Longtime member, not active. Had a basenji with the same diagnosis back in 2004. He took a tremendous amount of bicarb each day, his Fanconi was being well managed, but he started having seizures at night. Our vet gave us something to stop the seizure that we'd administer rectally. We kept track of the number of seizures and they started becoming more frequent, to about twice a week, if I recall. The final seizure he had he went temporarily blind and howled and howled and we knew that was it was time. I just sat on the floor with him and cried. A couple months later we looked at photos we had taken of him right before and he looked very, very tired. Very much the hardest thing we had ever done was to let him go across the Bridge, but after looking at those photos, we had done the right thing. Our vet had told us that it was possible he would have a seizure and not come out of it, and we certainly didn't want that.
OFA Fanconi Results
-
<
-
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...
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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....
-
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. -
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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...
-
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.
-
I tested because I felt it was important information for my puppy buyers to have.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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....
-
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)
-
