Jump to content
International Collaboration For Dog Health And Welfare. Join Us.
  • entries
    49
  • comments
    24
  • views
    7,929

Confidentiality and Genetic Testing: more benefits and risks

Sign in to follow this  
Brenda Bonnett

Viewed: 229 times

The parallels between human and dog testing are many, especially in terms of the challenges (and potential) arising from the market move to Direct-to-Consumer testing in both species.  I talked about these issues in my presentation to the AVMA conference.

Genetic Testing_Social Phenomena.png

 

 

In the slide here, I make the point that in recent years there have been rapid changes, not only in the fantastic and ongoing developments in science and technology, but also in terms of how and why genetic testing is accessed by consumers.  And not just in the dog world. For humans as well, genetic testing is very much trending in social media and popular, not simply in medical applications.

 

 

 

An article in Scientific American caught my eye, as it highlights some similar issues that were discussed September 7, 2019, when I addressed the Canadian Kennel Club Board.  This article is about sperm banks and how they are admitting they cannot 'guarantee' donor anonymity in the face of services like 23 and Me and Ancestry.com.  The basic point, similar in dogs and humans, is that once a sample is submitted for DNA testing, the lab has the material to compare and contrast to other samples they have tested, and to identify related individuals.  The labs have the information, or the potential to have it, regardless whether the sample was originally submitted for ancestry testing or a panel of disease tests or one specific test. There is a degree of confidentiality, in that, presumably humans at least can elect not to accept identifying information if the company tells them a relative has been found.  Perhaps you can opt out of receiving any information, but in reality many people either are looking for this information, and others do not fully realize what the options mean when they submit a sample.

In the field of human testing, numerous initiatives are looking at ethical concerns in research and for application.  One obvious example is where an individual agrees to participate in genetic disease testing, either in a research setting or by consumer choice.  Depending on the condition and the results, the tested individual may now know or suspect information about their relatives - relatives who did not sign an informed consent or make the choice to 'know'.  It is a complex and challenging situation.

How does this relate to the world of dogs?  We have had discussions recently at the 2nd International Meeting of Kennel Clubs in Stockholm, at the 4th International Dog Health Workshop and at the various talks I have given lately.  Some kennel clubs, who are expanding or developing health and pedigree linked databases, are suggesting that 'all' registered dogs should have forensic identification and parental verification.  Registries have always recognized that dog identification by, e.g. tattoo, and even microchips, are subject to error - accidental or otherwise.  When information is going to be part of the permanent record of the dog, accuracy is of extreme importance.  However, even if almost all registries demand 'permanent' dog identification, this varies in type (e.g. tattoo, microchip, DNA), potential for errors and, let's face it, the ability of many registries to be absolutely sure that the results are from the specified dog.  The Dutch Kennel Club has a phenomenal program for identification of all registered puppies, made possible partly by the limited size of the country.  We will try to provide more information on this in another blog or article.  The complexities of dog identification have additional ramifications and impacts on health strategies...

CGE.pngA recent paper by Tom Lewis (The impact of incorrectly recorded parentage on inferred genotypes over multiple generations, attached below), geneticist at The KC in the UK, has shown the dangers of designation of 'clear by parentage' when there may be error in the identity of the dog and its ancestors.  His work underpins the decision by The KC to limit the clear by parentage to two generations.  Presumably, dogs beyond this limited time frame must then be re-tested.  Of course, with DNA identification (of all tested dogs) theoretically a much lower error rate could be achieved.  (Parentage verification is highly accurate, and there are standards and proficiency testing in place for this type of testing.)

Tying this back to the concept of confidentiality, the KCs at the International meeting also discussed data privacy concerns around genetic testing and data banks.  I won't go into the handling of owner data, de-identification of samples, and numerous other issues, but I will mention one point of discussion that relates to the sperm bank example above.  The genetic testing laboratory or researcher or commercial test provider will have the ability - or potential - to detect related individuals by their genetic profiles, whether or not they have owner identification.  Not that this means it will be used in a way that should cause concern, but as in the human example, it is perhaps something of which to be aware.  Have we been paying enough attention?  It seems there is great concern on the human side.  This is all complex and confusing; stayed tuned for a coming blog explaining forensic, identification, parentage testing and more.

All of this raises tough issues that will have to be considered by the dog world, as some registries and kennel clubs move towards mandatory DNA identification / parentage testing and others do not.  This is another angle where the evolving technology of genetic testing is creating both benefits and challenges.

 

Resources:

Tom Lewis Impact of Incorrectly Recorded Parentage.pdf

 

 

Sign in to follow this  


2 Comments


Recommended Comments

Thought provoking - thanks Brenda!

The parentage testing tangle...
my questions
Is there now a standardized and validated canine forensics panel & does that, if it exists, go across borders?
My understanding is that uniform standards do not exist for permanent identification of dogs across registries... Cross borders... cross dbs
For example:  Identification Guidelines - Orthopedic Foundation for Animals/AKC Pedigree info
Currently, the OFA will accept applications regardless of whether the dog has been permanently identified via tattoo or microchip. Dogs without permanent identification are assigned a NOPI suffix to the end of their OFA numbers, dogs with acceptable permanent ID are assigned a PI suffix, and dogs with VERIFIED permanent identification are assigned a VPI suffix.
<https://www.ofa.org/breeder/identification-guidelines>
"only those dogs with VERIFIED PERMANENT IDENTIFICATION VIA MICROCHIP OR TATTOO will have their OFA hip and elbow information transmitted to the AKC for inclusion on AKC pedigrees and registration materials. DNA profiles DO NOT count a permanent identification for health testing purposes."

Is that interesting or what.

I do not know how other KC based registries deal with permanent identification of dogs. I'd like to know more about that.

Brenda's IDEA - nice to have: Catalog of identification strategies for registries around the world.
 
 
After reading Brenda's blog a second time I did a little research on the question of 'linked' parentage and health testing dbs (a confidentiality point brought up in Brenda's blog in # 5 "Some kennel clubs, who are expanding or developing health and pedigree linked databases, are suggesting that 'all' registered dogs should have forensic identification and parental verification. ")

So more questions...

I do not know  how parentage and heritable disease testing relate in terms of privacy concerns or crossovers between the 2 - if a dog tests positive for a deleterious genetic mutation (registration of litters denied) & that dog has relatives in a parentage db - can those relatives be subjected to further testing?

 

Share this comment


Link to comment

I do not know  how parentage and heritable disease testing relate in terms of privacy concerns or crossovers between the 2 - if a dog tests positive for a deleterious genetic mutation (registration of litters denied) & that dog has relatives in a parentage db - can those relatives be subjected to further testing?

Ann has sent through some good questions, which I think I can address:

Genetic profile-based "kennel clubs" or any registration-type body are going to happen. This process would mean that your dog is registered based on their genetic profile, and any other relatives (and health tests) would be linked to them genetically creating a gene-based pedigree. Both genetic profiles and parentage have standardisation behind them, primarily through ISAG, which is international. There are challenges, potentially, when you are moving from using the 2004 to the 2006 parentage panel, but the technology is now in place that this can be overcome robustly - and of course, it only impacts the dogs that have been tested under 2004, which should be very few now. As we move forward, these tests will almost certainly be done under a SNP-chip (i.e. panel) system in any case, which can screen for 2004, 2006, any subsequent panels, as well as the profiles.

 

Regarding privacy...

It is possible, and fairly easy, to "reverse detect" any anomalies that may be occurring in your line or breeding, if you have access to an ancestry.com style database. It can become apparent that you might not have the dog, or breed, you think you do, if the 1st cousins or siblings start showing different DNA test results that should be possible if the parentage/etc. is correct. If, for example, I had a stud dog that was a carrier for X disease, I might not want that to become known. If I'm smart, I'll only use him on clear bitches, so that none of the puppies have problems, but it wouldn't be long before a puppy is tested as carrier, and the whole world knows my champion working dog is a carrier (i.e. Facebook), or maybe affected, etc. etc. I know this happens already, but this would start happening en masse, and as the owner of the stud dog, I have not agreed to this "medical" information being in the public domain.

There is also a whole hot-bed of possibilities for suing if you have mis-represented or mis-sold a dog, very often in innocence if there was a split litter or an accidental mating where you guessed the stud. With Tom's paper on hereditarily clear, this is where of course you're talking about issues that could be 3+ generations back - either a testing error or parentage error, and if you're a careful breeder, could take a long time before discovered... usually when a litter is born with affected pups that shouldn't be possible. By then, you could have a lot of carriers out in the world that you are assuming quite reasonably are clear.

Aimée Llewellyn-Zaidi

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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.

  • Blog Disclaimer
    The contents of this blog are for informational purposes only and represent the opinion of the author(s), and not that of the International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD). This is not intended to be a substitute for professional, expert or veterinarian advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not recommend or endorse any specific tests, providers, products, procedures, opinions, or other information that may be mentioned on, or linked to from this blog.

  • International Dog Health Workshops

    3-19-2019-4thidhw-postcard8inx3in.png

    What our 4th IDHW participants have said...

    wordcloud6-5-4thidhw-key-experiences.png

    ...Now, the real work begins!
     

    View 4th IDHW Theme Resources

    Post-Meeting Resources
    Plenary talks, Posters & Theme outcomes

  • Our Partners

    • The OFA was a Founding Partner of the International Partnership for Dogs; As of January 1, 2018, the OFA is no longer an IPFD Partner.    Founded and originally incorporated as a private no…
    • Suomen Kennelliitto (Finnish Kennel Club, in English) - Established in 1889, the Finnish Kennel Club is a nationwide expert organisation on canine matters. Its aim is to promote the breeding of ped…
    • The Norwegian Kennel Club (NKC) was founded in 1898, and is the largest organisation for dog owners in Norway.   Website: https://www.nkk.no/english/category1045.html Norwegian Kennel Club…
    •   Mars Veterinary is a business unit of Mars Petcare, the world’s largest pet care provider. Their mission is to facilitate responsible pet care by enhancing the well-being and relationship bet…
    • Royal Canin is a global leader in pet health nutrition. In an industry that continues to adapt to popular trends in cat and dog food, our mission will remain the same; to constantly bring, through H…
    • The FCI was a Founding Partner of the International Partnership for Dogs; As of January 1, 2018, FCI is no longer an IPFD Partner.   The Fédération Cynologique Internationale is the World C…
    • Raad van Beheer (The Dutch Kennel Club (DKC)) is the official kennel club of The Netherlands. Founded in 1902, it currently represents around 200 breed clubs with 150,000 members.   …
    • The VDH - Verband für das Deutsche Hundewesen (German Kennel Club in English) is the foremost organisation representing the interests of dog-owners throughout Germany – the first address to find ou…
    • The Kennel Club is the largest organization in the UK devoted to dog health, welfare and training. Its objective is to ensure that dogs live healthy, happy lives with responsible owners.   …
    • The French Kennel Club - SOCIÉTÉ CENTRALE CANINE (SCC) - was founded in 1881 as a non-profit organization by dog fanciers aiming to replenish native dog breeds and to bring in and establish foreign…
    • Agria Djurförsäkring (Agria Animal Insurance) is one of the world's leading animal insurers specialising in small animal and equine insurance. The company dominates Scandinavian pet insurance and h…
    • The Canadian Kennel Club (CKC) is the primary registry body for purebred dogs in Canada and currently recognizes 175 breeds. As a non-profit organization, the CKC is dedicated to encouraging, guidi…
    • Agria is one of the world’s leading animal insurers, specialising in small animal and equine insurance. Founded in Sweden over 120 years ago, Agria came to the UK in 2009 and is now a prominent feat…
    • The Irish Kennel Club promotes the responsible ownership and breeding of dogs throughout Ireland through education, registration, training and support schemes and events.   Website: http://…
    • The SKK - Svenka Kennelklubben (Swedish Kennel Club, in English), is Sweden's largest organisation dedicated to dogs and dog owners. We represent the interests of our 300,000 members – first time d…
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.