uno-dos-tres! - 2016-07-27 7:38 AM Thank you, Thank you, Thanks to you!

I've had one of those mare you speak of. She was tested for PSSM1, nothing. Can't wait to send in the hair sample for the new test. I've bred this mare as she had a beautiful baby two years ago but that filly is high strung to the hilt. I'm going to test her as well. Your so right we have a responsibility to be breeding animals that can perform without distress and in the meat industry we breed animals for certian genomic conditions to better our food supply. I'm on board for responsibility. 

cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 1:15 AM

The test for PSSM type 2 is now available to the public and all you have to do is send in hair and $$$! A lot of people have been waiting a long time for this and it's finally here! A group of researchers/geneticists have found the gene responsible for causing PSSM type 2 in horses without having to do a muscle biopsy and this is the only accurate test as muscle biopsies are NOT completely accurate.

I was lucky enough to have my mare tested in the study before it was released and she was positive (n/P2) and although it was a kick in the pants at first, it ultimately saved her life and countless others. Keep in mind, she is extremely well bred so please don’t think your horse is exempt because of the pedigree. We believe my mare got hers from the stallion who got it from his sire and that sire got it from Jet Deck (and so on and so forth). I cannot release my mare’s sires name as of yet because I am waiting for them to do the right thing and test him but if they continue to breed him and not say anything, I will go ahead and post. I have been in contact with some of his offspring and let’s just say there’s a reason he has very few babies in the barrel pen despite his breeding.

There is a website called BRIDGE Equine where you can check your horse for symptoms and search in the database for suspect horses—type 2 positives and suspects will be added soon. There are many symptoms and some horses (like mine) get symptomatic at 5 and some don’t until they’re 12! Some are even great athletes who win tons of money until they become mysteriously lame or hard to work with or? And no, they don’t all tie up.

Fun facts- there is actually a PSSM type 3 as well AND an AQHA rep confirmed mares will be required to be 5 paneled in the near future before registering foals. My hope is that the type 2 test will one day be added to the 5 panel although I know it will ruffle a lot of feathers. Which is crazy to me but I won’t get into that. ;) Proper breeding is key, when we get involved in breeding these horses, some of which nature never intended to be together, things like this happen and it is our job to be proactive. Have a crazy/naughty/on off lame mare you think will just be better off as a broodmare, well those breeders will suffer the consequences because they didn’t choose a good specimen.

 I hope this gives a little insight and I will be happy to answer any questions as well as a few others on here I’m sure because they are also involved in this study. “Pandora’s box” was opened, but I am optimistic it is for the best and I hope others see it that way too. 

Here is the link to purchase the test
 http://equiseq.com/buy_pssm2.php

casualdust07 - 2016-07-27 12:42 PM

Let me just say, that the biggest thing I have learned in veterinary medicine, is that there are no absolutes. There is not a single perfect test in veterinary medicine. Not one. So, I'm not going to get excited because a biopsy test isn't 100%, because nothing is. I still would trust a muscle biopsy because what they do is turn that into samples on a slide and actually see the abnormalities in muscle.


And I will tell you, no matter what you've been told, there is always a chance that a test gives a false answer, even this new hair test. No test is perfect.

classicpotatochip - 2016-07-27 11:52 AM


Where is the research indicating the muscle biopsy is not accurate?

kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 12:14 PM From their site:" Has Developed a Test for the Predisposition to PSSM2This is a newly-developed experimental test that has not yet been validated in a large unselected sample. Our results have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.We believe that the P2 variant identified in this test is a risk factor for PSSM2, but it is not fully penetrant (some horses carrying the variant do not develop PSSM2).There are other genetic variants that predispose to PSSM2 and related adult-onset myopathies. We do not yet have tests for these variants."



So we should pay $99 for a test that hasn't been validated and isn't published in a peer reviewed journal? For a gene they think predisposes a horse to the disease? Not a gene that indicates the horse HAS the disease, a gene that indicates might be predisposed?!?



Sounds like a grossly premature release of a test to me. Yes it tells you the horse has a gene, no it doesn't tell you anything about what the existence of that gene means.

cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 12:46 PM


If you're on FB check out the PSSM forum on there, there is lots of good info! They've even found a few horses that tested negative on muscle bioposy and in the test were positive and vice versa! One was a TB who was positive for P2 on muscle bioposy but was in fact P3 instead. Now that they know the gene it's actual science diagnosing, before (well muscle bioposys I should say) are vets just looking at the staining and diagnosing if the muscle looks "different" than a normal non PSSM horse. The great thing about the test as well is that is tells you how many copies your horse has. Mine is n/P2 meaning she got it from one parent and P2/P2 horses get it from both-no P2/P2 horses have ever made riding horses though

classicpotatochip - 2016-07-27 1:58 PM Thanks for your reply. However, I'm requesting the researched, published work validating your assertion that muscle biopsies are not accurate. All you have presented is a place I could go and read anectdotes. I have read people's posts there, and I'm sure a few people have a good idea, but a lot of the discussion I've seen there seems to be based on assumptions and, yes, anecdotes. Now, I'm all for learning about voodoo methods and using them, but when someone presents a "scientific" something or other and charges for it as "researched", they better have the literature. The other day, I read about a genetic test that can help you figure out how to work out properly to reach a mysterious "fitness level". It was also $99. Ha. This test looks very shady, due to the fact that it hasn't been published. I think they're needing funding and using these "tests" to get their money, since anything they have found is so unsubstantiated that they can't get a grant to keep going. I would also be very cautious when singing around that a certain stallion or bloodline has something wrong with it. Your position would probably be very indefensible in a court of law if the owners felt like following up, due to the lack of research. I'm sure that long time researchers like Dr Valberg would love to hear that her published, peer reviewed work with biopsy data isn't accurate. As far as invasive, I had mine done and it was literally three stitches and some silver spray. Not invasive and easily healed. When it's published, peer reviewed, and legitimate, I'd love to look at it again. I'm glad people are looking further into it, but I don't think it's time to get on the train as customers just yet.

classicpotatochip - 2016-07-27 1:58 PM Thanks for your reply. However, I'm requesting the researched, published work validating your assertion that muscle biopsies are not accurate. All you have presented is a place I could go and read anectdotes. I have read people's posts there, and I'm sure a few people have a good idea, but a lot of the discussion I've seen there seems to be based on assumptions and, yes, anecdotes. Now, I'm all for learning about voodoo methods and using them, but when someone presents a "scientific" something or other and charges for it as "researched", they better have the literature. The other day, I read about a genetic test that can help you figure out how to work out properly to reach a mysterious "fitness level". It was also $99. Ha. This test looks very shady, due to the fact that it hasn't been published. I think they're needing funding and using these "tests" to get their money, since anything they have found is so unsubstantiated that they can't get a grant to keep going. I would also be very cautious when singing around that a certain stallion or bloodline has something wrong with it. Your position would probably be very indefensible in a court of law if the owners felt like following up, due to the lack of research. I'm sure that long time researchers like Dr Valberg would love to hear that her published, peer reviewed work with biopsy data isn't accurate. As far as invasive, I had mine done and it was literally three stitches and some silver spray. Not invasive and easily healed. When it's published, peer reviewed, and legitimate, I'd love to look at it again. I'm glad people are looking further into it, but I don't think it's time to get on the train as customers just yet.

classicpotatochip - 2016-07-27 2:30 PM

Thanks irunonfaith. I'm interested and will check into it later. Someone told me that young horses aren't good biopsy candidates, but that adults are very accurate. Evidently UC David has it on their website, I earmarked it for night time reading.

Cheeka, your assumption I haven't dealt with the disease is just that.

Sorry for asking for references and researched, validated data and peer reviewed interpretations.

kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 2:37 PM

I'll wait for it to be published and other risk factors to be identified.

There is a lot more outstanding than just "waiting" to be published.

They don't have enough data and the gene is, at this point, an indicator that the horse might be predisposed. Until there is more information around that, I have zero incentive to shell out $99 to test for a gene that may or may not show a predisposition for a disease.

Peer review is there for a reason. I'm a fan.

cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 2:48 PM


We have an old retired show mare in our pasture we intended to use as a broodmare. Found out she has HYPP yet is now in her 20's and has never shown any symptoms. By science standards just from that test she would be predispositioned to have it yet she doesn't "have it" but scientifically she still does- change the letters HYPP to PSSM and people suddenly are doubting it. It's still a genetic disease, you breed and there's a chance it passes to offspring. Whether people do the test or not is not hurting me any but at least talk to the scientists and ask questions! :) I'm just here advocating for the horses

lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 4:33 PM OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it. HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease. SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson: n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors. +/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring. SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense? The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review. ETA- spelling

1DSoon - 2016-07-27 3:40 PM I'ma pray for you





You seem like you're wound to tight



 

lindseylou2290 - 2016-07-27 1:33 PM


OK - I get to jump in here because you don't actually understand the science and are showing it.

HYPP and PSSM are both inherited. There is a difference between a carrier and something that will "have" the disease.

SO - for these diseases, there are two codons that work together, ok? Without describing recessive traits and direct heredity, stick with me for a momentary lesson:

n/n = the animal is not a carrier, and will not have the disease

n/+ = they will be a carrier and if bred to another carrier there is a chance (punnet squares and genetics predicting the heredity) that the offspring will not only be a carrier but also have the disease: This animal may or may not exhibit the disease depending on other factors.

+/+ = the animal is not only a carrier but will have the disease and will pass the disease heredity to their offspring.


SO, yes, an animal could be carrier and never have symptoms. They can be a carrier and have symptoms too. Does this make sense?

The science that you quoted above ( a couple of posts up there) is not totally accurate and doesn't make a ton of sense to me ... I'd love to sit down with this guy and talk proteins, sequencing, and genetic heredity. I'd also love to pick his brain as to why this science isn't published ... as Kuhlmann pointed out, there are reasons and I too support Peer review.

ETA- spelling

OregonBR - 2016-07-27 4:52 PM


Actually no. I don't have time to read every post on this thread YET. But you are not distinguishing between a dominant or recessive genes. You are correct if you are talking about a recessive. You are wrong if you are talking about a dominant gene.

In the case of a dominant gene disorder: To have the disorder and pass it on the animal only needs to have ONE copy of the gene. There is no "carrier" status in a dominant gene disorder. Examples of dominant gene disorders: HYPP, PSSM1, PSSM2, and MH.

cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 5:13 PM


Yes exactly PSSM2 horses have a 50% chance of giving it to offspring if bred with an N/N horse. 100% if bred to another N/P2

kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 5:34 PM


Is PSSM2 isolated to a gene (and dominant gene) for sure at this point?

Also, no, you don't get a 100% chance of passing on a gene when bred to another heterozygous horse. You still have a 50% chance. If both parents are heterozygous you have a 25% chance of homozygous recessive, 25% chance of homozygous dominant, and 50% chance of heterozygous offspring (assuming the gene isn't sex linked or tied to other genes skewing probabilities).

cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 7:44 PM


Paul just answered-yes it is semi dominant and if a P2/P2 horse is bred to a N/N horse the resulting offspring will be n/P2 100% of the time. http://equiseq.com/learning_center/health/polysaccharide-storage-my...
 heterozygous is 1 of each, homozygous is two of the same. Yes, a homozygous dominant on a homozygous recessive will always have heterozygous offspring.

That said, breeding a heterozygous to a heterozygous does not mean the gene is going be passed on.

If in fact it is, scientifically proven (peer reviewed)that, that this is a dominant gene I'd love to read about it.

cheeka77 - 2016-07-27 7:53 PM

My questions are in italics and Paul Szauters answers are under. This should help clear up some questions!
Is a muscle biopsy accurate or more accurate then this test or is there room for error on the biopsy as well? People are wondering why they shouldn't still muscle biopsy instead of an experimental test.

"Muscle biopsy looks for a disease state. The P2 test looks for the predisposition to that disease state. The P2 test could detect the risk of developing PSSM2 from a single cell from an embryo chosen for embryo transfer to a surrogate. There are genetically distinct conditions that can lead to comparable muscle biopsy results when the disease state manifests, for example, P2 and P3, which are mutations in different genes."

Why is the research not published in a peer reviewed journal and what is left in making this test accurate like the other tests in say a normal 5 panel test? Along with this they are wondering why they should trust the test. I know some legal (for lack of a better word?) constraints prevent you from sharing everything including the name of the gene but any information is helpful!

"When we began this work, we had several paths that we might have taken. The typical research project recruits volunteers who give samples from themselves (for human studies) or from their horses (for horse studies). The researchers give back nothing, sometimes for years. They publish papers and advance their careers, but withhold valuable information from the community in the interests of maintaining that white-coat-and-clipboard culture. We didn't want to do that. An alternative is to look at the community as collaborators. We give back some information, volunteers discuss it publicly, and we learn from their discussions. We iterate the research plan to learn more. At the same time, we stop short of full disclosure, which would prevent publication in a scientific journal.  We could also just run our mouths, disclosing everything as we discover it. No patents, no publications, ultimately this is just an internet rumor that dies, sooner or later a company that didn't waste any money on R & D picks it up. There are no more discoveries. So why should someone trust the test if it's not published? The simple answer is that they don't have to. Early adopters will have the advantage of time. If a breeding operation thinks that there might be something to this, and cleans up their program through testing, they might end up two or three years ahead of other operations, and gain an advantage. For us, we offer the test based on what we could disclose, and we save some horses and people a lot of pain. Anyone who holds out for the peer-reviewed standard has inflicted harm, even though as far as EquiSeq is concerned, we offered them the option of avoiding it, even if they chose not to accept that offer. EquiSeq then has the ability to continue to discover new variants in an environment where there is woefully inadequate funding for equine genetic research, while protecting ourselves from commodity providers with an R&D budget of zero."

kuhlmann - 2016-07-27 8:46 PM Wow. I find it amazing that he is accusing horse owners who don't buy in to his unpublished, unproven THEORY of DOING HARM. Incredible.



Peer review is there for a reason. Taking money to prove a theory is fine if you're upfront about what you're doing. I don't think it's ok if you claim that by not giving you money people are harming horses.  

OregonBR - 2016-07-28 10:34 AM

Cheeka I'm sorry your news got the reception it did from some people here. I for one think it's fantastic news.

cheeka77 - 2016-07-28 12:19 PM  Thank you Oregon and GLP, people who have dealt with true type 2 horses and not being able to fix them understand why this is such good news. Breeders like a few above trying to argue are just pushing back because they don't want their stock tested but it only helps push the researchers! The early release of the test is because so many people were asking that they wanted to do what's right and release it! I looked and a few that commented weren't part of the FB group so they haven't been able to ask questions or read updated info ;) But again, just here for the horses and I'm so glad people understand where I'm coming from! 

Paul- "There is going to be a lot of data, and a big story, when we publish. Based on what we have seen so far, we thought that it was irresponsible not to offer the test. Plenty of people asked us about it and wanted to buy it." 



Also, for the reply above yes I want to try the SuperSport badly! I have her on the Triple Crown 30 because that's what I can get but I've heard great things about SS for high protein and AA's! Thanks :)

1DSoon - 2016-07-29 10:05 AM

 Cur-ost would probably take care if this situaion and you wouldn't have to test for it. 

 

rodeoveteran - 2016-07-29 11:58 AM


Have you ever dealt with PSSM in ANY form?

I am one of the first to try alternative therapies "if I see any logical way they might be effective". PSSM is a matter of how blood sugars are metabolized in the muscles.... show me how herbs are going to change that, when a simple change in diet can be effective for the PSSM2 horse. By all means, let's spend extra money on supplements.

Anniemae - 2016-07-29 12:34 PM Cheeka77 - thank you for the information and discussion on PSSM2.



You mentioned a stallion’s name that is deceased.  That stallion was NEVER tested, so there is no proof that he carried any gene or genetic defect.  He may have been a "suspect" carrier of the gene, but where is the proof that he had the gene?  There is none.  That is where you can get yourself into a whole bunch of legal trouble.  If you have any doubt, you should read the published research information on PSSM1, wherein they ONLY use the suspect stallion’s initials, never a name.  BTW - that study took over 10 years to complete and be published, complete with testing results.  Food for thought....

 

I am not on Paul's bandwagon, yet. Though, I do commend his effort and research into equine genetics. Personally, I've taken a few backward steps based on his statements, as he has yet to publish his data, testing methods, and all the information obtained to his peers.  The reason why a peer review is so important is that an outside body/source(s), must review his stats and duplicate his testing/results to confirm the findings as accurate. 



My understanding is that genetic research and testing takes YEARS to develop and review, to double check, verify accuracy and conduct blind studies. This does not appear to be the case with his research (I could be wrong though).  How can anyone say his "new" findings are accurate and true, if no one outside of his company has had the opportunity to review and validate his testing/methodology and results?   I'm just not buying into his spin, and, am not convinced by his responses to the various questions put forth.  If you have 100% faith in your testing/results, and you have trademarked your testing methodology, there is no reason NOT to publish the data for peer review.  Time will tell, I'm sitting on the fence until this research has been independently verified. 



If others want to purchase the genetic test for pre-disposition (not actually having the disease, just the chance to develop the disease) then so be it.  It's their money, and if they've been banging their heads against the wall, trying to find answers, and this gives them comfort, then they can take the chance.  I say go for it.  



Until I get what I need to feel comfortable and confident in the testing/results, I will stay on fence, watching and waiting. 

 

 

Anniemae - 2016-07-29 2:34 PM Cheeka77 - thank you for the information and discussion on PSSM2.



You mentioned a stallion’s name that is deceased.  That stallion was NEVER tested, so there is no proof that he carried any gene or genetic defect.  He may have been a "suspect" carrier of the gene, but where is the proof that he had the gene?  There is none.  That is where you can get yourself into a whole bunch of legal trouble.  If you have any doubt, you should read the published research information on PSSM1, wherein they ONLY use the suspect stallion’s initials, never a name.  BTW - that study took over 10 years to complete and be published, complete with testing results.  Food for thought....

 

I am not on Paul's bandwagon, yet. Though, I do commend his effort and research into equine genetics. Personally, I've taken a few backward steps based on his statements, as he has yet to publish his data, testing methods, and all the information obtained to his peers.  The reason why a peer review is so important is that an outside body/source(s), must review his stats and duplicate his testing/results to confirm the findings as accurate. 



My understanding is that genetic research and testing takes YEARS to develop and review, to double check, verify accuracy and conduct blind studies. This does not appear to be the case with his research (I could be wrong though).  How can anyone say his "new" findings are accurate and true, if no one outside of his company has had the opportunity to review and validate his testing/methodology and results?   I'm just not buying into his spin, and, am not convinced by his responses to the various questions put forth.  If you have 100% faith in your testing/results, and you have trademarked your testing methodology, there is no reason NOT to publish the data for peer review.  Time will tell, I'm sitting on the fence until this research has been independently verified. 



If others want to purchase the genetic test for pre-disposition (not actually having the disease, just the chance to develop the disease) then so be it.  It's their money, and if they've been banging their heads against the wall, trying to find answers, and this gives them comfort, then they can take the chance.  I say go for it.  



Until I get what I need to feel comfortable and confident in the testing/results, I will stay on fence, watching and waiting. 

 

 

Daisy_mae567 - 2018-04-04 10:13 AM

Just wanted to point a few things out about this "test".

1. The PSSM2 genetic test is NOT validated nor is it associated with any diseases. It identifies a Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). But there are millions snps in the genome that don't have any significant association with anything.

2. There are no publications or disclosed funding sources (except the common public) about this test.

3. The researchers for this test are not veterinarians and they rely on owners' subjective descriptions to accurately phenotype these horses.

4. If my horse has P2 (or any of the other P's), what then? do they recommend diet changes? Do they even disclose that the mutation is in a coding region of the DNA? (Introns vs exons)

5. Are the studies controlled? Do they have a control group of horses that for sure don't have these problems?

6. How do we know this isn't just a scam? Sure the Marketing and PR is great, but I can't find any veterinary support for this. Why aren't they working with a teaching and research university?

Sure there are lots of veterinarians that aren't well educated about muscle diseases, but when the highly educated board certified veterinarians who have dedicated their life to equine health don't show any support... I , as an owner and competitor, become very suspicious.

I would love to know the cause of PSSM2, but need more input to consider spending my money on this PSSM2 genetic test. Anyone?

GLP - 2016-07-29 1:21 PM


He was being facetious(?), like always.
That is not one of the issues that Dr. Schell lists as possibly being helped by his supplements.

Fun2Run - 2018-04-04 12:07 PM


More like his usual

1DSoon - 2018-04-04 11:10 AM


I don't know who you are calling "him" but your response was outdated(2 years old) and offensive.

Daisy_mae567 - 2018-04-04 9:13 AM

Just wanted to point a few things out about this "test".

1. The PSSM2 genetic test is NOT validated nor is it associated with any diseases. It identifies a Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). But there are millions snps in the genome that don't have any significant association with anything.

2. There are no publications or disclosed funding sources (except the common public) about this test.

3. The researchers for this test are not veterinarians and they rely on owners' subjective descriptions to accurately phenotype these horses.

4. If my horse has P2 (or any of the other P's), what then? do they recommend diet changes? Do they even disclose that the mutation is in a coding region of the DNA? (Introns vs exons)

5. Are the studies controlled? Do they have a control group of horses that for sure don't have these problems?

6. How do we know this isn't just a scam? Sure the Marketing and PR is great, but I can't find any veterinary support for this. Why aren't they working with a teaching and research university?

Sure there are lots of veterinarians that aren't well educated about muscle diseases, but when the highly educated board certified veterinarians who have dedicated their life to equine health don't show any support... I , as an owner and competitor, become very suspicious.

I would love to know the cause of PSSM2, but need more input to consider spending my money on this PSSM2 genetic test. Anyone?

AMYR - 2018-04-04 2:28 PM

I am curious, do the clones have to do the 5 panel testing? I realize that they are not bound by AQHA.

OregonBR - 2018-04-06 11:11 AM


Unicorns and rocking horses are the only equids that can't have muscle myopathies. Mules, mustangs and any other horse can have them. They are at least 1600 years old. Some say even farther back than that.

People, cattle, dogs, horses, any mammal has mutations. Discovering and being able to avoid these can be a useful tool to breeding better horses. It's going to be a bumpy ride for a while. Come to terms with it.

AMYR - 2018-04-06 9:22 AM


I guess I do not understand your comment. Some of the cutting clones are from the 1980's era. I was just wondering if they were going to do any of the testing being discussed.

OregonBR - 2018-04-06 12:25 PM Clones can have the disorders. Owners don't have to test if they don't want to know.

Southtxponygirl - 2018-04-06 12:41 PM


Why so grumpy Oregon?!!! AMYR was asking a simple question, maybe shes new to all this Pssm stuff as most of us are and was just wondering.. 
 Welcome to the board AMYR we're not all Grumpy on here so ask any question and most can help you out..  

AMYR - 2018-04-06 1:07 PM Thanks, I have been out of the barrel racing scene for over 10 years now for health issues. I was just hearing about EPM when I quit going to jackpots. So I am trying to catch up. It will be at least another 3 years before I can think of getting back into it. I do not have Facebook, so I am not able to follow PSSM forums there. Sure glad I am able to learn here.

OregonBR - 2018-04-06 1:09 PM Sorry if you think I was grumpy. I did answer the question at length the first time. The second time I answered it more directly and in sure terms. ETA: It would require a crystal ball to answer if the cutting industry were going to test. I have no idea what someone else plans to do or will do in the future.

iloveequine40 - 2018-04-06 1:46 PM I've read through this entire thread trying to learn and I have. Having said that, all the "naysayers" are asking for is supporting evidence from unbiased sources. This would happen in blind studies conducted in control groups. I'd be curious how many,big any horses test negative with this particular test. In the posted responses from OP to questions she submitted to Paul he blatantly implied that people not wanting the testing were somehow uncaring and did not want the best for their horse or the breed. OP also did this in some of her statements. That's offensive on a personal level to many. This thread is almost 2 yrs old, still no published peer reviewed studies, the website is devoid of anything really other than explaining the science of DNA and Genetis which most people have a basic understanding of from HS sciences. If you feel like your horse has been helped bc of this test,AWESOME!!! Attacking those asking questions will not win any support

rodeomom3 - 2018-04-06 4:40 PM

 Paul also has recently stated on FB when he gives an answer that is contradictory to his website that the website is not updated.  That may be the case but when dealing with an issue as important as this you need to have your i’s dotted and your t’s crossed.   If I were wanting to breed I would want people to post their concerns so I could research and decide for myself.  That said, until it is peer reviewed I would not condemn any horse.   My daughter had severe  seizures as a toddler.  Through that journey I have seem science get right up to the finish line with a new drug or treatment only to have it proved  ineffective and previous data wrong in the last stages or research.  His testing is not absolute and still subject to peer review.  

The Fulton's released a statement today referencing a Michigan state article that until the testing is peer reviewed and gone through the necessary protocol that they will not use it.  From my experience, I don’t blame them. 

classicpotatochip - 2016-07-27 1:58 PM


Thanks for your reply. However, I'm requesting the researched, published work validating your assertion that muscle biopsies are not accurate. All you have presented is a place I could go and read anectdotes. I have read people's posts there, and I'm sure a few people have a good idea, but a lot of the discussion I've seen there seems to be based on assumptions and, yes, anecdotes.

Now, I'm all for learning about voodoo methods and using them, but when someone presents a "scientific" something or other and charges for it as "researched", they better have the literature.

The other day, I read about a genetic test that can help you figure out how to work out properly to reach a mysterious "fitness level". It was also $99. Ha.

This test looks very shady, due to the fact that it hasn't been published. I think they're needing funding and using these "tests" to get their money, since anything they have found is so unsubstantiated that they can't get a grant to keep going.

I would also be very cautious when singing around that a certain stallion or bloodline has something wrong with it. Your position would probably be very indefensible in a court of law if the owners felt like following up, due to the lack of research.

I'm sure that long time researchers like Dr Valberg would love to hear that her published, peer reviewed work with biopsy data isn't accurate. As far as invasive, I had mine done and it was literally three stitches and some silver spray. Not invasive and easily healed.

When it's published, peer reviewed, and legitimate, I'd love to look at it again. I'm glad people are looking further into it, but I don't think it's time to get on the train as customers just yet.

ThreeCorners - 2018-04-10 6:21 AM


  Amazing how accurate you were about this equisec scam even back in 2016.

slipperyslope - 2018-04-10 11:31 AM


I'm not sure where you get "scam" from this. To you and the above poster and any others:
Dr Valberg is also in this "race" to have the first published info for dna testing for PSSM2 variants, therefore she is obviously not going to be in support of ANYONE else's studies, work or testing. Due to the other researchers trying to be the first with this information published, why would Paul release which Universities and labs that are doing the validations and readying the publishing of his work? Does it not make sense to keep his cards close to the vest until it is ready for that? Also, the Universities get grants and donations to pay for the research and testing - Paul did not. (he may have financial backers, that I do not know) Otherwise, all of the initial testing for the test subjects was out of his pocket. And I've not seen anyone talk about how Valberg charges also - I know of one person with a PSSM1 positive horse that is very difficult to get stabilized so tested through Paul. That owner's vet and Valberg want to do a muscle biopsy (and I will bet also will be doing dna testing too) on the horse BUT the owner has to pay for all of it. So attacking Paul for charging is nil - other researchers do it also. He ONLY released the testing to be available for others because there was a huge response and requests from others that wanted answers for their horses that were symptomatic. Also, what was first thought was that there was one variant, like there is for PSSM1 (P1) so would be a much quicker release of everything. That initial thought has been proven incorrect - currently they now have isolated P2, P3, P4, P5 (those are individual variant genes of PSSM2 - NOT PSSM3, PSSM4, etc) and is finding more. He has also found PX (a component of RER). He did not tell people "Buy my tests, they are all proven and published and you will get all your answers". EquiSeq does not do the testing there - they have independent labs do the testing so somehow they have to be paid, so if he does not charge for these, how are those labs to be paid for? Again, horse owners REQUESTED that he make the tests available. If a person does not believe in what they do, no big deal - it's your opinion. But for those that make light of PSSM2 and the struggles owners of symptomatic horses go through, is extremely rude and cruel! In the past, most people who had symptomatic horses (but had no idea what they were dealing with) either sold them on down the line; started breeding them (if you can't ride a well bred horse, then let's breed them right??), put them down or threw them out in a field. NOW we can begin to understand WHY these horses have the issues they do and if you actually care about your horse and it's well being, try to manage and stabilize them (not an easy task in way too many of them, whether PSSM1 or PSSM2).
Regarding the statement by ASOF's owners - it is a carefully worded statement so as to not admit any knowledge (if they have it now) of the disease in case of future lawsuits. They do not say anything about Paul's offer to test him for free back when Bling died - so being it was offered as private results, either they did not test for whatever reason, or they did and of course Paul had agreed not to reveal either. Interesting they site Valberg, although Valberg developed the muscle biopsy but do not mention anything about having THAT test done. (and as I said above, of course Valberg is NOT going to recommend Paul's testing since she is also trying to get her own developed.)
I do find it very sad that people with a little bit of information or NO true information like to blast things with statements they have not taken the time to research.

Whiteboy - 2018-04-10 11:17 AM

So without having to read all the above comments, what did we decide??  Good or bad?? 

Whiteboy - 2018-04-10 1:17 PM So without having to read all the above comments, what did we decide??  Good or bad?? 

slipperyslope - 2018-04-10 1:36 PM basically if you have a symptomatic horse and want answers OR you want to avoid breeding your mare or breeding to a stud that might be positive OR looking to buy a horse and not wanting to take a chance, you test. If you want to bury your head in the sand and insult people who DO truly care about their horses and the pain they are in, not to mention the heartbreak, then find reasons to not test. And by symptomatic, can be a number of symptoms, NOT just one or 2 on a list.

slipperyslope - 2018-04-10 12:36 PM


basically if you have a symptomatic horse and want answers OR you want to avoid breeding your mare or breeding to a stud that might be positive OR looking to buy a horse and not wanting to take a chance, you test. If you want to bury your head in the sand and insult people who DO truly care about their horses and the pain they are in, not to mention the heartbreak, then find reasons to not test. And by symptomatic, can be a number of symptoms, NOT just one or 2 on a list.

classicpotatochip - 2018-04-10 3:19 PM


Jesus lady.

LIVE2RUN - 2018-04-10 4:31 PM

So if a horse tests Negative for PSSM1 but has symptoms like PSSM2, what does he have then? Since the tests aren't validated.

classicpotatochip - 2018-04-10 4:44 PM


That’s the whole point here. Everyone here isn’t doubting that PSSM2 exists.

I would, and have, just put them on a PSSM friendly diet and see if in a few months or sooner it doesn’t help. Many horses thrive on that kind of diet anyway!

FLITASTIC - 2016-07-27 10:34 AM

And the great news is, it's treated with diet only. There are no drug therapies. So , if you suspect your horse has it, like I did with mine, I started feeding a PSSM diet 3 months ago and have seen tremendous results with it.

Mainer-racer - 2018-04-11 7:23 AM I have a question and I'm sorry to sound so ignorant but I don't know much about breeding. With the pssm1 PSSM 2 3, whatever why is only the stallion need to be tested? Could it also come from the mare that he bred and her bloodline carries it? 

rodeomom3 - 2018-04-11 6:06 AM

 Both are tested, certain variants can come from 1 parent, others both parents have to have it. 

appycowgirl - 2018-04-12 11:29 AM Well, I have enrolled 17 horses by blood into EquiSeq's study and another 3 deceased mares by hair into the study as well. I just recently enrolled 3 by blood, but on the 14 that were tested by blood so far and the three tested by hair, one was P2/P2, one was N/P2, one was N/P3, one was N/P4 and 7 so far are N/PX. Now, on the three I just submitted, the one is N/P2 because her sire was the P2/P2 horse and her dam was N/PX, so were just trying to see if she might be N/PX on top of already being N/P2. The next mare, I know she is clear on everything except for PX as her dam was N/PX. The next mare, her sire, a son of Seattle Slew is untested, so I'm not sure what may come from him, but her dam, a grand daughter of Dash Ta Fame, is negative for everything. Now, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned or not, but EquiSeq developed these tests off of horses who had muscle biopsies done and were found to either be PSSM type 2 or MFM. He also has horses in the study who have muscle biopsies done and were declared to be RER. The reason he hasn't been able to publish is because PSSM type 2 became such a dumping ground for any muscle biopsy that appeared to have a glycogen storage problem and what's sad is that there is a ton of genes that are destroying the myofibrillars in the muscle cell and they can give that glycogen storage problem look to a muscle biopsy. What's truly interesting is how horses have the same genes that humans have and this is why he has had good success in finding these genes as they are well researched in humans. EquiSeq has done numerous genome sequencing on horses with muscle biopsies that are declared to be PSSM type 2, MFM and RER and of course that helps them find these genes as they know where to look because of human research. So far, the three genes, P2 (MYOT), P3 (FLNC), and P4 (MYOZ3), are associated with human limb girdle muscular dystrophy. These genes affect humans in the shoulder and hip areas. Now, take that info and transfer it over to our horses. How many people inject their horses and 2, 3, 4 months later, they're having to inject them again in the stifles and hocks. See, with the myofibrillars in the muscle cells being destroyed in the hips, they are going to be compromised and eventually they'll totally break down. How many people are dealing with unexplained lameness that vets and chiros can't figure out. Again, the myofibrillars in the muscle cells are being destroyed by these genes. How many people have a horse that use to run and awesome pattern and now they got to 6 to 10 years of age and they are falling apart mentally. Did anyone ever think that the reason might be because they are hurting because their muscles are compromised. Would you ask your kid with muscular dystrophy to play a game of basketball and expect him to do it as well as a kid who has no problems. More then likely you'd think that was being cruel to your kid. How many people are dealing with hard keepers that maybe when they were younger they held their weight awesome, but now your plowing feed into them left and right and they don't seem to gain. Again, these genes that have been found destroy the muscles in the hips and shoulders and again that's where everyone notices weight loss and without feeding a high protein diet that's balanced on the calcium to phosphorus ratio and has a good tri-amino acid profile, the horse won't gain. When you start looking a how the gene acts on our horses and what we are seeing in the barrel community once these horses get to 6 to 10 years of age, it's super easy to see those genes in action. Now, we just finally have answers to help us get our horses managed and as breeders, tools to use to get those genes out of our horses, so they can keep being super stars without a lot of management problems as they age. I do get amazed at how some people are so into not wanting to test because it's not validated, but yet they'll use supplements, treatments and such that have no scientific validation behind them, to maintain their horses.

appycowgirl - 2018-04-12 2:23 PM Yes, that's very true. Like I said, the PX gene, I'm not as concerned about because of the 7 horses of mine that are N/PX, 6 of them I've extensively rode or are still riding. The 6 horses are all descendants of my one mare Plaudit Starynite who tested out as N/PX. I've ridden and shown 3 of her daughters and we've done everything from trail rides that have been 15 to 20 miles long, to helping friends work cows to performance stuff such as barrels and done it into their teenage years with no problems. I'm currently running one of Star's grand daughters and she is 11 this year. Now, the P2, P3 and P4, I am eliminating that from my program as I strongly believe it is a problem. Currently everything that I'm breeding is P2, P3 and P4 negative.

rodeomom3 - 2018-04-12 3:42 PM


 I didn’t say you said it, I stated Slipperyslope did and that is where this “debate” goes off the rails.   I agree, responsible breeding needs to take place so this terrible disease can be erradicated, everyone is in this for the good of the horse.  I wish people would stop breeding any type of PSSM horse, although their horse might be symptom free, you don’t know what the next generations might have to deal with.

appycowgirl - 2018-04-12 12:09 PM Currently it has been taking about 2 to 3 weeks to get results as they do not test but send it out instead. I'd also recommend that anyone sending hair, send double the amount as the last I knew, they had been splitting the hair up as one lab was doing P2, p3 and P4 and another lab was doing PX. Also, everyone has been getting their P2, P3 and P4 results in about 2 to 3 weeks of time, while the PX is taking longer. Personally to me, because I have had or currently have so many N/PX horses, that's a gene that doesn't worry me unless its coupled up with something else. I know some folks on the PSSM Forum do have highly symptomatic horses with PX that are negative for P2, P3 and P4, but I know EquiSeq is moving forward on about 4 to 5 more genes, so hopefully these genes they are working on will answer things for those with symptomatic horses.

wyoming barrel racer - 2018-04-12 7:39 PM I just got results today on FlitYeahImaFirewater and he is Neg for PSSM 1, 2, 3 and 4. I guess px comes later. I got my results back in less than 10 days from when I mailed the hair. He is a son of Firewater Finale out of a daughter of Shoot Yeah and 2nd dam is by Zevi, 3rd dam is by Sinn Fein.

SKM - 2018-04-13 7:09 PM Well...isn’t this an interesting turn of events: I’m going to put this out there for you to decide on this. As everyone knows, my mare was diagnosed PSSM2 with a muscle biopsy by Dr. Valberg. She was a very sick horse and put down. I decided to send in her hair and blood for DNA and genetic testing to this company, EquiSeq who claims to be able to test for PSSM2 and it variants. I received my results from this company, EquiSeq, and this test showed her to be n/n across the board. She was not negative by a proven test, a muscle biopsy. Now you can be the judge on a non validated test verses a validated test. I was for this testing a few weeks ago as I thought it was absolute. I can’t stand behind it at this point.

rodeomom3 - 2018-04-13 7:17 PM

 I read that  on FB too.  Paul’s response: We have been recruiting horses with symptoms of PSSM2 that test negative for P2, P3, and P4 for some time. Everyone who is a regular on the forum knows this. Besides breeds apparently free of P2, P3, and P4 (like Icelandics), we have identified a number of horses, including Quarter Horses, that are positive for PSSM2 by muscle biopsy and negative for P2, P3, and P4. We have completed whole genome sequencing on some of these horses and are searching for additional variants in these horses.

appycowgirl - 2018-04-12 4:18 PM What worries me and scares me the most are the 5 panel purists because they really have no clue as to how bad this is all going to get if we decide to quit breeding everything that has a bad gene. If we did that, every record that has been broke in the barrel pen or on the race track, we'll take all of that away and have to completely rebuild plus limit the gene pool severely for the bloodlines that everyone wants. The one thing I will say is that there has been specific favorite bloodlines that everyone has clamored for and maybe we need to search outside the box a little bit to infuse some new blood to help out with the situation, but I know a lot of folks will always go for the tried and true.

rodeomom3 - 2018-04-14 6:27 AM

 Would not  it be prudent  to stop breeding any pssm horse of any variant to this all gets figured out?  No one knows what the specific gene is or is it multiple genes /variants that need the right trigger to mutate and cause the horse to develop symptoms.  I just can’t wrap my head around the want to continue to breed any known PSSM horse till testing that is proven accurate is developed.   It sure seems like there could be a better breeding program than praying  and hoping for a clean colt.   What if it is not clean?  

As to Paul just answering the question, he had a choice and did not have to.   He had to have known him putting that out there would just stir the pot and serve no good. His response to Kelly’s post that his tests showed her horse negative when a peer reviewed and approved muscle biopsy showed the horse was positive was that there are more variants he is testing for-it is still a work in progress which is why the Fulton’s declined his offer-the test is not absolute, at best it is currently just a tool and we don’t know how effective this tool is yet.

 

rodeomom3 - 2018-04-14 5:27 AM  Would not  it be prudent  to stop breeding any pssm horse of any variant to this all gets figured out?  No one knows what the specific gene is or is it multiple genes /variants that need the right trigger to mutate and cause the horse to develop symptoms.  I just can’t wrap my head around the want to continue to breed any known PSSM horse till testing that is proven accurate is developed.   It sure seems like there could be a better breeding program than praying  and hoping for a clean colt.   What if it is not clean?  



As to Paul just answering the question, he had a choice and did not have to.   He had to have known him putting that out there would just stir the pot and serve no good. His response to Kelly’s post that his tests showed her horse negative when a peer reviewed and approved muscle biopsy showed the horse was positive was that there are more variants he is testing for-it is still a work in progress which is why the Fulton’s declined his offer-the test is not absolute, at best it is currently just a tool and we don’t know how effective this tool is yet.



 

kwanatha - 2018-04-14 4:55 PM


seems like it would be prudent to test before spending thousands on training for sure. 

Liana D - 2018-04-15 7:08 PM


A lot of people don’t even get a prepurchse exam on a prospect, let alone do a test that has yet to be proven reliable and claims to still be finding new variants .

Cashbaby - 2018-04-14 9:57 PM


Yes, many people buy a young prospect based off papers alone. MANY.
And what would a typical PPE tell you on a weanling or yearling? Are you getting xrays? bloodwork? what are you asking for in blood work? Or are you just having them trotted off? I don't actually know. I have never done a PPE on a horse so young. Have I bought them? Yes...........but I just bought a baby I liked the look of with papers I likd the look of.

Of course I did not own a PSSM1 prior to last time I bought a weanling from a sale.

Now I can say , I would have a to have a really good reason to buy a baby from a sale. I want a reason to be SURE. Really Sure they they are not PSSM 1, 2, 3, or 4. Been there. Done that. Don't want to buy another T-shirt.

cheryl makofka - 2018-04-15 9:11 PM


With what you just said, and Kim's horse testing negative across the board with Paul's' test, you could still buy a horse that tests negative across the board and still have to euthanize the horse due to PSSM which was proven by muscle biopsy.

You may be waiting a long time for a guarantee to buy a horse completely clean of any pssm variants.

SKM - 2018-04-14 9:05 AM Why would you stop breeding on an unproven theory? They are saying that Midnight is the main one that PSSM traces back to. He was foaled in the early 1900’s. That means we’ve been fighting this for over a century. Nothing has changed other than we are now dissecting how it is passed down and what triggers it.

Liana D - 2018-04-15 9:10 AM Maybe, if you’re a person that wants the whole range of tests (PSSM1,2,3,4 Px, etc) you would be better off to buy an aged horse that is a proven performer that has no symptoms. Yes, you’ll pay more, but it might be a more realistic option. (I’m not trying to be a smart a$$) Even if you got all the testing done, you would need a complete bone scan to check out the skeletal portion ? I guess it all boils down to what you’re sensitively too ? I can envision a person doing all the PSSSM testing, feeling confident and then have the horse not be able to perform because of Kissing Spine or something ? (I’ve seen similar scenarios happen :-( )

rodeomom3 - 2018-04-14 6:17 PM

 I read that  on FB too.  Paul’s response: We have been recruiting horses with symptoms of PSSM2 that test negative for P2, P3, and P4 for some time. Everyone who is a regular on the forum knows this. Besides breeds apparently free of P2, P3, and P4 (like Icelandics), we have identified a number of horses, including Quarter Horses, that are positive for PSSM2 by muscle biopsy and negative for P2, P3, and P4. We have completed whole genome sequencing on some of these horses and are searching for additional variants in these horses.

Whinny19 - 2018-04-15 11:40 AM This is true, they have been recruiting symptomatic/biopsy positive horses that test negative for the known variants for quite awhile. When they first began selling the variant test, they only had P2 & P3 available. When they found P4, they did P4 testing for free for the people who had paid for the P2/P3 testing previously. Perhaps they will offer the same deal when/if they discover more variants? 

Liana D - 2018-04-14 7:08 PM A lot of people don’t even get a prepurchse exam on a prospect, let alone do a test that has yet to be proven reliable and claims to still be finding new variants .