--- >What are the current statistics on this, it would support your argument so I am presuming that you are keeping some data on it?

I havent been keeping data on it, but I should. I am just so busy with Missie T I hardly get to my emails and usually only go on the internet to check for support group questions my mods cannot answer with an SOS in  their email header that something needs my immediate attention, or I am following something, online. I have gotten emails from people about the results of tests, or people who know someone who had the U Of Missouri test when the results come back not as expected, upon necropsy. Not many choose to do a necropsy, so it will be very hard to gather data. I will begin keeping emails from now on, in relation to this sunbject, so I can build a database. Thats a very good idea, but again, how many will actually do a necropsy I really dont know. My guess is not many, but you are correct- it would be  a VERY good way  to gather much needed data.  :( Again, I also dont know how people will even  know I am going to keep stats, or how to even let them know. I would appreciate it if those of you reading this thread would pass the word around that I will be keeping these stats, to email me if they necropsy their dogs with the subject title Necropsy and the U of Missouri DNA Test if the rssults dont jive.
 
I dont know what the U of Missouri has said about the test results not being consistent with the test. I have zero contact with them. I certainly wish they wouldnt automatically give a clear to progeny of clear dogs, for as stated, there has been no generational follow up, as the dog ages, to see if this is even valid, over time. That would have been the responsible thing to have done before making pronouncements, IMHO. This discounts imprinting-basically the concept that other genes influence the expression of the main genes that are thought to control genetic disease transmission. The concept of gene “imprinting” is  where some genes turn on or off and those influence whether other genes function and therefore create consequences. If you don’t find which other genes determine whether the “primary” gene acts, you are missing the answer.   triggers are environment and other factors which are set at puberty. If you have the SOD1 change (or the change in the DM Flash test) and your DNA (Dark DNA if you want) imprints at puberty in the wrong way, then you get GSDM. Otherwise, you do not. 

 If you don’t find which other genes determine whether the “primary” gene acts, you are missing the answer.  

Marj, were either of Missy's parents DNA tested using either protocol?

If the MO test is so flawed why have all GSD diagnosed with DM DNA tested at risk using their protocol?

If the evidence is available to prove that the test does not work it surely must be presented to UofM to challenge the test...

dsurber

Thank you so much for coming forward. I know you are not the only one with a GSD that has had this happen.  As the founder of the DM Support Group and having had 2 DM GSDS, myself, I KNOW GSDM is not ALS! An uncle of mine had ALS and the symptoms and progression are nothing alike. I really appreciate you taking the time to come here and tell your story. Our breed needs to get back on track and stop wasting time with a test that has zero validity for our breed. I have been shouting  it from the rooftops, but people are just selectively deaf I guess. Perhaps there are breeders who want to use it to test their dogs because they are testing for a disease our breed doesnt get, so perhaps they believe they will get an easy clear. Please have others post here, with stories similar to yours, if you know of more. Unfortunately, my old emails are gone, with the names of people who wrote me with experiences, which is why I began to look more closely at this test, in relation to GSDS. The more I delved, the less likely it was that we are talking about the same disease!  Again, thank you for coming forward!

Marjorie
http://www.gsdbbr.org The German Shepherd Dog Breed Betterment Registry
BE PROACTIVE!
http://mzjf.com --> The Degenerative Myelopathy Support Group  

I didn' t make that up!!! One of the reports  from UM that I read said that all GSD's diagnosed with DM have tested at risks. 

In the meantime, I guess it's up to the individuals to test or not their breeding stock and up to buyers to decided if no DM test is or is not a deal breaker.

I didn' t make that up!!! One of the reports  from UM that I read said that all GSD's diagnosed with DM have tested at risks.

Was this reported to the OFA? and how was it left with Dr Coates, ie what was the next action point, and what did you do next?

I did not report it to OFA or anyone else. I'm a dog owner not a researcher. I expect that Dr Coates and her team are ethical scientists and that if their hypothesis is falsified, as it appears to have been, they will report this fact and adjust their research accordingly.

Dr Coates said she had flagged my dog's case for further study. She also said that they would do a full DNA sequence when that became cost effective.

I think a large part of the problem is one of language. There appear to be (at least) two diseases called "DM". One does not affect sensation, is prevalent in Boxers, Corgies, etc, and is being studied by Dr Coates. The second disease does affect sensation and is prevalent in GSDs. Unfortunately both are called DM. This is confusing the public and perhaps confusing the researchers as well. In my very humble opinion, what needs to happen next is that Coates, Clemmons, and the rest of the canine DM research community need to describe the two different diseases and clarify to themselves and others which one they are studying.

I don't doubt that Dr Coates has done valuable research on a disease prevalent in Boxers and Corgis. It seems likely that the UM test is valuable for detecting a genetic marker for that disease. I am concerned that OFA, UM, the media, and the public do not distinguish this disease from the one that commonly afflicts GSDs. From what I can tell, the GSD disease is quite different from the disease studied by Dr Coates. The two are easy to distinguish clinically. If the dog has lost sensation it is not the disease studied by Dr Coates. It may be that UM still thinks there are no normal/normal dogs with DM because they exclude dogs who have lost sensation. By their definition of the disease that is correct but it doesn't help the GSD community at all. I have no real objection to such an exclusion so long as they are very clear about it.