Talk:Dog appeasing pheromone

Does natural DAP exist?
I have been researching and editing this article quite heavily for the last few days, but I have a nagging doubt about it. I have added several secondary sources which state that natural DAP exists, but, I have been unable to find a primary source indicating where/when it was first extracted from a natural source, or the purported effects of natural DAP were confirmed. The secondary sources are -


 * Tynes et al. (2015) which indicates natural DAP occurs but does not give a reference
 * VetSci (2001) which states "DAP is a naturally occurring pheromone which was initially extracted from lactating bitches." but does not give a reference.
 * Kim (2010) which cites Pageat and Gaultier (2003)
 * Gaultier et al. (2005) which cites Pageat (2000), but this is a US patent - hardly a recogniseable biological source and comments on the efficacy are limited to a study of 10 dogs where "The dogs whose cages are sprayed with the pheromone ate more food and appeared to be more relaxed after surgery that the dogs in the central."[]
 * Bowen and Heath (2005) which indicates there is a natural DAP, but sno reference.

There is another source which is not currently included in the article - a thesis which cites "(Pageat, 1999)" but does not give a reference in the reference list!

To summarise, I am not sure I have found a source that reliably indicates natural DAP exists. Can anyone help? DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DrC, Kim (2010) writes (citing Pageat and Gaultier (2003)): "A natural form of dog-appeasing pheromone is secreted from the sebaceous glands between the mammary chains of lactating bitches directly after parturition. The pheromone is reported to be detected by Jacobson’s organ or the vomero-nasal organ (VNO), and to have calming effects in both young and adult dogs under a wide variety of stressful situations."


 * Are you able to read the full text of Pageat and Gaultier? Sarah (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment. I have a problem with my University database access.  I have emailed my Uni about this and hopefully it will be resolved very shortly and I will get full access.  I just have a horrible feeling I might have fallen into a nest of secondary sources that have COI of one form or another. DrChrissy (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's any help, there is an open access article here on pig appeasing pheromone (Pageat is a co-author). It uses the word putative a lot - meant to express some uncertainty, no? As is appropriate for preliminary research. Interestingly, it looks as though a patent was filed before the paper was published in 2005. The article reads "The components of this putative maternal pheromone were identified as fatty acids in proportions that are species-specific (Pageat, 2001)" which points to Pageat's pig AP patent. That might be true for the dog one too. Novickas (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another open access article on PAP. It uses putative too, but offers some background: "Morrow-Tesch and McGlone (1990a,b) provided evidence that maternal pheromones regulate nursing pig behaviors. They found that pigs would not nurse when odors were washed from the skin of lactating sows using a solvent, and that piglets were attracted to and could discriminate among maternal odors found in feces and other biological fluids. Consequently, Pageat (2001) isolated skin secretions of mammals..." So there is at least some non-commercial evidence that a natural pig maternal pheromone exists. Novickas (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for these refs. Part of my problem is that I can see perfectly why pigs would have evolved such a pheromone.  Piglets are highly precocial when they are born.  Nursing for them, is a battle of the fittest.  They fight like hell to establish a teat order (the anterior teats produce better quality milk).  They are born with sharp teeth which they use on each other often causing injuries (these teeth are so sharp they are often clipped by farmers to avoid injuring the sow).  So, I can see why the sow might secrete a substance which calms these interactions down. But, the situation is so different in dogs.  They are altricial - born blind, under-developed and without teeth.  Nursing is a much, much more sedate affair, and I see very little reason why dogs would have evolved such a pheromone.  Sorry about the animal behaviour lecture, but I am a little worried that evidence of the pheromone in the pig may have been initially erroneously extrapolated to the dog and the mistake repeatedly perpetuated from source to source. DrChrissy (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about the extrapolation and its perpetuation, but without reliable refs... I think the article is reasonably neutral now and uses pretty much all the reliable evaluations that are out there. Thanks for the piglet behavior info. Novickas (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think if we can't a reliable source for natural DAP, we will have to delete the entire first paragraph. That will leave us with an article on only the synthetic product. DrChrissy (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss here. The secondary sources (which WP prefers), as far as I can tell, just use wording along the lines of "DAP (or apaisine) is a pheromone secreted by...". With the exception of this one, which uses the words putative and reportedly in 2013. How to weigh this secondary source wrt other ones that are published by reliable sources, and how to express that in this article, seems really challenging. Novickas (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have received a copy of the entire Pageat and Gaultier 2003 page and re-written the lead to reflect this. I still have doubts about whether this substance exists naturally, but we have what appears to be a reliable secondary source so I think my concerns at the moment have to be considered as OR.  Having said this, the colleague that sent me the paper is a world-renowned dog behaviouralist and he commented that the authors have always been "cagey" about the biological background to this. DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)