Cathy,
Since I'm the person who questioned the accuracy of the RR statements in the program, I'm cross-posting here. Since I haven't seen the program but only have read comments from those who did see the program I don't know if the program reported that "the genes that predispose a RR to having a ridge also predispose a RR to develop dermoid sinus" or if the program said "the ridge in an RR is a form of spina bifida." The former statement appears to be true, the latter statement is not true. The difference may not be significant to many, but it is important to me as it speaks to the accurracy of the program. Here is my reply:
----------
Thanks, Anita for the info on the gene study. I am no expert on genetics, but the study seems to me to be saying that they have identified that the same genes that predispose the breed to the ridge also predispose the breed to the inherited health defect. I presume those genes are present in some combination in all RRs - those with and those without the ridge. This would mean that the breeders have some TOUGH decisions to make - whether to even continue "producing" the breed at all. I don't envy them if they have to figure out how to manipulate the genes so that they keep their breed as is visually and yet eliminate the health defect.
I still haven't seen the BBC program (my speakers are dead so I can't hear it until I replace them) but from some of the comments made, the program seemed to imply that:
Quote:
"The dogs with the ridge have a form of spina bifida and those without the ridge are the healthier dogs who they kill"
as several posts I've read have stated. It seems to me to be more complicated than that.
Of course I knew that dermoid sinus is related to spina bifida. I just couldn't grasp though that people had the idea that the actual ridge was "a form of spina bifida," i.e., the spinal cord was pushed out of the sheath to make the ridge stand up. That horrific thought is what led me to the vet texts to see if that was true, and I was relieved to read that it is not. Thus, my comments.
I see on Cavalier Talk that Cathy reported I am questioning the accuracy of the BBC piece, and the above is why. I am really anal about exact facts and misinterpretations such as the above. If I read an article or see a program and see that some of the statements aren't factual, red flags go up for me about the validity of the entire work. This is why I was the person who questioned the Murray Ingpen letter - there were quite a few red flags that caused me to investigate further.
This is also why I don't post a great deal - it takes me perhaps an hour to put a post together (this one took two hours) because I try to look at sources and verify before I make statements. I try to be pretty precise rather than generalize. Cathy said there are "many recent studies" about the RR - the two papers that you have presented seem to be related as there are at least eight names in common. Even though these two related papers are not "many" studies to my mind, the research looks valid to me and I now understand the point made by the BBC program about the problem in the breed. (Many studies to me would be more like the list that Laura reported about the incidence of SM/CM in Cavaliers or the studies on MVD in Cavaliers.) And of course the thought of culling puppies that don't meet the breed standard visually is pretty appalling, but I wasn't addressing that issue.
Pat