Article

Getting priorities straight: Risk assessment and decision-making in the improvement of inherited disorders in pedigree dogs

School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7AL, Northern Ireland, UK.
The Veterinary Journal (Impact Factor: 2.17). 08/2011; 189(2):147-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.06.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The issue of inherited disorders in pedigree dogs is not a recent phenomenon and reports of suspected genetic defects associated with breeding practices date back to Charles Darwin's time. In recent years, much information on the array of inherited defects has been assimilated and the true extent of the problem has come to light. Historically, the direction of research funding in the field of canine genetic disease has been largely influenced by the potential transferability of findings to human medicine, economic benefit and importance of dogs for working purposes. More recently, the argument for a more canine welfare-orientated approach has been made, targeting research efforts at the alleviation of the most suffering in the greatest number of animals. A method of welfare risk assessment was initially developed as a means of objectively comparing, and thus setting priorities for, different welfare problems. The method has been applied to inherited disorders in pedigree dogs to investigate which disorders have the greatest welfare impact and which breeds are most affected. Work in this field has identified 396 inherited disorders in the top 50 most popular breeds in the UK. This article discusses how the results of welfare risk assessment for inherited disorders can be used to develop strategies for improving the health and welfare of dogs in the long term. A new risk assessment criterion, the Breed-Disorder Welfare Impact Score (BDWIS), which takes into account the proportion of life affected by a disorder, is introduced. A set of health and welfare goals is proposed and strategies for achieving these goals are highlighted, along with potential rate-determining factors at each step.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
171 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The issue of inherited disorders and poor health in pedigree dogs has been widely discussed in recent years. With the advent of genome-wide sequencing technologies and the increasing development of new diagnostic DNA disease tests, the full extent and prevalence of inherited disorders in pedigree dogs is now being realized. In this review we discuss the challenges facing pedigree dog breeds: the common pitfalls and problems associated with combating single gene mediated disorders, phenotypic selection on complex disorders, and ways of managing genetic diversity. Breeding strategies incorporating screening schemes have been shown to be successful in significantly reducing the prevalence of an inherited disorder and improving the overall health in certain breeds. However, with 215 breeds officially recognized by the Kennel Club in the United Kingdom and 396 inherited disorders currently identified, many breeds have reached the point at which successfully breeding away from susceptible individuals at a population-wide scale will require new genomic selection strategies in combination with currently available breeding schemes. Whilst DNA-based tests identifying disease causing mutation(s) remain the most informative and effective approach for single gene disorder disease management, they must be used along with current screening schemes, genomic selection, and pedigree information in breeding programs in the effort to maintain genetic diversity while also significantly reducing the number of inherited disorders in pedigree dogs. Humans and dogs have co-existed for thousands of years. Increasingly, over the last few centuries, many pedigree breeds have been generated based on selection for particular physical and/or behavioral characteristics, which have been fixed and maintained by inbreeding within closed familial lines. The development of such pedigree dog breeds can be both a blessing and a curse: desirable features are rigidly retained, but sometimes, undesirable disease-causing genes can be inadvertently fixed within the breed. Such diseases can reveal themselves only when two copies of the faulty version of the gene are inherited (recessive). Furthermore, if a Champion Sire is carrying such a disease gene, it can quickly spread across the whole breed. Similarly, if a breed is expanded from a small number of founder dogs, and one or more of these carry disease genes, again the disease frequency is likely to increase in the growing population. Sadly, some extreme forms of breed characteristics with a genetic basis can also contribute to issues of health and welfare. This review discusses, in an objective and dispassionate way, the background behind inherited genetic diseases in pedigree dogs and how breeding strategies and genetic testing can be helpful in combating and reducing disease frequency, whilst also maintaining genetic diversity within each breed. The strengths and weaknesses of such approaches are also discussed.
    02/2015; 2(3). DOI:10.1186/s40575-015-0014-9
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Risk is defined as a situation involving exposure to danger. Risk assessment by nature characterises the probability of a negative event occurring and quantifies the consequences of such an event. Risk assessment is increasingly being used in the field of animal welfare as a means of drawing comparisons between multiple welfare problems within and between species and identifying those that should be prioritised by policy-makers, either because they affect a large proportion of the population or because they have particularly severe consequences for those affected. The assessment of risk is typically based on three fundamental factors: intensity of consequences, duration affected by consequences and prevalence. However, it has been recognised that these factors alone do not give a complete picture of a hazard and its associated consequences. Rather, to get a complete picture, it is important to also consider information about the hazard itself: probability of exposure to the hazard and duration of exposure to the hazard. The method has been applied to a variety of farmed species (eg poultry, dairy cows, farmed fish), investigating housing, husbandry and slaughter procedures, as well as companion animals, where it has been used to compare inherited defects in pedigree dogs and horses. To what extent can we trust current risk assessment methods to get the priorities straight? How should we interpret the results produced by such assessments? Here, the potential difficulties and pitfalls of the welfare risk assessment method will be discussed: (i) the assumption that welfare hazards are independent; (ii) the problem of quantifying the model parameters; and (iii) assessing and incorporating variability and uncertainty into welfare risk assessments.
    Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) 05/2012; 21(1). DOI:10.7120/096272812X13345905673764 · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective canine health surveillance systems can be used to monitor disease in the general population, prioritise disorders for strategic control and focus clinical research, and to evaluate the success of these measures. The key attributes for optimal data collection systems that support canine disease surveillance are representativeness of the general population, validity of disorder data and sustainability. Limitations in these areas present as selection bias, misclassification bias and discontinuation of the system respectively. Canine health data sources are reviewed to identify their strengths and weaknesses for supporting effective canine health surveillance. Insurance data benefit from large and well-defined denominator populations but are limited by selection bias relating to the clinical events claimed and animals covered. Veterinary referral clinical data offer good reliability for diagnoses but are limited by referral bias for the disorders and animals included. Primary-care practice data have the advantage of excellent representation of the general dog population and recording at the point of care by veterinary professionals but may encounter misclassification problems and technical difficulties related to management and analysis of large datasets. Questionnaire surveys offer speed and low cost but may suffer from low response rates, poor data validation, recall bias and ill-defined denominator population information. Canine health scheme data benefit from well-characterised disorder and animal data but reflect selection bias during the voluntary submissions process. Formal UK passive surveillance systems are limited by chronic under-reporting and selection bias. It is concluded that active collection systems using secondary health data provide the optimal resource for canine health surveillance.
    04/2014; 1(1):2. DOI:10.1186/2052-6687-1-2