I’m going to keep this real simple, so everybody, including me, gets it. To make it easier on myself, I’ve divided this information into sections, so look for more stuff in the coming weeks as I get it done. I’m thinking maybe two more articles in the series. If I get a wild hair I’ll likely get it done faster.
PART I: MHC, DLA, WTF?
Right, so what is the MHC, and why should we care? MHC stands for Major Histocompatibility Complex. Keep that term in mind, because if you use it you’ll sound smart. The MHC is, basically, the gene family that makes up the immune system. In people these genes are called Human Leukocyte Antigens, or HLA genes. In dogs, surprisingly enough, they are called Dog Leukocyte Antigens, or DLA genes. Can you guess what they’re called in cats? CLA genes? Wrong! It’s FLA genes. DLA and MHC as terms are pretty interchangeable.
The MHC is comprised of three regions, which are called Class I, Class II, and Class III. MHC genes regulate the immune response, and help the body to identify foreign invaders (viruses, bacteria, very small aliens), and to recognize the body’s own cells (auto-immunity.) Stuff (antigens) enters the body, and the DLA genes pick it up and wave it around, saying “Hey, look at this! You know what this is! Killitkillitkillit!” Or, in the case of auto-immunity, “Hey, look at this! This belongs here, leave it the hell alone!” The MHC will determine the response to infections, vaccinations, and development of auto-immune disease. It cleans up all the minor little goofs that go on in the body, like messed up cells. The MHC is really, really, really, really important.
Dog have several genes in their Class I region, one of which is very diverse, with lots of alleles. They have three haplotypes, or groups of alleles, in their Class II region, which are called DLA-DRB1, DLA-DQA1 and DLA-DQB1. Each one of these haplotypes is polymorphic, having many variable genes. There are more than two hundred different alleles that can be present in each Class II haplotype, and they find more of them all the time. Class III is much less well studied.
You are probably familiar with the MHC, even if you don’t know it, because these are the genes that are checked for compatibility in organ transplants. In a human population, one that is a melting pot and not a specific ethnic or otherwise somewhat isolated group, no individuals, except for twins, will have exactly the same genes in their MHC. That is why siblings or parents or clones are preferred for organ transplants, because otherwise, the immune system considers the transplant an invader. Think about how hard it is, and how long it takes, to find a matching donor. That is because the human MHC is incredibly diverse.
Antigens are everywhere, tons of them, all different kinds, so a very diverse immune system is going to be advantageous. In a given population with lots of diversity in the MHC, there is always going to be someone who is immune to a particular microbe. Like when there’s an epidemic, some people won’t die, because they’ve got the right genes. At that moment in time, they have the evolutionary advantage, and their genes will be perpetuated. The MHC actually evolves to fit the local antigens, and vice versa. This is called host-pathogen coevolution, we’ll talk about it a little bit later in regards to natural species (dogs are not natural!) and it makes the science girl in me go “Squee!”.
There are many studies proving associations (risk factors) for auto-immune disease like thyroid problems and diabetes, with certain genes in the MHC. For instance, Gordon setters have a haplotype that is associated with SLO, symmetrical lupoid onychodystrophy, an immune mediated disease which affects the dog’s toenails. Dogs which had two copies of the haplotype (homozygous) were at even higher risk for the disease than the dogs with only one copy. Even more interesting, there is another haplotype, which the diseased dogs didn’t have and which was quite rare, that is associated with protection from developing the disease! Dogs that had both the protective allele, and the disease-associated allele (heterozygous) didn’t have the disease. Cool, eh? What sucks for the Gordon Setter is that the haplotype associated with higher risk of disease is super common, forty-three percent of the dogs in the study had it. Bummer.
This is why scientists just looooove purebred dogs for studying the MHC. Because breeds are basically groups of interrelated individuals, they have a limited number of DLA genes, unlike humans, which have loads of HLA genes, so it is easier to associate disease with specific haplotypes. Dog breeds each typically have four or five different haplotypes that occur frequently in the population. Some breeds have quite a large number of different haplotypes, like Salukis, and some have very, very few. Like in this study, where forty percent of the dogs that were gene typed were homozygous at DLA-DRB1, fifty-two percent at DLA-DQA1, and forty-four percent at DLA-DQB1. That’s out of three-hundred and sixty dogs. These haplotypes are inherited just like any other genes, one copy from mom, one from dad. So if a dog inherits the same gene from both mom and dad, they will be homozygous. Populations that have very few founders, or that went through a bottleneck where only a few representatives lived, will have less variability in their MHC. Purebred dogs are closed populations, descended from few, sometime very few, individuals, and many breeds have gone through one or more bottlenecks. So, purebred dogs have poor DLA gene diversity within breeds.
But wait, you say, didn’t you just tell us that it’s better to have a very diverse MHC? That individuals that are diverse are actually better at countering all the viruses and bacteria and nasty stuff in the environment? That homozygous individuals with less diversity are more likely to have auto-immune problems? Aren’t immune system malfunctions like allergies and food intolerances and cancer pretty common in dogs?
Yes. Yes, yes, yes.
Whoa, you say, are you shitting me? Cancer? You betcha. Cancer cells are normal cells gone awry. When the good cells go bad, the antigens on their surface, which tell the MHC what they are (part of the body), change. That changed antigen tells the immune system, “Hey! Clean up on aisle one!” But what if the immune system doesn’t have a gene that recognizes that antigen, hmmm? Didn’t I say the MHC is really, really, really, really important?
This is why closed registries mean that purebred dogs are going straight to hell in a handbasket. Some are on the express handbasket, some on the slow stop and smell the roses handbasket, but as long as registries remain closed, the only destination for that handbasket is Hell.
To sum up:
The Major Histocompatibility Complex is the genetic basis for the immune system.
The immune system protects us from antigens, like viruses and bacteria, and cleans up biological screw ups, like cancer cells, and recognizes our own tissues so it doesn’t attack them by mistake, and determines response to vaccines and stuff like that.
Diversity in the MHC is good and helps the individual to respond to antigens. There are lots of antigens, so having lots of different DLA genes is advantageous.
Specific DLA genes are associated with risk for certain diseases. Other genes may be protective against diseases.
Dogs have a lot of different DLA haplotypes across the species, which is good.
Individual breeds tend to have only a few haplotypes, which is bad.
Closed registries restrict breeds to only the haplotypes they already have. They cannot shop around for new ones, even if the ones they have are kind of screwed up, or very widespread throughout the breed.
Closed registries + restricted number of DLA genes = handbasket to Hell.
Join us next time when I talk about how the MHC would adapt and change in an open population, why inbred Cheetahs are not the equivalent of inbred dogs, how modern breeding practices actually put the dog into the handbasket, and how judicious use of science can help the dog get out!
Read part II here.
Read part II here.
This is good stuff.
It's something that needs to be taught to everyone even remotely interested in any animal.
Thank you for this post.
I tried to explain this [in very broad strokes] in my recent inbreeding series with a simple “inbreeding throws away information, your immune system needs information” knowing that I'd never be able to fit a decent treatment into a single post, let alone one that's just trying to dispel some stupidity.
I haven't yet had the time to really learn and digest the specifics, so you've done us all a service.
I look forward to the other posts, this is fantastic.
This is vastly, extra-super simplified. I didn't want to confuse people or make their eyes glaze over, and for the purposes of breeding dogs you don't need to get that complicated, anyways. I did test it on Brett first.
I am not sure, when I talk about this stuff in comments, whether people just don't understand it, and that's why I never get a response, or whether it just isn't important to them.
I feel the same thing. No comments on posts that take forever to write and which I feel are important.
Consider that, as I have finally come around to, most readers don't comment because you've just taught them 100% of what they know about the subject. Sort of like when the teacher asks “any questions” at the end of the hard lecture.
Most people don't want to ask a stupid question, don't know enough to spot a possible mistake, or don't know what they don't know.
I used to get depressed that people only post comments on silly stuff that was easy to relate to. But I noticed that even though some posts don't get comments, they get read again and again.
I'll point out that I didn't get any real comments on my “Inbreeding is Screwing Yourself” post but that the recent ones are my most popular ever. I think that it's the same issue. In the first post it was almost all educational so the answer is “mmm, ok, that's interesting, I know more now, don't need to comment.”
Whereas the new posts are taking on arguments that people are likely to have been reading for years now. They've already processed it, so if I turned something over, it's more “aha!” than me trying to talk about alleles and information loss and self pollination. Blah Blah.
This is some of the most important blogging in the dog world, so keep it up. We need to make these concepts more familiar and talked about.
Dog diary blogs aren't going to save dogs, but posts like this will.
It's unfortunate that blogs like Terrierman and Petconnection won't talk about this or link to our posts due to their own… issues.
I'm going to walk into work tonight and say MHC and they're all going to think I'm a GENIUS.
Sike.
On the real, I enjoy stuff like this. I wish there were more on the internets, so keep it comin'. You'll have an avid reader in me, at least.
“I did test it on Brett first,” made me snerf coffee.
It's tough to comment in the middle of a series. There is the urge to wait until the end out of respect. A lot of questions are answered by the end when the writers know their stuff…
But in the meantime, this and the Inbreeding series at Borderwars, rocks. Educational, entertaining and therefore clever writing.
I am asked to clarify that I tested the post on Brett for clarity, not because Brett is an idiot. I would never marry an idiot.
What Christopher said.
Tangent for Christopher: Dog diary blogs won’t save dogs (restore/increase genetic diversity) on their own. But they do pose the outrageously basic question: to which aims are we attempting to save dogs? Gasp, sigh, confusion. Yes, why are you saving dogs?
Monday is typically recognized as a combative and intolerant day, but this question is not of that sort. Perhaps if you can formulate and come back to this answer in posts, you can connect with an even larger audience than you already do.
(My intent, in the words of Bill S. Preston Esq., “Be excellent to each other.”)
Liz,
Can you ask that question again?
What exactly do you mean?
@ Liz,
I'm just pointing out that 99% of pet blog posts are internet scrapbooking. These are unlikely to get anyone to change their thoughts or behaviors. And I doubt that's their goal.
I don't know why you think this is that complex. There are plenty of strategies to bring about change and I've picked mine. I could have kept my head down for 20 years, joined a bunch of dog clubs, eventually gotten a leadership position, done some smoozing, and then tried to get some bylaws changed here and there.
I didn't. That's not my plan.
My plan is to put out well written arguments backed up by objective data and information. To call out people directly for the evils they do and the stupid things they believe.
Perhaps my strategy is wrong, but since I'm not getting paid to do this, I don't take orders.
In fact, if you were on the receiving end of as much vitriol as I am, you probably would decide to post less fluffy diary posts too. They are just a liability. Everything personal I post gets scrutinized and attacked. I post a friend's name, they get hate mail, I post a breeder's name I got a dog from, they get hate mail, my dogs get studded out, those breeders get hate mail.
Sorry, but I don't think me opening up more and sharing my inner scrapbooker more is worth more readership. I'm doing ok as it is, over 100 subscribers and my posts are top in google for key Border Collie search terms.
Most people love their dogs, even the ones doing really stupid things with the breed. This isn't a fruitful avenue IMO.
Christopher: if you're going to piss people off anyways, it's far better to have fun while you're doing it.
Yea Jess, it is. I saw that idiot who was trying to take cheap shots at your breeding program on that internet forum.
I hate people like that. Such a diversion.
Whoa, I'm sorry. I was hoping for at best, maybe a simultaneous air guitar. I can be misunderstood. Maybe that should stop me from trying…
I don't want to take away from a fantastic post, or from the valuable work you all are doing.
Party on?
Liz, It's just that we're well past the “Get along, go along” phase. Getting along means going along with a system that is untenable, rigid, and unable to sustain the dogs we love.
Ignorant despots who hold religious-like powers don't turn over power easily. They must be exposed and deposed.
Just look at the Dalmatians. You can't tell me that those people are going to come to their senses with a little love and kindness.
They are bigots, they are Luddites, and they are evil. There's no making nice-nice with stupid and evil.
Liz,
If you're on something, please let me know.
I'd like to try it.
Play nice, children.
Liz, it makes you bitter to get attacked for stating what should be the obvious. Bitter and defensive.
Christopher, yes, evidently it is hypocritical to write about the perils of inbreeding, and plan a linebred litter. I don't like the ten gen 9% COI on that litter, but it doesn't bother me, knowing the dogs and the amount of desert blood behind them. I wouldn't do a breeding like that with Afghans or Salukis, it would make me uncomfortable. Strange that you cannot revile the system but still work within it at the same time. Not allowed.
Well, 9% is hardly the 35% which is endemic. And the amount of STUPID in that thread… I could scream. “You're lying because you don't have the full dogs! (Um, we know that the dogs on the other side are not COO dogs, so yeah, we know that they're not the same… putting names there wouldn't actually change anything).
And you KNOW that if you only did 0% COI breedings that they'd say “you don't have any experience, you are too scared, you don't even know, blah blah blah.”
That's another thing I hate, people are so black and white and unsophisticated that they think just because you're being an honest critic that you want to burn it all down and have some pariah dogs. LMFAO…. why people can you not tell that there's more than two states to the dial, off or full blast.
Oh, oh, that is my favorite! I want to abolish purebred dogs, oh yes!
The really funny thing is that with breeds that have COO populations, you can do a purebred litter that actually has a (assumed) COI of zero. Can't do that within a closed system. In these breeds, it has always been assumed that COO dogs are unrelated to the domestic population. And MHC studies in Salukis have borne that out for the most part, COO are much more diverse. I do know a breeder who bred two COO Salukis together that had identical DLA genes (this was discovered later, after some of the pups had developed auto-immune disease.) So it could certainly be that the dogs are related, and in the case of Azawakh, due to breeding practices in the Sahel, they could be inbred as well. However, the extremely harsh selection process with these dog tends to weed out deleterious genes, so it's not a huge risk to use them. The potential good outweighs the possible bad.
Dealing with a breed that has a small gene pool is very difficult, within the system. Especially if you want the pups to actually contribute to the population, you have to deal with the registry system, you cannot step outside it.
So this comment field was super busy lately, eh?
I have one such “dog diary” blog in which I try to appreciate all aspects dog, even the ones that take a lot of brain power to process, like genetics and the fall of the dog.
I assume, rightly so I think, that Jess and Christopher know MUCH much more about breeding, genetics, and the outcome of such in their dogs and other breed/types. I cannot blog with such authority, but I admire that you do.
I think a lot of us read, digest, and try to appreciate how this relates to our own area of the dog world. Like for me, if I were to ever purchase a dog again I would have extremely high standards for a breeder in regards to their pedigrees and purpose. All because of what I read, even if I didn't comment on it, I still really appreciate the knowledge you are sharing.
And I appreciate the risk this all poses in regards to your vulnerability with the crazy vindictive portion of happily inbreeding bigots who can't wait to tear you a new one.
So thanks.
Interesting new study in humans shows that there are slight differences (mutations) in 5 amino acids in the HLA-B protein which distinguishes long-term non-progressors for HIV versus subjects who progress from HIV to AIDS more rapidly.
http://tinyurl.com/254by97
I don't know what a major histroncomaptality complex is so this whole post must be nothing more than lyes.
Everyone knows that it is vaccines and kibble that's killing our dogs, but our government won't tell us the truth!
Obvious troll is obvious.
But what do you expect from someone who slaps a wig on a Roomba and calls it a dog?
Very informative
Simply and clearly presented. Thanks
Pingback: Closed Registries: Dogs in the Handbasket to Hell, Part II « A Bitter CynoAnarchist Rages On