IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT re Degenerative Myelopathy (DM) - Page 8

Blitzen wrote:

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

Abby Normal wrote:

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

Not all GSD's diagnosed with DM have tested at risk using the UM test. UM is aware of at least one GSD that tested normal/normal and yet had DM. I know this beyond any shadow of a doubt because he was my dog.

My previous GSD began showing signs of DM several years ago starting with loss of motor control and sensation in his rear. As soon as the UM test was announced we had him tested. He was normal/normal, meaning not at risk and not a carrier. Yet his symptoms progressed and my vet said that she had no doubt that he had DM. When he died we had samples collected according to the UM protocol and sent to UM (at no small expense I might add). They re-did the DNA test; still normal/normal. The UM pathologist said he had DM. Dr Coates asked the pathologist to recheck and the result was the same, DM. This is per personal telephone conversation I had with Dr Coates.

So UM has at least one case of a GSD that was normal/normal, checked twice, had classic clinical signs of GSD-DM, and was diagnosed by the UM veterinary pathologist as having DM, twice. Dr Coates knows all this because she is the one who told me.

Dr Coates's hypothesis is that DM is canine ALS. ASL does not cause loss of sensation. My wife has had close personal contact with ALS. She confirms beyond any doubt that ALS does not cause loss of sensation. My GSD clearly lost sensation starting in the rear and moving forward. We actually tracked the progress of his disease by measuring how far up his torso the loss of sensation went.

GSD-DM is not canine ALS. The UM test does not identify GSD-DM. I see no point in testing GSDs using the UM test. It may be a good test for Boxers and Corgis--I have no opinion on that--but it is not a good test for GSDs.

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.

Blitzen wrote:

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.

I don't doubt that. It may have been true at one time, but as of August 2011 it certainly not true.

dsurber
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?

Marjorie
As you have a DM support website, can I suggest that you have a page or whatever on your site where you request that people register their info/results so that you have a record of data. It seems a logical step.

I still would not throw this test out. The more tests there are the more data it will ultimately produce. If that data proves the test to be flawed it by necessity will lead to further research, and in the meantime others are researching it anyway.

 

Hi Marjorie - been a long time since the old AOL Boards :)

Curious, you said there is evidence of dogs who were NOT tested "at risk" yet still proven to have DM on necropsy.  Can you point me towards this information/proof/evidence?  I have heard this, but been unable to find any "proof" of it other than "so and so said" or "I heard it".  

I am truly sorry to hear that Missie T has DM... 

Valerie 

Abby Normal wrote:

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.