Do breed signatures differ from commonly understood notions of recessive and dominant genes? That is, it seems that the presence of a breed signature doesn necessarily imply a physical appearance?
Physical appearance (predominantly determined by genes that influence the development of canine size and body mass, coat length, type and color, skull shape, leg length, ear and tail types), are known to be controlled by a very small number of genes relative to the number of genes contained in the canine genome (~20,000 or so in total). These genes can have both recessive and dominant variants and the variant that is present determines the visible effect on physical traits seen. The presence of breed signatures does not guarantee that the dog will look like all detected breeds – the wonder of genetic inheritance and can be seen as much in people as in dogs. The WISDOM Panel™ MX breed signatures are defined by markers that are consistent with the presence of a particular breed in the background of a tested dog, but were not chosen to specifically cover the genes responsible for specific trait determination from those breeds – many parts of the genome are likely to be unobservable with r
Related Questions
- Do breed signatures differ from commonly understood notions of recessive and dominant genes? That is, it seems that the presence of a breed signature doesn necessarily imply a physical appearance?
- Why is it that structural genes of the lac operon can not be transcribed without the presence of lactose?
- What is the definition of dominant and recessive genes
