Early Takeoff Syndrome?

[Root Beer]

And yet, you have achieved all these good results without any research evidence that Noise Phobia is genetic, or any identification of the genes involved. Just the belief that it's genetic. So just believe that Early Takeoff Syndrome is genetic too. :-)

 

Well, that's the thing. People who work professionally with hundreds of dog and handler teams aren't going to "just believe it", or tell their clients that they "just believe it".

 

It's one thing for an individual to "just believe it". It's quite another for professionals to do so.

[Blackdawgs]

My guess is that they have chosen problems in dogs (deafness, epilepsy, and phobias) that are relevent to humans and are hoping to use the dogs as models of human disease. This strategy will greatly broaden funding opportunties. Their web site says that they are in part funded by the McKnight foundation (neurological research) and Natl Institute of Mental Health.

[NCStarkey]

Hello everyone,

 

Blackdawgs is correct that this study, being researched at the Van Andel Institute, is relevant to human studies, which will greatly increase the funding opportunities.

 

Here is a quote from their website: "The knowledge gained can be leveraged to improve diagnostics and refine treatments, ultimately benefiting both canine and human patients."

 

Regards,

nancy

[Root Beer]

Here is a quote from their website: "The knowledge gained can be leveraged to improve diagnostics and refine treatments, ultimately benefiting both canine and human patients."

 

Sounds to me as if this type of research (genetic) has applications far beyond breeding decisions. Diagnostics and refined treatments pertains to actual living beings.

[Root Beer]

Sigh. I didn't ask a question--I simply stated my thoughts about why *I* think finding a genetic marker for ETS would be tricky compared to, say, finding one for epilepsy. You're the one asking why the noise phobia study is being done and what they hope to find.

 

No, not really.

 

I was simply drawing a parallel between the two. It cannot be the case that research derived from genetic study only has applications to breeding with one condition that may have a genetic component (ETS) while another might (Noise Phobia).

 

Nobody has claimed that the Noise Phobia study - which is also a genetic study - will ruin the breed, while that charge has been made in the case of the ETS study. (I am not saying that you made that claim).

 

Personally, I consider the Noise Phobia to be of greater objective value, but if a genetic study of Noise Phobia can benefit actual living dogs, then a genetic study of ETS could - potentially - as well.

[Eileen Stein]

Well, that's the thing. People who work professionally with hundreds of dog and handler teams aren't going to "just believe it", or tell their clients that they "just believe it".

 

It's one thing for an individual to "just believe it". It's quite another for professionals to do so.

 

Well, Linda Mecklenburg must believe it, or she wouldn't be posting (to her clients and the public) that it's like hip dysplasia and epilepsy, and that affected dogs should be removed from breeding, right?

 

You know, I shouldn't have phrased that as a question, because I don't really want an answer. I don't want to read Linda Mecklenburg's page. I've kind of exhausted anything I might have to say about this -- as well as exhausted myself and anyone who's reading -- so I'm going to wander off now . . .

[juliepoudrier]

Nobody has claimed that the Noise Phobia study - which is also a genetic study - will ruin the breed, while that charge has been made in the case of the ETS study. (I am not saying that you made that claim).

I, personally, have stated on more than one occasion in this thread that I don't think working breeders would use a genetic marker for noise phobia to try and eliminate it from the working population. And I suspect that this is why no one is raising a stink about it, because no one is publicly saying that they believe a genetic marker, if found, should then be eliminated from the gene pool.

 

I even gave specific reasons why I believe that breeders won't rush to eliminate a "noise phobia gene" (because there likely will be no way to know if that genetic marker is inextricably linked to some desirable trait related to sensitivity of hearing or anything else necessary to be an effective worker--I expect that defining a phobia genetically would be much more difficult than doing so for something like deafness). And if no one is claiming that people will use a genetic marker (should one be found) to make breeding decisions that ultimately would remove the genetic marker from the breeding population then searching for a genetic marker for noise phobia doesn't have the same implications as searching for a genetic marker for ETS, if as LM states, her goal is to rid the population of the genetic marker (by removing *carriers* from the breeding popultion).

 

If you go back and re-read what I've written, I've been very explicit in using the terms "carrier" vs. "affected." And I've done so because it makes a huge difference in breeding philosophies. I even pointed out that the working breeders have no wish to remove carriers of an early-onset deafness gene from the working gene pool; they will instead use that information to breed carefully so that they don't produce affected[/i} dogs. And I'll just refer you back to earlier comments about selecting phenotypes vs. genotypes.

 

As others have pointed out, at least the cancer, deafness, and epilepsy studies have implications for human health. I don't know if LM has made that argument about ETS (and I'm not going to go look, because frankly this discussion has already eaten up too much time and I don't see ETS as something that affects quality of life--living for agility notwithstanding--the way the other problems do), but if it's something like a depth-perception issue that is genetically controlled, it still doesn't have the human health implications that the other studies have. I don't know how the noise phobia study fits into that, although I guess understanding a genetic basis for phobias could also be applied to human health issues down the road. But I don't know if that's a stated goal of that particular study. I'm not going to go look for that either.

 

Now that I've said that multiple times and in multiple ways, I don't know how I can be any clearer.

 

You can continue to argue that no one is making the same "ruination" claims about the noise phobia study, but it won't change the fact that no one is arguing for taking that information and using it to remove carriers from the gene pool. Big difference for most of us.

 

This is the last response I will make to you on this thread, because I really think you're just fishing for thoughts that you can turn around and "make parallel" for your side of this discussion and I really don't have the patience for that.

 

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

Nobody has claimed that the Noise Phobia study - which is also a genetic study - will ruin the breed, while that charge has been made in the case of the ETS study. (I am not saying that you made that claim).

Noise phobia has been shown to affect dogs across all lifestyles (pet, sport, working, etc) while ETS has only been shown to affect dogs when jumping over bars (not something that affects the daily lives of strictly pets or working dogs). The utility of genetic tests are not in helping treat affected dogs but in making breeding decisions. The one area where genetic tests REALLY help is in identifying carriers (not affected) of these genes. Based upon this main use of genetic tests it is clear that a genetic test for a syndrome that is (at this time) only a sport issue aids in the breeding of sport dogs (antithetical to the philosophy of this forum). A genetic test for noise phobia could aid in the breeding choices of working dogs.

[Mark Billadeau]

Sounds to me as if this type of research (genetic) has applications far beyond breeding decisions. Diagnostics and refined treatments pertains to actual living beings.

It's a bit difficult for a human genetics research institute to say that this type of research could benefit humans by allowing us to make better breeding decisions. Do you see mankind running a battery of genetic tests early in courtship to see if any future children would be likely to have genetic diseases? Are you willing to pick a mate based upon the results of genetic tests?

 

Additionally, many genetically linked diseases are not strictly genetic; there are environmental/lifestyle components to many of these diseases. The genetic tests would inform "carriers" of theses genes that they should avoid certain environmental risk factors to mankind the likelihood of getting the disease. A good canine example of this would be hip dysplasia. Have a genetic test for HD would inform owners that they have to be extra careful with environmental conditions that would increase the risk of the dog getting HD. Avoiding these won't guarantee the dog won't get HD AND all dogs could benefit from avoiding these conditions.

[brndlbc]

I am sure this question is going to be viewed as pot stirring but that is not the intent. Why is it that ETS is any less worthy of genetic exploration than say looking for a genetic split between working and conformation lines? Using criteria mentioned prior in this thread, neither is really "life threatening".

[Root Beer]

Noise phobia has been shown to affect dogs across all lifestyles (pet, sport, working, etc) while ETS has only been shown to affect dogs when jumping over bars (not something that affects the daily lives of strictly pets or working dogs). The utility of genetic tests are not in helping treat affected dogs but in making breeding decisions. The one area where genetic tests REALLY help is in identifying carriers (not affected) of these genes. Based upon this main use of genetic tests it is clear that a genetic test for a syndrome that is (at this time) only a sport issue aids in the breeding of sport dogs (antithetical to the philosophy of this forum). A genetic test for noise phobia could aid in the breeding choices of working dogs.

 

So the objection to the study of ETS really is that this is specifically a sport issue and that there is no potential benefit to the breeding of working dogs. And because study of a sport issue might benefit sport bred Border Collies (of course whether it would benefit them or not is not known and of course such study could produce negative effects, in addition to the desired effect), such study being done in and of itself is considered (by some) to be against the philosophy of the forum.

 

I still don't agree that not opposing study of ETS is, in fact, supporting breeding Border Collies for sport, simply because it is a sport issue that does not aid in the breeding of working dogs. The interesting thing here is that I haven't seen anyone here rally strongly in support of the study of ETS, but even keeping an open mind toward the possibility that there is validity (from a factual standpoint, not a value standpoint) to the study that is being done, and acknowledging that there could very well be a genetic issue has been interpreted as "support" for the breeding of Border Collies for sport.

 

Strong belief that a genetic or currently undetectable physical issue could not possibly be the cause of ETS and opposition to study of the issue = opposing breeding Border Collie for Agility.

 

Acknowledging that it is possible that a genetic or currently undetectable physical issue causing ETS and acknowledgment that study could provide more information = supporting breeding of Border Collies for Agility.

 

I don't agree at all with that logic at all, but there we will have to agree to disagree.

 

That has been extremely interesting!

 

But I do better understand why opposing this is an such a big issue to a group of people who are not even part of the Agility world.

[Blackdawgs]

Here's the thing. Thus far, there has been no independent verification that ETS exists, let alone that it causes problems beyond poor jumping ability. A world class trainer, who happens to be a veterinarian (does she, did she, ever practice??) wrote an article in Clean Run, which is not even close to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and suddenly a medical syndrome warranting genetic testing exists. Very bizarre. And very un scientific.

[Shoofly]

My guess is that they have chosen problems in dogs (deafness, epilepsy, and phobias) that are relevent to humans and are hoping to use the dogs as models of human disease. This strategy will greatly broaden funding opportunties. Their web site says that they are in part funded by the McKnight foundation (neurological research) and Natl Institute of Mental Health.

 

 

Actually, i think you hit the nail on the head totally in this post. I expect this study for a genetic marker is aimed at looking for a corresponding marker in humans for neurolgical syndromes/problems. I seriously doubt there is money to be made developing a DNA test for the condition in dogs. That said, i do think there is some danger in adding it to the list of silly crap that working dogs don't actually need to be tested for.

 

 

[Pearse]

I would love to hear from Melanie on this, especially with the dog genome project and the work being done trying to find the marker for sound sensitivity in BCs. If you can find and get rid of the sound sensitivity gene(s), will that do real harm to the breed as a whole? (yes I realize sound sensitivity can be a serious problem, unlike ETS, that's not why I'm wondering so don't waste your breath)

 

It certainly could.

 

Genes don't exist in isolation. They exist on chromosomes with thousands of other genes. So, when you breed away from one "gene", you may be actually breeding away from a collection of genes. There may be exceptions in really inbred populations, but in general that holds.

 

Genes often do more than one job. A gene expressed in the brain in a specific time at a specific place may lead to noise sensitivity. Expressed somewhere else in the brain, or in a different tissue, or at a different time in development, and it might produce a beneficial trait.

 

For complex (quantitative) traits there is variability of expression. The gene, or set of genes, that produce(s) noise sensitivity in some dogs, may be responsible for hearing acuity in the rest. Breed away from it, and you may get lines of dogs that aren't noise sensitive, but can no longer hear a whistle at a mile or more.

 

Likewise with BCC or epilepsy. It may turn out that these are extremes of the same phenotypes that give us dogs with high drive. If that's the case, it's going to be hard to completely eliminate the conditions while retaining the traits that define the Border Collie.

 

At the very least, it would take a long time, and very skillful breeders to do it.

[Mark Billadeau]

Strong belief that a genetic or currently undetectable physical issue could not possibly be the cause of ETS and opposition to study of the issue = opposing breeding Border Collie for Agility.

 

Acknowledging that it is possible that a genetic or currently undetectable physical issue causing ETS and acknowledgment that study could provide more information = supporting breeding of Border Collies for Agility.

 

I don't agree at all with that logic at all, but there we will have to agree to disagree.

You still haven't grasped what I (we) have been saying; neither of those statements are correct summaries. I put is in the same form as you used above.

 

 

 

Advocating the study of ETS for a possible genetic cause and then the development of a genetic test for ETS = supporting the breeding of Border Collies for agility

 

It's no different than:

Advocating the study of the genetic source of coat color and then the development of a genetic test for a color = supporting the breeding of Border Collies for conformation

 

 

[Pearse]

That's an excellent question to take to Linda Mecklenburg, et. al. I believe they can be contacted - her website is something like awesomepaws, and it wouldn't be difficult to get a look at the Clean Run article. I think the best source of this kind of info are the Clean Run list archives. That is free and anyone can join. A lot of the Agility folks had these same kinds of questions and Linda herself answered quite a lot of them.

 

I actually did this pretty early on in the process. I read her articles on the subject. Everything she says is anectodal. There is nothing resembling scientific research referenced in any of that material. That doesn't mean she's wrong, but at this stage the jury is still out as the syndrome has not even been properly characterized as far as I can see.

 

The thing from her article that I found most puzzling is that this condition manifests only after a certain amount of time in training. Dogs that were originally good jumpers begin to exhibit this behavior, and these dogs appear to belong to the group of dogs with high drive.

 

If this were a genetic condition, one would expect to see either that the condition was apparent right from the beginning of training, or that it appeared at a certain age.

 

The former has not been ruled out in my opinion. These dogs may have the problem early in their training but it doesn't become apparent until they start competing at higher levels.

 

The second hasn't been ruled out either as there are no data on age of onset.

 

The third possibility is that ETS by itself is not a genetic condition, but that aspects of the dogs' personalities and overall genetic backgrounds predispose them to ETS. The statements in Meckenlburg's article that suggests this, at least to me, are that the dogs who develop this behavior are highly driven competitors, that removing visual distractions from in front of the jumps helps, and most notably that having the handler work the dog from out of direct line of sight helps. It could well be that dogs on the far right end of the "driven" scale simply start to lose focus or over tax their brains when they get to the highest levels of competition and start running at really high speeds. Dogs of similar breeding would be similarly predisposed so it would appear like a genetic "defect".

 

It's like cancer in humans. If you try to convince a die hard smoker to quit, you'll hear about "Uncle Bob" who smoked two packs a day of unfiltered cigarettes and lived to be 95. Our genetic background is not deterministic. Only in rare cases does it determine what will happen. Mostly it just alters the odds. I may be at high risk of heart disease but low risk for prostate cancer. That doesn't mean I have a genetic disease. It just means I need to watch my diet more than the next guy.

 

ETS could well turn out to be just like that. Some dogs will be predisposed to it. Some will not. If anyone wants to cover my bet, I have a crisp $20 bill here that says no genetic test for ETS in the next five years.

 

Pearse

[MaryP]

Yes, Pearse has said what I had tried to say several pages back.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Kristine/Root Beer, I have eleven dogs here, plus.of course i've had many rescues. For various reasons i've had to deal with noise phobias in them.

 

Some were learned behaviors, some were trauma, some were almost certainly genetic. Many rescued I have no way of knowing the background.

 

I am not a "If I have a hammer, every problem is a nail" type of trainer. Quite the opposite. But I've found that noise phobia responds to the same method of rehabilitation regardless of the origin.

 

When I fostered, I had no choice but to appraoch every dog as if the symptoms were 100% treatable.

 

I also worked with dogs considered to be incorrigibly aggressive. My method was/is very outside the box and took one to two years. Again, I get the willies when someone says, "They'll just always be this way."

 

Gus was taken back by his breeder and sold to us for puppy price when it was discovered he has early onset deafness.

 

Poor guy, trained to work at ranch level but no more. A deaf dog can't drive, right, can't see hand signals with his back turned?

 

Turns out I'm an idiot. I learned last year he's perfectly capable of somehow feeling, maybe from the pressure on the sheep, Flank commands and stops, and even corrections, that twelve year old stinker, when he is completely out of sight!

 

He's also still got enough hearing to hear whistles if I hammer them at short distances, but that rattles the sheep.

 

I know the facts about these challenges. That's what I need to proceed. Since I'm not a breeder, whether it's genetic or not doesn't matter while dealing with the dog in front of me. I just don't see it.

 

There are serious disorders like metabolic problems and some of the pathological disorders that will be awesome to find simple markers for. Like the MDR1delta mutation. What a relief for a rescuer.

[PSmitty]

I don't know, but I just can't see this (ETS) being a genetic issue. I'm also not convinced that it's just a fast/driven dog issue, although what Pearse just said (and Mary earlier), makes sense.

 

Anyone here that does flyball recall seeing that weird stutter jumping that the videos show, out on the flyball lanes? I've seen it in varying degrees, the worse being an older border collie, who is not running fast. And, we're talking 7 inch jumps there. I also know an agility sheltie that does it, and I think has almost always done it. She's drivey and fast. The last one I know is a Wheaten terrier, who developed it after doing agility for a couple of years. Not particularly drivey or fast.

 

*shrugs* So, that little sampling tells me nothing at all, basically.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Mentioning flyball makes me think of other contexts where there IS jumping, just not the exact kind as in agility.

 

Flyball as mentioned. That would be easy to go check out. Raise the jumps maybe? Watch the boxwork. Talk about the need for depth perception. How about a swimmer's turn at high speed while grabbing a ball shooting from a hole, aand preparing for step/jump?!

 

These swimmer'd turns are often trained by placing a solid jump or bar jump immediately before the box.

 

Then there is Schutzhund, Utility, French Ring, Service Dog, Law Enforcement, and Military training. Have any of these venues run into a similar issue? Science would demand investigation into these similar but much older training fiekds.

 

I'm just surprised there is already money backing this stage of data collection without this kind of basic preliminary research.

[Blackdawgs]

I'm just surprised there is already money backing this stage of data collection without this kind of basic preliminary research.

 

The money is probably being donated by wealthy individuals with affected dogs.

[KnottyClarence]

Maybe ETS for dogs who jump alot is like a baseball pitcher with a "dead arm". Just so many pitches available to that one pitcher, maybe another pitcher has more, or less. Agility is evolving over time. Maybe, like horseracing's triple crown, we are finding where the top is for our "canine athletes", and these dogs exhibiting ETS symptoms are just "plumb out of jumps".

[Root Beer]

Advocating the study of ETS for a possible genetic cause and then the development of a genetic test for ETS = supporting the breeding of Border Collies for agility

 

It's no different than:

Advocating the study of the genetic source of coat color and then the development of a genetic test for a color = supporting the breeding of Border Collies for conformation

 

I don't believe anybody here is advocating either of those things. There is a world of difference between advocating anything and having some understanding of the mindset of those who are in favor of such things.

 

Using the example of coat color, I don't personally believe that Border Collies should be bred for a specific coat color. However, I do recognize that there are others who do, and I am able to understand why that is important to them. I understand that it is not my place to tell them that they should not consider it important. In a discussion where that person is open to my point of view, I might explain why I don't find it to be important. That might cause that person to look at it in a different way. Or it might not. Regardless, being able to comprehend why breeding for coat color might be important to them does not, in any way, mean that I am advocating breeding for coat color.

 

Recognizing why the ETS is important to some (not all) people involved in Agility, and having some understanding of why they consider a genetic study to be of value does not equal advocating the breeding of Border Collies for Agility.

 

I completely understand why some people consider this to be worthy of study. I'm not really in this camp. It may be selfish, but it's a fact that it doesn't affect me, nor any of my current dogs, so I'm not really concerned about the issue directly. Noise Phobia is a much bigger concern of mine. At the same time, being involved with Agility and considering it an important part of my life (even though nobody is going to die if I am not involved with it), I see very clearly why there are those who consider this important. And, contrary to popular opinion, these are people who care a great deal about their dogs, are not forcing their dogs into a sport that they don't want to play, and give their dogs excellent lives outside of Agility. It's easy to make assumptions about people that one doesn't know who participate in something in which one does not participate. And being able to see that does not mean that I support breeding Border Collies for Agility.

 

I'll admit, I find the idea that Linda Mecklenburg and her colleagues haven't done extensive work and research on any and all of the questions that people have posed here just plain odd. But if you don't know exactly what she has done and you personally believe that she hasn't explored training, detectable physical issues, handling, etc. to a great extent before proposing that the problem may be due to a genetic or undetectable physical cause, then that's what you think. There isn't really anything anybody can do to change that, regardless of the work and research that has actually been done.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Agility is evolving over time. Maybe, like horseracing's triple crown, we are finding where the top is for our "canine athletes", and these dogs exhibiting ETS symptoms are just "plumb out of jumps".

Whoa. (No pun intended!) If true, that would have been awfully fast!

[Root Beer]

Mentioning flyball makes me think of other contexts where there IS jumping, just not the exact kind as in agility.

 

Flyball as mentioned. That would be easy to go check out. Raise the jumps maybe? Watch the boxwork. Talk about the need for depth perception. How about a swimmer's turn at high speed while grabbing a ball shooting from a hole, aand preparing for step/jump?!

 

These swimmer'd turns are often trained by placing a solid jump or bar jump immediately before the box.

 

Then there is Schutzhund, Utility, French Ring, Service Dog, Law Enforcement, and Military training. Have any of these venues run into a similar issue? Science would demand investigation into these similar but much older training fiekds.

 

I'm just surprised there is already money backing this stage of data collection without this kind of basic preliminary research.

 

How do you know that such avenues have not been explored?

 

Also, I know that you know that Agility jumping requires a completely different skill set from all of the things that you mentioned. Using the Flyball example - of course you know that running full speed on a course that the dog has not seen before, making turns this way and that way with the handler changing position, doing wraps around jumps, jumping serpentines and pinwheels, etc. etc. etc. is completely different from jumping down a lane of jumps, doing a swimmer's turn and jumping back through that lane - a pattern that is always the same. (And no, I'm not saying anything negative about Flyball - just that Flyball jumping and Agility jumping, while both jumping, involve different skill sets)