Jump to content
Translation Help | Aide à la traduction | Käännösohje | Übersetzungshilfe | Oversettelseshjelp | Översättningshjälp | Ayuda de traducción ×
Call for Nominations: IPFD Board ×
International Collaboration For Dog Health And Welfare. Join Us.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Canine Nature Camp Canine Nature Camp joined the community
  3. Last week
  4. Brenda Bonnett
    I just listened to The role of client communication and euthanasia for the veterinarian | VETgirl Veterinary Continuing Education Podcasts with Professor Jane Shaw from Colorado State University. What a great explanation of aspects of best practices in communication on sensitive issues like euthanasia and of the gaps there can be across pet owner and veterinarian perceptions. This is worth listening to for both vets AND for anyone who has had, or will have, the experience of humanely letting go of a dear pet. Dr. Jane explains, with examples, some of the complex human issues in these kinds of visits and gives practical pointers on how communication can be improved. Her message is to vets, but I think owners can learn from this as well. Not every veterinarian has had the benefit of 20-plus hours of communication training from someone like Jane. Some veterinarians can struggle with euthanasia discussions. So, a knowledgeable client can be proactive in bringing up their concerns, and should not feel that their personal and emotional issues about their pet, or issues in their life, are irrelevant to the situation. Feel free to ask questions and share with your veterinarian. We know that everything to do with pets is built on human-animal interactions. It can be challenging, but the complicated, complex human side is often as (or more) important than the medical facts. Only good can come from improved veterinary-client communication*. It was my honour to work with the authors of the paper on which this interview was based (see below). And to have personally known Smokey the dog who was the canine patient in the study. Not every dog would say how thrilled he was to go to lots and lots of vet visits in the last months of his life, but Smokey seemed delighted with the outings! The contributions of the animals, their owners, and the innovative approach of the researchers combined to bring this important work to fruition. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019 May 1;254(9):1073-1085. doi: 10.2460/javma.254.9.1073. Comparison of veterinarian and standardized client perceptions of communication during euthanasia discussions. Nogueira Borden LJ, Adams CL, Bonnett BN, Ribble CS, Shaw JR. Impacts of the process and decision-making around companion animal euthanasia on veterinary wellbeing Matte, AR., Khosa, DK., Coe, JB., Meehan, MP. (2019) Impacts of the process and decision-making around companion animal euthanasia on veterinary wellbeing Veterinary Record 185, 480. A qualitative study using group and individual interviews involving 10 veterinary hospitals in Wellington County, Ontario, explored how the practices involved in euthanasia-related care impacts the wellbeing of veterinary professionals. *Also see DogWellNet.com's articles: How Can We Improve End-of-Life Care? One Welfare: The Intersection of Veterinary Education and Animal Welfare and Ethics
  5. Aimee Llewellyn-Zaidi started following title and title
  6. Gillian Goldschmidt Gillian Goldschmidt joined the community
  7. Ann Milligan started following Curly Coated Retriever
  8. Ann Milligan
  9. Tammen Tammen joined the community
  10. Brenda Bonnett
    A September 2019 article in The Canine Chronicle, by Caroline Coile, is entitled: When 23 and Me Has Gone to the Dogs. It is a summary of some of the discussions and presentations at the 2019 AKC CHF National Parent Club Canine Health Conference. I have already written a blog on my experiences speaking and participating at that meeting: AKC-CHF SYMPOSIUM: Harmonization of Genetic Testing and Breed-Specific Resources, where I cover some of the same ground at Ms. Coile. In that blog, I described the challenges voiced by breed club health committee reps, reflected in the questions they asked during the panel discussions. I said, for example: "It is not surprising that you are confused and frustrated...the world of genetic testing IS confusing and frustrating!" The worst challenges in communication and understanding have arisen, at least to some extent, by a combination of these factors: A very fast progression from hesitancy to mass acceptance of genetic testing as the ultimate measure of health and disease to inform breeding decisions. Driven by, e.g.: The 'Social Phenomena' and marketing of tests Direct-to-Consumer (see my talk at the American Veterinary Association). The underlying desire for absolute, straight-forward, black-and-white, simple answers to complex situations. And hampered by, e.g.: Lack of the full, key information for properly integrating genetic testing into best breeding practices. This lack due to, e.g.: Overemphasis of research on discovery of new genetic associations compared to study of clinical validity and ultimate utility of genetic tests relative to actual disease occurrence in the populations to which they will be applied. Rapid commercialization and offering of tests without anywhere near the level of validation and assessment of quality that is demanded for genetic tests in the human sphere and for virtually all other sorts of tests used in veterinary medicine. Inadequate availability of informed genetic counseling - with the genetic counselors challenged by the situations described above. Many genetic test providers providing full results on the plethora of tests and trusting consumers to be able to access counseling and/or figure it out themselves. An important aspect of this emphasis on genetic testing, mentioned in the Coile article is that, with this rush to genetic testing, there is a tendency to ignore or reduce the emphasis on the big picture of health in a breed, and to sometimes abandon or neglect health strategies and breeding decisions based on them. This I discuss in basically all my talks, e.g., in a presentation to the French Bull Dog Club of America in 2018. So - challenges, challenges, challenges - for genetic testing from research to application and from validity and quality issues to understanding and communication of best practices for all stakeholders and consumers. However, let's not 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Genetic testing has already supported health and breeding decisions, especially for simple recessive, fully-penetrant conditions. Unfortunately, these are the 'low-hanging fruit' for scientific discovery, and much attention has been paid to them. They are often rare conditions, and although detection and health strategies for them are very important to the limited number of dogs/lines affected, they may not be the most important conditions for the breed. The most common and important conditions, as also stated in the Coile article, are much more complex. Great things are possible with genetic testing. Whole genome analysis will offer even more potential to help animals and people. However, it looks like genomic testing will also be implemented in spite of great gaps in our understanding of what it means and how to apply it. This video from the human side offers some startling information that should increase our concern (see Strategic Planning Workshop: Genomics in Medicine). It is important to also focus on the good work being done to support stakeholders in dog health. Coile mentions the OFA and AKC-CHF is busy with many endeavours (including supporting IPFD). A great example is the Webinar by Joan Coates tomorrow (Thursday 16 October) on the topic of the hour - DM. Dr. Coates' comments at the Parent Club Symposium were important and it is great that they are being expanded to a Webinar. It is expected that she will clarify the DM-testing benefits and challenges, but we cannot kid ourselves that it can rectify the already-entrenched attitudes about DM in specific and genetic testing in general among the public. Hope is also offered by the existing and continuing developments by IPFD, on DogWellNet.com, and produced in collaboration of a wide network of international collaborators, although dependent on funding and further support. These include (and see my CHF talk): The Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD) - catalog on genetic test providers (GTPs) and tests (see the HGTD on DogWellNet.com). Initiative to clarify which tests are being offered specifically as targeted, relevant for a breed; collating information on benefits and challenges of panel testing vs. a breed-specific approach. Working Groups from the 4th International Dog Health Workshop (see article on post workshop genetics theme) on: A comprehensive matrix of the test discovery-commercialization-application pathway . Details on criteria need to provide validation at each step. Aspects of laboratory quality and best practices for GTPs. The potential for enhanced Proficiency Testing. Development of an Expert Panel application to assess and provide collective opinion on key issues about tests and testing. The Big Picture: developing the Heath Strategies Database for Dogs (HSDD), that will provide an interactive resource by breed and condition for all diseases/conditions considered important in health strategies from international and local kennel clubs and breed organizations, to include but not be limited those for which a genetic test is available. A structure for an Globally Relevant International Health Profile to summarize the state of health for breeds. Working together, we can improve our ability to make the best decisions for dogs and capitalize on the potential tools and strategies available.
  11. Linh Linh joined the community
  12. Birgitte Kristoffersen Birgitte Kristoffersen joined the community
  13. karsa karsa joined the community
  14. David Eikelberg started following Ask Aimee: Breeder wants to know about prioritising a new genetic test
  15. David Eikelberg
    Hello Aime, Very well said on your above response. In the Black Russian Terrier breed here in the U.S. w have changed people's behaviors to the point of hip and elbow testing being a standard approach and a "given". We are even moving ever closer to the DNA testing becoming the norm as something that owners just do as a matter of course. Temperament testing and skills competition still need more attention as does general canine health and wellness. Our next area of effort will be to encourage BRT owners to submit general data about their BRT breeding, environment, feeding, medical care, etc. to see if any new information can be gleaned from the data that will help improve the lives of BRTs in general. How exciting it would be if this data gathering initiative could be global in nature for BRTs, and perhaps eventually for all breeds. The future is bright if we can get enough organizations and supporters to participate. I think the IPFD is poised to be that globally unifying agent. All the best! Dave
  16. Brenda Bonnett
    Thanks Clement. We will check it out. Please feel free to send any information you think should be included in the Breed Database to Ann Milligan, our content manager
  17. Clément Castelli Clément Castelli joined the community
  18. Clément Castelli
    There is a new (international) breed club in The Netherlands: http://www.ierseroodwittesetterclub.nl/
  19. Earlier
  20. Ann Milligan started following Great Swiss Mountain Dog
  21. Ann Milligan
  22. Annemarie Joosten Annemarie Joosten joined the community
  23. Aimee Llewellyn-Zaidi started following title, title and title
  24. Ann Milligan started following title
  25. Huppe75 Huppe75 joined the community
  26. Garyfalkland Garyfalkland joined the community
  27. Ann Milligan

    Version 1.0.0

    0 downloads

    Establishing Science-Based Standards for the Care and Welfare of Dogs in US Commercial Breeding Facilities 4th IDHW presenter, Candace Croney's, talk covers Purdue's Center for Animal Welfare Science (CAWS) project which "aims to help the US pet industries address the socio-ethical and scientific (well-being) concerns embedded in commercial dog breeding. With the support of dog breeders, pet industry representatives, animal health and welfare experts, and other key stakeholders, the researchers are developing and testing voluntary standards for the care and well-being of dogs in commercial breeding facilities." More resources are available at: Purdue's Center for Animal Welfare Science (CAWS).
  28. Brenda Bonnett
    Th Kennel Club in the UK has posted information on a "New Dog Breeding Regulation". This relates to regulations from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for breeding operations and related to members of The KC Assured Breeders Scheme. "Changes to breeding regulations in England New regulations on dog breeding in England will be live from 1st October. There are no changes to breeding regulations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A number of significant changes are being made," which include requirements for a dog breeding licence. In addition, there is a defining of minimum welfare standards. "Risk rating Alongside welfare, the breeder’s compliance history will also be assessed, to determine whether the breeder is either a low risk or high risk operator, i.e. whether it should be expected the breeder will maintain their standards for the duration of their licence period." And DEFRA has a matrix to assess risk. And you can also download the notice by the Kennel Club. UK dog breeding regulation.pdf Information on the Assured Breeder Scheme requirements and recommendations here.
  29. Aimee Llewellyn-Zaidi
    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
  30. Ann Milligan
    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?
  31. Ann Milligan
  32. David Eikelberg
    I wonder if there is a possibility for a viable and productive/useful partnership/joint venture between IPFD and BetterBred.com. BetterBred's "Rebeka" provided us with a valuable breeding simulation based on our pre-existing U.C. Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory (VGL) information for our Black Russian Terrier (BRT) matched with test results for another female BRT which also had DNA information in the BetterBred database. This sort of genetic/health/breeding "counseling" service is what is needed on a large-scale basis to the general dog breeding industry..., so much so that the marketing and profitability potential would seem nearly limitless. Certainly, most of us know that genetics is complicated and as of yet still a very inexact science. However, as things are right now, without BetterBred and reliable private breeding counseling services, a BRT breeder feels as if they have to first become an amateur geneticist..., keep your fingers crossed that the testing is accurate..., combine that understanding with their knowledge of longevity, phenotype, conformation, movement, hip and elbow x-Rays, thyroid testing, cardiac test, eye test, Hyperuricosuria (HU), juvenile laryngeal paralysis and polyneuropathy (JLPP), coat color, and temperament..., then conduct the breeding and hope for the best without ever having benefit of a canine health provider's aggregate professional input. While this is an enormous step in the right direction from where things used to be in a standard breeding schema, it still lacks the sensibility and scientifically-based judgement necessary to make the best possible decisions. Add the fact that a great many breeders simply do not have the resources, education, or time to dedicate to making breeding decisions using this level of science, and we are very quickly right back to "Well..., they both look pretty good so let's breed them and see what we get." Our dogs deserve the very best we can offer them in living long, happy, healthy lives. Experienced dog owners know that canine health is a "pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later" prospect. One can pay upfront for orchestrating the best possible breeding and hopefully avoid at least some health problems later..., or simply pay thousands of dollars in Veterinarian bills trying to prolong life and keep their precious companion as active, happy, and as comfortable as possible. However, as we all know it often comes down to euthanasia simply due to medical costs. Euthanasia exacts such a huge emotional toll on owners and Veterinarians. Let's do what we can to come out of the dark ages and into the bright light of science.
  33. Ann Milligan
    In September 2019 the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) posted several videos on YouTube... below we highlight several. These presentations are substantive in their coverage of the topics with a focus on improving health and welfare of dogs. The audience for these presentations is veterinarians, although dog breeders and breed club health managers can certainly benefit from viewing/sharing this content as well.
  34. Robyn Youl
    Thank you for thought about being a responsible owner! How old was the owner of the Pug? When it's about dogs, age makes some human animals highly resistant to any new ways of implementing responsible dog ownership Bred dogs for 30 years. Since 9 years old have been a passionate guardian of dogs for 65. I teach at Geelong U3A Dog Handling Skills classes on Sundays. Have been earnestly informed by U3A Committee member there is no need to source and write articles for the fortnightly magazine because owners only want to have fun. We DO need to look at the attitudes of the ageing human animals who pour all that love down a dogs throat but smack them when they are naughty because they love them!!
  35. David Eikelberg

    It is my hope that IPFD will become the global presence and central repository for information on breeding healthy canines.  The mission is so important and so large that it will require the financial support of institutional backers and supporters.  Please join the IPFD and help work toward this goal.  Consider becoming a benefactor to this most worthy cause.  Or if you are familiar with corporate entities that would be suitable as partners with the IPFD, consider asking them to contribute long-term financial support to the IPFD.  My breed happens to be the Black Russian Terrier (BRT) (we have 4!) and here is our favorite quote about the BRT.  “He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, and his leader.  He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart.  You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.”  Regardless of your breed, lets's all try to be worthy of our essential canine companions.  They do so deserve our very best efforts.  The IPFD is an ideal organizational steward for this important global mission.  See what all the IPFD has to offer and get involved today.  All The Best My Friends!

    Dave

  36. David Eikelberg
    This background and development explanation does an excellent job of bringing the reader up to speed in a clear and concise manner. It also sets the stage for what is sure to be a bright future for a very important global hub of coordination. The IPFD is promoting the very best tenets and tools for canines around the world. I hope that some philanthropic organizations who have profited so much from the canine industry will give back in the direction of the IPFD. All The Best IPFD and DogWellNet!
  37. Dave St. Louis
    In 2018, our fourth full year of operation, we focused our efforts on key initiatives, including: Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD); planning for the 4th International Dog Health Workshop (IDHW) in May 2019; and lending an independent voice in addressing complex and often controversial challenges, such as the health and welfare issues in brachycephalic breeds.
  38. David Eikelberg
    Hello again Dr. Bonnett, I took your splendid advice and explored what the UK Irish Wolfhound organization is doing. I must say they are (in so far as I am familiar with these things) quite an outstanding benchmark in their efforts. I personally have seen none better. This includes not only their health testing, historical records collection efforts, and health research initiatives, but even the very content and usability of their web site/presence. Most of the rest of us would do well to emulate their efforts! It is my hope that we in the U.S. Black Russian Terrier Club of America (www.brtca.com) can advance our efforts in a similar manner. We have a lot of catching up to do and it is so encouraging to have their organization as a model after which we can pattern and fast track our own efforts. Many thanks to the Irish Wolfhound folks for standing up..., doing what needed to be done in such an outstanding and organized manner..., and sharing it with the rest of us..., so that we can move forward with our own breed enhancement efforts. As with the Irish Wolfhound and many other breeds, the BRT is so very deserving of our best efforts! FAVORITE QUOTE: About the Black Russian Terrier: “He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, and his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.” What a wonderful sentiment, which I am sure applies to nearly every breed. After all they do for us, we owe them nothing but the very best. Thank You Dr. Bonnett and Thank You to the UK Irish Wolfhound Organization for your outstanding leadership. Respectfully Submitted, Dave Eikelberg deikelberg@gmail.com
  39. Brenda Bonnett
    Our colleagues at Human Behaviour Change for Animals (HBC) posted an interesting article today. The original paper is: The Responsible Dog Owner: The Construction of Responsibility from Carri Westgarth and others at the University of Liverpool, UK. The research article is published here. Their key message is: While “responsible dog ownership” has considerable appeal as a concept, how it is perceived and interpreted varies so extensively that simply telling owners that they should “be responsible” is of limited use as a message to promote behavior change. In other words, many owners consider the dog a member of the family and themselves as caretakers. Based on their feelings, they think they are giving great care to their beloved pet. Of course, veterinarians, other dog owners and breeders are aware of many examples of irresponsible or at least inappropriate care provided by well-meaning owners. One of the most obvious examples is obesity. I took this photo of a pug in a park in Chicago, with the owner's permission. In conversation it was obvious that she was extremely attached to this dog, thought she was wonderful, told me the dog was so important in her life, and she no doubt thought I wanted a photo because the dog was so cute. I am sure my readers will know that was not my first impression. This dog's obesity was startling. When I touched the dog, my hands literally sank into depths of fat. Even worse, this was a brachycephalic dog and she grunted and snuffled, and I have no doubt her breathing was compromised and I could only imagine her inability to cope on hot days. Here was a clear example of an owner felt she was giving loving - responsible - care, and I was hard pressed not to tell her that this dog's condition could be viewed as quite the opposite, in fact, tantamount to animal abuse. I also know that this woman would have been devastated to hear that. In these situations I always ponder whether our first responsibility is to the owner or to the dog... Behaviour problems also are often examples of inadequate or inappropriate care. It is very common to hear owners say 'my dog has separation anxiety' as if it was an inherited condition - so sad, but there it is. When in fact, the owner - if they have had the dog since it was a pup - carries the primary responsibility for creating or not preventing that behaviour in the dog. The HBC post linked us to a short review of the research article here The problem with promoting 'responsible dog ownership. Their key summary points: Dog welfare campaigns that tell people to be 'responsible owners' don't help to promote behaviour change, a new report suggests. Dog owners interviewed for a study all considered themselves to be responsible owners, despite there being great variation in key aspects of their dog-owning behavior. We have had discussions at the 4th International Dog Health Workshop (IDHW) by our colleagues at HBC and since. It is clear that many issues related to dog health and welfare, supply and demand, and even genetic testing and its use in best breeding practices are affected by communication, education and understanding, as much as science and evidence. You can read more about this in Tamzin Furtado's presentation at the 4th IDHW: Canine Welfare - The Human Element - Human Behaviour Change for Animals. Other talks in the Supply and Demand theme at the 4th IDHW also addressed owner issues and understanding about sources of dogs and, really, responsible dog acquisition. Several of the proposed actions from this theme also relate to communication. I addressed some of the challenges of communication about genetic testing in my blog: AKC-CHF SYMPOSIUM: Harmonization of Genetic Testing and Breed-Specific Resources. We all understand that human-dog interactions are at the core of everything that happens with the animals we love. Focus on the impacts, barriers and effective promoters from the human side must be considered in all recommendations and decisions about their health, well-being and welfare.
  40. Geert Degezelle
    Excluding dogs from the gene pool on the single CFR criterium doesn't make any sense. But the Raad van Beheer's intention to "achieve a longer muzzle" doesn't make sense either. Every brachycephalic breed needs to be considered individually. In my breed - Griffon Bruxellois - this bold policy would result in loss of breed-type and it would result in the extinction of the breed, because it would merge this breed with other breeds like Affenpinscher and rough-haired Pinscher into 1 breed. The Griffon Bruxellois and Affenpinscher would disappear as distinctive breeds. Can the Dutch government, the University of Utrecht and the "Raad van Beheer" explain why "achieving a longer muzzle" is necessary while the breeders can proof that it's possible to breed healthy purebred Griffons with CM0/SM0 gradings that are BOAS-free and that are within the breed standard?
  41. Dave St. Louis
    Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD) Project Director Aimee Llewellyn-Zaidi was interviewed for a story on at-home Dog DNA tests.
  42. Brenda Bonnett
    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. 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... A 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
  43. Brenda Bonnett
    Thanks for the comment David. In general, we are in support of international data collection. Quite a few kennel clubs are building health and pedigree-linked databases, some of which are publicly available. The concept of OFA as a register is encouraging. As with all these efforts, many side issues arise, including data quality on identification of the dog and parents, quality and relevance of DNA test results and many more. IPFD with our collaborators and via the International Dog Health Workshops continues to support and promote these efforts, as well as international collaboration, sharing and transparency, In terms of an international breed database, again, great resource. If you have not yet seen it, please check out the Irish Wolfhound Database. They are doing an amazing job in all aspects. Maura Lyons and Per-Arne Flatberg presented on this resource at the 4th IDHW and you can see all posters here. And Per-Arne's presentation can be downloaded here. Also know that you can message them via DogWellNet.com. We also are built on the foundation of community engagement, so absolutely great to have people like you weighing in. Please share links, data and descriptions, any time, with our Content Manager Ann Milligan. Thanks!
  44. David Eikelberg
    Here in the U.S., our club, the Black Russian Terrier Club of America (www.brtca.org) has elected to team with www.embarkvet.com to offer a battery of genetic testing through a single sample submission for $99.00, if purchased through our club website. The price for the battery of testing is normally $140.00 I believe. This group rate and bundled testing will be beneficial to our members and their breeding decisions and be possible at a price most breeders can afford. It also replaces multiple tests from other labs that collectively cost two or three times as much. Regardless of what testing lab breeders use, we are also hoping that people from all over the world will want to have their canine's test results logged with www.ofa.org so that we can all have one single, effective, globally accessible central repository/database to deposit our information and from which to draw genetic data for breeding decision-making. If we could get global participation, what a fantastic resource this would be to improve the lives of every breed in a great many parts of the world. An initiative is also in the planning phase for collection of all BRT medical, rearing, temperament, growth, environment, and any other records an owner is willing to archive. The records would be donated to a central collection point either during the BRTs life or postumously, scanned electronically, and kept for future research. At the first 5 year point and consecutive 5-year increments thereafter, a research grant would be available for a veterinarian university or similar group/researcher to correlate the data in an effort to determine what effects beyond genetics are produced in BRTs as a result of the way they were whelped, raised, given health care, trained, exercised, fed, medicated, etc. I was wondering what your organization's thoughts on these initiatives might be? Kindest Regards, Dave Eikelberg, deikelberg@gmail.com
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept