Форум » Breeding » Testing puppies for CEA » Ответить

Testing puppies for CEA

Alertness: Hi everyone This is a question to those of you who are breeders and test your collie puppies for CEA and/or MDR1: How on earth are you able to get the test results back in time for the puppy buyers to make their choice? I just looked at the Laboklin website, and it says that it takes four weeks for the test results of CEA to get back to the customer. It only takes five days to get the results of the MDR1 test so that's no problem, but how can you have the CEA results ready at an early enough time, before the delivery of the puppies to their new owners? Puppies can't be mikrochipped at a too early age either, so if you have them tested very young they won't be chipped and the test results can not be verified/certified can they? So how do you solve this problem

Ответов - 16

Glenmorangie: Hi Alertness, I still don't use them but as far as I know Genomia labs, in CZ, do CEA and MDR1 DNA tests in bundle (see their website, it is also in English). They do not request for microchip or tatoo for the puppies, they label the samples with their own codes so that you can sample your puppies (swab brush) from the age of 2 weeks only. If you do so, keep in mind that you MUST take lots of precautions (isolate each puppy from their mother and from each others while at least two hours, spray inside their mouth with pure water from time to time, don't touch them with the same gloves, etc... in order to be as sure as possible that each sample will be pure from other family members cells). That said, you can also agree with your vet to attribute a microchip number to each puppy in advance (possible to stick a picture of each puppy on each package to be sure, when time comes, not to mistake). You will be able to mention each identification number on the tests sheet. I did CEA tests on my 2008 puppies but I used blood samples (5 weeks old puppies) and sent them to Optigen. The time is long to cross the Pond and american postal way is rather "snail-ish". Once they received the samples, they had to prepare for separating DNA and after analysis is fast enough. All this took about 4 weeks and I received the results by email three hours after the very first puppy was gone away. It seems that Genomia is faster for CEA tests and as efficient and professional as Optigen. And much less expensive especially if you do the bundle CEA and MDR1. Best regards, Françoise

Cinnaberry: Genomia doesn't do cea-tests anymore (patent issue). It's a shame since they were very quick.

Alertness: Yes, I also read on the Genomia website that they don't do CEA testing. Francoise; for a genetic test to be valid here in Norway the puppy MUST be chipped when blood is drawn for the test and the chip number must follow the tube to the lab, and the chip number must be printed on the certificate from the lab or else it is invalid. Of course if I only wanted an unofficial test that would be okay. But I'm not sure I'd pay that much for a diagnosis that can't be proved belongs to the correct puppy.

Glenmorangie: Cinnaberry wrote: Genomia doesn't do cea-tests anymore (patent issue). It's a shame since they were very quick. Shame, yes It is even worse than that but I think I must stay "politically correct". This patent affair starts to nerve me highly : labs make us their slaves in that way that they have the power of knowledge and material, they have the entire freedom to price as they want and they claim that this is for helping us in our breeding programs. Ok, we are free to not test our puppies. But more and more people want genetics instead of a dog and that becomes more and more difficult to explain them that breeding is already basically not a simple thing. Where is the time where Life (thus DNA) was forbidden to patent ? Where and when started this deviation ? Alertness Blood samples can't be taken from puppies before the age of 5 weeks (that's what happened to my pups for CEA test). At this age puppies can be microchiped (4 weeks old) so that the samples can be shipped with the chip number. But, if I have well understood your question, 5 weeks old is already too late for obtaining the results before puppies departure. I think the unique solution is to sample puppies by another way (brush swab). This allows sampling at earlier age and thus gives you the time to receive the results before puppies are away. What could prevent you to attribute a chip number to each puppy and to send the samples right with this number ? Couldn't your vet do these samplings himself, taking all the necessary precautions for a correct validation of the tests ? I am not sure to have to pay twice either. If I want to test my pups, that must be once for all and well done. Best regards, Françoise

Lisa: At least for MDR1 testing with Genomia it is possible to do the tests vie cheek swab instead of blood. So this is possible as soon as you can get the little "brush" into the puppies mouth ;) For CEA it will no longer be possible to det the DNA results before the puppies are sold, since Optigen is now the only lab doing the tests. But there, too, you could ask if testing by cheek swabs would be possible.

Alertness: Isn't it a little early to mikrochip the puppies at four weeks of age? You have some interesting thoughts there Francoise about "patenting" genes/tests. I am debating with myself whether it is right to test for CEA or not. Sometimes it is a good help in the breeding programme, but do we want to get to the place where everyone feels they need to do it to every puppy...

OneWay's: You can microchip a very young colliepup, no problem. I have chihuahua and some pups weight 500 - 900 grams when they are 8 weeks old and they are microchipped than, newborn colliepups weight maybe 250-450 gram.

Glenmorangie: Alertness Microchip : This was the question I asked myself when I received a mail from "Flynn" 's (Mooncradle Prospero's Speech) breeders informing their clients that the puppies were microchiped at 4 weeks of age. I was still stayed on the tatoo practice few decades ago and of course in this case puppies must be tatooed at the minimum age of 6 weeks because of ears size. But that was OK. In 2008, my own puppies were also microchiped at 4 weeks of age, at the same time that swab sampling for MDR1. My vet, who is also the vet of several Collie and other breeds breeders in surroundings, tells that 4 weeks is the minimum age for microchiping puppies because they are too fragile before this age and he does not want to manipulate too young pups. For me, that was the very first time I made my pups microchiped and I must say that everything was quite OK, puppies stood very well this very quick operation. Gene tests: Because this patent PROBLEM leads to Optigen monopoly and thus to a more and more restricted freedom to choose the lab we want, I am also beginning to wonder wether it is quite necessary to test all the pups for CEA. BUT : - many clinical examintations fail in the right diagnosis. In addition we must wait until puppies are at least 6 weeks old to make them examine, - gene tests are sure and we know exactly how the puppy is from "inside". And we can do these at a much earlier age. Clinical examination -> two contradictory examples : 1) in Finland, 2006 : 6 blue merle puppies born from a BM sire and a Tri dam. The sire is N/N for CEA thus can not develop the disease and can not transmit the disease. Dam is CEA carrier. When the breeder brought her puppies to the ophtalmo, this one declared 3 puppies CEA *affected*. This results were totally impossible because of the CEA N/N status of the sire. 2) in Germany, 2007 : a tri-factored sable-white litter is born from 2 CEA free parents, the dam is carrier. All the puppies have been declared *free* of CEA. Seing this results, I logically thought that the sire was N/N for CEA. But once again, the Finnish kennel took this sire on her 2006 BM bitch and then 2 puppies have been declared *affected*. There was a big bug somewhere !!! The German breeder made the CEA DNA test on one of the male of this litter and the result is *affected*. Two contradictory examples (among so many others) speak for themselves. Unless to be lucky enough for having a real Chief in Ophtalmology specialty in surroundings, we never can be sure of the results by this way. I have this chance with Pr Shchmidt-Morand who practices his specialty at the Veterinarian University of Nantes (an in his clinic too). Do we totally trust DNA tests ? It seems that more 99,99% of the results are right. It remains 0,01% of doubts and it appears that in that percentage some results are false. "Nobody is perfect" and errors always can be done even in the most secured domains. As for the question "should we continue to test all the pups for CEA ?" I can't answer as surely as I still did a while ago. For sure : - if you breed from both parents N/N for CEA, 100% of the pups will be N/N for CEA. So you don't need to go to the ophtalmo neither gene test and you save lots of money. - if you breed from a CEA affected and a CEA N/N, 100% of the pups will be CEA free/carriers. So you don't need to go to the ophtalmo neither gene test and you save lots of money. - if you breed from a carrier bitch and you choose a N/N sire (or vice versa), you will get 100% CEA free puppies. So, you don't need to go to the ophtalmo and save your money. But you will never know the accurate genotype status of each of your pups. You can choose to test only the pups you find the most interesting. - if you breed from 2 carrier parents, then a part of the pups will be CEA free and the other part affected. Will you choose to go to the ophtalmo (with the risk of diagnosis failures) or DNA tests (with the possible examination of affected pups to know if they have coloboma or retinian detachment) ? YOU are the only one person to answer. Best regards, Françoise

Lisa: Very well said Francoise. I think that DNA testing is a great possibility to ensure the breeds health. But as with everything else, we should not forget to think of the entire "thing": For example, CEA is not the only eye desease that may occur and therefore the puppy-check ewith the ophtalmogist is definitely necessary. PRA, Cataract, MPP and others still happen from time to time and would not be noticed if a CEA DNA test would be the only requirement.

Nanook: 2) in Germany, 2007 : a tri-factored sable-white litter is born from 2 CEA free parents, the dam is carrier. All the puppies have been declared *free* of CEA. Seing this results, I logically thought that the sire was N/N for CEA. But once again, the Finnish kennel took this sire on her 2006 BM bitch and then 2 puppies have been declared *affected*. There was a big bug somewhere !!! The German breeder made the CEA DNA test on one of the male of this litter and the result is *affected*. What exactly is the problem in this case?

Glenmorangie: Lisa wrote: But as with everything else, we should not forget to think of the entire "thing": For example, CEA is not the only eye desease that may occur and therefore the puppy-check ewith the ophtalmogist is definitely necessary. PRA, Cataract, MPP and others still happen from time to time and would not be noticed if a CEA DNA test would be the only requirement. I am quite agree with you Lisa, but the initial question was about only CEA and MDR1 Just one question : how many Collie puppies or adults have been clinically declared PRA and/or CAT affected (I don't speak about senile cataract which is a normal phenomenon with age) ? In France, when the club decided to make clinical examinations in 1992, we were obliged to check for CEA *and* PRA. That was expensive and finally NO Collie were declared PRA affected. Then the club decided to let down this check. Among the *European bred* Smooth Collies genetically tested for PRA, how many are carriers or affected ? MPP is enough common but, as far as I know, that mainly remains on iris and thus does not affect the sight or the eyes, and in addition it disappears most of the time while puppy grows. Now I raise again a question already posted in another topic : "What do we breed for ?" Is it only for producing genetically good animals or are we still breeding for Standard Purebred Collies ? And as I said earlier in this topic, gene tests are becoming a handicap rather than a true help in the fact that they are VERY EXPENSIVE if not exorbitant. Can we systematically make our clients support the costs of these tests ? At this step of the matter, I think the response belongs to each of us and not to the "community". One last thing : please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I am not against gene tests, on the contrary. I PROTEST against the EXPENSIVENESS, the ABSOLUTE control of these tests by ONE lab, the worldwide dispatching of the different existing gene tests in different labs leading us to make several samplings to send to these labs, our LACK OF FREEDOM to choose the lab we want because of few labs monopoly. Nanook wrote: What exactly is the problem in this case? Exactly the same than in the 1) one but in reverse ! - in the first case, the ophtalmo made 3 diagnosis errors by declaring these puppies "CEA affected" then these results were impossible due to the sire's Normal genotype (how has he/she been able to find the CEA disease in these three puppies ?), - in the second case, the ophtalmo made at least 1 diagnosis error by declaring this puppy "CEA free" then he was affected (how hasn't he/she been able to find the CEA disease in this puppy ?). Many, many, many errors has been made (and still now) in clinical CEA examinations. Because many ophtalmo vets are not good enough. Even among those who are ECVO agreed, there still are some who are bad. There still are some who think that ALL the Blue Merle dogs are CEA *AFFECTED* !!!! This is stupid in the reasoning and especially this reveals a HUGE IGNORANCE of the colour genetics in Collies, Shelties, etc..... and the Merle gene incidence on pigmentation. Countless are the Blue Merle Collies (in France, anyway) who have been declared affected just because they were/are BM. This is why gene tests are useful Best regards, Françoise

Nanook: Oooh, I see. I thought there was a problem with the DNA test. :) As for the cost and monopoly of DNA tests; I agree that they are expensive (PRA + CEA=288?), but so are dog shows, yet I don't hear people complain about that, (not as much as with DNA tests anyway). You only have to make a DNA test once in dog's life, but visit many dog shows if you want a super champion dog.

Nelson: Clinical eye tests are by my opinion still important, because even there are not so much problems in this clinicaly tested eye problems, is good to have information about it. At the other side - clinical testing of blue merle dogs are more difficult then tricolour or sable, because their backround especially at blueeyed dogs, has other colour and is bigger chance for mistake (this is information from our most experienced eyevet here in CZ). PRA is not possible to test from DNA, still is available only test for rcd2 type, but it is not the type, who caused PRA at adult and older dogs. I really hope that Genomia will get patent for testing, because they are fast and not so much expensive like Optigen. is true, that here in CZ is one other possibility to make tests for CEA - it is thanks to research of Academy of Science in Libechov, but it is not so much official result (even our club take it as a ok).

Glenmorangie: Nanook wrote: I agree that they are expensive (PRA + CEA=288?) Genomia was the cheapest lab for CEA test. They do no longer make CEA test because of Optigen patent. They do rcd2-PRA but I don't know the cost. And I don't mind. As for Optigen, they do CEA+rcd2-PRA bundle (Combo) for US$144 which means about 106 Euros for one dog testing. Here is the link to the very best currencies converter (XE.com)http://www.xe.com/ucc/ They aslo do discounts for puppy litters (at least 2 puppies from the same litter). US$120 for CEA, US$120 for rcd2-PRA but I really don't know if they discount for both tests at the same time. US$120 means about 88,60 Euros for each puppy of the litter. + 5% automatic discount when you order your test(s) directly via their website. This remains expensive, especially since the time they practice this analysis. Nanook wrote: but so are dog shows, yet I don't hear people complain about that, (not as much as with DNA tests anyway) In your humble opinion, why do you think breeders don't test their entire litters ? In France, anyway, breeders think and speak about the cost of these tests. In shows and elsewhere. As for DNA Profiles, things are different : each country has its own rules, some countries systematically require this profile, some others require it under certain conditions, some others don't require it but encourage to do it. This (still) is not very expensive in France. Nanook wrote: You only have to make a DNA test once in dog's life Yes ! But Alertness' concern was about PUPPY LITTERS. And, as I said earlier, if you want several *different* tests, you must sample for each and send them to each relevant laboratory. And pay your vet each time you go to. Please, give me the address of a vet who works for free and I go there immediately Nanook wrote: but visit many dog shows if you want a super champion dog. Thank you very much for your advise but I experience shows since 1975 As for the super champion dog, I also know that "the clothes do not make the monk" as we say in France, which means that a dog is judged only on his phenotype according to the Standard (at least, we are in right to expect so ) and his general genotype is only revealed when it reproduces. Must I tell you that I prefer a "simple" dog whose offprings are homogene and quite correct in type rather than a "super champion" who reproduces anything ? No, I think you already had understood my thoughts about that subject Good end of day and best regards, Françoise

Glenmorangie: Nelson You took me at speed Nelson wrote: Clinical eye tests are by my opinion still important, because even there are not so much problems in this clinicaly tested eye problems, is good to have information about it. At the other side - clinical testing of blue merle dogs are more difficult then tricolour or sable, because their backround especially at blueeyed dogs, has other colour and is bigger chance for mistake (this is information from our most experienced eyevet here in CZ). This is why a real Chief in that specialty is required. They are few, unfortunately. Nelson wrote: PRA is not possible to test from DNA, still is available only test for rcd2 type So why, according to you (or other well trusty source(s)), does Optigen call this test rcd2-PRA ? For sure that PRA may have other causes than genetic (I think you know it very well) but if it is not genetical, there is no problem for offprings. Nelson wrote: I really hope that Genomia will get patent for testing, because they are fast and not so much expensive like Optigen. If Genomia gets this patent, they will be obliged to increase their prices. Patent is not free But once again, Optigen WANTS to be the ONLY ONE lab on the market place for this test. What do you mean when you say "not so much official results" about Academy of Science in Libechov ? Best regards, Françoise

Nanook: Glenmorangie wrote: Genomia was the cheapest lab for CEA test. They do no longer make CEA test because of Optigen patent. They do rcd2-PRA but I don't know the cost. And I don't mind. As for Optigen, they do CEA+rcd2-PRA bundle (Combo) for US$144 which means about 106 Euros for one dog testing. Here is the link to the very best currencies converter (XE.com)http://www.xe.com/ucc/ They aslo do discounts for puppy litters (at least 2 puppies from the same litter). US$120 for CEA, US$120 for rcd2-PRA but I really don't know if they discount for both tests at the same time. US$120 means about 88,60 Euros for each puppy of the litter. + 5% automatic discount when you order your test(s) directly via their website. This remains expensive, especially since the time they practice this analysis. Thanks , I thought that each test costs that much. And yes, I agree, it is still expensive, even at half the price I first thought it was. Glenmorangie wrote: In your humble opinion, why do you think breeders don't test their entire litters ? Well, it's still beyond my understanding why test litters and not the parents . While I do understand why someone might test the puppies if both sire and dam are carriers, I see absolutelty no reason to test puppies out of normal x carrier breeding. Unless the breeder wants to keep a normal/normal dog. But then, of course, it might also happen that all pups are carriers. IF the breeders tests the pups because buyers demand it, thumbs up for the buyers (with few exceptions of course, for example if you breed DNA affected x DNA affected, there really is no point in DNA testing the pups). Glenmorangie wrote: In France, anyway, breeders think and speak about the cost of these tests. In shows and elsewhere. Only about the cost, not what it means for the breed? Glenmorangie wrote: As for DNA Profiles, things are different : each country has its own rules, some countries systematically require this profile, some others require it under certain conditions, some others don't require it but encourage to do it. This (still) is not very expensive in France. What do you mean by DNA profiles? Like a DNA bank of all smooth collies? Glenmorangie wrote: Yes ! But Alertness' concern was about PUPPY LITTERS. And, as I said earlier, if you want several *different* tests, you must sample for each and send them to each relevant laboratory. And pay your vet each time you go to. Please, give me the address of a vet who works for free and I go there immediately Yet, even with puppies you only have to test once. And while I can agree that testing puppies out of normal x carrier, normal x normal, affected x affected, normal x affected or normal x unknown combinations is completely unnecessary, testing them when the DNA status of the parents is unknown is something I would presonally want if I ever decided to buy a pup out of untested parents. As for the vet that works for free, well, breeders do sell pups, right, I mean, it's not like whole litters are given away for free. You pay for DNA tests and buyers pay for pups. Glenmorangie wrote: Thank you very much for your advise but I experience shows since 1975 As for the super champion dog, I also know that "the clothes do not make the monk" as we say in France, which means that a dog is judged only on his phenotype according to the Standard (at least, we are in right to expect so ) and his general genotype is only revealed when it reproduces. Must I tell you that I prefer a "simple" dog whose offprings are homogene and quite correct in type rather than a "super champion" who reproduces anything ? No, I think you already had understood my thoughts about that subject It was a comparison -people complain about the cost of DNA tests, yet are willing to basically throw away hundreds of euros by visiting dog shows just to collect those CACs, CACIBs, BOBs etc.. Beauty over health? As for your preference, I guess we're on the same page here. In many breeds, I prefer dogs that are not of the show type, one very simple reason is that they are way too fat for my taste, too hairy or both (depends on the breed ). I don't mean smoothies though, I actually liked many that I've seen on dog shows so far. I also don't like the whole »super champion/popular sire« syndrome. A dog might be a super champion, but a lousy producer and since I'm going to live with the offspring, not the super champion, I prefer a dog that might not be the best looking dog in the world, but produces nice puppies. Because ultimately, I'm not buying a dog for others-judges-I'm buying one for myself and it has to suit me and my lifestyle. As for the patent with DNA tests. Well, if they were the first to discover the mutation, then I guess they want some compensation. I mean, they spent time and money searching for the right mutation, and other labs just want to make money off their research for free? While I don't necessarily agree with the whole DNA patent thing, I do understand at least partly the need to protect information.



полная версия страницы