I am glad to hear of her improvement. Sometimes we live with dogs and don't see the changes they start so slow. It's good to make it a habit to actually inspect them monthly. I hope she keeps improving but as Sally said, too much weight gain isn't good.
Blaze's Test Results
-
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
-
I am thrilled it sounds like some additional safety nets are being set in place.
I am curious though, if the refreshed report is linked to the OFFA data base test results how is information effected by "incorrect" results.
See link; http://www.offa.org/display.html?appnum=1287969#animal
According to the article written in the Bulletin (actually by the disclaimer written below the article) this dog has retested Prob Affected, yet you can see his results on the OFFA data is still Prob Carrier. I suppose I am just a bit concerned about accuracy of the refreshed report if data is not accurate over all.
I would also wonder if you have any numbers to quote regarding results of dogs too young to challenge the accuracy of the marker test. If out of the total number of dogs tested a large percentage are young puppies under 1yr they really can't be counted as accurate yet can they?
Just curious how the numbers you have quoted are gathered.
Thanks in advance for any clarification you can offer.
Therese Leimback
FoPaw's Basenjis -
Hey Therese, When I went to the link you included it says the dog is p. Affected as the final conclusion. His OFA number has CAR in it still but the final result says p. affected.
-
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
Jon, since Dr Gonto's own dog HAS fanconi, and is from probable clear and probable carrier, your response confuses me.
EDIT: Actually the testing on his dog's parents may not be certain so I shouldn't have mentioned that one. But we have heard of others. I never expected the test to be perfect, and I won't quit strip testing my probable clear or probable carrier until there is a DNA test. But I sure am grateful for the linkage test and work done.
-
Linda,
That's been changed since the last time I checked, maybe someone updated it or maybe this new refresh thing did it? Either way glad its fixed.
Therese -
Jon had done a spread sheet that showed offspring test results that had tested Sires & Dams.
I was going to ask if we could see a copy of it, but since he gives the results guess not necessary.. however, would still like to.
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.
JonOkay, after getting a couple of decent nights sleep, I realize a few things.
First, this relates ONLY to testing pa/pcarrier/pclear. Do you have any stats on dogs that tested PCarrier or PClear that developed Fanconi, such as Steve Gontos dog. If so, when retested, did the results stay the same or were they retested?@Therese:
I am thrilled it sounds like some additional safety nets are being set in place.
I would also wonder if you have any numbers to quote regarding results of dogs too young to challenge the accuracy of the marker test. If out of the total number of dogs tested a large percentage are young puppies under 1yr they really can't be counted as accurate yet can they?
Just curious how the numbers you have quoted are gathered.
Thanks in advance for any clarification you can offer.
Therese Leimback
FoPaw's BasenjisI am happy to the system is in place.
But for the rest, confused (not uncommon). The results relate to testing accuracy, not development of fanconi, I am pretty sure, so what does age have to do with it? -
@Therese:
Linda,
That's been changed since the last time I checked, maybe someone updated it or maybe this new refresh thing did it? Either way glad its fixed.
ThereseStill is misleading with the CAR status in the OFA number. If you were just looking at the listing of Basenjis tested by Number, without opening the dog's record, you would be lead to believe that dog was a Carrier?
-
Debra,
I think the comment about age (puppies under a year) can not be counted as accurate yet is because Fanconi is late onset, so if they were to develope Fanconi, it would not be know now. But not sure if that is what you are asking?
