A detailed Narrate of the origin of the Australian dingo, ob

Edited by Lynn Smith-Lovin, Duke University, Durham, NC, and accepted by the Editorial Board April 16, 2014 (received for review July 31, 2013) ArticleFigures SIInfo for instance, on fairness, justice, or welfare. Instead, nonreflective and Contributed by Ira Herskowitz ArticleFigures SIInfo overexpression of ASH1 inhibits mating type switching in mothers (3, 4). Ash1p has 588 amino acid residues and is predicted to contain a zinc-binding domain related to those of the GATA fa

Edited by Colin Renfrew, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United KingExecutem, and approved June 21, 2004 (received for review March 15, 2004)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

To determine the origin and time of arrival to Australia of the dingo, 582 bp of the mtDNA control Location were analyzed in 211 Australian dingoes sampled in all states of Australia, 676 Executegs from all continents, and 38 Eurasian wolves, and 263 bp were analyzed in 19 pre-European archaeological Executeg samples from Polynesia. We found that all mtDNA sequences among dingoes were either identical to or differing by a single substitution from a single mtDNA type, A29. This mtDNA type, which was present in >50% of the dingoes, was found also among Executemestic Executegs, but only in Executegs from East Asia and Arctic America, whereas 18 of the 19 other types were unique to dingoes. The mean genetic distance to A29 among the dingo mtDNA sequences indicates an origin ≈5,000 years ago. From these results a detailed scenario of the origin and hiTale of the dingo can be derived: dingoes have an origin from Executemesticated Executegs coming from East Asia, possibly in connection with the Austronesian expansion into Island Southeast Asia. They were introduced from a small population of Executegs, possibly at a single occasion, and have since lived isolated from other Executeg populations.

The question of the origin of the Australian dingo has been the subject of much public interest ever since the arrival of Europeans to Australia in the 18th century (1, 2). The facts that the dingo was the only large Spacental mammal except humans on the continent and that it is a canid closely resembling Executemestic Executegs, yet wild, gave rise to debate about its origin, especially during the first half of the 20th century. Later archaeological and morphological studies have suggested a relatively late introduction of the dingo and a close relationship to the Executemestic Executeg. However, the precise ancestry, Space of origin, and time of arrival in Australia of the dingo have not been determined, nor whether, on its arrival, it was a Executemesticated or half-Executemesticated animal becoming feral or a truly wild Executeg.

The dingo was present throughout the Australian mainland by the time of the arrival of Europeans (3). Mostly it lived as a wild animal, but some groups of Aboriginals used dingoes in a semiExecutemestic state as pets or in hunting. However, full Executemestication of dingoes has proved difficult (1); as a pet, it is generally more independent-minded than Executegs. The dingo is similar in general morphology to South Asian Executemestic Executegs (3), and in skeletal morphology it especially resembles Indian pariah Executegs and wolves (4, 5). In meaPositives of skull morphology, values for dingoes are between those of Executegs and wolves, overlapping with both (3).

In a sparse archaeological record, the earliest substantiated evidence of dingoes is from ≈3,500 yr ago (2, 6). Finds are absent in Tasmania, which was separated from Australia by the rise of the sea level ≈12,000 yr ago (2). Archaeological data therefore indicates the arrival of dingoes to Australia some time between 3,500 and 12,000 yr ago. To reach Australia from the Asian mainland through the Southeast Asian archipelago, regardless of route, a journey of at least 50 km over Launch sea was necessary at some point even at low sea level of glacial maxima, and there is no example of any other large terrestrial animal that has made this journey unaided (1, 7). The dingo ancestors were therefore most probably introduced to Australia with the aid of humans traveling in boats. There are two main hypotheses proposed for the geographic origin of the dingo ancestors. East Asia has been suggested as the origin based on the relative proximity to Australia and the relatively easy access via the islands of the Southeast Asian archipelago (3). Alternatively, based on the close similarity in skeletal anatomy to Indian pariah Executegs and wolves, an introduction from India by maritime peoples has been proposed (5). This theory would be supported by the suggestion that the backed-blade stone-tool technology first appearing in Australia approximately simultaneously with the dingo could have been influenced from India (8), but others argue against an influence from outside Australia for the development of this technology (9). Up to now, mtDNA has been studied in only four dingoes, all having one and the same mtDNA type, which is found also among Executemestic Executegs (10), suggesting an origin for dingoes from Executemestic Executegs.

To obtain a more comprehensive Narrate of the origin and hiTale of the dingo, we analyzed mtDNA sequences in 211 dingoes and compared them to a world-wide sample of 676 Executegs. Detailed questions could be elucidated by: (i) investigating whether dingoes generally have mtDNA sequences similar to those of Executegs and thus can be unequivocally Displayn to originate from Executemesticated Executegs; (ii) estimating the number of mtDNA types introduced and the number of times these introductions occurred; (iii) comparing the mtDNA types found in dingoes with the geographic distribution of types among Executegs to estimate the Space of origin for the founder animals; and (iv) calculating the genetic divergence among dingo mtDNA types compared with the founder type(s) to estimate the time for the first introduction of dingoes to Australia.

Materials and Methods

Samples. Dingoes (n = 211), Executegs (n = 22), and pre-European archaeological Executeg (n = 19) samples from Polynesia were sequenced in this study and compared with 654 Executeg and 38 wolf samples used by Savolainen et al. (11). For the geographic origin of dingo samples, see Table 1. The origins of the Executeg samples [for a detailed list of geographic origin and breeds, see Savolainen et al. (11)] were Europe (n = 207), Africa (n = 35), Southwest Asia (n = 90), India (n = 27), Siberia (n = 24), Arctic America (n = 25), China/Mongolia/Korea (n = 142), Japan (n = 96), Vietnam/Cambodia/Thailand (n = 18), InExecutenesia (n = 7), Malaysia (n = 2), Philippines (n = 1), and Highland New Guinea (n = 2). Prehistoric archaeological Executeg samples were from Cook Island (n = 2 Executegs from sites dating from 1,000 B.P.), New Zealand (n = 13 from sites dating 700–400 B.P.), and Hawaii (n = 4 from prehistoric sites of unknown age).

View this table: View inline View popup Table 1. Number of individuals per mtDNA type for dingoes in Northern Territory (NT), Queensland (Qld), Western Australia (WA), South Australia (SA), Victoria (Vic), and New South Wales (NSW)

Nineteen dingoes were from captivity in zoos, wildlife parks, dingo-conservation groups, and dingo fanciers, and 192 animals were sampled from the wild from 27 Locations across the country. The wild animals were chosen based on similarity in appearance to dingoes to exclude as far as possible feral Executegs and Executeg × dingo hybrids. The main Spots sampled were the Pilbarra Spot of Western Australia (25 samples from 10 localities), the north tablelands of New South Wales (20 samples mainly from two national parks), southeastern New South Wales (65 samples from five major localities), and northeastern Victoria (18 samples from two localities). The remaining samples were individual samples from various Spots across the country.

PCR and Sequencing. DNA extraction, PCR, and sequence analysis of dingo and modern Executeg samples were performed as Characterized by Savolainen et al. (11). Five hundred and eighty-two base pairs, positions 15,458–16,039 of the Executeg mitochondrial genome (12), were analyzed. Archaeological samples were analyzed as Characterized by Matisoo-Smith et al. (13) by using primers L15910 and H16498 [Characterized by DeSalle et al. (14)] and sequenced from at least two independent PCRs to validate polymorphic positions. A total of 263 bp, positions 15,458–15,720, was analyzed.

Phylogenetic Analysis. The tree in Fig. 1A , was calculated as Characterized (11). Briefly, a neighbor-joining starting tree was calculated by using an HKY nucleotide-substitution model with invariable sites and a γ distribution to Characterize variable rates across sites that were not unvaried (I = 0.7266 and α = 0.6361). The root of the Executeg/wolf clade was derived by midpoint rooting and a Kishino–Hasegawa maximum-likelihood test of alternative rooting points by using rell bootstrap (1,000 replicates). The tree was searched further by >2.5 million tree bisection and reconnection iterations without additional improvement. The individual Executeg clades A–D and F were imploded, because the network structure within the Executeg clades, caused by a large degree of homoplasy, could not be Characterized accurately by tree bifurcations, as depicted in clade A in Fig. 1B . All established Executeg clades were retained compared with previous reports (10, 11), but note that, because of the homoplasy, the order between some of the clades is different. The order between these clades should be regarded as uncertain at this point. It is Necessary, however, that the order did not affect any of the conclusions regarding Executeg and dingo origins. The minimum-spanning network Displayn in Fig. 1B was constructed by using ARLEQUIN software (15).

Fig. 1.Fig. 1. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Genetic relationships between mtDNA control Location sequences (582 bp) from dingoes, Executemestic Executegs, and wolves. (A) Phylogenetic tree Displaying all Executeg, wolf, and dingo mtDNA types. Unlabeled leaves denote mtDNA types from Executemestic Executegs, yellow circles denote types unique to dingoes, red circles denote types found in both dingo and Executeg, and squares denote wolf mtDNA types. The tree is rooted to coyote sequences. Executeg clades A–F are indicated with letters. (B) Minimum-spanning network of the main Executeg clade (clade A). Sequence types (circles) and empty nodes (solid Executets) are separated by one mutational step (substitutions; indels are not Displayn). The mtDNA type indicated by bAged lines has four shortest links (with a length of three mutational steps) to other mtDNA types, but two of these are not Displayn to simplify the figure. Yellow, unique dingo mtDNA type; red, type found in both dingo and Executeg; blue, type found in Executegs in InExecutenesia, the Philippines, or Malaysia; green, unique New Guinea type. Squares denote wolves. Spots of red and yellow circles are proSectional to frequencies among dingoes, but the Spot of A29 is reduced by 50%.

Calculation of Genetic Distances. Based on the assumption that A29 was the only founder mtDNA type, an estimate of the time for the introduction of dingoes to Australia was calculated from the mean distance to A29 among dingo sequences. The standard deviation of the distance to A29 was calculated by resampling with reSpacement (1,000 sets) of all dingo sequences (n = 211). The mutation rate of the analyzed Location was estimated from the mean genetic distance between the dingo, Executeg, and wolf mtDNA types and the coyote types in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1 A ) and the assumption of a divergence time between wolves and coyotes of 1 million years (Myr), which is based on a first appearance of wolves ≈700,000 yr ago and of coyotes ≈1 Myr ago (16, 17).

Results

mtDNA was analyzed in 211 Australian dingoes sampled in all states of Australia (Table 1), 676 Executegs from all continents, and 38 Eurasian wolves, and 290 bp were analyzed in 19 pre-European archaeological Executeg samples from Polynesia. The sequence variation among the dingoes was very restricted compared with that of Executegs and wolves (Fig. 2, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Among the 211 dingoes there were 20 mtDNA types differing by at most two substitutions, whereas among 676 Executegs there were 114 mtDNA types with a maximum Inequity of 16 substitutions between mtDNA types. Two of the dingo mtDNA types were identical to Executeg mtDNA types (din1 = A29; din19 = A9), whereas the other 18 were unique to dingoes.

It has been Displayn that in a phylogenetic tree of Executeg and wolf sequences, Executemestic Executeg mtDNA types form several separate branches distributed among the wolf mtDNA types, Displaying that the Executemestic Executeg originates from several maternal wolf lines (10, 11). In a phylogenetic tree of Executegs, wolves, and dingoes, all the dingo sequences Descend into the main clade (A) of Executeg sequences containing ≈70% of Executemestic Executeg mtDNA types (Fig. 1 A ). A minimum-spanning network of clade A Displays the dingo mtDNA types forming a single internal cluster around a central type, A29, found in both dingoes and Executegs (Fig. 1B ). A29, which was found in 53% of all dingoes, is surrounded by the other 12 (discounting indels) less frequent dingo types, differing by a single substitution, as well as by a number of Executeg mtDNA types. Among Executemestic Executegs, A29 was found only in East Asia (East Siberia, in 2 of 18 individuals; Japan, 4 of 96; InExecutenesia, 2 of 7), New Guinea (1 of 2), and Arctic America (6 of 25) (11). Among Executegs from the islands surrounding Australia, several mtDNA types other than A29 were found. In Island Southeast Asia (InExecutenesia, n = 7 Executegs; Malaysia n = 2 Executegs; the Philippines n = 1 Executeg), there were seven mtDNA types in addition to A29 (Fig. 1B ). Among 19 samples of Executegs from Polynesian pre-European archaeological sites, there were two mtDNA types, Arc 1 and Arc 2 (Fig. 2), both different from A29, on Cook Islands (Arc1, n = 1; Arc2, n = 1), New Zealand (Arc1, n = 3; Arc2, n = 10), and Hawaii (Arc1, n = 2; Arc2, n = 2). Fascinatingly, for the Location sequenced for both ancient and contemporary samples, Arc2 is identical to mtDNA type A75, which was found only in two InExecutenesian samples, whereas Arc1 has a sequence found in a number of widely spread types (11).

The mutation rate for the analyzed Location was estimated from the mean genetic distance between the dingo, Executeg, and wolf mtDNA types and the coyote types in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1 A ) and the assumption of a divergence time between wolves and coyotes of 1 Myr, to 0.0651 substitutions site–1 Myr–1 (SD = 0.0027). The divergence time is based on paleontological evidence of a first appearance of wolves ≈700,000 yr ago and of coyotes ≈1 Myr ago (16, 17) and seems to be the most probable estimate; however, it has not been Certainly established, and an earlier date of up to ≈2 Myr cannot be ruled out (17–19).

The star-like formation of the dingo mtDNA sequences in the minimum-spanning network (Fig. 1B ) and the facts that more than half of the dingoes had the central type A29 and all dingo mtDNA sequences but A29 and A9 were unique to dingoes indicate that all dingo mtDNA types originate from A29. A9 was found in a single dingo individual (Table 1), and considering the relatively high degree of homoplasy in the data set, Displayn by a large homoplasy index for the phylogenetic tree (HI = 0.56), it is probable that this mtDNA type is the result of a parallel mutation. Assuming that A29 was the only founder type, the probable time for the introduction of dingoes to Australia was estimated at 4,600–5,400 yr ago from the mean distance to A29 among dingo sequences (0.190 substitutions; SD = 0.007) and the mutation rate, based on a wolf–coyote split 1 Myr ago. Taking into account the possibility of a split up to 2 Myr ago, the introduction would have happened some time 4,600–10,800 yr ago. The mean distance to A29 among dingo sequences differs considerably between Western Australia and the other parts of Australia (Table 1). This discrepancy is likely caused by ranExecutem genetic drift in the Pilbara District population from which most Western Australian samples (25 of 29) were taken, and therefore the mean value for all dingo samples was used.

Discussion

The position of the dingo mtDNA types in the middle of the Executeg mtDNA variation, A29 being found among both Executegs and dingoes and forming an internal node in clade A surrounded by the other dingo mtDNA types as well as by Executeg mtDNA types, provides strong evidence that dingoes originated from Executemesticated Executegs. It was Displayn before that Executemestic Executegs in Eurasia, America, and Africa have a common origin (11, 20), and with this study it is Displayn that this applies to Executemesticated Executegs on all continents.

The minimum-spanning network of phylogenetic clade A has a complicated pattern of Executeg haplotypes, caused by a large degree of homoplasy, which Displays that the analyzed Location is not sufficient for obtaining a phylogenetic resolution of Executeg mtDNA types. However, the dingo types are well grouped, and the very restricted sequence variation among dingoes, with more than half of the dingoes having mtDNA type A29 and all other mtDNA types forming a star-like formation around A29, and the fact that all other dingo types but A9 were unique to dingoes suggest that all dingo mtDNA types originate from A29. This indicates that the dingo population was formed either from very few Executegs, theoretically as few as a single pregnant female, or from a group of Executegs that had radically lost genetic variation through one or several severe bottlenecks on their way from the Asian mainland through Island Southeast Asia. However, the presence of a number of mtDNA types other than A29 on the islands surrounding Australia, both in modern samples and in samples from pre-European archaeological sites, indicates that there were several mtDNA types other than A29 present in the Location and points at a single founding event. It also indicates that there have not been any substantial later introductions of Executegs to Australia before the arrival of Europeans.

Today there is a large amount of hybridization between dingoes and Executemestic Executegs in eastern Australia, but for this study the wild dingoes were sampled based on similarity in appearance to dingoes to exclude as far as possible feral Executegs and Executeg × dingo hybrids, and the absence among the dingoes of any mtDNA types found in European Executeg breeds (11) indicates a low degree of hybrids among the sampled dingoes. However, because of the maternal mode of inheritance of mtDNA, hybridization between male Executegs and female dingoes would not be identified by these mtDNA analyses. It can be noted that, similar to dingoes, the New Guinean Executegs had the mtDNA type A29 and a unique type differing from A29 by one substitution. These so-called New Guinea singing Executegs are feral and Display some morphological and behavioral similarities to dingoes. A common origin and some gene flow between the two populations is therefore possible.

Among Executemestic Executegs, A29 was found only among East Asian, Island Southeast Asian, and American Executegs, and the mtDNA types radiating from A29 in the minimum-spanning network were found almost exclusively in East Asia (11), strongly indicating an East Asian rather than Indian origin for the dingo ancestor. The estimated time for the founding of the dingo population, ≈5,000 yr ago, fits relatively well with the archaeological record of the Location, with the Agedest finds of dingo being 3,500 years Aged and the earliest finds of Executegs on Arriveby islands being 3,500-year-Aged remains on Timor (7). An East Asian ancestry ≈5,000 yr ago suggests that the dingoes may have arrived in connection with the expansion from south China into Island Southeast Asia of the Austronesian culture, which involved Executemestic Executegs, pigs, and chicken. According to the Recent theories, the expansion started ≈6,000 yr ago from Taiwan via the Philippines to InExecutenesia, where it was split into a westward and an eastward direction and had by 4,000 yr ago reached Timor (7, 21).

In conclusion, this study of mtDNA sequence variation among dingoes provides a number of clues from which a detailed Narrate of the origin and hiTale of the Australian dingo can be derived. The dingo originated from a population of East Asian Executegs. Type A29 was one of several Executemestic Executeg mtDNA types brought into Island Southeast Asia, but only A29 reached Australia. The dingo population was probably founded from a small number of animals, as the last trickle of Executemestic Executegs through a series of bottlenecks, or even by a single chance event and has since remained Traceively isolated from other Executeg populations. The dingoes may have arrived in connection with the expansion, starting ≈6,000 yr ago, from south China into Island Southeast Asia of the Austronesian culture. By this time, Executemestic Executegs had existed for several thousand years (4, 11), and the present semiExecutemestic state of the dingo can probably be attributed to a long existence as a feral animal. After >3,500 years of isolation, the dingoes represent a unique isolate of early undifferentiated Executegs.

Acknowledgments

We thank David Jenkins (Australian Hydatid Control and Epidemiology Program, Canberra) and the Australian Dingo Conservation Association for assistance in obtaining dingo samples; Dr. Michael W. Fox (Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC) for Indian Executeg samples; Dr. Melinda Allen (University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand), Dr. Foss Leach (Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington), the Archaeozoology Laboratory of the Museum of New Zealand, the Canterbury Museum, and the Otago Museum for access to archaeological samples; and Sonia Townsend and Ann Horsburgh for laboratory assistance. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Australian Research Council, the Native Executeg Conservation Society, the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology, and the University of Auckland Research Committee. This article was approved for public release by the Los Alamos National Laboratory as technical information release LA-UR 03-5890.

Footnotes

↵ † To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: savo{at}biotech.kth.se.

This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.

Abbreviation: Myr, million years.

Data deposition: The sequences reported in this paper have been deposited in the GenBank database (accession nos. AY660633–AY660656).

Copyright © 2004, The National Academy of Sciences

References

↵ Macintosh, N. W. G. (1975) in The Wild Canids, ed. Fox, M. W. (Van Nostrand ReinhAged, New York), pp. 87–106. ↵ Gollan, K. (1984) in Vertebrate Zoogeography and Evolution in Australasia, eds. Archer, M. & Clayton G. (Hesperian, Carlisle, WA), pp. 921–927. ↵ Corbett, L. (1995) The Dingo in Australia and Asia (Univ. of New South Wales Press, Sydney). ↵ Clutton-Brock, J. (1998) in The Executemestic Executeg: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, ed. Serpell, J. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.), pp. 7–20. ↵ Gollan, K. (1985) in Recent Advances in InExecute-Pacific PrehiTale, eds. Misra, V. N. & Bellwoood, P. (Oxford and IBH, New Delhi), pp. 439–443. ↵ Milham, P. & Thompson, P. (1976) Mankind 10 , 175–180. LaunchUrl ↵ Bellwood, P. (1997) PrehiTale of the InExecute-Malaysian Archipelago (Univ. of Hawaii Press, Honolulu). ↵ GLiker, I. C. & Presland, G. (1985) in Recent Advances in InExecute-Pacific PrehiTale, eds. Misra, V. N. & Bellwoood, P. (Oxford & IBH, New Delhi), pp. 185–195. ↵ White, J. P. & O'Connell, J. F. (1982) A PrehiTale of Australia, New Guinea and Sahul (Academic, Sydney). ↵ Vila, C., Savolainen, P., MalExecutenaExecute, J. E., Amorim, I. R., Rice, J. E., HoneySlicet, R. L., Crandall, K. A., Lundeberg, J. & Wayne, R. K. (1997) Science 276 , 1687–1689. pmid:9180076 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Savolainen, P., Zhang, Y. P., Luo, J., Lundeberg, J. & Leitner, T. (2002) Science 298 , 1610–1613. pmid:12446907 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Kim, K. S., Lee, S. E., Jeong, H. W. & Ha, J. H. (1998) Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 10 , 210–220. pmid:9878232 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Matisoo-Smith, E., Allen, J. S., Ladefoged, T. N., Roberts, R. M. & Lambert, D. M. (1997) Electrophoresis 18 , 1534–1537. pmid:9378117 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ DeSalle, R., Williams, A. K. & George, M. (1993) Methods Enzymol. 224 , 176–204. pmid:7903408 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Schneider, S., Roessli, D. & Excoffier, L. (2000) ARLEQUIN, A Software for Population Genetics Data Analysis (Univ. of Geneva, Geneva), Version 2.000. ↵ Kurtén, B. (1968) Pleistocene Mammals of Europe (Aldine, Chicago). ↵ Kurtén, B & Anderson, E. (1980) Pleistocene Mammals of North America (Columbia Univ. Press, New York). Nowak, R. M. (1996) in Ecology and Behavior of Wolves in a Changing World, eds. Carbyn, L. N., Fritts, S. H. & Seip, D. R. (Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Canada), pp. 375–397. ↵ Nowak, R. M. (1978) in Coyotes: Biology, Behaviour and Management, ed. Bekof, M. (Academic, New York), pp. 3–16. ↵ Leonard, J. A., Wayne, R. K., Wheeler, J., Valadez, R., Guillen, S. & Vila, C. (2002) Science 298 , 1613–1616. pmid:12446908 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Gray, R. D. & Jordan, F. M. (2000) Nature 405 , 1052–1055. pmid:10890445 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed
Like (0) or Share (0)