There is a very good article in Today's Breeder about EIC.

interesting it states only 2-4% of Labradors are affected

Exactly.

The researchers (who provided the information for the article) say 5% or less, based on research sampling and statistical projection. That information has been in their public releases for a long time. Nothing new here.

IMO, 2-4% is higher than what we are seeing in show bred dogs. 2% is 2 out of 100. How many dogs have you personally seen in the last year? How many have you seen collapse? Do you think that people are just lying about not having dogs collapse? At a normal specialty, there would be 8-10 dogs that collapse. Same goes for a hunt test. At Potomac, there would be at least 20 dogs collapsing, if the stats held true.

If you search the web, you will find that several top producers of show bred labs have produced dogs that tested as affected or a EIC carrier out of a clear bitch. Several of these have been heavily linebred on, or daughters of one have been bred to another. So in essence, some show breeders have selected for the EIC mutation without knowing it and without ever having a collapsing dog.

There's obviously more to the story than just this one test.

If a dog collapses, it probably won't be showing anymore, so you wouldn't see it at a show. Besides, it's unrealistic to use a show as a random sample of 100 labradors, when their testing includes ALL labs, not just show bred or field bred.

I've produced two dogs I know of that have collapsed. One tested affected, the other has not been tested, but is related. One has collapsed ONCE in 9 years....when chasing a deer. The other collapses only in the summer and only when overstimulated by seeing a deer or rabbit.

So, these are pet owners....the one that collapses more often, was very recent and able to test for it. The other was years ago, before much was known about EIC and her vet just said to watch her. The right circumstances have not happened again to initiate an episode. Knowing the lines though, I would bet money a test would prove her affected. All the other puppies in those two litters are either not genetically affected or they just have never had the right circumstances to trigger it...or their owners did not report it or thought it was just a fluke.

I think that until we start looking at this as a legitimate concern, there is going to be a blind eye to it and more pet owners will have to go through it. It is not fun for them. They are terrified and don't understand what is happening to their pet. In the above cases, they are out in the middle of nowhere when it happens and are panicked about not being able to get to a vet.

Just because it takes the right circumstances to trigger an episode does not mean that it does not exist.

BTW, all of my related dogs tested out just as they should have to validate the mode of inheritance.

I have never seen more than a handful of show bred dogs at a hunt test, and even there you typically only see them at the Junior level, so expecting to see one collapse at an event like that would be very rare. Especially if they have been training. If they are affected, chances are they collapsed long before they made it to a hunt test and who would enter a dog like that knowing it could collapse?

Years ago, there was a dog (bench bred) that collapsed on multiple occasions at hunt tests. The problem is that there are different grades of collapse, and the collapse is not always obvious - sometimes dogs that collapse will get weak and lay down prior to collapsing. I've seen several dogs at shows that get weak and lays down - most of the time it looks like heat exhaustion. Happened at the last Potomac, but probably went unrecognized by most. Happened down south.

Ok, let's do an informal survey. Who has seen a dog collapse? How long have you been in Labradors?

Me - 17 years in Labradors. Never seen one collapse and my dogs get very excited when we go for a long walk in the woods and they chase rabbits, etc. Never seen one at a show or at a hunt test.

I think the test may be correct to a certain extent but there must be some other trigger other than excitement.

Anyone else?

20 years in labs, do obedience and conformation no hunting. Own 10-15 dogs at a time.

never seen a lab collapse

How many have actually seen a dog with PRA? I never have, and I'm been in the breed for 35 years. Are my dogs Optigen-tested? You bet! I would say offhand that I've heard from equal numbers of other breeders who have had a PRA affected dog vs an EIC collapsing dog, although it's hard to say because PRA has been recognized for so much longer and yet is less prevalent now because responsible breeders do not breed two PRA carriers to each other.

I have seen a dog collapse at a hunt test, but it was before I was aware of the existance of EIC, so I assumed it was heat stroke, as did the other people present. The dog recovered to run the second series with a vet's approval. Could have been EIC- I'll never know. I also co-bred a dog that collapses. The sire, a popular conformation stud, has produced carriers of the dynamin 1 mutation. One of my friends used a show bred MH who has tested E/E but has never collapsed and had a litter in which several dogs collapsed, which proves the researcher's claim that E/E dogs that don't collapse themselves can still produce dogs that do.

Certainly there are other factors involved, and one or more other genes are probably involved. The incomplete penetrance of the dynamin 1 mutation is best explained by modifier genes. But it seems that unless a dog is E/E it is highly unlikely to collapse. An E/E dog or a carrier may produce collapsing dogs if bred to another carrier even if it doesn't collapse itself.

Judging from the results those of us who are testing have seen and knowing the popularity of the confirmation lines involved, I strongly suspect there are a great many more carriers out there than you might suspect. Many of us are line breeding within those gene pools so I think we're being naive to believe we're not producing affected dogs just because we don't see dogs collapsing.

Yes, there are other factors. Temperament plays an important role in whether or not a dog collapses. The research indicates that EIC in show lines has gone unnoticed because their temperaments play a part in preventing them from getting to a level of excitement that triggers an episode. Also, Annonymous hit it right on when they said that there are different levels of collapse.

I have a dog that tested affected but who has never had an official collapse. BUT, she has had times where she has gotten weak and stopped on her own. Classic conditions that produce collapse-pressure in training a new concept, hot day and excited attitude. She slowed way down, and then just layed down and wouldn't get up for a while. After a little bit she does get up for me, but her attitude for work is gone. Some very driven dogs would not stop if they felt something coming on, but I believe she can sense something and shuts herself down before it goes too far.

It's really inevitable that the big stud dogs will have their status revealed as breeders have their offspring tested.

At 65.00 I really don't understand why they don't go ahead and test their studs. Let's just get it done and out of the way so we can all move forward and make our decisions accordingly. I am sure some breeders won't care and that's fine. They can breed to a stud that is affected or a carrier if they want to. But those of us who want to avoid producing it would really just like to know upfront who is a carrier so we have a wider choice of stud dogs. You can argue that there's more to the test. That's fine. So what if there is? Some of us have the knowledge of our own lines and can see that the test was accurate for us and we'd like to continue using it. I certainly didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I just bred my affected girl to a clear boy.

Honestly, it's not the end of the world if your dog is a carrier or even affected, so avoiding the test or not belieiving it's accuracy is, in most cases, a breeder who puts money before health.

I have two friends who have lost dogs to EIC attacks. One owner went back and tested the littermates--all were carriers or affected.

The affected ones had mostly been washed out of training for "heat stroke" which turned out to be EIC.

MK

The dogs my friend bred (half show,half field) also had to be removed from training due to EIC.

I've had a PRA affected Labrador and personally know others. This was many years ago. I know of alot more PRA than EIC. Of course, PRA isn't an issue now with the Optigen test. I've noticed in the last six months, our local Lab Rescue has placed two dogs with PRA.

I asked the question because I have not met anyone who has seen a dog collapse. Just an unscientic survey.

Thanks for the input.

For me it's not a matter of putting money first. My husband would really laugh at that! I do all the other tests, digital OFA's, Optigen, Cerf, Heart. But, in order to make a good breeding decision, I want to know that a test I'm using is somewhat correct. Again, thanks for everyone's input.

The test will not predict with certainty that your dog will collapse. Some E/E dogs do not collapse. It WILL prevent you from producing dogs that collapse if you make sure that at least one parent from every breeding is clear for EIC.

I've had Labs since 1976, I've never seen one collapse. Since 1994 we have run on 8+ in numbers. Prior to this I was involved with field Labs.

I have seen personally a couple of cases of PRA and know several breeders who have produced a case or two. On EIC I have one breeder friend who "thinks" she might have had a case quite a few years ago, none others.

Just as a note, I'm not making a judgement one way or the other at this time, just answering the question.

Possibly it depends on what bloodlines you are working with which condition you are more likely to encounter. However, those pesky recessives can sleep a long time. One of my present dogs is a PRA carrier- no carriers or close relatives of carriers for 5 generations and, as I said, not only have I never produced a PRA affected dog myself, I know of no close relatives that were PRA affected. (Exception- I did buy a Receiver son- but he wasn't affected, nor were the puppies in the few litters he sired before I found out that he might be a carrier and retired him.) Several of my dogs came back as EIC carriers to my surprise, as I was blaming the EIC affected dog I bred on the other side of the pedigree, which was closely related to the sire.

I only know that to me it is worth spending $65 on that test and perhaps searching a little longer for the right stud dog to ensure that I never get a call from a puppy buyer telling me they can no longer go in the field with the dog they bought from me as a hunting companion. Since I sell a fairly high proportion of my puppies to hunters, this is a real concern.

I'm not saying a breeder is putting money first because of the cost of the test....but because they think they will lose stud fees if their boy ends up a carrier or affected.

The test is accurate for what it tests for. Like Peggy said, it isn't going to tell you your dog is going to collapse. But affected dogs always have two parents that are at least carriers.

The test is accurate for what it tests for
***********************************************

I have no idea how you can say that, as they have not identified the gene YET. If the test has not been perfected yet with the correct gene identified, getting any results means nothing. Getting false results does not do our breed any good either.
Since the test has not been proven yet over time, maybe some dogs that have been "cleared" are really affected or carriers? And vice versa.
Once U. Minn has identified the gene, then that is a different story. I have called U. Minn and they have said they have not identified the actual gene, they have identified a gene that is ****CLOSE**** to the gene they are looking for. Sorry, I need "the" gene
in order to trust the results that are given for anyone testing at this time. Give it time to shake out. Good things come to those who wait.

Peggy, within the last 6 months I helped rehome a show quality bitch who turned out to have PRA. She was about 4 years old. At first it was thought she had epilepsy but after careful observation, it turned out that in low light she was bumping into things because she was losing her vision not because she was having mini-seizures. Oops on that initial diagnosis.

I think we need an explanation for why some affected dogs collapse and some don't. And why some get quite old before they collapse and some appear to collapse at a very young age. And why carriers and unaffecteds sometimes collapse as well.

So if in fact, this is a genuine, reliable genetic test, it is not the whole story of the disease and the whole story needs to be written before it will be really accepted.

Bonnie

Carriers and unaffecteds do not collapse from EIC. They could collapse from heat stroke or some issuem but it is not EIC.

That is not what has been reported, there are unexplained cases of carriers collapsing.

I agree with "postponing is inevitable", popular stud dog owners don't test and find excuses not to test because of the all mighty dollar. Someone who's making money hands over fist isn't going to do a test to change that, no matter what the test. Too bad because they are loosing business by not testing too.

I would rather lose stud fees, after all my dogs are for me, than get a result from a test that is very new and they have not identified THE exact gene
and have an inaccurate result. I see people who have tested, but it really means nothing to me, knowing the test is STILL being worked on by the researchers trying to identify the EIC gene, not find one that is close to it. Once they actually identify the gene that they are looking for, have no problem testing at all.

I agree, if people are going to breed their bitches to a test, so be it.
Don't use my boy.
You're the one who will lose out not me!!

Bonnie wrote;


So if in fact, this is a genuine, reliable genetic test, it is not the whole story of the disease and the whole story needs to be written before it will be really accepted.

**************

I guess this is the way it always is. People don't like change. And it's hard to accept something that 'might' prove to be ...what? True?


I just can't get over how reluctant people are to using a wonderful new test that can only help our breed in the long run. The only way we can make progress with it is to have more people test and see what happens. That is how the false allele was found in Optigen testing. I was one of those who tested early on and had a stud dog come back a C. Those of us who were pretty sure that couldn't be true told Optigen and soon, we found that some of our C's were A's. So, please. If you want to be skeptical, fine.....why not test your dogs and help prove it to be wrong. or help the researchers find the modifying genes, or other contributing factors...or whatever. Help us all find the answer to your questions. Information is power. But to refuse to test because you want more answers.....that really doesn't help.

What is everyone so afraid of? Progress?

Huh? We are not breeding to a test. Those who haven't produced it will probably not even be looking for the clearance. But some of us have produced it and know our girls are atleast carriers. Are you saying we should play russian roulette with it and breed to your untested dog????

20 years in the breed. I've had iris melanoma, cataracts, geographic folds, hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, shoulder OCD, hock OCD, seizures, EIC, overbites, underbites, a weak lens that burst when the puppy was playing, mysenthia gravis, ACL, degenerative myelopathy, etc, etc.

Am I supposed assume that none of this exists if I hadn't bred it?

Again, I have trouble believing that OFA - the pinnacle health registry for most of you and the AKC - would accept the results for inclusion if their scientists didn't believe in the test. They didn't accept the Optigen results at the very beginning, why would they accept these results now?

You're the one who will lose out not me!!

Well said Breeder!

being accepted by OFA means absolutely nothing except
that OFA can make money from registering the results

I've never seen an EIC collapse. I've seen a couple of heat exhaustion cases at shows/hunt tests. I've had Labradors for over 20 years and have been showing and doing performance events for about 13 years. I did hit the PRA lottery and I own an affected dog. Not sure what that means in the long run but someone asked!

Dear postponing the inevitable who said:

"I guess this is the way it always is. People don't like change. And it's hard to accept something that 'might' prove to be...what? True?.........But to refuse to test because you want more answers ..... that really doesn't help"

Since you quoted me and said this, besides needing to say it without your name, whatever are you hiding, you are so wrong.

I have all EIC tested clear breeding dogs. So while YOU might have a horse in this race, I have NO horse in this race.

Nevertheless - there is clearly something not fully understood about this disease. Carriers and clears have been reported to collapse from EIC. There is one case they cite of a pretty old field trial champion who did not collapse until he was pretty old (I think it was somewhere between 9-11) Not all affecteds collapse.

Clinically, the gene test and the manifestation of the disease is way too variable for me to accept that there is one gene and one gene only involved in this disease so that this test answers it all.


Bonnie

For everyone waiting for the EXACT gene, do you use OFA results to guide your breeding decisions or not? Because those results identify NO GENE and you can get an entire litter of dysplastic dogs out of two excellent parents, so what do OFA results really mean anyway? Doing hips and elbows is not cheap-more expensive than any gene test. Why bother doing them if they only give you a sense of what could be there rather than what truly is there? I think it is because while not always an accurate predictor, it (and PennHIP)is the best we have at the moment. And just like EIC, many people will choose to ignore their results and breed dogs with failed elbows and marginal hips and take their chances with what they produce in order to get that next show dog. How many people wait to get final clearances before breeding their dogs anymore? In my area, the number of males bred before 1 year of age is ridiculous (many of them who later fail clearances and disappear, but their offspring remain to produce more litters), and the number of girls being bred before 2 (to those same dogs) is on the rise. The issue with EIC is no different. Some people will use results to guide them, others will not. For those waiting for absolutes, good luck with that, because it does not exist with any test we have today. PRA/prcd clear dogs can still get a different form of PRA. RD/OSD clear dogs can still develop a different form of RD. Dogs that prelim OFA clear can still become dysplastic, and even if they do not there is no guarantee they will not produce it.

With all of this talk about "top studs" producing carriers and affected dogs, I was wondering if there was a list of dogs that tested as carriers or affected? Or is all of this ring side gossip?

labradata.com

offa.org

Both lists are voluntary and no where near being complete.

You'll notice on the OFA site that the field dog folk have accepted this test and are testing their dogs.

Good for you Bonnie. I'm glad you have no carriers or affecteds. I hope you never do and I hope you never produce it.

By not posting my name, I am not trying to hide anything-I just don't enjoy having people form opinions of me based on one or two posts on a forum. ...and my post was not refective of only your comments, but several of the comments in general. So my comment about people refusing to test was not directed at you. I'll be sure not to quote you again in a general post so you won't take my comments personally. But, to your comments directed to me;

I hope the statement about the field trial champion who did not collapse until he was 9-11 years old is not the statement you were using to support the statement that not all affecteds collapse, though that is a true statement. He did collapse. Many dogs with EIC do not collapse until they are older, but have produced dogs that do collapse in the meantime, which is why it is nice to have the test.

Where have you seen research evidence that any dogs tested clear have collapsed from EIC? I believe the study indicates that a collapse in dogs that do not have any copies of the gene are not collapses from EIC. Here is the statement about this from the studies website;



"Our testing to date has identified more than 1,000 dogs with the E/N genotype. Approximately 96% of these dogs have no signs of EIC or any type of collapse, while approximately 4% have been reported to show some signs of collapse or intolerance associated with exercise. The vast majority of these collapses can be attributed to other medical conditions, or their signs are not consistent with the classic signs of EIC that start with wobbliness in the rear legs.

Similarly, approximately 5% of all dogs with the N/N genotype are reported by owners to show some signs of an exercise-associated weakness or collapse. Again, this is likely due to other causes and is not classic EIC. Thus, we feel there is sufficient evidence to state that carriers of the EIC gene are no more likely to show signs of a collapse than are clear dogs, and that any collapse symptoms they do have are very unlikely to be EIC.

In other words, there are many possible reasons as to why a dog can to collapse during exercise, and the mutant EIC gene is present at a high frequency in the population. It appears at this time that there is no association between carrier status and EIC."


Even if what you are saying is true, that there is more than one gene involved in the expression and even if they have not isolated "the" gene, the test and the research behind it are explained quite well on their FAQs.
http://www.vdl.umn.edu/vdl/ourservices/canineneuromuscular/faq/home.html#collapse

Included in the FAQ's is admission about the test's possible shortcomings, as with any test of it's type.

So, yes, the test may not be the complete answer, but it sure has been accurate enough for many of us to see where the problem came from in our lines and allows us to try to avoid producing it again.

After visiting the sites listed above and taking advantage of the great Google, all I can say is wow. Although there is limited data at the moment the data that there is suggests that we are in some predicament. These "top studs" really are top studs. Many used a great deal and there off spring are the future of our breed. No wonder there is so much debate about this subject. I guess I now have a lot a things to think about, some bitches to tested, and some breeding strategies to change. Especially if the owners of these studs and their offspring are not testing.

The link to LabraData is
labradata.org not .com

How wrong you are.

Responding to
"I agree, if people are going to breed their bitches to a test, so be it.
Don't use my boy.
You're the one who will lose out not me!!"

Okay, maybe I can explain my concerns about this test better if I use some human examples. This is long so if you are not interested, skip on by!

Let's take Huntington Chorea - if you watch House on TV, this is the genetic disease that "13" has. It is a simple dominant gene. No copies, you will never get it, one copy, you get it. Absolutely.

You might get a juvenile form of the disease, which means you get the disease at a young age. You might get the disease when you are 30 or you might get it when you are 50.

But whenever it starts, you will get the full blown disease with all its symptoms. You will get the well defined symptoms that are associated with Huntington's and unfortunately, you will die from this disease. It might progress more slowly or more rapidly, but there are a set of symptoms you will get, sometimes in one order, sometimes in another, but eventually you will have all the symptoms.

Anyone who knows what those symptoms are can make the diagnosis at some stage of the disease, although very early on it might not be as clear as it is later on.

Everyone who has a copy of the gene, i.e. are affected, will get the disease by around age 50 at the latest and everyone affected will die from the disease. (unless they are hit by a truck first of course)

You can contrast this with the breast cancer gene (s) There are two different ones and they account for about 10% of all breast cancers. If you carry one of these genes your chances of getting breast cancer are increased but are not 100%. There are things you can do to decrease your risk and if you have breast cancer and carry one or both of the genes, there are some treatments that would be better for you than others.

Everyone believes that there are other genes also involved in development of breast cancer whether you a carrier of the breast cancer genes or not. It is multi-determined.

Now EIC. If this is a single gene disease, saying that 96% of carriers do not collapse sounds good but that means that 4% of carriers do collapse. And while it is said "the vast majority can be attributed to other causes" apparently not every case can be attributed to other causes. Carriers collapse at some rate, albeit it 1,2,3% whatever, carriers should not collapse. And saying "other causes" is not good enough, what other causes look like EIC but are not EIC and how are they different? Huntington's may look like other disease for a bit, but it is a unique, well defined, genetic disease and in the end, always looks like itself. Or not, then it is not.

PRA is a unique, well defined, genetic disease. EIC must also be for the gene to be highly reliable. And carriers, not a one of them, should collapse.

And are you saying that 5% of normals might collapse and that feels okay to say? But maybe it is some other disease? If 5% of the population showed symptoms associated with Huntington Chorea but were genetically normal for it, there would be an uproar about the test and the diagnosis. In medicine, that is a huge number. And wouldn't be just sloughed off as unimportant with no need to explain.

If you are making decisions based on a gene test, that test better be valid, reproducible and with a set of symptoms that have little variability from animal to animal. When that is true, then you can make decisions based on it.

Until someone can make me understand why carriers collapse, at any rate, why normals collapse at any rate and why the overwhelming number of affecteds do not collapse, I have to believe this is a multi-genetic disease, more like breast cancer than Huntington's or PRA.

Meaning the jury is still out on any high degree of importance we could put on the test.

So why did I do the test on my animals? For the same reason that if my mother had died from breast cancer at 47, or ovarian cancer, or my aunt or my grandmother, I would do the gene test for breast cancer. It is a piece of data to use along with many other pieces of data.

I sure wouldn't swoon over it. Real different from how I would feel if my mother died of Huntington's.

PRA versus EIC. To me, real different. Until proven otherwise.

Bonnie

As with any other genetic disorder that does not have a 100% guaranteed DNA test, I will make my decisions based on this test and the other information I have about my lines concerning EIC.

From what you are saying, you are recommending that people not worry about breeding to a carrier or affected if their dog is a carrier or affected, is that what you are saying? That the test results are not accurate enough so one should not be making decisions based on them?

Quote:
"I agree, if people are going to breed their bitches to a test, so be it.
Don't use my boy.
You're the one who will lose out not me!!"

No we don't lose out, there are plenty of great studs to pick from, you lose.

If your stud dog or brood bitch produced affected dogs that actually did collapse from EIC, would you remove it from your breeding program? WOuld you remove a dog that collapsed? If you really do not belive this test is accurate then breeding to tested clears would not be trustworthy and I cannot imagine breeders actually wanting to breed any more affecteds who do collapse.

I had a bitch produce a puppy that collapsed/confirmed EIC through testing.

I did breed her and tested all the puppies. I ended up with one affected (didn't know father was carrier until she was bred - before test was available) and I gave her to my favorite vet tech, with full disclosure, because I know her lifestyle will be good for her.

Testing your dogs does NOT mean you have to remove them from your breeding program. It does mean you have to breed the carriers/affecteds to tested CLEAR dogs.

I have bred dogs with EIC, and while the test may not be the whole story, but for EIC (there may be other diseases and other mutations, but within >98% confidence level, you need 2 copies of the gene to produce this disease. So, if we breed dogs to avoid having 2 copies of the mutated gene, and thus have no chance of producing EIC caused by this mutation, so why not test? It's a no-brainer to me. Whether or not to breed dogs with 2 copies of the gene (affected) is your choice. But if we have a simple, relatively inexpensive test to ensure that we don't produce this, so what's the problem? For those of you who avoid the test, I get the feeling you've got something to hide, you're worried about being exposed. If the majority of us test, then we can make informed breeding decisions, and at least be confident that we are avoiding this specific issue. Are there other mutations? Quite probably? Other reasons for collapse? Why wouldn't there be. The point is, we've identified one cause, that seems to be more common. come on folks, for the health of the breed, let's work with it. It's a test - use it as you feel fit to guide decisions, not eliminate breeding prospects unless you see affecteds.

"within 98% confidence level, you need 2 copies of the gene to produce this disease. So, if we breed dogs to avoid having 2 copies of the mutated gene, and thus have no chance of producing EIC caused by this mutation, so why not test? It's a no-brainer to me."

3% risk of dying during surgery is considered a very high risk.

Some number of carriers and normals collapse according to this test. Some number of affecteds never collapse. According to this test, you can have EIC and be genetic clear or be a carrier. Or you can have EIC genetically and never show any signs of having the disease.

So even if you breed two clears, there is still a small, but significant chance, you will produce a dog with EIC. And even if you breed two affecteds, there is a chance, greater than above risk, of never showing any symptoms from the disease.

Finding out why that is, should be a scientific no-brainer to me. So perhaps there is another gene that really is the drop-dead causative gene for producing EIC and without it, you never collapse, and with it, you will collapse regardless of the status of the gene we are testing for, which is highly associated with the tested gene, but not always.

Something like that or any other number of possiblities.

Bonnie

EIC Again? Didn't breeders already decide if they are or are not doing EIC testing? This is beating a dead horse. We all have the option to do testing it or not to do it.

but if you are testing to identify a gene which is not the cause of the collapsing episodes, what benefit is there?

This is a marker test. The first PRA test was a marker test.

Would I pay $65 to have my dog tested? No.

Would I contribute $65 to research? Yes.

his is a marker test. The first PRA test was a marker test.
Would I pay $65 to have my dog tested? No.
Would I contribute $65 to research? Yes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said!

"This is a marker test. The first PRA test was a marker test.

Would I pay $65 to have my dog tested? No.

Would I contribute $65 to research? Yes. "


I would donate that much per dog I own towards additional research to get it right this time.

"You have entered LabraData.com, but probably wanted to browse LabraData.org instead.
Click the button to redirect your browser to LabraData.org."

You have both sites. Why didn't you use .com, it would have been easier for people to remember?

When you make it easier to enter the information, I would be glad to put all my dogs in your data base.

People can still get to Labradata using .com, you press the button and it re-directs you there.

I agree that testing your dog will enable you to keep any dog in your breeding program if bred wisely; my question was really directed at those who do not test and/or do not believe in the test.

I am curious as to whether people really care whether they produce this condition and if they do not test, would they remove symptomatic dogs or producers of symptomatic dogs from breeding programs given there is (to them) no other reliable way to prevent breeding this problem.

My impression from speaking to people is that many people do not consider EIC a serious issue and would rather not have to screen for one more thing. It is the same with epilepsy. There is no test and yet dogs that have seizured from unknown causes have not been removed from breeding programs, nor have the seizures been communicated to people wishing to breed to those dogs. It is inconvenient to remove a big winner from a breeding program and it can be easier to hide the genetic defects than the physical faults, so it is the genetic defects that are often kept in the bathwater rather than physical flaws.

There is seizure & epilepsy research & testing happening for years. They aren't releasing a genetic test yet because they aren't in the hurry the University was for the EIC test. A vial of blood sent to them with the pedigree is helpful and only costs shipping. There are lots of reasons for seizures, not all are epileptic in nature. We must rule out other causes completely before calling it epilepsy. Of course epilepsy is around as you mentioned but remember not all seizures are epileptic seizures.

"There is no test and yet dogs that have seizured from unknown causes have not been removed from breeding programs, nor have the seizures been communicated to people wishing to breed to those dogs"

There are only a couple of breeders we know of who have done this and still do. I also think we know who most of them are. Some are gone from the breed by kennel name but still put their fingers in the pie once in a while. They have poor reputations, most know to stay away from them.

For those of you who insist EIC isn't a problem in the breed, or don't think the test is correct, will you please openly put a statement on your websites to that effect? It'll save me some time with my shopping.

Unless a specific cause (tumor, etc.) has been determined to cause a specific dog to seizure, one cannot just ASSUME that the seizures are not epilepsy. So it is the same thing, as far as removing dogs from breeding is concerned.

And while YOU might know who these breeders/kennels are, I am sure there are many who do not.

I am not sure what differentiation you are making between seizures and epilepsy.

A seizure is a defined behavioral event that occurs when there is abnormal electrical discharge from somewhere within the brain. Epilepsy is a chronic condition characterized by recurrent seizures.

A brain tumor can certainly cause the epileptic syndrome (chronic recurrent seizures) as can a multitude of other things. In people there are a few forms of epilepsy where they have identified a specific gene. Most cases of epilepsy have no known cause, some of which are assumed, but not proven, to be genetic.

Bonnie

There are many references to Huntington's disease not being fully penetrant, ie, not all persons who have the mutations in repeat number show symptoms.

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/5/775

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease

Genetics is never as simple as 1 + 1 = 2

"There are many references to Huntington's disease not being fully penetrant, ie, not all persons who have the mutations in repeat number show symptoms."

Yes, if you don't have all of the gene, but you have some of the gene, you may or may not show signs of Huntington's. If you have all of the gene, you always show signs of Huntington's.

Bonnie