Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26401324›Full record

ReviewCanine genetics and epidemiology2014

Holding back the genes: limitations of research into canine behavioural genetics.

Diane van Rooy, Elizabeth R Arnott, Jonathan B Early, Paul McGreevy, Claire M Wade

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Canine genetics and epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. RNA variation as the driver of genomic efficiency and phenotypic complexity.International journal of biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Defining and Clarifying the Terms CanineFrontiers in veterinary science · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Diane van RooyFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
Elizabeth R ArnottFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
Jonathan B EarlyFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
Paul McGreevyFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
Claire M WadeFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia.
University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Canine behaviours that are both desirable and undesirable to owners have a demonstrable genetic component. Some behaviours are breed-specific, such as the livestock guarding by maremmas and flank sucking seen in Dobermanns. While the identification of genes responsible for common canine diseases is rapidly advancing, those genes underlying behaviours remain elusive. The challenges of accurately defining and measuring behavioural phenotypes remain an obstacle, and the use of variable phenotyping methods has prevented meta-analysis of behavioural studies. International standardised testing protocols and terminology in canine behavioural evaluations should facilitate selection against behavioural disorders in the modern dog and optimise breeding success and performance in working dogs. This review examines the common hurdles faced by researchers of behavioural genetics and the current state of knowledge.

Indexed as

BehaviourDogGeneticsHeritability

Identifiers

PMID26401324
PMCPMC4579367
OpenAlexW2097276399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.