Genes Show Limited Value in Predicting Diseases - Page 3

You keep up with the research better than I do, Hodie. Here I sit, wasting time on PDB and other Internet trivia when I could be reading something serious...Nah, it's Saturday and still raining and icy outside. I think I'll decide which wine to have with dinner and which DVD or movie to watch tonight.  Take care.

hodie, I think people should read your post two or three times and absorb what you wrote.....it is very insightful to pratical application. Man's manipulation of variables without uniform criteria will always lead to specific improvement usually at the expense of the greater good. To catergorically exclude a subset like OFA Fair, as some people do over a period of time produce debilitating effects in other areas. To catergorically exclude all colors but black and red/tan over a long period of time will lead to specific improvement(conformation.....MAYBE????), at the expense of the greater good.

Gustav,

You are absolutely correct, as usual. Unfortunately, I think most people are not interested in even considering the types of issues that are involved here. It is usual to "throw the baby out with the bath" as we say here.

Sam, would not mind choosing a bottle of wine for myself either....but I don't have time to watch a movie. Too bad. There have been several released that I would like to see.

Stay inside, and relax. There is always tomorrow!

If it seemed that way, I wasn't arguing hodie's points, and I don't believe she argued mine either.  I didn't mean to infer that OFA fair should not be bred, only what may happen if they were not.  There would of course, be alternate sacrifices made from such decisions, as there is in all decisions we make.  We say these things in a way to reinforce mindfulness of our breeding decisions, each of which, are ultimately left for the breeder alone to decide.  And because I believe this way, I usually prefer not to preach one way or another, what is right or wrong.  I'll just stick to the premise that this is a working breed first and foremost, and the reason I've chosen it.  It's not an all around perfect breed, and there are many contexts for "work" as such.

I, unfortunately, do not share the same "faith" in science, that many people do, including hodie appearantly.  And I've found many very serious faults with all of the most current studies I've followed.  To quote myself from a similar related topic,

The concept behind QTL mapping is aimed at identifying inheritance patterns (genetic markers) of chromosomal regions. Outside of that, environmental and other inherited cross-affecting genetic factors are still important themselves in the severity of affects these genes play in the role of CHD.

Also, the many methods of diagnosis themselves (SV,OFA,PENN) can also be found inconsistent, even under their own criteria, and inconsistent in reflecting symptoms of the affected dog.

Another point that should be made, is that the QTL genetic mapping method or the whole concept of Quatnitative Genetics itself has persuasively been argued by some scientists to be less consistently accurate than if selection were made by outward phenotype alone, "the old fashioned way".

But even if ALL the appearant genetic markers related to CHD were clearly identified TODAY, as widespread and multifaceted as the problem appears to be, a planned control strategy for boldly "eradicating" the condition from a breed, is about as easily done as attaining "world peace". Which means, despite the incredible speed and advancement technology has made in recent years, that dream could probably not be realized in our lifetimes.

Yes, the entire canine genome has been mapped, and several other species as well.  You can download the list below right away at http://www3.appliedbiosystems.com/  You can submit population samples (i.e. "just a dash of DDR lines", "only XXX kennel" or whatever), tailored to your specific needs, or even just the two dogs you plan to breed with, if that's your wish.  Scientists, unfortunately, don't know yet what to do with the surpluss of information they've been given, to even interpret it much less come up with a plan, and this all still disregarding the very important portions of environmental variance and gene-environment correlation outside of the gene structure itself.  Insufficient data?  Likely not.  Just ineffective use of the data provided!

As of Feb'09, there are Gene Expression Assays available of 15 species...
  H. sapiens
  A. thaliana
  R. norvegicus
  D. melanogaster
  M. musculus
  C. elegans
  M. mulatta (Rhesus)
  C. familiaris (Canine)
  D. rerio (Zebrafish)
  B. taurus (Cow)
  G. gallus (Chicken)
  O. cuniculus (Rabbit)
  S. scrofa (Pig)

You are correct Daryl, I was not disagreeing with you. Yes, perhaps I have more faith in science than some, but I also know when and how to evaluate that science. There are many people doing poor science as well, and our schools are failing at teaching at almost every level. Further, we are a long way off from understanding many things we want to know, but we will, as a species, keep trying to improve. You are also correct about the inability to make judgements about what role environment may play in many conditions. It certainly does play a role, but just how to quantify it even in the most simple situations and conditions is extremely primitive.

This is a great thread.  Does anyone have even anecdotal evidence of genetic temperament?  I wonder how much is nature and how much is nurture.

A. 50/50   B. 80/20   C. 100/100   D. it varies

It sounds as if you want a simplistic answer to a complex question, a subject that has been the focus of many entire books, for which you should at least give it the merit of having its own thread.  A better way to rephrase the question would be not how much, but; In what ways does "nature" contribute, and "nurture" effectively shape behavior?  And which of these character traits are fixed, or to what extent are they malleable?

LOL!  I understand why you took issue with the question.  I have an undergrad degree in neuroscience (psych), LOL, but I was hoping by dumbing it down in terms of a question, it would invite ponderings, individual experiences, and interesting contributions.  :)

Manipulative ;-) and still off topic.

guilty as charged, LOL!