Ichthyosis in Goldens

thanks Gerry, I will pass that along about the fish oil.
On GoldenDNA it looks like about 70% of the dogs are either affected or carriers. Just got the test results back from the DNA test we did at National, my boy is an ICT carrier. Luckily he is prcd-PRA clear and PRA-1 clear. Anyway, he will now only be bred to bitches who have been tested and are ICT clear.
I hope a lot of the people who had their dogs tested at National post the results to goldendna. I will as soon as I get the formal paperwork from Optigen (only got the email so far).
In hindsight, my older boy had ICT. It was misdiagnosed as allergies, but he was never itchy. Just lots of flaky skin, and ultimately hyperpigmentation. It tended to flare up under times of extreme stress. We controlled it with medicated shampoo, but again, we didn't know what it was. He also developed late onset demodex, which we fought for about 4 years until he eventually passed on this year. I wonder if there was any relationship between the ICT and the demodex?
The dog had all sorts of problems. He was blind from PU, had IBD, had no spleen, had demodex, had hip dysplasia, but lived 14 happy years. He was my heart dog.

Quote:

---

On GoldenDNA it looks like about 70% of the dogs are either affected or carriers

---

I was mistaken ... here are the statistics from Antagene for ICT testing as of 7/31/2012 (they were published on GoldenDNA's Facebook page a few months ago.

Quote:

---

- Australia : 47,7% clear, 40,9% carrier, 11,4% affected (number of dogs has slightly increased)

- USA : 38,9% clear, 47,1% carrier, 14% affected

- Europe : 16,8% clear, 40,1% carrier, 43,1% affected

---

These are the stats on 900 dogs tested in each Europe and USA; only about 138 dogs tested in Australia. So US/Canada has less than 40% clear. It would appear that owners with clear-tested dogs are not as likely to list their results on GoldenDNA.org?

Since the reservoir of clear dogs is rather small, it's really helpful to list them in ways that people can find them easily. With so many carriers of the mutation, many people want/need to limit their choices to clear sires.

Unfortunately, you cannot search for "clear by parentage" on GoldenDNA. We only record dogs who have actually been tested. You might want to use k9data "honorifics" field for that ... since if you put the info in the health clearance fields, you cannot search with that field.

Back in the 4rd Quarter of 2011, a total of 145 Goldens were tested in that period for ICT (per Optigen statistics). That would not have included our Natl Specialty in 2011 where my count was My best count from the Natl Specialty this year was 95 Goldens tested for ICT! That increased the Antagene database in USA by 10% in just one swoop! It was the most "popular" test among the 113 dogs tested.

I noticed that Winter Discount Days at Optigen in 2011 were Jan. 2 - 16. If anyone missed testing at the National, watch for the winter discount days this year.

I also think that it's very important for owners of the bitches to test as well as the stud dogs. With the chances almost 70% that the stud dog is either a carrier or affected, it becomes crucial to know the bitch's status, just in case the stud dog hasn't been tested.
Ran into this very recently.....bitch not tested....decided against my boy because he's a carrier. Not a problem. Except the stud they are going with hasn't been tested. Doesn't seem to "get it" that the stud dog has a 70% chance of being either a carrier or affected! Apparently, because he hasn't been tested, he must be clear?
I don't understand the "head in the sand" mentality.

I find it disheartening that only 900 dogs in the USA have been tested....out of how many registered golden retrievers? And how many breeding dogs?
Of almost 2000 goldens at National (I heard that estimate but believe it to be high) only 95 were tested for something that is found in almost 70% of the breed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

These are the stats on 900 dogs tested in each Europe and USA; only about 138 dogs tested in Australia. So US/Canada has less than 40% clear.
My best count from the Natl Specialty this year was 95 Goldens tested for ICT! That increased the Antagene database in USA by 10% in just one swoop! It was the most "popular" test among the 113 dogs tested.

.

---

I agree with you, Barb. I have seen breedings to carriers by bitches that have not been tested. It's very easy to get the test done if they have already done prcd-PRA. The sample is already at Optigen. Since Trek is a carrier, I have now included in my contract a requirement that the bitch not only have the main four clearances but that they also be tested for Ichthyosis. Then everyone can make an informed decision about the breeding. So far, every owner of a bitch that has been bred to Trek since I found out about his status has been willing to have the test done even if they were previously unaware of the condition or the test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotel4dogs

I find it disheartening that only 900 dogs in the USA have been tested....out of how many registered golden retrievers? And how many breeding dogs?
Of almost 2000 goldens at National (I heard that estimate but believe it to be high) only 95 were tested for something that is found in almost 70% of the breed?

---

But we shouldn't forget that some of the dogs at the National had already been tested.

We also need to remember that this test just came out in Jan. 2011, and it has taken some time to realize that the # of clear dogs is so low. When a friend suspected it in her line, just from a puppy who had dry skin on his belly as a "baby" (and no symptoms at all now), I also decided to test. Maybe I had missed something as minor as that in the past? At that point, I still had no idea that it would turn out to be such a widespread gene.

As a result of my friend and I testing, another friend tested her stud dog ... and found him to be a carrier. This led her to decline a planned breeding when the proposed mate came up affected (also with no visible symptoms).

I believe you are correct, Barb, in that with a gene this widespread, it is important to test our bitches. It will be the owner of the bitch who will have to deal with any problems with the resulting offspring. So, the bitch-owner has a vested interest in knowing what the outcome is likely to be.

But I still raise the question of needing the hard data on the symptoms of those dogs affected. If 14% of our Goldens are affected (and this gene turns up in field and show lines, with no "discrimination"), then it would really be helpful to breeders to know more about what the chances are of having severe symptoms. If there are 100,000 Goldens living in the US/Canada today, that means that 14,000 of them are affected. How many of them show symptoms of any kind? How many show severe symptoms?

Since it is a lipid metabolism issue, it might also mean that symptoms may be triggered by environmental issues ... food, allergies, stress, other diseases. This may hold some clues on how to treat the dogs who have the more severe symptoms. Thus far, the disease does not seem to be one of great consequence. Are we right? Are we wrong? We just don't seem to have the raw data to know.

With a low number of clear dogs, it also demonstrates that we cannot always simply discard carriers, or even affecteds, without great thought. What would it be like if we took those ICT carriers and affecteds out of the Golden gene pool? Possible disaster when we discovered another, even more serious disease, among the dogs left in the gene pool. Notice I said "when" and not "if". For old-timers who have made the journey from just xraying hips, through the new diseases that have come to light, I imagine we'll find more diseases in the future.

I've added that to my requirements now, too, Judy. Although in comparison to other *issues* in goldens ichthyosis is relatively minor, why pass it on when we have the ability to selectively breed to prevent it?

I think that we all missed the point (good) point of Judy's "Then everyone can make an informed decision about the breeding".
Keep in mind that testing and publishing the results in whatever printed venue SHOULD be about informing the public NOT chastizing a particular breeding or dog.
Ichthyosis is NOT the end of the world. It does NOT follow a norm. It comes in different forms. It can effect one dog differently than another. One dog can have very little flaking while another can have allot.
Fish oils being a blood thinner??????????
Never heard that one before. I take 2 very large pills every day per my doctors instructions for my slightly high cholesteral.
I personally won't have a problem breeding to a carrier of anything "IF" my gals were clear. I would rather have MY options of a bigger gene pool to work with rather than settling to what was left even though Perfect!!!!!!!! :(
I also think that the structure of a dog is more important than the other tests. But that's my own opinion :)
Sue

Just thinking out loud Gerry, I think the biggest problem is that so many veterinarians don't appear to be familiar with the disease in goldens. They misdiagnose it as allergies, thyroid, food problems, and so on. Just like many vets were not, until recently, familiar with PU. So we can't tell how much of a problem it really is until the vets start diagnosing it.
My older boy had what I am sure, in hindsight, was ichthyosis, but I never knew that's what it was. His symptoms fit 100%. But the vet never called it that. His flared and remitted throughout his life, it was bad when he was around 2 years old, then it seemed to pretty much resolve itself until he was about 8. Then it came and went until he died at almost 14.
It was never anything other than a cosmetic issue with him. Although as I said, he did develop chronic demodex at about 10 years old, so is there a relationship there? Or was that because he had his spleen out and the anti-parasitic T-cells are largely manufactured in the spleen?
Now here's a bizarre thought....my boy lived to be almost 14, and appeared to be cancer free other than a soft tissue tumor on his wrist that didn't metastasize as far as we know. Perhaps (I throw this out there as I said, as a bizarre thought) we should check the life expectancy of the dogs with ichthyosis versus clear dogs? Are affected dogs, due to a difference in lipid metabolism, less prone to cancer? Who knows?
I don't intend to stop breeding my boy because he's an ICT carrier, but I will only breed him to clear females. I don't think he should be automatically removed from the gene pool, he has a lot of other stuff to offer. But I don't think he has enough to offer that he should be bred to affected or carrier bitches.

I wasn't disagreeing with Judy at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way. My boy is a carrier, and I have no problem breeding him to clear bitches, and the people who I've talked to about breeding to him have no problem breeding to him as long as their bitches are clear. I just don't want to breed him to a carrier or affected bitch.
Fish oils are, btw, a blood thinner. My husband takes them on the advice of his cardiologist, and he has to stop taking them 3-4 weeks before any major procedures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sue Kiefer

I think that we all missed the point (good) point of Judy's "Then everyone can make an informed decision about the breeding".
Keep in mind that testing and publishing the results in whatever printed venue SHOULD be about informing the public NOT chastizing a particular breeding or dog.
Ichthyosis is NOT the end of the world. It does NOT follow a norm. It comes in different forms. It can effect one dog differently than another. One dog can have very little flaking while another can have allot.
Fish oils being a blood thinner??????????
Never heard that one before. I take 2 very large pills every day per my doctors instructions for my slightly high cholesteral.
I personally won't have a problem breeding to a carrier of anything "IF" my gals were clear. I would rather have MY options of a bigger gene pool to work with rather than settling to what was left even though Perfect!!!!!!!! :(
I also think that the structure of a dog is more important than the other tests. But that's my own opinion :)
Sue

---