Jump to content
BC Boards

A troll, perhaps, but pay attention.


Bill Fosher
 Share

Recommended Posts

The other thread on the CEA DNA test that was hijacked by the "test for everything" duo has shown the common misunderstandings about canine (and other) genetics that will work against the working ability of this breed unless we start to take some affirmative actions soon.

 

It got buried, but I suggested that the ABCA should make a policy decision and announce that it *will* register CEA carriers and their offspring. Although there is no bar set to it at this point, I feel it's an important thing to say to encourage openness and to foster understanding of how this test should be used.

 

Even people who know better are starting to think its not worth the hassle and expense of breeding to anything other than a normal dog, and ideally normal to normal. That was exactly what we were hoping this test would prevent.

 

I also feel that the registry should be opened to affected dogs and their offspring, provided that they are bred only to DNA normal dogs. I realize that will produce 100 percent carriers, but I also don't believe we should close the door on working ability of a CEA affected dog simply because of a negative test result when we now have a tool that allows him to be bred without producing the disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggst this simply in the manneer of a devil's advocate, because I think you may be on the right track - certainly on the carriers issue.

 

Do you think then, that education will not be enough on this front?

 

I personally do feel (I have no expertise of course) that our gene pool IS wide enough to admit of culling dogs homozygous (is that the right word?) for the allele. But I fear you might be right about the need to make a positive statement in favor of carriers.

 

On the other hand, consider that there's a limited number of people who are breeding with working ability in mind first and foremost, how many of those are going to fall prey to the "my dogs are perfect because the labs say they are" mentality. Heck, it's hard enought to find people who will take a look at hips before breeding a lightly-worked nursery dog.

 

It's an excellent point for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, do you know of any instances of people saying/thinking that ABCA will not register carriers?

 

I'm not necessarily dismissing your suggestion, but given that we don't have a rule/policy against registering carriers, and that every time we write or speak about the test we emphasize that its greatest advantage is that it allows us to breed carriers judiciously, and that we will have many, many ongoing opportunities (including the one just provided us by the troll, who, as I'm sure you noticed, received no support from anyone else) to say this, I question whether we need to announce in any more direct way that we register carriers. I think such an announcement might tip the balance we are trying to maintain too far the other way, and be read by many to mean that we don't see any problem with an increasing carrier rate in the breed.

 

I'm also open to considering whether we should change the rule about excluding Affecteds from registration in the future, but I agree with Denise's point that we should wait to see how attitudes shake out before addressing that. I personally would like to follow the policy which best ensures that an Affected would only be bred if it was a truly outstanding dog whose exclusion would do real harm to the breed, and let's face it, there are not nearly as many of those as there are dogs whose owners complacently regard them as outstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question whether we need to announce in any more direct way that we register carriers
Good grief, you got one up on "Public Relations Woman" (me) there! That would be rather bad.

 

Proposing due diligence and breeder ethics is actually more of a breed club thing. Anything the registry does will impact the gene pool - which can be good but extreme caution is necessary.

 

Bill, you're really talking, I think, about impacting the breed culture/public perception. Maybe it's something the US Border Collie Club can address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would like to follow the policy which best ensures that an Affected would only be bred if it was a truly outstanding dog whose exclusion would do real harm to the breed, and let's face it, there are not nearly as many of those as there are dogs whose owners complacently regard them as outstanding.
LOL. Edit: :rolleyes: (nothing like hitting the wrong smiley button!)

 

It might be possible down the road if truly wonderful dogs face being culled, to approach it through the ROM program. I suspect there won't be that many people beating down the door to have their Affected dogs ROMed if they didn't also feel confident about their ability to run with the Big Boys.

 

Certainly if AFFECTED dogs were allowed back into the registry, I'd want to see some kind of DNA status notation in the studbook. I don't really favor such a policy otherwise, but that's something one really needs to know if AFFECTEDS are not culled. I keep capitalizing that because I want to make it clear that I'm talking about homozygous dogs, not dogs with a single allele.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I'm not sure if this got lost in the other thread but when you asked it there, I replied:

 

On another topic touched upon tangetially, I would like to see the ABCA adopt an affirmative policy stating that it *will* register CEA carriers, thereby removing any ambiguity about its position on the matter.

I didn't realize there was any ambiguity on registering CEA carriers. There's never been a policy against this or breeding recommendations against using them. Are you saying this needs to be specifically noted in the registration eligibility section??

 

 

I believe now that we have the genetic test, we should start registering Affecteds, but I realize that would mean bucking the ISDS.
I can't speak to whether this will be done in the future, but, ISDS aside, do you agree with me that people may need more time to learn how to use the test properly before any changes such as this are made?

*********************

 

I'd still like your opinion on whether you feel some time might be in order for people to learn about how to use the test effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denise and Eilieen,

 

I think there's a big, big difference between not having a rule against something and having a rule allowing it. Framer's intent gets lost over the years. If we say now and unequivocally that our intention (and I can say "our" once again as I have finally renewed by membership in the ABCA) is that this test NOT be used to limit the gene pool, there will be no debate down the line about what was intended.

 

It's not too far a stretch to say that since we don't allow the registration of Affected dogs and their offspring, that we can't allow the registration of carriers because somewhere in their background there must be an affected dog that we simply couldn't detect until we got the DNA test.

 

To me, the intentions of the registry are a bit ambiguous. On the one hand, you guys on the H&G committee say this allows the judicious breeding of carriers, but on the other hand the only test result that will be listed on the pedigree is normal. All the other things that we will list on the pedigree (national and international championships, OFA good or better) are considered "better" for breeding, are they not?

 

As to whether we need more time to see how the test is used and understood, I say that we need to be starting out right out of the box saying how we think it should be used, or else it will be used in ways we don't approve of.

 

I don't think Windscorpion/High Desert is all that far outside the mainstream in her thinking about what sort of testing should be done. Pick up a copy of Dog Fancy and see what's being promoted in the purebred world. The sorts of health testing that she advocates would be a little bit over the top there, but think about it. That's the only way that a bench breeder can differentiate him or herself from the other breeders (assuming they all have champion pedigrees). They are inculcating the doggy world with the idea that these sorts of tests are the hallmark of responsible breeding.

 

And as we have all said, they are a good tool, if properly used. The ABCA has the chance to define what it considers proper use of this test -- independed of what Optigen, Windscorpion, or anyone else says. And every month we wait to me is just more chance for the waters to be muddied.

 

As far as Eileen's first question, "Bill, do you know of any instances of people saying/thinking that ABCA will not register carriers?"

 

I have to say that no, I do not. However, I have heard from several people who are saying that even though they understand the genetics behind the test, they will probably only consider normal x normal breedings because then there's no chance of having to explain carrier status to the buyers of pups, and no chance of producing CEA.

 

Although we all know better, to say that an individual is a carrier of a genetic disease is pejorative -- no matter how easily we can manage around the expression of that disease, and no matter how mild the disease is. An expression of support from the registry would be an excellent place to start for people who find themselves in the position of having a carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Bill. The start of the thread commenced the bashing reguarding the types/number of tests that would be done. We NEVER excluded the performance end or the importance there of as was so frequently mentioned. It felt like we were being attacked because we wanted to test our dog throughly. That is simply nonsense in my opinion. Secondly what we do with those test is our business. I UNDERSTAND the test I understand basic genetics. If we don't want carriers in our line then so be it. I understand that everyone on that thread, it seems, have labored intensively to ensure that things are done in the way they feel is right for the breed. I respect that. But it in no way dimishes the fact that there is nothing wrong with the knowledge that testing brings. Last time I checked the old saying knowledge is power holds true. It is how you share that knowledge that is important. Being leaders in the breed, which I undoubtly feel you are, belittling throwing around statements like only bad breeders do that or shotgun approach to cover lack of working ability, only leads to defensiveness. That is frustrating. As educators and leaders you should take a better approach. Thank you again Bill for your upbeat educational tone. I can understand your concern considering what I feel the UKC and AKC have done to other breeds through conformational requirements only. Just look at the Jack Russell! God save us all from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we say now and unequivocally that our intention (and I can say "our" once again as I have finally renewed by membership in the ABCA) is that this test NOT be used to limit the gene pool, there will be no debate down the line about what was intended.
So, I guess the question is, IS this what we intend? By "limit", do you mean any limitation, or just limiting in terms of the kind of wholesale culling that's been suggested elsewhere?

 

I suppose the question is, how does a registry encourage the use of a specific tool in a responsible breeding program? Without being too specific, keeping in mind that this is a new tool?

 

Ie, I'm concerned with the idea that we would be setting policy based on a test whose actual impact hasn't been assessed yet. I could imagine that as statistics come in, giving us a better notion of the progress of the gene through our genepool, that we may go either way on wanting to limit it further, or encouraging outcrosses to homozygous dogs, or just letting it alone and continuing to use the test strictly to make individual choices in a more informed way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dog is truly worth breeding, shouldn't it also be truly worth the cost and effort of doing the CEA DNA test?

 

Then, no matter what the result, the dog could be used for breeding to an appropriate mate, allowing all proven dogs to be kept in the gene pool by only allowing Affected and Carrier dogs to be bred to Non-carriers.

 

Or, since we are dealing with ABCA, a registry, only allowing the registration of pups from a suitable breeding of tested parents. Mightn't that possibly put a kink in the ABCA puppy-millers and back-yard-breeders by upping the ante?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curiously, how would statistics be gathered on carrier/affected/normals be attained? I was under the impression that the Optigen test would release results only to the owners who paid for the test. Unless, of course, you choose to go to the "database" being purported on certain list-servs-where you input your own dog's results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

 

Optigen will release stats quarterly. No indivduals are named. They're compiled from the database.

 

Here's one place people are voluntarily submitting results:

 

http://majesticbordercollies.com/CEA_DNA_Results.html

 

At around 100 entries so far, the carrier rate at this point is nearly dead on the 25% we predicted, at least for this population of dogs, which looks to be mostly show dogs.

 

On the canine genetics lists I've been on for years, members from other breeds have related how surprised people were at the number of carriers reveled whenever a DNA test has been released. I think this realization of the actual number of CEA carriers in the border collie will force people to take a more realistic view of not excluding carriers from breding.

 

In addition, the canine genome has been sequenced so there will be many more DNA tests coming out for a variety of disease. It will soon become obvious to people that if you look for enough of the mutant genes through DNA tests, no dogs are free of disease genes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

First off, one point:

 

It's not too far a stretch to say that since we don't allow the registration of Affected dogs and their offspring, that we can't allow the registration of carriers because somewhere in their background there must be an affected dog that we simply couldn't detect until we got the DNA test.
Not necessarily true that somewhere in the background of a carrier is an affected dog if you're talking about autosomal recessive genes such CEA (most harmful mutations are recessive). Since each parent contributes one of the two sets of genes, the mutation originally only from a carrier can be passed on indefinitely in the carrier state until it meets up with another of the same mutant gene. There are many, many, many mutant disease genes that are never expressed but only carried because the exact mutation is not present in that carrier's mate.

 

This is actually the basis for the accusation that inbreeding has caused the vast majority of the diseases present in dog breeds today. Weirdo rare mutations that would normally never find a mutant gene "partner" to cause trouble are doubled up on through inbreeding. Most of these mutant genes would rarely if ever be expressed in a disease form in any individuals if not for inbreeding.

 

Personally, I'm not sure I agree that ABCA should make a specific big deal about accepting carriers at this point. They do, and always have. It's clearly written if people look at the recommendations.

 

As for the registering CEA Affecteds. I personally agree with Becca -- we need more time to see what will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samantha wrote:

 

It felt like we were being attacked because we wanted to test our dog throughly.
I told you a couple of times to feel free to test for everything. I think this is what started the problem:

 

I know this is not needed in this breed but I would rather be safe than sorry why would a breeder want to save money. Arnt they doing it for the breed not the money?
Can you see how it seems as if what other people were doing and their dedication to the breed are being questioned by you?

 

If we don't want carriers in our line then so be it.
Good luck on that. It's a pretty unrealistic approach since there's probably no such thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I have said, there's a big, big difference between not having a rule against something and having a rule that allows it. By resisting establishing a rule that allows the registration of CEA carriers, you are providing some ammo -- however little -- to the forces that will argue against allowing them to be registered.

 

ABCA rules are often construed and enforced in very funny ways. The interpretation the allows dual registration still boggles my mind. I think our rules need to be as clear as a bell and say *exactly* what qualifies and disqualifies a dog and its offspring from registration. Otherwise we could very well end up with a screwy interpretation of existing rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok currently this matter has little bearing on me...but later on down the line ( and I don't want to think about it but something could happen to Tuck) this could effect me.

Based on the Biology they taught me in school and Lord only knows what has changed since my college days. I will state what I was taught and apply it. May DR. Bickert and Mrs.Sleigh be happy.

 

First off in biology recessive gene has to be from both parents for it to express itself.

 

That said bred carrier to another carrier for EACH puppy produced it has a 25% chance clear of gene, 50% chance carrier and 25% chance affected. Meaning puppy A has 25/50/25 chance, puppy B has 25/50/25 chance and so on. ~~~~based on that I see no reason carriers cannot be breed, you would have to cull affected but due to laws of probablity I would not think they would be high numbers.

 

Breeding affected to an affected yes that should be a NO NO due to all pups would be affected.

 

Normal to carrier would get you EACH pup 50% clear and 50% carrier chances. So again I see no problem.

 

All that said why shouldn't these dogs be registered? Not overly sure what exactly CEA is will have to go back again and read that again but it memmory serves it deals with eye sight. So If a Blind dog can herd using its ears why can't it be a working dog? Granted it would have to work in more confined area or supervison but some are born to herd ( and nothing is going to stop them , genes or owners). We have a blind dog on the boards now who herds goats. Granted he lost his site due to past abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

 

Not really. We have no rules that say dysplastic dogs can be registered, or non-finals champions can be registered, or mostly white dogs can be registered, etc. But they can, because those conditions are not included in the list of things that make a dog ineligible for registration. Neither is being a CEA carrier. Ergo, CEA carriers can be registered. Also, everything we're saying in publicizing/educating regarding the test implicitly or explicitly says that carriers can be registered.

 

>

 

Can't argue with you there. But it will soon be very apparent that CEA carriers are in fact being registered, and thus that our policy is fully consistent with our rules.

 

I'm still not sure I grasp what your concern is. Of course the KC show people are likely to say that breeding only normals is the way to go and that good breeders will do that; they will say that regardless of the fact that the ABCA registers carriers. Of course some breeders will decide to breed only normals; they will do that regardless of the fact that the ABCA registers carriers. The fact that the ABCA's recommendations are against excluding carriers from breeding will cut no ice with them, any more than it does with High Desert Scorpion. So I guess I don't see what would be accomplished by trying to put this in the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elileen , I'm agreeing with you. Based on genetics no reason to not register them... I really don't see the harm in the gene till you get the to the affected population and even then as you said it varies from mild to severe( blind). The one advantage to the test maybe deciding what to train the dog in and how to train the dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karrie, we apparently posted at the same instant, and although my post followed yours, I was actually replying to Bill. I agree with most of what you posted, but not all. I believe blindness is a disadvantage in a working dog, and I believe an uncontrolled expansion of the carrier rate is detrimental to the breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess where I'm thinking is working dog to working dog breed using knowledge of the gene should produce fewer affected dogs and those affected would be culled out ( automatic neutered). and possible placed as pets only. And I maybe basing some of my feelings on human genetics and treatments ( amno tests for Taysacs etc and if such devasting genes are present and effecting the child, parents given choice to abort). Tuck wasn't tested for CEA but he will not be contributing to the gene pool unless someone clones him. Should he lose his site, it would not be as devasting to me as to the sheep farmer who relys on his dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Eileen I think you're wrong on this one, and I don't understand the resistance to a simple rule change or policy statement from the ABCA itself, as opposed to the individual members of the H&G committee.

 

Let me play out a scenario and see if your interpretation of the rules is different from mine. I'm sorry I haven't been articulate in expressing my concerns -- I'm lambing and sleep deprivation makes me a little less clear than usual.

 

Dog A is bred to Dog B, producing puppies that grow up and are breeding candidates.

 

The DNA test becomes available, and the breeder tests Dogs A and B, since the breeding was a sucessful one and several pups from it have become breeding candidates. Dog A is a normal and Dog B is affected.

 

Dog B is no longer eligible for registration, and hence, all its offspring and by implicaiton the offspring of their offspring are no longer eligible either. However, we now know that none of the pups C, D, E, and F will be affected.

 

The logical thing to do -- and what I would do if I were a breeder in this position -- would be to contact the owners of pups C, D, E, and F and explain to them what the findings on their pups' parents mean: their dogs will be carriers of the gene.

 

However, this then places the owners of these pups in an ethical dilemma. Using the knowledge provided by the gene test, they can continue to breed their dogs. But their dogs are ineligible for registration, making their offspring ineligible for registration even if the offspring are genotypically normal.

 

It seems to me that we have a clear conflict between the intent of the H&G committee that the test be used to allow the breeding of as many dogs as possible without producing disease and the rules that were written before the DNA test was available.

 

If you don't change the rule, the breeder of dogs A and B in my example has a powerful incentive to keep the genetic findings to herself. If she never breeds the pair again, she never has to sign any paper saying the pups are eligible for registration, so no one will ever know the status of her dogs, including most importantly the owners of their pups who are breeding from them. No one has broken any rule, but the intentions of the H&G committee have been sidestepped. A dissinsentive to "ask and tell" has been created. The incentive now is to test and keep quiet about it.

 

The effect of the ISDS's short-sighted policy of deregistering dogs that produce CEA has been to drive the disease underground. Despite your intentions to the contrary, I think the current combination of technology and rules written before the technology was available will have the same effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<

 

http://majesticbordercollies.com/CEA_DNA_Results.html

 

At around 100 entries so far, the carrier rate at this point is nearly dead on the 25% we predicted, at least for this population of dogs, which looks to be mostly show dogs.>>

 

It may look to be mostly show dogs, (and probably is), however the 3 generation pedigrees of the carriers are in many cases full of ISDS dogs since the majority of those who have tested AND shared results are in Europe.

 

Julia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said bred carrier to another carrier for EACH puppy produced it has a 25% chance clear of gene, 50% chance carrier and 25% chance affected. Meaning puppy A has 25/50/25 chance, puppy B has 25/50/25 chance and so on.

 

But that is an ideal scenario and never really happens.

 

What is cool to do is set up two dice - each dice will have a normal gene and a carrier gene. Then keep rolling the dice and see what you actually come up with say having a litter of 9 puppies. Do this half a dozen times and see what percentages of clear, carriers and affecteds you get for each pretend litter.

 

I have had people do this with coat colour as well, as people seem to think that they should get a certain percentage of different coat colours as well in a litter because the graph says they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...