# Breeder Question



## toffeebars (Mar 24, 2013)

We are considering Gotta Be Goldens in Ontario, NY for a new puppy. Their website is quite extensive with pedigrees and clearances for each dog listed. However, the last litter claims to have not been planned. The female dog isn't two years old yet and therefore doesn't have all her clearances yet. I would not get a dog without clearances, but wondered if this is a red flag regarding this breeders practices.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Accidents do happen. I would contact the breeder and ask about the sire and dam. You can also check the health history behind the mother using Orthopedic Foundation for Animals. 

That said, where did you see this on their website? The only litter I could find is due May 31st, and the mother of that litter is 3 years old.


----------



## toffeebars (Mar 24, 2013)

The puppies from the litter in question were born March 5, 2013 and the website has removed the information because the puppies are all spoken for and will be going to their new homes this week. It was clearly noted that the dam is not yet 2 and will be evaluated when it is safe to do so. We did talk to the breeder yesterday about a future litter with two other dogs that have their clearances. I didn't ask her about this previous litter because they were spoken for. I just wonder if I should be concerned that she bred a bitch too early without proper clearances. Gotta be Goldens has been praised on this forum.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Assuming it was an accident, it wouldn't bother me. Accidents do happen to the best of us  

If both parents of the current/coming litter have all 4 clearances, and a good history behind them, I wouldn't be concerned about the accidental litter. Actually, I give her kudos for being upfront about having had an accidental litter.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

As for the accidental breeding - the dogs don't know they should wait until they have their clearances. Both the boys and the girls are very devious and determined when the time is right. I have seen dogs destroy fences, scale 6 foot kennel panels, go thru windows, and even breed thru a fence (ouch). 

Having an accidental pregnancy does not indicate a poor breeder and it would not be a concern to me. I am reminded that one of the foundation field Holden's, AFC Holway Batty, was from an oops litter.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

I would just make sure she is not a breeder that always has accidental breedings. If she has 1 or 2, I would be okay with it. Does she have prelims in the girl?


----------



## sabrinamae12 (Mar 22, 2013)

Kuyani was from an "oops" litter by a respected breeder. Mom had clearances and dad was only a year and a half old. They were both part of a group that went out together, and an employee forgot Peaches had come into season. She put the normal group out together, Elaine looked out the window, and they were tied up out back. Of course, she had Frost's clearances done when he turned two, and it turned out he has excellent hips, and is clear/normal on everything from elbows to ichthyosis. Accidents happen. As was previously stated: the dogs don't know or care about clearances.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I would ask for the prelim clearances and also for ichthyosis. The more I read the more ichthyosis becomes a problem because even reputable breeders ignore it - I would not be surprised if it will become a must shortly. I was recently contemplating a puppy from a litter. The dam was a carrier but when I looked at the Sire he was not tested. The moment the breeding took place also the ichthyosis info on the dam disappeared from the website. 
Rose comes from an opps litter but if there are more than one opps litter I would have major second thoughts.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> I would ask for the prelim clearances and also for ichthyosis. The more I read the more ichthyosis becomes a problem because even reputable breeders ignore it - I would not be surprised if it will become a must shortly. I was recently contemplating a puppy from a litter. The dam was a carrier but when I looked at the Sire he was not tested. The moment the breeding took place also the ichthyosis info on the dam disappeared from the website.
> Rose comes from an opps litter but if there are more than one opps litter I would have major second thoughts.


 
The Ichthyosis is a hot button for me. Many old time breeders look at it is a minor incovenience. After all, it is only dandruff - right? Unfortunately, the degree that a dog can be affected is huge. No symptoms at all to life altering scales. At the point that the flakes first appear they are little white flakes thru the hair on the puppies. It does not look like much to bother over. As the dog matures and thru it's adult life the disorder can manifest itself very differently. 

The other problem is that this gene is EVERYWHERE in the Golden population. One parent has to be clear in order for me to consider a breeding.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I, personally do not understand why breeders do not do all of the Optigen testing that they can. In theory, you do not even have to stop breeding affected dogs that have something to offer to the breed. You just have to make sure that you only breed them to clears. My current intact girls are clear for two forms of PRA and icthyosis... I tested them even though it was highly unlikely to be carriers or affecteds based on pedigree.


----------



## toffeebars (Mar 24, 2013)

..........


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

I would not let the lack of ichthyosis testing stop me from working with a reputable breeder who is doing all the testing included in the AKC COE. Especially if you trust them and they are telling you that they have never seen this issue in their lines. Yes, it is testable and it is a valuable tool. I do not want to marginallize the experiance that owners with highly affected dogs have shared. Read their stories and balance that againt those that have found affecteds only through testing to make your own decision. 
One day, every breeding dog out there will probably test positive for some thing as new genetic tests are being devised as we speak. So, following the AKC COE as outlined by folks with knowledge, experience and the health of our breed at heart, is what I look for. Additional testing is great, but we must be cautious as we move forward that we do so carefully and this is why our COE is not being changed as these new test arrive. If there were a test that was effective for a wide spread, critical diseases, proven to be accurate I am sure it would be added. So, in the future we may see genetic tests in the COE if the trigger genes are found for SAS, PU, or Dysplasia. In the mean time I will not disparage a breeder for following the COE of their country.
Good luck in you puppy search. We will of course need photos of you new bundle of fur!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Well the good news about testing for PRA (both types) and icthyosis in Goldens is that you, in theory, could still breed affecteds if you know the testing results...


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> Well the good news about testing for PRA (both types) and icthyosis in Goldens is that you, in theory, could still breed affecteds if you know the testing results...


Precisely! And with the fact that all three forms of PRA for which there are now tests (prcd-PRA, PRA1 and PRA2) and Ichthyosis are recessive in MOI, not having witnessed affected dogs in your kennel does not mean you do not have carriers. The very thoughtful breeding program that produced Daphne (who was the affected used to find the marker for prcd-PRA) had bred on the same bloodlines for generations before the wrong set of matching genes lined up in her!

The prevalence of the Ichthy gene is very high, and it is appearing in all sorts of bloodlines--UK/European, Am Show, and Am Field. With American lines, you could conceivably justify not doing the PRA1 or PRA2 as they seem to be primarily linked to UK/Euro lines, but Ichthy is everywhere. Of the 248 dogs listed in GoldenDNA (a site where owners can submit their results for verified listing--an more dogs have been tested than are listed as it requires owner submission), 126 are clear. The other 49% of the submitted population are 24 affected and 98 carrier. A vet friend here recently had a baby puppy come into her clinic who was having the worst case of outbreak she has ever seen--so bad she hardly knew what to advise the owners to do (unfortunately purchased from a Mennonite farm where even with this information testing will not be done and the parents will most certainly be used again.)


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I would happily choose a puppy from Gotta Be Goldens. She is very careful and selective about homes for her pups, and very supportive of her owners. She does all her clearances, and is active in the show ring and her club.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I am with Shelly in terms of testing for diseases with genetic markers.... Why are breeders reluctant to test? And why are breeders with CERF breeder options reluctant to post to OFA? Until we are all honest and upfront, the issues that dog us will continue..


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> I am with Shelly in terms of testing for diseases with genetic markers.... Why are breeders reluctant to test? And why are breeders with CERF breeder options reluctant to post to OFA? Until we are all honest and upfront, the issues that dog us will continue..



Because there are instances when the genetic testing is not correct. I know of cases of ICHT that have been confirmed by a pathologists report but the father is CLEAR. In this theory, that cannot happen. The worst that could happen would be that the offspring of this dog would be carrier's, even if bred to an affected female.

There is also now a dog who has the PRA gene that does not fit into any of the previous models so testing does not always yield the results that you believe that it will.

I also think it is quite the stretch to say that breeders who have "breeders options" on their dogs do not post them on the OFA website. Our dogs are posted, whether they have breeder's options or not. Some of them, with age(like my 14 year old) has an age related cataract. I am not trying to hide anything. A lot of goldens aren't even alive at that age to have an age related cataract. His mother was also posted when she was a month shy of 15 years old. She lived to be 16.

I do not think it does anyone any good to make blanket statements about breeders.

The fact remains that the DNA testing is not a part of the GRCA's COE and if and until it becomes a part of the COE, many breeders will not test for it.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I was not pointing fingers at anyone. These are my observations and I am not singling out anyone. I still think that doing as much testing as possible helps, not hurts the breed. And I know people who don't use seat belts because they know someone who died wearing one...

I have a friend who breeds labs. She is very conscientious. She told me that she doesn't post anything to OFA that isn't required by the parent club. She said that the reason for that is then other lab breeders will think that you are having issues with that area, and not realize that you are just trying to be more proactive. I always look at Gaylans website, where they are so upfront about everything.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

To the OP and topic at hand, the fact that it was clearly stated that it was an accidental breeding and that the bitch is underage is a good sign. I would think a breeder of ill-repute would try to conceal that fact if they knew that breeding underage shouldn't be a standard practice. 

Personally I would be wary about the litter in question without the input from someone a lot more knowledgable than me, because I don't feel confident enough in my own pedigree evaluation skills yet to make an educated decision about an underage bitch. 

However, I would also not dismiss a breeder altogether because of an accidental breeding--especially with the demonstrated honesty and up front information.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

"The fact remains that the DNA testing is not a part of the GRCA's COE and if and until it becomes a part of the COE, many breeders will not test for it."

I thought that the whole purpose of breeding it for the betterment of the breed by breeders who care about the breed.

Instead, I read about arguments as far as the COE is just a guideline and not a requirement when underage breedings happen and then this and this test is not a requirement when Ichthyosis is brought into the conversation. 
I have recently learned about this issue and couple weeks ago I had the displeasure to meet a dog with this issue. It was not a pretty sight. 
It is such an easy fix that it baffles me that it is disregarded. One cannot guarantee hip and elbow on the pups even with the tests in place; but one can certainly avoid these genetic issues by breeding carrier to non-carrier.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> "The fact remains that the DNA testing is not a part of the GRCA's COE and if and until it becomes a part of the COE, many breeders will not test for it."
> 
> I thought that the whole purpose of breeding it for the betterment of the breed by breeders who care about the breed.
> 
> ...


Saying that those who are not DNA testing do not care about the breed or the betterment of the breed is a big statement to be making. Breeding issues are very complex and unfortunately, breeding is not black and white and issues are not that simple. It may seem that way on the surface at times but each decision that is made has consequences in the gene pool.

No one cannot guarantee that these genetic issues with DNA will not surface even when testing. I would ask that you go back and read my previous post where I said that there are dogs who have tested CLEAR for ICHT that have offspring that have ICHT by a pathologists report.

New PRA genes also are being found on a regular basis. We tested one of our boys less than 2 years ago(and the information is not on my website nor is it on the OFA website however he is listed on goldendna.com) and now there are 3 tests for PRA and there has been recently been another dog that does not fit the other PRA models but does have the PRA gene, so there is probably at least one more form of PRA and probably more.

PRA will also show up on an eye exam. One of our first obedience dogs that we had purchased was affected with PRA(and it is posted that he was on k9data) He was diagnosed right before his 4th birthday. He was never bred so his genes did not continue on in the gene pool and this was long before there was any DNA testing going on.

And nothing when you are dealing with genetics is an "easy fix". As soon as you start to breed away from one thing, you will be faced with something else. This is what happens when you are selectively breeding. Genetics just isn't that simple. On every chromosome resides 100s and 100s of gene combinations. When you remove one gene combination, you will be breeding toward another and this is simple population genetics. When I first started in goldens, we only cleared for hips and eyes. That is no longer the case and that is not to say that the other issues were not a there, they obviously were but by selective breeding, these problems have become more of an issue. We have narrowed the gene pool to a point that there are only so many gene combinations left. Most goldens in the US descend back to a number of popular sires in the 70's and 80's.

There is nothing that can be done now to make the golden gene pool larger. We cannot go back and undo the past. We must look to the future and try to preserve the dogs that we have by taking calculated risks. There is no such thing as a "clean pedigree". All dogs carry some deleterious genes. There is no perfect dog and there is no genetically perfect dog. They all have risk factors whether it is a linebreeding or a total outcross. This is just the way that genetics works.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Not to derail, but since it was brought up here, I emailed Optigen. It sounds like there was one instance with one dog, where the parents were clear for icthyosis and a pup was affected. The response did not indicate whether a biopsy was done. Also, the response said that there might be other forms of icthyosis(much like PRA, I guess). Regardless, if there were genetic tests for all of the other things that plague our breed, I would do them, too. I did elbows in my dogs in 1997 long before it was recommended by the GRCA. And that dog's sire had them done when he was about 11, when it became the recommendation by the GRCA.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> Not to derail, but since it was brought up here, I emailed Optigen. It sounds like there was one instance with one dog, where the parents were clear for icthyosis and a pup was affected. The response did not indicate whether a biopsy was done. Also, the response said that there might be other forms of icthyosis(much like PRA, I guess). Regardless, if there were genetic tests for all of the other things that plague our breed, I would do them, too. I did elbows in my dogs in 1997 long before it was recommended by the GRCA. And that dog's sire had them done when he was about 11, when it became the recommendation by the GRCA.


There was a biopsy done. As I said, a pathologist report confirms the fact that the dog has ICHT. There is also more than one case of this being reported. 

I am not saying that DNA testing is a "bad thing". What I am saying is that it is new on the scene and there are many things to be worked out.

As to the remarks about the elbows, if you check my own dogs-Parkerhouse Irish Cream, CH Tuxedo's Sonic Levitation OS, CH Harborview Just U Wait OS BISS, BOSS and Harborview Just One Look all had their elbows done before it was a requirement with the GRCA's COE. However, there were other breeds of dogs who were already doing elbow clearances, such as labs and I am sure you can also remember that there was years of discussing before elbows were finally made a part of the COE. Labs were one breed who had been doing elbows long before we were.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Since we are dealing with genetics it can very well be that if Ich was present in one of both sides of the grandparents it will very well appear on in the pup even if the parents were clear. I am going on a limb here to assume that the probability of positive testing of clear bred with clear is much less than the probability of positive testing of clear bred with carrier. 
It may be a big statement but I am going with my personal opinions - I pull my Derby hat off to the breeders that at least try to follow thru with the DNA testing even if it is not a requirement. 
Nothing can be guaranteed in a pup but there are steps nowadays to at least try to make their lives better.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> Since we are dealing with genetics it can very well be that if Ich was present in one of both sides of the grandparents it will very well appear on in the pup even if the parents were clear. I am going on a limb here to assume that the probability of positive testing of clear bred with clear is much less than the probability of positive testing of clear bred with carrier.
> It may be a big statement but I am going with my personal opinions - I pull my Derby hat off to the breeders that at least try to follow thru with the DNA testing even if it is not a requirement.
> Nothing can be guaranteed in a pup but there are steps nowadays to at least try to make their lives better.


The point of the DNA testing is so that you do not produce affecteds. As Sally's mom stated, there is a known affected from two DNA CLEAR dogs. This should not happen and has been confirmed with a pathologists report. 

To each their own, but just saying you are going to go with your own opinions over what the geneticists have said-and that is that a CLEAR bred to a CLEAR cannot produce anything but CLEAR(let alone an AFFECTED) may not be the best path.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

So what would be the best path, test each pup at birth before placing it with a family because an affected was bred with an affected and then get the probability of affected offspring from there? Or do we wait another 10 to 20 years before all the genetic history will be in place for all parents, grandparents and great-grandparents out there?
Personally I would ask the pup to be tested if both parents were not tested prior to breeding.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> So what would be the best path, test each pup at birth before placing it with a family because an affected was bred with an affected and then get the probability of affected offspring from there? Or do we wait another 10 to 20 years before all the genetic history will be in place for all parents, grandparents and great-grandparents out there?
> Personally I would ask the pup to be tested if both parents were not tested prior to breeding.


There seems to be some misunderstanding on how the DNA testing works. If you breed a CLEAR to a CLEAR(which is what happened in the case that Sally's mom contacted Optigen on) you are supposed to get 100% clear offspring.

If you breed a clear to a carrier, you would get 50% clear and 50% carriers with NO affected.

If you breed a CLEAR to an affected, the worst you should even get in this case is a carrier and a carrier is not a dog that is presenting with the disease.

If there is more than one form of ICHT, which is what Optigen may now be saying, the DNA test that is available can tell you a dog is clear when it is actually affected so why would the breeder pay to have a puppy tested??


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Sally's Mom said:


> .... And why are breeders with CERF breeder options reluctant to post to OFA? Until we are all honest and upfront, the issues that dog us will continue..



I do not understand this question. CERF results are posted to OFA by CERF, not by breeders/owners. CERF posts ONLY dogs that pass, which includes "Breeder Option" cases. So all CERF "Breeder Option" clearances are automatically posted to OFA. The only results that are not are dogs that do not pass CERF and these same dogs are not posted on the CERF database - even if the owner wants it posted. Thee owner can however submit the "failed" CERF report directly to OFA to be included in their database. I do not recall if there is a fee for this.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

If a clear was bred to a clear and produced an affected pup that can only tell me that the history will go back to the grandparents on both sides of the parents. 
From what you are saying and Optigen is saying the science is not exact - well it cannot be exact until there is more history; that history cannot be obtained if tests are not done or otherwise dismissed because they are not required or the science is not quite exact.
It is a vicious circle! 

PS: I would still say that the probability to get an affected or carrier from breeding two clear dogs is much less then breeding a carrier to a carrier or clear to affected or the other combinations. 

Would really like Barb and Shelly's input on their thoughts on these combinations and Optigen's response!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

AmbikaGR said:


> I do not understand this question. CERF results are posted to OFA by CERF, not by breeders/owners. CERF posts ONLY dogs that pass, which includes "Breeder Option" cases. So all CERF "Breeder Option" clearances are automatically posted to OFA. The only results that are not are dogs that do not pass CERF and these same dogs are not posted on the CERF database - even if the owner wants it posted. Thee owner can however submit the "failed" CERF report directly to OFA to be included in their database. I do not recall if there is a fee for this.


I refer to dogs with breeder options who do not submit to CERF.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Jen, my comment about elbows was only in reference that I thought I should do them long before it was recommended. My comments, again, were not directed at you. There were actually directed at no one... Because I know that nothing in breeding is black and white....


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> If a clear was bred to a clear and produced an affected pup that can only tell me that the history will go back to the grandparents on both sides of the parents.
> From what you are saying and Optigen is saying the science is not exact -


Clear bred to clear should yield all clear puppies. If there is an affected puppy from a clear x clear parent- there is obviously another gene for Ichthyosis or a different mode of inheritance than previously thought, or a flaw in either the bloodwork or biopsy. 

A clear dog (RR) could have two clear parents, or two carrier parents (Rr), or one clear x one carrier. A carrier dog could have one clear x affected (rr), carrier x affected, or clear x affected parents. 

The only time you could get ichthyosis is from breeding carrier (Rr) to carrier or from breeding affected (rr) to carrier. 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

AmbikaGR said:


> I do not understand this question. CERF results are posted to OFA by CERF, not by breeders/owners. CERF posts ONLY dogs that pass, which includes "Breeder Option" cases. So all CERF "Breeder Option" clearances are automatically posted to OFA. The only results that are not are dogs that do not pass CERF and these same dogs are not posted on the CERF database - even if the owner wants it posted. Thee owner can however submit the "failed" CERF report directly to OFA to be included in their database. I do not recall if there is a fee for this.


The OFA will post results of dogs who did not pass an eye exam for no charge. They will also post results from previous years but there is a charge for that.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> Jen, my comment about elbows was only in reference that I thought I should do them long before it was recommended. My comments, again, were not directed at you. There were actually directed at no one... Because I know that nothing in breeding is black and white....


Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't saying that comments were directed at me. I was trying to illustrate that there were other breeders that were also doing elbows before it was a "required" clearance with the GRCA's COE so I was using my own dogs that were born in the 1990's to illustrate that fact.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Sally's Mom said:


> I refer to dogs with breeder options who do not submit to CERF.


Why would someone not submit a passing eye clearance to CERF just bc of a breeder option? Those things seem very minor, unless I have been missing something. For example, Lushie has distichia on one side, but I will still submit her eye clearance next week bc she is going to be bred. I don't think of it as something bad in her, just something not to double up on when breeding??? I can't imagine a puppy seeker passing on her litter bc of it, and if they did I would be fine with that. The hardest part of getting clearances up on OFA is finding time to go to the real snail mail post office. I never knew that people held breeder options back on purpose.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Why would someone not submit a passing eye clearance to CERF just bc of a breeder option? Those things seem very minor, unless I have been missing something. For example, Lushie has distichia on one side, but I will still submit her eye clearance next week bc she is going to be bred. I don't think of it as something bad in her, just something not to double up on when breeding??? I can't imagine a puppy seeker passing on her litter bc of it, and if they did I would be fine with that. The hardest part of getting clearances up on OFA is finding time to go to the real snail mail post office. I never knew that people held breeder options back on purpose.



Do not know why in the past someone would not, but I might understand today why that would occur. People are VERY quick to judge others without having all the facts - usually because they are not yet available. Take PU and Iris Cysts as an example. Being there MAY be a relationship between the two SOME folks believe a dog with iris cysts should not be bred to be SAFE. No ifs, ors and buts about it. The science does not support this yet but that does not matter. Some will not submit their dogs with iris cysts just to avoid the judging of these.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

That makes perfect sense. The forum really is great education. I never thought of that. I usually think if the eye clearance is missing that the breeder has it just fine, but is not making time to get to the post office(sympathize mildly) or the dog failed. I have a packet of eye clearances of dogs in my dogs' pedigrees with eye and heart clearances that are fine, but not on OFA. My dog Copley has a parent with PU, but his eyes are clear, no breeder exceptions or iris cysts. I still have him done every 6 months.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> Why would someone not submit a passing eye clearance to CERF just bc of a breeder option? Those things seem very minor, unless I have been missing something. For example, Lushie has distichia on one side, but I will still submit her eye clearance next week bc she is going to be bred. I don't think of it as something bad in her, just something not to double up on when breeding??? I can't imagine a puppy seeker passing on her litter bc of it, and if they did I would be fine with that. The hardest part of getting clearances up on OFA is finding time to go to the real snail mail post office. I never knew that people held breeder options back on purpose.


Distichia is not a minor issue, it is a hereditary issue and can lead to corneal ulcers and even blindness. 

Distichia or Distichiasis in Dogs | VCA Animal Hospitals


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> Distichia is not a minor issue, it is a hereditary issue and can lead to corneal ulcers and even blindness.
> 
> Distichia or Distichiasis in Dogs | VCA Animal Hospitals


And the dog still passes CERF with a breeder option--my girl has it one eye, she passed her exam and the Opthalologist said it was minor and not to worry about it--it was causing no issues to the eye. In this case, I trust a specialist as opposed to relying on an Internet article. My foster dog on the other hand with bilateral upper & lower entropian (GA backyard breeder, no clearances), he clearly is in discomfort and is at high risk of corneal ulcer--his surgery is tomorrow.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

The ophthalmologist that I go to says that in Goldens distichia is not a big deal. She says it is a big deal in other breeds like cockers. From my own experience, several of mine have had distichia at one time and then they never have them again. I have heard from long time breeders that they seem to shed with the coat shed. My guys that have had them have never gotten an ulcer and their eyes have never been irritated or runny.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

At Lushie's eye clearance, the board certified vet said it is no big deal, and may not even show in this upcoming clearance bc she will be in grown up coat and may have shed her little lashes with her puppy coat. The point of seeing a specialist is their expertise! I agree distichia of course can be severe in extreme or strange cases, but most often in goldens it is just one or two little lashes like for Lushie. When I picked Tally, his mom had distichia. When I asked my vet is that was an issue, she said absolutely not. You can always pick out the worst case scenario fron the worst case scenario breed, but the reason it is officially the breeder's option in goldens is bc it is fine. I am glad for the guidance of two master breeders with long histories of healthy long-lived dogs to help me make great decisions.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

since it is hereditary the issue will keep on being passed on until it becomes a bigger problem.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> since it is hereditary the issue will keep on being passed on until it becomes a bigger problem.


This simply is not true. Distichia is a problem in other breeds, such as cockers, like Sally's mom had said. There are other breeds, as well and in those breeds, it doesn't pass CERF. However, this is not true of golden retrievers. Distichia has been a breeders option in goldens for the over 20 years that I have been involved with the breed and it has not gotten worse.

In goldens, they are soft hairs that usually shed along with the rest of the coat. Sometimes they will be present and sometimes they will not be. If you were to double up on them, then you may wind up with an issue with them becoming worse but that has not been what has happened with goldens.

It is the Board Certified Ophthalmologists that decide what will be breeder's option for every breed. These are the experts in animal eyes. They meet(with the exam sheets of the eye exams tabulated) and decide if there are issues that are being seen in a particular breed and if that issue is becoming worse, or they are seeing it with increased frequency and there is a known link to another issue, then it will no longer be a breeder's option. However, this has not been the case with distichia. They have been a breeder's option in goldens for over 20 years. This is not showing that it is getting worse, or it wouldn't be a breeder's option anymore.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Just like ppm's (persistent pupillary membranes) are a breeder option for Goldens and have been for years, but are not passable in corgis and basenji's.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

AmbikaGR said:


> Do not know why in the past someone would not, but I might understand today why that would occur. People are VERY quick to judge others without having all the facts - usually because they are not yet available. Take PU and Iris Cysts as an example. Being there MAY be a relationship between the two SOME folks believe a dog with iris cysts should not be bred to be SAFE. No ifs, ors and buts about it. The science does not support this yet but that does not matter. Some will not submit their dogs with iris cysts just to avoid the judging of these.


Hank is absolutely correct about the iris cysts. There have been many dogs who have been diagnosed with PU who never had iris cysts on previous eye exams so science does not back up the "iris cysts" not being bred, which is why they are still a breeders option. There are also many dogs who have them on one exam and then on the next exam, they are gone or they don't progress from there. We are still a long way away from having real answers about PU and when the scientists don't have the answers, it is rather foolhardy for any of us to pretend that we do.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

An example of distichia going away is my Tiki. She has CERFed since before one year of age, so that is since 2005. In 2007, she showed one distichia. It seemed so inconsequential to the ophthalmologist that apparently she didn't feel the need to bring it up to me. It wasn't until I looked at the form later that i realized she had distichia. My memory could be wrong on this, but I don't think it has shown up since. She has been CERFed every year, including this year at almost 9. She did not have distichia this year either. Her daughter that I own and her daughter I co own plus her two grand kids I co own CERF clear, no breeder options.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> Distichia is not a minor issue, it is a hereditary issue and can lead to corneal ulcers and even blindness.
> 
> Distichia or Distichiasis in Dogs | VCA Animal Hospitals


The problem with generalized manuals like this is that they do not consider breed-specific distinctions. You have to look at recommendations by breed through ACVO. The CERF breeder option categories are there precisely to make this distinction. My Breeze is another who has had distichia. So tiny the optho can only see them under magnification, and causing no problems to her. They fall out and some years are not present on her exam. This is why conditions like it, and PPMs, and retinal folds are breeder option in Goldens. The statistics do not suggest that they are a hereditary issue. Now, in Labradors, retinal folds for example are non-CERFable, because in the Labrador they are linked with the gene for dwarfism, which they have established a heritable condition in the breed.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Sally's Mom said:


> Just like ppm's (persistent pupillary membranes) are a breeder option for Goldens and have been for years, but are not passable in corgis and basenji's.


But we have to further break down the PPM, are they iris to iris (not something to be overly concerned with, according to current research/professional opinion) or are they iris to lens (something that is of concern)? Iris to Iris PPM's are CERFable for Basenji's.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Yes, Goldens clear with ppm's iris to iris. I was just making a general comment...


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

As someone who is very much into the DNA testing, I have to say it is frustrating that so many in our breed see it as black and white. As with anything to do with breeding, DNA tests are tools, they are not decision makers.

Because of DNA testing we have been able to find (so far) three testable types of PRA, and still another that has been confirmed by an Optho, yet tested unaffected for the other three types. Because of DNA testing we have been able to find dogs that can be affected with one type, and carrier for another type.

As for ICT, my personal opinion, in the grand scheme of things I do not see it as a deal breaker, and before anyone thinks I haven't seen an ICT affected, I have, she is sitting on my couch right now. I do test for ICT though, I like having that tool. Of course, there can be different types of ICT, just as we have found in PRA. I have no doubt in a few years we will have ICT1, ICT2, ICT3 etc. If we need to only ever breed to clears for every thing we test for, Goldens, as we know them, will soon cease to exist.

DNA, x-rays, OFA, CERF, etc. are all tools to be used in pedigree research, mating research, trying to weigh the odds, trying to stack the odds etc., they are not to be the things used to make decisions. In my opinion anyway


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I will post this again. I contacted Optigen and their representative said they know of one pup with icthyosis whose parents were both clear. The implication being there can be a other form of icthyosis. Regardless, I think it is important to consider testing our Goldens for what we can test them for...


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I wonder how prevalent this situation is and what is the history behind the grandparents.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> I wonder how prevalent this situation is and what is the history behind the grandparents.


When dealing with simple recessives (which prcd-PRA, PRA1, PRA2, and ICT (the one we have a test for) all are), the grandparents do not enter into the equation in relation to results of their offsprings offspring. The buck stops at the current generation (sire x dam of the affected, carrier or clear).

ICT, by all appearances, is in every pedigree both 'American' and 'English'. The degree to which it manifests is extremely large with many many affecteds (again by appearances) never exhibiting symptoms. My bitch was one of them, she didn't exhibit any symptoms until a few months after she was spayed (leading me to believe, in her case, it was hormone driven). She was bred twice, both sires are ICT carriers (when she was bred the test was not available). The law of averages says there should be at least 1 affected in her offspring. None have ever had a flake.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I think recessive genes can certainly skip generations - dormant in the parents but active in the grandparents and therefore passed onto the grandkid. 
Another thought - were the parents related?


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

This may be helpful. Nothing mentioned about skipping generations. 

http://www.optigen.com/opt9_ichthyosis_gr.html


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> I think recessive genes can certainly skip generations - dormant in the parents but active in the grandparents and therefore passed onto the grandkid.
> Another thought - were the parents related?


No, simple recessives do not work that way. For a puppy to be affected they need to have two affected copies of the gene, one from the sire and one from the dam. 

For example, X = ICT affected Y = ICT clear

Sire is XY (carrier, he has one affected and one clear copy), Dam is YY (two normal/clear copies of the gene). Resulting off spring could be: XY (carrier, X from the Sire, and Y from the Dam) or YY (Clear, Y from the Sire and Y from the Dam).

If the Sire was XY (carrier, he has one affected and one clear copy) and the Dam is XX (affected, she has two affected copies of the gene) resulting offspring could be: XX (affected, X from the Sire, and X from the Dam), XY (X from the Dam (as that is all she is able to pass on) and Y from the Sire).

If the Sire was XY (carrier, he has one affected and one clear copy) and the Dam is XY(carrier, she has one affected and one clear copy), resulting offspring could be: XY (carrier, X gene from either the Sire or Dam, and Y gene from either the Sire or Dam), XX (affected, X from the Sire and X from the Dam), YY (clear/normal, Y from the Sire and Y from the Dam).

If the Sire is YY (clear, two normal/clear copies of the gene) and the Dam is YY (clear, two normal/clear copies of the gene) all resulting offspring would be: YY (clear, as the sire and dam only have Y (normal/clear) genes to pass on).

That is why it matters not what the grandparents are/were, but rather the current breeding generation (the Sire and the Dam).


----------



## sabrinamae12 (Mar 22, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> I think recessive genes can certainly skip generations - dormant in the parents but active in the grandparents and therefore passed onto the grandkid.
> Another thought - were the parents related?


In simple genetics, it is simply NOT possible for that to happen. When you breed clear, with a genotype for ich (RR) to another clear (RR), that means ALL offspring from that breeding can only receive uppercase R's, and should only be clears. The grandparents have absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that clearXclear has produced Ich affected means there is another strain with a different gene. Call it S, if you will. This means that either both parents are either carriers or affecteds for the NEW gene. Since the grandparents do not play an active role in current breeding, their DNA is not what is coded in the new puppies. Only the parents' DNA and genes come into play with simple four-way, punnet square genetics. That is how they have been able to selectively breed in desired characteristics and breed out the undesired ones. Trust me, I work in a genetics lab. My job depends on these facts.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Genes do not skip generations. A parent must possess the gene in order to pass it on to their offspring. If they do not have it they cannot give it. Why it may seem like things are "skipping" is that recessive conditions require a copy of the gene from BOTH parents in order for the condition to be expressed--they have to pair up and act in concrt to produce the disease. This means, that if carriers are bred to clears, none of the offspring will be affected but the gene can still be passed along. Even in a carrier to carrier breeding, statistically, some of the offspring should only get clear genes, and some only one carrier gene, as the Punnett square shows. In this way, the dogs phenotypically seem normal, while carrying the gene, and it can go on like this for generations before the probabilities catch up and an affected gene pairing (one from each parent) occurs. With no expressed symptoms of disease for so long, this can lead people to believe there are not issues in the lines. 

The other factor which can contribute to this non recognition of the conditions, is that many of the affected cases of ichthyosis are quite mild or asymptomatic. As Rob related, his girl did not show flaking until after she was spayed. I know of a number of other dogs for whom this was the case as well. So if being intact seems to suppress the expression of the disease, breeders would be more likely to have genetic affecteds who do not display symptoms because of the protective factor their hormones seem to offer. With the PRAs, it is a late onset disease that can have very slow progression, sometimes only first appearing after age 7, which in the past was when many people stopped doing annual CERFs as they believed it was beyond the time when juvenile cataracts would appear ( which years ago was most were concerned about and doing eye exams to detect) What people put down to vision deterioration associated with age, may very well have been undiagnosed PRA, never seen by an ACVO to diagnose it. So it is not like we have not had affected around with either of these diseases, they were just likely not identified in the frequency with which they actually occurred.

As Rob expressed so well, all of our testing, whether phenotypic(xrays, heart and opthonexams) or genotypic(DNA) is a _tool_ to make decisions in breeding programmes rather than an include/exclude for a dog in a breeding program. For some breeders, certain things may be a deal breaker based on their knowledge of issues in their pedigrees. If we tossed every dog who tested as a carrier for a DNA marker our breeding pool would shrink dramatically, and genetic diversity in our breed would be in serious trouble.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

look no further than the Mendelian Genetic Laws . recessive genes can skip generations.

Based on that - it is quite possible that the 1/4 Normal from Carrier to Carrier in Nairb's graph are actually carriers with dormant genes. Therefore that Dormant Carrier if coupled with a Carrier can produce an affected.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> look no further than the Mendelian Genetic Laws . recessive genes can skip generations.
> 
> Based on that - it is quite possible that the 1/4 Normal from Carrier to Carrier in Nairb's graph are actually carriers with dormant genes. Therefore that Dormant Carrier if coupled with a Carrier can produce an affected.


If by "skipping a generation" you mean not being expressed, you are correct.

However if you mean the DNA that makes up the gene itself disappears from the genome only to magically reappear the next generation, that is indeed impossible.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

drofen said:


> If by "skipping a generation" you mean not being expressed, you are correct.
> 
> However if you mean the DNA that makes up the gene itself disappears from the genome only to magically reappear the next generation, that is indeed impossible.


Which would mean that a dog can be affected but not display the physical symptoms, correct? That is why we test DNA versus looking for physical manifestations of the disorder before assuming a dog is clear, affected or a carrier, right? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Yes Drofen & goldenjackpuppy. The gene exists but it is dormant thus the "clear" results.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

I believe there you may be talking about "incomplete penetrance" but icthy has been presented to us as a simple recessive, so that should not apply. A simple recessive should either be, or not be, right? Unless it is not a simple recessive, or it is tied to other genes which cause it to be suppressed or expressed, or there is more than one type of icthy, with varying results for those affected.

SAS, for example, was long thought to be an autosomal dominant gene with incomplete penetrance, making it very hard to control. A dog could have it but, because of the incomplete penetrance, not express it. Physical exam would show the dog to be phenotypically normal, with a normal heart, but it would be genotypically affected.

Disclaimer-I am certainly NO expert in genetics.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

LOL Tahnee - I am no expert either - going my my old European Biology classes. I am getting a bit refreshed since my daughter is taking Biology now in High School. 
I am talking as a possibility that could explain what Sally's mom was emailed from Optigen.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Claudia M said:


> Yes Drofen & goldenjackpuppy. The gene exists but it is dormant thus the "clear" results.


I think this is just expressing that if the gene to have icthy is recessive, some individuals will inherit both the Clear and the carrier gene. The test would designate them as carriers. They will not have the disease but can pass the recessive gene along to their offspring. Two carriers bred together could thus each pass a recessive gene to their offspring, who would then test as Affected. BUT, two Clears can NOT produce the disease, since neither carries the recessive gene. Again, this assumes this test does what we have been told it does.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Which would mean that a dog can be affected but not display the physical symptoms, correct? That is why we test DNA versus looking for physical manifestations of the disorder before assuming a dog is clear, affected or a carrier, right?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


If the gene in question is a simple dominant/recessive where the recessive gene phenotype is the disease, then it follows the Mendelian genetic pattern discussed above. In that case there would not be affecteds not expressing the phenotype. There would be only clear, carrier, or affected with symptoms.

I suspect that the conditions being discussed in this thread aren't quite that simple. They certainly have a component that follows Mendelian genetics, but like so many other conditions they likely have a multifactorial cause. Whether that be multiple genes, or some factor that causes upregulation or down regulation of the expression of those genes remains to be seen.

I have painfully little experience in the canine world, and even less with the conditions being discussed--however genetics in general is a world I know a little more about. I would not call myself an expert by any means though, more of an acquired working knowledge. 

I'm pretty busy today with some seriously sick patients, so I can't do much more than offer general opinions at this point.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> Yes Drofen & goldenjackpuppy. The gene exists but it is dormant thus the "clear" results.


The gene cannot be dormant in this case. The geneticists have presented ICHT(and the different types of PRA) as a simple recessive and this is in fact the only MOI(mode of inheritance) that we have any DNA testing available for which is why I have said that DNA testing is in its infancy and there is still a lot more to be worked out.

Anyway, with a simple recessive, an individual either possesses a copy of the gene or they do not. It is not something that is "dormant" and then later comes into play.

To be an AFFECTED , the dog has to have a copy of the gene from both parents that gives them the disease. To be a CLEAR, the dog has not received a copy of the gene from either of the parents so the dog does not possess the gene at all. What we are talking about is CLEAR to CLEAR-this means the dogs did not possess the gene to be able to pass it along to offspring. There is no such thing in this case as something being dormant and then later expressing itself. So, the problem in this case is that the resulting offspring from two CLEAR parents would have NOT been given a copy of the gene. They cannot give something that they do not possess and to be CLEAR, they do not possess a copy of the gene. If they had a copy of the gene from one parent and the other parent didn't give them a copy of the gene, they would be a CARRIER.

The DNA status of the parents involved in this particular case is CLEAR. With a simple recessive, which again is how ICHT has been presented to us by the geneticists who have been studying the disease, means that neither parent has a copy of the gene to pass down. However, there has been an affected offspring. Which is why Optigen is saying there "may" be another type of ICHT.

This is how the genetics of a simple recessive work. What you are talking about is something with incomplete penetrance and that is not the MOI of ICHT.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

sterregold said:


> Genes do not skip generations. A parent must possess the gene in order to pass it on to their offspring. If they do not have it they cannot give it. Why it may seem like things are "skipping" is that recessive conditions require a copy of the gene from BOTH parents in order for the condition to be expressed--they have to pair up and act in concrt to produce the disease. This means, that if carriers are bred to clears, none of the offspring will be affected but the gene can still be passed along. Even in a carrier to carrier breeding, statistically, some of the offspring should only get clear genes, and some only one carrier gene, as the Punnett square shows. In this way, the dogs phenotypically seem normal, while carrying the gene, and it can go on like this for generations before the probabilities catch up and an affected gene pairing (one from each parent) occurs. With no expressed symptoms of disease for so long, this can lead people to believe there are not issues in the lines.


The dogs that you are discussing above would be CARRIERS though, they would not be DNA CLEAR. A CARRIER would have one copy of the gene from the parents. If the CARRIER was bred to another CARRIER, genetic probabilities say that some of the offspring would be affected, some would be carriers and some would be clear. This is not a gene being "dormant" because the dog either possesses a copy of the gene or they do not.


----------



## Mayve (Aug 21, 2012)

Hmmm....wouldn't a dog who had the recessive gene show up as a carrier???? That was always my understanding. 

Dominant would either be affected with or without symptoms, recessive would be a carrier and neither recessive nor dominant would be clear....perhaps I'm confused


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Mayve said:


> Hmmm....wouldn't a dog who had the recessive gene show up as a carrier???? That was always my understanding.
> 
> Dominant would either be affected with or without symptoms, recessive would be a carrier and neither recessive nor dominant would be clear....perhaps I'm confused


We are talking about two different things and perhaps that is what is confusing to you. There are dominant and recessive genes and then there has to be a Mode Of Inheritance for each disease/condition to be expressed.

In the case of the DNA tests that we have available at this time for goldens(which are the PRA tests and the ICHT-there are some others but those are the ones most people who are testing are testing for) Anyway, the Mode of Inheritance(MOI)-is the way in which the genes are expressed. This is a simple recessive. With the given MOI, to have the disease, you would have to be given a copy of the gene from both parents. You can see in the table below which is from Optigen's website that if CLEAR is bred to CLEAR all the resulting offspring would be CLEAR because neither parent would possess a copy of the gene needed to produce affected or carrier offspring.


----------



## Mayve (Aug 21, 2012)

hvgoldens4 said:


> We are talking about two different things and perhaps that is what is confusing to you. There are dominant and recessive genes and then there has to be a Mode Of Inheritance for each disease/condition to be expressed.
> 
> In the case of the DNA tests that we have available at this time for goldens(which are the PRA tests and the ICHT-there are some others but those are the ones most people who are testing are testing for) Anyway, the Mode of Inheritance(MOI)-is the way in which the genes are expressed. This is a simple recessive. With the given MOI, to have the disease, you would have to be given a copy of the gene from both parents. You can see in the table below which is from Optigen's website that if CLEAR is bred to CLEAR all the resulting offspring would be CLEAR because neither parent would possess a copy of the gene needed to produce affected or carrier offspring.



:doh: lol...I think I get it now....


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Icthyosis, is a trait whose inheritance is recessive. For a dog to be affected, it must have gotten a recessive gene from each parent. This is our simple high school biology lesson. My take on the email I received from Optigen is that a dog did, indeed present with icthyosis, and both parents were genetically clear, not carriers for the disease. In which case, there may be another type of icthyosis that has a different mode of inheritance OR perhaps a mutation occurred? Optigen also said that there was only one occurrence that they knew of...so if anybody out there has seen icthyosis in dogs with cleararents, they should contact them.

I still think it is important to do the genetic testing, along with the phenotypic testing(hips, elbows, eyes, heart), put it together with temperament and type, etc AND then make a well thought out decision about breeding. Genetically tested carriers of these diseases do not have to be removed from a breeding program and in theory affecteds should be ok bred to genetically clear dogs.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

hvgoldens4 said:


> Anyway, with a simple recessive, an individual either possesses a copy of the gene or they do not. It is not something that is "dormant" and then later comes into play.


Yes - if it is dormant (I know some of you dispute this terminology) and gives a false clear it can certainly be passed on to the offspring. I will have to refresh my memory on how Mendel's laws work - I remember they were controversial and unaccepted for some time. 
Based on the above even the fact that we are dealing with only recessive genes is not quite yet determined. 

Sorry - typing during work and with thoughts going in 10,000 directions and based on rusty knowledge.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Claudia M said:


> Yes - if it is dormant (I know some of you dispute this terminology) and gives a false clear it can certainly be passed on to the offspring. I will have to refresh my memory on how Mendel's laws work - I remember they were controversial and unaccepted for some time.
> Based on the above even the fact that we are dealing with only recessive genes is not quite yet determined.
> 
> Sorry - typing during work and with thoughts going in 10,000 directions and based on rusty knowledge.


It's not dormant and it's not a false clear. The DNA test will show that the dog is a Carrier, not Clear.

And the whole validity of the test is based on the MOI of the disease being a simple recessive. According to the geneticists who developed the test, the MOI is a simple recessive. If it is not a simple recessive, I believe the usefulness of the test as a decision-maker regarding breeding falls into question.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Just curious if the clear sire and dam of the affected pup had a DNA profile test to prove parentage?


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

hvgoldens4 said:


> The dogs that you are discussing above would be CARRIERS though, they would not be DNA CLEAR. A CARRIER would have one copy of the gene from the parents. If the CARRIER was bred to another CARRIER, genetic probabilities say that some of the offspring would be affected, some would be carriers and some would be clear. This is not a gene being "dormant" because the dog either possesses a copy of the gene or they do not.


Yes, I missed that variable in there! So the dog who is phenotypically affected, but has parents who tested clear for ICT with the test available now, are only clear _for the form we have a marker for_!! A breeder in Canada recently had a puppy diagnosed with Ichthyosis from a biopsy, even though both parents had tested as clear using the current test. Blood has been submitted on the puppy and resubmitted on the parents, and they are waiting for results on it to see if it is indeed a second form of the disease, or if there was an issue with the first time the parents were tested. I have not heard results yet.

I would be more likely to suspect a second form as that has been the pattern with PRA. My Winter had an uncle who was PRA affected with an ACVO confirmed diagnosis. His blood is on file for research with Optigen, and currently he has tested clear for prcd-PRA, carrier for PRA1, and clear for PRA2, but he was definitively affected and went blind, so we know there has to be at least one more form. Every time they get a new test I cross my fingers it will be the form he had so others with dogs in the same bloodline will finally have the info we need to move forward.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

AmbikaGR said:


> Just curious if the clear sire and dam of the affected pup had a DNA profile test to prove parentage?


That is a very good question!


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

AmbikaGR said:


> Just curious if the clear sire and dam of the affected pup had a DNA profile test to prove parentage?


This is a very well known and very long time reputable and respected breeder in Canada. Shelly is obviously aware of the dogs in question as well, and this has not something that has been hidden. It has been brought out into the open so that answers can be found and any issues be addressed. This was just as much a shock to her(the breeder) as it was to everyone else. We already know there are at least 4 forms of PRA that affect goldens. Three of them have been isolated and Optigen has a blood DNA test for them and there is a 4th that has yet to be identified and a test made for. The dog in question(the 4th) has his blood(DNA) on file at Optigen to help in the research. Why is no one is calling those breeders ethics in to question? When we tested our Rocky less than 2 years ago, there was 1 form of PRA. Now they know there are at least 4 and maybe more.

The breeder had done the DNA testing and assumed all was fine as both the sire and dam came back CLEAR. She was then notified months later, that a puppy who was in a home was having issues with flaking and a pathologist report was done that showed the puppy was affected by ICHT. As Shelly has already stated, the blood has been submitted to Optigen again so it can be re-tested on the parents and the affected puppy.

Again, I don't really understand the reasoning of calling a breeder's ethics into question because she came forward and has been honest in notifying Optigen of the issue and has resubmitted blood DNA. Since Optigen is in possession of blood DNA from both parents and the affected puppy, it would be rather easy for them to check the parentage, if they chose to do so. I also really don't see why a breeder would go through the trouble to submit all this information to Optigen if they were being less than honest.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

hvgoldens4 said:


> I am a little surprised by such a statement. This is a very well known and long time reputable breeder in Canada. This was just as much a shock to her as it was to everyone else.
> 
> She had done the DNA testing and assumed all was fine. She was then notified months later, that a puppy who was in a home was having issues with flaking and a pathologist report was done. As Shelly has already stated, the blood has been submitted to Optigen again so it can be re-tested on the parents.
> 
> I really am shocked that someone would call a breeder's ethics into question just because there may be another form of ICHT.



WHOA!!! No where did I call anyone's ethics into question. I have no idea who the breeder is and even if I did it would not matter. And honestly sometimes things happen to even well known, long time breeders from any country. It was just an honest, inquisitive and innocent question as I do not know the breeder, their setup to keep in season bitches away from intact males not meant to breed same, who is making sure that the wrong dogs are not allowed to mingle, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

AmbikaGR said:


> WHOA!!! No where did I call anyone's ethics into question. I have no idea who the breeder is and even if I did it would not matter. And honestly sometimes things happen to even well known, long time breeders from any country. It was just an honest, inquisitive and innocent question as I do not know the breeder, their setup to keep in season bitches away from intact males not meant to breed same, who is making sure that the wrong dogs are not allowed to mingle, etc., etc., etc.


I too thought it was a good question. I don't know the breeder, the dog, or the circumstances.

Purely from a scientific point of view, an excellent strategy for problem solving is to start with the simplest solutions first (as they are more likely to be the answer) and prove/disprove one by one. 

Resubmitting blood is a simple solution, as is DNA testing to verify all dogs in question are related.

I didn't take it as a shot at ethics at all, just an interesting genetics problem. :wave:


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

AmbikaGR said:


> WHOA!!! No where did I call anyone's ethics into question. I have no idea who the breeder is and even if I did it would not matter. And honestly sometimes things happen to even well known, long time breeders from any country. It was just an honest, inquisitive and innocent question as I do not know the breeder, their setup to keep in season bitches away from intact males not meant to breed same, who is making sure that the wrong dogs are not allowed to mingle, etc., etc., etc.


Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying, Hank. My apologies for that. As stated above by myself and Shelly, another blood sample for DNA has again been submitted to Optigen on the Sire, Dam and the puppy who was affected along with the path report.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

hvgoldens4 said:


> Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying, Hank. My apologies for that. As stated above by myself and Shelly, another blood sample for DNA has again been submitted to Optigen on the Sire, Dam and the puppy who was affected along with the path report.



No problem, Jen. :smooch:


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Do you know if the parents' samples were re-drawn and re-submitted to be sure there was no mix-up in which dog the samples were drawn from?
It's been known to happen....

edit to add---sorry, didn't read all the way through before posting this. I'd be interested in seeing the results when they become available.

edit again to add---I'm not questioning anyone's breeding ethics, either, nor did I think Hank was. I just thought maybe the samples got mixed up, at the test site, or at Optigen, for example.


]


Sally's Mom said:


> I will post this again. I contacted Optigen and their representative said they know of one pup with icthyosis whose parents were both clear. The implication being there can be a other form of icthyosis. Regardless, I think it is important to consider testing our Goldens for what we can test them for...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Assuming the DNA test is correct, Tito is an ichthyosis carrier.
Because I have that knowledge, I will not breed him to an untested bitch, nor to a bitch who is a carrier and certainly not a bitch who is affected.
He is a wonderful dog, and he has a lot to contribute to the gene pool. (in my not so humble opinion). But he doesn't have anything THAT special that I would risk producing puppies that are affected, and might be severely so. However, I will certainly consider breeding him to bitches who have tested clear. Being a carrier does not mean he should not be bred.
I've said this before. I cannot guarantee that Tito will produce healthy puppies. But I can live with myself knowing that I have done everything possible to ensure that he doesn't produce any problematic puppies that I could have prevented had I done a simple DNA test.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Do you know if the parents' samples were re-drawn and re-submitted to be sure there was no mix-up in which dog the samples were drawn from?
> It's been known to happen....
> 
> edit to add---sorry, didn't read all the way through before posting this. I'd be interested in seeing the results when they become available.
> ...


Yes, the parents blood has been re-drawn and re-submitted so that the results of the first Optigen test that showed them as CLEAR can be re-done to make sure they are in fact CLEAR. Blood and the path report was submitted by the owners for the puppy who was diagnosed with ICHT by the path report.

I will be happy to report back anything that I hear and I am sure that Shelly would also do the same. I believe that everyone is very interested in the latest test results.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> Assuming the DNA test is correct, Tito is an ichthyosis carrier.
> Because I have that knowledge, I will not breed him to an untested bitch, nor to a bitch who is a carrier and certainly not a bitch who is affected.
> He is a wonderful dog, and he has a lot to contribute to the gene pool. (in my not so humble opinion). But he doesn't have anything THAT special that I would risk producing puppies that are affected, and might be severely so. However, I will certainly consider breeding him to bitches who have tested clear. Being a carrier does not mean he should not be bred.
> I've said this before. I cannot guarantee that Tito will produce healthy puppies. But I can live with myself knowing that I have done everything possible to ensure that he doesn't produce any problematic puppies that I could have prevented had I done a simple DNA test.


This where I am different  For something like ICT, I do not give it the same weight as PRA. I would never say never. 

I have two ICT carriers, I am not going to say that I would never breed them to another carrier as one has to look at the whole dog (which includes, health, temperament, conformation, pedigree (both depth and breadth) etc.). If I choose to only take my girls to tested clears, I do think in several areas the possibility of throwing the baby out with the bath water is heightened. We are dealing with living breathing creatures, we can do all the testing in the world, breed only to clears and still end up with problems, not that I am saying that as an excuse to just breed willy nilly, but we have to always have an eye to the future as well as the past and present with each and every litter a breeder has.

Far to many times breeds have gone down the wrong path when trying to eradicate problems, when it likely would have been a better road to instead manage issues with knowledge.

As I have said before, if I find a stud dog that compliments my girl in all departments, has a history of dogs living to 15+ in his pedigree, has good retrieving instinct, has good hips/elbows, clear heart/eyes and a pedigree that I know etc. etc., I am not going to rule him out because he is a carrier for ICT. 

For some that could be a deal breaker, and that is ok, a breeder/stud dog owner can only do what they are comfortable with. I only hope instead of ruling breeders out who wish to do something we may not be comfortable with, just ask why. The pros just may outweigh the cons in many ways.

Cheers
Rob


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I would be curious to see the final results. 
I feel at least a little vindicated by my science geeks from school. I am not sure I am translating the word dormant correct and maybe that is where the dismissal comes from. 
Here is an interesting reading link I got emailed:
http://firstskinfoundation.org/userAssets/file/FIRST_GeneticsBooklet.pdf
Pages 17-20


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> I would be curious to see the final results.
> I feel at least a little vindicated by my science geeks from school. I am not sure I am translating the word dormant correct and maybe that is where the dismissal comes from.
> Here is an interesting reading link I got emailed:
> http://firstskinfoundation.org/userAssets/file/FIRST_GeneticsBooklet.pdf
> Pages 17-20


It may just be terminology or semantics that we are disagreeing over, but from a quick perusal what is described in the first several pages supports what others have been saying about simple dominant/recessive genetics. Clear (II), carrier (Ii), or affected (ii) are the only possible outcomes.

What I _do_ find interesting though is the information that in humans, at least, ichthyosis is multifactorial--several genes that if expressed, or not, contributes to the severity of the disease.

I would be shocked if this doesn't eventually prove true with canines as well.

However, as others in this thread have noted, currently canine ichthyosis has been characterized as simple recessive, so by definition it _must_ follow the clear (II), carrier (Ii) or affected (ii) framework.

If I understand and have interpreted what I've read correctly in this thread, since it seems likely that ichthyosis will be further characterized as more than simple recessive, then the value of current DNA genotyping seems limited to some.


----------



## Conquerergold (Dec 12, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> I would be curious to see the final results.
> I feel at least a little vindicated by my science geeks from school. I am not sure I am translating the word dormant correct and maybe that is where the dismissal comes from.
> Here is an interesting reading link I got emailed:
> http://firstskinfoundation.org/userAssets/file/FIRST_GeneticsBooklet.pdf
> Pages 17-20


Recessive X-Linked Inheritance, ie pages 17-20, is not how the current testable Ichthyosis is inherited in Golden Retrievers, but rather it is Autosomal Recessive Inheritance, which can be found on page 7. 

The Grandparents do not come into play, what matters is the status of the sire and dam.

Rob


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

well the key words are "testable" and "likely"
More reason to have them tested and therefore more data to actually get a better understanding than "likely" and "testable". 
Since the test and the need for the test is dismissed as minor in the "whole" picture of the dog I will go on a limb again to say that obviously there is not enough data out there. 
Interesting that on page 19 which it is described here as "unlikely" I see the statement: "the likelihood of actually happening is increased by marrying a relative" which brings back the question from yesterday were the parents related?


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Claudia M said:


> well the key words are "testable" and "likely"
> More reason to have them tested and therefore more data to actually get a better understanding than "likely" and "testable".
> Since the test and the need for the test is dismissed as minor in the "whole" picture of the dog I will go on a limb again to say that obviously there is not enough data out there.
> Interesting that on page 19 which it is described here as "unlikely" I see the statement: "the likelihood of actually happening is increased by marrying a relative" which brings back the question from yesterday were the parents related?


I suggest you contact Optigen and make them aware of your findings. Could be a game changer......


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

How does that document define the word "relative"?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And that is where experience and knowledge come into play. I have no experience, and little knowledge. So I cannot make an informed decision to go ahead and breed him to a female of unknown status, a carrier, or an affected. 
But you did do the testing, so you are weighing everything when you make your decisions. You know the status of your girls. So, to me, you are making an informed decision that the positives of that particular pair outweigh the chances that the puppies might be affected. And can I assume you might feel that the positives of that pair would have to be even more so if the potential stud dog were affected rather than a carrier, in which case you are likely to produce 50% affected puppies?

edit to add....please remember I am talking about MY particular dog not being worth breeding to a female of unknown status, a carrier, or an affected. If he were a dual Champion, I would probably feel differently. And while I think he's a great dog, I'm also realistic enough to know there are other great dogs out there who are not carriers. 



Conquerergold said:


> This where I am different  For something like ICT, I do not give it the same weight as PRA. I would never say never.
> 
> I have two ICT carriers, I am not going to say that I would never breed them to another carrier as one has to look at the whole dog (which includes, health, temperament, conformation, pedigree (both depth and breadth) etc.). If I choose to only take my girls to tested clears, I do think in several areas the possibility of throwing the baby out with the bath water is heightened. We are dealing with living breathing creatures, we can do all the testing in the world, breed only to clears and still end up with problems, not that I am saying that as an excuse to just breed willy nilly, but we have to always have an eye to the future as well as the past and present with each and every litter a breeder has.
> 
> ...


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> well the key words are "testable" and "likely"
> More reason to have them tested and therefore more data to actually get a better understanding than "likely" and "testable".
> Since the test and the need for the test is dismissed as minor in the "whole" picture of the dog I will go on a limb again to say that obviously there is not enough data out there.
> Interesting that on page 19 which it is described here as "unlikely" I see the statement: "the likelihood of actually happening is increased by marrying a relative" which brings back the question from yesterday were the parents related?


No the parents are not related-although if you trace things back far enough, all goldens are related at some point in time. There is nothing that shows the ICHT in goldens is following the same MOI of ICHT that is found in any other species. In goldens, geneticists have told us that it is a simple recessive. It has already been stated that the MOI is much more complicated in humans.

As we have previously posted, breeds and species can have the same traits and have them not mean the same thing. I will go back to the issue of distichia. Many, besides myself have stated that they are not a big deal in goldens. They ARE a big deal in cockers and other breeds. The way the gene is passed on and the symptoms that is causes are much different within the same species(dogs) The bottom line is that you cannot compare apples to oranges.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Just curious if the parents and pup have been retested and what are the "new" results!?


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I guess no new results????


----------



## bethlehemgolden (Aug 2, 2014)

Here is a great resource.OptiGen Ichthyosis (ICT-A) in GR performed by Antagene OptiGen Ichthyosis (ICT-A) in GR performed by Antagene


----------

