• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

talking to Cavalier owners

Jay said:
What is frustrating to me is reading posts by people who throw terms around that they don’t fully understand. To say that MRI results are “LOOKS” is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. An MRI is a medical procedure designed to find physical abnormalities. To say that the results are “LOOKS” is out and out stupid. An MRI that shows a syrinx is not a “look”, it is an abnormal medical condition that can cause a dog severe pain.

Sandy keeps harping on how two MRI cleared dogs can produce puppies with SM. Since researchers are fairly certain, that SM is caused by recessive genes, of course that is possible IF both dogs are carriers for the gene. Anyone who understands Mendelian modes of inheritance will know that for single recessive genes, if BOTH parents are carriers, EACH offspring has a 25% chance of receiving both recessive genes and will display the trait controlled by those genes. Since the mode of transmission is still not fully understood in SM, we can only postulate from MRI what the chances are of passing on genes to future generations. If the mode of transmission of SM is through recessive gene(s) then if you see a clear MRI (at breeding age), you can postulate that at worst, the dog might be a carrier. When you see you see an abnormal MRI, you can postulate that the dog has both recessive genes and will always pass on the defective gene.

I work with children who have disabiliities. I work with families who have genetic defects. I have worked with families that have never had the genetic trait show up in their families only to have two or three of their children affected. I see families where both parents and children have the same syndrome. Even within families, the expression of the gene can vary from individual to individual. Genetics is a very complex subject. I have taken doctorate level courses in genetics. Some genes turn on at birth, others may turn on at different ages, some may need an external event to turn on. Right now, it still is not understood what causes the SM gene to express itself.



Then you should be advocating that breeders test the same as you do. The only way that researchers are going to find the gene(s) responsible for SM is for responsible breeders to test and share their results with the researchers. There should be no shame in producing a dog affected by SM IF the breeder has done everything in their power to prevent it. The shame comes when breeders don’t use the tools available to study SM and possibly find the genes responsible. Then maybe breeders will have the better tools available to combat this condition.

J.
Click to expand...

Wow Jay -- and the other board is considered "NASTY"? WTH have I ever done to you??

First of all, sigh, an MRI is a group of pictures-- how phenotypical can you get? genotype plus environment gives you what you see (referred to as phenotype). Discussed this with a neuro who taught neurosurgery. BUT if you Know better, I stand corrected. I am here to learn too.
I've seen MRI's of dogs that were horrendous -- you wonder how the dog can breath-- but they showed no/little signs of illness. I have heard of dogs in terrible pain, that have beautiful MRI's. So yes, an MRI is a picture of how a dog LOOKS.

Well, last time I looked they weren't sure it was caused by recessive genes. It was assumed because dogs WITH SM could have pups without that it must be. But Dutch based research has pointed out that this may not be so. They were discussing Autosomal dominance and incomplete penetrance and I will be honest, I didn't pay attention to ALL the details-- My mind went-- The experts aren't sure either. One thing is for sure-- this isn't going to be as easy as fruit flies or flowers.

J-- IF I KNEW that my way was the right way, yes, then I would be jumping up and down.
 
Talking to Cavalier Owners,

Sandy ,

Jay has tried to explain to you ,maybe you should read also what Dr C Rusbridge has on her Web Site on the subject of SM.

www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/faq.htm

Bobby Jones ,the Famous Golfer had the Arnold Chiari problem in the 1930's, Researchers have been struggling since then to get an answer .

As I understand it ,the only way ,as Jay has said ,is for Cavalier Breeders to MRI Scan their Breeding Stock.

It has been explained to you ,that two Cavaliers that are deemed not to have SM , could still be Carriers of the SM Genes, and be passing them on.

I think I have got this right.

This is why I think that the MVD Problem is so bad in our Cavalier Breed ,is that there are probably so many Carriers around now with the MVD Genes.

Nobody wants this to happen with the SM Problem ,so I would think that it is a Priority for Cavalier Breeders to be MRI Scanning and giving the Researchers the information they need to find the SM Gene/Genes
 
Jay and Oreo, thank you for joining in this discussion. I found your posts really interesting

There are so many knowledgeable people on this list.
 
Bet said:
Sandy ,

Jay has tried to explain to you ,maybe you should read also what Dr C Rusbridge has on her Web Site on the subject of SM.

www.veterinary-neurologist.co.uk/faq.htm

Bobby Jones ,the Famous Golfer had the Arnold Chiari problem in the 1930's, Researchers have been struggling since then to get an answer .

As I understand it ,the only way ,as Jay has said ,is for Cavalier Breeders to MRI Scan their Breeding Stock.

It has been explained to you ,that two Cavaliers that are deemed not to have SM , could still be Carriers of the SM Genes, and be passing them on.

I think I have got this right.

This is why I think that the MVD Problem is so bad in our Cavalier Breed ,is that there are probably so many Carriers around now with the MVD Genes.

Nobody wants this to happen with the SM Problem ,so I would think that it is a Priority for Cavalier Breeders to be MRI Scanning and giving the Researchers the information they need to find the SM Gene/Genes
Click to expand...

Thanks Bet-- but I have read through it, when it first came out.
Jay and I were discussing pheno/genotypes and modes of inheritance-- I didn't find an area where Dr. Rusbridge declared knowing any modes of inheritance.
What I did find was in the breeding recommendations was-- not all A's are clear of SM. Not all dogs need to be MRI'd- and that her 'recommendations' are that breeding dogs should be MRI'd not once-- but two or three times in their lifetime. Please note that my neuro charges over 1600.00 USD for an SM MRI-- IF we do a full scan, you can add about 1000.00USD for that.

I have also gone to ASAP fundraisers etc... wanting to talk to people who KNOW this disease first hand.
http://www.asap.org/
 
Some dogs dont need to be MRI'd !

Sandy,

Where have you read such a statement please.

I know that some 'A' dogs will have SM because the syrinx is less than < 2.0mm. That I find so very hard to understand. She was in my opinion wrong to do this as people were able to confidently refer to their dogs as 'A' when a 'B' would have told everyone the true story.

Dogs that people decline to have scanned can be a 'D' is that what you are referring to?

Regards Mark.
 
MARK MARSHALL said:
Sandy,

Where have you read such a statement please.

I know that some 'A' dogs will have SM because the syrinx is less than < 2.0mm. That I find so very hard to understand. She was in my opinion wrong to do this as people were able to confidently refer to their dogs as 'A' when a 'B' would have told everyone the true story.

Dogs that people decline to have scanned can be a 'D' is that what you are referring to?

Regards Mark.
Click to expand...

I agree Mark-- I don't know how a dog with SM can be an A-- but I have one and I yanked him out of my breeding program. He hasn't been used since.

THIS COMES FROM Dr. Rusbridges GUIDELINES

It is recommended
1) That both the sire and the dam of a proposed mating are screened (any unscreened dog
should be assumed to be “D”)

So ideally both sire and dam would be scanned-- IF one isn't scanned, it should be assumed a D rating and D's can be bred to A's.

Where I live, it is an all day trip, 1600.00-2000.00 USD each dog to get a maximum of two dogs done in one day.
There was a MRI clinic where it was only 600.00-800.00 USD each dog to get a minimum of 5 or 8 dogs done. This had to be done over a two to three day span and it was a 5 hour drive one way.

Now add on the contention that it should be done more than once and you are going to have people say, NOOOOOOO.
 
Sandy, Clare makes no recommendation that breeders' dogs have to be MRId numerous times.

However she and every single other neurologist does note that exactly as with MVD, you cannot make a lifetime assumption about affectedness on the basis of a single test. This is not a demand made by any researcher on breeders, it is simply a fact and therefore any neurologist or researcher is going to tell a breeder that if you can re-MRI you will get a far more accurate picture of that dog and related dogs.

The older the dog is when scanned, again *as with MVD*, the more accurate the test is likely to be for a longer-term picture of health. It is why Clare and a whole panel of leading researchers/neurologists *all agreed* that a dog must be at least 2.5 at the time of a scan for a grade to be associated with it for breeding -- at the very least, breeders should be getting the scan done at the time they plan to breed, not at age 1 then using that result as an assumed grade they carry forward for the rest of the dog's breeding life.

If you scan once at 2.5 and start breeding right at 2.5 and never scan again, then you really have no idea whether your dog will have syrinx, perhaps a severe one, perhaps many, by age 3 or 4 or 6. If breeders feel put out by this fact, there's little researchers can currently do to change it except by getting more breeders to MRI and send information to Sarah Blott to continuously improve the accuracy and helpfulness of the EBVs and for the US clubs to try and get involved with the EVB scheme. The UK club took the initiative with this research -- I am sure it would move far more swiftly to the breeders' and breed's benefit if this was a truly international project and funded more broadly.

Costs remain an issue but again, the UK managed to arrange for a country-wide low cost screening programme. It is clubs and breeders that need to keep pushing for projects, raise the funds etc to make that happen in other countries. And that said -- while plenty of breeders do a one-time scan in the low cost programmes in the UK, almost none in the UkK scan older dogs or do repeat scannings even though it is at a price most in the US or Canada would few as a pittance (as low as $150 per dog). So the issue is not just price. The issue is that at least sometimes, people don't seem to want to know results on dogs once they have the result they want.

The breed as a whole and the research done by Sarah and the genome project would all hugely benefit by having more older dogs scanned. Maybe that would be a good fundraiser for the UK individual clubs -- to pool funding to get say 5 dogs over age 5 scanned for for Blott. Five dogs could be done for just £500 -- a single small event could easily raise that amount of funding. :thmbsups:

As for the A 'with SM' -- that size is more what researchers call a pre-syrinx -- it is tiny. If you removed those dogs as breeding dogs you'd have almost none left to breed. The goal is to REDUCE not ELIMINATE at this time, as with MVD, as too many dogs are already affected. BTW why do breeders keep raising this issue and not simply write directly to Clare or Dr Marino or any of the 9 or so researchers who all agreed on these guidelines? Why is criticising rather than just clarifying the reasoning the priority in so many discussions?
 
What age is it recommended to screen dogs?
The minimum screening age is 12 months. It is also recommended that breeders determine the MRI status of their breeding dogs at 2-3 years and again when 6 years of age.

This is directly from CR's website. quoted
 
WoodHaven said:
Where I live, it is an all day trip, 1600.00-2000.00 USD each dog to get a maximum of two dogs done in one day.
There was a MRI clinic where it was only 600.00-800.00 USD each dog to get a minimum of 5 or 8 dogs done. This had to be done over a two to three day span and it was a 5 hour drive one way.

Now add on the contention that it should be done more than once and you are going to have people say, NOOOOOOO.
Click to expand...

They can say no, but that will mean the situation for cavaliers will continue to get worse.
The reputation of the breed as a desirable family dog, and the reputation of cavalier breeders as responsible caring people, will continue to diminish.

This is not something that will go away, or improve by itself. If ever there was a nettle to be grasped, it is here staring you all in the face.

When I first really became aware of SM there were no low cost MRIs available.
After a couple of years Geoff Skerritt, who owned his own MRI scanner, began his scheme offering low cost mini scans. Others followed his example.

I would think it would be commercially possible to arrange for mass USA screening sessions, but breeders and, more importantly, American breed clubs just need to be motivated enough to go out and make it happen
 
Margaret C said:
They can say no, but that will mean the situation for cavaliers will continue to get worse.
The reputation of the breed as a desirable family dog, and the reputation of cavalier breeders as responsible caring people, will continue to diminish.

This is not something that will go away, or improve by itself. If ever there was a nettle to be grasped, it is here staring you all in the face.

When I first really became aware of SM there were no low cost MRIs available.
After a couple of years Geoff Skerritt, who owned his own MRI scanner, began his scheme offering low cost mini scans. Others followed his example.

I would think it would be commercially possible to arrange for mass USA screening sessions, but breeders and, more importantly, American breed clubs just need to be motivated enough to go out and make it happen
Click to expand...

A friend of mine contracted vet schools, private companies and vet clinics within a 400 mile range and we couldn't get anyone to help meet our need.
 
Well yes -- as I said, this is simply FACT and wise advice, and just as with annual auscultation, it would be intelligent for breeders if they can do so and wish to have any idea whether their dogs are likely to develop SM. Just scanning once will not give you that information. And unfortunatly I believe you will find that many breeders, if you ask to actually see their scanning info, are not scanning at 2.5 but at age 1 or 18 months that telling people they have an A dog -- when a dog that young cannot receive a grade. Just as most dogs under 2.5 are likely to get clear hearts, so are dogs under that age far re likely to get clear scans. Especially at only age 1 or 18 months.

Getting annoyed with Clare or any of the researchers about this fact is truly shooting the messenger. Perhaps this is an inconvenient and potentially costly truth, but nonetheless it is a biological fact that researchers cannot change, simply to make breeding choices less expensive for breeders. Note it is not a *requirement* but breeders are kidding themselves (just as they are about MVD) if they assume a single test is going to give them as much information as repeated tests over time.

Breeders need to do the best they can individually and these health issues must remain top research funding priorities for clubs and KCs internationally. It is unfortunate the breed has come to such dire crossroads but sadly, it has.

This is the information that a total of 12 researchers agreed on breeding guidelines. This explains why there is no longer an 'all clear' (NB all researchers discussed having seen scans that one neurologist was interpreting as a clear when others, generally those most experienced with the condition, were seeing as syrinxes...). I attended this conference and also was allowed to sit in on this meeting between the neurologists at which they took these decisions:

2) At the request of the UK CKCS club formulate and agree on breeding guidelines
for CM/SM.
Clare Rusbridge presented the very early but promising results of the breeding
program in the Netherlands. It was suggested that before genetic studies are
completed that “commonsense” strategies aiming to limit possible widespread
dissemination of the disease be implemented. The main aim was to limit early onset
and potentially painful SM and to avoid using such dogs in a breeding program. The
current breeding guidelines were discussed and were simplified and modified
(See Breeding Advice) The presence or absence of the Chiari-like malformation (CM) was
dropped from breeding guidelines because of 1) of the ubiquity of this malformation
within the CKCS population 2) Lack of uniformity between veterinarians at
recognising and consistently grading the severity of CM 3) the lack of evidence that
apparent severity of CM was related to severity of syringomyelia. It was agreed that
MRI screening of subsequent generations should be continued so that these early
breeding guidelines could be adapted as more information on the hereditability
becomes available.
Click to expand...

This is what they agreed on the breeding recommendations:

he aim of these recommendations is to reduce the incidence of symptomatic syringomyelia (SM) in the breed, not to create litters of puppies guaranteed not to have SM as the chance of producing an affected dog cannot be predicted without knowing the inheritance.
Click to expand...

At any rate: surely all a breeder need do is *ask to see the scan from the other breeder/dog owner* to determine whether they are working with an A that has a tiny syrinx or a dog with no syrinx, if a breeder feels this is critically important? Surely breeders are not simply relying on what another breeder says as to the results if a scan? Also: keep in mind that very few people stating they have grades actually have grades!! Most are simply assuming their score. Mr Skerritt does not issue scans nor do many US neurologists. I'd at least want an *actual certificate* whether from a grading neurologist or as given by one of the grading neurologists who has themselves interpreted someone else's scan.

The bottom line is for people to do what they can manage and what they can reconcile with their conscience. An awful lot do neither.
 
What troubles me is ,...................................

How many dogs and bitches did CR give an 'A' GRADE to , when the syrinx was small (because its still A SYRINX and is called such when it grows from 1.9 to 2.0 mm!) and how many of those dogs were mated to eachother - both being 'A' ?

If the point of the exercise is to reduce the incidence of SM in the breed, thats a rather silly method of trying to make progress.

As for copies of MRI scans - Mr Skerritt always gives or posts them out asap.

Regards Mark.
 
Last edited:
IMO-- I would have given them another designation-- like Mark said, a B would do. B would still be a better choice than a D, but it would be telling that something was there.
The last dog of my breeding that got MRI'd got a certificate-- he was graded Excellent --given a full medical work up -- totally asymptomatic before MRI- NO SM (which is very helpful) no hydrocephalus- with mild crowding. He was over 2.5 years old at the time of the scan.

I got CD's of my group. They sent a copy to my vet, I got a copy and I sent a copy to CR.
 
WoodHaven said:
A friend of mine contracted vet schools, private companies and vet clinics within a 400 mile range and we couldn't get anyone to help meet our need.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Sandy, I don't mean to sound as if I am criticising anyone. I appreciate you, and others, are doing your very best.
There are some American breeders that have been at the very forefront of SM scanning.

It seems to me that breeders in your situation have three choices.......

Believe there is nothing more you can do and watch SM spread even more through the breed.

Continue doing the few MRIs you can afford. The small number of breeders that do spend out the money will probably be able to keep a small breeding programme going between them, but they will not be enough to make a real difference to the future of the breed in America.

Be a nuisance and put pressure on your breed clubs ( and I know that is not easy when they are probably run by those who downplay SM ) to somehow arrange low cost scanning.
 
Mr Skerritt does not issue scans nor do many US neurologists. I'd at least want an *actual certificate* whether from a grading neurologist or as given by one of the grading neurologists who has themselves interpreted someone else's scan.

Karlin,
Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by the above please? Mr Skerritt does not issue grades - sensibly IMO - is that what you meant when you said: "Mr Skerritt does not issue scans"? Was that a typo?
Than you,
Elspeth Glen
 
Where in this does "central canal dilation" come? Is it what CR describes as pre- syrinx or less than 2mm ? I have never been told by Mr Skerritt it was present, its been either syrinx or not. I really suppose I should have asked but I assumed if it relevant he would have said.
 
CC Dil or Central Canal Dilatation, if found by GS would be inserted in your certificate in the box labelled Syringomyelia with the position of the CC Dil indicated, viz, C2-C3 or whatever. GS considers a CC Dil as being on the way to a syrinx.
CR on the other hand does not think that a CC Dil will necessarily become a syrinx,
although it may do.
It is a fact, FYI, that there is one breed of dog - not a toydog at all, in which a CC Dil is commonly found. Interestingly this breed does not develop SM.
Just one more example of what researchers still have to find out.
Elspeth Glen
 
Talking to Cavalier Owners.

There has been many sensible comments made in the last Posts, could I chime in with this thought, we know for a fact that Cavaliers ,from the 1940's have had Heart Trouble.

That this could be why the MVD trouble is just about out of control now in the Breed, that there will be so many Carriers of the MVD Gene/Genes around.

My question is though ,does any-body know for a fact that SM was in Cavaliers in those early days.

Has any-body got old CKCS Magazines ever mentioning about Cavaliers even Scratching say in the 50's or later.

I know that the Vet Profession only had use of MRI Scanners around the mid 90's ,if SM can only be as a fact found to be in the Breed since the 90's ,then surely it is the most important thing about this Horrible Disease, is to find the SM Gene/Genes, and as Karlin has said ,because SM is now known to be spread World Wide,all Cavalier Breeders to co-operate,and MRI Scan their Breeding Stock.

I really do feel if this is not done shortly .will there be any Cavalier Breed left to save.

It has to be that the Cavalier Carriers of the SM Gene/Genes don't get the Breed into the mess the MVD Carriers have done.
 
Sorry to labour the point. So it would be marked as CC Dil , I have one girl marked C 3 (small) but that would be a small syrinx but over 2mm , I assume. I just find it odd that out of 12 scans I don't have any certs with that on . Another mystery, there's definately more questions than answers with this condition!
Thanks again
 
It would most definitely read CC Dil if scanned by GS. Remember a CC Dil may simply be one dog, or one dog family's reaction to the increase in CS flow. It is not necessary to have a CC Dil first before a syrinx forms. There is still much discussion re the CC Dil. Sometimes it will develop into a syrinx sometimes not. But it is simply one issue commonly found on an MRI scan. It may be that your particular line is not prone to the CC Dil.
I have had one dog out of the 14 I've scanned who had a CC Dil. Scanned at 8 years. It never developed into anything.
None of the rest of my stock ever scanned with a CC Dil.
If GS ticked your SM column and added the position C3 (which means the third disc in the cervical columnBTW), then I would think he was indeed referring to a Syrinx at C3. If the syrinx only covered the area of 1 disc, then it would indeed be small. Syrinxes are commonly positioned at C3-C4 or C2-C3 , ie covering the area of more than 1 cerebral disc.
Hope this helps you understand?
Elspeth
Elspeth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top