EIC and other genetic testing.

[WRL]

In the past few months, many people have gotten on the "EIC DNA Test" bandwagon suggesting it is super accurate. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. Only time will tell. However, there are plenty of people who would like to think that the "detractors" or "doubters" of the accuracy of the test are just "people with their head in the sand" or "deliberate avoiders" of this condition.

I can tell you that the initial test of the PRA test, people believed it was super accurate. Then it was yanked and another test replaced it sometime later.

I was notified in Jan that a puppy that I bred, had turned up a carrier for CNM. Very weird, seeing as both of her parents had been DNA'd and both had come up clear as carriers.

Upon the retest of the parents, one of them turned up a carrier.

I was told that the initial tests were not as sensitive as the one they are currently using (etc etc) although they believe the test to be very very accurate.

My point by this post is that, with a test that has been on the market for 2 1/2 years and had more years of research behind it than the current EIC test, it is still not 100%.

WRL

[DRAKEHAVEN]

Lee,

That is very interestin. Knew about the early PRA tests.
Is there any liability if you had bred that dog to another carrier ?
That is a little scary.

JK

[windycanyon]

I'm sorry to hear that Lee.

I worry about the swab method being less accurate than blood, dogs swapping spit w/ another prior to testing. I did the Healthgene color gene test on one of mine and I believe it recommended keeping dogs separate for over a day-- no shared water bowls, etc.. a real pain here.

[WRL]

There was no cross contamination.

WRL

[WRL]

Lee,

That is very interestin. Knew about the early PRA tests.
Is there any liability if you had bred that dog to another carrier ?
That is a little scary.

JK

I don't think so. My mind doesn't think that way so I really don't know.

My point was, if that test is not 100% then that definitely leaves the door wide open.

WRL

[Henry V]

was told that the initial tests were not as sensitive as the one they are currently using (etc etc) although they believe the test to be very very accurate.

Sounds like false negatives were more likely than false positives. Was that the case?

[WRL]

Yes. It did not pick up the mutation with the first set of swabs sent in 2 1/2 years ago.

WRL

[WRL]

I might add, I am not trying to create lack of faith in this test at all.

I believe it to be very accurate. Its just not 100%. I like black and white as do lots of other people.

Dr Tiret believes this current test to be 99.95% accurate. I don't know how accurate the original test was.

WRL

[Jason Brion]

Nothing is 100%. But I do believe that it is our responsibility to do our best. When it becomes public I will test my dogs. If they come up negative than I, in good conscience, can breed my dogs.

[windycanyon]

Nothing is 100%. But I do believe that it is our responsibility to do our best. When it becomes public I will test my dogs. If they come up negative than I, in good conscience, can breed my dogs.

Sheriff,

The CNM test is public. http://www.labradorcnm.com/

We are awaiting the final release of the EIC test though... that one may present some very difficult choices to breeders, based on the research findings I've seen so far anyhow. Very high carrier rates.