In the US: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20160222451.pdf I can't say I really understand all the technical details, but some interesting stats about how common cruciate disease is in Labradors, and how high the heritability of it is. Anyway, great news a test might be on the way....
I've not read all of it by a long way, but it does sound promising. From my quick scan, it looks like there might be a numeric "risk score" from each parent, because mutations can occur in a range of genes? It doesn't really matter, but I hope it does what they hope and becomes another accepted test.
I suppose though, that's not so very different from EBVs - which is also about risk (but based on actual although extremely incomplete records). In a way, it's probably more sensible for lots of things to try to assess risk rather than try to breed for perfect scores to a target. Whether breeders/kennel clubs will accept it, we'll have to see of course. I suppose it might be a way off, if a patent has just been filed. I saw this on the Labrador Health Council's page though, so they seem to be watching it anyway.
Yes, that's what I was thinking of, too, similar to the EBV. Puppies from two affected parents won't necessarily have any problems, but there will be an increased risk. Puppies from unaffected parents should have little risk - although will still be susceptible to cruciate problems caused by trauma, of course. It's interesting that they say that humans who have a blood relative who has ruptured their ACL have twice the risk of rupturing their own.
The surgeon Charlie saw thought that cruciate problems in a totally healthy ligament is really quite rare - not impossible, but....much more likely the ligament had some weakness and a trauma brought that to light.
That's what my vet says about cruciates too. Problems in normal, healthy ligaments are really, really rare.
This is really interesting. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fantastic and I think it has the potential to really improve the health of future generations (not to mention reduce the stress, cost etc. on the dog and owner). It got me thinking though. I wonder how common the troublesome gene or genes are and wonder how the introduction of more health tests may impact the gene pool? Hmm. Maybe my brain is on overdrive this morning
Interesting! Hmm...I can't think of anyone in my or my hubby's family who have had an ACL rupture, but that's not to say it hasn't happened. I don't know a lot about my side, actually....any rate my daughter is a basketball player so for her to have a ruptured ACL is not surprising, especially for a female.
Yep, that is a problem. Although, I think effects like the use of popular sires, and compromising on CoI to preserve characteristics (either in show or working) are probably bigger problems than ruling out dogs that have a higher risk of health problems. At least in a population that is as (comparatively) massive as Labradors. Not so in minor breeds, perhaps. But, yes, there is an argument that the pedigree dog is doomed - eventually. Unless cross breeding is allowed. I'm sure that will happen at some point. Hopefully in a measured and balanced way and not too late.
The patent application claims 8.9% of Labradors (in the US) suffer cruciate problems, and treatment for all of this adds up to $1billion.
Actually.....someone said on here once that their insurance wouldn't cover for a hip or elbow (can't recall) because they were common issues in labs, in spite of no personal history?? Am I remembering that right? More testing may be good for the insurance world......
That hasn't happened with HD or ED but I think it actually would be good if it did. Imagine the signal that would send to prospective puppy buyers if the insurance companies asked for the health scores of the parents and then refused to insure puppies if the results were too bad or unavailable. It might be extremely effective at identifying poor breeders. Also, in my view, if breeder were obliged to provide the insurance for genetic diseases along with the puppy, this would transfer the cost of these problems from the buyer to the breeder. It would cost a fortune for poor breeders to provide insurance, and good breeders would get insurance much more cheaply. This would be a very good thing. I actually think that the insurance companies could do an awful lot more to tackle the root causes of problems than they do. But it probably makes no difference to them whether a population of dogs is unhealthy or not. Indeed, if the vast majority of pedigree dogs were problem free probably fewer people would buy insurance. Think of the data the insurance companies have on ED and HD! Much, much more than the kennel club has with its very incomplete records for EBVs. If the insurance companies had to supply all data on the outcomes into the kennel club database, that would be a massive step forward.
