Very good link, thank you for sharing it 🆒
Blaze's Test Results
-
Yes, I agree with Therese, could be that there was a lab error. Seeing that there is a carrier on both sides of the grand parents, could be there was an error on the sire and dam too. I would be interested to hear the answers to Therese's questions as I am sure many others here would be too.
-
@Therese:
Hi Linda,
Did the lab let you know the results did not match the parents testing? I assume the lab (certainly the OFFA) has the data base linked to Blaze's parents and the mismatch shows up when they post results, so I was curious if they notified you regarding retesting or what the procedure is.I got absolutely no communications from the lab until I received the OFA certificate in the mail yesterday. I was expecting them to contact me via email, as I thought others had said they'd been contacted via email with their test results, but perhaps I'm not remembering correctly.
At any rate, I've emailed Liz Hansen at the lab, so it will be interesting to see what kind of response I get back.
-
From what I understand, Jon Curby is already aware of the results not being what is expected. You might want to email Jon also "Jon Curby"
-
Linda,
I'm surprised, I guess I thought that the data base at OFFA would catch these kinds of things and they could retest or double check. I'm not a lab expert so what do I know. I hope for Blaze and his breeders sake its just a mix up and will be straightened out. Good for you for staying on top of it and contacting the lab.
Good Luck Blaze!
Therese -
From what I understand, Jon Curby is already aware of the results not being what is expected. You might want to email Jon also "Jon Curby"
Will do.
I would guess that Tari has also contact Jon?
She said she was going to contact Jon concerning how to go about having the tests double checked. I'm not sure if she meant just Blaze's test or all three of the Basenjis involved.
As far as the emailing of results, did you happen to check your junk/spam mail? I seem to remember a couple of times my results ended up in there....
I do check my junk folder once a day or so just for those rare legitimate emails that get sent there. I never noticed one from OFFA, but I supposed if there were 30, 40, or more junk emails when I checked, I could have overlooked it.
-
I would think that they will retest the sire and dam, along with any other siblings to start with. And also re-test your boy.
Hopefully it will get sorted out….. -
Yes, I agree with Therese, could be that there was a lab error. Seeing that there is a carrier on both sides of the grand parents, could be there was an error on the sire and dam too.
Depending on how long ago the parents were tested, I'd think a retest would be a great idea.
I wonder if OFA actually has a computer program set to to note such unexpected results? Somehow I doubt it, but please please contact them with heads up as these are the kind of things that will help them refine the testing and sure as heck is critical for statistics.
@Therese:
Linda,
I'm surprised, I guess I thought that the data base at OFFA would catch these kinds of things and they could retest or double check.
ThereseBecause this is a linkage tests, these things WILL happen. Remember, Gonto's own dog tested probable carrier, but has Fanconi. EDIT: I thought the dog was definitely from a probably clear/probable carrier, but seems parents' status may not be confirmed.
How long did it take, Linda? I sent in Arwen's and Cara's last Monday, shows delivered WED, yet OFA web site has them as delivered yesterday. I am wondering if that means the results, or if they actually took that many days just to log them in?
-
How long did it take, Linda?
I mailed the swab on Monday, May 9. It was received at OFFA on Wednesday, May 11. I received the results by mail yesterday, May 31…so 3 weeks from the time they received the swab to the time I received the test results.
I did check online once (don't remember exactly when), but there were no results posted. Then I forgot all about checking online again, so don't know if the results would have been available to me there.
-
I've emailed Rose Marie Holt from BCOA, Liz Hansen from the lab, and Jon Curby at OFFA regarding Blaze's test results. Rose Marie sent me a return email thanking me for letting BCOA know of the inconsistent results. I haven't heard anything yet from either Liz or Jon.
However, Blaze's breeder did hear from Jon after she contact him. Here is a portion of the email I received from her:
he replied that the questionable test was already reported to him and the puppy and the parents tests are going to be retested this week. He said that to date, 1100 tests have come back as questionable because of the same type scenario and all the retests have cleared up the question by finding an error on the parents' tests or the retest on the pup came back as clear the second time. He said to date, only 2 retests have remained with the same results and to date are unexplained.
Since nothing was said about sending out new swabs, it sounds as though they save a portion of the swab card that was sent to them so that they can do retesting.
I'll be interested in finding out the results!
-
I've emailed Rose Marie Holt from BCOA, Liz Hansen from the lab, and Jon Curby at OFFA regarding Blaze's test results. Rose Marie sent me a return email thanking me for letting BCOA know of the inconsistent results. I haven't heard anything yet from either Liz or Jon.
However, Blaze's breeder did hear from Jon after she contact him. Here is a portion of the email I received from her:
he replied that the questionable test was already reported to him and the puppy and the parents tests are going to be retested this week. He said that to date, 1100 tests have come back as questionable because of the same type scenario and all the retests have cleared up the question by finding an error on the parents' tests or the retest on the pup came back as clear the second time. He said to date, only 2 retests have remained with the same results and to date are unexplained.
Since nothing was said about sending out new swabs, it sounds as though they save a portion of the swab card that was sent to them so that they can do retesting.
I'll be interested in finding out the results!
Hi LindaH,
I'm sure the retesting will give some better insight into what is going on. Did I read your post right that 1100 tests were previously called questionable before being cleared up with retesting?
Thanks,
Clay -
Did I read your post right that 1100 tests were previously called questionable before being cleared up with retesting?
I copied and pasted a portion of the email I received from Blaze's breeder which she had received from Jon. The 1100 number was from Jon, not from me.
-
I copied and pasted a portion of the email I received from Blaze's breeder which she had received from Jon. The 1100 number was from Jon, not from me.
Thanks. I'm still hoping someone made a typo in there somewhere. That is a large number.
-
Thanks. I'm still hoping someone made a typo in there somewhere. That is a large number.
You and me both Clay…...
-
Scary, that is a huge number. And would that number just be based on those breeders/owners who were dedicated enough to question the results?
Anyone here familiar with lab testing? What could be causing these high numbers - compromised swabs?
-
I think that maybe something got lost in the translation between Jon and Tari…. Jon had done a spread sheet that showed offspring test results that had tested Sires & Dams. I believe if I remember right, that contained 1100 entries, so I think that maybe that is where that number is coming from, not that 1100 tests came in with unexpected results and had to be retested.
At least I hope that is what that number was..... I am seeing if I can confirm that.
-
Scary, that is a huge number. And would that number just be based on those breeders/owners who were dedicated enough to question the results?
Anyone here familiar with lab testing? What could be causing these high numbers - compromised swabs?
My guess is that is a typo, maybe from Jon. That number is odd because if you download the database there are only about 1100 dogs which have been tested and have had both parents tested. So that would be almost every one of those dogs potentially. I would find that hard to believe.
-
My guess is that is a typo, maybe from Jon. That number is odd because if you download the database there are only about 1100 dogs which have been tested and have had both parents tested. So that would be almost every one of those dogs potentially. I would find that hard to believe.
That is why I think that Jon meant that out of those 1100 (I think the number is 1160) that had sires/dams tested they only had a couple of results that were not what was expected.
-
Okay if only 2 dogs had unexpected results that were not explained, that is phenomenal.
But I simply don't believe even most of dogs tested got retested. Maybe I am wrong? If it is right though, that really does say a lot for the test.
That said, I wonder if Dr Gonto has retesting on the sire/dam of his affected (no need to retest the affected!!) or if that is one of the 2?
-
Whoops, wrong thread. Weird.
-
Linda said "He said that to date, 1100 tests have come back as questionable because of the same type scenario and all the retests have cleared up the question by finding an error on the parents' tests or the retest on the pup came back as clear the second time"
This statement is NOT correct at all. The 1100 tests she is referring to are those where we have tested both parents and those results show NO cases where normal parents have produced carrier or affected offspring, No cases where normal to carrier breedings have produced test results indicating affected offspring and No cases where affected parents have produced normal offspring.
We have a report that is refreshed every day to flag inconsistent results and that starts a procedure to track down the reason. So far the few cases in that situation have proven to be caused by either misinterpretation of a result or mishandling of samples at some stage of collection and DNA extraction. In one case it was found that the dog in questions pedigree was incorrect.
Jon
