Tag Archives: CHIC

Small Population Breeds and Issues of Genetic Diversity

April 5, 2016 Sally Gift 4 Comments

By Jerold s Bell DVM, Clinical Associate Professor of Genetics, Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. Reprinted by permission of the author.

(This article was originally published in the March 2007 AKC Perspectives Delegates Newsletter.)

Issues of genetic diversity are a concern to dog breeders, and this can be especially so for breeds with small populations. The concern is whether there is enough genetic variation within a breed’s gene pool to maintain health and vitality. Breeders should be concerned about genetic diversity, because there are examples where damage has been done to a breed due to breeding practices. Restriction of genetic diversity can also occur in large population breeds.

All genes come in pairs: one from the sire and one from the dam. Each gene in the pair is called an allele. If both alleles in a pair are of the same type, the gene pair is homozygous. If the two alleles are different, the gene pair is heterozygous. While each dog can have a maximum of two different alleles at a gene pair, many different alleles are potentially available to be part of the gene pair. The greater the number of alleles that are available at each gene pair (called genetic polymorphism), the greater the genetic diversity of the breed.

If there is no breed diversity in a gene pair, but the particular homozygous gene that is present is not detrimental, there is no negative effect on breed health. The characteristics that make a breed reproduce true to its standard are, in fact, based on non-variable (that is, homozygous) gene pairs.

The origins of the breeds have a lot to do with genetic diversity. A breed established with a working phenotype tends to have diverse founder origins, and significant diversity. Even with substantial population bottlenecks, the breed can maintain considerable amounts of genetic diversity. This was shown in a molecular genetic study of the Chinook breed, which was reduced to 11 modern founders in 1981. Breeds established by inbreeding on a limited number of related founder individuals could have a reduced diversity. Many breeds have also gone through diversity reducing bottlenecks; such as occurred during World War II. For most of these breeds, their gene pools have expanded through breeding for many generations, resulting in a stable population of healthy dogs.

There are two factors that must be considered when evaluating genetic diversity and health issues in a breed; the average level of inbreeding, and detrimental recessive genes. With a small population, there is a tendency to find higher average inbreeding coefficients due to the relatedness between dogs from common ancestors. There is, however, no specific level or percentage of inbreeding that causes impaired health or vigor. The problems that inbreeding depression cause in purebred populations stem from the effects of deleterious recessive genes. If the founding population of a breed produces a high frequency of a deleterious recessive gene, then the breed will have issues with that disorder. This can be seen as smaller litter size, increased neonatal death, high frequency genetic disease, or impaired immunity. If these issues are present then the breed needs to seriously consider limited genetic diversity.

The issue of high average inbreeding coefficients is one that all breeds go through during their foundation. As the population increases and the average relatedness of dogs goes down (based on a fixed number of generations), the average inbreeding coefficient for the breed will go down. The effect of initially higher inbreeding coefficients in small population breeds will depend on the presence of deleterious recessive genes that will be expressed when homozygous.

Some breeders discourage linebreeding and promote outbreeding in an attempt to protect genetic diversity in their breed. It is not the type of matings utilized (linebreeding or outbreeding) that causes the loss of genes from a breed gene pool. Rather, loss of genes occurs through selection: the use and non-use of offspring. If a breed starts limiting their focus to breeding stock from a limited number of lines, then a loss of genetic diversity will occur.

The process of maintaining healthy lines, with many breeders crossing between lines and breeding back as they see fit, maintains diversity in the gene pool. If some breeders outbreed, and some linebreed to certain dogs that they favor while others linebreed to other dogs that they favor, then breedwide genetic diversity is maintained. It is the varied opinion of breeders as to what constitutes the ideal dog, and their selection of breeeding stock based on their opinions, that maintains breed diversity.

The most important factor for diminished genetic diversity in dog breeds is the popular sire syndrome. The overuse of a popular sire beyond a reasonable contribution through frequent breedings significantly skews the gene pool in this direction, and reduces the diversity of the gene pool. Any genes that he possesses – whether positive or negative – will increase in frequency. Through this founder’s effect, breed related genetic disease can occur. Another insidious effect of the popular sire syndrome is the loss of genetic contribution from quality, unrelated males who are not used for breeding. There is a finite number of quality bitches bred each year. If one male is used in an inordinate amount of matings, there will be fewer females left for these quality males that should be contributing to the gene pool. The popular sire syndrome is a significant factor in both populous breeds and breeds with small populations.

The best methods for ensuring the health and diversity of a breed’s gene pool are to:

Avoid the popular sire syndrome.
Utilize quality dogs from the breadth of your population to expand the gene pool.
Monitor genetic health issues through regular health surveys.
Do genetic testing for breed-related disorders.
Participate in open health registries, such as CHIC (www.caninehealthinfo.org) to manage genetic disorders.

(This article can be reprinted with the written permission from the author: jerold.bell@tufts.edu)

Related article – Outcrossing Does Not Equal Gene Pool Diversity

Photograph courtesy of Susan Roy Nelson is not intended to illustrate any point in the article, it is presented for your viewing pleasure only.

Save

Breeding, Health & Genetics

Genetic Testing While Preserving the Best Breed Qualities – Let’s Start the Conversation

October 28, 2015 Sally Gift Leave a comment

One of the most controversial topics, and the most difficult to teach about breeding, is the use of genetic testing and the application of those test results when choosing a mating pair to “improve and preserve the breed”. This is an area where it can often appear, especially to the less experienced breeder, that some prominent and successful breeders are talking out of both sides of our mouths. From one side we say genetic testing is a must if you intend to breed, and then from the other side we say “oh, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” just because the dog is a carrier or affected doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be bred. Improving and preserving the Gordon Setter breed, is nowhere near as simple as choosing to mate only those dogs who pass every genetic clearance. Making the right breeding decision, finding the right sire for a dam… well it’s just not a black or white, right or wrong decision process. So, we’re going to say here, that the first and the most important thing a potential breeder needs to learn, before making breeding decisions, before assuming that the right choice is to breed only those dogs who clear every genetic test, the first thing that potential breeder needs to learn and completely understand is what constitutes a mediocre dog, a good dog and a great dog. With this understanding, one can then come prepared to recognize why, and when it is imperative to include great dogs in the gene pool – and yes, even those good and great dogs who did not clear every genetic hurdle may be needed in that gene pool. Remember, these dogs have many other qualities that are vital to preserving and improving the breed.

I read an article by Brian Lynn published by Paw Print Genetics that spoke about this topic. I’m sharing Brian’s article here as it fits with what I wanted us to be thinking, learning and talking about…how to use genetic testing appropriately, especially at a time when we must always consider the shrinking size of our breed population and thus our gene pool. We do need to encourage and promote genetic testing. We do NOT need to eliminate every dog who is affected or a carrier, but we do need to aptly apply the judicious choice of the appropriate breed qualities in the dogs we chose to breed. Breeders also need to be able to share every genetic test result on every dog, and they should be able to do so without fear of censor by their peers. The behaviors that cause our breed harm…breeders who cover or omit negative test results…and breeder/exhibitors who gossip about or denounce their peers who have shared information honestly and freely. Compete in the ring with each other folks, we don’t need to compete with each other over breeding choices, stud services and the like, there simply aren’t enough of us left to be that cut throat toward each other.

Paw Print Genetics – Economics: Supply and Demand in the Gene Pool

By Brian Lynn published July 16, 2014

“When we breed to better a line of purebred dogs, many intangible or subjective variables come into play – conformation, athleticism, intelligence, trainability and more. Mentoring and experience, even the gut instinct borne from these teachings, can make assessing those variables easier. As we learn more and develop an eye for evaluating and reading dogs, the standards for what constitutes a ‘better’ dog, one worthy of breeding, usually rise. The comparative knowledge experience brings allows us to differentiate a ‘great dog’ from a ‘good’ one; what might have been an acceptable to us a decade ago, might not make the cut today. And therein creates the economic correlation of supply and demand among top breeders.

As we eliminate potential breeding partners in favor of ‘better’ dogs, those that will truly improve a line and therefore breed, fewer and fewer potential partners exist. That makes the remaining pool of dogs more desirable and valuable.

When the qualities that elevated a dog to the top of the gene pool are combined with the objective results of canine genetic screening, a breeder is truly ‘bettering the breed’ by passing along the best physical and mental qualities the dog possesses while reducing or eliminating detrimental genes.

However, some people believe genetic testing poses the risk of reducing the gene pool of quality dogs too much. Certainly, if you were to remove every dog that was determined to be an affected or a carrier of an inherited disease, that upper echelon of dogs within a breed could theoretically bottleneck (especially if it’s a small gene pool to begin with); and/or leave dogs that don’t complement and strengthen each other consistently enough to better the breed across necessary qualities, regardless of genetic diversity. True, the knowledge of genetic mutations in two dogs could prevent a top-notch breeding from taking place, but in the big picture of bettering a line and breed, that’s a small concession.

But that’s not how genetic screening works. Genetic screening of canines for inherited diseases provides the knowledge to breed responsibly and with scientific evidence. Breeding to a carrier, or especially affected, dog is a personal decision each of us must weigh, but it can be done safely. Using genetic science, we can determine the mode of inheritance, as well as the variability and expressivity of a gene. With the knowledge of today’s science, we can breed smarter and safer than ever before.

Genetic screening makes a dog a known quantity. Combined with its physical, mental and psychological qualities, genetic screening allows for healthier decision-making choices that truly ‘better the breed.’ The fact that a dog is a known quantity in a gene pool makes it more valuable; a dog’s accomplishments set it apart from the general population, and genetic screening, regardless of results, put it in an even more elite pool of dogs.” read more here

So, this is where the conversation turns to you. I’ve said my small piece and offered food for thought through Brian’s article. Time for you all to join in here and share your thoughts, opinions and questions.

Photographs by Bob Segal

Sally Gift, Mesa AZ

Save

Breeding, Care, Health & Genetics

Gordon Setter Health Clearances before Breeding

September 2, 2015 Sally Gift Leave a comment

All the Gordon Setter health clearance links in one place. If we’ve missed any, or there is information here that needs updating please be sure to send us a comment or an email at: gordonsetterexpert@gmail.com

Gordon Setter Expert

Photo by Bob Segal

As with any question, ask several breeders the same question and you’ll get several different answers. When it comes to acting responsibly as a breeder to bring healthy Gordon Setter puppies into the world it’s agreed that completing certain health clearances on breeding animals before any mating occurs should be a priority. However, ask any breeder which tests are necessary or which certifications are the most important – that could become a topic for debate. For purposes of this article, we are listing the screening tests that address health issues that pertain to the Gordon Setter along with where to obtain or find proof of existing certification. These screening tests are suggested tools that will prepare you to make informed breeding choices that will affect the health of many future generations of Gordon Setters. Canine Hip Dysplasia (CHD) – screening/certification organizations. Click any of the active…

View original post 273 more words

Breeding, Dog Shows

Do breeders need to change?

May 12, 2015 Sally Gift 9 Comments

The face of breeding, as I’ve known it, has changed considerably since I first joined the ranks of Gordon Setter breeders in the 70’s. So much more information is readily available, resources for every question can be found at the touch of a keyboard, cross-country breeding is accomplished without shuffling the bitch off to the airport, and the availability of genetic tests is growing quickly to theoretically help us breed healthier dogs. But are we, the breeders, utilizing the results of those tests with a consciousness that will improve the overall health of the breed or could misguided perception and dwindling numbers cause the downfall of the breed instead?

Photo by Susan Roy Nelson “Four Ladies in a Row”

I just read, and then reread an article written by a Corgi breeder Joanna Kimball – “How We Must Change as Breeders and Why – A Football Field of Dogs” published in Best In Show Daily (point and click on the bold title to link to the article). Joanna raised some valid points regarding breeding that I believe bear discussion among Gordon Setter breeders. I hope you’ll join me here in considering some of those points and then by sharing your own perceptions, agreements or disagreements as they be.

First the assumption that as a breeder we should all agree that only a very few dogs should ever be bred – is this true? The breeder’s thought process as Joanna wrote is “I should be as picky as possible, first health-test everybody, prove that each dog is healthy, make sure that only the ones who are incredibly high-quality in terms of conformation and show success are allowed to breed. I should build the next ten thousand dogs from the most elite pool of this one.” That’s the conventional wisdom, the way “good breeders” do everything, right?

In fact, Joanna says we should bear in mind that “EVERY DOG WHO IS REMOVED FROM THE POPULATION HURTS THAT POPULATION.” To maintain health in any breed we need to understand the need for genetic variation, and to retain genetic variation we need to be breeding from many lines, to many sires not only the one or two most popular sires and so on.

I often want to go back to when I was younger, just starting out, and in this case I’m talking about the days when breeding wasn’t a four letter word and the propaganda of animal rights activists hadn’t put us all under their spell. The spell that makes breeders feel self-righteous for eliminating as many dogs as we can from the breeding pool because breeding is, after all, a very bad word. As the battery of DNA tests for genetic disorders continues to rise breeders are feeling satisfied as we believe we are gaining ground on health issues. But, should we also be considering that we might be losing ground on genetic diversity as we eliminate more and more dogs from the breeding pool with those tests?

Joanna states in another point “SINCE EVERY DOG THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE POPULATION HURTS THE POPULATION, WE MUST REMOVE ONLY THOSE WHOSE PRESENCE WOULD HURT IT EVEN MORE.” To me this is like saying “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water”. A common sense approach would include knowing what health condition could cause the death of our Gordon Setters, or what health condition would ruin the quality of life for our dogs, before making breeding choices based primarily on health testing, testing that if used incorrectly could eliminate other necessary qualities from the breed’s gene pool. Using testing to learn what, if any, health condition might be passed from one generation to the next is a wonderful tool, but it is not the only tool that a breeder should be using. Utilizing health testing to obtain the appropriate result in breeding requires very judicious application on the part of the breeder, who must also keep in mind the continued genetic diversity of the gene pool, as well as the overall soundness of the breed both physically and mentally.

Why, for example, would one choose to breed an OFA fair bitch to a dog because he had OFA good or excellent hips but also carried an unsound front, instead of breeding her to an OFA fair dog who is sound and beautifully moving both front and rear? In this case the breeder might get one or two additional puppies with better hip ratings (might) but the breeder will also be adding some puppies with those unsound fronts? Did the breeder really improve the breed or the gene pool with that breeding? Or, what about choosing to breed the Rcd4 carrier bitch to the Rcd4 clear dog whose parents both died of cancer at age 7, instead of breeding to the Rcd4 carrier dog whose parents died of old age at 13. We don’t have DNA tests for cancer available for Gordon Setters, but we do know that cancer causes the death of many Gordon Setters before their time, and we know the history of certain cancers can be prevalent in families. By theory, 25% of the puppies in the Rcd4 carrier to carrier litter could be affected, and at age 10 there may be one, perhaps even two of those affected dogs who might (there’s that word might again) go blind from late onset PRA. Doesn’t the carrier to carrier litter – as a whole – have a better chance of living a healthy, happy life until old age takes them from us? Which choice does a breeder make and how does it affect the diversity of the gene pool? What if the breeder decides not to do either breeding because they don’t like the health choices? Can the diversity and size of the gene pool continue to be maintained if this were to be the constant decision?

So, why all this fuss about the gene pool, and gene pool diversity, and strength and size of the gene pool? A relatively simple example to help us understand is to look at the mixed breed population, and their reputation for being “healthier” than their purebred counterparts. Why is that? Genetic diversity is solidly at play. Odds are there are no common ancestors for generations in the pedigree of any mixed breed dog. A huge and diverse gene pool lies behind the mixed breed.

Before you decide I might be plumb crazy talking here about an issue with the size of gene pool let me ask you if you’ve read and absorbed, yes absorbed to the point where it makes perfect sense to you, the article at the Institute of Canine Biology by Carol Beachat PhD “Is your breed drifting?” (point and click on the bold printed title to link to this article)

As I look at the Gordon Setter in general, comparing them to other purebred dog breeds, I believe that Gordon Setters have relatively few genetic health issues that occur regularly. We are lucky in that respect. However, we cannot hope to improve the health characteristics we’d like to change, if our gene pool continues to shrink to the point where the majority of dogs are related, where there is not sufficient diversity to enact change. We need a diverse and a large population and we need responsible breeders who understand how to accomplish those health driven goals while maintaining the integrity of the breed.

As I look at dog show entries, where the rubber meets the road when it comes to proving the merit of our breeding stock, I find an ever decreasing number of Gordon Setter entries along with a decreasing number of new faces joining the ranks of breeders. Those who are showing today find ourselves scrambling to locate shows where there will be points, majors are difficult if not impossible to find unless sometimes you can bring your own entry – which accomplishes what exactly as far as improving the breed when you’ve finished a dog simply by winning over your own breeding? Specialties are struggling to build 5 point majors and many are no longer able to do so, despite offering two shows in one day. Our National Specialty entries have dropped from all time highs of between 450 to 550 dogs in ’93, ’94, and ’95 to approximately 220 entries for 2015, half the number that were participating 20 years ago. Fewer entries, fewer breeders, fewer litters equals a smaller gene pool and thus loss of genetic diversity. To me this issue is two-fold; as breeders we need to appropriately and wisely utilize health testing without the elimination of too many dogs from the gene pool, and secondly we need to address the shrinking gene pool by understanding that we need to bring new breeder/exhibitors on to follow in our footsteps, to pick up the reins and drive on.

Many of you have been at this breeding/exhibiting thing for a while now. I’m curious how you feel about these concerns or better yet do you even believe there are such concerns? What would you change if you believe change is needed? How would you drive change? What do you think could be utilized to bring about improvement? Who do you believe is responsible for leading change in the breed? Can or should breeders accept responsibility for driving change? How can breeders mentor others? So many questions and opinions, let’s start a discussion by sharing them, discussion is the first step. Your thoughts and comments are very welcome here, do remember to be respectful of others please.

For those of you who are Gordon owners but perhaps not involved in breeding and showing, what might entice you to change your focus, what would drive your interest in showing/breeding Gordon Setters? How would you want to learn? Who would you want to learn from? As above, your respectful thoughts and comments are welcome here.

To share your thoughts you may use the reply field at the very bottom of this article or click “Leave a Comment” at the very top of this article.

I’d like us to talk to each other people, as I believe change is needed and that is why I write this blog for you…to bring change through the sharing of information, common goals, and a love for our breed, the Gordon Setter.

Sally Gift, Mesa AZ

References:

Part 2 – Do Breeders Need to Change?

Breeding, Health & Genetics

CHIC for DUMMIES – What is it – why should I use it?

January 30, 2015 Sally Gift Leave a comment

This ought to be good – and yes that’s sarcasm! I’m going to try to take all the long words and even longer sentences that describe CHIC (Canine Health Information Center) and boil them down to a few bullet points that briefly explain who, what, when, where, and how this thing works. To get a full explanation and a complete understanding of CHIC and it’s importance to the Gordon Setter you must read their home page for which I’ve supplied a link below.

WHO

CHIC sponsored by Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) to work with breed parent club such as the Gordon Setter Club of America (GSCA)

WHAT

CHIC collects information about health issues (Gordon Setters).
CHIC gives advice about the health screening tests we (owners) need to do to improve the chances of Gordon Setters being born without those health issues.
CHIC keeps records of the dogs that are screened and a database of all those test results.
CHIC issues a number when all screening tests are done on a dog – this number does not mean all tests were negative or clear.

WHEN

We (owners) screen or test Gordon Setters for the health issues CHIC told us about before breeding.
We send our dog’s test results and DNA samples to the CHIC database and storage bank.
We send CHIC updated health information on our dog when a new or different issue comes up.

HOW

CHIC sends researchers our dog’s DNA when it’s needed for new research projects.
CHIC keeps parent club (owners) up to date on current health trends in the breed based on the data that we sent them.
Researchers find new answers to breeding healthy Gordon Setters.

And they all lived happily ever after…the End!

Save

Breeding, Health & Genetics

Gordon Setter Health Clearances before Breeding

January 30, 2015 Sally Gift 6 Comments

Canine Hip Dysplasia (CHD) – screening/certification organizations. Click any of the active links below to be taken directly to that website for complete information.

Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA)
PennHip
Ontario Veterinary College (OVC) (Has been discontinued however certifications from 2007 – 2012 are available in a searchable database.)

Elbow Dysplasia

OFA
OVC (discontinued – certifications from 2007 – 2012 are available in a searchable database.)

Eye Examination by a boarded ACVO Opthalmologist:

OFA (Eye Certification Registry Procedures)

RCD4 Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA Late Onset)

OFA – approved laboratory

Cerebellar Degeneration (CD) ( Cerebellar Cortical Abiotrophy CCA or Cerebellar Ataxia CA)

OFA (Laboratory Form for testing) (OFA form for submitting results)
OFA – Cleared by Parentage Certification replaces the need for testing.

As a breeder it would be also important to understand the role CHIC plays for future genetic research. Canine Health Information Center (CHIC) Please see our previously published article by Jerold S. Bell DVM The CHIC DNA Repository for Gordon Setter for more complete information regarding this organization. Briefly Dr. Bell’s opening stated… “The CHIC DNA repository is a joint project of the AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF), the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), and the Canine Health Information Center (CHIC). It is open to all breeds of dogs. The stated objectives of the program are to: Facilitate more rapid research progress by expediting the sample collection process; Provide researchers with optimized family groups needed for research; Allow breeders to take advantage of future DNA based disease tests as they become available; and to Foster a team environment between breeders/owners and the research community improving the likelihood of genetic discovery.” Additional Links: GSCA Health Survey 2004 Results

Save

Breeding, Health & Genetics

The CHIC DNA Repository for Gordon Setters

January 29, 2015 Sally Gift 1 Comment

Thank you Jerold S Bell, DVM, Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, N. Grafton, MA for your permission to reprint this article.

This article first appeared in the November 2006 TarTan Gordon Setter Club newsletter.
The CHIC DNA repository is a joint project of the AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF), the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), and the Canine Health Information Center (CHIC). It is open to all breeds of dogs. The stated objectives of the program are to: Facilitate more rapid research progress by expediting the sample collection process; Provide researchers with optimized family groups needed for research; Allow breeders to take advantage of future DNA based disease tests as they become available; and to Foster a team environment between breeders/owners and the research community improving the likelihood of genetic discovery.
A DNA repository is an endowment for the breed’s future. It is a centralized, multigenerational DNA storage bank. It will allow future, qualified researchers to be able to investigate genetic diseases in the breed. Presently, many funded genetic studies in other breeds have not been completed because of the lack of necessary DNA. By storing DNA from full families and large breeding populations, funded research would not have to wait, as stored DNA samples would be readily available to approved researchers. In order for researchers to have access to the DNA at the CHIC DNA Repository, they must go through an application and scientific review process with the AKC-CHF and CHIC.
If we had the ability to store DNA in during the past twenty-five years from Gordon Setter cerebellar abiotrophy (CCA) families, Dr. Olby at NC State would be studying the disease directly in the Gordon Setter now. Instead, we are relying on progress from the gene search in other breeds to allow comparison with the limited Gordon Setter DNA samples presently collected.
A centralized DNA repository allows for a single DNA collection from each dog to benefit all qualified researchers in genetic diseases affecting Gordon Setters. Currently, individual researchers rely on DNA collection for their own research and storage at their respective institutions. Those samples are not available to other researchers or research projects. Also, those samples may not be saved once the research is completed.
The CHIC DNA registry combines a DNA sample with the dog’s pedigree and medical history. Owners fill out an application and a health questionnaire detailing pertinent health information on the dog. In this way, dogs with specific diagnoses can be identified for future health research. If a dog’s health status changes, owners should inform CHIC to update their information. CHIC will also contact owners approximately every two years for health updates.
The stored DNA is coded so the identity of dogs is not provided to researchers. If further family history or follow-up is needed, contact with owners will be initiated by CHIC.
Due to the initiative taken by the TarTan Gordon Setter Club, Inc an agreement has been reached with CHIC where the fee for blood sample submission for any Gordon Setter is currently reduced from $20 to $10. Cheek swab submissions are $5.
A blood sample is preferable to cheek swab collection, as it contains the largest quantity of DNA. This allows for multiple research projects to use the sample without running out of DNA. Blood samples are sent to the Animal Molecular Genetics Laboratory at the University of Missouri for DNA extraction and storage. If a cheek swab is collected, it is sent to the Veterinary Genetics Lab at the University of California at Davis for storage.
The CHIC DNA repository is a storage bank strictly for research purposes. CHIC DNA samples cannot be used for any other purpose.
AKC DNA profile samples are used solely for identification, litter verification, and frequent sire programs. AKC DNA samples cannot be used for any other purpose.
Samples for the CHIC DNA repository must come from the owner of the dog. If in the past, you donated a DNA sample for other research, you will need to send an additional sample for storage in the CHIC DNA repository.
When a genetic test is developed in the breed, owners can request, at their own expense, that a DNA sample stored in the CHIC DNA repository be forwarded to the established laboratory for testing. If the research to develop a genetic test was done on DNA repository samples, it will be that research laboratory’s decision whether they determine dog ownership from CHIC and notify owners of test results.
More information on the CHIC DNA repository can be found on the CHIC website:
http://www.caninehealthinfo.org/dnabank.html
Requests for reprinting should be made to the author: jerold.bell@tufts.edu