I will keep my fingers croosed for a great answer…
I find all of this fanconi stuff fascinating, and confusing!
Maya is from 2 CLEAR parents but i was advised by people on here to have her tested anyway (breeder advised that too) just to be sure, but in theory she should be clear… Correct...??
Maya, that is what I understand as well. Two clears can only produce clear BUT I will have my boy Otis tested too, even though he came from two clears..
In theory yes, she should be clear. But if she were mine I would still have her tested.
I find all of this fanconi stuff fascinating, and confusing!
Maya is from 2 CLEAR parents but i was advised by people on here to have her tested anyway (breeder advised that too) just to be sure, but in theory she should be clear… Correct...??
Yes that is correct, she should be clear in theory… but again, I agree since there is no clear by parentage... it would be good to have her tested. Not only that, as many of us have said before... it is good to have as many tested and in the data base as we can. It validates the test and the test results no matter what the results since this is a linkage test and not the final direct test.
She should be clear but it is best to test anyway. Mutation can happen or in a few cases they have found a dog to have had an erroneous test result when an offspring result has come back incompatible with the parent results.
And they have also had results that are erroneous compared to the sire and dam… in at least one of those cases, it was found that the sire and dam could not be the parents of that offspring. (DNA for parentage with AKC)
I think there have been very few of those "off" results.. and I don't think it is fair to count the "off" ones [i.e., like Medjai's parents] when you can't trust that the breeder tested the dogs said to be tested [which obviously isn't true since we know that Medjai is affected].
We have a bitch that "tested" as a Carrier.
We will admit we weren't strip-testing… our mistake.
Her coat recently was going to crap.. so we took her in for a thyroid panel.. which was low..and a urinalysis was done also as Mom thought she had a UTI.
Unfortunately she did not.. she was spilling sugar.
Mistakes happen, so I am not upset about that...
I am actually thankful that the results we got were not "clear" and her have been a carrier [and had been bred to a Carrier – that would have totally sucked].
The boy she was bred to is a Clear, so all pups were Carriers [one IND, which we know isn't a possibility now that we know she is Affected].
If you have a dog that you aren't breeding, I don't see a hurry to get the test done if they are from TWO clear parents. Or even from a CLEAR/IND or CLEAR/CARRIER breeding.
I do plan to get my OFA number for all my clears before they are bred, as I want 'written proof' that I have had the testing done.
It is true that the number of mistakes has been few but one of the ways they have been caught is because there was multi-generational testing. My mom is another who got back inconsistent results. After backtracking it was determined that at some point his sample was switched with another dog's sample so all dogs in that set were resampled.
I would have rather had her results…
my sweet Funny is spilling and thin and we hope the best for her.
I am sorry about Funny. I really hope that we have a direct gene test soon.
I pray that the direct test will soon be developed so that all breeders and owners can be satisfied and possibly Fanconi will be eventually eliminated.
Theoretically I believe, Fanconi could crop up at any time as it is a mutant gene so I assume it would be best to check all Basenjis if they are to be bred from. Ivoss, is this correct ?
Khanis - I am so sorry to hear about Funny - you must be devastated - I feel for you.
Khanis, I am so sorry to hear about Funny.
My question is why even breed carriers to clears? Why not just try to elliminate all carriers thus only clears will be left. Needless to say affecteds should never be bred, not even to clears ..I realize that the gene pool is very small and that we have very few clears in the country to choose from( as far as a genepool), but maybe we should try to import more from Africa. They ones that are imported from Africa are they tested once they get here or do "they" do testing in the field so sick dogs are not even brought in? I hope my questions make sense.
That coupled with popular sire syndrome, which still occurs, caused a rise in incidence of Fanconi. There is more than just Fanconi Syndrome that a breeder has to consider. Hip Dysplasia is on the rise in our breed, we also have PRA, IPSID, hypothyroidism, and luxating patellas. It makes no sense to eliminate dogs that are carriers for Fanconi but have good hips, normal thyroids, good patellas, healthy eyes, and a pedigree of tested relatives that all have the same. Making breeding choices based on only one trait that can be avoided by sensible breeding could very well lead to the end of the breed.
There are not many places left in Africa that have populations significantly isolated enough to be purebred basenji. Then there is the expense and the fact that the situation in Africa is unsettled so it is not always safe to travel there. It is not feasible to test in the field, results take a minimum of 3 weeks to receive results for the two disorders that we have DNA tests.
The best thing for the breed is for breeders to slowly breed away from the disease. That means breeding their Carriers and in some cases even their Affected males to Clears until they get Clear offspring with the other traits that they are seeking to preserve.
I realize that the gene pool is very small and that we have very few clears in the country to choose from( as far as a genepool), but maybe we should try to import more from Africa. They ones that are imported from Africa are they tested once they get here or do "they" do testing in the field so sick dogs are not even brought in? I hope my questions make sense.
Actually, that isn't right…I believe percentage wise of the basenjis that have been tested...the highest percentage are clears, followed by carriers, followed by affecteds. I'm sure Lisa or Pat will come on later with what those percentages are.
BCOA members have been going to the congo as recently as 2 years ago bringing back basenjis. The current state of affairs in the congo caused a recent trip to be postponed, I believe. Now that the stud book is re-opened, providing the situation in the congo improves, there will be more trips to bring more basenjis back. My understanding is that none of the basenjis (Avongara & Lukuru) that have been brought back from Africa have tested affected...I might be mistaken, but I think that all those that have been imported and tested have been clear. I remember hearing something about at least one Avongara developing PRA though...
Lisa & Pat will fill in the blanks I'm sure.
Actually, that isn't right…I believe percentage wise of the basenjis that have been tested...the highest percentage are clears, followed by carriers, followed by affecteds. I'm sure Lisa or Pat will come on later with what those percentages are.
I have not checked recently what the exact percentages are but there are a good number of Clears. Affecteds will always be under represented as people are not going to test dogs already spilling. There are also some breeders, though a small number, who are breeding Untested to Clear rather than testing.
What I meant with the statement that the genepool is small, is that if we only use probably clears for breeding then eventully inbreeding will become common, right? I also understand the fact that there are so many other things to deal with besides Fanconi and yes it would be detrimental to the breed to only breed away one ailment. How many (if at all possible to ballpark) pure Basenjis are there in Africa?
I highly suggest reading Dr Jo Thompson's part of the the BCOA Petition to Open the Stud Book. I think it will answer some of your questions about imports and our genepool.
http://www.basenji.org/NativeStock/Application/BasenjiStudbookPetition.pdf
What I meant with the statement that the genepool is small, is that if we only use probably clears for breeding then eventully inbreeding will become common, right? I also understand the fact that there are so many other things to deal with besides Fanconi and yes it would be detrimental to the breed to only breed away one ailment. How many (if at all possible to ballpark) pure Basenjis are there in Africa?
No one would have any idea how many purebreds are in Africa, so can't really even begin to ballpark, IMO… remember when people have gone over, like Dr. Jo and Jon Curby (and they went to different parts).. they had to pick puppies that they believed represented the Basenji Standard and came from a remote enough area to consider these were not mix village dogs. There are some that have been brought back that IMO are truly only nice mixed village dogs and do not have Basenji type.
I also agree that we need to careful breed Fanconi out of our pedigrees... and until we have a direct test, continue to test and offspring will verify the test of the parents or show where there could have been errors made... And I totally disagree about using affecteds on clears.. I think we need to perserve all the lines we can of our breed...
I'm not sure if can take a guesstimate on number of basenjis in africa…for a couple of reasons...the area is extremely remote and as civilization and the war encroaches on the area, the numbers of what are considered real basenjis are lowering, I'm afraid. That is one reason there was an urgency about getting the stud book re-opened...the window of opportunity is closing.
