OFA Fanconi Results

[tanza]

There are now more the 550 test results posted on OFA site... it has been great to see the breeders/owners that have been testing their dogs so far.. but also sad to see that many of the prominate breeders have yet to test... I have not seen any results yet that don't make sense which again is good news...

You can find the results at www.offa.org, go to seach the OFA database, put in Basenji and then Fanconi (in the report type)

[myran]

Yes it´s fantastic what a response there has been we have been sending tests from sweden and finland .Some answeres have been good and some bad.But i´m soooooo happy Myrans american dad Meisterhaus Tail of intrigue is CLEAR and so is his sister Meisterhaus Tears and Tantrums.

[tanza]

Yes it´s fantastic what a response there has been we have been sending tests from sweden and finland .Some answeres have been good and some bad.But i´m soooooo happy Myrans american dad Meisterhaus Tail of intrigue is CLEAR and so is his sister Meisterhaus Tears and Tantrums.

That is great news...

[basi]

I had the best news ever today with Kwames result coming back clear. I'm so glad the waiting is over, it was torture!!

[tanza]

I had the best news ever today with Kwames result coming back clear. I'm so glad the waiting is over, it was torture!!

Super news... WooHoo.....

[tanza]

And by the way all, there are over 840 now tests with the last ones that were just completed... I am still waiting for Kobey's sire's test... since his Dam is a Carrier, I am hoping that his Sire is Clear... hope we get them soon...

Just a note again that there has been a call by the Health Endowment for any dog that is already affected to submit their dogs asap for further research for the final test...

[JazzysMom]

I still haven't gotten results back on my dogs. The waiting is not fun, esp. since I have realized that I was mistaken about Jazzy's sire's results. He is not a carrier, but probably affected. Since her mom has Fanconi, it's a sure bet she's affected too. sigh.

Still hoping Keoki's clear, but I can live w/him being a carrier.

[myran]

Congratulations Basi on the good news.
Pat let´s hope the dad is clear these are tough times for breeders around the world but at the same time it´s good that we can have them tested so that we know with whom one can breed it´s not the end of the world just makes it a bit more difficult.I´m looking forward to next year when the real test should be ready.
I´m so sorry for the bad news Jazzys Mum there´s been similar kinda of news here in sweden and my heart goes out to all of them with affected dog´s let´s just hope they still can have a good life.

[Barklessdog]

but also sad to see that many of the prominate breeders have yet to test


I would hope in the future that people getting dogs would demand to see breeders results before purchasing a dog.

[nomrbddgs]

MOST responsible breeders are testing. I would hope though, that this is used in conjuction with the pedigree. This test is not 100% yet. Although close, it's still a probable test and not a 100% that a dog will develop fanconi symptoms. It's still a reasearch game.

[Quercus]

<<It's still a reasearch game.>>

What is a research game?

[nomrbddgs]

They (the team that is doing the ongoing fanconi research) is still trying to perfect the test. THAT to me is a research game. When the test becomes a positive 100% match test and no longer a probable test, then, and only then should it be relied on 100%. Anything less gives it a highly probable-but still probable-chance of the test being wrong. While the current test is highly indicative of the odds being correct it's still not 100%. Again this is IMO. An excerpt from the Basenji Health Endowment site states:

This is a new test. We can report that all of the double-blind samples used for validation fell into one of the four categories (normal, carrier, affected, indeterminate) and that approximately 75% of the samples that tested affected were already known to be affected and none of the samples that tested normal were known to be affected, or had parents that were known to be affected. About 10% of the samples tested returned an indeterminate result.

Hope you don't think I'm nuts, but I'm leary considering 10% is indeterminate. This means to me out of every 10 dogs 1 may or may not be affected.

[lvoss]

The number of indeterminates is currently at 4% of the dogs tested and has held consistently at this number once we had a significant number of tested dogs. It is also important to understand that an indeterminate results is not caused by the test not functioning it was actually designed in such a way that the researchers would be able to tell if the markers may have broken away from the gene.

[Quercus]

I guess I just didn't understand why you called it game....

The indeterminantes are between clear and carrier...not affected at least so far. As long as you breed an indeterminant to a clear, it should be fine. At least the way I understand it.

That being said, I am putting my faith in this test...but I am not ready to declare it "perfect" yet. Time will tell...and I think every reasonable breeder feels that way as well...

There does seem to be some possiblity that there are dogs that are testing out as affecteds and carriers by the test, and the genetically inherited pattern, but are not symptomatic at least yet. Which is great for them, and their owners/breeders, and a mystery to be unraveled. But I have not heard of any dogs which tested clear and developed symptoms.

[tanza]

MOST responsible breeders are testing. I would hope though, that this is used in conjuction with the pedigree. This test is not 100% yet. Although close, it's still a probable test and not a 100% that a dog will develop fanconi symptoms. It's still a reasearch game.

There have been over 800 Basenjis tested and there is not one result that has come back that an affected produced a clear or that a clear produced an affected. While it is a linkage test, I think the results are pretty much right on ... and what we do not know about Fanconi is that there could be lots of Basenjis that have the genes for Fanconi and never develope the symptoms...
As far as I am concerned it is 100% right on. Not to say that if I had an affected that I would not re-test

[nomrbddgs]

Again, (I knew I would get shot at) this is MY OPINION. This test is stated by the people who developed the test that this is not 100%. Not every dog that has the Fanconi gene will develop symptoms. I have never said that. In fact there are a lot of dogs who will probably never develop symptoms. MY OPINION is that this is a complex recessive gene. Not a simple recessive gene. The results are not right on if there is an even 1% chance of indeterminate. As I said when they develop a test that is 100% right ALL of the time with no indeterminate then I will wholeheartedly rely on the test. Also this test was just put into practice this year. A new test (no matter what kind of test) will always have a few bumps and kinks. If this is a simple recessive then of course the offspring will not produce it. However, if this is a complex recessive gene it could, theoretically, disappear throughout generations and then suddenly pop up. I have always (when dealing with gene therapy) have said never say never. As I have said before - YOU have your opinion; I have mine. I will still practice being safer than sorry. For me, to place my trust in a new test that has been stated NOT to be 100% accurate is not for me. I will use this test, however I will also always look at the background pedigree.

[tanza]

Again, (I knew I would get shot at) this is MY OPINION. This test is stated by the people who developed the test that this is not 100%. Not every dog that has the Fanconi gene will develop symptoms. I have never said that. In fact there are a lot of dogs who will probably never develop symptoms. MY OPINION is that this is a complex recessive gene. Not a simple recessive gene. The results are not right on if there is an even 1% chance of indeterminate. As I said when they develop a test that is 100% right ALL of the time with no indeterminate then I will wholeheartedly rely on the test. Also this test was just put into practice this year. A new test (no matter what kind of test) will always have a few bumps and kinks. If this is a simple recessive then of course the offspring will not produce it. However, if this is a complex recessive gene it could, theoretically, disappear throughout generations and then suddenly pop up. I have always (when dealing with gene therapy) have said never say never. As I have said before - YOU have your opinion; I have mine. I will still practice being safer than sorry. For me, to place my trust in a new test that has been stated NOT to be 100% accurate is not for me. I will use this test, however I will also always look at the background pedigree.

A simple recessive gene can disappear and pop up generations later, just look at the Tri gene... so I don't agree that this is a complex recessive

And judging results we have seen so far, good luck in looking at pedigrees, while people have been doing pretty darn well I believe that the luck would have turned drastically to the bad side. Judging by the amount of carriers, IMO... in 5 years if we had not had this test we would be over run with Fanconi dogs. And what makes you think that there will not be a "+/-" factor with the direct test?

[lvoss]

The issue of expression or lack there of is separate from the inheritance of the gene itself. There is much new research into what was previously called "junk" DNA because it did not code for proteins and is therefore not part of "genes" but it has now been found that these sections of DNA do hold the key to the on/off switches for genes. It may be many years before scientists know why there is variable expression of Fanconi Syndrome in basenjis that does not mean the linkage test is not correct nor does it mean that when a direct test is available there will not be dogs that have two copies of the gene but it will not get turned on, that does not make the test inaccurate.

Also the "tri" gene does not disappear for generations, it is not expressed but it is still passed down. It takes 2 copies of the gene for expression to occur and the best way to think of the variable expression of Fanconi is to think of it like how we get different expressions of "tri" like Barred, Capped, Muddy, and those who lack all tan points. All of them are genetically "tri" but there are other modifiers completely separate of the "tri" gene at work. The same thing may also be true of Fanconi but you can still get rid of the disease in the population by preventing any individuals with 2 copies of the gene from being born.

[Quercus]

<<Again, (I knew I would get shot at) this is MY OPINION>>

Just because someone doesn't understand your point, or disagrees with your opinion doesn't mean you are being shot at!

I was looking for clarification on why you called research a game....I still don't understand, but IMO the word "game" gives the indication that you think it is some sort of conspiracy, or mystery, or something not to be taken seriously.

Personally, MY opinion is..that I will put my money on science and research any day...

[tanza]

I believe that since there have been over 800 tests done and the results have shown to be true that we can trust this test... I can tell you that I am rethinking many dogs that in the past I would not have given the time of day to for breeding.

Certainly it is better then what we had before July 2007...

[tanza]

And to just add that I trust the test more that I trust pedigrees or what others tell me.... this backs up the word.... no more "not in my line"... thank goodness... now they have to put their money where their mouth is....

[nomrbddgs]

I do trust the test- to a point. I just want to what is behind it that MAY have produced a problem. I would not trust what a person says when they say "I've never had a fanconi problem". They may have produced a dog as a carrier and not known it. And I know of a few "high end" or "popular" breeders who have a multitude of dogs and list one dog as sire but that is not the actual sire.

And yes, I agree that no test is technically 100% but if they say the test is 100% then it sould be dang close. I call all research a 'game' Andrea, because there is nothing to say that one thing could not be done by one team and be right. (if that makes any sense) There have been numerous instances when a team is looking for one thing and stumbles onto something else. It reminds me of rats in a maze. They chase the ultimate end and what is the result is used in other tests. It's a big circle. I don't think it's a conspiracy, mystery, or that there is a hidden agenda. But all research chases an end result. And don't forget, research can be flawed. Look what happened with the Thalidamide babies. The teams researched and tested and 10 years after they started giving women this drug for morning sickness it was finally linked to deformations. There are many other instances as well, THAT is why, IMO, it's better to combine researches than just to rely on one test.

And you're right Pat. I have been rethinking dogs as well that I may have used previously. And if they resist having the dogs tested, then you kind of wonder why they don't want to test. This may indicate a problem only they are aware of and I, personally would not want to deal with the person then.
If it's a question of money, then I would want to work with the person, if the dog in question is what I really want.

I'm definitely not saying that I don't trust the test, or I wouldn't use it. But, I want to know what could be behind that dog that may cause a problem.

[YodelDogs]

I can tell you that I am rethinking many dogs that in the past I would not have given the time of day to for breeding.

Same here! This new test has opened up a whole list of stud prospects that I would have never considered prior.


It is also important to understand that an indeterminate results is not caused by the test not functioning it was actually designed in such a way that the researchers would be able to tell if the markers may have broken away from the gene.

Lisa is correct. Indeterminate results are due to a particular dog's genes not being completely readable and NOT due to the test itself.

[Itzyu]

This test is stated by the people who developed the test that this is not 100%.


Virtually no medical test is 100%. The test was listed as preliminary to distinguish it from direct tests (tests for the actual gene) which are nearly 100% and are arguably the most accurate tests you can get.


MY OPINION is that this is a complex recessive gene. Not a simple recessive gene.


I haven't, to date, seen any evidence does not fit simple recessive. Is there a particular reason for your belief?


The results are not right on if there is an even 1% chance of indeterminate.


I think you are misunderstanding what indeterminate means, as it does not suggest that the results are "not right on." Indeterminate means one of the 3 markers has crossed over - no more and no less - and means that the dog's DNA state cannot be determined using this test. It is not a testing error.



As I said when they develop a test that is 100% right ALL of the time with no indeterminate then I will wholeheartedly rely on the test.


I agree that a direct test is better, but no test is 100% right all of the time - even direct tests have the potential for lab error. All medical tests (not just DNA tests) have false positives and false negatives. Many of the medical tests we humans rely on are less accurate than the marker test.

[khanis]

Well, I agree with Lisa, Lisa and Pat....
I'll take the 10% IND results (yes, we got a few of those) along with the other results.... quite frankly I would have preferred IND over some of my affected results...
What can I do with an IND dog? use it bred to a clear until the mutant gene test is available.
Until then, we obviously have no issues since we (as a kennel, Mom and I) tested 30 dogs (both intact and altered pets) since the test became available.
Those NOT using the test are NOT breeding wisely, as it (that nasty recessive mutant gene) is there, and many bloodlines that have been tauted as *clean* have popped up with both carriers and affecteds.

[tanza]

Well, I agree with Lisa, Lisa and Pat....
I'll take the 10% IND results (yes, we got a few of those) along with the other results.... quite frankly I would have preferred IND over some of my affected results...
What can I do with an IND dog? use it bred to a clear until the mutant gene test is available.
Until then, we obviously have no issues since we (as a kennel, Mom and I) tested 30 dogs (both intact and altered pets) since the test became available.
Those NOT using the test are NOT breeding wisely, as it (that nasty recessive mutant gene) is there, and many bloodlines that have been tauted as *clean* have popped up with both carriers and affecteds.

Well put Kathy... and if you look at the results (over 800 now on OFA site) and the number of carriers... this to me shows that breeders have been trying their best to breed healthly dogs in regards to Fanconi, but without this linkage test... IMO... we would have been in a world of hurt in just a few years.... Now we can rid our breed of Fanconi... forever!!!! And on top of that still keep the gene pool....as there is no reason to throw out dogs now if responsible breedings are done. Kudos to those that are testing.. and shame on those that are not....

[JazzysMom]

Hmm, I see Keoki's results are in -- have been posted for over a week, but nothing still for Jazzy.
Why would that be -- the blood was sent in at the same time.

[tanza]

Hmm, I see Keoki's results are in -- have been posted for over a week, but nothing still for Jazzy.
Why would that be -- the blood was sent in at the same time.

They run x numbers of tests at one time.... so it is totally possible that Keoki's was in the one batch, Jazzy's were not... they don't look at who sends them in, they just fill up the test trays.... and some get bumped for ones that are breeding this year..

[dmcarty]

For those who are commenting on those who have not used the test yet. I am one of 'those' but since I have no breedings planned - it seeme prudent to wait until those who were breeding or had bred recently got their stuff done. I haven't bred a litter in 4 years (maybe 5, I forget).

I like to think that others are waiting, like me.

[JazzysMom]

I was told.... so it's not "from the horse's mouth" but I thought a reliable source...that the testing was originally geared for those currently breeding, but has since opened up for everyone. IF that's true, then you're probably good to go any time.

But again, I'm going on what I was told.

[dmcarty]

BUT - if I'm not planning on breeding until POSSIBLY next fall - why not wait a bit and see if the full test becomes available before then? I know that there are folks who are just not going to test, some we know, some we don't some we know are puppy mills, some are just obstinate :) I just want folks to stop and think that there are some of us just waiting - no reason to test right now and if a more complete test is going to be available - why not wait.

[tanza]

I was told.... so it's not "from the horse's mouth" but I thought a reliable source...that the testing was originally geared for those currently breeding, but has since opened up for everyone. IF that's true, then you're probably good to go any time.

But again, I'm going on what I was told.

That is true, but as test requests come in... people that have marked "breeding this year" will get "pushed" up on the testing.... and some taken off till the next run.... It is and has been open to anyone... just depends on your needs to see where/when the test needs to be included...

[Quercus]

BUT - if I'm not planning on breeding until POSSIBLY next fall - why not wait a bit and see if the full test becomes available before then? I know that there are folks who are just not going to test, some we know, some we don't some we know are puppy mills, some are just obstinate :) I just want folks to stop and think that there are some of us just waiting - no reason to test right now and if a more complete test is going to be available - why not wait.


Right...no NEED to do the test if you aren't breeding this year. I did all of mine, just because I couldn't stand the not knowing. But I had some pretty high risk dogs here, and I wanted to know, regardless of whether or not they are being bred this year.

[lvoss]

I tested because I felt it was important information for my puppy buyers to have.

[tanza]

BUT - if I'm not planning on breeding until POSSIBLY next fall - why not wait a bit and see if the full test becomes available before then? I know that there are folks who are just not going to test, some we know, some we don't some we know are puppy mills, some are just obstinate :) I just want folks to stop and think that there are some of us just waiting - no reason to test right now and if a more complete test is going to be available - why not wait.

I think that because many of us have "scary" pedigrees or in the case of a rescue, unknown pedigrees, personally, I would want to know.. and that is why I tested... to be sure and let my puppy people know what the status is....

[navyman]

Out of curiousity, I downloaded the OFA FS data into Excel and computed a few basic statistical results, as follows:

Total sample: 875
Males: 412 (47.1% of sample)
Females: 463 (52.9% of sample)
Total AFS: 66 (7.5% of sample)
Males AFS: 32 (7.8% of Total Males)
Females AFS: 34 (7.3% of Total Females)
Average age of Basenji with AFS tested: 4.7 years
Total CARRIERS: 333 (38.1% of sample)
Male CARRIERS: 169 (41.0% of Total Males)
Female CARRIERS: 164 (35.4% of Total Females)
Total Indeterminates: 29 (3.3% of sample)
Male Indeterminates: 15 (3.6% of Total Males)
Female Indeterminates: 14 (3.0% of Total Females)

Although I recognize that this OFA sample is hardly a statistically significant and accurate representation of the basenji population at large, I was still stunned by the percentage of carriers identified at 38.1% of the tested population.:eek: It's not really a wonder that 7.5% of the sample turned out to be AFS, which is roughly consistent with the 10% estimated FS incidence rate that has been mentioned over the years. Another thing that was clear is that the gender appears to have no bearing whatsoever on any of the 4 possible types of results...in other words, both males and females are equally susceptible to being AFS, carriers, indeterminate, or normal/clear.

What this analysis means to me personally is that since my male tri, Buddy, is a Hofer pup, and it is very probable that his Sire, Hofer Sniffer, was either a carrier or AFS, I am a bit more concerned now that his Dam has a good chance (i.e., 38%) to have been a carrier.:( Even though I'm not a breeder, and Buddy is neutered, for my peace of mind, I need to get Buddy's DNA sent into the lab asap to get his probability of AFS determined.

[tanza]

Also of note is that the number of AFS would really be much higher if many of the dogs that are already spilling had or are tested... so that % IMO is off because of this fact. So I think that the 10% might be somewhat higher.

And I am not surpirsed by the number of carriers..., in fact I am surprised that we don't have more affected... What it tells me is that breeders for all these years did a pretty good job trying to "do the right thing" in regards to breeding. Another thing that has been really a positive is that the entire Basenji community has come together, there has been no finger pointing, no "I told you so"... everyone has been supportive to people that have not had good results... and I am so very glad that it is an open data base. I wish that Hip results were open also....

[navyman]

Also of note is that the number of AFS would really be much higher if many of the dogs that are already spilling had or are tested... so that % IMO is off because of this fact. So I think that the 10% might be somewhat higher.

And I am not surprised by the number of carriers..., in fact I am surprised that we don't have more affected... What it tells me is that breeders for all these years did a pretty good job trying to "do the right thing" in regards to breeding. Another thing that has been really a positive is that the entire Basenji community has come together, there has been no finger pointing, no "I told you so"... everyone has been supportive to people that have not had good results... and I am so very glad that it is an open data base. I wish that Hip results were open also....

Tanza,

I now understand why you asked me in another thread how & why I thought Buddy's Dam was likely to be clear. Before my analysis of the OFA data, I had no idea how prevalent the gene was in the breed.

Your intuition and experience about stating that it is remarkable that there aren't more AFS based on these stats makes perfect sense based on some further simple statistical analysis (i.e., Punnet Squares) below. I computed the simple probability of each type of result assuming the use of OFA data only, doing pairings on a strictly random basis, and for the sake of simplicity, assuming that the 3.3% of indeterminates are clear. The results imply that responsible breeders have done the basenji community a great service in reducing the actual probabilities by removing the "random" factor with responsible (as far as could be done) pairings.

(Disclaimer: stats below should not be construed as reflecting probability for the overall basenji population at large. Please feel free to correct me on any noted errors):

* Probability of pairing a AFS to an AFS: Less than 1% (.06) (All offspring would be AFS).

* Probability of pairing a carrier to an AFS: 2.9% (probability of 50% of offspring would be carriers and 50% AFS)

* Probability of pairing a carrier to a carrier: 14.5% (probability of offspring being 25% clear, 50% carrier, 25% AFS)

* Probability of pairing a carrier to a clear: 20.7% (probability of offspring being 50% carrier, 50% clear)

* Probability of pairing a clear to AFS: 4.1% (probability of 100% offspring being carriers)

* Probability of pairing a clear to a clear: 29.6% (probability of offspring being 100% clear)

[lvoss]

I would just like to repeat that if any one owns a clinically diagnosed Fanconi Affected dog and has not submitted a blood sample to the Canine Phenome Project, please do so. If the cost of drawing and shipping the blood is the deterrent, see if there is a blood draw clinic planned for your area sometime soon. Dr Johnson's one request from the basenji community at his presentation was that anyone with a clinically diagnosed Fanconi Affected dog who has not already submitted blood do so because they need those samples to find the actual gene. If you submit blood from a clinically diagnosed Fanconi Affected be sure to write on your form that the dog has been diagnosed as Fanconi Affected, spilling sugar, blood gases, etc. You will not be charged for the marker test.

[Quercus]

I would just like to repeat that if any one owns a clinically diagnosed Fanconi Affected dog and has not submitted a blood sample to the Canine Phenome Project, please do so. If the cost of drawing and shipping the blood is the deterrent, see if there is a blood draw clinic planned for your area sometime soon. Dr Johnson's one request from the basenji community at his presentation was that anyone with a clinically diagnosed Fanconi Affected dog who has not already submitted blood do so because they need those samples to find the actual gene. If you submit blood from a clinically diagnosed Fanconi Affected be sure to write on your form that the dog has been diagnosed as Fanconi Affected, spilling sugar, blood gases, etc. You will not be charged for the marker test.


I think this part needs to be repeated, because I didn't realize that until Dr. Johnson's talk. The MORE Fanconi affected samples they have, the easier and quicker it will be to isolate the actual gene that causes Fanconi..and that will result in a less expensive, more accurate, easier to execute test for all of us.

[tanza]

Tanza,

I now understand why you asked me in another thread how & why I thought Buddy's Dam was likely to be clear. Before my analysis of the OFA data, I had no idea how prevalent the gene was in the breed.

Your intuition and experience about stating that it is remarkable that there aren't more AFS based on these stats makes perfect sense based on some further simple statistical analysis (i.e., Punnet Squares) below. I computed the simple probability of each type of result assuming the use of OFA data only, doing pairings on a strictly random basis, and for the sake of simplicity, assuming that the 3.3% of indeterminates are clear. The results imply that responsible breeders have done the basenji community a great service in reducing the actual probabilities by removing the "random" factor with responsible (as far as could be done) pairings.

(Disclaimer: stats below should not be construed as reflecting probability for the overall basenji population at large. Please feel free to correct me on any noted errors):

* Probability of pairing a AFS to an AFS: Less than 1% (.06) (All offspring would be AFS).

* Probability of pairing a carrier to an AFS: 2.9% (probability of 50% of offspring would be carriers and 50% AFS)

* Probability of pairing a carrier to a carrier: 14.5% (probability of offspring being 25% clear, 50% carrier, 25% AFS)

* Probability of pairing a carrier to a clear: 20.7% (probability of offspring being 50% carrier, 50% clear)

* Probability of pairing a clear to AFS: 4.1% (probability of 100% offspring being carriers)

* Probability of pairing a clear to a clear: 29.6% (probability of offspring being 100% clear)

Those are correct and also if you go to the health endowment site they are posted there also... but thanks for posting that here also. It is good for all B owners to see and learn about Fanconi.... Right now the Indetermine as to be consider as carriers until we have a direct test. I do know of one Indetermine that has sired an affected.

[tanza]

I think this part needs to be repeated, because I didn't realize that until Dr. Johnson's talk. The MORE Fanconi affected samples they have, the easier and quicker it will be to isolate the actual gene that causes Fanconi..and that will result in a less expensive, more accurate, easier to execute test for all of us.

Yes, Lisa, thanks for post this again... it is very important that affected dogs be sent in to help develop the direct test....

[navyman]

Those are correct and also if you go to the health endowment site they are posted there also... but thanks for posting that here also. It is good for all B owners to see and learn about Fanconi.... Right now the Indetermine as to be consider as carriers until we have a direct test. I do know of one Indetermine that has sired an affected.

You mean to tell me I wasted my time punching a calculator this morning??? ;) Oh well, at least I gave myself a basic stats refresher course :D. So far, my Hofer tri male, Buddy, is passing his monthly strip testing.

[khanis]

* Probability of pairing a AFS to an AFS: Less than 1% (.06) (All offspring would be AFS).

* Probability of pairing a carrier to an AFS: 2.9% (probability of 50% of offspring would be carriers and 50% AFS)

* Probability of pairing a carrier to a carrier: 14.5% (probability of offspring being 25% clear, 50% carrier, 25% AFS)

* Probability of pairing a carrier to a clear: 20.7% (probability of offspring being 50% carrier, 50% clear)

* Probability of pairing a clear to AFS: 4.1% (probability of 100% offspring being carriers)

* Probability of pairing a clear to a clear: 29.6% (probability of offspring being 100% clear)

Actually, if you want to get technical, these are not really accurate.
For example, when you breed a carrier to a carrier, you do not get the above percentages....
what should be known is that EACH pup has 25% chance of being clear, 25% chance of being affected, and a 50% chance of being a carrier.
That is quite different than how it is stated above.

These percentages can be figured by using a Punnett Square... or reading the Fanconi FAQ.

In regard to the % of Affecteds on the database, it is WAY OFF compared to the number of affecteds out there. I know of at least a dozen affecteds, if not close to two dozen, that are NOT on the database. Many have samples in the CPP, but just not on the database. Having them in the database does not assist in the researchers finding the gene. It just tells everyone who the affecteds are, or are not.

Many folks know of a few of my dogs that are affected. I had probably the largest sample of dogs in the final testing phase for the linkage test. Are any of those on the database? Some of them. For those that are affected, I know they are affected, and seeing them on the database will not change their life in any way. It basically gives others a reason to point fingers. Been there, done that.

For those affecteds that I know of that don't have samples in...
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I am tired of trying to advocate to these people for health research...
I've even given their names and contact info to Jon Curby in hopes he could twist their arm. I doubt it. Those kind of folks find it easier to hide their head in the sand and *deal with it themselves.*

Best of luck on your Hofer boy's linkage test results.

[khanis]

I meant to add, that my Benny (the handsome boy up in the corner) strip-tested clear until 3 weeks before his 9th birthday (I tested him at the request of Jon Curby, as they were ready to run assays and he wanted verification that my non-affecteds were still non-affecteds).

[lvoss]

I believe that spreading the word in as many basenji venues as possible can only help. Even if it only informs 1 person who sends in a sample that means we are 1 sample closer to finding the gene for the disease.

If anyone has a clinically affected Fanconi dog, please consider submitting a sample of blood to the Canine Phenome Project, http://www.caninephenome.org. It is by participating in research like this that every basenji owner can help to ensure that the basenji breed will survive for many generations to come. I very much like the old BHE fundraising campain, The Reason Why, which showed a basenji puppy. That is the reason for participating and helping in any way we can, for the health of our next basenji.

[WBL]

I sent Tiggy's sample in on Thursday so just now the sit around and wait game

[myran]

Myrans mum´s results came back as clear and his dad is also clear :)Now to a stupid question wouldn´t it be on the safe side to test Myran just incase as the marker test isn´t 100%.

[tanza]

Myrans mum´s results came back as clear and his dad is also clear :)Now to a stupid question wouldn´t it be on the safe side to test Myran just incase as the marker test isn´t 100%.

With two clear parents, I would not spend the money to test until there is the direct test, which we hope will be by this time next year. From what I have seen of the results to date, they have been right on what I would expect to see. Any of mine that have clear/clear parents, I have not tested the kids.....

[tanza]

With two clear parents, I would not spend the money to test until there is the direct test, which we hope will be by this time next year. From what I have seen of the results to date, they have been right on what I would expect to see. Any of mine that have clear/clear parents, I have not tested the kids.....

That said, I will qualify that if you are going to use Myran for breeding, then I would test... but if not, again I would wait for the direct test.

[myran]

Thanks Pat Myran will be used for breeding but not before he´s 2 yrs old atleast and has passed his thyroid,eye´s and hip´s etc....And proven himself worthy to be a stud dog.

[tanza]

Thanks Pat Myran will be used for breeding but not before he´s 2 yrs old atleast and has passed his thyroid,eye´s and hip´s etc....And proven himself worthy to be a stud dog.

In that case I would not be very concerned about doing it.... I would wait for the direct test....

[navyman]

Actually, if you want to get technical, these are not really accurate.
For example, when you breed a carrier to a carrier, you do not get the above percentages....
what should be known is that EACH pup has 25% chance of being clear, 25% chance of being affected, and a 50% chance of being a carrier.
That is quite different than how it is stated above.

I'd be the first to admit that stats isn't my forte, but I wanted to be sure I understood what you were referring to, whether it was the lexicon (i.e., "EACH pup") or the punnet square percentages (i.e., 25%/50%/25%) or the odds of pairing a carrier to a carrier?



In regard to the % of Affecteds on the database, it is WAY OFF compared to the number of affecteds out there. I know of at least a dozen affecteds, if not close to two dozen, that are NOT on the database. Many have samples in the CPP, but just not on the database. Having them in the database does not assist in the researchers finding the gene. It just tells everyone who the affecteds are, or are not.

What can people do beyond submitting samples in the CPP to assist researchers?


It basically gives others a reason to point fingers. Been there, done that.

It's unfortunate when people feel the need to point fingers, especially for a situation where, up until the recent past, it has not been possible for anyone to determine with absolute certainty the presence of the gene in any of their dogs. All of our energies should be focused on the future for a solution to the greatest threat to our beloved breed.


For those affecteds that I know of that don't have samples in...
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
I am tired of trying to advocate to these people for health research...
I've even given their names and contact info to Jon Curby in hopes he could twist their arm. I doubt it. Those kind of folks find it easier to hide their head in the sand and *deal with it themselves.*

I certainly hope none of these people you are referring to are breeders. I can somewhat sympathize with that feeling as my wife and I have found it frustrating at times as a foster family to try to advise a couple of adopting families to get their B tested for a medical condition (ex: hypo after dog showed extreme weight gain).


Best of luck on your Hofer boy's linkage test results.

Thanks very much. I am hoping that Buddy was lucky enough to dodge the bullet.

[tanza]

Many are breeders, some even would be considered "responsible" if you were to ask others.... There are some breeders that say the Fanconi test is a "fraud".... there are still breeders that say "not in my lines".... but do not test... there are ones that have affected that will not send in blood so that we can get the direct test...
As far as pointing fingers...yes there are some, but I have to say, a lot less then I expected.... maybe because it is an open data base, so what is the point and also that many that "used" to be the ones pointing fingers now are dealing with the reality of carriers and affected Basenjis....
I wish they would make OFA for hips open also... so that people that hide bad hips couldn't.... and I know of two such breeders....

[dmcarty]

Geez Pat - I've been trying for years to hide hips - would actually like to do something about the spare tire around my middle and then there are those wrinkles...... Oh you meant dog hips - me bad! :)

[myran]

I can´t see any gain in hiding results or breeding inadequate dog´s one day it will bite you in the rump ;)I´m not a breeder but my logic say´s there is no shortcut to success.

[tanza]

I can´t see any gain in hiding results or breeding inadequate dog´s one day it will bite you in the rump ;)I´m not a breeder but my logic say´s there is no shortcut to success.

I agree, but there are people out there that don't believe that... even to the point of breeding Basenjis with bad hips... their reason/excuse??? OFA doesn't know what they are looking at... "my Vet" thinks they are fine... Sigh....:confused:

[dmcarty]

I do have an odd OFA story though - I had 2 males done at the same time. The vet and I laughed that you could put one over the other and it looked like one dog. Didn't matter whose was on top.

I got the results on one but not the other - I waited and waited and finally called and got the lecture of different people reading etc etc etc. I suggested that they might want to check in the dogs folder where I did get results and sure enought there were the films - unread. So I did get them read. Now keep in mind these films were about as exactly the same as they could be. One had one rating and one the other - to this day - I don't know which films were read or how hips that were so alike that it looked like one x-ray could have different ratings.

Any process that requires human decision making is subject to human falicies however that is not an excuse not to do whatever we can to ensure producing healthy animals.

[Quercus]

Many are breeders, some even would be considered "responsible" if you were to ask others.... There are some breeders that say the Fanconi test is a "fraud".... there are still breeders that say "not in my lines".... but do not test... there are ones that have affected that will not send in blood so that we can get the direct test...
As far as pointing fingers...yes there are some, but I have to say, a lot less then I expected.... maybe because it is an open data base, so what is the point and also that many that "used" to be the ones pointing fingers now are dealing with the reality of carriers and affected Basenjis....
I wish they would make OFA for hips open also... so that people that hide bad hips couldn't.... and I know of two such breeders....

I wish we had a DNA test with an open data base for hip dysplasia as well...so we wouldn't have to be guessing as to how it is inherited and have finger pointing and gossip regarding breeding decisions.

Personally, I try to stay away from finger pointing completely. Breeders all make choices...and it is easy for someone to say "well, I would never do that!" when that particular issue hasn't touched their program. Even if I intensly disagree with a particular breeding, I don't assume that I know what a breeder is thinking, and the thoughts that went into the decisions that they have made. If it is important to me, I will ask the breeder directly, instead of making assumptions based on second or third hand information.

I tend to think that bad breeding decisions tend to be self-correcting, as Myran stated. You can't hide bad genes for very long.

Regardless...innuendo and rumoring only make things more confusing for the average joe trying to find a responsible breeder. Responsible breeders make choices about risk in all facets of breeding. When we don't know how a disease is inherited, it makes the risk much greater...but most breeders don't 'throw the baby out with the bath water' to coin an oft used phrase. If breeder is doing a riskier breeding regarding a health issue, they are obligated to put the health of the brood bitch first, to diligently test and cull (thru neuter) offspring, and to let prosepctive puppy buyers know of the risks...but IMO not obligated to be skewered and slandered by their peers.

[tanza]

Well put... Andrea... especially your last note "Skewered and slandered by their peers....

And you are right, most bad decisions are self correcting, but at what price? Especially with something like Hips... this particular breeder is local to where I live, so I have intimate knowledge of this particular dog...

[lvoss]

If breeder is doing a riskier breeding regarding a health issue, they are obligated to put the health of the brood bitch first, to diligently test and cull (thru neuter) offspring, and to let prosepctive puppy buyers know of the risks...but IMO not obligated to be skewered and slandered by their peers.
This is a good quote and I think the biggest problem that I have with breeders who choose to do risky breedings is when they are not honest with the prospective puppy buyers about the risks of the breeding. I have seen some scary pedigrees with not just high risk of 1 disease but multiple and the puppy buyers are not informed about the risk or have been told it "is no big deal".

[Tiva]

Actually, if you want to get technical, these are not really accurate.
For example, when you breed a carrier to a carrier, you do not get the above percentages....
what should be known is that EACH pup has 25% chance of being clear, 25% chance of being affected, and a 50% chance of being a carrier.
That is quite different than how it is stated above.

I know litter were both parents are carriers. Two of pups are clear, the other two are not tested yet.

[navyman]

I know litter were both parents are carriers. Two of pups are clear, the other two are not tested yet.

Theoretically, a litter from two carriers could end up with all clear or all carrier, or all affected...however, the odds are against that. The laws of probability lean, on average, towards the 25/25/50 percentage mix.

[tanza]

Theoretically, a litter from two carriers could end up with all clear or all carrier, or all affected...however, the odds are against that. The laws of probability lean, on average, towards the 25/25/50 percentage mix.

And why Carrier to Carrier breedings should never happen..... The fact that you can produce an affected should stop anyone from doing a Carrier to Carrier....

[navyman]

And why Carrier to Carrier breedings should never happen..... The fact that you can produce an affected should stop anyone from doing a Carrier to Carrier....

That's absolutely right...I cannot fathom why anyone would even risk a form of genetic "Russian roulette" when it comes to the future health of our beloved breed?

Now that there's the linked DNA test, NO ONE has ANY excuse for breeding ANY basenji without first getting them tested, any more than one having a valid excuse to put a 1-bullet loaded revolver to their head.

[tanza]

That's absolutely right...I cannot fathom why anyone would even risk a form of genetic "Russian roulette" when it comes to the future health of our beloved breed?

Now that there's the linked DNA test, NO ONE has ANY excuse for breeding ANY basenji without first getting them tested, any more than one having a valid excuse to put a 1-bullet loaded revolver to their head.

Exactly... and well put......

[tanza]

OK that said... that shouid NOT stop a carrier to clear... or even for the right reasons a Clear to an Affected... that would produce a carrier.... we need to consider the entire gene pool and not throw things out... we have the test... and even producing carriers... by breeding the next generation you can breed out of even the carrier status... but then again you need to understand that breeders need to be aware of the DNA status and keep in touch personally and with a contract their puppy buyers.

[YodelDogs]

I know litter were both parents are carriers. Two of pups are clear, the other two are not tested yet.

Was this litter bred before or after the DNA test was made available?

[dmcarty]

You know where I'm having trouble with this whole DNA thing is this - I have done so much pedigree research on so many dogs asking the questions digging through the rumors that when I see a dog that is 'clear' where I KNOW there is a lot of documented fanconi - I still couldn't bring myself to risk it.

For example when you look at Hip displasia - if EVERY puppy in 2 litters was x-rayed you would be better off to breed to the Fair puppy in the litter of Good/excellent than to breed to the Good puppy in the litter of poor or fail. Has to do with how that is passed on.

I think - even with the DNA for Fanconi - until we have some longitudinal data I would still err on the side of caution so would not consider breeding to a clear if I know there was a lot of fanconi behind him or her. That's just me - but I couldn't - at least in theory.

[lvoss]

With over 1000 dogs now tested, there has not been a test result so far where a dog that has tested as an affected has produced a "clear". Just because a pedigree is loaded with Fanconi producers does not mean that it can not produce a clear but as was already posted in this thread the odds are not in your favor but it can still happen. When 2 carriers are bred together each puppy has a 1 in 4 chance of being clear. So far the results that have been posted to OFA are very much as one would expect. There are families of Fanconi producers that tested with many carriers, some affecteds, and some clears. This is exactly what would be expected from the punnet square predictions.

[tanza]

I agree Lisa, I too have not seen any results that are not expected... Documented Fanconi is not the same as have the gene to express it... and as pointed out Carrier to Carrier have a 1 in 4 of clear, 1 in 4 of affected and 2 in 4 of Carrier...

[Tiva]

Was this litter bred before or after the DNA test was made available?

Before. Pups from that litter are now adult dogs.