ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2025
Genetic and Anatomical Determinants of Olfaction in Dogs and Wild Canids.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Canine "Sniffin' Sticks" enable behavioural olfactometry to complement neurological examination in dogs.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Reliability, repeatability, and age associations of the dogSIT (dog Smell Interaction Test) battery in untrained companion dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Role of Olfaction in Dogs: Evolution, Biology, and Human-Oriented Work.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Insights into cranial anatomy and craniometry of the aardwolf (Proteles cristata) with comparisons to extant hyaenids.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Dog skull shape challenges assumptions of performance specialization from selective breeding.Science advances · 2025Article
- Diversity in chemosensory receptor genes in dogs and wolves: degeneration of the olfactory receptor gene repertoire in the brachycephalic Pug.Chemical senses · 2025Article
- Breed differences in olfactory performance of dogs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the anatomical and genetic basis of complex phenotypic traits has long been a challenge for biological research. Domestic dogs offer a compelling model as they demonstrate more phenotypic variation than any other vertebrate species. Dogs have been intensely selected for specific traits and abilities, directly or indirectly, over the past 15,000 years since their initial domestication from the gray wolf. Because olfaction plays a central role in critical tasks, such as the detection of drugs, diseases, and explosives, as well as human rescue, we compared relative olfactory capacity across dog breeds and assessed changes to the canine olfactory system to their direct ancestors, wolves, and coyotes. We conducted a cross-disciplinary survey of olfactory anatomy, olfactory receptor (OR) gene variation, and OR gene expression in domestic dogs. Through comparisons to their closest wild canid relatives, the gray wolf and coyote, we show that domestic dogs might have lost functional OR genes commensurate with a documented reduction in nasal morphology as an outcome of the domestication process prior to breed formation. Critically, within domestic dogs alone, we found no genetic or morphological profile shared among functional or genealogical breed groupings, such as scent hounds, that might indicate evidence of any human-directed selection for enhanced olfaction. Instead, our results suggest that superior scent detection dogs likely owe their success to advantageous behavioral traits and training rather than an "olfactory edge" provided by morphology or genes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.