Inherited Defects In Pedigree Dogs.next Term Part 1: Disorders Related

[zayda_asher]

I've got a copy of this study: Click here for details. Its from the PDE aftermath.

If anyone wants a copy drop me a PM with an email addy

[Kissindra]

link takes you to a log in page with no details, could you cut/paste a short summary?

[zayda_asher]

link takes you to a log in page with no details, could you cut/paste a short summary

Bugger! Sorry about that, here:

Inherited defects in pedigree dogs.next term Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards

Lucy Ashera, Gillian Diesela, Jennifer F. Summersa, Paul D. McGreevyb and Lisa M. Collinsa, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Potters Bar, Herts AL9 7TA, UK

bFaculty of Veterinary Science, Gunn Building, University of Sydney, Australia

Accepted 28 August 2009.

Available online 16 October 2009.

Abstract

The United Kingdom pedigree-previous termdognext term industry has faced criticism because certain aspects of previous termdognext term conformation stipulated in the UK Kennel Club breed standards have a detrimental impact on previous termdognext term welfare. A review of conformation-related disorders was carried out in the top 50 UK Kennel Club registered breeds using systematic searches of existing information. A novel index to score severity of disorders along a single scale was also developed and used to conduct statistical analyses to determine the factors affecting reported breed predisposition to defects. According to the literature searched, each of the top 50 breeds was found to have at least one aspect of its conformation predisposing it to a disorder; and 84 disorders were either directly or indirectly associated with conformation. The Miniature poodle, Bulldog, Pug and Basset hound had most associations with conformation-related disorders. Further research on prevalence and severity is required to assess the impact of different disorders on the welfare of affected breeds.

[RuralPug]

PM sent, Thanks!

[gundoglover]

Thankyou, this is a very interesting study. Well worth PM'ing for the whole article. It appears reasonably sound science. The authors have developed a severity of illness scale based on those in use the medicine for humans for the 50 most popular (by UK KC registrations) breeds. Notably the vast majority of disorders were not linked to conformation. Of those determined to be linked to conformation, the table below from the paper summarizes the findings:

Table 1

Registrations statistics, number of disorders (including conformational related disorders, C, conformation exacerbated disorders, CD, and disorders not previously linked to conformation, D) and cumulative severity of disorders by breed.

Breed Total disorders Cs CDs Cumulative severity Cumulative severity Popularity rank (number Percentage increase in

(C + CD + D) range for Cs range for CDs registrations) registrations

German shepherd dog 77 13 6 64–123 35–73 5 (12,116) À42.18

Boxer 63 13 5 71–155 18–27 10 (8191) À14.78

Poodle (miniature) 58 17 2 47–113 27–55 48 (1038) À6.82

Retriever (Golden) 58 4 4 17–37 20–38 7 (9557) À35.44

Spaniel (English Springer) 57 15 0 62–138 0–0 3 (14,702) 15.39

Retriever (Labrador) 55 9 2 29–79 10–19 1 (45,079) 25.3

Doberman 53 7 6 21–65 23–47 23 (2437) À16.14

Poodle (toy) 51 14 3 64–134 25–41 33 (1671) À3.35

Spaniel (Cocker) 51 11 0 36–96 0–0 2 (20,883) 47.93

Dachshund (miniature 50 12 4 55–117 19–35 26/42 (2112/1244) 77.93/À27.93

smooth/long haired)

Great Dane 50 12 8 51–112 40–74 29 (1897) À6.41

Beagle 45 5 2 18–45 6–10 25 (2124) 126.2

Miniature schnauzer 45 3 1 10–28 7–14 11 (5152) 101.33

Irish setter 44 6 5 41–64 18–42 50 (1029) À28.69

Bulldog 42 16 2 50–150 9–18 41 (1258) 8.35

Basset hound 41 16 3 69–154 7–20 16 (3979) 97.76

Poodle (standard) 41 9 1 51–97 7–12 47 (1057) À19.13

Shar Pei 38 14 1 46–125 2–6 27 (2040) 132.61

Collie rough 37 7 1 37–71 2–10 43 (1196) À48.87

Dalmatian 36 9 2 39–86 13–17 34 (1657) À45.81

West highland terrier 35 7 3 30–75 0–0 9 (8309) À45.09

Shetland sheepdog 34 1 0 7–19 0–0 35 (1655) À31.24

Chihuahua (long/smooth 13 2 56–128 14–26 31/45 (1728/1143) 42.34/114.85

33

coat)

Pug 33 16 2 60–145 9–20 17 (3547) 449.07

German short-haired pointer 32 4 2 18–37 12–13 38 (1497) 5.57

Rottweiler 32 5 0 18–46 0–0 14 (4257) À14.07

Weimaraner 31 5 1 14–38 9–13 20 (2724) À0.69

Akita 26 7 0 33–70 0–0 40 (1375) À11.12

Shih tzu 26 7 0 30–68 0–0 12 (51447) 21.05

Yorkshire terrier 26 10 1 47–97 7–14 15 (4055) À54.01

Border collie 25 4 0 16–36 0–0 24 (2359) 5.08

Cairn terrier 25 3 1 11–28 7–14 30 (1873) À18.46

Cavalier King Charles spaniel 25 10 1 51–102 7–12 6 (11422) À10.08

Lhasa apso 24 9 0 40–90 0–0 13 (4713) 40.35

Scottish terrier 24 5 1 19–42 2–10 49 (1031) À19.45

Alaskan malamute 23 3 0 13–28 0–0 44 (1161) 936.61

Bullmastiff 20 9 0 32–78 0–0 37 (1594) À32.37

17 3 1 12–28 7–14 21 (2694) 5.56

Bichon frise

Bull terrier 17 4 2 12–32 11–19 18 (3335) 32.18

Border terrier 16 4 1 18–36 2–10 8 (8814) 153.35

Hungarian Viszla 16 4 1 23–37 0–5 46 (1133) 114.58

Siberian husky 15 1 0 3–10 0–0 28 (2000) 151.26

Rhodesian ridgeback 14 5 0 26–53 0–0 36 (1618) 59.25

Tibetan terrier 13 3 0 19–36 0–0 39 (1384) 45.84

Staffordshire bull terrier 11 2 2 6–12 13–21 4 (12,167) 27.23

Whippet 10 5 0 8–27 0–0 19 (3043) À28.69

Retriever (Flatcoated) 8 3 0 9–28 0–0 32 (1527) 18.19

Dogue de Bordeaux 4 1 0 1–9 0–0 22 (2543) 1204.1

[Steve]

Can you shoot it to me please?

[email protected]

[zayda_asher]

Can you shoot it to me please?

[email protected]

Have done... let me know if it doesn't come through...

[sas]

[email protected] please

[Sheridan]

conformation exacerbated disorders, CD, and disorders not previously linked to conformation

Some of these might be a matter of opinion, I think.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sheridan

[raineth]

could I please have a copy?

[email protected]

Thank you

[Trishm]

Could I have a copy also, thankyou.

[email protected]

[vizeuse]

Part 2 of the article is available free online from;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10900233

There is also an editorial in the same issue by Frank Nicholas, Clare Wade & Peter Williamson, that people might be interested to read.

[gundoglover]

Part 2 of the article is available free online from;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10900233

There is also an editorial in the same issue by Frank Nicholas, Clare Wade & Peter Williamson, that people might be interested to read.

Thankyou. They are both very interesting.

[mita]

Part 2 of the article is available free online from;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10900233

There is also an editorial in the same issue by Frank Nicholas, Clare Wade & Peter Williamson, that people might be interested to read.

Thanks for this link. Note a summary statement in the editorial:

Consequently, despite the obvious enormous effort of the authors in

assembling this information, there is still much work to be done

to relate most of the disorders specifically to aspects of actual

breed standards.

This cuts across the enthusiasm which is driving the current bandwagon....a leap to a conclusion that purebred dogs have a peculiar feature in the world of dogs in that they're 'falling to pieces' because of genetic disorders. Words used in the infamous BBC documentary by a person (who's associated with this enthusiasm.)

The key question.....& science always asks questions....is compared with what? Dogs are dogs are dogs, whether purebred or mixed breed....& all have genes & all have a conformation. Tables like the one above beg that question.

So it's necessary to include mixed breed dogs in studies to see the incidence of disorders across the dog world, generally.

An example: A study into the prevalence of hip dysplasia in a veterinary teaching hospital found there was no statistically significant difference between purebreeds & mixedbreeds in the dogs brought in for treatment.

Now, fair enough, a more central registry would pick up incidence patterns across the wider dog population. And that single- location finding, might not hold with the larger cohort. Or might do.

But those stats should allow any incidence level for a particular breed to be compared with other breeds, mixed breeds & also compared with the average across all dogs. (Also providing data base for further studies of manifestations, development & treatment of various conditions.)

However, it'd be necessary (with such a registry) to investigate if there's any significant difference in the rate for purebreeds & mixedbreeds being brought, by their owners, for veterinary attention. If so, would need factoring in.

Edited January 17, 2010 by mita

[Steve]

Quote - Fortunately, there is a readily-available strategy for decreasing

the occurrence of such disorders in a particular kennel, namely

avoiding the mating of known relatives end quote

The effect of out crossing is to hide the gene not eliminate it.

The higher the frequency of affected animals, the easier detection of any gene can be and then we can use strategies to eliminate it altogether from our kennel and our breeds.Under this strategy you decrease the occurance in a kennel but spread the news far and wide throughout the population at large.

There are several available strategies for decreasing and eliminating occurances - one of which is well documented and set out in Padgetts Work.

http://www.workingdogs.com/doc0031.htm

[Jed]

The usual suspect Paul D. McGreevyb

Consequently, despite the obvious enormous effort of the authors in

assembling this information, there is still much work to be done

to relate most of the disorders specifically to aspects of actual

breed standards.

Isn't that the one where they take the supposition, and find the stats to prove it?

More frightening by the moment.