primary-Care Veterinary Practices in Australia

There is increasing evidence that undesirable behaviours (UBs) in dogs can compromise the welfare of both canine companions and their carers. Veterinarians are regularly consulted about affected animals and may be asked to euthanase the more severely affected individuals. A recent study of veterinary records showed that UBs were the predominant cause of mortality in young dogs in the UK. This companion study from Australia reports the proportion of mortality due to UBs among dogs aged three years and under that attended veterinary practices from 2013 to 2018. Deidentified patient records were extracted from the VetCompass Australia database and manually assessed to reveal the prevalence and type of UBs reported. The results reveal that 29.7% of the 4341 dogs that died at three years of age or under had deaths ascribed to at least one UB, and that the most commonly reported UB was aggression. Neutered dogs had 2.5× the odds of death due to an UB compared to intact dogs, and crossbred dogs were found to have 1.43× the odds of a UB related death compared to purebred dogs. The breeds at highest risk were Australian cattle dogs (odds ratio (OR) 4.77) and American Staffordshire terriers (OR 4.69). The attending veterinarian referred behaviour cases to a behaviourist or dog trainer in 11.0% of all UB cases, and attempted pharmacological therapy in 5.9% of cases. The results reveal how often UBs affect dogs and their owners in Australia, and infer the beneficial impact that educating dog owners and veterinary professionals in modifying and managing UBs may have

Mental Health Disease or Preventable Problem? Australian Dog Trainers’ Opinions about Canine Separation Anxiety Differ with Training Style

Separation anxiety is common. Many dog owners do not seek help from a veterinarian but might consult a trainer. The objective of this study was to investigate Australian trainers’ opinions about separation anxiety. An online survey was distributed via training organisations, resulting in 63 completed surveys. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact tests were applied. Respondents were grouped into reward-based (n = 41) and balanced (n = 22) trainers. Most trainers (82.5%) used multiple methods to identify separation anxiety but only 7.9% referred to a veterinarian for diagnosis. Reward-based trainers ranked assistance from a veterinarian and owner’s willingness to try medication as more important than balanced trainers (p < 0.05). More balanced trainers reported that medication was rarely necessary in the cases they saw: 50% balanced compared with 4.9% reward-based trainers, with 95% CIs of [28.2, 71.8] and [0.6, 16.5], respectively. Almost all (95.5%) balanced trainers believed separation anxiety was preventable compared with 52.6% of reward-based trainers (p < 0.05). We conclude that opinions about separation anxiety varied between reward-based and balanced trainers. Trainers are not taught, expected, or legally allowed to diagnose anxiety disorders. This study showed that balanced trainers were less likely to recommend involvement of veterinarians who can make a diagnosis and rule out other causes of observed behaviours

Defining Terms Used for Animals Working in Support Roles for People with Support Needs.

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: "assistance animal", "companion animal", "educational/school support animal", "emotional support animal", "facility animal", "service animal", "skilled companion animal", "therapy animal", and "visiting/visitation animal". At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., "skilled companion animal" and "service animal") due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed

Defining Terms Used for Animals Working in Support Roles for People with Support Needs

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed