Breeders Please Be Aware Of Bitsa Dna

[dogslife]

When I pulled my puppy out of the pound, the pound staff and my own vet called her a Jack Russell cross Bull Terrier. I would love to have her assessed by this test.

This is her today....... lots of Jack Russell in her...... :D

[Sue]

Her head looks like a Great Dane's! As for Bull Terrier, well if she can use a computer I wouldn't say there's too much bully in her, far too bright to be related to my dunderheads.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Sue

[dogslife]

Her head looks like a Great Dane's! As for Bull Terrier, well if she can use a computer I wouldn't say there's too much bully in her, far too bright to be related to my dunderheads.

She is very bright Sue.....at 7 mths old she ate a pin cushion with pins ......... great vet bill. :D

[WoofnHoof]

If you sent away an anonymous sample for a pedigree Bull Terrier the results should come back as

Bull Terrier as the dominate breed followed by

British Bulldog as the secondary breed,

then Dalmatian

and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

A Miniature Bull Terrier should come back the same as Bull Terrier. Unless of course they were crossed with the Jack Russel or other terrier which caused PLL to be bought into the breed.

If only I had the money to test the theory.

Depends on what markers they are using, the canine genome has been mapped but that doesn't mean we know which genes are responsible for which traits, my understanding of these tests is that they use genes which are mostly found in that breed, so a gene might be present in a dog that looks nothing like the breeds that it is actually made up of simply because somewhere in the dogs ancestry was a dog with the marker gene which has been passed down. There are very few genes we know are linked to certain traits and these are mostly disease and colour genes, it will be a long time before we know which genes are responsible for the traits that make up a 'breed'. Dogs are the same species and the huge variation we see in breeds is due to a very small (0.01%) percentage of genetic variation, that is why they are looking for breeders to help with the testing because it is still very much a work in progress.

I agree that breeders with dogs of known ancestry shouldn't have to pay because they are helping the development of the genetic profile.

[Lowenhart]

Depends on what markers they are using, the canine genome has been mapped but that doesn't mean we know which genes are responsible for which traits, my understanding of these tests is that they use genes which are mostly found in that breed, so a gene might be present in a dog that looks nothing like the breeds that it is actually made up of simply because somewhere in the dogs ancestry was a dog with the marker gene which has been passed down. There are very few genes we know are linked to certain traits and these are mostly disease and colour genes, it will be a long time before we know which genes are responsible for the traits that make up a 'breed'. Dogs are the same species and the huge variation we see in breeds is due to a very small (0.01%) percentage of genetic variation, that is why they are looking for breeders to help with the testing because it is still very much a work in progress.

I agree that breeders with dogs of known ancestry shouldn't have to pay because they are helping the development of the genetic profile.

Actually by "mapping" it, they do have an idea of where in the genome certain traits appear. That was the whole point of the mapping .

The Bitsa test should be looking at non-coding DNA, the DNA that is not responsible for particular physical traits. We carry a lot of DNA that does not affect our looks, and certain sections of it are known to be quite slow in changing. These are the areas that are looked at when evalating the relatedness of different species.

I guess the biggest issue with the Bitsa test is that they have had insufficent examples of breeds in which to find the significant markers. I wonder how much is based on US data, which might lead to errors based on the divergance of relatively isolated populations of breeds.