Optigen Testing

[jdarling]

Normal to Normal Testing Information

 

If I have a pup out of a normal to normal breeding, why would I have to test the pup? What am I missing?

 

Jodi

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I imagine this is for AKC types who just want the registration/certificate number or whatever it is, for the pedigree. This is other breeds particularly. I don't think Border Collie people expect this or do it, not even the ACK types. A pup from two normal parents is "normal by parentage."

[Janba]

Normal to Normal Testing Information

 

If I have a pup out of a normal to normal breeding, why would I have to test the pup? What am I missing?

 

Jodi

 

The only real proof you have that your dog is clear by parentage is if you DNA profile the parents and the pup as a pedigree doesn't prove the pup is in fact from those two parents. I don't know if Optigen DNA profiles but Gene Technologies Australia does.

 

It may affect kennel club registrations more than working registries at the moment, but the more generations there are of clear by parentage there are without testing or profiling the more chance for error.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

This actually raises an interesting point. Is the ABCA considering noting DNA test results on pedigrees or in the database? If they would do this then it would be almost impossible for error to occur, even over many generations.

 

I know this opens a whole can of worms with making it look like normal DNA status is some kind of Blue Seal, and I'm not suggesting mandantory notation for sure. But it would sure be nice for someone like me to whom CEA status is less important than working potential. Down the road if the pups I choose are carriers, it makes it easier to make breeding decisions if there is a record of inheritance available for dogs for whom it is no longer necessary to do the genetic test (from 100% normal ancestory).

 

I don't know if that makes sense. It probably doesn't - I'm in an awful hurry this morning!

[Shoofly]

The thing is, there are going to be lots and lots of genetic tests coming up and the pedigrees can only contain so much information.

[Pipedream Farm]

Why would you test any pup?

Can you know at that age if you will breed the pup (CEA cannot be passed on if you don't breed)?

CEA status is only one of many things you'll want to know if you choose to breed this dog.

If you have any doubt of the CEA status of a dog you will be breeding then test.

I would not test the dog from a known CEA normal x CEA normal breeding.

 

This is just more of the test everything mentality.

 

Mark

[Northof49]

Why would you test any pup?

Can you know at that age if you will breed the pup (CEA cannot be passed on if you don't breed)?

CEA status is only one of many things you'll want to know if you choose to breed this dog.

If you have any doubt of the CEA status of a dog you will be breeding then test.

I would not test the dog from a known CEA normal x CEA normal breeding.

 

This is just more of the test everything mentality.

 

Mark

 

Even if you have no plans of breeding, there is nothing wrong with getting an eye exam on a pup to make sure that everything is 100%. There are other conditions that can impact on a dog's eyesight other than CEA, including something that could have gone wrong in the development of the eye in-utero. Sometimes these things are not obvious in a young pup if their eyesight is not affected to the degree that I as the owner would notice there is something wrong, so personally I don't think it hurst to rule stuff out.

 

I also do a Prelim on hips and elbows at approx. 9 - 10 mionths old. Border Collies are not know for elbow problems, but again I personally want to rule out hip or elbow problems in my young dog before I start any serious work on sheep, agility etc. If something should show up, then I can immediately plan an appropriate course of training, preventative maintenance, etc. I do the same with an older dog as well - get the eyes checked and get hips/elbows xrayed to know what I am starting out with. I have never had a Border Collie come up with any hip/elbow or eye problems in all the years I have had them, but I will still continue to test each and every new pup/dog that comes into my home for eyes, hips and elbows.

[Pipedream Farm]

What you say is true; however, the Optigen CEA test (the question) will NOT provide all the information available from an ophthalmological exam.

 

Mark

[Pipedream Farm]

Based upon RETINAL DISORDERS IN BORDER COLLIES and the availability of the Optigen CEA test I see no need for ophthalmological exams of puppies.

 

There are several well characterized retinal diseases reported in Border Collies, and others that are commonly seen but not as well known or understood. Two of these are reasonably noncontroversial: Central Progressive Retinal Atrophy, and Collie Eye Anomaly; and others are less well described (in Border Collies) and can be very confusing to differentiate. The latter group of diseases include both acquired retinal diseases (Focal/Multifocal Retinopathy, Sector Retinopathy) and, possibly, Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) which is an inherited retinopathy.

 

CEA is covered by the Optigen test

CPRA seems to be preventable by diet

PRA is not present in the breed (according to Dr. Gregory M. Acland)

The others are acquired

 

Mark

[Pearse]

Based upon RETINAL DISORDERS IN BORDER COLLIES and the availability of the Optigen CEA test I see no need for ophthalmological exams of puppies.

CEA is covered by the Optigen test

CPRA seems to be preventable by diet

PRA is not present in the breed (according to Dr. Gregory M. Acland)

The others are acquired

 

Mark

 

 

And yet, the USBCHA apparently upon recommendation/insistence of the ABCA requires biannual ophthalmic exams of all dogs competing at the National Finals, even those that have been genetically tested for CEA and shown to be +/+ (normal). The argument is that they are looking for "other" congenital or inherited conditions although no one seem able to define what those are.

 

Any insight into what they are looking for?

 

Pearse

[Lenajo]

as long as the ABCA continues to make those eye test for the Finals free....why does it matter? It's a screening of the better dogs of the breed. I'm not a testing junkie, but some of this is worthwhile.

[Pipedream Farm]

Pearse,

 

Monitoring for changes in the eye health of the breed generally means you're looking for the unexpected/not predicted.

 

For example... "In the mid to late 1970's however, something still unexplained occurred, and quite suddenly. In Australia and the USA, CPRA totally disappeared." (see link above) Without some sort of monitoring how would the community know there is an emerging (or disappearing) problem? Take deafness, for example, without a test how does one know the dog is deaf or just not listening?

 

Would you prefer the registry does not monitor the eye health of the breed?

In terms of sampling the breed, what would you suggest as an alternative?

 

Mark

[Pipedream Farm]

as long as the ABCA continues to make those eye test for the Finals free....why does it matter? It's a screening of the better dogs of the breed. I'm not a testing junkie, but some of this is worthwhile.

 

And you may be surprised by what is found. One year a detached retina was found that the owner did not know about; without proper treatment the dog would have gone blind in that eye.

 

Mark

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

We found one year that one of our dogs had FMAR and got some helpful advice on keeping that dog from acquiring additional damage and possibly losing some vision. I'll continue to check my working dogs regularly - their eyes are so important for what they do!

[Pearse]

Pearse,

 

Monitoring for changes in the eye health of the breed generally means you're looking for the unexpected/not predicted.

 

For example... "In the mid to late 1970's however, something still unexplained occurred, and quite suddenly. In Australia and the USA, CPRA totally disappeared." (see link above) Without some sort of monitoring how would the community know there is an emerging (or disappearing) problem? Take deafness, for example, without a test how does one know the dog is deaf or just not listening?

 

Would you prefer the registry does not monitor the eye health of the breed?

In terms of sampling the breed, what would you suggest as an alternative?

 

Mark

 

 

Not at all, but the object of the exercise is not being well articulated and it is a legitimate question to ask as to whether if there is no immediate need for testing, should it be required of all dogs participating in the Finals?

 

It's not a good strategy as a survey of emerging problems. You are testing about <100 dogs/yr and the same dogs year after year. There are 22,000 dogs registered/yr. There are > 600 dogs placing in the top 20% at Open trials, therefore likely to be >3000 dogs trialling in Open each year of which <3% are being tested.

 

Would it not yield more significant data on emerging eye problems to spend that money testing at a different trial major trial each year and do it on a voluntary basis? One would accrue a greater number of dogs in the study and a greater cross-section. Testing only at the National Finals, in effect, biases the sample towards those dogs least likely to have problems since they are the dogs performing at the highest levels.

 

How many dogs have been tested voluntarily (at the owners' expense) using the Optigen CEA test? My guess is that the numbers are probably approaching 10,000 with only a minority of those being working dogs. Still, my suspicion is that more working dogs are being voluntarily tested each year for CEA using Optigen's test, at their owners' expense than are being tested at the National Finals, and it may be worth considering whether or not setting up voluntary clinics at one or more major trials each year wouldn't broaden the survey and provide a better picture of the health of the breed.

Testing will catch some undiagnosed traumatic or congenital problems, but a small number compared to the number of dogs tested.

[Lenajo]

It all seems to be coming back full circle then. If a pup is valuable enough to be produced or bought, is it not valuable enough to do a CERF exam on young? I'm not proposing that we do endless tests for pointless non-breed related diseases, but healthy eyes are serious business. As a breeder, I want the relatively cheap guarantee of an eye exam before I handed over a pup just as much as I would as the buyer of the same pup.

 

If you check the pup at 12 weeks, it's fine until it goes to it's first Nursery Finals. right?

[Pipedream Farm]

Pearse,

 

Here are some stats for you.

 

Through 2005 there were 2750 Border Collies tested by Optigen for CEA, of those 380 were ABCA, CBCA, ISDS registered; in 2006 208 ABCA (100), CBCA (34) and ISDS (74) registered Border Collies were tested.

 

In 2005 there were about 200 dogs examined at the finals; in 2006 there were more than 200 tested in the first 2 days and I did not get the count for the last day. Not all the dogs examined were running; the exam is free for all ABCA registered dogs.

 

1. More dogs are examined at the finals than the number of ABCA registered dogs tested by Optigen annually.

2. The total number of Border Collies tested by Optigen is about 3000 approximately 10% of these being ABCA registered.

3. Using your own argument (more dogs are voluntarily tested via Optigen than at the mandatory eye exams) one would predict the sample size would decrease if the exams were made voluntary.

 

While the total number of dogs tested at the finals is very small compared to the total population; what percentage of the gene pool do you supposed is covered by those dogs running at the finals? Isn't genetic diversity as (or more) important than total sample number when monitoring for emerging diseases?

 

Mark

 

One more thought, I believe you'll find that as the finals moves from one side of the country to the other it is not the same 150 open dogs running each time; I suspect that over half the dogs running don't go to the finals when it is on the other side of the country (due to travel expenses and the point system). Nursery dogs are also being tested; what percentage of them make it to the Open finals (to be retested) in subsequent years?

[C Crocker]

If you check the pup at 12 weeks, it's fine until it goes to it's first Nursery Finals. right?

 

 

I think if you wait until the pup is 12 weeks, it 's eyes could have "gone normal" by that time. I was told 6-8 weeks is the correct window by the opthalmalogist I took my pup to before I purchased her ( eye exam paid for by seller).

 

Next time she was checked was at the 06 Nursery Finals, just about her third birthday.

 

Carolyn

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

"Go normal" is a misnomer since the dog is still genetically Affected, which would be identifiable through the Optigen test, because it only applies to CEA. Other conditions are still identifiable throughout the lifetime of the dog. My Ben has the mildest possible form of CEA and it was identified when he was, I believe three years old, when I had him tested just because I wanted to support the clinic that was being held (he is neutered and had been since puppyhood).

[Pearse]

Thanks for the actual numbers Mark. It's always too bad when the facts get in the way of one's preconceived speculations but it's always better to know how things actually are rather than how one assumes them to be.

 

That's at the root of my initial query though. When I asked the reasons for mandatory testing at the Finals prior to this year's event I got one of two responses. I either got no response at all, or I was told that the testing was for "other things" which, based on your response is not really accurate.

 

If I understand you correctly, the mandatory testing is not testing for any specific, known problem (since CEA is best diagnosed in pups by examination or by genetic testing) but for traumatic or degenerative disease, and as a survey against the emergence of as yet unknown eye diseases.

 

From a members' perspective, I think that neither the ABCA nor the USBCA are doing as good a job as they could be in informing members, breeders, and handlers why these efforts are important and worthwhile (and I do think they are both).

 

The DNA testing numbers are interesting. The ABCA is the largest registry by far but ABCA + ISDS + CBCA registered dogs represent only 10% of those being tested. Can we assume that the other 90% are AKC?

 

I did consider the east/west Finals population differences + Nursery dogs + non-competing dogs who happened to be at the Finals, but even at 400 unique dogs every two years, and even taking into account the disproportionate effect some of those dogs may have on the working dog gene pool, is it worth considering whether or not there is a better way to conduct a broad-based survey? Perhaps the current method is the best possible, but perhaps it isn't.

 

Pearse,

 

Here are some stats for you.

 

Through 2005 there were 2750 Border Collies tested by Optigen for CEA, of those 380 were ABCA, CBCA, ISDS registered; in 2006 208 ABCA (100), CBCA (34) and ISDS (74) registered Border Collies were tested.

 

In 2005 there were about 200 dogs examined at the finals; in 2006 there were more than 200 tested in the first 2 days and I did not get the count for the last day. Not all the dogs examined were running; the exam is free for all ABCA registered dogs.

 

1. More dogs are examined at the finals than the number of ABCA registered dogs tested by Optigen annually.

2. The total number of Border Collies tested by Optigen is about 3000 approximately 10% of these being ABCA registered.

3. Using your own argument (more dogs are voluntarily tested via Optigen than at the mandatory eye exams) one would predict the sample size would decrease if the exams were made voluntary.

 

While the total number of dogs tested at the finals is very small compared to the total population; what percentage of the gene pool do you supposed is covered by those dogs running at the finals? Isn't genetic diversity as (or more) important than total sample number when monitoring for emerging diseases?

 

Mark

 

One more thought, I believe you'll find that as the finals moves from one side of the country to the other it is not the same 150 open dogs running each time; I suspect that over half the dogs running don't go to the finals when it is on the other side of the country (due to travel expenses and the point system). Nursery dogs are also being tested; what percentage of them make it to the Open finals (to be retested) in subsequent years?

[Pipedream Farm]

Pearce,

 

If I understand you correctly, the mandatory testing is not testing for any specific, known problem (since CEA is best diagnosed in pups by examination or by genetic testing) but for traumatic or degenerative disease, and as a survey against the emergence of as yet unknown eye diseases.

As one individual on the committee I view the eye exam as one tool to monitor the eye health of the breed (acquired and unknown emerging diseases). I don't believe it is the best survey method (in terms of sample size and distribution) but it's the best method available at this time. There is such a vocal objection to the mandatory eye exam at the finals I cannot imagine the uproar we'd hear if the sampling was increased to include additional trials. I don't see a voluntary eye exam as being useful in that many would not volunteer and those that did would be the same people every year (yielding poor distribution). I would hope we'd catch an emerging disease early enough with our current sampling rate to elicit help from the academic community; best still we have the researcher (Dr. Acland) we would turn to for help performing the exams.

 

The DNA testing numbers are interesting. The ABCA is the largest registry by far but ABCA + ISDS + CBCA registered dogs represent only 10% of those being tested. Can we assume that the other 90% are AKC?

ABCA by itself represents approximately 10% of the BCs tested; there is some error based upon how the registry numbers were entered (which number was chosen by owners of dual registered dogs and if the entries included alpha components needed for the search) into the Optgen data base and the output of a search of that data base. Overall we can safely say AKC dogs are more likely to be tested than ABCA dogs. This difference could be due to the desire to have the test results indicated on pedigrees, difference in spending habits on dogs, a better understanding of the implications of the results, etc.

 

From a members' perspective, I think that neither the ABCA nor the USBCA are doing as good a job as they could be in informing members, breeders, and handlers why these efforts are important and worthwhile (and I do think they are both).

The communication problem is two sided. I would like to see more/better communication from the H&G Committee to the community, I will work on this. When we attempt to communicate with the community we are often interrogated and berated by a very vocal minority which overwhelms any reasonable discussion. Some of this is seen in the public forums and an equal amount occurs privately (email or PMs).

 

I will need to end my thoughts here, my paying job requires my attention.

 

Mark

[Pearse]

Pearce,

As one individual on the committee I view the eye exam as one tool to monitor the eye health of the breed (acquired and unknown emerging diseases). I don't believe it is the best survey method (in terms of sample size and distribution) but it's the best method available at this time. There is such a vocal objection to the mandatory eye exam at the finals I cannot imagine the uproar we'd hear if the sampling was increased to include additional trials. I don't see a voluntary eye exam as being useful in that many would not volunteer and those that did would be the same people every year (yielding poor distribution).

 

I wonder about that. If >200 dogs are being tested at the Finals, some of those are non-competing dogs whose owners just happen to have them along.

 

I'd be interested in hearing from Melanie Chang on how many dogs she has accrued in her study (if she is amenable to sharing) since it's a more invasive sampling (blood draw) and entirely voluntary.

 

I wasn't suggesting mandatory testing at more trials but rather providing the clinic at one or more different large trials a year on a voluntary basis

 

[stuff deleted]

 

The communication problem is two sided. I would like to see more/better communication from the H&G Committee to the community, I will work on this. When we attempt to communicate with the community we are often interrogated and berated by a very vocal minority which overwhelms any reasonable discussion. Some of this is seen in the public forums and an equal amount occurs privately (email or PMs).

 

I will need to end my thoughts here, my paying job requires my attention.

 

Mark

 

Unfortunately, that is a consequence of most types of public dialogue these days but it ought not to discourage anyone trying to do the right thing by getting good information out there. The majority of people (often unfortunately silent) appreciates the effort, the information, and what ever reasoned and reasonable discussion that accompanies it.

 

Pearse