shortstep Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 http://www.marsveterinary.com/breederservices.html Guess they beat our local Uni's to it, but I suppose they can patent their own test, which the Government can make part of a maditory EBV program for all licensed breeders, and then ANKC will make it maditory to report the test results so they can be listed on the pedigree (with the recommended range listed) so the buyer is aware of the genetic diversity of the pup they are buying. All of this information will go to help put a price on the government required insurance policy we have to supply for the puppy's owner. Was it really only 10 steps in the plan...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuralPug Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 http://www.marsveterinary.com/breederservices.htmlGuess they beat our local Uni's to it, but I suppose they can patent their own test, which the Government can make part of a maditory EBV program for all licensed breeders, and then ANKC will make it maditory to report the test results so they can be listed on the pedigree (with the recommended range listed) so the buyer is aware of the genetic diversity of the pup they are buying. All of this information will go to help put a price on the government required insurance policy we have to supply for the puppy's owner. Was it really only 10 steps in the plan...LOL There are plenty of actaully valuable tests already that the ANKC could make mandatory to report but hasn't. Unless this particular private company can afford huge $$$$ undertable kickbacks to politicians and civil servants I doubt that this will be the first. Ooops, is my sarcarm showing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) There are plenty of actaully valuable tests already that the ANKC could make mandatory to report but hasn't. Unless this particular private company can afford huge $$$$ undertable kickbacks to politicians and civil servants I doubt that this will be the first.Ooops, is my sarcarm showing? LOL Yes I guess you are right, I would think that the Governement and ANKC would at least pick an Australian company. Think of using somthing like this. First you select 3 possible stud dogs. Then you have to contact each stud owner and say.... "Your dog is in the runing but I need to compare his DNA and 2 other possible studs and the dog least like my bitch will be selected as per the government madated Genetic Diversity Murchantable Dog Breeder Laws. Can you take your dog to your vet to have it's blood drawn and send if off to the lab, I will pay your vet bill with my Visa. I'll let you know if your dog wins. I am pretty sure your sort of like a British Bull Dog will be the least like my sort of like a Shih Tzu and we will soon be making cute little registered ANKC sort of like Bull Shih'ts! " Wonder what 4 DNA tests and the comparisons costs? I see they did not list it on the web site. Edited February 15, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Holy crap - they're offering a cutting edge breeding tool and don't know the word is conformation and not confirmation????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Holy crap - they're offering a cutting edge breeding tool and don't know the word is conformation and not confirmation????????????????????? Maybe that is a special service for their Catholic dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin-Genie Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Holy crap - they're offering a cutting edge breeding tool and don't know the word is conformation and not confirmation????????????????????? That's just a typo on the page. They have spelled it correctly in the first paragraph. There are plenty of typos on DOL. If their methodology is faulty or their assumptions unscientific, those are valid grounds for criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Holy crap - they're offering a cutting edge breeding tool and don't know the word is conformation and not confirmation????????????????????? Maybe that is a special service for their Catholic dogs? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) If that's scientific, I'm ashamed to be a scientist. I'd welcome a test that avoided doubling up on segments of code that carry risk of harmful recessive traits. But aiming to maximize the potential genetic heterozygosity, irrespective of what the genes do does makes no sense. Say, for example, some bits of code make for a healthy heart or strong immune system or low risk of HD. I'd like low heterozygosity in those regions of code, thank you very much. Edited February 20, 2011 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 This is what happens when people don't understand the true meaning of hybrid vigour and mistake it for heterozygosity as sandgrubber says. Goodbye lines clear of certain genes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max#1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Maybe I'm a bit silly, and I'm not a breeder, but can someone explain why this is bad news? (At least the tone of this thread sounds like this is bad news....). Sandgrubber, Rev Jo - I may be wrong, but aren't there some 'bits' of code where it is important to have variation? Particularly immune bits (MHC anyone?)? Though I do understand the importance of knowing you're not passing on genetic diseases. From a brief look, it looks like the canine genomic research is helping to find out about human diseases as well. Though the 'identify what's in your mutt' kit looks a bit of a gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Maybe I'm a bit silly, and I'm not a breeder, but can someone explain why this is bad news? (At least the tone of this thread sounds like this is bad news....).Sandgrubber, Rev Jo - I may be wrong, but aren't there some 'bits' of code where it is important to have variation? Particularly immune bits (MHC anyone?)? Though I do understand the importance of knowing you're not passing on genetic diseases. From a brief look, it looks like the canine genomic research is helping to find out about human diseases as well. Though the 'identify what's in your mutt' kit looks a bit of a gimmick. HI Max I look at this way, Right now this is the latest craze, big $$ and a great temptation for breeders with sick dogs to jump on the band wagon before we have any real facts. Yes we want to know as much as possible about what each gene does and then use this information to avoid breeding a pup with an active disease, to avoid crosses that will lacking vigor and also to avoid changing the offspring into pups we do not recognize. If the goal is to have the max amount of different genes than yes test a bunch of dogs, from as many different breeds and cross breeds that you can find, pay a lot of $ to a lab, and pick the dog that is the least like your dog of the lot. What will you get? Anybodie's guess but it will be the most least like the dog you started with as was possible. I don't want a mystery anybody's guess litter. I would also point out that one litter I noticed bred by someone who preaches the glory of cross breeding and increasing genetic diversity to increase vigor, got 2 puppies in their litter from 2 breeds that normally have pretty good sized litters. I thought small litters was a sign of lack of genetic diversity?? We need to know a lot more. Now, give me a test that will for sure prevent me from breeding pup with a disease I am there. Give me a test that makes my pups have real documented improved vigor by making sure certain genes are in play (genes we do not even know about yet), or longer life genes, or take away that last gene that tips a dog over into HD symptoms and so forth. Yes I am there, bring it on! But we are not there yet, not even close in most cases. The tests we do have for certain disease genes I am already using. This test is working on one assumption and that is, in general a population that has greater genetic diversity will have less disease as compared to one with a less genetic diversity. Taking a big 'in general' concept like that about populations and placing it on to breeding of a single litter (where any number of breed special genes and diseases can be in play) is not exactly the same in my opinion. However I am still listening to some of the biggest experts on genetics and if they have things to say to make me come around I will say so. I would like to see some evidence too. Show me some breedings in a study context, with controls, not sure how you would measure this in success or failure, but it would take years to know the real outcomes of using this test to breed dogs. And also consider we do not really have a baseline of normal breedings to start with, eh. Some words I heard yesterday on the topic of how to breed better dogs went along these lines... Look at pedigrees (COI, different ancestors, health tests and so forth), but in the end you should always breed dogs and never breed paper. Words to live by. Edited February 20, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max#1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I think I must've read it different. I didn't think a breeder would throw away everything else to just rely on a test like this. And I wouldn't be too sure about dismissing it as the latest craze. Sequencing genomes, and the information that this can provide, is only becoming cheaper, easier, and more informative. I think as a breeder, you'd still start with your two intended dogs, but as well as their known breeding/backgrounds/temperaments (and whatever else is important!) you might add this test as well to see what you can find out about the cross. Especially as its a new technology - you'd have no idea what sort of information you would get from it. Then again, you might find out both dogs are heterozygous for a particular gene/trait that might mean a quarter of the litter is affected. You might find out nothing (like I can imagine the 'what's in my mutt' test is not really that accurate or informative - yet). Now, I've just finished a long discussion with my OH, who is actually an immunologist . I understood that genetic variation (as in having parents who are genetically as different as possible) is necessary for the immune system to work optimally - you get the most recombination and hence variation at the Major Histocompatability Complex. However, he says I'm wrong! Apparently (and what's very interesting) is that your body (and I'm assuming animal's as well) produce white blood cells called T-cells, which can recognize a billion + different 'bits' of bacteria/virus etc, due to the DNA sequence that makes up the T cell receptor. And that this 'system' working well has nothing to do with genetic variation. You learn something every day. Let's just say Max was not impressed with being ignored during this discussion! ETA: what I should add is that he works with mice that are inbred such that they are genetically identical - therefore removing that as a variable in his experiments. Edited February 20, 2011 by Max#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I think I must've read it different. I didn't think a breeder would throw away everything else to just rely on a test like this. And I wouldn't be too sure about dismissing it as the latest craze. Sequencing genomes, and the information that this can provide, is only becoming cheaper, easier, and more informative. I think as a breeder, you'd still start with your two intended dogs, but as well as their known breeding/backgrounds/temperaments (and whatever else is important!) you might add this test as well to see what you can find out about the cross. Especially as its a new technology - you'd have no idea what sort of information you would get from it. Then again, you might find out both dogs are heterozygous for a particular gene/trait that might mean a quarter of the litter is affected. You might find out nothing (like I can imagine the 'what's in my mutt' test is not really that accurate or informative - yet). Now, I've just finished a long discussion with my OH, who is actually an immunologist . I understood that genetic variation (as in having parents who are genetically as different as possible) is necessary for the immune system to work optimally - you get the most recombination and hence variation at the Major Histocompatability Complex. However, he says I'm wrong! Apparently (and what's very interesting) is that your body (and I'm assuming animal's as well) produce white blood cells called T-cells, which can recognize a billion + different 'bits' of bacteria/virus etc, due to the DNA sequence that makes up the T cell receptor. And that this 'system' working well has nothing to do with genetic variation. You learn something every day. Let's just say Max was not impressed with being ignored during this discussion! ETA: what I should add is that he works with mice that are inbred such that they are genetically identical - therefore removing that as a variable in his experiments. I am very sure that many many people will use this test, and you will soon be able to select a pup for a litter bred this way. In fact on another list people were already saying they were going to use it for the next litter and really excited at the prospect. They also felt that it was good to have as many different genes as possible. I am not sure they really understood it, some even admitted that, but they seem to not care as this was the what they had been told would help them breed better dogs. I never said that you would throw out other selection processes, nor did I want to indicate that money would rule my decision in fact I went out of my way to say that I would use any test PROVEN to work. What I meant to imply is that I am not sure I want to do my best to have as many different genes in the parents dogs as possible. For example right now I do not have a gene for CEA, I want to keep two identical normal genes and would not want the different defective gene hunted out by a diversity finder. Now I know this gene we can chase around by DNA testing for it, but what about all the other simple recessives that can not yet be tested for? Seem silly to go looking for them. Right now I have 5 generations without HD, they say that this is going to be as many 6 genes and also some genes that are for traits that just increase risk and tip the dog over the edge. Why would I want to change what I have now and go looking for different genes? It also took 200 years to build a sheepdog to work the way my breed does, for the breed to basically all have the same working style and traits. Why on earth would I want to now try to breed out those traits by deliberately looking for different working genes that are not the ones normally found in my breed for their working style and behaviors? Nobody has any idea how these working traits are inherited or how many there are, this is playing a dangerous game with the very soul of the breed and once these traits are lost they may never be able to be replaced and you would have lost the breed. You also have to remember that not all breeds are so sickly (in fact most are not), working dogs for the most part are pretty healthy and my breed already has a very low COI across the breed. This is not in response to a new fad in dog breeding, it is the old fashion method of repeating what works from practical experience. Show me proof this works and show me proof that this will not take away my dogs soul. Anyway, it may become mandatory in the next years of the UNI has anything to do with it. I was told that EBV using vet records and health testing combined with this sort of DNA diversity testing will be required and used to set the price for the insurance that must come with every pup sold. Will the 10 point plan become law? Can't say, but if it does then this sort of test will be part of being an ANKC breeder. If nothing else the uni can make a great big experiment using this sort of breeding plan on our dogs and we can all see what happens. It is a very good topic to discuss and thanks for doing that! Just wanted to add. I got the impression that you thought this test would tell you if the parents carried a gene for a disease. I do not think that is the case. First off each breed has different diseases and different genes that cause those diseases, even same disease can have different genes in different breeds. Also if this test did that, sign me up, I would get all the disease genes found in one swoop at a fraction of the cost of DNA testing for each one. And that would be violating heaps of patents!!! ...and would not happen even if they could do it. Edited February 20, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Why not take it a step further and really maximize heterozygosity. Choose breeds that are a maximum distance apart on the K9 family tree, as established by DNA sequencing. Ie, breed the Asiatic group to modern hunting dogs. It's so sad that we're on the verge of understanding the genetic basis of many diseases, and the powers that be have decided that the key to health is mix-em-up with no regard to what genes cause what strengths and weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) This has nothing to do with universities & nothing to do with any published scientific papers. As far as I can see. I was searching on their website to locate just who the 'scientists' & 'researchers' are, who are credited with developing this test. 'Wisdom Panel' looked promising. But turned out to be funny. For $69.99 (reduced), you can find out so many things from your mixed-breed's DNA. Including how best to target your dog's nutrition. Which is not surprising given that this stuff is under the aegis of the Mars commercial company. Best known for pet food. http://www.wisdompanel.com/ I tried clicking on 'Resources', maybe some published reports cited there. Turned out to be a short list of assorted associations. Including the American & UK Kennel Clubs. Giving an impression that there's some link. Edited February 21, 2011 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) True, in the short term. But if Mars is funding research, over time, it will affect what the universities study . . . sadly, money attracts research, and it's hard to do decent research without funding. This has nothing to do with universities & nothing to do with any published scientific papers. As far as I can see.http://www.wisdompanel.com/ Edited February 25, 2011 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 True, in the short term.But if Mars is funding research, over time, it will affect what the universities study . . . sadly, money attracts research, and it's hard to do decent research without funding. This has nothing to do with universities & nothing to do with any published scientific papers. As far as I can see.http://www.wisdompanel.com/ The unis may not have anything to do directly with this test, however, they have been and are preaching the bennfits of diversity and I have read more than a few 'genetic experts' in the field say that COI is only a guess based on proablities, where as a test that actually measurses the real diversity between the two parent dogs would be much more accurate. I am trying to educate myself andnot geting too far as most of this is above my level of education. However I did find this today, Sandgruber or others, so you have any comments on this and how it would apply to this test. http://desertwindhounds.blogspot.com/2010/...dbasket-to.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted February 27, 2011 Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Clipping from the article . . . some of which I understand and some of which is over my head (I'm a scientist, but not a geneticist): "Dog have several genes in their Class I region, one of which is very diverse, with lots of alleles. They have three haplotypes, or groups of alleles, in their Class II region, which are called DLA-DRB1, DLA-DQA1 and DLA-DQB1. Each one of these haplotypes is polymorphic, having many variable genes. There are more than two hundred different alleles that can be present in each Class II haplotype, and they find more of them all the time. Class III is much less well studied. I think it's great that they're beginning to understand what sequences that lead to weak immune systems. Computational genetics is advancing furiously cause computer power has grown astronomically; the ease of gene sequencing has advanced almost as fast. I believe the time is coming when gene maps will be able to guide us in understanding of important dog traits, including inherited behaviours, intelligence, muscular-skeletal strengths and weaknesses, etc. The problem I have with maximum difference type tests and breeding strategies is that, taken blindly, they logically lead to advocating cross breeding or at least finding the dog who is least least-similar to your bitch. If you are trying to perpetuate some specific attributes of your dog and/or bitch, going for maximum heterozygosity is not a good strategy. Yes, it may resolve some immune problems, but say you've worked hard to end out with strong hips and elbows and good endurance . . . dogs/bloodlines that are outstanding in these traits come about because the gene pool has been narrowed. Broadening the gene pool is likely to throw the baby out with the bath. I don't think I've said this very well. Maybe someone else can do a better job. And I've totally messed up the quotes . . . sorry. I am trying to educate myself andnot geting too far as most of this is above my level of education. However I did find this today, Sandgruber or others, so you have any comments on this and how it would apply to this test. http://desertwindhounds.blogspot.com/2010/...dbasket-to.html Edited February 27, 2011 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now