Test for JRD

[Elaine]

A while ago the DPCA sent out an advertisement for a new business that is marketing a test for Juvenile Renal Disease. I believe the test is about $75. There was a link to a website. We went and looked at the site, it seemed to us that a company had gotten a patent on a test, which may or may not prove useful, depending on many many factors, all of which need to be supported by peer reviewed published research. Frankly, we do not need more of the “let’s Holter Test 2 year-old dogs” type of baloney.

We are all for testing, we’d love to be able to produce the genetically perfect dog… but before we waste more money on yet another test that doesn’t really tell us what we truly need to know, we have the right to question the test itself. I think a company’s candid spontaneous responses to direct questions about their products is relevant.

Today I called the company marketing this test for JRD to ask some simple basic questions. Below is the gist of the conversation. The quotes denote conversation, and are as close as I can recall to what was said, but this is not necessarily the exact wording. To say that I was not impressed does not begin to cover it.

Q: "What studies have you done to establish that this test is useful in a breeding context?"

A: "We have a patent?"

Response: "A patent! You are claiming that a patent is proof that this test belongs in the context of making decisions about breeding. A patent?"

Q: "Is this test is the only product you sell?"

A: "Yes."

Q: "So you have a business interest in selling this test... "

A: "Who is this?"

Q: I gave my name and said, "I am a breeder, someone who might use and rely upon this test. But what difference would it make who I am? How would who I am change your answers? Let’s say I am from the media, inquiring about this product you are selling. Again, what studies have you done to establish that this test is useful in a breeding context?"

A: "We’ve done lots of studies"

Response and Question: "Great, where can I read these studies, what journals? Where are they published?"

A: "They aren’t. They are under peer review."

Response: "So these “lots of studies” have not even been published."

A: "No, they are under peer review."

Q: "Who is reviewing them?"

She hung up on me.

[Betty]

DNA testing is real and it is here and it is not going away. I am sure the Boxer fancy was thrilled when the mutant gene that causes DCM in that breed was identified.

I welcome any tool I can use to breed healthier dogs. If we love our breed we will take advantage of all that is available. Health testing our breeding stock is a moral obligation and should not be taken lightly.

[Elaine]

DNA testing is real and it is here and it is not going away. I am sure the Boxer fancy was thrilled when the mutant gene that causes DCM in that breed was identified.

I welcome any tool I can use to breed healthier dogs. If we love our breed we will take advantage of all that is available. Health testing our breeding stock is a moral obligation and should not be taken lightly.

No one is disputing the value of credible testing, that is backed by credible science. We have a moral obligation to act wisely. Our highest moral obligation is to be true to ourselves, to act with honor and to act in the very best interest of those entrusted to our care. I have done that, you have done that… that is not in dispute.

Questioning the value of testing is an expression of “love” of our dogs. It is not an expression of “love” to rely upon the wrong tests, testing at the wrong time or useless tests.

The value of a test stands on its own merit… it is not about the love, honor (or morals) of those who rely upon it. There is nothing wrong with questioning the value a a specific test, there is nothing wrong with wanting credible research and science to base our decisions on.

I am not a Boxer breeder, I haven’t a clue if they would identify DCM as the greatest threat to their breed. My understanding is that they have other challenges. In any event, I believe that DCM in Boxers is different than DCM in Dobermans…

I agree the DNA testing is here, real and not going away. I would not be surprised if in the future Insurance companies screen applicants based on DNA testing and deny coverage accordingly.

Bottom line, there are lots of expressions of perfection. Your definition and mine may not be the same. Many flawed individuals still contribute a great deal to the gene pool.

[Betty]

I think the issue here is.. identifying genetic markers.. mutant genes... DNA testing is credible science. I believe strongly in it... and I will use all the tools I can to breed better dogs. I always have.. there are more tools now.. and that is good.

Did you speak with a scientist.. PhD... on the phone who could not answer your questions, or was it merely the clerk answering the phone? If you google JRD.. you will see there is much research in this field being done......

You say many flawed individuals contribute to the gene pool! That is true, but what are they causing.. pain, suffering... Why would we do that if we could avoid it?

[Elaine]

To be very clear, I am not negative about the test, rather, I want to understand the science behind it.

For me the issue is understanding what we do and why we do it.

As for what the person at the company told me, hey, don’t blame me for that, I didn’t hire or train the person. She could have put me on hold and gotten someone else to answer my questions. And in any event, it would not take someone with a PhD to cite studies published in journal articles. But since you bring it up, simply because a person has a Phd or MD doesn’t mean they are omniscient or infallible.:rolleyes:

About flawed individuals contributing, Einsten and Steven Hawkings are examples of a flawed individuals, not perfect specimens by any means, who contribute[d] greatly to society. In dogs, some of the greatest producers in many breeds were flawed in one way or another. In a general sense this endless quest for genetic perfection may actually come back and bite us. As breeders select for what one group wants to define as perfection, we may well loose what others define as perfection.

[Betty]

Well.. I guess we can spin it any way we want.. but I have to tell you I would trade a perfect topline for a healthy pair of kidneys any day. Knowledge is power. If we know who the carriers are, make sure that they are bred to clear bitches/dogs... through thoughtful breeding, after a few generations, there would be no more JRD and we can preserve the desired traits. Everyone would be happy. Sounds like a great plan to me!

[Elaine]

Not sure what you think is being "spun" but if it's just that simple I think we all agree.

[doberdogsfd]

I am going to put my opinion in on what I believe is a healthy and desirable dialogue going on here.
I know Salvino has an opinion on this also, I will let him say whatever he is going to, this is just my take.

Testing for the sake of testing is pointless and a waste of time and money. What is needed is a clear understanding of what significance the results have in a current or future breeding program. Pretty much that is the bottom line.

When a Company....any Company cannot or will not speak to this, there is a problem. What is happening is they are playing on fears and emotions.
Suck the emotion out of it, it has no place in science or results.

Perfection is an illusion, no such thing exists nor would it be desired. It is not good for any species.

Do I agree DNA testing is of huge value,YES! But, what I disagree with is not being able to provide the studies and research needed to explain why we should be using said test or what knowing having the marker means, what activates the marker and will the marker be passed. Until then, it is pointless.
Bottom line is tell me and show me the science, or the significance of the results so I can make an informed choice and I may jump in.

No one may want to hear this, but the Company owns the fact that a representative of their Company was unable to handle hard questions and the need for answers. I was not on the phone and did not hear the line of questioning but I will tell you, anyone answering a phone at my Company BETTER be able to speak intelligently to specific questions. They are representing the Company.so there is no excuse for the poorly handled call.


I take offense to being told that I am immoral and do not care for my dogs because I will not use a test that actually can provide absolutely nothing of value to me at this time. We take a moderate and purposeful approach to health testing. We will not subject our dogs to tests for the sake of testing.



Cheryl

[Elaine]

We all bring our personal experiences to the table. My experience is that medical science is often not in agreement about even the most basic aspects of a diagnosis. I can recount at least half a dozen times in the past five years that we have found ourselves utterly frustrated with the limitations of veterinary medical science and the contradictory expertise offered by medical profesionals (and those who presented themselves as medical professionals)

IF there is a simple effective definitive test that will help us eliminate JRD, than of course we should all use it. I am cautious because of my experience. I can accept that others feel diffeently. What offends me very deeply is the inference that we are immoral or unloving.

[Betty]

We all do bring our personal experiences to the table and many of you know that I am all too familar with canine renal disease. The truth is we need a better way to deal with kidney failure than most of us rely on now. When we take our dogs for their annual checkups, and we have blood work done, the renal function tests can be deceiving. BUN and creatinine are poor indicators of what is going on... The fact is that over 50 percent and probably close to 75 percent of renal function can be gone before we see an elevation in those values. Of course, this means that when you walk out of the vet's office with normal values, you think you have a clean bill of health, but that might not be so. Honest breeders rely on those values when they consider breeding their dogs... but the truth is, the dog may actually have renal disease. It is important that we have a test that we can depend on to predict the chances of passing on kidney disease and its consequences. DNA testing is reliable.. it is done by many companies like VetGen.. also University of Missouri Vet School.. I think Dogenes may be the only one that has the test specific for Dobermans. Like it or not, DNA testing is here to stay and it is state of the art diagnostics.