roughly equal numbers of dogs tested to be carrier or normal....42% clear, 43% carrier, 15% at risk....

any update at all on research?

Juli

Not surprized. Under 500 dogs tested so far, Not nearly enough dogs tested to get a true idea of what is happening within the entire breed. Hope people continue to test. I also hope that research can eventually find something to help the dogs that are at risk and develop the disease. DM is not something I care to go through with another dog.

I had thought that the stats might be skewed some by the fact that not many dogs (comparatively) have been tested...but the numbers have been hanging in that same range for quite a while now....It will be interesting to see if they change in a yr or two...and what they will look like 10, 15, 20 yrs from now.

Juli

is it only 500 dogs? by the way everyone is carrying on, you'd think it was more like 5000!

I am hoping Lisa pipes in.

If hip OFAs are any indication, the time when there will have been 5,000 Chessies DM tested is still some 15 years distant.

Additionally the % of A/A & A/N in these numbers is also affected by dogs who were tested in the study group but did not release their results to the OFA database.

And an excellent point Lisa is the "family group" testing which also affects the % seen.

Dyane

How many dogs have been diagnsed of DM?

quote:

Originally posted by jtowne:
How many dogs have been diagnsed of DM?

That is the question everyone wants to know....but, nobody seems to be worried about it at this time....pretty much what makes this such a wishy washy research experiment....

quote:

That is the question everyone wants to know....but, nobody seems to be worried about it at this time....pretty much what makes this such a wishy washy research experiment....

Paul, "Experiment" would be the wrong term since the test (althought testing for only a part of the puzzle) is based on fact - the mutated allelle exists. The problem is what does it mean. The application of results is not understood (even by researchers themselves). Different individuals/breeders are left to intrepret results and apply how they deem fit, not to what is appropriate.
This is the Major Problem that can bite back if not careful.

Nick, exact #'s may never really be known because before testing/knowing this mutated allelle, DM was probably misdiagnosed or attributed to something else - old age, bad hips, etc. But considering that mentioned before was 15 or so Diagnosed DM cases compared to vast number of cbrs, percentage wise a miniscule amount, the missing factors needs to be known before any meaningful
correlations can be made.

Charlie

Paul,

I do not think the DM test is an experiment at all...I do think it gives an incomplete picture, but at least we have part of a picture with which to make decisions....

As was stated in the article that Sue W posted, we know that it might not be the best choice to breed an A/A or A/N dog to another A/A or A/N dog if evidence of affected dogs is present close in the pedigree or other close relations....

Juli

Lots of problems seem to be occuring which I suspect are a result of improperly accounting/recording data and specimen handling. Also, too many results coming back contaminated and unreadable.

I don't know of a single breeder(personally) who has not had problems testing for DM. All have had missing results or no results at all. All have had to re-test once, twice and one person three times. Of the mixed results, one person got different results back for the same puppy!??!? I think U of M is doing a disservice to our breed. I am only basing this opinion on experiences of breeders who have had problems with the testing accuracy. None of the breeders I know personally have less than 20 years experience breeding Chessies. Well, one does but, is not testing DM based upon the opinion of an experienced breeder.

I have almost completely lost confidence they have the ability to conduct a scientific study. Unreliable results are going to hurt our breed quickly based upon who is interpreting the results and who feels like they should listen to the snake oil salesman who talks the fastest.

The U of M is not even responding to vets who would like to donate spinal cords of affected dogs!?

I feel for anyone who has lost a dog to the disease and I pray I don't but, to continually throw funding to such a seemingly poorly run study baffles me.

At this time, the study only gives us the benefit of making improved breeding choices. Then again, some breeders are highly hanging their hats on the fact their dogs are "clear" which is unconfirmed even means a thing in the bigger picture.....

quote:

Originally posted by CBRKAIE:
Lots of problems seem to be occuring which I suspect are a result of improperly accounting/recording data and specimen handling. Also, too many results coming back contaminated and unreadable.

Paul,

I know there have been some issues with incorrect results, mixed up results (Moscowitz), etc...
but what are the percentages of such errors?

Any type of test is going to have errors...IMO the U of M and OFA would be wise to require a vet to take the samples for submission....People feed their dogs before taking the sample, might even mix up their own swabs if they are testing multiple dogs, don't follow the directions, etc, etc........

I still think this is a valuable test - not THE answer, but at least an indicator....I definitely do not think the U of M or OFA or the ACC are snake oil salesmen...in fact it appears that they are really trying to encourage people NOT to rush to judgement about breeding A/A dog, or even producing A/A dogs...

Juli

I got my Pup from a few vets who are pretty well known and had problems.....multiple times. Other well known breeders have had the same problems. Of all the people I have spoken with, everyone has had at least one problem.

My feeling is the percentage of screw ups on the part of U of M are way to high to be allowable. If this was a USDA study on a medicine, all results would have been thrown out and all funding pulled immediately because of the mishaps. It just is not allowable in the medical field but, to everyone who says the U of M should keep receiving funding, you are crazy! Our dogs are worth more than a bunch of mistakes and lack of care taken on the part of the researchers handling something that may weight heavily on the future health of our breed.....

quote:

Originally posted by Juli:

quote:

Originally posted by CBRKAIE:
Lots of problems seem to be occuring which I suspect are a result of improperly accounting/recording data and specimen handling. Also, too many results coming back contaminated and unreadable.

Paul,

I know there have been some issues with incorrect results, mixed up results (Moscowitz), etc...
but what are the percentages of such errors?

Any type of test is going to have errors...IMO the U of M and OFA would be wise to require a vet to take the samples for submission....People feed their dogs before taking the sample, might even mix up their own swabs if they are testing multiple dogs, don't follow the directions, etc, etc........

I still think this is a valuable test - not THE answer, but at least an indicator....I definitely do not think the U of M or OFA or the ACC are snake oil salesmen...in fact it appears that they are really trying to encourage people NOT to rush to judgement about breeding A/A dog, or even producing A/A dogs...

Juli

LOL, given that your pup's breeders are vets indicates that they certainly know the correct method for taking samples.....

Now you can say you know at least one person who did not have any problems submitting three tests for three different dogs..(me).. I sent in three tests and had no problems...all carriers - and no surprises since all had at least one carrier (and A/A in one case) as a sire or dam.

My friend sent in three tests as well, and had no problems - all came back N/N, as expected....

Juli

quote:

Originally posted by Juli:
LOL, given that your pup's breeders are vets indicates that they certainly know the correct method for taking samples.....

Now you can say you know at least one person who did not have any problems submitting three tests for three different dogs..(me).. I sent in three tests and had no problems...all carriers - and no surprises since all had at least one carrier (and A/A in one case) as a sire or dam.

My friend sent in three tests as well, and had no problems - all came back N/N, as expected....

Juli

Bottom line, if the study was based on scientific methodology for medical purposes, I would contest there is a high likelyhood that the scattered results would require the entire data base to be tossed out the window and start over.

But, they're just dogs so, does accuracy really matter?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Paul Gilmore,

The only problem that I experienced with the 3 samples that I submitted was at least partly caused by my decision to submit the sample via a local research lab (Broad Institute) that is affiliated with the study. The samples that I submitted directly (one to Dr. Long; the other via OFA to Univ. Mo.) were reported in the normal course of events.

Only one of my dogs has close kin that had been checked and his result (A/N) isn't surprising in that context.

I agree that the hand-off from Dr. Long to the Univ. of Mo. was less organized than it should have been.

Claire

I sent six test swabs to from the UK and had no problems and results were back in under 3 weeks

quote:

Originally posted by yogisma:
I sent six test swabs to from the UK and had no problems and results were back in under 3 weeks

That is great. Too bad folks here in the States can't get the same great results and service.

A scientific test and study must be conducted in a manner that does not make mistakes. It just isn't happening that way.

We are talking about scientific research for which many people are making conclusions and determinations. If the base information is not 100% sound and accurate, how can the study which is built upon this foundation be sound and accurate?

I am all for the study and continued exploration of the disease but, for the sake of science, there sure seems to be a lot of holes starting out the study.

I have yet to see a the numbers of tests that were done without incident vs those that had to resubmit or got the wrong result (for whatever reason)...My opinion is that it will be a relatively high percentage of successful tests (accurate).....
Until/unless such results show otherwise, I have no problem trusting the results of my dogs' tests....nor in using those results to help me make breeding decisions.

Juli