Degenerative Myelopathy - Page 2

I would have no problem breeding an "at risk" dog, but would be sure to breed it to a clear dog.  In doing so, none of the pups would be at risk, all would be carriers.  Obviously caution in the next generation would have to be taken when breeding the resulting clear dogs as well.

IMO it is naive to throw all affected/carrier dogs out of the gene pool.  Especially since it is newer and not everyone is testing for it yet.  I would rather KNOW the status of a litter where one parent was affected and one parent was normal than to NOT KNOW the status of either parent (where they could both be carriers or affected and produce affected puppies). 

Perfect BHall!  And I agree with GSD2727! Personally all my dogs have been tested and are all clear. But I would breed one to a carrier if I REALLY liked what the dog had to offer.

To Kerschberger: There are several spinal issues that may look like DM but which are *not* DM. For example, spinal injuries or cauda equina can cause issues that may look like DM. To label a dog who died at 12.5 as having DM without having either DNA or actual diagnostic testing could lead many a person down a wrong-way street. It seems like most dogs who do have true DM (as opposed to another problem) begin showing signs before or about the age of 7 years and the disease progresses at a fairly steady but slow pace over the next few years.

The DNA testing for DM is still in its beginning stages--not all dogs who test positive will actually get the disease, for example--is there an actuator gene, perhaps? And some dogs seem to get the disease--or something closely related--that test DNA negative.

DNA testing is a very positive step, and any dog with either one or two copies of the gene should be bred only to dogs who show up as clear/clear. But eliminating a dog from breeding merely for the presence of the gene is likely going to be unnecessarily narrowing the pool of breeding candidates and making the gene pool dangerously shallow.

So, yeah, I would consider breeding to an at-risk (positive/positive) dog (although, it would take a number of other positive factors to overcome this negative), but I think it would be a mistake to not breed a clear/clear to a carrier if that was the best breeding match otherwise.

FWIW, all of my breeding dogs have been DNA tested and have been found clear/clear--so I know that any puppies I produce, even if the stud dog is untested, should be clear of the problem (well, at least of the problem for which the DNA test checks...).

Christine

I wouldn't have a problem breeding a clear to a carrier but don't you think there is enough clears/carriers in working and showlines that you wouldn't  need to use a  at risk GSD.
If you did use a at risk GSD would you be up front with the puppy buyers,letting them know one of the parents  test came back at risk for DM or would you say nothing.
I know my goal as a breeder would be to weed out all at risk GSD's








 

No, I do not think there are nearly "enough" normals and carriers to exclude using at risks if necessary. Look at the dogs that have been tested, research their pedigrees and you'll soon see that is true.

Of course I would inform buyers that their dog is a carrier. The goal is to not produce anymore at risks, not to weed them out of the gene pool.

Hi Christine,  & everyone else ;)

I have had many feedbacks over the years from owners with dogs with DM.   One was as early as 5 yrs old with his onset.  But most do not start until later.  One man claimed that when he noticed it with his dog, he switched him to a pure true raw diet and he lived another 5 years!  My Stella arrived at just over 7 and was scraping her foot on the ground in that way .   My Dian did not start until 10.  He arrived here at 6 years old.   Stella lived for another 15 months.   Dian barely made it for another 8 months.  

Yes,  the University of MO Dr. Coates is researching now WHY some develop it and some don't, when they are At Risk.  Of course, a good many at risk dogs die of something else likely... before DM sets in.  Some people have insinuated that DM dogs are more prone to contracting other illnesses or diseases.  I doubt that.   My Uschi was DM Normal and she died of hemangiosarcoma nearly age 9.   There was never anything wrong with Stella or Dian until the DM killed them. 

I wish the Uni of MO would use that valuable research money on other horrific diseases such as the aforementioned "hemangiosarcoma", as the DM test has now brought us to a point where we can eliminate this disease with co-operation of all.  It seems a bit of a 'waste' to spent money and time of finding out a detail that is really not so important, as in the big picture it will not change anything for us breeders or buyers. 

Because this test is so straightforward, no recessive genetics, its fairly easy to breed out to all normals.   It has not to do with being in the beginning stages science wise, the test is solid.  I have spoken with three research scientist / geneticists who reviewed the work of Dr. Coates, and all stated the research backed up the test.  

Kerschberger,

If the dog "got better" when switched to raw, then the dog most likely didn't have DM. DM in dogs can't be definitively diagnosed without a biopsy of the spinal cord and it's more likely that the problem wasn't actually DM than that it was "cured" by a change of diet....

Here is some of what I am referring to when I say we still don't know the full story:

http://vetnutrition.blogspot.com/2009/01/degenerative-myelopathy-canine-ms-or.html

I know of at least one case where a dog DNA tested negative (twice) for DM, yet the dog became symptomatic and after death the biopsy confirmed DM.

Dr. Clemmons thinks that the GSD version of DM is not the same (or not always the same) as the Corgi version of the disease. http://neuro.vetmed.ufl.edu/neuro/DM_Web/DMofGS.htm

http://neuro.vetmed.ufl.edu/neurohp.html --for some more links

Here's some more good general info on the disease: http://daleysdogyears.com/degenerative-myelopathy/

Information from the OFA DM database:

Since 08 there have been 1228 GSD's DNA tested for DM; 794 normal, 247 carriers, 187 at risk.

A quick run through the list of the normals shows a small percentage are from recognized kennels and there are a few dogs with pedigrees here on the PDB and can be traced back to some V, Va dogs. I don't recognize too many names.  Many dogs are listed using only call names with no info on the sire and dam. Some are obviously randomly bred. Some are white, some are seniors. I assume they were dogs tested to confirm or disprove a dx of DM. I haven't counted, but assuming half are males, and backing out untitled dogs and dogs without health clearances, pet dogs, that means that there are probably not all that many normal dogs most breeders here would want to use at stud.

Some of the carriers and at risks go back to some very well known and frequently used German and US VA dogs, and AKC champions that must have been (or are) at risk themselves.

At risks, normals, and carriers have been produced by GWL's, GSL's and ASL's, DDR's. It doesn't look like any one line or pedigree is exempt by virtue of their pedigree.

A few males proven to be at risk based on their production records are currentlyy being used in the US and advertised on websites as standing at stud, no mention of their DM status.

Having lived through a much beloved dog's ordeal with DM and watching his close cousin starting the same symptoms, I will NEVER have another dog with DM carrier in one of the parents.  It is a horrible disease and even with the best diet I could give him, acupuncture, supplements, exercise, and pain management; it was a heartbreaking situation, no dog should go from a strong active dog to a dog that can't support his own back end.  I won't go into the list of symptoms and the progression, I am sure we can all figure that out.  I understand the idea behind breeding DM carriers to clear dogs, but genetics is not that cut and dried.  There is no hard and fast rule for 25%, 50%, 25% distribution of genes.  If that was the case, I am sure most breeding programs would be much more accurate in what they breed for.  Getting the DNA results and providing them in the pedigree is ethical and the right thing to do.  Only by taking charge of breeding good genetic material with good genetic material will we better the breed.  And yes, temperment is also an important ingredient.
Obviously this is a subject that is close to my heart.

It's a simple recessive mode of inheritance.  Carriers can only produce at risks if they are bred to another carrier or an at risk. It's genetically impossible for a carrier (or an at risk) to produce an at risk when bred to a normal.