Cargando…

Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?

BACKGROUND: Brain size has been associated with intelligence of various orders and families of animals, leading to the concept of encephalization. Brain size scales with body weight between species within mammals to approximately the 0.67 power. However, within species, this scaling exponent appears...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rishniw, Mark, Dewey, Curtis W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8057212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33898291
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v11i1.16
_version_ 1783680795027701760
author Rishniw, Mark
Dewey, Curtis W.
author_facet Rishniw, Mark
Dewey, Curtis W.
author_sort Rishniw, Mark
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Brain size has been associated with intelligence of various orders and families of animals, leading to the concept of encephalization. Brain size scales with body weight between species within mammals to approximately the 0.67 power. However, within species, this scaling exponent appears to be much smaller (approximately 0.27 power). AIM: We examined whether this relationship has persisted in dogs over the 120 years since this was originally observed. METHODS: Comparative cross-sectional study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data obtained from 127 dogs, compared to historical data from 157 dogs and 24 non-dog canid species. RESULTS: Brain size in dogs measured by MRI had a scaling exponent virtually identical to that observed previously (0.24 vs. 0.26). However, the proportionality constant was smaller, suggesting that dogs in the study cohort had relatively smaller brains than the historical cohort. Absolute brain size appeared to have both a lower and upper limit in dogs. When compared to non-dogs canids, the most appropriate “representative” size for a “typical dog” when examining allometric scaling across Canidae appeared to be approximately 10–15 kg. CONCLUSIONS: We interpreted the slight reduction in relative brain size to be a function of increased obesity in the study cohort compared to dogs examined 120 years ago. Further, we suggest that dog brains have a finite lower size limit. Finally, concepts of encephalization should not be applied to dogs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8057212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80572122021-04-23 Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs? Rishniw, Mark Dewey, Curtis W. Open Vet J Original Research BACKGROUND: Brain size has been associated with intelligence of various orders and families of animals, leading to the concept of encephalization. Brain size scales with body weight between species within mammals to approximately the 0.67 power. However, within species, this scaling exponent appears to be much smaller (approximately 0.27 power). AIM: We examined whether this relationship has persisted in dogs over the 120 years since this was originally observed. METHODS: Comparative cross-sectional study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data obtained from 127 dogs, compared to historical data from 157 dogs and 24 non-dog canid species. RESULTS: Brain size in dogs measured by MRI had a scaling exponent virtually identical to that observed previously (0.24 vs. 0.26). However, the proportionality constant was smaller, suggesting that dogs in the study cohort had relatively smaller brains than the historical cohort. Absolute brain size appeared to have both a lower and upper limit in dogs. When compared to non-dogs canids, the most appropriate “representative” size for a “typical dog” when examining allometric scaling across Canidae appeared to be approximately 10–15 kg. CONCLUSIONS: We interpreted the slight reduction in relative brain size to be a function of increased obesity in the study cohort compared to dogs examined 120 years ago. Further, we suggest that dog brains have a finite lower size limit. Finally, concepts of encephalization should not be applied to dogs. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 2021 2021-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8057212/ /pubmed/33898291 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v11i1.16 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Rishniw, Mark
Dewey, Curtis W.
Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?
title Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?
title_full Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?
title_fullStr Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?
title_full_unstemmed Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?
title_short Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?
title_sort little brainiacs and big dummies: are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8057212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33898291
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v11i1.16
work_keys_str_mv AT rishniwmark littlebrainiacsandbigdummiesareweselectingforstupidstoutorsmalldogs
AT deweycurtisw littlebrainiacsandbigdummiesareweselectingforstupidstoutorsmalldogs