↓ Skip to main content

A genetic assessment of the English bulldog

Overview of attention for article published in Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
254 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
61 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
A genetic assessment of the English bulldog
Published in
Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40575-016-0036-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niels C. Pedersen, Ashley S. Pooch, Hongwei Liu

Abstract

This study examines genetic diversity among 102 registered English Bulldogs used for breeding based on maternal and paternal haplotypes, allele frequencies in 33 highly polymorphic short tandem repeat (STR) loci on 25 chromosomes, STR-linked dog leukocyte antigen (DLA) class I and II haplotypes, and the number and size of genome-wide runs of homozygosity (ROH) determined from high density SNP arrays. The objective was to assess whether the breed retains enough genetic diversity to correct the genotypic and phenotypic abnormalities associated with poor health, to allow for the elimination of deleterious recessive mutations, or to make further phenotypic changes in body structure or coat. An additional 37 English bulldogs presented to the UC Davis Veterinary Clinical Services for health problems were also genetically compared with the 102 registered dogs based on the perception that sickly English bulldogs are products of commercial breeders or puppy-mills and genetically different and inferior. Four paternal haplotypes, with one occurring in 93 % of dogs, were identified using six Y-short tandem repeat (STR) markers. Three major and two minor matrilines were identified by mitochondrial D-loop sequencing. Heterozygosity was determined from allele frequencies at genomic loci; the average number of alleles per locus was 6.45, with only 2.7 accounting for a majority of the diversity. However, observed and expected heterozygosity values were nearly identical, indicating that the population as a whole was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE). However, internal relatedness (IR) and adjusted IR (IRVD) values demonstrated that a number of individuals were the offspring of parents that were either more inbred or outbred than the population as a whole. The diversity of DLA class I and II haplotypes was low, with only 11 identified DLA class I and nine class II haplotypes. Forty one percent of the breed shared a single DLA class I and 62 % a single class II haplotype. Nineteen percent of the dogs were homozygous for the dominant DLA class I haplotype and 42 % for the dominant DLA class II haplotype. The extensive loss of genetic diversity is most likely the result of a small founder population and artificial genetic bottlenecks occurring in the past. The prominent phenotypic changes characteristic of the breed have also resulted in numerous large runs of homozygosity (ROH) throughout the genome compared to Standard Poodles, which were phenotypically more similar to indigenous-type dogs. English bulldogs have very low genetic diversity resulting from a small founder population and artificial genetic bottlenecks. Although some phenotypic and genotypic diversity still exists within the breed, whether it is sufficient to use reverse selection to improve health, select against simple recessive deleterious traits, and/or to accommodate further genotypic/phenotypic manipulations without further decreasing existing genetic diversity is questionable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 105 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 23%
Other 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 27 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2102. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,627
of 23,151,828 outputs
Outputs from Canine Genetics and Epidemiology
#2
of 74 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35
of 366,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canine Genetics and Epidemiology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,151,828 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 60.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.