Jump to content
BC Boards
Journey

MDR1 - can we eradicate?

Recommended Posts

Okay, I'm assuming it's pretty well public knowledge at this point, I have an MDR1 mutant/normal dog. Her grandsire was a popular sire in 2015 and 2016. He has now been imported to the US and bred. We know at minimum he's a mutant/normal. And some of his offspring in this country are also being bred mutant/normal. Any mutant/normal dog is *affected*. I know members of the HEF are busy. Can we please get the website corrected at least? I feel like I've been banging my head on a brick wall over this because people are saying mutant/normal are only carriers, they are not they are affected as well. And it's being thrown back at me that they're only carriers. I have to say a couple of big names have stepped up and said they understand they're not just carriers... But it's the puppy mill people that are breeding them that is scary.. if the website indicated that they were affected it might give cause for pause on breeding them. Right now the percentage is extremely low, it won't stay that way unless we get a handle on this soon. I don't want this breed to go by way of the collie where there is a 90% affected rate. Unless people are testing and culling, breeding a normal/mutant is not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry, not public knowledge here. what's the scoop? what's the breeding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I've heard of this too.

 

I'm of the firm belief that when things like this are known with certainty, the dog(s) in question should be publicly identified so that people can make breeding and purchasing decisions based on this knowledge. Keeping such information close to the vest out of some misguided sense of decency to the owner(s) of the affected dog(s) does a far greater disservice to everyone who cares about this breed, not to mention to the dogs themselves.

 

I'm not singling anyone out here; I believe in the importance of transparency in things like this for the general good far outweighs any perceived slight to anyone who would be named or even shamed by such information going public.

 

Journey, have you reached out directly to HEF or to the HEF members by PM? It seems to me that might be the more effective route if you haven't already done so, and it can be done through this site.

 

Otherwise, I agree with Shoofly. Please name the dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HEF is aware of the situation. We are in the process of updating the information on this genetic disease. It takes time to get a committee to agree on wording we all believe is accurate and easily understood by most. The latter is especially true for heterozygous MDR-1 dogs where the health impacts range from nonexistent to similar to the impacts seen in homozygous mutants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mark, I've given up though. Wanting to agree on wording while having incorrect information up is wrong. My thoughts, not that it matters, is at least take down the info for now..

 

Robin, she's a Tanhill Glenn, granddaughter, her sire Foxridge Taff also tested as m/n and I've come to find there are tested litters off Glenn, with the bitch normal, that are m/n for MDR1 as well as TNS carriers, well before he came to the states. The the top side of her dam is tested, normal. These issues are going to get out of hand. Maybe culling needs to come back.. she'll be spayed when she's old enough.

 

I'm not staying quiet about this and haven't. I'm just frustrated and absolute lack of progress. There is some testing, I'm unable to discuss, in the works. In the meantime the facts need accurate or credibility is lost.

 

I'll see if I can figure out how to upload her papers here. I'm all for full disclosure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting up confusing wording in place of outdated (no longer accurate) info is no better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the question posed as the title of this thread.....

 

Not without unintended consequences on other genetically controlled traits/diseases due to reducing the size of the gene pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peats' pedigree. I hope this works!

post-1492-0-09074300-1525280030_thumb.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if it's true that less that .05% are affected, eradicating this will have an impact on the gene pool? Interesting. With a simple recessive I would agree, however, with this one I have my doubts. Of the 20 known affected (m/n) in this country - they are coming from 2 different starting points, not massively spread out throughout the gene pool. One has something to offer, the other, not so much as he is in a puppy mill. In this case I think the "reducing the gene pool" mantra is an easy out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why getting the wording posted to be as clear as possible for most readers is important.

 

The reported rate of affected (m/m) is <0.5%

Footnote A in the table clearly states carrier (m/n) rates will be higher.

 

Please use affected with the generally accepted meaning = m/m

 

Until ALL dogs that are m/m or m/n are identified one cannot know what impact their removal will have on the gene pool. Go review Denises bullseye genetic discussion to see the impact by removing orange and yellow dogs.

 

Genetic diversity is our best recourse for minimizing known and not yet identified genetic defects in our breed (more will be found). Anything that reduces genetic diversity should be avoided as best we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I'm more than happy to use generally accepted terms. However, it's different in this case. Directly from Wa State, the "carriers" are affected, to what degree is unknown and probably individualistic. From PPG, their test result say "at risk" not carrier. This, this is what is frustrating. Carrier wrt MDR1 is not the same as the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. I can't open that pedigree, says i don't have permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arg..I'm at an impasse.. thanks. Don't know how else to upload it..I'll pm it to you, If you can, you can post it here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to open the pedigree, so it's not a universal issue. maybe particular to some browsers but not others?

 

Anyway, thanks for posting it, Journey. And thanks for what you're doing to get this important info out there.

 

Any possibility you'd name the puppy mill? At least word might start to get around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what youre saying but most will not because for them affected means homozygous mutant and carrier means heterozygous. This is why getting the rewrite well written is important. Were having to deal with common language that does not fit this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what youre saying but most will not because for them affected means homozygous mutant and carrier means heterozygous.

 

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems to me that this itself is the beginning of the explanation. Follow it up with why this case is different and I suspect that most ppl should be able to understand it without too much difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, for JQ Public, carrier means breed to a normal and all's well. For the most part I doubt most/many know the difference in homozygous/heterozygous and simply go based on generic language. It doesn't work that way with MDR1.

 

Here's a breeder, using the term lightly...miller. Breeding MDR1

 

http://www.c-cranch.com/border-collies/past-puppies/wyatt-earp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The information they are providing is accurate; the dog has been found to be a *carrier* (m/n) by genetic testing AND, most importantly, they are providing this information to all.

 

Your issue is that the term *carrier* does not convey everything you want conveyed. *Affected* is not accurate for mdr1 m/n; *might be affected to a lesser degree* is more accurate for mdr1 m/n but is not a useful term to describe the gene status for these dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so when Washington State tells me heterozygous affected, they don't really mean it? When PPG lists on their report "at risk", no where does it say carrier, they don't mean it either? I guess this is where I give up. It has nothing to due with what *I* want conveyed. I completely understand now why the HEF site is vague and/or misleading in this case..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go review Denises bullseye genetic discussion to see the impact by removing orange and yellow dogs.

.

I have seen this " bullseye" theory on this site (and only here), and I think it's nonsensical.

Simpy because as far as I understand (and maye I misunderstood) those orange and yellow dogs sold no be bred anyway, and are therefore practically removed from the genepool. A point nobody could clear up for me in a satisfying way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What percentage of a total population should be breeding in order to maintain a genetically healthy gene pool?

 

If that percentage includes dogs you dont think should be bred, is it more important to you to maintain the breeding standard or a healthy viable gene pool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How healthy and viable will a gene pool be if your dog walks into the pasture, eats shit, and has the potential to die?

 

Instead playing word games and reinventing the wheel, why not just say they are affected (truth), to what extent is unknown (also truth). Then link to WS website or such. The incomplete dominant aspect deems them clearly not just a carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth......

 

All dogs will have adverse reactions to any drug!

 

The dose of drug that elicits an adverse reaction from an mdr1 n/n dog is higher than the dose that will elicit an adverse reaction from an mdr1 m/m. An mdr1 m/n dog will have adverse reactions at a dose somewhere between where n/n and m/m react.

 

The shit eating analogy is just that, shit; because you wont know the dose of active ivermectin being consumed. It could be enough to kill an mdr1 n/n dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Do you want to find out on your dog? I don't.

 

And to be fair, the owner of the sire, Taff (tested m/n) offered to buy Peat back. No thanks, he's one that thinks it's no big deal, uses ivermic to worm dogs and would probably breed her given the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×