<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

# Rare and unique adaptations to cancer in domesticated species: An untapped resource?

Frédéric Thomas<fnref n="1" /> ID | Mathieu Giraudeau<fnref n="1" /> | Nolwenn M. Dheilly<fnref n="2" /> | Flora Gouzerh<fnref n="1" /> |

Justine Boutry<fnref n="1" /> | Christa Beckmann<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" /> | Peter A. Biro<fnref n="3" /> | Rodrigo Hamede<fnref n="5" /> ID |

Jerome Abadie<fnref n="6" /> | Sophie Labrut<fnref n="6" /> | Margaux Bieuville<fnref n="1" /> | Dorothée Misse<fnref n="1" /> |

Georgina Bramwell<fnref n="3" /> ID | Aaron Schultz<fnref n="3" /> ID | Guillaume Le Loc'h<fnref n="7" /> ID | Orsolya Vincze<fnref n="8" />,<fnref n="9" /> |

Benjamin Roche<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="10" /> | François Renaud<fnref n="1" /> | Tracey Russell<fnref n="11" /> | Beata Ujvari<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="5" /> ID

**Correspondence**

Beata Ujvari, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 75 Pigdons Road, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216, Australia.

Email: Beata.ujvari@deakin.edu.au

**Funding information**

Deakin SEBE_RGS_2019; ANR TRANSCAN, Grant/Award Number: ANR-18-CE35-0009; CNRS 'International Associated Laboratory Grant'; ARC Linkage, Grant/Award Number: LP170101105; The Rotary Club Les Sables d'Olonne; The Romanian Ministry of Research and Innovation, Grant/Award Number: PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0404; The János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; The New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Innovation and Technology, Grant/Award Number: ÚNKP-19-4-DE-538

**Abstract**

Strong and ongoing artificial selection in domestic animals has resulted in amazing phenotypic responses that benefit humans, but often at a cost to an animal's health, and problems related to inbreeding depression, including a higher incidence of cancer. Despite high rates of cancer in domesticated species, little attention has been devoted to exploring the hypothesis that persistent artificial selection may also favour the evolution of compensatory anticancer defences. Indeed, there is evidence for effective anti-cancer defences found in several domesticated species associated with different cancer types. We also suggest that artificial selection can favour the "domestication" of inherited oncogenic mutations in rare instances, retaining those associated to late and/or less aggressive cancers, and that by studying these seemingly rare anticancer adaptations, novel cancer treatments may be found.

**KEYWORDS**

cancer, domestication, domestication syndrome, evolution, evolutionary mismatch, selection

<footnote n="1">¹CREEC, UMR IRD 224-CNRS 5290-Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴School of Science, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, NSW, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶LUNAM University, Oniris, AMaROC, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Clinique des NAC et de la Faune Sauvage, UMR IHAP, École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Hungarian Department of Biology and Ecology, Evolutionary Ecology Group, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Department of Tisza Research, MTA Centre for Ecological Research-DRI, Debrecen, Hungary</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Unité mixte Internationale de Modélisation Mathématique et Informatique des Systèmes Complexes, UMI IRD/Sorbonne Université, UMMISCO, Bondy, France</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia</footnote>

<footnote>This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</footnote>

<footnote>© 2020 The Authors. *Evolutionary Applications* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</footnote>
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Humans have exerted artificial selection on plants and animals since the Mesolithic, resulting in the evolution of numerous domestic species (Driscoll, Macdonald, & Brien, 2009; Larson & Fuller, 2014). In stark contrast to natural selection that shapes an organism's traits to maximize individual fitness, artificial selection favours individuals displaying attributes that are, for myriad reasons, relevant to humans (Zeder, 2012). Depending on the biology of the considered species and the nature and intensity of the domestication process, domesticated species display particular biological modifications, including health related ones, compared to their wild ancestors (referred to as the "domestication syndrome," e.g. Wilkins, Wrangham, & Tecumseh Fitch, 2014).

The health related consequences of domestication can be beneficial or detrimental to a species relative to its ancestry. For instance, immune-related genes can evolve rapidly during the domestication processes (Glazko, Zybaylov, & Glazko, 2014; Jennings & Sang, 2019), as heightened immune performances improve the survival rate of individuals experiencing confinement or living at high density (Dong et

al., 2015; Douxfils et al., 2011; Kuhlman & Martin, 2010). Conversely, human preferences for specific traits can increase pathological vulnerability, as selective breeding may lead to inbreeding depression and/or a concentration of deleterious alleles responsible for genetic diseases. In dogs, examples of such breed-specific diseases are retinal atrophy, neuropathy and ichthyosis (a genetic dermatosis) (André, Guaguère, Chaudieu, Genevois, & Devauchelle, 2017). Many domesticated animals (e.g. dogs, cats, cattle, horses) frequently develop cancer (Brodey, 1979; Madewell, 1981; Rowell, McCarthy, & Alvarez, 2011) (Table 1). Further, the incidence of several kinds of cancer in domestic animals is much higher than in humans, with dogs and cats often cited as familiar examples (see table 2 in Vail and Thamm (2004)).

However, little attention is devoted to exploring the possibility that domestication may represent a unique selective context favouring the evolution of enhanced resistance and/or tolerance to cancer, particularly in long-lived domestic taxa like pets. Similarly, for cancers with underlying congenital causes, we could predict that artificial selection should retain through time inherited oncogenic mutations leading to late and/or less aggressive cancers, thus "domesticating" these mutations.

<table><caption>TABLE 1 Example of cancer types occurring in domesticated animals</caption><thead><tr><td>Common name</td><td>Species</td><td>Domesticated from</td><td>Time of domestication (years ago)</td><td>Predominant types of cancer</td><td>Reference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dog</td><td>Canis familiaris</td><td>Canis lupus (Grey wolf)</td><td>15,000</td><td>Mammary tumours in females, lymphoma and mast cell tumours</td><td>Paoloni and Khanna (2008); Thalmann et al. (2013); Boerkamp et al. (2014); Baioni et al. (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Cat</td><td>Felis catus</td><td>Felis sylvestris lybica</td><td>10,000</td><td>Lymphoma</td><td>Dorn (1967); Dorn et al. (1968); Driscoll et al. (2007); Driscoll et al. (2009); Vigne et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Ferret</td><td>Mustela putorius furo</td><td>Mustela putorius (European polecats)</td><td>2,500</td><td>Adrenal and pancreatic tumours, lymphoma</td><td>Avallone et al. (2016); Schoemaker (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Pig</td><td>Sus scrofa domesticus</td><td>Sus scrofa (Wild boars)</td><td>9,000-10,000</td><td>Lymphoma</td><td>Bastianello (1983); Groenen (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Capra hircus</td><td>Capra aegagrus (Bezoar)</td><td>10,000</td><td>Skin cancer, lymphoma</td><td>Bastianello (1983); Löhr (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Horse</td><td>Equus callabus</td><td>Equus ferus</td><td>5,500</td><td>Skin cancers, lymphoma</td><td>Knowles, Tremaine, Pearson, and Mair (2016); Gaunitz et al. (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Guinea pig</td><td>Cavia porcellus</td><td>Cavia tschudii</td><td>5,000</td><td>Lymphoma</td><td>Congdon and Lorenz (1954); Walker, Soto, and Spotorno (2014); Evans, Harr, Thielen, and MacNeill (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Domestic laying hen</td><td>Gallus gallus domesticus</td><td>Gallus gallus (Red jungle fowl)</td><td>8,000</td><td>Ovarian cancer</td><td>Fredrickson (1987); Tixier-Boichard, Bed'hom, and Ragnon (2011); Johnson and Giles (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>Cow</td><td>Bos taurus taurus</td><td>(Aurochs)</td><td>10,000-10,500</td><td>Skin cancer, bovine leukaemia</td><td>Madewell, 1981; Bollongino et al. (2012); Decker et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Sheep</td><td>Ovis aries</td><td>Ovis vignei, Ovis ammon, Ovis orientalis<sup>a</sup></td><td>8,000-11,000</td><td>Skin cancer, jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus-associated lung cancer</td><td>Lloyd (1961); Palmarini, Fan, and Michael Sharp (1997); Wang et al. (2019)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>ªThe exact ancestor of the sheep remains unknown.</footnote>
Here, we discuss the evolutionary consequences of domestication in relation to cancer development and progression. We argue that strong and ongoing directional selection on particular traits in domestic animals, along with resultant high cancer incidence, may provide a selective environment that could generate evolutionary "solutions" to fighting cancer that is not evident in humans or wildlife.

## 2 | HOW COULD DOMESTICATION LEAD TO NOVEL ANTICANCER ADAPTATIONS?

In natural environments, the evolution of cancer suppressive mechanisms is weighted against other fitness-related functions (Jacqueline et al., 2017) in a manner akin to the high cost of immune system functioning leads to trade-offs with various life history traits and demands (van der Most, Jong, Parmentier, & Verhulst, 2011; Norris & Evans, 2000). Conversely, domesticated species usually live in environments that are unaffected by natural constraints such as competition, parasitism, predation or food limitation. This has at least two important implications in a cancer context: (a) domesticated animals, all things being equal, could theoretically invest more resources into fuelling their existing anticancer defences, and (b) if costly anticancer defences (resistance or tolerance) appear, they are more likely to be maintained in a protected environment devoid of threats as opposed to a natural ecosystem. When artificial selection exerts stronger coefficients of selection than any natural processes in the wild, it theoretically opens the window for the selection of unprecedented anticancer defences (Vittecoq et al., 2018).

The high incidence of cancer in domestic animals is at least partially the result of strong directional selection that has led to inbreeding (Box 1) and/or evolutionary mismatches (Box 2). Indeed, cancer occurrence in domestic animals is often much higher than in humans or in their comparable wildlife ancestors. These high rates of cancer can result in special selective pressures. Then, by pleiotropy or through unique mutations related to domestication, selective pressure may lead to the odd unique solution to certain cancers, as shown below.

## 3 | ANTICANCER DEFENCES IN DOMESTICATED SPECIES

Compensation of a higher vulnerability to cancer through the selection of specific cancer defences occurs in various domesticated species, like pigs. Cutaneous melanoma is usually an aggressive form of skin cancer. However, in the melanoblastoma-bearing Libechov Minipig, tumours naturally regress without external influence (Bourneuf, 2017; Vincent-Naulleau et al., 2004). Spontaneous and complete tumour regression occurs in 96% of pigs (even at the metastatic stage), six months after birth, and are characterized by tumour flattening, tumour drying and depigmentation (Vincent-Naulleau et al., 2004). In calves, spontaneous regression

of congenital cutaneous hemangiomas has also been observed (Priestnall, Bellis, Bond, Alony-Gilboa, & Summers, 2010). From an evolutionary point of view, two nonmutually exclusive processes could explain this phenomenon. Due to the inherited nature of this cancer, the domestication process has likely retained hosts able to mount strong anticancer defences as a compensatory response, and/or those bearing the inherited oncogenic mutations yielding to less aggressive forms of melanoma. While the first hypothesis seems to be verified in pigs, that is with the host's immune system playing a major role in eradicating melanoma cells (Kalialis, Drzewiecki, & Klyver, 2009), the second hypothesis is yet to be rigorously tested. Although genetic risk loci for osteosarcoma development have been identified in the cohorts of three large dog breeds (Greyhound, Irish Wolfhound and Rottweiler) (Karlsson et al., 2013; Zapata et al., 2019), a previous study showed evidence of spontaneous regression occurring in four large dogs (> 40kg): an Irish Setter, a spayed mixed-breed dog, a Golden Retriever and a Rottweiler (Mehl et al., 2001), also potentially supporting the first hypothesis.

The ancestor of domesticated hens could have potentially lived for 20-30 years and produced and incubated a small number of fertile eggs during a restricted period of the year. In contrast, strong artificial selection in the domesticated jungle fowl hen has resulted in a short lifespan and prolific, daily ovulation and egg laying, culminating in the high frequency of ovarian cancer occurrence in this species (Johnson & Giles, 2013). The physiological sequelae associated with ovulation, that is inflammation that produces potentially mutagenic pro-oxidants and pro-inflammatory molecules, has been proposed as the underlying mechanism initiating malignant ovarian cancer in chickens. Hens, as young as two years of age (Johnson & Giles, 2013), and 30%-35% of birds older than three and a half years (mostly hens in research facilities as commercial hens are removed from the flock by age two) are susceptible (Fredrickson, 1987). Interestingly, a fivefold variability between strains exists in the incidence of the disease (Johnson & Giles, 2006). Although genetic differences in cancer susceptibility between the strains cannot be excluded, since the strains derive from a similar genetic background, the subsequent evolution of anticancer responses in certain strains may be proposed.

Grey horses, especially those aged 15 years and over (up to 80%), develop spontaneous melanomas without the influence of UV radiation. These dermal melanomas primarily develop under the tail root, in the genital regions and on the eyelids and lips (Seltenhammer et al., 2004). In contrast to humans, these melanomas are encapsulated and the metastatic process is retarded and/or inhibited by unknown factors (Fleury et al., 2000).

In species that have been selectively bred for mammary gland growth and milk production (dairy cows and goats), there is a surprisingly low occurrence of mammary tumours, in contrast to domestic carnivores (Munson & Moresco, 2007). At the onset of lactation, strong inhibition of gene expression in pathways that are involved in cell proliferation (i.e. cyclins, cell division cycle-associated proteins and proteins involved in DNA replication and chromosome organization) were observed in the bovine mammary gland (Finucane,
# Box 1 Genetic factors that promote cancer in domestic animals, creating an environment for the evolution of unique anticancer adaptations

## *The impact of domestication bottlenecks on genetic variation*

Bottlenecks, strong artificial selection and small founder population size (reduced effective population size) during domestication have had the unintentional effect of attenuating genetic diversity and increasing inbreeding, resulting in the accumulation of deleterious genetic variants (higher genetic load). Favouring certain haplotypes contributes to genetic erosion and increased likelihood of homozygosity, coupled with higher frequency of long stretches of consecutive homozygous genotypes in the genome (ROH: runs of homozygosity) (Szpiech et al., 2013). ROH disproportionately harbour more deleterious homozygotes than other parts of the genome, and the presence of identical pathogenic variants of both alleles can give rise to recessive disorders (Assié, LaFramboise, Platzer, & Eng, 2008; Hosking et al., 2010). Thus, the impacts of deleterious homozygous mutations are magnified through inbreeding (Szpiech et al., 2013).

## *Mutations associated with favoured traits are not purged*

Harmful mutations, which are generally purged from small wild populations (Charlier et al., 2016; Hosking et al., 2010), can rise in anthropogenic environments with artificial selection (Kimura, Maruyama, & Crow, 1963) as the selective pressure that they experienced in the wild becomes relaxed, allowing the frequency of nonsynonymous mutations to rise. If these mutations are associated with favoured phenotypes, humans will override the purging effect of nature and positively select for these traits (Bosse, Megens, Derks, Cara, & Groenen, 2019). In addition, if the detrimental variants are in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with the favoured allele that is strongly selected for (e.g. coat colour, milk production etc.), the frequency of the deleterious allele is expected to rise (i.e. genetic hitchhiking) (Smith & Haigh, 1974), resulting in genomic regions under strong selection harbouring elevated numbers of damaging mutations (Charlesworth, 2006; Good & Desai, 2014). Artificial selection and reductions in effective population size could also drive the frequency of deleterious alleles even higher (e.g. in cattle during the domestication process Kim et al., 2013). In addition, genetic drift can affect and increase mutation load in smaller populations, as seen in dogs (Björnerfeldt, Webster, & Vilà, 2006; Cruz, Vilà, & Webster, 2008; Marsden et al., 2016) and horses (Schubert et al., 2014). Despite their varied phenotypic diversity, domestic rabbits, dogs and cats have significantly lower genetic diversity compared to their wild conspecifics (Carneiro et al., 2011; Cho et al., 2013; Marsden et al., 2016). A higher proportion of deleterious alleles in ROH have been observed in pigs, chicken (Bosse et al., 2019) and cattle (Curik, Ferenčaković, & Sölkner, 2014; Zhang, Guldbrandtsen, Bosse, Lund, & Sahana, 2015), and in a Norwegian dog breed, the Lundehund (Kettunen, Daverdin, Helfjord, & Berg, 2017).

## *The impact of inbreeding, deleterious alleles and mutational load on cancer risk in domesticated animals*

Loss of genetic variation and high mutational load can directly and indirectly contribute to cancer development and progression (Ujvari et al., 2018). Homozygosity of certain low-penetrance germline cancer genes has been identified as an underlying factor of some human cancers, for example oesophageal, oral, lung, bladder and breast cancer and acute lymphocytic leukaemia (reviewed in Denic, Frampton, & Gary Nicholls, 2007). Germline gene polymorphisms of known oncogenes (e.g. BRCA1, BRCA2, MC1R, KIT, NRAS and RAD51) have been associated with predisposition to various types of cancers (i.e. melanoma, mammary cancer, osteosarcoma and histiocytic sarcoma) in dogs, cats, pigs and horses (Curik et al., 2000; Flisikowski et al., 2017; Rivera et al., 2009). Apart from oncogenes, mutations of tumour suppressor genes have been identified as underlying causes of breed-specific cancer predisposition in dogs (Schoenebeck & Ostrander, 2014). Inbreeding and low genetic diversity have also been associated with the increasing incidence of domestic ferret cancers (Gustafson et al., 2018).

## *Reduced genetic diversity and infections by cancer-causing pathogens*

Indirect consequences of reduced genetic diversity in domesticated animals could manifest in their propensity to cancer-causing infectious aetiologies. Genetically depauperate populations have been shown to be more vulnerable to pathogen infections than genetically diverse ones (reviewed in King and Lively (2012)), and loss of genetic diversity, particularly at important immune gene loci, can expose species (including domestic) to infections by cancer-causing pathogens (Acevedo-Whitehouse & Cunningham, 2006; Ujvari & Belov, 2011). The notion of transmissibility of tumours, malignant transformations caused by infectious agents, predates to the nineteenth century, when the jaagsiekte lung carcinoma in sheep was known to be transmissible, yet the causative retrovirus, was only identified in 1983 (Verwoerd, Payne, York, & Myer, 1983). Rous sarcoma virus (Rous, 1979; Weiss & Vogt, 2011); equine infectious anaemia virus (Vallée, 1904), feline and bovine leukaemia viruses (Onions, 1985) are all underlying pathologies that cause malignant transformation in domestic species.
Box 2 Evolutionary mismatch between present and past environments, creating an environment for the evolution of unique anticancer adaptations

A significant proportion of human cancers are due to evolutionary mismatches as ecological conditions and lifestyles in modern societies have been reshaped, resulting in maladaptation with our inherent genetics: the latter profiles reflecting adaptations to earlier and very different environmental circumstances (Aktipis & Nesse, 2013; Greaves, 2015). One can also predict a negative relationship between the time since domestication and the amplitude of mismatches, since artificial selection during long-term domestication favours genetic changes allowing species to be better adapted to their novel phenotype and/or environmental conditions. We need to determine why mismatches persist in certain domesticated species.

Long-term artificial selection for size in dogs results in higher incidences of bone cancer in larger breeds compared to smaller ones (Nunney, 2013). This suggests that despite a long history of domestication, selection on genes responsible for height (and hence a larger number of cells) has not been accompanied by selection for more efficient cancer defences, as observed in wild species (e.g. Paul and Gwynn-Jones (2003); Abegglen et al. (2015); Svetec, Cridland, Zhao, and Begun (2016)). Perhaps cancer defence selection is a considerably slower process than size selection. Alternatively, one can suspect that priority has been given to selecting dogs of a large size, without selecting large dogs with higher cancer resistance.

Overcrowding and intensive husbandry, as well as transportation of many domesticated species can enhance the transmission and spread of cancer-causing pathogens. Examples include DNA viruses that cause a form of leukaemia in poultry (Marek's disease), pulmonary carcinoma (jaagsiekte) in sheep, and a retrovirus causing bovine leukaemia (a virus that can be spread via contact, milk, saliva or commercial exchanges between herds) (Madewell, 1981). Similarly, bringing a wild species like the house sparrow *Passer domesticus* into captivity can induce hyperinflammation (Martin, Kidd, Liebl, & Coon, 2011), which is also known to promote tumorigenesis.

Finally, lifestyle and environmental factors linked to cancer-related deaths in humans, including diet and smoking also affect animals. Passive smoking and urban pollution have been associated with cancer in dogs (Reif, Bruns, & Lower, 1998; Reif & Cohen, 1971). Although controversial, certain studies suggest a link between exposure to household chemicals, herbicides and/or pesticides and the development of cancer in pets (Backer, Coss, Wolkin, Flanders, & Reif, 2008; Garabrant & Philbert, 2002; Gavazza, Presciuttini, Barale, Lubas, & Gugliucci, 2001; Glickman, Schofer, McKee, Reif, & Goldschmidt, 1989; Takashima-Uebelhoer et al., 2012). Obesity is also becoming a growing problem in dogs and cats. Overindulgence and accumulation of excessive amounts of adipose tissue in the body can predispose our closest companions to a plethora of diseases, including neoplasia (mammary tumours and transitional cell carcinoma) (German, 2006). Cancer also occurs in domesticated species including sika deer and cattle when animals are kept under suboptimal conditions, such as grazing on forage where the carcinogenic bracken fern (*Pteridium aquilinum*) grows (Jarrett, McNeil, Grimshaw, Selman, & McIntyre, 1978; Kelly, Toolan, & Jahns, 2014; Potter & Baird, 2000).

*Negative effects of enhanced reproduction due to selection, and suppressed reproduction in pets*

Domestication has led to increased reproductive effort and efficiency in several species, that is reaching sexual maturity earlier, surviving and reproducing longer, more frequent cycles, altered ovulation and sperm production rates, being less selective for mates, larger litter size, lessened embryonic mortality, shortened duration of pregnancy and lactational anoestrus (Setchell, 1992). In contrast to their wild counterparts, domestic cattle and pigs show no seasonal effect on their reproduction, reach puberty earlier and have shorter gestation. Similarly, laboratory rodents reach puberty earlier and show delayed senescence, ultimately doubling their reproductive lifespan.

Increased reproductive effort and efficiency cannot be disassociated from prolonged and altered fluctuation of endogenous hormone levels, some of the critical underlying factors of malignant transformations. The study by El Etreby et al. (1980) found an association between endocrine imbalance (increased secretory activity of pituitary growth hormone cells, and depressed secretory activity of follicle-stimulating hormone-, luteinizing hormone- and thyrotrophin-producing cells) and canine mammary tumorigenesis (Schneider, Dorn, & Taylor, 1969). Spaying bitches at a young age reduces the risk of mammary gland cancers in dogs and cats, but interestingly, the frequency of prostate cancer is slightly higher in neutered male dogs (Dorn, Taylor, Schneider, Hibbard, & Klauber, 1968).

Reproduction is prevented in many domestic animals. As in humans (e.g. Whitaker, 2012), this results in a reproductive mismatch for domesticated animals, with females being exposed to prolonged high levels of progesterone without subsequent lactation (e.g. in canids), and/or to recurrent high peaks of oestrogen (e.g. felids) because waves of follicles undergo atresia (Munson & Moresco, 2007). Thus, human interference with breeding of domestic animals results in lifelong exposure to steroid hormones which are major risk factors for mammary cancer development.
McFadden, Bond, Kennelly, & Zhao, 2008). This suggests that anti-cancer mechanisms compensating for increased risks of malignancies (associated with enhanced lobular alveolar growth (Reed, Kutasovic, Lakhani, & Peter, 2015)) have potentially been concomitantly and/or subsequently selected for.

Notably, benign tumours are more common than malignant tumours in Syrian hamsters, one of the world's most inbred animals (laboratory colonies of Syrian hamsters have originated from a single breeding pair in the 1970s) (Fritzsche, Neumann, Nasdal, & Gattermann, 2006). While malignant tumours may develop in hormone-producing glands (adrenal glands, lymph nodes) or digestive system organs, only four per cent of hamsters suffer from cancer, indicating that this severe inbreeding may have contributed to selection for alleles and genetic regions that provide enhanced tumour suppression.

Lost in the dichotomy between higher cancer resistance and lower cancer virulence, it is possible that the domestication process selects for a higher tolerance to cancer. Even if it comes with non-neutral effects on vigour that would be fatal in the wild, domestication can favour animals that tolerate the presence of tumours, by repairing the damage in a way that keeps the body functioning. An intriguing example (supporting the idea that domestication can also domesticate malignant diseases and/or favour tolerant hosts), concerns two species of tumour-harbouring hydra (Domazet-Lošo et al., 2014), kept under laboratory conditions for many years. Because the budding rate is reduced in tumour-bearing individuals compared to healthy ones, individuals with tumours are outcompeted by healthy ones when experimentally maintained together, a result that is also likely to occur in the wild (Bosch personal communication). Laboratory settings provide the tumour-bearing hydra with conditions akin to a domestic environment (food ad libitum, stable environmental parameters and no competition with healthy individuals). Under these conditions, not only are the tumour-bearing polyps maintained through time, they also vertically transmit non-aggressive tumours (to daughter polyps), as aggressive ones kill the hosts and are not transmitted. This example supports the idea that under domestic conditions, providing an environment with relaxed selective pressure, such unique host-tumour relationships evolve that are unlikely to exist in the wild.

4 | CONCLUDING REMARKS

Malignancies, from their appearance more than half a billion year ago (Aktipis & Nesse, 2013), trigger the evolution of myriad anticancer defences in multicellular organisms (Casás-Selves & DeGregori, 2011; DeGregori, 2011). However, the evolution of these adaptations is constrained by the need to achieve maximal fitness under different environmental conditions. A diversity of factors and/or ecological contexts has the potential to exacerbate cancer risks in organisms and, in return, boost the evolution of anticancer defences. For instance, the enhanced cancer defence of apoptotic response in elephants (although not a domesticated species) may be related to the fact that the elephant genome contains 20 copies of the tumour

suppressive gene TP53 (Abegglen et al., 2015). Organisms naturally or artificially exposed to environmental oncogenic factors can, sometimes rapidly, evolve specific adaptations to cope with pollutants and their adverse effects on fitness (Vittecoq et al., 2018).

The domestication process places animals in unprecedented ecological contexts in which cancer risks are exacerbated on the one hand, but classical selective pressures are relaxed on the other (predation, food limitation). It is theoretically predicted that anticancer defences could be qualitatively or quantitatively different compared to those in the wild. Enhanced anticancer defences, if any, are traditionally most efficient in young individuals (Greaves, 2007; Jacqueline et al., 2017) because longevity is not usually the trait targeted for by artificial selection in domestic animals. While this process contributes to maintaining higher rates of cancer in older domestic animals, it should not hide the fact that at younger ages, an absence of malignant problems should rely on more efficient anticancer mechanisms than in wild species.

Domestication is not just a model but rather an authentic evolutionary process, allowing us to explore how artificial selection has potentially shaped the evolution of original host-tumour relationships. This could be the beginning of novel treatment development to eliminate or better tolerate cancer. Thus, rather than merely viewing the rare instances of cancer tolerance and resistance in domestic animals as merely an oddity, and something to be ignored in the light of the high cancer incidences typical of domestic animals, we should make these the target of further study. Sharing information from experimental and epidemiological studies between the veterinary and human medical fields could result in major advances in the understanding of selected anticancer defences during the domestication process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by an ARC Linkage (LP170101105), Deakin SEBE\_RGS\_2019, an ANR TRANSCAN (ANR-18-CE35-0009) and a CNRS "International Associated Laboratory Grant." Support was also provided by the Rotary Club Les Sables d'Olonne to FT. OV is supported by the Romanian Ministry of Research and Innovation (PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0404), by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and by the New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Innovation and Technology (ÚNKP-19-4-DE-538).

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

We will not be archiving data because this manuscript does not have associated data.

ORCID

Frédéric Thomas ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2238-1978

Rodrigo Hamede ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1526-225X

Georgina Bramwell ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9883-4892

Aaron Schultz ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7333-7646

Guillaume Le Loc'h ID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9621-8474

Beata Ujvari ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2391-2988
REFERENCES

Abegglen, L. M., Caulin, A. F., Chan, A., Lee, K., Robinson, R., Campbell, M. S., ... Schiffman, J. D. (2015). Potential mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and comparative cellular response to DNA Damage in Humans. JAMA, 314(17), 1850-1860. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13134

Acevedo-Whitehouse, K., & Cunningham, A. A. (2006). Is MHC enough for understanding wildlife immunogenetics? *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 21(8), 433-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.010

Aktipis, C. A., & Nesse, R. M. (2013). Evolutionary foundations for cancer biology. *Evolutionary Applications*, 6(1), 144-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12034

André, C., Guaguère, E., Chaudieu, G., Genevois, J. P., & Devauchelle, P. (2017). The importance of dogs for comparative pathology and genetics: Examples of shared resources and programmes. *Revue Vétérinaire Clinique*, 52(3), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anicom.2017.07.002

Assié, G., LaFramboise, T., Platzer, P., & Eng, C. (2008). Frequency of germline genomic homozygosity associated with cancer cases. JAMA, 299(12), 1437-1445. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.12.1437

Avallone, G., Forlani, A., Tecilla, M., Riccardi, E., Belluco, S., Santagostino, S., ... Roccabianca, P. (2016). Neoplastic diseases in the domestic ferret (Mustela putorius furo) in Italy: Classification and tissue distribution of 856 cases (2000-2010). BMC Veterinary Research, 12(1), 2000-2010. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-016-0901-7

Backer, L., Coss, A., Wolkin, A., Flanders, W., & Reif, J. (2008). Evaluation of associations between lifetime exposure to drinking water disinfection by-products and bladder cancer in dogs. *Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association*, 232, 1663-1668. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.232.11.1663

Baioni, E., Scanziani, E., Vincenti, M. C., Leschiera, M., Bozzetta, E., Pezzolato, M., ... Giuseppe, R. (2017). Estimating canine cancer incidence: Findings from a population-based tumour registry in north-western Italy. BMC Veterinary Research, 13(1), 203-203. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1126-0

Bastianello, S. S. (1983). A survey on neoplasia in domestic species over a 40-year period from 1935 to 1974 in the Republic of South Africa. VI. Tumours occurring in dogs. *Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research*, 50(3), 199-220.

Björnerfeldt, S., Webster, M. T., & Vilà, C. (2006). Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication. *Genome Research*, 16(8), 990-994. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.5117706

Boerkamp, K. M., Teske, E., Boon, L. R., Grinwis, G. C. M., van den Bossche, L., & Rutteman, G. R. (2014). Estimated incidence rate and distribution of tumours in 4,653 cases of archival submissions derived from the Dutch golden retriever population. BMC Veterinary Research, 10, 34-34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-10-34

Bollongino, R., Burger, J., Powell, A., Mashkour, M., Vigne, J. D., & Thomas, M. G. (2012). Modern taurine cattle descended from small number of near-eastern founders. *Molecular Biology and Evolution*, 29(9), 2101-2104. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss092

Bosse, M., Megens, H. J., Derks, M. F. L., de Cara, Á. M. R., & Groenen, M. A. M. (2019). Deleterious alleles in the context of domestication, inbreeding, and selection. *Evolutionary Applications*, 12(1), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12691

Bourneuf, E. (2017). The MeLiM Minipig: An original spontaneous model to explore cutaneous melanoma genetic basis. *Frontiers in Genetics*, 8, 146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00146

Brodey, R. S. (1979). The use of naturally occurring cancer in domestic animals for research into human cancer: General considerations and a review of canine skeletal osteosarcoma. *Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine*, 52(4), 345-361.

Carneiro, M., Afonso, S., Geraldes, A., Garreau, H., Bolet, G., Boucher, S., ... Ferrand, N. (2011). The genetic structure of domestic

rabbits. *Molecular Biology and Evolution*, 28(6), 1801-1816. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr003

Casás-Selves, M., & Degregori, J. (2011). How cancer shapes evolution, and how evolution shapes cancer. *Evolution*, 4(4), 624-634.

Charlesworth, D. (2006). Balancing selection and its effects on sequences in nearby genome regions. *PLoS Genetics*, 2(4), e64. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020064

Charlier, C., Li, W., Harland, C., Littlejohn, M., Coppieters, W., Creagh, F., ... Georges, M. (2016). NGS-based reverse genetic screen for common embryonic lethal mutations compromising fertility in livestock. *Genome Research*, 26(10), 1333-1341. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.207076.116

Cho, Y. S., Li, H., Hou, H., Lee, H., Jiaohui, X., Kwon, S., ... Bhak, J. (2013). The tiger genome and comparative analysis with lion and snow leopard genomes. *Nature Communications*, 4(1), 2433. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3433

Congdon, C. C., & Lorenz, E. (1954). Leukemia in guinea-pigs. *The American Journal of Pathology*, 30(2), 337-359.

Cruz, F., Vilà, C., & Webster, M. T. (2008). The legacy of domestication: Accumulation of deleterious mutations in the dog genome. *Molecular Biology and Evolution*, 25(11), 2331-2336. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msn177

Curik, I., Ferenčaković, M., & Sölkner, J. (2014). Inbreeding and runs of homozygosity: A possible solution to an old problem. *Livestock Science*, 166, 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.05.034

Curik, I., Seltenhammer, M., Sölkner, J., Zechner, P., Bodo, I., Habe, F., ... Brem, G. (2000). Inbreeding and melanoma in Lipizzan horses. *Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus*, 65(4), 181-186.

Decker, J. E., McKay, S. D., Rolf, M. M., Kim, J. W., Alcalá, A. M., Sonstegard, T. S., ... Jeremy, F. T. (2014). Worldwide patterns of ancestry, divergence, and admixture in domesticated cattle. *PLoS Genetics*, 10(3), e1004254.

DeGregori, J. (2011). Evolved tumor suppression: Why are we so good at not getting cancer? *Cancer Research*, 71(11), 3739. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-0342

Denic, S., Frampton, C., & Gary Nicholls, M. (2007). Risk of cancer in an inbred population. *Cancer Detection and Prevention*, 31(4), 263-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdp.2007.07.006

Domazet-Lošo, T., Klimovich, A., Anokhin, B., Anton-Erxleben, F., Hamm, M. J., Lange, C., & Bosch, T. C. G. (2014). Naturally occurring tumours in the basal metazoan Hydra. *Nature Communications*, 5(1), 4222. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5222

Dong, Y., Zhang, X., Xie, M., Arefnezhad, B., Wang, Z., Wang, W., ... Jiang, Y. (2015). Reference genome of wild goat (capra aegagrus) and sequencing of goat breeds provide insight into genic basis of goat domestication. BMC Genomics, 16(1), 431. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1606-1

Dorn, C. R. (1967). The epidemiology of cancer in animals. *California Medicine*, 107(6), 481-489.

Dorn, C. R., Taylor, D. O., Schneider, R., Hibbard, H. H., & Klauber, M. R. (1968). Survey of animal neoplasms in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. II. Cancer morbidity in dogs and cats from Alameda County. *Journal of the National Cancer Institute*, 40(2), 307-318.

Douxfils, J., Mandiki, S. N. M., Marotte, G., Wang, N., Silvestre, F., Milla, S., ... Kestemont, P. (2011). Does domestication process affect stress response in juvenile Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis? *Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology*, 159(1), 92-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2011.01.021

Driscoll, C. A., Macdonald, D. W., & Brien, S. J. (2009). From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 106(Supplement 1), 9971.

Driscoll, C. A., Menotti-Raymond, M., Roca, A. L., Hupe, K., Johnson, W. E., Geffen, E., ... Macdonald, D. W. (2007). The near eastern origin of cat domestication. *Science*, 317(5837), 519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139518
El Etreby, M. F., Muller-Peddinghaus, R., Bhargava, A. S., El Bab, M. R., Graf, K. J., & Trautwein, G. (1980). The role of the pituitary gland in spontaneous canine mammary tumorigenesis. *Veterinary Pathology*, 17(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/030098588001700101

Evans, S. J. M., Harr, K. E., Thielen, L., & MacNeill, A. L. (2018). Validation of an immunocytochemical assay for immunophenotyping of lymphoma in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus). *Veterinary Clinical Pathology*, 47(4), 682–687.

Finucane, K. A., McFadden, T. B., Bond, J. P., Kennelly, J. J., & Zhao, F. Q. (2008). Onset of lactation in the bovine mammary gland: Gene expression profiling indicates a strong inhibition of gene expression in cell proliferation. *Functional & Integrative Genomics*, 8(3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10142-008-0074-y

Fleury, C., Berard, F., Leblond, A., Faure, C., Ganem, N., & Thomas, L. (2000). The study of cutaneous melanomas in camargue-type gray-skinned horses (2): Epidemiological survey. *Pigment Cell Research*, 13, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0749.2000.130109.x

Flisikowski, K., Flisikowska, T., Sikorska, A., Perkowska, A., Kind, A., Schnieke, A., & Switonski, M. (2017). Germline gene polymorphisms predisposing domestic mammals to carcinogenesis. *Veterinary and Comparative Oncology*, 15(2), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/vco.12186

Fredrickson, T. N. (1987). Ovarian tumors of the hen. *Environmental Health Perspectives*, 73, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.877335

Fritzsche, P., Neumann, K., Nasdal, K., & Gattermann, R. (2006). Differences in reproductive success between laboratory and wild-derived golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) as a consequence of inbreeding. *Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology*, 60(2), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0159-3

Garabrant, D., & Philbert, M. (2002). Review of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) Epidemiology and Toxicology. *Critical Reviews in Toxicology*, 32, 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/20024091064237

Gaunitz, C., Fages, A., Hanghøj, K., Albrechtsen, A., Khan, N., Schubert, M., ... Orlando, L. (2018). Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski's horses. *Science*, 360(6384), 111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aa03297

Gavazza, A., Presciuttini, S., Barale, R., Lubas, G., & Gugliucci, B. (2001). Association between canine malignant lymphoma, living in industrial areas, and use of chemicals by dog owners. *Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine*, 15(3), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2001.tb02310.x

German, A. J. (2006). The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. *The Journal of Nutrition*, 136(7), 1940S–1946S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/136.7.1940S

Glazko, V., Zybaylov, B., & Glazko, T. (2014). Domestication and genome evolution. *International Journal of Genetics and Genomics*, 2(4), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijgg.20140204.11

Glickman, L. T., Schofer, F. S., McKee, L. J., Reif, J. S., & Goldschmidt, M. H. (1989). Epidemiologic study of insecticide exposures, obesity, and risk of bladder cancer in household dogs. *Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A Current Issues*, 28(4), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287398909531360

Good, B. H., & Desai, M. M. (2014). Deleterious passengers in adapting populations. *Genetics*, 198(3), 1183–1208. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.170233

Greaves, M. (2007). Darwinian medicine: A case for cancer. *Nature Reviews Cancer*, 7(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2071

Greaves, M. (2015). Evolutionary determinants of cancer. *Cancer Discovery*, 5(8), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0439

Groenen, M. A. M. (2016). A decade of pig genome sequencing: A window on pig domestication and evolution. *Genetics, Selection, Evolution*, 48, 23–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0204-2

Gustafson, K. D., Hawkins, M. G., Drazenovich, T. L., Church, R., Brown, S. A., & Ernest, H. B. (2018). Founder events, isolation, and inbreeding: Intercontinental genetic structure of the domestic ferret. *Evolutionary Applications*, 11(5), 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12565

Hosking, F. J., Papaemmanuil, E., Sheridan, E., Kinsey, S. E., Lightfoot, T., Roman, E., ... Houlston, R. S. (2010). Genome-wide homozygosity signatures and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia risk. *Blood*, 115(22), 4472–4477. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-09-244483

Jacqueline, C., Biro, P. A., Beckmann, C., Moller, A. P., Renaud, F., Sorci, G., ... Thomas, F. (2017). Cancer: A disease at the crossroads of trade-offs. *Evolutionary Applications*, 10(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12444

Jarrett, W. F. H., McNeil, P. E., Grimshaw, W. T. R., Selman, I. E., & McIntyre, W. I. M. (1978). High incidence area of cattle cancer with a possible interaction between an environmental carcinogen and a papilloma virus. *Nature*, 274(5668), 215–217. https://doi.org/10.1038/274215a0

Jennings, J., & Sang, Y. (2019). Porcine interferon complex and co-evolution with increasing viral pressure after domestication. *Viruses*, 11(6), 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/v11060555

Johnson, P. A., & Giles, J. R. (2006). Use of genetic strains of chickens in studies of ovarian cancer 1. *Poultry Science*, 85(2), 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/85.2.246

Johnson, P. A., & Giles, J. R. (2013). The hen as a model of ovarian cancer. *Nature Reviews Cancer*, 13(6), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3535

Kalialis, L. V., Drzewiecki, K. T., & Klyver, H. (2009). Spontaneous regression of metastases from melanoma: Review of the literature. *Melanoma Research*, 19(5), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1097/CMR.0b013e32832eabd5

Karlsson, E. K., Sigurdsson, S., Ivansson, E., Thomas, R., Elvers, I., Wright, J., & Lindblad-Toh, K. (2013). Genome-wide analyses implicate 33 loci in heritable dog osteosarcoma, including regulatory variants near CDKN2A/B. *Genome Biology*, 14(12), R132–R132.

Kelly, P., Toolan, D., & Johns, H. (2014). Intestinal adenocarcinoma in a herd of farmed sika deer (Cervus Nippon): A novel syndrome. *Veterinary Pathology*, 52, 193–200.

Kettunen, A., Daverdin, M., Helfjord, T., & Berg, P. (2017). Cross-breeding is inevitable to conserve the highly inbred population of puffin Hunter: The Norwegian Lundehund. *PLoS ONE*, 12, e0170039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170039

Kim, E. S., Cole, J. B., Huson, H., Wiggans, G. R., Van Tassell, C. P., Crooker, B., ... Sonstegard, T. S. (2013). Effect of Artificial Selection on Runs of Homozygosity in U.S. Holstein Cattle. *PLoS ONE*, 8(11), e80813. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080813

Kimura, M., Maruyama, T., & Crow, J. F. (1963). The mutation load in small populationS. *Genetics*, 48(10), 1303–1312.

King, K. C., & Lively, C. M. (2012). Does genetic diversity limit disease spread in natural host populations? *Heredity*, 109(4), 199. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.33

Knowles, E. J., Tremaine, W. H., Pearson, G. R., & Mair, T. S. (2016). A database survey of equine tumours in the United Kingdom. *Equine Veterinary Journal*, 48(3), 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.12421

Kuhlman, J. R., & Martin, L. B. (2010). Captivity affects immune redistribution to skin in a wild bird. *Functional Ecology*, 24(4), 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01710.x

Larson, G., & Fuller, D. Q. (2014). The Evolution of Animal Domestication. *Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics*, 45(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813

Lloyd, L. C. (1961). Epithelial Tumours of the Skin of Sheep. *British Journal of Cancer*, 15(4), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1961.88
Löhr, C. (2013). One hundred two tumors in 100 Goats (1987–2011). *Veterinary Pathology*, 50(4), 668–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985812471544

Madewell, B. R. (1981). Neoplasms in domestic animals: A review of experimental and spontaneous carcinogenesis. *Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine*, 54(2), 111–125.

Marsden, C. D., Vecchyo, D. O. D., O'Brien, D. P., Taylor, J. F., Ramirez, O., Vilà, C., ... Lohmueller, K. E. (2016). Bottlenecks and selective sweeps during domestication have increased deleterious genetic variation in dogs. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 113(1), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1512501113

Martin, L. B., Kidd, L., Liebl, A. L., & Coon, C. A. C. (2011). Captivity induces hyper-inflammation in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus). *Journal of Experimental Biology*, 214(15), 2579–2585. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.057216

Mehl, M., Withrow, S., Seguin, B., Powers, B., Dernell, W., Pardo, A., ... Park, R. (2001). Spontaneous regression of osteosarcoma in four dogs. *Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association*, 219, 614–617. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.219.614

van der Most, P. J., de Jong, B., Parmentier, H. K., & Verhulst, S. (2011). Trade-off between growth and immune function: A meta-analysis of selection experiments. *Functional Ecology*, 25(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01800.x

Munson, L., & Moresco, A. (2007). Comparative pathology of mammary gland cancers in domestic and wild animals. *Breast Disease*, 28, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.3233/BD-2007-28102

Norris, K., & Evans, M. R. (2000). Ecological immunology: Life history trade-offs and immune defense in birds. *Behavioral Ecology*, 11(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/11.1.19

Nunney, L. (2013). The real war on cancer: The evolutionary dynamics of cancer suppression. *Evolutionary Applications*, 6(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12018

Onions, D. (1985). Animal model: Lessons from feline and bovine leukaemia virus infections. *Leukemia Research*, 9(6), 709–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2126(85)90280-2

Palmarini, M., Fan, H., & Michael Sharp, J. (1997). Sheep pulmonary adenomatosis: A unique model of retrovirus associated lung cancer. *Trends in Microbiology*, 5(12), 478–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-842X(97)01162-1

Paoloni, M., & Khanna, C. (2008). Translation of new cancer treatments from pet dogs to humans. *Nature Reviews Cancer*, 2, 147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2273

Paul, N. D., & Gwynn-Jones, D. (2003). Ecological roles of solar UV radiation: Towards an integrated approach. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 18(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00014-9

Potter, D. M., & Baird, M. S. (2000). Carcinogenic effects of ptaquiloside in bracken fern and related compounds. *British Journal of Cancer*, 83(7), 914–920. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1368

Priestnall, S. L., De Bellis, F., Bond, R., Alony-Gilboa, Y., & Summers, B. A. (2010). Spontaneous regression of congenital cutaneous hemangiomas in a calf. *Veterinary Pathology*, 47(2), 343–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985809358429

Reed, A. E. M., Kutasovic, J. R., Lakhani, S. R., & Peter, T. S. (2015). Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: Morphology, biomarkers and 'omics. *Breast Cancer Research*, 17(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0519-x

Reif, J. S., Bruns, C., & Lower, K. S. (1998). Cancer of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in pet dogs. *American Journal of Epidemiology*, 147(5), 488–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009475

Reif, J. S., & Cohen, D. (1971). The environmental distribution of canine respiratory tract neoplasms. *Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal*, 22(1), 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1971.10665823

Rivera, P., Melin, J., Biagi, T., Fall, T., Häggström, J., Lindblad-Toh, K., & von Euler, H. (2009). Mammary tumor development in dogs is associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2. *Cancer Research*, 69(22), 8770.

Rous, P. (1979). A transmissible avian neoplasm. (Sarcoma of the common fowl) by Peyton Rous, M.D., Experimental Medicine for Sept. 1, 1910, vol. 12, pp.696-705. *The Journal of Experimental Medicine*, 150(4), 729-753. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.150.4.729

Rowell, J. L., McCarthy, D. O., & Alvarez, C. E. (2011). Dog models of naturally occurring cancer. *Trends in Molecular Medicine*, 17(7), 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2011.02.004

Schneider, R., Dorn, C. R., & Taylor, D. O. (1969). Factors influencing canine mammary cancer development and postsurgical survival. *Journal of the National Cancer Institute*, 43(6), 1249–1261.

Schoemaker, N. J. (2017). Ferret oncology: Diseases, diagnostics, and therapeutics. *Veterinary Clinics of North America: Exotic Animal Practice*, 20(1), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvex.2016.07.004

Schoenebeck, J. J., & Ostrander, E. A. (2014). Insights into morphology and disease from the dog genome project. *Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology*, 30, 535–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annur.ev-cellbio-100913-012927

Schubert, M., Jónsson, H., Chang, D., Der Sarkissian, C., Ermini, L., Ginolhac, A., ... Orlando, L. (2014). Prehistoric genomes reveal the genetic foundation and cost of horse domestication. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 111(52), E5661–E5669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1416991111

Seltenhammer, M. H., Heere-Ress, E., Brandt, S., Druml, T., Jansen, B., Pehamberger, H., & Niebauer, G. W. (2004). Comparative Histopathology of Grey-Horse-Melanoma and Human Malignant Melanoma. *Pigment Cell Research*, 17(6), 674–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0749.2004.00192.x

Setchell, B. P. (1992). Domestication and reproduction. *Animal Reproduction Science*, 28(1), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4320(92)90106-N

Smith, J. M., & Haigh, J. (1974). The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene. *Genetical Research*, 23(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672300014634

Svetec, N., Cridland, J. M., Zhao, L., & Begun, D. J. (2016). The adaptive significance of natural genetic variation in the DNA damage response of Drosophila melanogaster. *PLoS Genetics*, 12(3), e1005869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005869

Szpiech, Z. A., Jishu, X., Pemberton, T. J., Peng, W., Zöllner, S., Rosenberg, N. A., & Li, J. Z. (2013). Long runs of homozygosity are enriched for deleterious variation. *The American Journal of Human Genetics*, 93(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.05.003

Takashima-Uebelhoer, B. B., Barber, L. G., Zagarins, S. E., Procter-Gray, E., Gollenberg, A. L., Moore, A. S., & Bertone-Johnson, E. R. (2012). Household chemical exposures and the risk of canine malignant lymphoma, a model for human non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. *Environmental Research*, 112, 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2011.12.003

Thalmann, O., Shapiro, B., Cui, P., Schuenemann, V. J., Sawyer, S. K., Greenfield, D. L., ... Wayne, R. K. (2013). Complete mitochondrial genomes of ancient canids suggest a European origin of domestic dogs. *Science*, 342(6160), 871. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243650

Tixier-Boichard, M., Bed'hom, B., & Rognon, X. (2011). Chicken domestication: From archeology to genomics. *Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334*(3), 197-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2010.12.012

Ujvari, B., & Belov, K. (2011). Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) markers in conservation biology. *International Journal of Molecular Sciences*, 12(8), 5168–5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms12085168

Ujvari, B., Klaassen, M., Raven, N., Russell, T., Vittecoq, M., Hamede, R., ... Madsen, T. (2018). Genetic diversity, inbreeding and cancer. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 285(1875), 20172589. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2589
Vail, D. M., & Thamm, D. H. (2004). Spontaneously occurring tumors in companion animals as models for drug development. In B. A. Teicher, & P. A. Andrews (Eds.), *Anticancer drug development guide: Preclinical screening, clinical trials, and approval*. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

Vallée, H. (1904). et Carré, H.: Nature infectieuse de l'anémie du cheval. *Reu. Gén. Méd. Vét* 4:105.

Verwoerd, D. W., Payne, A. L., York, D. F., & Myer, M. S. (1983). Isolation and preliminary characterization of the jaagsiekte retrovirus (JSRV). *Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research*, *50*(4), 309-316.

Vigne, J.-D., Evin, A., Cucchi, T., Dai, L., Chong, Y., Songmei, H., ... Yuan, J. (2016). Earliest "Domestic" Cats in China Identified as Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). *PLoS ONE*, *11*(1), e0147295-e0147295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147295

Vincent-Naulleau, S., Le Chalony, C., Leplat, J.-J., Bouet, S., Bailly, C., Spatz, A., ... Geffrotin, C. (2004). Clinical and histopathological characterization of cutaneous melanomas in the melanoblastoma-bearing libechov minipig model. *Pigment Cell Research*, *17*(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1600-0749.2003.00101.x

Vittecoq, M., Giraudeau, M., Sepp, T., Marcogliese, D. J., Klaassen, M., Renaud, F., ... Thomas, F. (2018). Turning natural adaptations to oncogenic factors into an ally in the war against cancer. *Evolutionary Applications*, *11*(6), 836-844. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12608

Walker, L. I., Soto, M. A., & Spotorno, A. E. (2014). Similarities and differences among the chromosomes of the wild guinea pig Cavia tschudii and the domestic guinea pig Cavia porcellus (Rodentia, Caviidae). *Comparative Cytogenetics*, *8*(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.3897/compcytogen.v8i2.7509

Wang, W., Zhang, X., Zhou, X., Zhang, Y., La, Y., Zhang, Y., ... Jiang, Z. (2019). Deep genome resequencing reveals artificial and natural selection for visual deterioration, plateau adaptability and high prolificacy in Chinese domestic sheep. *Frontiers in Genetics*, *10*, 300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00300

Weiss, R. A., & Vogt, P. K. (2011). 100 years of Rous sarcoma virus. *The Journal of Experimental Medicine*, *208*(12), 2351-2355. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20112160

Whitaker, L. (2012). The plight of nuns: Hazards of nulliparity. *Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care*, *38*(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100339

Wilkins, A. S., Wrangham, R. W., & Tecumseh Fitch, W. (2014). The "Domestication Syndrome" in Mammals: A Unified Explanation Based on Neural Crest Cell Behavior and Genetics. *Genetics*, *197*(3), 795. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.165423

Zapata, I., Moraes, L. E., Fiala, E. M., Sara Zaldivar-Lopez, C., Couto, G., Rowell, J. L., & Alvarez, C. E. (2019). Risk-modeling of dog osteosarcoma genome scans shows individuals with Mendelian-level polygenic risk are common. *BMC Genomics*, *20*(1), 226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5531-6

Zeder, M. A. (2012). The domestication of animals. *Journal of Anthropological Research*, *68*(2), 161-190. https://doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201

Zhang, Q., Guldbrandtsen, B., Bosse, M., Lund, M. S., & Sahana, G. (2015). Runs of homozygosity and distribution of functional variants in the cattle genome. *BMC Genomics*, *16*(1), 542-542. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1715-x

**How to cite this article:** Thomas F, Giraudeau M, Dheilly NM, et al. Rare and unique adaptations to cancer in domesticated species: An untapped resource? *Evol Appl.* 2020;13:1605–1614. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12920