register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Ripsnorterthe2nd
Dogsey Veteran
Ripsnorterthe2nd is offline  
Location: Co. Durham, UK
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,213
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 01:26 AM
I had a brain tumour, yet my Mam and Dad ain't related.

The truth is you can't compare the two, unless it favours your argument of course.....

I had a crossbreed that lived til he was 15 yet was plagued with debilitating health problems in his later years. I also had a pedigree Springer who lived til she was 15 with very few health problems. As I said, you just can't compare the two, too many variables.
Reply With Quote
chaumsong
Dogsey Senior
chaumsong is offline  
Location: Nr Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 297
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 01:31 AM
Originally Posted by Jet&Copper View Post
As someone who studies this stuff for a living I can assure you that inbreeding does absolutely massively increase cancer risk.
Well that's interesting because Silken Windhounds have an extremely low incidence of cancer, and a lot of them have fairly high COIs.

Borzois on the other hand have extremely high rates of cancer, regardless of their COI. I've lost 13 of my 15 borzois to cancers, mostly at around 6 or 7 years old. 3 of these dogs had COIs less than 1%, another 4 were less than 5% and my last borzoi who lived to 11 had a COI of 29.9%.

It's clearly not as simple as saying 'inbreeding causes cancer'. Cancer definitely seems to run in certain lines and breeds though and we need to know a lot more about why that is. Flat Coats are riddled with cancer and they're doing a huge amount of research into the problem.

I guess if you had a cross of one of the breeds where cancer is a major killer then it's just as likely to die of cancer.

Back to the question of which is healthier, it depends entirely on which breeds you are talking about and which breeds make up the crossbreed - it's impossible to give a definitive answer.

After losing most of my borzois too young I'm determined now to do my best to choose dogs which have a good chance of living long and healthy lives. I have 4 dogs currently - 2 border collies 7 and 10 years old and 2 silken windhounds 3 and 1 year old. I expect (hope) them all to live well into their late teens. In the silkens case most of the dogs in their 5 generation pedigree are all still alive and well, most silkens live well into late teens and some have reached 20/21.

Instead of the 'fingers crossed' approach to crossbreed ownership I've specifically chosen dogs who come from healthy stock, from breeders who have all available health tests done.
Reply With Quote
Jet&Copper
Dogsey Veteran
Jet&Copper is offline  
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,600
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 09:43 AM
Originally Posted by smokeybear View Post
I think it is a pointless argument

You are not comparing apples with apples

Basically there are far too many variables to make any conclusions worthwhile.
Yep totally agree
Reply With Quote
Jet&Copper
Dogsey Veteran
Jet&Copper is offline  
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,600
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by chaumsong View Post
Well that's interesting because Silken Windhounds have an extremely low incidence of cancer, and a lot of them have fairly high COIs.

Borzois on the other hand have extremely high rates of cancer, regardless of their COI. I've lost 13 of my 15 borzois to cancers, mostly at around 6 or 7 years old. 3 of these dogs had COIs less than 1%, another 4 were less than 5% and my last borzoi who lived to 11 had a COI of 29.9%.

It's clearly not as simple as saying 'inbreeding causes cancer'. Cancer definitely seems to run in certain lines and breeds though and we need to know a lot more about why that is. Flat Coats are riddled with cancer and they're doing a huge amount of research into the problem.

I guess if you had a cross of one of the breeds where cancer is a major killer then it's just as likely to die of cancer.

Back to the question of which is healthier, it depends entirely on which breeds you are talking about and which breeds make up the crossbreed - it's impossible to give a definitive answer.

After losing most of my borzois too young I'm determined now to do my best to choose dogs which have a good chance of living long and healthy lives. I have 4 dogs currently - 2 border collies 7 and 10 years old and 2 silken windhounds 3 and 1 year old. I expect (hope) them all to live well into their late teens. In the silkens case most of the dogs in their 5 generation pedigree are all still alive and well, most silkens live well into late teens and some have reached 20/21.

Instead of the 'fingers crossed' approach to crossbreed ownership I've specifically chosen dogs who come from healthy stock, from breeders who have all available health tests done.
Please have a sit down and figure out the difference between "inbreeding causes cancer" and "inbreeding increases the risk/incidence of cancer"

Of course there are many other genetic and environmental influences at work, but all else being equal, inbreeding massively increases the risk of cancer. Deny it all you want - go ask any cancer research scientist, you know, actual experts in the subject.
Reply With Quote
smokeybear
Dogsey Veteran
smokeybear is offline  
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 09:49 AM
CORRELATION v CAUSATION

Why is this such a difficult concept?
Reply With Quote
Jet&Copper
Dogsey Veteran
Jet&Copper is offline  
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,600
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by Ripsnorterthe2nd View Post
I had a brain tumour, yet my Mam and Dad ain't related.

The truth is you can't compare the two, unless it favours your argument of course.....

I had a crossbreed that lived til he was 15 yet was plagued with debilitating health problems in his later years. I also had a pedigree Springer who lived til she was 15 with very few health problems. As I said, you just can't compare the two, too many variables.
Again having cancer does not necessarily mean you are inbred, likewise you can BE in inbred and never get cancer. Honestly Rip you are a nurse, surely you understand the difference between increased risk and actual straight causation?

I agree no one can say pedigrees are healthier, or vice versa, there is too much going on to study it properly.
Reply With Quote
Jet&Copper
Dogsey Veteran
Jet&Copper is offline  
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,600
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 09:51 AM
Originally Posted by smokeybear View Post
CORRELATION v CAUSE

Why is this such a difficult concept?
Ugh I do not know SB, it happens all the time on here, it's why I rarely bother posting a decent discussion when it comes to my field
Reply With Quote
Jet&Copper
Dogsey Veteran
Jet&Copper is offline  
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,600
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 10:11 AM
For anyone actually interested, most cancers are not actually passed on as mutations in the germline, i.e. they are not inherited.

Cancer is a highly complex, multifactorial disorder - both in that several genes need to be mutated throughout the lifetime of the individual in order to "allow" the cancer to become a cancer. Of course the there are many, many environmental factors that can attribute to increased risk. Please note I say INCREASED RISK and not the actual be all and end all cause.

For example, exposure to sunlight will increase the risk of skin cancer, sunlight does not cause skin cancer.

Smoking hugely increases your risk of lung cancer, but many people smoke and never get cancer of the lung - this does not mean that they did not increase the likelihood of developing cancer, it purely means they were very lucky in which genes did or did not mutate in response to a continous and massive dose of carcinogenic compounds.

So what does inbreeding do and how does it relate to cancer?

Obviously, again, an inbred individual is not automatically doomed to develop cancer.

Inbreeding causes what is called homozygosity in an individual. Homozygosity results in genetic traits becoming "fixed" within that line. These traits can be both advantagous and deleterious, again often down to luck when we are talking about artificially bred animals. We will all know what fixing traits meas in the dog world - inbreeding and increased homozygosity has meant that GSD always look like GSDS and spaniels always look like spaniels. However, what breeders do not realise is that when selected for one particular trait in the phenotype, you are often selecting for many other traits that can only be seen at the genotypic level. These traits will "fix" themselves along with the traits being bred for - in a mechanism called genetic linkage (genes close together on the same chromosome within the genome tend to stick together during the random shuffling of the genome during sexual reproduction).

So, we get GSDs with their GSD looks, and maybe faulty genes that increase the likelihood of them developing HD, or cancer, or bloat, or whatever. Again, contrary to popular belief, most genetic disorders are mutifactorial, it is not the case that you simply have the disease gene or you don't - so we are talking INCREASED RISK compared to individuals who do not carry the faulty gene. Not absolute causation.

I will be back to finish this
Reply With Quote
rune
Dogsey Veteran
rune is offline  
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 10:12 AM
Some cancers are genetic, fact. FCR have a huge problem with cancers, that has to be genetic and therfore could be caused by inbreeding.

My pedigree health tested dog is very unhealthy---rest not too bad. Gordon setter died aged 12 with cancer---as did springer x breed.

I see a lot of large crossbreeds--lurchers and doodles. So it is not limited to small dogs.

Some friends have just aquired a health tested cocker x poodle. Smashing little dog. It is becoming more common to test x breeds.

rune
Reply With Quote
Jet&Copper
Dogsey Veteran
Jet&Copper is offline  
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,600
Female 
 
06-10-2012, 10:16 AM
Originally Posted by rune View Post
Some cancers are genetic, fact. FCR have a huge problem with cancers, that has to be genetic and therfore could be caused by inbreeding.

My pedigree health tested dog is very unhealthy---rest not too bad. Gordon setter died aged 12 with cancer---as did springer x breed.

I see a lot of large crossbreeds--lurchers and doodles. So it is not limited to small dogs.

Some friends have just aquired a health tested cocker x poodle. Smashing little dog. It is becoming more common to test x breeds.

rune


ALL cancers are genetic - cancer is caused by mutations in cell cycle signalling genes etc. The question in an individual cancer is (a) is it caused by germline mutations or somatic cell mutations i.e. has the mutation been inherited, or the result of environmental triggers purely throughout the individuals lifetime and (b)which genes exactly are misregulated, cancer is rarely caused by simply one gene. Mutations in one gene, however, will greatly increase the risk of developing cancer, for example the famous BRACA1 and BRACA2 genes in breast cancer, or mutations in the p53 signalling pathways, which control the cell cycle checkpoints.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 3 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are crossbreeds healthier? Azz Dog Health 25 06-10-2012 12:19 PM
Pedigree V crossbreed health leadstaffs General Dog Chat 4 27-03-2012 11:54 PM
Healthier food options please :D kate_7590 Food & Drink 12 14-11-2010 06:21 PM
Owning a dog = Healthier Children? Deedee1321 General Dog Chat 1 23-09-2010 08:12 AM
Pedigree Vs Crossbreed health benefits Pidge General Dog Chat 61 12-04-2009 01:52 PM

© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top